Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Where The Hell Is My Quad-Core-Gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 10, 2009 10:32:26 PM

Because I can't find it anywhere, except for a few RTS games with dozens of gazillions of virtual players managed by AI. It has been promised between the lines ever since the Q6600 came around, and I don't quite believe it will ever show its pretty face to me.

http://www.shacknews.com/laryn.x?story=59493

Now that Remedy said Alan Wake PC release is "up in the air", I'm wondering which -possible- upcoming releases will be used as FUD, hype or whatever for a gamer to spend the extra cash in 4 cores. I'll have mine for professional reasons, but that's it, folks.

Honestly, the "PC Gaming Alliance" is a joke and I suspect it won't be long before I have to buy a console in order to play half-decent games.

Perhaps Blizzard and Diablo 3 will keep me going for it, but I can't remember anything else.

DirectX 11? Microsoft doesn't look that much interested in PC gaming anymore, since the Xbox has been kind of a rough path for them and they need some "exclusive deals" in order to keep it going. Microsoft had signed on to publish Alan Wake for the PC platform, and now we get to know this.

Games For Windows Live is the saddest joke to ever come out of Redmond and grace PC gaming.

Nvidia is firing on all cylinders to get "GPU-accelerated applications" out on the shelves and doesn't seem to care that much about what used to be its bread and butter. ATI simply doesn't have what it takes to be in a leadership position in the near term, since it's basically fighting for survival.

Intel is going for Larrabee, but that's even more "up in the air" than Alan Wake PC release or anything else. AMD has "AMD GAME" (ha) and the basic expectations of remaining alive until Bulldozer finally grace us.

God, are you listening to me? What about any other forum members? I'm mad here.

More about : hell quad core gaming

July 10, 2009 11:24:41 PM

What exactly are you mad about?

You start on quads when most games aren't written for multiple cores. After that you go into graphics companies. I looked at your system config and several of the components you don't even have. What is the issue and what is in your system?
a b à CPUs
July 10, 2009 11:31:43 PM

As I have doubts about multi threaded games appearing until at least a couple of years after DX11 has been with, us and these doubts have been with me for a while, I stand by my decision to build a Dual core based rig for gaming personally and every recommendation I have made that others do likewise. IMHO there has been far too much hyping of Quad cores for gaming without sufficient evidence to legitimise said hype.
Related resources
July 11, 2009 12:37:43 AM

ausch30 said:
What exactly are you mad about?

You start on quads when most games aren't written for multiple cores. After that you go into graphics companies. I looked at your system config and several of the components you don't even have. What is the issue and what is in your system?


This is not a rant about Quad-Cores, but about Quad-Cores + gaming. I talked about the graphics companies because they also play a big role in this whole situation, although even they do not seem quite enthusiastic about PC gaming as of now.

My current rig is an AMD X2 4400 + 4 GBs DDR2 1066@800 MHz G.Skill + ATI Radeon HD4670. I'll have to check the specs I stated in my profile, because I'm always buying and selling hardware. I was going for an Intel rig, but then I decided to go the Phenom II route. I bought a GA-MA790X-UD4P recently and I'm waiting for the Phenom II 965 to be launched.

Problem is I'm going quad mainly due to professional reasons, so, it's not JUST about gaming - in my case. The "issue" I'm talking about here is users and reviewers pushing quad-cores relevance with regards to gaming - or possible future gaming - when no game shows substantial benefits when using more than 2 cores AND the games which were supposed to change that are now being cancelled or delayed or whatever.

Alan Wake was supposed to be the uber demonstration of what a quad-core could bring to PC gaming. Remedy and Intel showed off a demo of super-duper special effects used in the game when it was paired with a Nehalem (perhaps Core 2 Quad, but I don't remember for sure). And now what? The developer comes and says it's not sure whether everything they showed off on the damn circus will ever come to light - unless we talk the Xbox 360 version.

