Getting to the bottom of the bottleneck question.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: happy medium
I gave up on that guy (azn) a while back when he argued that 1024x768 was a "real world" resolution.
I think I used that res in windows 98 with my pent 3?

Because it is a real resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

Obviously you have used this resolution and you say it's not real world resolution. What is the real world you seem to infatuated with? Are you trying to be like Kyle from Hardocp? :laugh:

As i thought - there is nothing for anyone to reply to - all i see i unwarranted ridicule and no understanding
rose.gif


10x7 is ghetto real world .. you will figure it out after you upgrade to quad core and *then* you will say it is ok for the rest of us to do it also because you just did
:roll:
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: happy medium
I gave up on that guy (azn) a while back when he argued that 1024x768 was a "real world" resolution.
I think I used that res in windows 98 with my pent 3?

Because it is a real resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

Obviously you have used this resolution and you say it's not real world resolution. What is the real world you seem to infatuated with? Are you trying to be like Kyle from Hardocp? :laugh:

As i thought - there is nothing for anyone to reply to - all i see i unwarranted ridicule and no understanding
rose.gif


10x7 is ghetto real world .. you will figure it out after you upgrade to quad core and *then* you will say it is ok for the rest of us to do it also because you just did
:roll:

That's because your own benchmarks prove other wise. Talk about unwarranted ridicule. Do you actually read what you type behind your smiley faces and offering roses to other dudes?

10x7 might be ghetto. It's the nature of the PC industry though. 3x 4870 minority like yourself always trying to push their 29fps minimum fps on RTS when majority are happy with 30-40fps average.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: happy medium
I gave up on that guy (azn) a while back when he argued that 1024x768 was a "real world" resolution.
I think I used that res in windows 98 with my pent 3?

Because it is a real resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution

Obviously you have used this resolution and you say it's not real world resolution. What is the real world you seem to infatuated with? Are you trying to be like Kyle from Hardocp? :laugh:

As i thought - there is nothing for anyone to reply to - all i see i unwarranted ridicule and no understanding
rose.gif


10x7 is ghetto real world .. you will figure it out after you upgrade to quad core and *then* you will say it is ok for the rest of us to do it also because you just did
:roll:

That's because your own benchmarks prove other wise. Talk about unwarranted ridicule. Do you actually read what you type behind your smiley faces and offering roses to other dudes?

10x7 might be ghetto. It's the nature of the PC industry though. 3x 4870 minority like yourself always trying to push their 29fps minimum fps on RTS when majority are happy with 30-40fps average.

my benchmarks are of 2 varieties; one is single GPU which shows that dual core is probably sufficient
- the other is multi-GPU, which shows the NEED for Quad core
- or a bigger cache - according to you
:roll:

- so get the Quad if you run fast graphics :p
- 29 FPS is significant considering the FASTER Dual is running +260MHz faster and only getting 21 FPS

if you run 10x7 you are not likely to be posting here except from a Laptop
rose.gif


i like roses, so what?
:|
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
my benchmarks are of 2 varieties; one is single GPU which shows that dual core is probably sufficient
- the other is multi-GPU, which shows the NEED for Quad core
- or a bigger cache - according to you
:roll:
- so get the Quad if you run fast graphics :p
- 29 FPS is significant considering the FASTER Dual is running +260MHz faster and only getting 21 FPS

You still don't get it. Nobody needs a quad core for a multi-gpu setup just because YOU want a minimum of 29fps in a RTS game. Considering majority of PC games aren't even quad optimized, games are faster on a higher clocked dual core than a slower clocked quad. Maybe for the future a quad would be essential for pc gaming but not right now. It's more economical to use a cheaper faster clocked dual core and still pull more fps on average than a quad.


if you run 10x7 you are not likely to be posting here except from a Laptop
rose.gif

Personally I run 1920x1080 but I am a enthusiast and 20+ year PC gaming vet, techie, etc... The mass of PC gamers do not run this resolution. Currently 1280x1024 is what the mass use. That's not too far away from 1024x768 is it now which is used far more than 1920x1200.


