Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Multi-core CPUs: An Idea

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 12, 2008 4:18:06 PM

EDIT: For the sake of context, my idea is only in reference to games, not OS's or other apps.

Hello all,

One of the things that has bothered me about mult-core cpu's is the all important question of whether or not the application you will be using will take advantage of all the cores that your cpu has.

For example, dual core cpu's are the norm right now. However, if one whishes, they could go out and buy a quad core. If you were to buy a game, unless you did in-depth research on the game, you wouldn't know how many cores it supports. Geeks like myself would look into this and see if I could find out if the game supports 'x' number of cores. But the average joe user is likely going to equate that four cores are superior to two cores (which is technically true), therefore I would get better performance out of the four core cpu.

But we know that is not necessarily the case... it all depends on how many threads a game is programmed to take advantage of. I'm sure there are very few games out there that support (take advantage of) quad cores. In comparison, dual core support will be much greater and the joe user who bought the quad proc isn't, in most cases, isn't going to be taking advantage of all four cores, which brings me to my point.

There should be something on a game box that clearly identifies how many cores that game will use. Something simple. Two solid green circles means dual cores are taken advantage of. Four solid green circles would indicate that qaud cores are used. I'm sure you get the idea. There should be something on the game box, as well as on the websites, that indicates how many cores are used by a particular game. In today's world of mult-core cpu's and people wanting to get the best value for their $$$, something like this should be put into place.

I believe there would be much less confusion and questions if something like this were in place.

What do you guys think?

More about : multi core cpus idea

June 12, 2008 4:30:40 PM

I think why? 4 cores ARE better. Even if your game only uses 2 cores, windows and backround tasks can be assigned to the other cores. Assuming equal clock speeds, there is no (or negligable) difference between the performance of a quad and a dual core.

June 12, 2008 4:37:33 PM

atm, quad's are only good for multi-threaded apps. at the most, a game wont even take advantage of a dual core, much less a quad core. It may seem faster because background tasks are pushed to a different core. Right now, if you really wanted to play game, AMD/Intel should release a single core processor that operates > 4+ GHz, and have a backup core for background tasks. (Yes, essentially an OC'd dual core.) But since Intel is now making 3+ GHz quad's, they should see how fast they can push a single/dual core.
Related resources
June 12, 2008 4:44:17 PM

B-Unit,

Quote:
I think why? 4 cores ARE better. Even if your game only uses 2 cores, windows and backround tasks can be assigned to the other cores. Assuming equal clock speeds, there is no (or negligable) difference between the performance of a quad and a dual core.


Yes, I know 4 cores are better as noted in my original post. In answer to your question, why - it's so people don't go out and pay more money for a 4 core cpu that doesn't have much support in games. Why pay for features that aren't likely to be used? If all 4 cores aren't used, you aren't going to see that much difference at all vs. one with fewer cores. If you pay hundreds of dollars more for a four core and don't get to use all four in a game, wouldn't that irritate you? You would be spending more money for a proc that wouldn't give you the money's worth - because the extra cores you paid for aren't being used.
June 12, 2008 4:48:20 PM

the last resort,

Quote:
quad's are only good for multi-threaded apps. at the most, a game wont even take advantage of a dual core, much less a quad core


Exactly. Well said. :) 
June 12, 2008 4:55:32 PM

if you have a quad and a dual core system, and you both use them on a daily basis, you would see the difference between the two. i use both a dual core and quad core system...my q9450 which i am on most of the time, and a secondary system running a E8200 both OC-ed to 3.2 (modest OC i know :p ). i do agree that gaming now rely mostly on clock speed which is why dual cores are efficient for them, but the overall performance in MY opinion and experience is that the quad core is so much smoother in everything else (other applications, windows, multi-tasking etc). i can take my dual core to a very high % CPU usage, while my quad with the programs i use, i can barely get it passed 20% mark. just my experience though, the only time i can max my Q9450 is on prime95. so i feel that a quad is great for everything. i honestly don't think gaming will be a bottleneck if you have a CPU at the 3.2ghz+ range (i could be wrong) but i never noticed any apparently bottlenecking affects. in my opinion, within the next few years, multi-threaded games will be of common place and that is when the multi-core will ultimately shine. hell, when i downloaded the devil may cry 4 demo, the start up screen had a intel icon and it said (runs great on intel Core2 QUADS) i was gleeing with happiness. the future is not too far off my friends. :) 
June 12, 2008 5:01:35 PM

New games do/will have multi-thread capability. What would irritate me more is buying a dual core only to not have the best performance in 6 months when I get all the new quad enabled games.
June 12, 2008 5:16:13 PM

B-Unit said:
New games do/will have multi-thread capability. What would irritate me more is buying a dual core only to not have the best performance in 6 months when I get all the new quad enabled games.


