Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

When a game says it needs a 3ghz processor, dual processor?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 8, 2007 9:39:50 AM

When a game mentions requirements of a 3ghz processor, how does this translate to dual cores? I have just installed a e4300 @1.8 ghz, overclocked to 2ghz (i have ddr1 ram so can't do much more yet) so does this mean i therefore have a 4ghz processor speed? Cheers in advance
February 8, 2007 9:55:03 AM

Quote:
When a game mentions requirements of a 3ghz processor, how does this translate to dual cores? I have just installed a e4300 @1.8 ghz, overclocked to 2ghz (i have ddr1 ram so can't do much more yet) so does this mean i therefore have a 4ghz processor speed? Cheers in advance


Mostly it's based on the P4 range of CPUs, so to run that game you'd need a 3GHz P4. Obviosuly C2Ds are better and yours will work fine with it.

And no you cant really double the speed of your CPU if it's dual core, most games don't even utilise a dual core CPU.
February 8, 2007 10:00:17 AM

It still means the game needs a 3Ghz processor. Another core just enables the processor to handle more threads at once. Unless the game is multithreaded it will perform the same on a single or a dual core, to a point anyways. If you run lots of programs in the background the game will run better on a dual core as it can devote an entire core to the game and have the other core run background processes.

No, you can't just add the cores together. Think of a dual core processor as a 2 lane highway and a single core processor as a single lane highway. Put both highways beside each other. If the traffic is light (very few background processes running), it wont matter which you choose, it'll still take the same amount of time to get from point A to B. If the traffic is heavy (many background processes running), then you'll obviously get to point B faster on the 2 lane highway.

Basically the moral of the story is this, a dual core and a single core processor perform the same if each one only has to run the game and a few other minor background tasks. In any other case the dual core will be faster.
Related resources
February 8, 2007 10:16:32 AM

So why are dual cores so widely touted as being so great. IS it just for multimedia designers. I know that my pc will now run games better with my e4300 that my sempron 2800 (and more help due to going from a radeon 9700pro to a NV 7600GT) but should i just have gotten a single core P4 instead (if i was only interested in games hypothetically).
February 8, 2007 10:26:52 AM

Each program has at least one thread or connection to the cpu.Most today have just one.If youre using more than one on your system then it will use both cores (theres always something else running at any given time) Some applications have 2 or more threads to the cpu. As time goes along more and more apps will be multi threaded Thats why dual is better than single. Currently there are only a handfull of games that are multithreaded, but in the future more and more will be, so by buying your 4300 youve essentially futureproofed your system
February 8, 2007 10:29:57 AM

Quote:
should i just have gotten a single core P4 instead (if i was only interested in games hypothetically).


NO! i had to shout it because it would have been a really bad decision. There is some multi-threaded games out already and more will be coming out as everyone is heading that direction so buying a single core over a dual core is a bad decision IMO. Put it this way, if your 4300 was just a single core, it would still kick a P4's arse. Plus, you have got one of the best overclocking cpu's available.

You have made the right choice.
February 8, 2007 10:54:21 AM

You see this is my reasoning for why games under the "Games for Windows" banner should now list their minimum and recommended requirements in terms of the Vista performance rating (the standard specs could be kept for now as well for users buying games that still run XP). The method of measuring the minimum CPU requirements is now totally obsolete, so what is needed is a standardised benchmarking system that can be used - the Vista Performance Index is the best thing we have for that, since it's something that all users of Vista have access to.
February 8, 2007 11:21:44 AM

Quote:
When a game mentions requirements of a 3ghz processor, how does this translate to dual cores? I have just installed a e4300 @1.8 ghz, overclocked to 2ghz (i have ddr1 ram so can't do much more yet) so does this mean i therefore have a 4ghz processor speed? Cheers in advance


As the people have been saying above me... the system "requirements" goes back to the days of when the CPU wars were fought with clock frequencies. Today this isn't the case. Today, a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo would beat the pants off a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz... you see my point? Clock frequencies no longer really matter when looking at it from a gaming point of view.
February 8, 2007 11:27:11 AM

It's not just cores. It's the fact that the Core 2 Duos have a much more efficient microarchitecture, which allows them to perform much better even at lower clock speeds. The fact that it's dual-core is even better, because with proper optimisation games and apps will run much faster. Even unoptimised programs will see a slight advantage. The P4s were terrible, don't think clockspeed is everything.
February 8, 2007 11:49:43 AM

Quote:
You see this is my reasoning for why games under the "Games for Windows" banner should now list their minimum and recommended requirements in terms of the Vista performance rating (the standard specs could be kept for now as well for users buying games that still run XP). The method of measuring the minimum CPU requirements is now totally obsolete, so what is needed is a standardised benchmarking system that can be used - the Vista Performance Index is the best thing we have for that, since it's something that all users of Vista have access to.