i like roses, so what?
:|

ROFL. I'm sure that's not the only thing you like. :laugh:
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: apoppin
my benchmarks are of 2 varieties; one is single GPU which shows that dual core is probably sufficient
- the other is multi-GPU, which shows the NEED for Quad core
- or a bigger cache - according to you
:roll:
- so get the Quad if you run fast graphics :p
- 29 FPS is significant considering the FASTER Dual is running +260MHz faster and only getting 21 FPS

You still don't get it. Nobody needs a quad core for a multi-gpu setup just because YOU want a minimum of 29fps in a RTS game. Considering majority of PC games aren't even quad optimized, games are faster on a higher clocked dual core than a slower clocked quad. Maybe for the future a quad would be essential for pc gaming but not right now. It's more economical to use a cheaper faster clocked dual core and still pull more fps on average than a quad.
And you will never get it - until you upgrade to a Quad :p
- sane people given a choice will always pick 29 FPS over 21.
:roll:
*Right now* more than a few PC games - with TriFire, or TriSLi - *needs* Quad core to maximize the graphics

Now if you are bargain conscious, i would suggest not bothering witih TriFire/TriSLi - at ALL!
- if you DO, then a WISE person should consider the slightly more expensive Quad

if you run 10x7 you are not likely to be posting here except from a Laptop
rose.gif

Personally I run 1920x1080 but I am a enthusiast and 20+ year PC gaming vet, techie, etc... The mass of PC gamers do not run this resolution. Currently 1280x1024 is what the mass use. That's not too far away from 1024x768 is it now which is used far more than 1920x1200.


well, you can say the same thing for 16x10 and the need for quad ...
You know what they say about opinions. Thanks for yours

rose.gif

 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin

And you will never get it - until you upgrade to a Quad :p
- sane people given a choice will always pick 29 FPS over 21.
:roll:
*Right now* more than a few PC games - with TriFire, or TriSLi - *needs* Quad core to maximize the graphics

Now if you are bargain conscious, i would suggest not bothering witih TriFire/TriSLi - at ALL!
- if you DO, then a WISE person should consider the slightly more expensive Quad


I don't want to upgrade to a quad at least not right now. Still waiting for quads to catch up like how dual core went essential. There's no real benefit other than 1 or 2 games while faster dual core will be faster in hundreds of games.
-sane people given a choice will always choose cheaper and faster CPU that is faster overall in ALL games not 1 RTS game that you've been crying over to get a minimum of 29fps.

I'm still not keen on multi GPU setup. I'm not even that budget conscious but I don't drop $1000 on a CPU and GPU setup so I can get 8 more fps. That would be you.

well, you can say the same thing for 16x10 and the need for quad ...
You know what they say about opinions. Thanks for yours

rose.gif

It's not an opinion when it's a FACT. Majority of PC users still use 1280x1024 the most followed by 1680x1050.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: apoppin

And you will never get it - until you upgrade to a Quad :p
- sane people given a choice will always pick 29 FPS over 21.
:roll:
*Right now* more than a few PC games - with TriFire, or TriSLi - *needs* Quad core to maximize the graphics

Now if you are bargain conscious, i would suggest not bothering witih TriFire/TriSLi - at ALL!
- if you DO, then a WISE person should consider the slightly more expensive Quad


I don't want to upgrade to a quad at least not right now. Still waiting for quads to catch up like how dual core went essential. There's no real benefit other than 1 or 2 games while faster dual core will be faster in hundreds of games.
-sane people given a choice will always choose cheaper and faster CPU that is faster overall in ALL games not 1 RTS game that you've been crying over to get a minimum of 29fps.

I'm still not keen on multi GPU setup. I'm not even that budget conscious but I don't drop $1000 on a CPU and GPU setup so I can get 8 more fps. That would be you.

well, you can say the same thing for 16x10 and the need for quad ...
You know what they say about opinions. Thanks for yours

rose.gif

It's not an opinion when it's a FACT. Majority of PC users still use 1280x1024 the most followed by 1680x1050.
Yes it would be me - and many other enthusiasts - who don't want to be held back by your antiquated advice

People with Tri-Fire/Tri-SLI do NOT use 12x10 - *fact!*

You can skew it as much as you want to; i really don't care. Perhaps your system is balanced for you. Once you get to really fast graphics, you need a really fast quad core
--i have already proved it. Benchmarks at 19x12 and 16x10 do not lie. :p
rose.gif