That sounds great on paper, but are there any such games coming down the pike? None that I am aware of. But I certainly could be wrong. But that takes us back to the main point of this thread: perhaps if there were a standard convention for indicating the number of cores used, we would know how many cores a game would use ahead of time.

I am relatively confident that if I bought a dual core e8400 today, there are likely no games that it could NOT be capable of playing over the next two years (no game developer will repeat Crytek's mistake of making a game that isn't playable until long after the game has hit the bargain bins). The vast, critical mass of gamers are still using dual core, and game developers will continue to cater to this population for the foreseeable future.
June 12, 2008 5:19:08 PM

It would be nice to know right on the box, or at least be able to look it up on the game makers website.
Biggest problem i see though, is that you can say a game uses 4 cores, but may use one core at 100% and 5% - 10% on the other cores. Perhaps this would be a good idea for a new website. Review software and rate its multi threadedness in # of cores / efficiency. <shrug> Interesting idea though.
June 12, 2008 5:35:48 PM

B-Unit said:
New games do/will have multi-thread capability. What would irritate me more is buying a dual core only to not have the best performance in 6 months when I get all the new quad enabled games.


I hear you. I just think it would be a good idea to have an industry standard that is used by developers to clearly show the buyer how many cores are taken advantage of by their games. It would be cool to pick up a game and look at the box (or look at the description on a website) and know how many cores will be used. It would better inform the buyer and might affect their decision on whether or not to buy the brand new 'x' core cpu that just came out and costs big bucks.
June 12, 2008 5:42:54 PM

FHDeluxe,

Quote:
Biggest problem i see though, is that you can say a game uses 4 cores, but may use one core at 100% and 5% - 10% on the other cores.


Good point. Let's just hope that the developers in general don't release games with that kind of discrepancy between cores. :sweat: 
June 12, 2008 5:45:42 PM

Heh...

Well.. let me tell ya about my Vista64 bit experience. The CPU usage is quite different. For example, running Super PI (single thread CPU bench) on my old E4400 / XP 32bit, it basically uses one core at 100 percent.

On my Q6600 / Vista 64bit, it actually alternates the loads on the cores. So its not only the game that matters, but what OS your using.

Now I can set the affinity to use just one core, when running Super PI, but the difference is very small (.602 ms on a difference I just ran).

I agree that a quad can make things smoother then a dual. I really haven't ran my E4400 on Vista, but there's not really a reason to.

So I'm just trying to say, don't say that a quad is useless to have if you actually believe it really isn't utilized very much. It's being used pretty well on my Vista system.

And on a side note, my Quad uses 10W more then my E4400 at idle. So the newer 45nm should be less power hungry then my 65nm. Now it will use more power at load (more the 2 cores), but that's a given, since it's 4 cores.

If you ask me, I'm actually surprised how well the cpu usage is not on just one core, but all of them. Game wise, it may not hold benchmark numbers, but hey.. I can play just about anything without it being sluggish on a 8800GTS 512MB (G92).

But hey... if your impressed by benchmark numbers, then go for the dual cores.... It really doesn't matter to me. :lol: 
June 12, 2008 5:48:01 PM

Newsflash, games these days are far more GPU intensive than CPU.

Dual vs. Quad makes a hell of a lot less difference than 8800GTS vs 8600GTS.

Should game manufactuers post benchmarks of how their game runs on common video cards as well?

Where does it end?

Dual Core vs Quad Core makes no difference in 95% of games currently. Also, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to be frustrated that their processor is "too" fast for a game. If you're spending $300 on a CPU, do some research, don't expect Blizzard to do it for you.
June 12, 2008 5:51:18 PM

deuce271 said:
Newsflash, games these days are far more GPU intensive than CPU.


