Dual Core beta patch for Quake 4!

[biostud]

Unfortunately id statements and this: http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=m...index&req=viewarticle&artid=216&page=1

doesn't really add up

 

[dexvx]

Thread at HardOCP:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=990278

HT P4's gain around 10%
DC X2's gain around 30-40%

 

[Diasper]

Short: It's significance is not in increased average fps but increased minimum fps

-----------

That looks pretty good to me. That's a nice but significant improvement. Of course, until they begin to impliment efficient dual-core code widely (once dual-core becomes mainstream) it'll only benefit benchmark people and those with an inordinately high intolerance for any frame rate below 60!

I think what it will be more important for in the longer term is reducing miniumum fps. While the guys aren't posting minimum fps increases or (% of fps over a certain point) we can safely assume that the minimum fps is showing a more significant increase than the percentages we're seeing from the guys at Hardforum. This would be particularly true when running the game at higher/more real resolutions and graphics.

If you've ever seen line charts of AMD vs Intel cpus you will know that often there will be a massive downspike at one moment in the game (probably when alot of AI algorithms have start due to heavy gun fight while at the same time physics being initiatiated due to explosions, things falling due to the gunfight - a time when you need your fps most) and so this will no doubt smooth things over and make it a much more smooth experience.

 

[Hikari]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Thread at HardOCP:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=990278

HT P4's gain around 10%
DC X2's gain around 30-40%

I wonder how DC P4s do? I mean, games are more CPU-limited on them than AMD dual cores. I only have the Q4 Demo though, and they don't have a patched version of that yet, right?

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: Avalon
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.

Agreed.

Getting a 3200 and a nicer video card is much better choice then spending the $$ on a Dual Core and taking a step down with the video card. (When the primary purpose is gaming.)

If choosing between a pricy single core and the dual core ... do youself a favor and get the dual core.

 

[pulsedrive]

Agreed.

Getting a 3200 and a nicer video card is much better choice then spending the $$ on a Dual Core and taking a step down with the video card. (When the primary purpose is gaming.)

If choosing between a pricy single core and the dual core ... do youself a favor and get the dual core.

Yeah, but you also have to make sure you aren't CPU limiting your card. Like the 7800gtx is CPU limited below 2.2 GHz, and frankly having had one like that I think you need even more to not have it limited.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: pulsedrive

Agreed.

Getting a 3200 and a nicer video card is much better choice then spending the $$ on a Dual Core and taking a step down with the video card. (When the primary purpose is gaming.)

If choosing between a pricy single core and the dual core ... do youself a favor and get the dual core.

Yeah, but you also have to make sure you aren't CPU limiting your card. Like the 7800gtx is CPU limited below 2.2 GHz, and frankly having had one like that I think you need even more to not have it limited.

It's either a 7800GTX and Venice 3000+, or an X2 3800+ and a 6800GS. Which would you prefer if you were primarily gaming? This is the sort of example I was getting at.

Besides, you can easily overclock any Venice to 2.2, no sweat.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: Avalon
It's either a 7800GTX and Venice 3000+, or an X2 3800+ and a 6800GS.

If you have a budget (As most of us do). I would think the that 7800GT would be a better bang for the $$.

Personaly. When I help design a new gaming system I prioritize the hardware dolars this way:

1. Video Card
2. Case/Powersupply
3. Motherboard
4. CPU
5. RAM
6. Everything else

Yes, Case and Powersupply are #2. Most requests for builds that I revieve actually revolve around a particular case, or case style that they alreay have in mind. Shows how much "style" has invaded our once non-stylish, geek friendly hobby. The days of "I don't care how it looks." seem to be behind us.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: VooDooAddict

Originally posted by: Avalon
It's either a 7800GTX and Venice 3000+, or an X2 3800+ and a 6800GS.

If you have a budget (As most of us do). I would think the that 7800GT would be a better bang for the $$.

Oh, I agree. I was just making an example of what the extra couple hundred could do for you. Personally I'd just go with the 7800GT as well, as I can never see myself spending anywhere near $400 for a video card. Even $275AR hot deals is pushing it for me. Most I ever spent on a card was $200 for an eVGA 6800NU back when the 6 series was released

 

[the splat in the hat]

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.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Friggin joker, you dont recon an fx dual cores on the cards in the next couple of years , and gamers drive this industry , mmm gamers like dual cores , what does that tell you ?
AMD have definately taken notice , l recon your a joker l own an fx55 and in online games it cant compete with the dual core , 2.6 clock against 2.2 , meh your a joker , dual cores were ALWAYS going to end up in gamers hands and as drivers and programs come for it , it will make you eat your single core words , and in time ALL games will be coded dual maybe even triple quad core .......
Oh and your a fool if you buy single core cpu's , with dual core and 64 bit programs just around the corner , enjoy updating aagain next year !........

 

[Krogoth255]

I have played around with the 1.05 beta patch and this is what I found out. It seems enabling AA disabled the SMP render, that is why AA tests under "r_useSMP 1" seemed to slower then "r_useSMP 0" with AA enabled. You just end-up suffering from the SMP overhead. The other thing is that you need to restart Quake 4 every time you disable or enable SMP support in order for the program to execute the correct amount of threading. If you fail to do so, it just results in a performance hit.

Anyway, I am getting about a 10-30% boost depend on what resolution. It make sense that running SMP helps out the most when the CPU is the bottleneck, otherwise it does very little if the GPU is the bottleneck.

 

[Redox]

For those still in denial mode about the benefits of dual core for gaming, there is a good article at Firing Squad on the "phenomenal" performance gains observed with the patch for both Intel and AMD dual core processors (especially when CPU limited).

Firing Squad article link

There has also been a similar patch released for COD 2