I think that anyone who was really looking forward to seeing this promised change in the realms of PC gaming should be a little sad about what this announcement from Remedy means to PC gamers.
July 11, 2009 1:41:45 AM

You want quad core gaming, you're going to have to mainly go to the flightsims. FSX will use as many cores as you can give it, the latest WWI sim, Rise of Flight, though they are fixing many bugs shows a noticable improvement from dual to quad something like 30% improvement and next years, (really crossing my fingers on this one) Storm of War: Battle of Britian will be coded similar to RoF. Outside of that the RTS, and Supreme Commander I guess that's it.
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2009 1:49:54 AM

dude phenom ii 965 will have a 140w tdp, really want to go that route?
wait for other revisions
July 11, 2009 2:38:25 AM

^ I'm not too sure about the 140w TDP, but I suppose the 955's price will come down, anyway.
July 11, 2009 2:45:22 AM

sdf said:
You want quad core gaming, you're going to have to mainly go to the flightsims. FSX will use as many cores as you can give it, the latest WWI sim, Rise of Flight, though they are fixing many bugs shows a noticable improvement from dual to quad something like 30% improvement and next years, (really crossing my fingers on this one) Storm of War: Battle of Britian will be coded similar to RoF. Outside of that the RTS, and Supreme Commander I guess that's it.


I'll search for Rise of Flight, but I think Microsoft has 'disbanded' the guys responsible for making Flight Simulator.

What I think it's unfair is that some developers promised AND demo'ed games that should be able to take great advantage out of quad-cores, and then they come back to you and say they have no clue as to whether a PC version will be available. I mean, WTH! Nobody seems to be willing to push the envelope with regards to PC gaming, including developers, Microsoft and hardware makers.
a c 83 à CPUs
July 11, 2009 3:38:10 AM

The Unreal 3 Engine based games make use of 4 cores, so does GTA4.
a c 105 à CPUs
July 11, 2009 3:44:18 AM

dattimr said:
I mean, WTH! Nobody seems to be willing to push the envelope with regards to PC gaming, including developers, Microsoft and hardware makers.


You hit the nail on the head but you fail to realize why.

Game developers;
They have no desire to push CPU and graphic development. They are in the business of selling games and games that sell the most are the ones that can be published across several platforms or played on as many computers as possible. Most gaming PC's are mid-level dual cores with 8800GT level graphics. Making games for anything above that is a sure fire way to achieve failure since quad core PC gamers with mid-high end GPU's are a niche. The top four best selling games of the past 12 months; WoW WotLK, Sims3, Spore, and WoW battle chest (all fine games). Valve and Blizzard make sure their games can be played on as many PC's as possible. H-L2 ep3, L4D2, Diablo III and SC2 will not push the hardware envelope, although I'm sure all the games will be great.
Bethesda and Bioware create games that run on the PC, Xbox360, and PS3. For them, there is no reason to develop a PC game that can't be played on the console. Crytek...Crysis & Warhead sold so well they said we are going multi-platform (aka console sales is where the money is) route with Crysis 2.

Microsoft
They have a horse in the console race. They treat PC gaming like the red headed step child and you already know about Games For Windows Live, better know as the service that tells PC gamers, "screw you buy a Xbox360!". Windows 7 will great but sales are projected to be slow. The average PC user has little desire to upgrade their OS, even from Vista. Gamers will embrace it but once again, its a niche audience.

hardware makers
Intel, Nvidia, AMD/ATI, they also need to sell parts to the masses, like game developers. For the past few years laptops have outsold desktops PCs, this trend will not reverse itself. Laptops with integrated graphic chips and slow (2.0 - 2.4Ghz) dual core processors, horrible for gaming, fine to play WoW, Sims, and Spore on. The big thing in computer sales, netbooks...perfect to max out Crysis... :ange:  The big thing in desktops....slim line PC....try sticking a 4870x2 into one. Computers are moving away from being faster and are now focused on being portable, the hardware makers are focused on supplying that demand.
a b à CPUs
July 11, 2009 9:48:51 AM