Agreed. I was going to mention that.. but got side tracked. :lol: 
June 12, 2008 5:53:05 PM

Yea I agree with FHDelux, itll be a while before these programmers smell the Starbucks and program things the correct way so a program doesn't use 100% of 1 core like an idiot and barely use other cores.

Plus ppl have been talking about Windows using other cores for background tasks...does it even do that? is this confirmed?
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2008 6:02:36 PM

Quote:
Plus ppl have been talking about Windows using other cores for background tasks...does it even do that? is this confirmed?


You mean the system services and threads that are required to actually keep the OS running? If you open Task manager or a similar service/thread program, you can see everything listed that is being accessed, queued and processed by the CPU at any given second.
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2008 6:15:39 PM

neodude007 said:

Plus ppl have been talking about Windows using other cores for background tasks...does it even do that? is this confirmed?


Yes, Windows - XP and Vista - assigns tasks across multiple cores as needed. No user intervention required.

WRT the gaming points - It is correct that a given app/game needs to be programmed to utilize multiple cores/processors efficiently. (1 app on multiple cores) But on an application level, the OS already does manage what runs where. So even if t a given game is single threaded, since it's demanding, Windows will assign it it's own core and run other tasks on other cores. Each app would have it's own space. ANd the more stuff a given user runs at once, the better a Quad would be utilized.


As for the original post - it's a good idea, but as pointed out the capabilities would vary depending on the app and the OS.
June 12, 2008 6:18:01 PM

Grimmy,

Quote:
So I'm just trying to say, don't say that a quad is useless to have if you actually believe it really isn't utilized very much. It's being used pretty well on my Vista system.


I should have made myself more clear. I'm speaking of multi-core cpu and their relation to gaming, not to the OS or other applications. I should have been more clear about that, sorry.
June 12, 2008 6:18:13 PM

My basic opinion:

XP... the threshold on the CPU usage is different then Vista, which XP may be the same as my linux. It seems the 1 core needs to be at a high usage before the other core would tackle another task on XP, while Vista64 seems to share the task with other cores.

So that is my impression of what I'm observing using XP/Vista64/Super PI.

Even running a single thread game (quake demo) with virus scan, DreamScape (animated wallpaper, and other background programs) all my cores are being used.

But don't take my word for it. :D 

a b à CPUs
June 12, 2008 6:18:52 PM

To play devil's advocate, I see the concept, but most people play a variety of games with different requirements. Buying 1 game with a 2-core recommendation and buying a game with a 4-core recommendation would immediately push the need to quad core.
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2008 6:20:27 PM

kevinator said:
Grimmy,

Quote:
So I'm just trying to say, don't say that a quad is useless to have if you actually believe it really isn't utilized very much. It's being used pretty well on my Vista system.


I should have made myself more clear. I'm speaking of multi-core cpu and their relation to gaming, not to the OS or other applications. I should have been more clear about that, sorry.



The easiest way to think about it is that a multi core processor will be more able to give the game (single threaded or not) it's own sandbox, instead of having to share. No more, no less. :) 
June 12, 2008 6:24:29 PM

Deuce 271,

Quote:
Newsflash, games these days are far more GPU intensive than CPU.


Good point, however my point is still reasonable. What would it hurt to have that info readily available?

Quote:
If you're spending $300 on a CPU, do some research, don't expect Blizzard to do it for you.


I don't expect anything. I'm simply saying it would better inform the user, especially those who aren't technically motivated to dig around and find this stuff out from dev comments, etc.

June 12, 2008 6:28:08 PM

Grimmy,

What's the name of that application you have in your screenshot that shows the load of each core? That's pretty cool.
June 12, 2008 6:36:49 PM

kevinator said:
Grimmy,

Quote:
So I'm just trying to say, don't say that a quad is useless to have if you actually believe it really isn't utilized very much. It's being used pretty well on my Vista system.


I should have made myself more clear. I'm speaking of multi-core cpu and their relation to gaming, not to the OS or other applications. I should have been more clear about that, sorry.


Understood.. I still think games should be based on either single or multiple (2 or more cores). A home user having around 8 physical cores today... well, that's just insane, but still would be somewhat cool. :sol: 
June 12, 2008 6:41:03 PM

kevinator said:
Grimmy,

What's the name of that application you have in your screenshot that shows the load of each core? That's pretty cool.


