is the dual core worth it?

[Markbnj]

[So, uh, where are the actual performance results? Those graphs show CPU utilization across two cores, which means what exactly? How does one translate raw performance from such graphs or even compare it to other systems? ]

It means that the game is multi-threaded, which contradicts your flat assertions earlier in the thread. As for raw performance, if you had bothered to do any research, you would have noticed that the _very slim_ raw FPS advantage enjoyed by the top single core Athlons evaporates when the dual core optimized nVidia drivers are used. If you had any real world experience, you would have further noted that raw FPS numbers don't come anywhere near telling the whole story of game performance.

Edit:

[Yes, many Games are Multi-Threaded, but as others have said that doesn't mean they use Multi-processor configurations. ]

It is not up to the application which core a thread gets scheduled on. Those decisions are made by the Windows kernel thread scheduler. If there are multiple threads doing work in a system with multiple cores, then Windows will schedule both cores unless the process has its affinity set to one or the other. These aren't opinions; they're facts that any software engineer knows.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
[So, uh, where are the actual performance results? Those graphs show CPU utilization across two cores, which means what exactly? How does one translate raw performance from such graphs or even compare it to other systems? ]

It means that the game is multi-threaded, which contradicts your flat assertions earlier in the thread. As for raw performance, if you had bothered to do any research, you would have noticed that the _very slim_ raw FPS advantage enjoyed by the top single core Athlons evaporates when the dual core optimized nVidia drivers are used. If you had any real world experience, you would have further noted that raw FPS numbers don't come anywhere near telling the whole story of game performance.

Edit:

[Yes, many Games are Multi-Threaded, but as others have said that doesn't mean they use Multi-processor configurations. ]

It is not up to the application which core a thread gets scheduled on. Those decisions are made by the Windows kernel thread scheduler. If there are multiple threads doing work in a system with multiple cores, then Windows will schedule both cores unless the process has its affinity set to one or the other. These aren't opinions; they're facts that any software engineer knows.

Not true. The Unreal Engine does not let windows decide sh1t, the Engine itself schedules all its' own Threads. Games require very specific timing and synching, they can't rely on Windows scheduler to provide that for them so they handle it themselves'.

If that were true there would not even be a discussion of subject.


edit: hmm, I see(having re-read your post) we're not quite talking about the same thing here. You say a game may be shceduled by windows to use 1 core, then another at various times. That may be true, but that doesn't mean anything as far as games using Multi-cores/cpus.

Windows schedulaes time for an app to use the cpu, but it doesn't schedule the internal Threads of that App individually. Just the overall time/resources allotted to that particular application. That Application may be doing 1000 different things all in their own Threads, but those threads are never seen by Windows Scheduler, only the App controlling those Threads are seen and scheduled.

 

[Markbnj]

[Windows schedulaes time for an app to use the cpu, but it doesn't schedule the internal Threads of that App individually. ]

Yes, it does. Windows doesn't know anything about apps. It knows about processes, and threads. All the process can do is issue commands to the OS to put the thread to sleep, or halt the thread while waiting on a mutex or semaphore, or adjust its priority.
As for which core it runs on, and how many slices it gets on that core, Windows makes all those decisions.

In threads like this you can really tell this is a hardware forum.

 

[RussianSensation]

Would anyone argue here that A64 3200+ and 7800GTXs in SLI are going to be faster than any X2 processor with a single card or FX57? The former comes to $150 + $450x 2 or about the same price as an FX57. The point here is that even if you can afford to spend gazillions of dollars, it still makes sense to spend money wisely. With this comment.....this is what i think:

Today: dual core does nothing for improving gaming performance in any popular first person shooters, racing, simulation or adventure games (unless you multi-task which the original poster didnt mention = said gaming #1 priority). Someone mentioned how you can surf the net and play a game at the same time....I fail to understand how you can do that.

Tomorrow: Undoubtedly multi-core gaming will become the standard. When? 1, 2, 3 years from now? Probably when the mainstream adopts it. At $300 a pop for cheapest x2 processor, that isnt going to happen any time soon. This means substantial increase (not 5-20% when you are paying 2x more for the speed of a single core) in gaming will not arrive much later than after Unreal 3. But, in the future, 4800+ will be faster than FX57.

