• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Interesting article: How many CPU cores do games need?

Wow, the dual cores really took a beating in minimum framerates. Looks like it confirms my suspicion that you need at least a triple-core in newer games. The older games did fine with a duallie. It's good that the AMD 3 and 4 core parts are so cheap.
 
Wow, the dual cores really took a beating in minimum framerates.

No they didn't.

Looks like it confirms my suspicion that you need at least a triple-core in newer games.

Perhaps you should read what is there rather than reading in your suspicions.
Tri-cores scored less than a dualie on 5/13 tests. They only had an ok gain on 2 tests on one console port.

2 core is where you get your gaming performance, so GHz+IPC on them matters. Two fast cores will beat four slower ones. If you have a quad that will turbo up to a dualie's frequency, great. But if you're sacrificing individual core speed for more cores, you're gimping your gaming.
 
Games will continue to use more and more Cores. It is inevitable as more Cores will become the Norm until someone can figure out how to start pushing higher ghz without too much trouble.
 
Eh I don't think any of those games were good demonstrations of engines that are well-threaded. Try Supcom2/Source.
 
No they didn't.

Perhaps you should read what is there rather than reading in your suspicions.
Tri-cores scored less than a dualie on 5/13 tests. They only had an ok gain on 2 tests on one console port.

2 core is where you get your gaming performance, so GHz+IPC on them matters. Two fast cores will beat four slower ones. If you have a quad that will turbo up to a dualie's frequency, great. But if you're sacrificing individual core speed for more cores, you're gimping your gaming.

Let me explain my argument in more detail. 🙂

Looks like it confirms my suspicion that you need at least a triple-core in newer games.

Maybe I should have been more explicit, but I did not intend to include games released before 2009 in the set of "newer" games. I also agree that there is something weird going on with odd core counts, especially on ATI.

By performance below, I mean minimum FPS, because that's the only thing that matters IMHO.

Now, let's look at GHZ:
Fastest Athlon II X2: 3.2GHz
Fastest Athlon II X3: 3.1GHz
Fastest Athlon II X4: 3.0GHz
Now the reviewer used the same clock speed for each part so we need to scale the numbers a bit. If we scale the performance of the triple and quad cores down by 5% to account for the clock speed difference, we see that you get the same or better performance than the dual core (except in Dirt 2 ATI). And this is with engines, as Sp12 noted, that aren't well known for their scalability!

It is my suspicion 🙂D) that this is because that even though the game itself may only utilize a dual-core, there are many other processes that are running on the machine, thus the poor minimums on the dual core. This is even a sort of best-case scenario for dual-cores, as the machine in question is a stripped down benchmarking rig. Many people will have many other processes running while they're playing games.

EDIT: Now that I've actually read the article's conclusion (I admit, I usually only look at the test setup and graphs), I see that the writer essentially put forth the same argument as I just did. Man, I could've really saved myself some writing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top