So, who is going to be using Vista? Nobody with any sense.
February 8, 2007 12:00:10 PM

Quote:
When a game mentions requirements of a 3ghz processor, how does this translate to dual cores? I have just installed a e4300 @1.8 ghz, overclocked to 2ghz (i have ddr1 ram so can't do much more yet) so does this mean i therefore have a 4ghz processor speed? Cheers in advance


A Core 2 Duo is much faster at processing the same instructions even though it has a lower clock speed, as many here have replied. Also, as has been stated, not many games use dual cores, although having one allows the game to run on one core and background cpu processes run on another (assuming the os is doing it's job....debatable in XP). And newer games (some coming out fairly quick) will utilize dual cores.

It would help you to look here at the cpu charts where I have selected FEAR, and a E6400 (2.1Ghz) against a Pentium D 940 (3Ghz dual core P4). You can see that the E6400 is 41% faster, even though it has a far slower clock speed. (the selected cpu's will be highlighted in red)

You can also see that the dual core P4 (a pentium d means P 4 dual core) is only 1 frame faster than a regular single core p4 if you look at the cpu's below the Pentium D 540. This means not only did the game not receive any benefit from the dual cores becuase it couldn't use them (1 fps is basically no benefit) but it also shows how much more efficient the architecture of the Core2Duo is.

The E6400 also beats out the Pentium EE 965, a 3.733Ghz dual core processor, by a minimum 10% in most of the gaming benchmarks. That means, by the old cpu standards (and doing some funny math extrapolation), that a 2.13Ghz E6400 is about the same as a 4.1Ghz P4. At your overclock rate, your processor is theoretically 6.5% slower than an E6300, but still far above any netburst Pentium 4/Pentium D made.

Centurion
February 8, 2007 12:19:24 PM

a processor is basically a super fast maths machine.

in comparison to the real world take a 18 yr old Wizz Kid and a 30yr old normal guy and put them infront of a complex Maths exam who would finish first?

the Wizz Kid of course

now ask what has age got to do with it?
absolutly nothing.
each persons brain acts differently. the same can be said for CPUs a 1.8GHZ e4300 will perform better than a 3.0GHz P4
GHZ has nothing to do with it

except of course

18 year old wizz kid grows up to be a 26 year old Postgrad Maths student he will perform the same test better at 26 than when he was 18 even tho he is the same person
same with CPUs
1.8GHZ C2d will be outperformed by a 2.6GHZ C2d

so GHZ can be compared accross the same line of CPUs

now then onto dual core!!!

put 2 18 year old wizz kids infront of one maths equation they will take exactly the same time as one 18yr old wizz kid doing the same question

now give them 2 equations of equal difficulty the 2kids will finish in the same time it took to do the original one question however the one kid on his own will have to do one then the other therefore taking twice the time

again same with CPUs
get a DC processor to run one complex task it will perform the same as a single core (of same spec)

get a dual core to run 2 complex tasks it will often perform twice as quick as a single core (of same spec).

at the moment most games are essentially one complex task so do not get benefits of dual core systems (a few do however)

this is a simplistic approach to DC vs SC and there are more complex procedures going on read around to find out about them words such as Multithreading will help
February 8, 2007 1:10:15 PM

Yakyb, you need to save this explanation and present it to anyone ever asking this type of question again.
February 8, 2007 1:22:44 PM

good point Will do!!
February 8, 2007 2:20:52 PM

Do you know what is the fastest cpu in teh Whole world????
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tha HUMAN BRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 8, 2007 2:36:39 PM

hmm now thats open to debate. seeing as a brain acts as both a hard drive and CPU.

also what is 928346*98236?
im sure the computer can do that faster than the human brain hell try doing what super pi does in 30s in your brain.

i would suggest that a human brain is more like a 100 core processor with a lot of them dedicated to individual functions that wouldnt be much good at doing other things (cpu cant act as a Gpu)
February 8, 2007 5:19:50 PM

Quote:
When a game mentions requirements of a 3ghz processor, how does this translate to dual cores? I have just installed a e4300 @1.8 ghz, overclocked to 2ghz (i have ddr1 ram so can't do much more yet) so does this mean i therefore have a 4ghz processor speed? Cheers in advance


As the people have been saying above me... the system "requirements" goes back to the days of when the CPU wars were fought with clock frequencies. Today this isn't the case. Today, a 1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo would beat the pants off a Pentium 4 2.8Ghz... you see my point? Clock frequencies no longer really matter when looking at it from a gaming point of view.

This just shows that the GhZ myth is still alive and well. :evil: 

The problem is that there is no objective way for either company to show a consumer which one is faster anymore. Originally there was only clock speed. Then the Athlon came along and because of the way chips were marketed, AMD had to come up with model numbers that would denote the performance against Intel's chips (because regular joe blow consumer is stupid and goes by the advertising).

I don't think that the Ghz myth is really applicable in this case, it is a misunderstanding of what a dual core does. The OP is actually somewhat correct in his assumption, as a multithreaded app would appear like it was running on a single core 4Ghz machine if it was 100% scalable.

