No dual core love in 2015

[cbn]

I write from my 2008-build Core 2 Quad Q9550 - £200 then - and it's a little sad that six years later that the entry level state of the art hasn't surpassed this. I guess Intel like making too much money.

A stock speed Pentium G2020 (2.9 Ghz Ivy Bridge dual core) did pretty good against that Q9550 according to last years Tom's hardware comparo:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-20.html

So that is a case where relatively new low end dual core is doing well against Q9550.

With that mentioned, it looks like the Q9550 did better against Pentium G2020 specifically in Crysis 3 that the composite results (above) suggest:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-wolfdale-yorkfield-comparison,3487-10.html

 

[cbn]

P.S. I actually own a Xeon E5440 powered dell pre-built---> http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2408974&highlight= (Same clocks and cache as Q9550 on the cheap)

Looking forward to seeing how that Q9550 equivalent processor holds up to modern gaming.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Intel kickbacks, maybe?...

So Intel is paying other people to do harm to Intel?

Talk about out of the box thinking. D:

 

[Lepton87]

Maybe some games just need 4 threads and won't work on two regardless of the performance of those two threads. Maybe contex switches are killing those dual cores or maybe something else that just requires their own threads at all time be it physical or logical. I wish games would make better use of hexcores, they have been on the market for a long time, to mention 8 threaded Intel's i7s. So even though only 2% of gamers have more than 4 cores there's lots of gamers with 4C/8T or those cheap 8 cores from AMD. The market for 8 threads should be quite big by now. 8 threaded CPUs have been selling for years. Even my laptop has 8 threads.

 

[sandorski]

Why would a dual core at 4Ghz+ perform worse than a quad core at 2Ghz?

Why would it perform the same?

 

[SPBHM]

it's ridiculous because it's simply not working, it's not about people complaining about performance, or lack of performance optimization, I don't see why they can't simply make it work, even at 1FPS, instead of an error message or black screen

g3258s can play crysis 3 and BF4 MP, somewhat well, and these also have some heavy optimization for MT

 

[Lepton87]

TLDR: Short answer. If the cpu can sustain 100% utiliziataion the dual core would be faster. In real life there are many bottlenecks that prevent 100% utilization. Here are some.



1) Because the cache is only so big and so fast. You may finish the "math problem" really fast at 4ghz but if clock cycles are wasted pulling the next problem from ram memory and this is a big bottleneck. Wasted clock cycles are wasted math problems the computer wants to do but can't.

2) There are things like hyperthreading which allows you to do another thread while you wait when you are waiting for a result to come from another core or memory. For example the math problem A+B+C+D. The programer/complier designed the problem to be computed like this

A+B=X
C+D=Y
X+Y=A+B+C+D

Hyperthreading allows you to do the next step C+D as long as its on a separate thread, when the computer waits for B to be retrieved from memory for both A+B have to be in cache before the computer can do the math problem.

3. What about juggling between threads and wasting cycles on contex switches especially if the game needs the acess to 4 threads almost all the time? I thought that might also affect performance and frame time variance.

it's ridiculous because it's simply not working, it's not about people complaining about performance, or lack of performance optimization, I don't see why they can't simply make it work, even at 1FPS, instead of an error message or black screen

g3258s can play crysis 3 and BF4 MP, somewhat well, and these also have some heavy optimization for MT

I can think of only one thing, the game is design to always run at least 3 or 4 threads in parralel all the time, which it can't do on a dual threaded CPU. Nothing else preventing the game from even starting on 2t CPU comes to my mind.

 

[sandorski]

it's ridiculous because it's simply not working, it's not about people complaining about performance, or lack of performance optimization, I don't see why they can't simply make it work, even at 1FPS, instead of an error message or black screen

g3258s can play crysis 3 and BF4 MP, somewhat well, and these also have some heavy optimization for MT

Roland and Lepton are pointing out technical reasons to your questions.

I remember way back in the before time being ticked off because Sierra games essentially did the same thing to the Cyrix 120+ I was using. It simply refused to run many games that didn't meet Minimum spec. Whether the games would have ran, I don't know, but I was quite angry about it at the time. In retrospect performance was likely absolute crap.