Even though the Aces (FSX) team has been disbanded due to FSX's SDK there are many 3rd party developers really expanding it's functionality.
For example one developer A2ASimulations
http://www.a2asimulations.com/
has recently implemented what's called accu sim into their FSX add ons
http://www.a2asimulations.com/AS.html
Their Boeing 377 Stratocruiser add on for example is a masterpiece of complexity and modeling with extensive engine management and procedures
There are other developers doing similar things such as this so FSX is not dead at all.
July 11, 2009 10:09:55 AM

I understand alot of excuses are bandied about here, but Alan Wake was to be the FC, th Oblivion, the Crysis game, as it would push the boundaries, as we see with some games, where Crysis is till waiting for HW to catch up. To blame it all on the devs isnt right, maybe their backers, but not them. M$ wants exclusives for the xbox, and they arent using quads.
I said along time ago, this push towards quads was a lot of air, as we teally see few average Joe benefits with them in common everyday apps. And thatd be awhile before we see them. If quads were so good for average Joe, then youd see a much wider marketshare than they currently have.
I agree with dattimer, in that gaming is usually a step ot two ahead, and moving in this direction should have been seen in a much wider way than it currently is, with not really even a handfull of games using them, and to make a promise or show it, and then back out is truly a let down, because if not gaming to help push the bubble for quads, anyone think its going to be video encoding? Really? Especially with gpgpu on the rise, that claim too will disappear for quad usage as well
July 11, 2009 10:45:29 AM

^ except on-GPU video encoding is pretty poor at the moment and needs quite a bit of work to optimise it enough.
July 11, 2009 12:56:51 PM

If you want HD/DVD quality, but alot dont, alot dont even have Hi Def, or just want mobile etc, and they stomp the best i7s ever made
Check it out, its expanding its app base, and killin cpus along the way
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_c...

"Even compared to a fast Core i7 CPU, our relatively modest GeForce GTX 260 with 216 Stream Processors offered some fantastic speed increases, particularly in the various video transcoding applications at our disposal - If you're looking to work with large High Definition video files in particular, the difference in encoding times between CPU and GPU is notable in the extreme. ArcSoft TotalMedia Theatre's SimHD functionality is also worthy of mention, allowing users to upscale DVDs with impressive results; quite simply, this is impossible using a CPU alone, and can only be achieved with a CUDA-capable GPU in tow at the present time"
July 11, 2009 1:10:04 PM

That was early on, when they made that assumption, particularly Annand, who looooves certain things more than others. Its a whole new ballgame now, and the excuse of buying a quad just dropped a notch, and if they dont get the gaming going soon, to a much wider user base, it doesnt look good.
Like an earlier thread, should AMD release hex cores now? Why? The market for them is extremely small at this time
July 11, 2009 1:49:01 PM

Id question that list of games, as well as some of the links provided. Linking to Stalker on the firingsquad link, it shows quads doing a better job with sli, also, according to Guru, Crysis shows no dicernable difference, while your link links to some off beat place just saying it does, without any real testing done

Crysis:

http://www.podtech.net/home/2505/gaming-with-intel-quad...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with...

Stalker:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/stalker_cpu_perform...
http://www.guru3d.com/article/cpu-scaling-in-games-with...

a b à CPUs
July 11, 2009 2:25:00 PM

Selling to the masses is the key and does govern whats made and available.

I remember when the Core 2 duo came out and Microcenter had a demo race setup that was designed and displayed with two Intel representatives, that got my blood pumping. If more promoting was done like that it could help the interest of the average joe to be more interested in buying better hardware to play these games that could be developed to utilize 4 or more cores. Although setting up the demo for racing only is not really the best way to go, I believe it might have made a better impact on more people if they had it setup to run 3-4 different type of games to get more peoples attetion.