BFG is right in that a 2.8ghz A64 will crush X2 @ 2.4ghz at every single game today. Someone brought out an example of Perimeter, but benchmarks havnet shown this - maybe the patch wasn't released to the public? Again the important point here is that NEITHER will matter, because at 1600x1200 4AA/16AF or higher, your 7800GTX will run tears in games like FEAR and probably upcoming shader intensive games.

So lets just understand first and foremost that cpu speed doesnt matter (when I mean doesn't matter, I am referring to providing any substantial or noticeable difference) PERIOD for high-end resolution and quality gaming when not multitasking and you are comparing high end processors already. Maybe when physics, AI and multi-core programmable games become vastly different...but today they aren't at this level.

Mark also brings important points. If you do anything other than gaming, like SETI, Folding, encoding, decoding in the background, you'll benefit from dual core since it will allow you to split the tasks between the cores and not incur swaps related to priority status and thus slowdowns. However, OP doesnt mention any of these, again stressing gaming ONLY. Chances are he is loaded --> so when dual core finally does become important, strictly for gaming, he can buy it then. But today, imo, for gaming ONLY, FX57 is king, simply due to its clock speeds.

 

[thesix]

I am quite amused by this thread

You all probably have heard of user thread/kernel thread, and, user scheduler/kernel scheduler?

The user scheduler chooses a subset of user threads to become kernel threads, which are then scheduled by kernel scheduler. It can be 1:1, M:1 or M:N mapping between user threads and kernel threads. I am not talking about any specific OS or specific implementation. I am sure most modern OSs have similar concepts.

That means, both of you can be right ( at least partly right) in terms of how Windows schedule jobs

I don't play much game, have no idea how game engine is designed.
It has to have more than one _active_ working threads running in parrellel to take advantage of SMP.

Forget about all the other 100 Windows/OtherApp's threads hanging around on your system. They time-share CPU based on the status (runnable or not) and priority they're given. The scheduling is done on *ms basis (every 10ms?) . The CPUs are so fast nowadays, we shouldn't notice their impact on the main job (the game) most of the time, unless the those jobs compete for much slower resources on the system, like disk I/O etc.

I have a dual-Opteron box at home, and I use 24+ SMP box daily at work (which I can play whatever way I like, it's a test machine), unfortunately I don't play game on them, and don't even have Windows on them

Keep posting.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Markbnj
[Windows schedulaes time for an app to use the cpu, but it doesn't schedule the internal Threads of that App individually. ]

Yes, it does. Windows doesn't know anything about apps. It knows about processes, and threads. All the process can do is issue commands to the OS to put the thread to sleep, or halt the thread while waiting on a mutex or semaphore, or adjust its priority.
As for which core it runs on, and how many slices it gets on that core, Windows makes all those decisions.

In threads like this you can really tell this is a hardware forum.

Perhaps you should talk with Mark Rein and ask him why his game engine schedules its' own threads then.

 

[One43637]

Originally posted by: Koudelka
Hello.

I asked a question earlier if i should go with an FX-57 or 4800+ X2 for gaming. And the bottom line is that that FX line is better for gaming.

All i do is STRICTLY gaming. Is it really worth it to go for the extra core for me? or go the FX route?

Thanks in advance!!

i'm in a similar situation as yours. i'm trying to build a machine that's strictly gaming and have only had experience with Pentium chips in the past. i was thinking of going AMD this time around, and i couldn't decide between a single chip or dual core. for that matter, an x2 or an Opteron.

it's a shame the informative posts got buried because people felt the need to inundate the thread with their bickering.

 

[ribbon13]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

And no matter how you try to twist facts, you CAN'T disable one core. You can force a program to use one or the other, or try to force windows not to see it or utilize it, but you allways have two available cores.

Well sure, short of snapping off the second core it'll always be physically present. But my goodness, your argument is beyond clutching at straws.

I think this may fall into the category of 'fact:' You're only disabling the second core by software.

I believe we can all agree that game-engines are making more use of SMP everyday. Get a dual-core up to it's highest stable overclock, and I'm sure none the games that can only use 1 CPU will deliver dissappointing performance, it will all depend on your video card. In the long run, from a gamer's perspective, it would seem better to do that, and only have to upgrade your video card for at least a couple of GPU generations.