AMD was right about More Cores, that is the solution going forward. It just has taken some time for Software Developers to catch up. How long it will be the solution to greater computational power remains to be seen, but for now and for a few years even that's what has pushed things forward.

 

[SPBHM]

anyone tried setting affinity to 2 cores after loading the game?

let's say use an i5, launch the game (preferably in windowed mode), load a level, go to task manager and switch the game processes affinity to just 2 cores!? it could crash or run slowly, if it runs slowly it's 100% BS not allowing the game to launch with dual cores!?

 

[toyota]

it's ridiculous because it's simply not working, it's not about people complaining about performance, or lack of performance optimization, I don't see why they can't simply make it work, even at 1FPS, instead of an error message or black screen

g3258s can play crysis 3 and BF4 MP, somewhat well, and these also have some heavy optimization for MT

no way any dual core is playing Cryris 3 worth a crap. someone with G3258 already made that claim and then at least manned up and came back to report the truth. Crysis 3 even pegs quad cores in many areas and I see over 80% cpu usage at times even with an oced 4770k.

 

[SPBHM]

it's definitely not running at 1FPS or giving you error messages and black screens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRosY16FSnc

not as good as a better CPU, but not a disaster

use a 30FPS max cap and you have a smooth experience with a very cheap dual core, it's not for everyone's taste, but it gets the job done

totally different case from these newer games

 

[toyota]

it's definitely not running at 1FPS or giving you error messages and black screens

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRosY16FSnc

not as good as a better CPU, but not a disaster

use a 30FPS max cap and you have a smooth experience with a very cheap dual core, it's not for everyone's taste, but it gets the job done

http://pclab.pl/zdjecia/artykuly/radek/2014/pentium_g3258/charts/c3_j1920n.png

totally different case from these newer games

capping the game at 30 fps is smooth? um not to most people. plus I guarantee that minimums will be in the 20s in many spots which is a horrible experience in a pc game.

 

[SPBHM]

capping the game at 30 fps is smooth? um not to most people. plus I guarantee that minimums will be in the 20s in many spots which is a horrible experience in a pc game.

it's horrible for a high end PC sure, not for a cheap dual core

30FPS with consistent frame times is smooth, not as smooth as consistent 60FPS sure.

40min of 750 TI + dual core with some nice graphics and stable enough framerate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4H_PtJS6c

but my points is not defending dual cores as good performers for these games, just as sufficient for launching and showing a few frames per second on heavily multi threaded games

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Why would a dual core at 4Ghz+ perform worse than a quad core at 2Ghz?

It would and it wouldn't. Depends on the application and how it was programmed. There are use cases where either one would be preferable.

Anyway, this just looks like lazy programmers writing code that assumes 4 cores.

 

[toyota]

it's horrible for a high end PC sure, not for a cheap dual core

30FPS with consistent frame times is smooth, not as smooth as consistent 60FPS sure.

40min of 750 TI + dual core with some nice graphics and stable enough framerate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F4H_PtJS6c

but my points is not defending dual cores as good performers for these games, just as sufficient for launching and showing a few frames per second on heavily multi threaded games

and my point is with Crysis 3 its NOT smooth even on that G3258 as you will drop in the 20s at times plu no way most people consider average in the 30 fps acceptable.

 

[SPBHM]

and my point is with Crysis 3 its NOT smooth even on that G3258 as you will drop in the 20s quite a bit.

and that's not a big deal for a cheap dual core on an "4+ cores" game, watch the 40 mins of video, it would be a very decent experience compared to the next gen consoles which also have a ton of "30FPS" games with some drops,

it's almost always hitting the 30fps target, looks pretty smooth.

 

[toyota]

and that's not a big deal for a cheap dual core on an "4+ cores" game, watch the 40 mins of video, it would be a very decent experience compared to the next gen consoles which also have a ton of "30FPS" games with some drops,

it's almost always hitting the 30fps target, looks pretty smooth.

a video playing of 30 fps of course looks smooth. actually playing a pc game at 30 fps looks and feels like crap though.