Its likely the feedback Intel gathered from this 1st attempt of reaching directly out to the public was lower results than expected so unfortunately that may never happen again.
July 11, 2009 10:55:52 PM

Well, the old argument is, faster is better. Clock that dual to 4Ghz. Besides, we really need to wait for Intels duals based on Nehalem to make such claims that quads are even needed for multi card solutions, as the duals should also clock higher, with SMT, plus the new arch, comparable to what we see with i7 965, a 1000$ cpu, vs and old gen stock 8400.
So, in reality, we need games that use quads, not exotic sli/cf setups, I mean, we were talking average Joe here, werent we? The data will show how "important" quads are to average Joe when the new duals are released, and we have more data, in the mean time, it would only help AMD/Intel to get invilved here, and help push quad gaming forwards.
As to the Guru link, having a slower dual, thats a gen older than a 1000$ quad, which with turbo clocks way higher, whatd anyone expect? Especially on a highly demanding setup like sli/cf?
July 12, 2009 12:19:49 AM

xaira said:
dude phenom ii 965 will have a 140w tdp, really want to go that route?
wait for other revisions


Some Info I Came Across.

AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Processor will be clocked at 3.40GHz and will feature 2MB L2 cache (512KB per core), 6MB L3 unified cache, integrated dual-channel DDR2/DDR3 memory controller and will support all the latest technologies found in AMD processors. The chip will be in AM3 form-factor, hence, will be able to work in both AM3 and AM2+ platforms that support 125W thermal design power.
So the tdp should not be as bad. That should be a good thing for the 965.
July 12, 2009 1:48:13 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Well, the old argument is, faster is better. Clock that dual to 4Ghz. Besides, we really need to wait for Intels duals based on Nehalem to make such claims that quads are even needed for multi card solutions, as the duals should also clock higher, with SMT, plus the new arch, comparable to what we see with i7 965, a 1000$ cpu, vs and old gen stock 8400.
So, in reality, we need games that use quads, not exotic sli/cf setups, I mean, we were talking average Joe here, werent we? The data will show how "important" quads are to average Joe when the new duals are released, and we have more data, in the mean time, it would only help AMD/Intel to get invilved here, and help push quad gaming forwards.
As to the Guru link, having a slower dual, thats a gen older than a 1000$ quad, which with turbo clocks way higher, whatd anyone expect? Especially on a highly demanding setup like sli/cf?


In all fairness, the $1500 Q9770 didn't do so well against the similarly clocked i7 either. To get the most performance out of a multicard setup, a high performance quad core is definitely needed. Of course, a lower clocked E8400 won't do as well as a higher clocked i7, but the difference is pretty large in most titles. I don't think an E8400 @ 4GHz would fare too well either. I wouldn't recommend a dual core for multicard setup, but that is not entirely the discussion.

I think more games need to utilize more cores, but as more game developers program the game for mainstream computers, it may slow the adoption of quad cores as there generally isn't a need for it. After buying my i7, my 3DMARK scores went way up, although my game performance didn't move up the same amount. FSX and World at Conflict were the only games in which I felt a noticeable difference over my E6750 @ 3.7GHz. I can even run 40 bots on Counter Strike Source without any lag @ 1920x1200. My old CPU could only dream of that. Most people wouldn't run that many bots in one game, although it is fun. Crysis Sandbox Editor also runs much better with due to the extra cores when blowing things up. The main game, not so much. It seems dual cores and mid performance video cards will dictate the future of game development and quad cores will be better suited for the high end and multithreaded apps.

July 12, 2009 2:46:30 AM

Thats my point here. The 9770, being last gen, isnt going to do well against the newest gen. Both quads were clocked higher than the dual, which in itself is almost a disqualifier of true usage, since duals get better clocks.
So, add that new gen to a dual, have maybe even higher clocks, add smt, and we'll see just how good/effective quads are in sli/cf.
If the new duals do great, its one more myth against quads, like the video encoding. And thats why we need average Joe to take up the biggest single market of high usage on pc's, gaming. And why this is so disappointing.
M$ releases W7 with MT in mind, and then drops this game. Quads to me have a tough enough time breaking into the main market, which I believe theyll need to do, as its the only way forwards for cpus, wider, not faster. So yea, biiiiig disappointment here
July 12, 2009 4:57:14 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Thats my point here. The 9770, being last gen, isnt going to do well against the newest gen. Both quads were clocked higher than the dual, which in itself is almost a disqualifier of true usage, since duals get better clocks.
So, add that new gen to a dual, have maybe even higher clocks, add smt, and we'll see just how good/effective quads are in sli/cf.
If the new duals do great, its one more myth against quads, like the video encoding. And thats why we need average Joe to take up the biggest single market of high usage on pc's, gaming. And why this is so disappointing.
M$ releases W7 with MT in mind, and then drops this game. Quads to me have a tough enough time breaking into the main market, which I believe theyll need to do, as its the only way forwards for cpus, wider, not faster. So yea, biiiiig disappointment here