 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Yes it would be me - and many other enthusiasts - who don't want to be held back by your antiquated advice

People with Tri-Fire/Tri-SLI do NOT use 12x10 - *fact!*

You can skew it as much as you want to; i really don't care. Perhaps your system is balanced for you. Once you get to really fast graphics, you need a really fast quad core
--i have already proved it. Benchmarks at 19x12 and 16x10 do not lie. :p
rose.gif

Again enthusiasts segment of PC industry are the minority and accounts for less than 10% of the PC industry. Even then people like you are non existent dropping $1000 so you can get 5 more frames to play video games.

Skewed? Come on Mark. Just because you desire 5 more fps in a game doesn't mean the world of PC users revolve around that.. I don't even desire anything faster. If I did I would have bought it by now but my next upgrade is probably going to be a quad at least when more games penetrate with quad optimization.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: apoppin
Yes it would be me - and many other enthusiasts - who don't want to be held back by your antiquated advice

People with Tri-Fire/Tri-SLI do NOT use 12x10 - *fact!*

You can skew it as much as you want to; i really don't care. Perhaps your system is balanced for you. Once you get to really fast graphics, you need a really fast quad core
--i have already proved it. Benchmarks at 19x12 and 16x10 do not lie. :p
rose.gif

Again enthusiasts segment of PC industry are the minority and accounts for less than 10% of the PC industry. Even then people like you are non existent dropping $1000 so you can get 5 more frames to play video games.

Skewed? Come on Mark. Just because you desire 5 more fps in a game doesn't mean the world of PC users revolve around that.. I don't even desire anything faster. If I did I would have bought it by now but my next upgrade is probably going to be a quad at least when more games penetrate with quad optimization.

Nonsense - i run it all. Single GPU and multi. You are just a tad behind the curve and i am a bit ahead of it. No one is putting down your PC - don't hate on the ones with quadcore as you will be joining us when you feel the need

i just felt the need ahead of you - due to having faster graphics
rose.gif
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Nonsense - i run it all. Single GPU and multi. You are just a tad behind the curve and i am a bit ahead of it. No one is putting down your PC - don't hate on the ones with quadcore as you will be joining us when you feel the need

i just felt the need ahead of you - due to having faster graphics
rose.gif

You are so ahead of the curve that people like you are non existent even among enthusiasts. You drop money for the sake of 5 extra frames. that tells me you have a problem similar to crack heads wanting crack to get their fix...

What am I 10? You can put down my PC all you want. See if I blink. :laugh: I don't hate quad owners it's just that I don't agree with multi-gpu setup cards needing Quad.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Originally posted by: happy medium
This brings up A good question.
Does cranking up the resolution with modern games put anymore strain on the cpu. To put it simply does Crysis or Far Cry 2 @ 1900x1200 with high settings use more cpu power then Crysis or Far Cry 2 @ 1024x768. Does the chipset help? Mabe the memory/fsb speed? Is this what makes the core i7 systems so much faster with crossfire?

I read somewhere that there are games (or upcomming games) that offload some physics to the cpu cores.

Sorry for all the question but most are related to each other.:confused:

Edit; Thanks for all the info guys.

I didn't see anyone answer this directly, so no - the resolution does not change the load on the cpu, only the gpu. My guess why you have the i7 scaling better with multi-gpu is not because of high resolutions, but because multiple gpu's place a greater load on the cpu and other system components than a single gpu would.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: apoppin
Nonsense - i run it all. Single GPU and multi. You are just a tad behind the curve and i am a bit ahead of it. No one is putting down your PC - don't hate on the ones with quadcore as you will be joining us when you feel the need

i just felt the need ahead of you - due to having faster graphics
rose.gif

You are so ahead of the curve that people like you are non existent even among enthusiasts. You drop money for the sake of 5 extra frames. that tells me you have a problem similar to crack heads wanting crack to get their fix...

What am I 10? You can put down my PC all you want. See if I blink. :laugh: I don't hate quad owners it's just that I don't agree with multi-gpu setup cards needing Quad.