That app is the windows side bar, which display gadgets. Windows Sidebar is part of the eye candy you get, depending on the kind of info you want on your desktop. (weather/stocks/RSS/CPU/Ect).

Edit:

Oh.. and you can detach it from the sidebar to have it free float anywhere on the desktop.
June 12, 2008 6:48:48 PM

The 10,000th dual core VS quad core debate, with a little forced regulation, about what the game companies have to do, thrown in on top.

Anyone that is too lazy to find out has to deal with the "consequences". No more regulations, God help us, especially frivolous ones. Read some reviews.

Additionally, I would suspect that any new games that are optimized for quad will have a giant stamp on the box saying so, or at least have it in the recommended requirements. If not then I guess they will loose the quad core hype. Most certainly the reviews will lay it out.

I can't believe the "spoon fed" attitude of the OP. That's why the world is in such bad shape to begin with. Get a grip.

June 12, 2008 6:51:37 PM

Grimmy said:
That app is the windows side bar, which display gadgets. Windows Sidebar is part of the eye candy you get, depending on the kind of info you want on your desktop. (weather/stocks/RSS/CPU/Ect).

Edit:

Oh.. and you can detach it from the sidebar to have it free float anywhere on the desktop.


Oh... it's part of Vista. :/  I'm using XP and have no plans to go to Vista anytime soon. But thanks for answering. :) 
June 12, 2008 7:01:48 PM

Zorg said:
The 10,000th dual core VS quad core debate, with a little forced regulation, about what the game companies have to do, thrown in on top.

Anyone that is too lazy to find out has to deal with the "consequences". No more regulations, God help us, especially frivolous ones. Read some reviews.

Additionally, I would suspect that any new games that are optimized for quad will have a giant stamp on the box saying so, or at least have it in the recommended requirements. If not then I guess they will loose the quad core hype. Most certainly the reviews will lay it out.

I can't believe the "spoon fed" attitude of the OP. That's why the world is in such bad shape to begin with. Get a grip.


Dude, what is your problem? "Forced" regulation? Where did I state that? I just think it would be a good idea that could be used to better inform people.

Why are you such a troll? Spoon fed attitude? For your information, I DO read reviews. I DO reasearch my hardware. I DO look at benchmarks. I'm putting forth a simple, simple idea that would go right along with the system requirements and better inform people. Yeah, that's a terrible idea. :sarcastic:  People who come in here with your attitude is what derails a constructive conversation and turns it into a flame war by insulting people. What is your problem?
June 12, 2008 7:14:28 PM

B-Unit said:
I think why? 4 cores ARE better. Even if your game only uses 2 cores, windows and backround tasks can be assigned to the other cores. Assuming equal clock speeds, there is no (or negligable) difference between the performance of a quad and a dual core.


Ummm.. you guys after this guy are all missing what the OP was talking about whether or not this should be implements, and why not?

The sooner this gets into the public's eyes the sooner it will be when more games start to actually use more cores, the more the idea gets pushed into the mainstream market that is when you will find that game makers will then feel pressure to start or at least rbing up the date in which more cores are used...b/c this is kind of ridiculous how long it is taking for them to actually implement more cores to be used...why isn't intel/AMD getting on there cases so they start using more cores, it would in the long run equal more quad cores sales, even if its no that much compared to how many cpu's they normally sell...
a b à CPUs
June 12, 2008 7:19:54 PM

Does anyone have a fire extinguisher handy to put out the sudden flame war?
June 12, 2008 7:19:59 PM

sorry about it the late reply I started to reply but then forgot about it, then came back to it about a few hours later.
June 12, 2008 7:28:54 PM

Heh:

Crysis Recommended Specs Revealed

Quote:
"Minimum System Requirements

OS - Windows XP or Windows Vista
Processor - 2.8 GHz or faster (XP) or 3.2 GHz or faster* (Vista)
Memory - 1.0 GB RAM (XP) or 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
Video Card -256 MB**
Hard Drive - 12GB
Sound Card - DirectX 9.0c compatible

* Supported Processors: Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (3.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, Intel Core 2.0 GHz (2.2 GHz for Vista) or faster, AMD Athlon 2800+ (3200+ for Vista) or faster.

