Discussion in 'Computer Games and Consoles' started by ian, Jan 22, 2009.
Techzine Blog post by Scout.
nice reviews thanks Scout,
im glad i choose Quad
for me, there is no point going quad.
Im just gonna get an i7 when he refine the technology and drop power consumption
i have a question. when you say utilizing all 4 cores, do you mean all 4 cores would be used equally or even just 1% of the core being used would count as being utilized? because even in xp, if i was to check the task manager while at standby, i would see that all 4 cores are used but 1 or 2 of them would be working more than the others. this is also noted in your screenshot of Hell Highway. and i apologize if this question come across as being n00b.
they will usually reach like 60 - 75% on load, and then start ith the next core...
so not all the cores are working at 100%.
It basically shares the load better, allowing it to be processed more efficiently
I just happen to have the same processor in my PC (Intel Core 2 Quad 9300) as was in the test, and I would agree with those test results as they are very close to the graphs of my cores when gaming. The main games I play are Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, Call of Duty World at War, Medal of Honor Airborne and Crysis. I always play at the high settings and use a HP 24" 1920x1200 resolution monitor connected by HDMI.
Its interesting that one game will pretty much max out core 4, and another game will max core 3 with the other cores taking up the slack. But when I play any of these games, each of the four cores are are getting a workout for sure.
good article. i think saying that quads will be a necessity in 2009 for gaming is a little extreme, and definitely isn't fact based, but good read nonetheless.
The game developers have been saying this for some time now, and I doubt a developer would come out and say yes, we do support all multi-cores and then not be able to do so. That would just look really bad, which is why I opted to buy a quad core. Not that gaming is most important to me, but all applications of all sorts in the very near future and even right now as we speak utilize multiple cores of a processor.
good article by the way though
Thanks…I am glad you liked it! It means a lot when you call it a nice review!
As you can see...some cores are used more than others. In some of the screen shots you see, they are all used but at different levels and intensity. When my computer is at idle...the cores will spike up to about 5% one at a time.
I was surprised myself…Brothers in Arms is a very processor demanding game. I actually ran the test 3 times just to make sure. The results were the exact same, 4th core wide open.
Thanks for the review! You are correct…it was an extreme statement and maybe I should have chosen my words a little more carefully. Although, some people have a hard time with GTA IV running a 2 core processor right now. I don’t think it is extreme to say that by Q4 2009…dual core processors will be very stressed just trying to play a new release game. That’s just my prediction
Thank you for the review…it means a lot when you also call it a good article. Gaming is not the most important thing for me also. That's what I have read…software developers are really starting to develop programs…even small simple programs…that are coded to utilize 4 cores.
We shall wait for Alan Wake, I've heard a lot about it and it looks promising as a CPU killer.
Looks amazing to me I have seen some wild trailers and read an article about it...and as far as a CPU killer...oh ya
Yes! mostly games use all cores that processor have to make leveling with each processor.
In windows you have a option called "set affinity" in which you can restrict application/thread to certain cores.
I have said this before so I will say it again. Many games out support multi cores, it says so on the box. Fallout 3, man I load different maps almost instantly on that game and get over 60FPS on maximum settings with 8x AA, maxed textures and particle effects. The quad core definitely helps a ton. I bet if I took out my quad and put in a dual core or even a single core processor of the same speed I would get real significant decreases of performance.
Lots of newer game are multithreaded but it is hard for a game to fully utilize every core to the max.
Example from Microsoft regarding multithreading on the Xbox 360
Typical Threaded Tasks
* File Decompression
* Graphics Fluff (includes non game-play physics)
* Game-play Physics
* Most common CPU heavy thread on the Xbox 360
* Easy to multithread
* Allows use of aggressive compression to improve load times
* Don’t throw a thread at a problem better solved by offline processing
o Texture compression, file packing, etc.
Threading File I/O & Decompression
* First: use large reads and asynchronous I/O
* Then: consider compression to accelerate loading
o Don't do format conversions etc. that are better done at build time!
* Have resource proxies to allow rendering to continue
* Separate update and render threads
* Multi-threaded device ownership (D3DCREATE_MULTITHREADED) works poorly
o Exception: Xbox 360 command buffers
* Special case of cascades paradigm
o Pass render state from update to render
* With constant workload gives same latency, better frame rate
* With increased workload gives same frame rate, worse latency
* Extra graphics that doesn't affect play
o Procedurally generated animating cloud textures
o Cloth simulations, hair simulation
o Dynamic ambient occlusion
o Procedurally generated vegetation, etc.
o Extra particles, non game-play-physics, etc.
* Easy to synchronize
* Potentially expensive, but if the core is otherwise idle...?
* Could cascade from update to physics to rendering
o Makes use of three threads
o May be too much latency
* Could run physics on many threads
o Uses many threads while doing physics
o May leave threads mostly idle elsewhere
* Non-game-play physics works fine
* Motion tracking/face tracking
How Many Threads?
* No more than one CPU intensive software thread per core
o 3-6 on Xbox 360
o 1-? on PC (1-4 for now, need to query)
* Too many busy threads adds complexity, and lowers performance
o Context switches are not free
* Can have many non-CPU intensive threads
o I/O threads that block, or intermittent tasks
* Be careful with Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT) threads
o Not the same as double the number of cores
o Can give a small perf boost
o Can cause a perf drop
o Can avoid scheduler latency
* Ideally one heavy thread per core plus some additional intermittent threads
For the full presentation
I just did a simple home test just to see what results I would get. I have seen so many people say it is a total waste of money to buy a Quad Core...not just on this forum by any means. You see it all over the place. I was hoping to make the decision for people wondering what to get a little more informative. I guess if gaming was the only reason you turned on your computer...a 2 core processor might be what you need.
I love my Quad
I can fold wide open with the graphical display showing, itunes playing and Firefox open with about 8 tabs doing all kinds of stuff and it never slows down
I read the article and found this information very useful in selecting what I will be using for my build. I never quite understood what those graphs meant on my computer, hopefully as time progresses I'll be able to understand hardware to the proficiency I understand software.
Alan wake isnt being released for PC guys, sorry I know its sad but we still have stalker
I was loking farward to this game too...where you find this out?
Surely they will release it for pc,immagine the mnoney they would loose.
This month's game informer lists it as 360 only, but they will probably port it over. They are probably doing that to reduce the amount of piracy for the initial sales since the 360 is harder to pirate games on.
Smart marketing move on their part. I'm sure someone will come up with something anyway though. 360's are being modded more and more. I saw someone on Craigslist openly asking how to do it from my area, I just laughed.
Separate names with a comma.