Ten what? IQ?
:D

i am not putting down your PC .. i even said it might be balanced :p

You just lack the multi-GPU/dual-quad experience that i have
... if you ever get it, you can agree with me then
:roll:


rose.gif
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Ten what? IQ?
:D

Was that even funny? :(

If you didn't know I'm Far East Asian. Highest IQ compared to all other race.



i am not putting down your PC .. i even said it might be balanced :p

You just lack the multi-GPU/dual-quad experience that i have
... if you ever get it, you can agree with me then
:roll:


rose.gif

I don't need to experience it. Your benches pretty much show Quad is not needed to power a multi-gpu setup.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
I don't need to experience it. Your benches pretty much show Quad is not needed to power a multi-gpu setup.
of course, when you discount every one of the benchmarks that shows quad with an advantage over dual and pooh-pooh an 8 FPS advantage - 29 minimum vs. 21 minimum at 19x12 -of a Q9550s at 4.0 GHz over a e8500 at 4.5 GHz in World in Conflict.
- that is playable vs. unplayable in my book :p



rose.gif
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
Corei7 and X58 are pretty good at giving 2-3-4 way SLI a boost compared to C2D/C2Q x48/p45.

 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
I don't need to experience it. Your benches pretty much show Quad is not needed to power a multi-gpu setup.
of course, when you discount every one of the benchmarks that shows quad with an advantage over dual and pooh-pooh an 8 FPS advantage - 29 minimum vs. 21 minimum at 19x12 -of a Q9550s at 4.0 GHz over a e8500 at 4.5 GHz in World in Conflict.
- that is playable vs. unplayable in my book :p



rose.gif

That is your problem. You are mistaking your wants for needs and try to reason within yourself that you need 29fps minimum for everyone. The mass of PC gamers are happy with 30-40fps average in a RTS. I'm not even sure you even benchmarked correctly.

P.S dude you are creeping me out. Stop being flitty with your roses. I'm thinking you are seriously foolgazy wanting to exchange fluids with other dudes.
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: jaredpace
Corei7 and X58 are pretty good at giving 2-3-4 way SLI a boost compared to C2D/C2Q x48/p45.

Can you tell the difference between 100fps and 150fps average? I sure as hell can't. Once you reach a certain plateau it's all the same shit.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: jaredpace
Corei7 and X58 are pretty good at giving 2-3-4 way SLI a boost compared to C2D/C2Q x48/p45.

Can you tell the difference between 100fps and 150fps average? I sure as hell can't. Once you reach a certain plateau it's all the same shit.

there is the problem

blindness


:laugh:



That is your problem. You are mistaking your wants for needs and try to reason within yourself that you need 29fps minimum for everyone. The mass of PC gamers are happy with 30-40fps average in a RTS. I'm not even sure you even benchmarked correctly.

P.S dude you are creeping me out. Stop being flitty with your roses. I'm thinking you are seriously foolgazy wanting to exchange fluids with other dudes.

No you are inducing blindness in yourself by reasoning, 'if it doesn't play on my rig, it must be crap'
- i benchmark with the best of 'em .. you can follow it from driver release to driver release and it is damn consistent

You are weird; you keep projecting your homoerotic feelings for other guys to me

it is an emoticon
rose.gif


it is not for you :p

If you didn't know I'm Far East Asian. Highest IQ compared to all other race.
- looks like you might have got skipped .. i'm sorry ... comparing IQs is just silly .. mine is triple digits
[ and i am *really* sorry; you set yourself up for it - twice! :D ]
 

AmberClad

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
4,914
0
0
Azn and apoppin -

Take the male bonding chatter to PM, please, if you two want to continue with it. It doesn't belong in the Video forum.

AmberClad
Video Moderator
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: jaredpace
I can tell the difference between 44 and 56 though!


44fps vs 56fps

Q9770 vs. i7965

790i vs. x58

GTX280 tri-SLI

http://media.bestofmicro.com/6.../original/image024.png

What game is that supposed to be?

Adding more GPU still makes biggest impact when you consider triple SLI doesn't scale as well as 2x SLI... Now I'm not saying there aren't games that are just CPU hungry like GTA4 but that's the exception of 1 or 2 games while majority of games aren't like that.