It's speculative, but I haven't seem much evidence to the contrary.

 

[Koudelka]

Originally posted by: Maluno
Did anyone notice what happened to the OP? Did he just get swept up in the torrent of insults and flames being viciously hurled back and forth? Or did he decide to call it a day, and buy a Dell?

I'm just sitting back and watching Trying to sum up everyone's opinions and the facts to make my decision

 

[deadseasquirrel]

With all of the arguing back and forth, it seems most posters are ignoring the real issue that the OP needs to deal with. Koudelka, what are the rest of your system specs-- mainly video card(s), ram, and monitor. And what games do you play (or want to play)? And what settings do you prefer to play at?

CPU speeds don't matter much at all at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF. Everything from an A64 3000+ to an FX57 will score the same fps when matched with an identical system.

 

[Markbnj]

Perhaps you should talk with Mark Rein and ask him why his game engine schedules its' own threads then.

Heh, I have known Mark and Tim Sweeney for almost fifteen years. Unreal may schedule its own internal processes all it wants, but it doesn't schedule "threads" in terms of how the OS defines them, and I have no fear whatsoever that Mark (who is the business guy, by the way, not a technical person) would disagree with that.

 

[biostud]

Interesting read: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games.html

Although the conclusion is that the GPU will be the limiting factor once you crank of for details and resolution, and any modern CPU will do fine.

 

[Makaveli]

This thread was very amusing. you have the people that are running dual core cpu's who are gonna back there purchases no matter what. Then u have the people that own Single Core cpu's are saying the opposite. all the reviews have shown High clocked single Core Cpu's are faster than Dual core at current gaming End of story if u don't wanna believe it crawl back into your cave. Eventually as games come out which are built from the ground up to support Dual cores they will indeed be faster. Many programmers have said building games for dual core cpu's won't be easy and is very complex. And tha majority of users have single core cpu's. So I don't think we will be seening a huge influx of Dual core games anytime soon.

Obviously if your someone that likes to keep a system for a long time > 3 years I would think the dual core cpu would be the obvious choice.
Currently those Majority of games are single core optomized. and that isn't gonna change anytime soon, no matter what u guy with dual core cpus wanna believe. you aren't the entire market which games are being made for.

i will welcome games with dualcore support arms open, but alot of u are just getting way ahead of yourself. And I think it mostly cause you wanna feel that your X2 is worth the investment. It is for multiples reasons as stated in previous but not for games as yet. so get over it.

 

[Spike]

Originally posted by: Makaveli
This thread was very amusing. you have the people that are running dual core cpu's who are gonna back there purchases no matter what. Then u have the people that own Single Core cpu's are saying the opposite. all the reviews have shown High clocked single Core Cpu's are faster than Dual core at current gaming End of story if u don't wanna believe it crawl back into your cave. Eventually as games come out which are built from the ground up to support Dual cores they will indeed be faster. Many programmers have said building games for dual core cpu's won't be easy and is very complex. And tha majority of users have single core cpu's. So I don't think we will be seening a huge influx of Dual core games anytime soon.

Obviously if your someone that likes to keep a system for a long time > 3 years I would think the dual core cpu would be the obvious choice.
Currently those Majority of games are single core optomized. and that isn't gonna change anytime soon, no matter what u guy with dual core cpus wanna believe. you aren't the entire market which games are being made for.

i will welcome games with dualcore support arms open, but alot of u are just getting way ahead of yourself. And I think it mostly cause you wanna feel that your X2 is worth the investment. It is for multiples reasons as stated in previous but not for games as yet. so get over it.

While you are correct for the most part I still believe dual cores is the way to go. I was trying to decide between a SD 3700+ and a Opteron 165 and decided to get the opteron. Why? Because I bet I can get close to if not the same overclock on both processors which would render my gaming performance almost even across both of them. The dual core then takes the cake as ANY multitasking I do will be greatly improved as well as the *tiny* improvment gained from the second core running background apps while I game.

There is definitly the chance that my overclock will not pan out and the 3700+ will be higher clocked. That slight difference in FPS will not affect my gaming overly much and will still give me all the benefits of having a second core. I felt it was worth the extra $80 and I plan to pair it with a 7800GTX or X1800** when I am actually buying a new card (right after Christmas).