** Supported chipsets: NVIDIA GeForce 6800 GT or greater; ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (Radeon X800 Pro for Vista) or greater. Laptop versions of these chipsets may work but are not supported. Integrated chipsets are not supported. Updates to your video and sound card drivers may be required.

Recommended System Requirements

OS - Windows XP / Vista
Processor - Intel Core 2 DUO @ 2.2GHz or AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+
Memory - 2.0 GB RAM
GPU - NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS/640 or similar


To me... software makers need to be flexible. They can't sell software without making run on older stuff. And something more informative, would perhaps scare and cost more to print on the box. :lol: 

But I have a system that is affordable, running on an older chipset (NV 650i), which is a quad, so I state what my opinion is. Athough, in this case, Crysis is more GPU based but will use all 4 cores when needed.
June 12, 2008 7:30:53 PM

Maybe some of u guys need to know how to use multi-core cpu by setting its affinity manually for each programs you run...

if u want certain programs to use full 100% of a core, you may be better off with quad, even octo!! but if you don't know anything about affinity, then too bad, you don't have enough experience to say dual is same as quad...

I prefer many cores compare to couple of cores... most games may use only one core at the moment, but if you go to fields other than games, multi-core is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

If a program is single threaded and don't need multi-core?? obviously... you don't know how to use ur CPU correctly!! you want 10 single threaded applications to run on across two cores??? or you want 9 single threaded applications to run on one core and another one ONLY on other core?? choice is yours...
June 12, 2008 7:35:34 PM

FrozenGpu said:
Ummm.. you guys after this guy are all missing what the OP was talking about whether or not this should be implements, and why not?

The sooner this gets into the public's eyes the sooner it will be when more games start to actually use more cores, the more the idea gets pushed into the mainstream market that is when you will find that game makers will then feel pressure to start or at least rbing up the date in which more cores are used...b/c this is kind of ridiculous how long it is taking for them to actually implement more cores to be used...why isn't intel/AMD getting on there cases so they start using more cores, it would in the long run equal more quad cores sales, even if its no that much compared to how many cpu's they normally sell...
I don't think that was his point.
June 12, 2008 7:40:38 PM

This thread is almost as bad as 'ps3 vs. xbox 360'. :pfff: 
Before I built my current rig (which is a dual core) I talked to a computer tech at school. He told me to stick to single core because they haven't programmed for dual core yet. That was over two years ago. Now we have quads and the 8 core cell processer (which is being used for COMPARISON) and there are only a handful of things that run those processors to their maximum.

Now, even though the ps3 is different from normal pc's in its market etc... programmers are still trying to utilize all 8 cores efficiently. Duals are just starting to become utilized more than they were a few years ago and quad will follow the same path.

Regardless, it is up to the software that one uses (apps and OS).

I do think that Kevinator has an interesting idea that he might want to trademark before someone steals it ;) 
June 12, 2008 8:00:32 PM

Zorg said:
I don't think that was his point.


Actually, he was pretty much on target. I introduced an idea and asked for thoughts and Frozengpu gave a valid point of view. It was different from my reason for the idea , but I asked for thoughts on it and learned a different benefit that could come from my idea.
June 12, 2008 8:12:30 PM

alphakp295,

Quote:
I prefer many cores compare to couple of cores... most games may use only one core at the moment, but if you go to fields other than games, multi-core is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.


Yeah, I'm only speaking of games. It won't do any good to mess around with the CPU affinity settings if a game doesn't support multi-threading. I should have made it more clear in my original post that I'm only speaking about games. :) 
June 12, 2008 8:14:32 PM

Grimmy said:
To me... software makers need to be flexible. They can't sell software without making run on older stuff. And something more informative, would perhaps scare and cost more to print on the box. :lol: 
Clearly, the game mfgs like to downplay the minimum and recommended requirements, obviously they don't want to scare anyone away if they can avoid it. That's what the reviews are for. I'm sure when they think there are enough quad cores out there they will A. Actually program for them instead of lying and B. Advertise the fact that the game will run better on a quad, instead of lying that it will.

Here is a quote from a review with regards to a Quad and 8800GTX.