Intel just FUDed up the waters when they came out with the models for the last gen P4's with the Pentium triple number naming scheme. Which was solely done in order to confuse joe consumer so that direct comparisons could no longer be made. It would be nice if Intel and AMD came up with a standard rating system (like bhp/0-60 times on engines) so that the regular consumer could tell what was faster when they were shopping at Best Buy.

Although it would be funny if they added verbage to the E6400 and called it the "Core2Duo E6400 8000+ processor"

Centurion
February 8, 2007 9:02:27 PM

Quote:
When a game mentions requirements of a 3ghz processor, how does this translate to dual cores? I have just installed a e4300 @1.8 ghz, overclocked to 2ghz (i have ddr1 ram so can't do much more yet) so does this mean i therefore have a 4ghz processor speed? Cheers in advance

When a game mentions that it requires a 3GHz CPU it means nothing more but that the persons that wrote that piece of text were:
a.Complete idiots knowing nothing about CPU nomenclature and performance
b.Pre-Core2 Intel-biased individuals trying to sell 3G+ P4s
February 8, 2007 9:05:30 PM

Quote:
You see this is my reasoning for why games under the "Games for Windows" banner should now list their minimum and recommended requirements in terms of the Vista performance rating (the standard specs could be kept for now as well for users buying games that still run XP). The method of measuring the minimum CPU requirements is now totally obsolete, so what is needed is a standardised benchmarking system that can be used - the Vista Performance Index is the best thing we have for that, since it's something that all users of Vista have access to.


So, who is going to be using Vista? Nobody with any sense.
Not now, but people will eventually, and will have no choice when DX10 only games come out. I know the majority of people will be using XP for the next 6 months to a year, thats why I'd run the Vista performance rating alongside the current system requirements for now.
February 8, 2007 9:28:11 PM

I'm assuming you're talking about supreme commander?
lol maybe not, but if you are,
this game does support dual-core, and almost requires a dual core processor to get good performance, even though the minimum recommendation is a 3ghz pentium 4. (which the e4300 will outperform, even before you count the fact that the game utilizes both cores.)
February 8, 2007 9:52:44 PM

I would like to see the gaming industry redo those required specs on some of those games. It can be missleading/confusing to some people.
February 8, 2007 10:11:16 PM

Quote:
You see this is my reasoning for why games under the "Games for Windows" banner should now list their minimum and recommended requirements in terms of the Vista performance rating (the standard specs could be kept for now as well for users buying games that still run XP). The method of measuring the minimum CPU requirements is now totally obsolete, so what is needed is a standardised benchmarking system that can be used - the Vista Performance Index is the best thing we have for that, since it's something that all users of Vista have access to.


So, who is going to be using Vista? Nobody with any sense.
Not now, but people will eventually, and will have no choice when DX10 only games come out. I know the majority of people will be using XP for the next 6 months to a year, thats why I'd run the Vista performance rating alongside the current system requirements for now.

Hehe, I'm running Vista right now and it's ace. Looks lovely and runs smoother than XP due to Superfetch. Runs all my games fine. No problems or bugs whatsoever (famous last words!).

My only caveat would be that it eats RAM ...
February 9, 2007 8:27:27 AM

I wasn't talking about a specific game, but the trend will be over time more and more people will switch to Vista for one reason or another, and sooner or later people will have to move. I'm sure that we can all agree that the current system for minimum and recommended requirements is totally obsolete and confusing for your average consumer in terms of CPU requirements, and to a lesser extent GPU requirements. Since there are already a few people running Vista now, and most people will switch when they get a new PC, that's the reasoning for using the Vista performance rating system - it gives the average consumer a definitive figure that their computer is above or below. The games explorer already utilises this I believe, so I think it's only a matter of time before this filters down to the game boxes too.
February 10, 2007 10:16:53 AM

Quote:
hmm now thats open to debate. seeing as a brain acts as both a hard drive and CPU.

also what is 928346*98236?
im sure the computer can do that faster than the human brain hell try doing what super pi does in 30s in your brain.

i would suggest that a human brain is more like a 100 core processor with a lot of them dedicated to individual functions that wouldnt be much good at doing other things (cpu cant act as a Gpu)


i think you mean 100quadrillion cpu's :D 
a c 172 à CPUs
February 10, 2007 11:06:13 AM

Quote:

i would suggest that a human brain is more like a 100 core processor with a lot of them dedicated to individual functions that wouldnt be much good at doing other things (cpu cant act as a Gpu)


And the OS has a LOT of overhead.

john
February 10, 2007 7:39:53 PM

go by performance, not clock speed. games are now being developed to take advantage of dual core, so it would be stupid to buy a single core gaming solution

taco it runs much better then that lol

although u may not like vista, there are certainly a bunch of good features with it, considering xp has 5 year support, u can wait a while till the recs for vista are completly obsolete before buying a comp that can handle it, but i agree that the games for windows to standardize everything is a gd idea
!