If you had a comp with all background programs turned off and where benching games (the same way most sites do) then I have no doubt that a higher clocked single core will do better and might even edge out if the clocks where the same though that is unknown. So for a PURE gaming rig, get a higher clocked single core for the same price and be happy about it. For me and other who might actually use there machine for tasks other than gaming, the dual core seems worth it

-spike

 

[The Batt?sai]

i'd get a dual core opteron 939 of course :-D

 

[Markbnj]

Currently those Majority of games are single core optomized

Games are not single core optimized; it's just that they aren't necessarily dual core optimized. But this point has been beaten to death. All modern games are multithreaded. Windows is multithreaded. The video drivers are multithreaded, and at least in nVidia's case optimized for multiple processors. 99% of the other processes are multithreaded. But naturally having another core won't help at all, ever. In most of the cases where these statements are made the sole driver for them is that the poster has a single core CPU. Grats 2 u. Buy what you want, and run what you want, but unless you are a software engineer with Windows programming experience (and I don't mean javascript or VB), then stfu about how software works on that platform, because you don't have the background.

 

[Skyhanger]

Originally posted by: biostud
Interesting read: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games.html

Although the conclusion is that the GPU will be the limiting factor once you crank of for details and resolution, and any modern CPU will do fine.

Looking at the graphs:
Battlefield 2: FX-57 >> 4800+ X2
DOOM III: FX-57 > 4800+ X2
Serious Sam 2: 4800+ X2 > FX-57
Quake IV: 4800+ X2 > FX-57
Call of Duty 2: FX-57 = 4800+ X2

Looking at the graphs, the newer games are starting to use multithreading. (Quake IV loads both cores at 100%) However, most of the older game engines don't utilize dual core yet... So it really depends on what you're running. I would say get a dual core if you don't plan to upgrade for 3 years and plan to play newer games...

 

[Phluxed]

And really, the older games don't need much of a performence boost as it is. They already can handle the game perfeclty. I mean if you're not going to get a X2 because its not optimized for the games out now, yet, youre going to get a 3500+ because it runs the games of today just fine, I don't see the logic unless you're extremely strapped for cash and are coming into an inheritance 1 or 2 years down the road.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Perhaps you should talk with Mark Rein and ask him why his game engine schedules its' own threads then.

Heh, I have known Mark and Tim Sweeney for almost fifteen years. Unreal may schedule its own internal processes all it wants, but it doesn't schedule "threads" in terms of how the OS defines them, and I have no fear whatsoever that Mark (who is the business guy, by the way, not a technical person) would disagree with that.

I've written multithreaded programs under Windows and UNIX. I agree with Mark on this one; you cannot directly choose when a thread will be run.

You can do a lot of funny things with the REALTIME-level threading priorities, CPU affinity settings, marking threads active/inactive, etc. to force the Windows thread scheduler to behave in certain ways, but the final call on what gets to run when is up to the OS. You can set priority levels for threads within your process (which means that when your process gets CPU time, you are choosing which thread/threads to run), but that still does not force the OS to run your threads whenever you tell it to.

If your program has even marginal multi-CPU support, or you have a lot of stuff running in the background, you're probably best off with a dual-core CPU -- as long as the clocks are reasonably close to the single-core one.

If you can get a MUCH faster single-core for the same price as the dual-core, then you will probably get better performance for a mostly- or fully-singlethreaded app by shutting down as many background processes as possible and using the single CPU with a high clockspeed.

 

[Makaveli]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Currently those Majority of games are single core optomized

Games are not single core optimized; it's just that they aren't necessarily dual core optimized. But this point has been beaten to death. All modern games are multithreaded. Windows is multithreaded. The video drivers are multithreaded, and at least in nVidia's case optimized for multiple processors. 99% of the other processes are multithreaded. But naturally having another core won't help at all, ever. In most of the cases where these statements are made the sole driver for them is that the poster has a single core CPU. Grats 2 u. Buy what you want, and run what you want, but unless you are a software engineer with Windows programming experience (and I don't mean javascript or VB), then stfu about how software works on that platform, because you don't have the background.