IGN: Crysis Review
Quote:
On our Vista test machine with a quad core processor, 4GB RAM, and a single 8800 GTX, we had some pretty significant slowdowns with everything on very high everywhere but the most confined spaces.

And here is a quote from a review about the Quad optimization being BS.

Game On Crysis Turns Up Nose at Quad Core?
Quote:
Still, that's a steady 24-30 fps with either a dual or a quad, and no discernible different between. So I'm a little disappointed that Crytek's Cevat Yerli would say something like this to Shacknews a couple weeks ago.

"Multi-core will be beneficial in the experience, particularly in faster but also smoother framerates. 64-bit and higher memory will yield quicker loading times. We recommend quad core over higher clock."
Quad is still the future, it's only a matter of time. The question is how much time until the game designers get their act together.
June 12, 2008 8:15:37 PM

rabidbunny said:
This thread is almost as bad as 'ps3 vs. xbox 360'. :pfff: 
I have to agree with that.
June 12, 2008 8:19:20 PM

Again, we are talking about GPU intestive, with eye candy, and resolution.

I have Crysis, and noticed that all 4 cores are used when needed. For example, when you blow things up (house) shoot at structures that colapse, shoot down trees, the other cores will react.

I did that test when I was on XP Home Edition, using my Q6600 when I first got it. Heh, as far as the load times... I never did get my stop watch out to compare. :lol: 
June 12, 2008 8:21:10 PM

Zorg said:
I don't think that was his point.
kevinator said:
Actually, he was pretty much on target. I introduced an idea and asked for thoughts and Frozengpu gave a valid point of view. It was different from my reason for the idea , but I asked for thoughts on it and learned a different benefit that could come from my idea.
I don't want to reply to your posts out of order, but so be it. If his valid point is different than your idea then it is by definition not the point that you were trying to make, which is exactly what I said.
June 12, 2008 8:24:19 PM

B-Unit said:
New games do/will have multi-thread capability. What would irritate me more is buying a dual core only to not have the best performance in 6 months when I get all the new quad enabled games.



although we are seeing an emergence of multi-threaded games. i really doubt that when you buy a dual core, it would not give you relatively top notch performance 6 months from now. you have to remember PC developers want to expand their product to as much of the market as possible. as of today, most computers are dual core, and a still fairly large portion are still on single core processors. the high end gaming market is a very small segment of the whole PC gaming market itself, as those are the people that buys extreme edition CPU's and insane graphic cards, but they hardly represent the whole PC gaming market. Crysis being a great exception, because Crytek wanted to push the envelope of what the PC can do, given it took almost one year's time from its original date for fairly mainstream computer hardware to really run it well on a PC. I guess my opinion im stating is, you will be fine with a dual core for at least 2 years to come. (just my opinion haha)

and for the OP! yes....i really agree with you that we should have some sort of X Core #'s on the front of a package, that would very informative, however i have a question....even if, lets say, a game is multi-threaded for a quad, im sure you would still be able to run it on a dual? maybe not as well as the quad, but i think game developers wouldn't want to unintentionally single out a section of the market because of a label on the front of a game box.
June 12, 2008 8:25:08 PM

Grimmy said:
Again, we are talking about GPU intestive, with eye candy, and resolution.

I have Crysis, and noticed that all 4 cores are used when needed. For example, when you blow things up (house) shoot at structures that colapse, shoot down trees, the other cores will react.

I did that test when I was on XP Home Edition, using my Q6600 when I first got it. Heh, as far as the load times... I never did get my stop watch out to compare. :lol: 
Clearly GPU bound, and apparently not very well quad optimized either. Load times would be HD bound anyway.
June 12, 2008 8:28:40 PM

aznguy0028, I agree, I was hoping that the game developers would be faster on the uptake, alas I guess not. When they really get the quad optimized games moving we will know about it, on the box or otherwise.
June 12, 2008 8:38:13 PM

B-Unit said:
New games do/will have multi-thread capability. What would irritate me more is buying a dual core only to not have the best performance in 6 months when I get all the new quad enabled games.


Yeah. People who bought the Q6600 are still waiting for the "around-the-corner-*true*-quad-core-optimized-games".

The funny thing is that the current "quad-core-optimized-games" just catch-up in performance with the higher clocked duals.