3x SLI QX9770 44 fps
2x SLI I7965 40 fps
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: jaredpace
I can tell the difference between 44 and 56 though!


44fps vs 56fps

Q9770 vs. i7965

790i vs. x58

GTX280 tri-SLI

http://media.bestofmicro.com/6.../original/image024.png

What game is that supposed to be?

Adding more GPU still makes biggest impact when you consider triple SLI doesn't scale as well as 2x SLI... Now I'm not saying there aren't games that are just CPU hungry like GTA4 but that's the exception of 1 or 2 games while majority of games aren't like that.

3x SLI QX9770 44 fps
2x SLI I7965 40 fps

Here is the issue:

You keep speaking of the "majority of games" .. and of course, you are right - there are comparatively few games that run significantly faster on Quad than Dual - even with super-fast graphics

However, LAST YEAR there were almost NO games that took advantage of Quad; so it is changing more rapidly than some accept
= and - to top it off - IF you happen to PLAY one of these games, then a Quad is a reasonable choice [if you have multi-GPU especially]


[**] - insert my favorite emoticon here
 

AzN

Banned
Nov 26, 2001
4,112
2
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Azn
Originally posted by: jaredpace
I can tell the difference between 44 and 56 though!


44fps vs 56fps

Q9770 vs. i7965

790i vs. x58

GTX280 tri-SLI

http://media.bestofmicro.com/6.../original/image024.png

What game is that supposed to be?

Adding more GPU still makes biggest impact when you consider triple SLI doesn't scale as well as 2x SLI... Now I'm not saying there aren't games that are just CPU hungry like GTA4 but that's the exception of 1 or 2 games while majority of games aren't like that.

3x SLI QX9770 44 fps
2x SLI I7965 40 fps

Here is the issue:

You keep speaking of the "majority of games" .. and of course, you are right - there are comparatively few games that run significantly faster on Quad than Dual - even with super-fast graphics

However, LAST YEAR there were almost NO games that took advantage of Quad; so it is changing more rapidly than some accept
= and - to top it off - IF you happen to PLAY one of these games, then a Quad is a reasonable choice [if you have multi-GPU especially]


[**] - insert my favorite emoticon here

Would you mind naming all the quad optimized games released this year? I could probably name them on the top of my head and still wouldn't fit into my 5 fingers and even if they were optimized a fast dual core isn't too far off from a quad. GTA4 being the only exception.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
I could probably name them on the top of my head and still wouldn't fit into my 5 fingers

You must have a lot more than five fingers; i thought you said "Asian", not "alien" :p
---[sorry =O]

There are more than you suspect; why just name what is released this year?
.. see if anyone can add to it:

Supreme Commander
Company of Heroes
Source Engine games
FEAR series
Demigod
Alan Wake
Unreal3 engine games
GTA:IV
World in Conflict
Lost Planet
Empire Total War [with the next patch]

From my own 13-game benchmark review, a reader summed it up:
the Q9550 (at similar clockspeed to) beats the E8600?s minimum framerates in COD4, UT3, Lost Planet, HL2: LC, FEAR, ET: QW, WiC, FC2, and PT Boats. The two chips, for the most part, tie in the games Stalker, Crysis, and X3. The only game where the quad loses is Call of Juarez.

Of course, you may argue that, "dual is good enough"
.. OK .. but we see progress as games on that list do take advantage of multi-core


EDIT:
i found a list:
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=smp64_apps
Games
Supreme Commander ? two or more cores
Alan Wake ? two or more cores / DX10
Bet On Soldier: Blood Sport ? 64bit
BioShock ? two or more cores / DX10
Codename: Panzers (Phase one) ? 64bit
Colin McRae Rally 2005 ? 64bit
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay ? 64bit
Dreadnought ? 64bit
Far Cry ? 64bit
Fahrenheit ? 64bit
Half-Life 2 ? 64bit
Lost Coast ? 64bit
Quake 4 ? dual core only
Shadow Ops: Red Mercury ? 64bit
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl ? 64bit dual core
Unreal Tournament 2004 ? 64bit
WWII Tank Commander ? 64bit

and i note that some of them require 64-bit to make a bigger difference; my testing with single/multi-GPU was done on Vista32; i have since migrated to Vista64 to take advantage of more system RAM. ;)

edit:

damn A NEWER LIST:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33902850
Edit 1: Unless otherwise stated, quad core support means that all cores bellow it will fully work.