I can agree with that, lack of optimization for Dual Core Cpu in games.

 

[Makaveli]

I also agree with that phluxed

however if the choice was

3800+ 7800GTX

or X2 3800 + 7800GT

I would take the GTX, if my concerns were mostly gaming.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: foodfightr
Strictly game? Then don't get the FX. The FX is for overclocking hence the multiplier is unlocked!

Games these days are multiple threaded... also a number of other threads will also runing (anti virus, firewall, etc)..... Advantage? Dual Core.

Also, consider the new line of opteron dual cores too!

Wrong. FX CPUs are better than dual-core CPUs for gaming, at this point in time. As dual-core CPU's get faster and greater support in games, this may change. If money is no object, get a high-end FX. If you want better multi-tasking, get an X2.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Skyhanger

Originally posted by: biostud
Interesting read: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games.html

Although the conclusion is that the GPU will be the limiting factor once you crank of for details and resolution, and any modern CPU will do fine.

Looking at the graphs:
Battlefield 2: FX-57 >> 4800+ X2
DOOM III: FX-57 > 4800+ X2
Serious Sam 2: 4800+ X2 > FX-57
Quake IV: 4800+ X2 > FX-57
Call of Duty 2: FX-57 = 4800+ X2

Looking at the graphs, the newer games are starting to use multithreading. (Quake IV loads both cores at 100%) However, most of the older game engines don't utilize dual core yet... So it really depends on what you're running. I would say get a dual core if you don't plan to upgrade for 3 years and plan to play newer games...

But the thing is that the dualcore can easily handle the older games, and will probably handle future games better.

from the conclusion:
In other words, in real gaming conditions the performance will still be limited by the graphics processor, and not by the CPU.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Currently those Majority of games are single core optomized

Games are not single core optimized; it's just that they aren't necessarily dual core optimized. But this point has been beaten to death. All modern games are multithreaded. Windows is multithreaded. The video drivers are multithreaded, and at least in nVidia's case optimized for multiple processors. 99% of the other processes are multithreaded. But naturally having another core won't help at all, ever. In most of the cases where these statements are made the sole driver for them is that the poster has a single core CPU. Grats 2 u. Buy what you want, and run what you want, but unless you are a software engineer with Windows programming experience (and I don't mean javascript or VB), then stfu about how software works on that platform, because you don't have the background.

You keep saying that games are multithreaded and therefore dual cores are the way to go. That is 100% misleading as those games are do not use SMP. Dual cores will provide no benefit to games with w/o SMP.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Skyhanger

Originally posted by: biostud
Interesting read: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games.html

Although the conclusion is that the GPU will be the limiting factor once you crank of for details and resolution, and any modern CPU will do fine.

Looking at the graphs:
Battlefield 2: FX-57 >> 4800+ X2
DOOM III: FX-57 > 4800+ X2
Serious Sam 2: 4800+ X2 > FX-57
Quake IV: 4800+ X2 > FX-57
Call of Duty 2: FX-57 = 4800+ X2

Looking at the graphs, the newer games are starting to use multithreading. (Quake IV loads both cores at 100%) However, most of the older game engines don't utilize dual core yet... So it really depends on what you're running. I would say get a dual core if you don't plan to upgrade for 3 years and plan to play newer games...

THis is with the Nvidia dual core drivers. If you run this with the X1800XT you won't see the 4800 winning alot of these games. Also to finally point out:

The el cheapo 3200+ overclocked to 2.4 GHZ will provide enough performance NOT to bottleneck a 7800GTX. The video card IS the most important part of gaming, and that is why I don't support Dual cores for gaming. Many people say they can oc their 3800+ to 2.5 and be fine with gaming, but you can get a 3200+ for half the price, OC it, and get very similar performance. If your just gaming, would you pay the extra 150 to get like 5 frames from the Nvidia dual core drivers? THat is why I don't think Dual core is worth it for this generation. You can get a cheaper single core solution, and live with that until dual core games become main stream. When that happens, go ahead and buy your dual core processor for the gaming benefits. But as of right now, the Price/performance defenetly goes to the lower model single cores if your just going to be gaming/ surfing the web/ word processing/ or using any non SMP program.