Dual Core beta patch for Quake 4!

[Redox]

First we had dual core enabled video drivers from both Nvidia and ATI, now a Beta patch to enhance performance (25-87% improvement) from dual processors and/or hyperthreading for Quake 4 ...

id software link

Was developed with Intel but supposed to help any dual core system. I'm running it on an AMD X2 4400 and it runs fine.

Note that to enable multi core functionality, you need to use the command r_useSMP 1 in the console (detailed in the readme for the patch).

Hopefully other developers will be inspired to release dual core updates as well.

 

[SynthDude2001]

ooh, nice...I'll have to check this out.

 

[bjc112]

25% seems more likely @ 16x12..

But hell, anything is a step in the right direction!

 

[Redox]

seems to be a nice improvement judging by the smoothness of play - haven't run fraps or anything so I'm just going by how it feels when toggling smp on and off. Very stable too.

 

[bjc112]

Sounds good!

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

interesting. at least from ID it's trustable..

 

[VStrom]

Well, if I owned Quake 4 I'd be installing that puppy right now. Kinda make me wanna buy it

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

 

[Unkno]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

You're a fool if you think single core is the way to go.





A dual-core running at 2.0ghz can be comparable to a single core running at 2.2ghz because the second core takes up all of your back-ground processes. If you add onto that with dual-core drivers or multi-threaded games, the difference between a single core and dual-core is MUCH larger, I would say a dual core 2ghz is comparable to 2.3-2.6ghz depending on how efficient the code was.

 

[mrkun]

DC is the way to go right now.

 

[thegimp03]

Man...I've been looking into a new processor and had been thinking about a high-end single core part, but this is making me reconsider.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Worst post of the year.

 

[Giscardo]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Probably true that dual cores aren't an efficient buy for gamers. Pretty soon though, gamers wont really have a choice in the matter so it's a moot point.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Worst post of the year.

If not the worst, its right up there with the worst !

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

btw, ID supports multi-threading alot in its games, more than other companies. why?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Sweet. I still haven't installed Q4, but when I do I'll try before and after

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Worst post of the year.

If not the worst, its right up there with the worst !

Agreed.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: jdogg707

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Worst post of the year.

If not the worst, its right up there with the worst !

Agreed.

Why is this such a bad statement? If I only wanted my rig for gaming, why would I pay $300-$400 on a dual core chip when I can get Opter 144 for $150 and overclock it to 2.8ghz, or a Venice 3000+ for around $125 and overclock that to 2.5-2.6? I could use the extra few hundred I saved to buy a nice monitor or a much better graphics card. My budget isn't endless.

I don't have any background processes other than what windows runs at default anyway. I have no active antivirus/spyware protection, and have disabled every startup process from msconfig. I'm 99% idle 99% of the time.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: jdogg707

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Worst post of the year.

If not the worst, its right up there with the worst !

Agreed.

Why is this such a bad statement? If I only wanted my rig for gaming, why would I pay $300-$400 on a dual core chip when I can get Opter 144 for $150 and overclock it to 2.8ghz, or a Venice 3000+ for around $125 and overclock that to 2.5-2.6? I could use the extra few hundred I saved to buy a nice monitor or a much better graphics card. My budget isn't endless.

I don't have any background processes other than what windows runs at default anyway. I have no active antivirus/spyware protection, and have disabled every startup process from msconfig. I'm 99% idle 99% of the time.

You're comparing an overclocked phenom of a chip to a non-overclocked one. What kind of single-cored CPU can you get for $300? That would be a fair comparison IMO, and I'm guessing that the 3800+ would put up a good fight even against an FX-57, especially with this new Q4 patch.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: jdogg707

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Worst post of the year.

If not the worst, its right up there with the worst !

Agreed.

Why is this such a bad statement? If I only wanted my rig for gaming, why would I pay $300-$400 on a dual core chip when I can get Opter 144 for $150 and overclock it to 2.8ghz, or a Venice 3000+ for around $125 and overclock that to 2.5-2.6? I could use the extra few hundred I saved to buy a nice monitor or a much better graphics card. My budget isn't endless.

I don't have any background processes other than what windows runs at default anyway. I have no active antivirus/spyware protection, and have disabled every startup process from msconfig. I'm 99% idle 99% of the time.

You're comparing an overclocked phenom of a chip to a non-overclocked one. What kind of single-cored CPU can you get for $300? That would be a fair comparison IMO, and I'm guessing that the 3800+ would put up a good fight even against an FX-57, especially with this new Q4 patch.

I spoke of an Opteron or a cheap Venice, not just the Opteron.
I really don't think a $300 single core chip would be a fair comparison in this case, as I think we both were talking about value for gaming here. No way would I recommend a $300 single core chip for gaming, I'd certainly recommend an X2 3800+ at that point.

My problem is, for gaming, if you go dual core, your cheapest solution is $300. A lot of gamers don't need a dual core at all, and would be better served getting one of the two chips I mentioned (with the Venice being the obviously more available one) and getting a better video card.

 

[CP5670]

I don't have any background processes other than what windows runs at default anyway. I have no active antivirus/spyware protection, and have disabled every startup process from msconfig. I'm 99% idle 99% of the time.