==================Quad Core=====================================
Alan Wake - Ground up quad core support.
Bioshock (Unreal Engine 3) - Quad core support.
Call Of Duty 4 - Ground up quad core support.
Company of Heroes - Ground up quad core support
Crysis - MP Beta Dual Core support, full game ground up Quad Core support.
DiRT - Ground up quad core support (up to 8 cores reported).
Flight Simulator X - Quad core support with patch.
Lost Planet - Ground up quad core support. (octa core support as well).
MOH: Airborn (Unreal Engine 3) - Ground up quad core support.
Supreme Commander - Ground up quad core support.
The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - Quad core ground up, can use 5 threads.
World in Conflict - Ground up quad core support.
Unreal Tournament 3 (Unreal Engine 3) - Ground up quad core support.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Originally posted by: apoppin
I could probably name them on the top of my head and still wouldn't fit into my 5 fingers

You must have a lot more than five fingers; i thought you said "Asian", not "alien" :p
---[sorry =O]

There are more than you suspect; why just name what is released this year?
.. see if anyone can add to it:

Supreme Commander
Company of Heroes
Source Engine games
FEAR series
Demigod
Alan Wake
Unreal3 engine games
GTA:IV
World in Conflict
Lost Planet
Empire Total War [with the next patch]

From my own 13-game benchmark review, a reader summed it up:
the Q9550 (at similar clockspeed to) beats the E8600?s minimum framerates in COD4, UT3, Lost Planet, HL2: LC, FEAR, ET: QW, WiC, FC2, and PT Boats. The two chips, for the most part, tie in the games Stalker, Crysis, and X3. The only game where the quad loses is Call of Juarez.

Of course, you may argue that, "dual is good enough"
.. OK .. but we see progress as games on that list do take advantage of multi-core


EDIT:
i found a list:
http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=smp64_apps
Games
Supreme Commander ? two or more cores
Alan Wake ? two or more cores / DX10
Bet On Soldier: Blood Sport ? 64bit
BioShock ? two or more cores / DX10
Codename: Panzers (Phase one) ? 64bit
Colin McRae Rally 2005 ? 64bit
Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay ? 64bit
Dreadnought ? 64bit
Far Cry ? 64bit
Fahrenheit ? 64bit
Half-Life 2 ? 64bit
Lost Coast ? 64bit
Quake 4 ? dual core only
Shadow Ops: Red Mercury ? 64bit
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl ? 64bit dual core
Unreal Tournament 2004 ? 64bit
WWII Tank Commander ? 64bit

and i note that some of them require 64-bit to make a bigger difference; my testing with single/multi-GPU was done on Vista32; i have since migrated to Vista64 to take advantage of more system RAM. ;)

edit:

damn A NEWER LIST:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33902850
Edit 1: Unless otherwise stated, quad core support means that all cores bellow it will fully work.

==================Quad Core=====================================
Alan Wake - Ground up quad core support.
Bioshock (Unreal Engine 3) - Quad core support.
Call Of Duty 4 - Ground up quad core support.
Company of Heroes - Ground up quad core support
Crysis - MP Beta Dual Core support, full game ground up Quad Core support.
DiRT - Ground up quad core support (up to 8 cores reported).
Flight Simulator X - Quad core support with patch.
Lost Planet - Ground up quad core support. (octa core support as well).
MOH: Airborn (Unreal Engine 3) - Ground up quad core support.
Supreme Commander - Ground up quad core support.
The Elder Scrolls: Oblivion - Quad core ground up, can use 5 threads.
World in Conflict - Ground up quad core support.
Unreal Tournament 3 (Unreal Engine 3) - Ground up quad core support.

Crysis Multiplayer is quad optimized? But the single player isn't? Hmmm.....I guess that could make sense if the action in multiplayer really got intensive right?

P.S. I have only played the Crysis demo. I don't actually own the game.