 

[SPBHM]

a video playing of 30 fps of course looks smooth. actually playing a pc game at 30 fps looks and feels like crap though.

my last post on this subject:

a 30fps video from a 30fps game should be fair, it feels crap when you play if frame delivery is not very even, not always close to 33.3ms and also when you control the camera, have some very fast action going on, but on the video he using a gamepad (which helps making the motion feel smooth compared to high sensitivity mouse at this framerate), going with 30FPS for a console-like experience, and it's working great...

now as I said before, this is not good compared to high end PCs, but for very cheap and "bellow requirements" (this game was heavily advertised as using more than 4 threads well) hardware it's quite nice, it not only runs but it looks playable, unlike the new games, which is the only reason I mentioned Crysis 3,

 

[cbn]

no way any dual core is playing Cryris 3 worth a crap. someone with G3258 already made that claim and then at least manned up and came back to report the truth. Crysis 3 even pegs quad cores in many areas and I see over 80% cpu usage at times even with an oced 4770k.

I think this is the post you are referring to:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36843740&postcount=56

Crysis 3 eats quads for breakfast in spots so I see no way you stay in the 40s with just 2 cores. plus there is no way you are not stuttering with that dual core cpu. I tried running just 2 cores in that game and it was not smooth. heck that game is one of the reasons I upgraded from the 2500k I had. I see over 80% usage at times even on my 8 thread 4770k.

You're right actually. I had only played through the first two levels. Once I got to the large outdoor map with all the moving grass it brought me down to 25-30fps. It's still playable but it would be much better with a quad core CPU.

That being said, this is the *only* game where I have had a problem. The only other one that might have issues is Metro Last Light.

So its not really that bad.

P.S. With regard to playability (in general for OC G3258), I think CPU to GPU balance needs to be factored in as well. I can totally understand folks with large video cards (running high resolution/detail settings) not being happy with such a low end processor. But paired with a smaller video running lower detail settings the gameplay is pretty much stutter free in my experience.

 

[VirtualLarry]

So Intel is paying other people to do harm to Intel?

Talk about out of the box thinking. D:

You mean the same sort of "Harm to Intel" that Intel themselves is doing by not allowing their SSD caching feature of their H97 / Z97 chipsets to work if you bought a Pentium CPU?

 

[toyota]

my last post on this subject:

a 30fps video from a 30fps game should be fair, it feels crap when you play if frame delivery is not very even, not always close to 33.3ms and also when you control the camera, have some very fast action going on, but on the video he using a gamepad (which helps making the motion feel smooth compared to high sensitivity mouse at this framerate), going with 30FPS for a console-like experience, and it's working great...

now as I said before, this is not good compared to high end PCs, but for very cheap and "bellow requirements" (this game was heavily advertised as using more than 4 threads well) hardware it's quite nice, it not only runs but it looks playable, unlike the new games, which is the only reason I mentioned Crysis 3,

sorry but that is simply not true. every video of game being played at 30 fps will look fine but actually playing will not. of course my pc can maintain solid 30 fps if I capped it but AGAIN it looks and feels horrible. 30 fps looks like stuttery crap when panning around in real time but that does not show up when watching playback of the gameplay. I know this because I used to record gameplay videos all the time. when I watch them I would just laugh knowing the actual game looked no where near that smooth.

 

[cbn]

50 FPS for Crysis "Welcome to the Jungle" is actually a pretty good frame rate (although needing a hefty 4.7 Ghz OC). This is better than the 25 to 30 FPS reported by SickBeast on the ~same level.

 

[toyota]

50 FPS for Crysis "Welcome to the Jungle" is actually a pretty good frame rate (although needing a hefty 4.7 Ghz OC). This is better than the 25 to 30 FPS reported by SickBeast on the ~same level.

those framerates for all the cpus seem way too high in that area so it makes me questions exactly how they tested.

 

[SPBHM]

50 FPS for Crysis "Welcome to the Jungle" is actually a pretty good frame rate (although needing a hefty 4.7 Ghz OC). This is better than the 25 to 30 FPS reported by SickBeast on the ~same level.

well, that's just an average, I'm not sure how they tested, but on the same post I think the video I've posted with a 760 comparing it with an i7 also shows some action on during welcome to the jungle, you can clearly see the pentium struggling but still, looks playable.

 

[Fred B]

Been running in dual core mode from my 3570K by disabling 2 cores in he BIOS , for older games and with xp it is faster than with 4 cores. By clocking to higher settings it become the fastest dual core.