Same here. I have disabled many of the windows/driver services that are on by default and don't run anything else in the background. I was considering getting a dualcore anyway for non-game apps (it would be useful if I ever get around to upgrading my copies of mathematica and matlab), but with M2 coming out in six months I didn't want to spend a lot on a 939 processor, so the Opt 146 I got was a better deal.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: CP5670

I don't have any background processes other than what windows runs at default anyway. I have no active antivirus/spyware protection, and have disabled every startup process from msconfig. I'm 99% idle 99% of the time.

Same here. I have disabled many of the windows/driver services that are on by default and don't run anything else in the background. I was considering getting a dualcore anyway for non-game apps (it would be useful if I ever get around to upgrading my copies of mathematica and matlab), but with M2 coming out in six months I didn't want to spend a lot on a 939 processor, so the Opt 146 I got was a better deal.

Yeah, I'm definitely all for dual core if you do other things with your system besides gaming, but I was talking from a strictly gaming perspective here. Buying a cheap Venice/Opteron and a better video card will win out over buying an X2 3800+ and banking on dual core optimization in games, which I can guarantee will not come close to the added benefit of your better card you could afford since you didn't pony up for dual core.

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

its true, if ur addicted to games and cant afford to burn your money just to be part of the hype, u wouldnt buy a dualcore today. only a very few games (most of the being from ID) are a bit multithreaded today and those new NV/ATI drivers give u what, like 5fps(?) more..dualcores are good for alot of stuff, best bang for buck for a gaming rig? no way.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: jdogg707

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Worst post of the year.

If not the worst, its right up there with the worst !

Agreed.

Why is this such a bad statement? If I only wanted my rig for gaming, why would I pay $300-$400 on a dual core chip when I can get Opter 144 for $150 and overclock it to 2.8ghz, or a Venice 3000+ for around $125 and overclock that to 2.5-2.6? I could use the extra few hundred I saved to buy a nice monitor or a much better graphics card. My budget isn't endless.

I don't have any background processes other than what windows runs at default anyway. I have no active antivirus/spyware protection, and have disabled every startup process from msconfig. I'm 99% idle 99% of the time.

You're comparing an overclocked phenom of a chip to a non-overclocked one. What kind of single-cored CPU can you get for $300? That would be a fair comparison IMO, and I'm guessing that the 3800+ would put up a good fight even against an FX-57, especially with this new Q4 patch.

I spoke of an Opteron or a cheap Venice, not just the Opteron.
I really don't think a $300 single core chip would be a fair comparison in this case, as I think we both were talking about value for gaming here. No way would I recommend a $300 single core chip for gaming, I'd certainly recommend an X2 3800+ at that point.

My problem is, for gaming, if you go dual core, your cheapest solution is $300. A lot of gamers don't need a dual core at all, and would be better served getting one of the two chips I mentioned (with the Venice being the obviously more available one) and getting a better video card.

I see your point, but at $300 the 3800+ is pound-for-pound a great value, even next to the single cored chips. On a strict dollar-for-dollar basis, the 3800+ is pretty good. Would I take a 144 w/ a 7800GT instead of a 3800+ w/ integrated graphics tho? Hell yeah.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Avalon

Originally posted by: jdogg707

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Dualcore is not for gaming, but I don't discount the fact that they can do it just as well as single core. You're a fool if you buy dualcore and your primary intention is to game.

Worst post of the year.

If not the worst, its right up there with the worst !

Agreed.

Why is this such a bad statement? If I only wanted my rig for gaming, why would I pay $300-$400 on a dual core chip when I can get Opter 144 for $150 and overclock it to 2.8ghz, or a Venice 3000+ for around $125 and overclock that to 2.5-2.6? I could use the extra few hundred I saved to buy a nice monitor or a much better graphics card. My budget isn't endless.

I don't have any background processes other than what windows runs at default anyway. I have no active antivirus/spyware protection, and have disabled every startup process from msconfig. I'm 99% idle 99% of the time.

You're comparing an overclocked phenom of a chip to a non-overclocked one. What kind of single-cored CPU can you get for $300? That would be a fair comparison IMO, and I'm guessing that the 3800+ would put up a good fight even against an FX-57, especially with this new Q4 patch.

I spoke of an Opteron or a cheap Venice, not just the Opteron.
I really don't think a $300 single core chip would be a fair comparison in this case, as I think we both were talking about value for gaming here. No way would I recommend a $300 single core chip for gaming, I'd certainly recommend an X2 3800+ at that point.

My problem is, for gaming, if you go dual core, your cheapest solution is $300. A lot of gamers don't need a dual core at all, and would be better served getting one of the two chips I mentioned (with the Venice being the obviously more available one) and getting a better video card.

I see your point, but at $300 the 3800+ is pound-for-pound a great value, even next to the single cored chips. On a strict dollar-for-dollar basis, the 3800+ is pretty good. Would I take a 144 w/ a 7800GT instead of a 3800+ w/ integrated graphics tho? Hell yeah.

Yeah, no doubt. It's a great chip. It will be nice when we can one day buy $150 dual core chips. Hopefully it won't be too long now.