The "I-can-take-my-quad-above-3-ghz" argument is rather stupid too, since one could overclock an E8400 to 4.0+ more easily.

I'd rather buy 2 more gigs of RAM with an E8400 than going for an overpriced Quad right now, if I wanted things to run smoother. Nehalem will smoke all the currrent quads, anyway. The only way to compete with it is having raw power (a.k.a MHZ), since almost anything that Joe A. uses can take advantage of 2 threads, let alone 4 of them.
June 12, 2008 8:40:33 PM

aznguy0028,

Quote:
and for the OP! yes....i really agree with you that we should have some sort of X Core #'s on the front of a package, that would very informative, however i have a question....even if, lets say, a game is multi-threaded for a quad, im sure you would still be able to run it on a dual? maybe not as well as the quad, but i think game developers wouldn't want to unintentionally single out a section of the market because of a label on the front of a game box.


I see your point. They could simply have the label says something like this: "Supports up to 4 Cores." That way the buyer would know that the game will use four cores, but would also run on a cpu with less cores.
June 12, 2008 8:47:11 PM

kevinator said:
Dude, what is your problem? "Forced" regulation? Where did I state that? I just think it would be a good idea that could be used to better inform people.

Why are you such a troll? Spoon fed attitude? For your information, I DO read reviews. I DO reasearch my hardware. I DO look at benchmarks. I'm putting forth a simple, simple idea that would go right along with the system requirements and better inform people. Yeah, that's a terrible idea. :sarcastic:  People who come in here with your attitude is what derails a constructive conversation and turns it into a flame war by insulting people. What is your problem?
Methinks thou doest protest too much. If the Game makers want it then it will be there if they don't think there are enough quads out there and they don't want to scare off the duals then they won't.

Here is the quote that led to my confusion about the fact that you were advocating a forced compliance.
kevinator said:
There should be something on a game box that clearly identifies how many cores that game will use. Something simple. Two solid green circles means dual cores are taken advantage of. Four solid green circles would indicate that qaud cores are used.....something like this should be put into place.
Just exactly how would you expect to gain compliance, if not through coercion? Hence my understanding that this was another dual VS quad thread with a twist. The whole dual/quad debate has been raging on for awhile and usually thread starters are looking for a flame war. Maybe you are the Troll?

June 12, 2008 8:49:03 PM

kevinator said:
aznguy0028,

Quote:
and for the OP! yes....i really agree with you that we should have some sort of X Core #'s on the front of a package, that would very informative, however i have a question....even if, lets say, a game is multi-threaded for a quad, im sure you would still be able to run it on a dual? maybe not as well as the quad, but i think game developers wouldn't want to unintentionally single out a section of the market because of a label on the front of a game box.


I see your point. They could simply have the label say something like this: "Supports up to 4 Cores." That way the buyer would know that the game will use four cores, but would also run on a cpu with less cores.


But your forgetting one thing. Joe Average is gonna see "4 Cores" and thats it. So hes gonna freak out and not buy the game because he only has a dual-core. Perhaps its time that they add a line to the sys reqs that states multi-core support (2, 4, etc) but I dont see a need to splash it across the front of the box.

Im still confused on why tho. You have your hardware. Its either a dual core or a quad core. Are you not going to buy a game because its only optimized for 1 core? If you have a quad are you not going to buy games that only use 2? I dont see multi-core support as part of my purchasing decision for games. You know what influences my decision? Is it a fun game? Is this a game that interests me? IF I answer yes to those questions, Ill check Min. Sys Reqs to be sure I can run it, but with an 8800GT, Im not scared of any current games (Crysis exempted).
June 12, 2008 8:51:10 PM

Zorg said:
I don't want to reply to your posts out of order, but so be it. If his valid point is different than your idea then it is by definition not the point that you were trying to make, which is exactly what I said.


Yeah, I see your point now. You are right.
June 12, 2008 8:53:55 PM

Games are really single threaded applications. Just talking games. Maybe one day, advanced AI would need its own core. But really for gaming software buy itself it will always be single threaded system. The OS really needs the other cores more then any game. If you could play 6 levels at once with six different charecters then maybe, but then you would need 6 hands and arms with 3 mouses and 3 keyboards so there is a human biology limitation really.
!