Another issue I've noticed with programs only able to take advantage of 2 or 4 threads, is that they may choose 2 threads from the same core. SMT is great for highly multithreaded apps, but I'm not sure whether it actually added to the victory of the i7 over Wolfdale/Yorkfield. I wonder if the score may have been higher with SMT disabled. My CPU @ 3.7GHz scores around 5600 points on 3DMARK06, and a tad over 6000 @ 3.6GHz with SMT enabled. This is a synthetic benchmark, so in theory it should benefit, mostly likely it won't in most games. I would like to see a test done with multi GPU system with SMT enabled and disabled to see whether any benefit is gained over using or not using SMT. I may have to do some searching to find this, though.

A friend of mine has a Q6600 and 2 9600Gts in SLI. His system has a quad core and at the stock CPU speed of 2.4ghz, is severely limiting his GPUs. On the Counter Strike Source Benchmark he got 150FPS, where I scored 298FPS. 2 9600GTs in SLI should come awefully close to a GTX 260 Core 216, but not even the quad core, which is needed so badly, cannot supply the GPU with data quick enough. The Source engine is relatively multithreaded and still a slower clocked quad core cannot move enough data. He bought his computer and it wasn't store built, as he IS an average Joe, just with better than average equipment. But then we get back to where we started. Currently, the average computer is a dual core with a mid range GPU, which most gamers use. I think/hope in several years(yes, several more) we should start seeing better optimized programs as AMD and Intel plan on coming out with CPUs which have many cores/threads to help saturate the market with multi core CPUs. Consoles also play a large part in the adoption of quad cores as it seems a lot of games are being ported over to PC rather than developed for PC. When devs have to develop for many cores, then finally we will see the difference(when consoles have multicore CPUs).
July 12, 2009 6:44:16 AM

Exactly. Until weve more data, new nehalem based duos, that run smt, on W7, using DX11 with its gpu MT ability, we really dont know how all this is going to effect duos, let alone quads. I like to see a quad with 2 cores shut down, with smt on, just to get a hint
July 16, 2009 7:23:10 PM

Saying Microsoft doesn't care about pc gaming is off the mark,there market share would take a nose dive if there ever comes a day when pc gaming dies. I know its the only reason i run windows on my machine. Anything else i want to do on a pc i can do for free on Linux,and i know many who feel the same way.
July 19, 2009 9:49:55 PM

The 965 is already been listed for sale in many places, and Asus had their listing at 125, but have also taken it down.
The MSI listing was the only 140w listing, while everything else has been 125
a c 122 à CPUs
July 19, 2009 11:13:19 PM

Well out of all honesty Microsoft does what they can. Game for Windows was a great idea really but no company really takes advantage of it.

DX11 looks good and hopefully doesn't get anything pulled out at the last minute like DX10 did.

Multicore gaming is rare mainly because a lot of game companies are multiplatfor now and thus they focus more of those console games where they can make more money. But VALVe did a pretty good job with their multicore rendering and every Source based game forward will use it. A lot of people see anywhere from 50-100% performance gains over previous title that didn't have multicore rendering or even a dual core.

Personally the one game I am interested in right now is Max Payne 3. But I am not sure about it mainly becuase of the changes to Max himself and the location. I guess as long as they stick to the original way Max Payne was (being a Noir style game) I will be fine.
a c 446 à CPUs
July 20, 2009 1:49:57 AM

Fortunately I did not buy my quad core for gaming purposes.

I use my Q9450 to encode video which takes advantage of all the cores. If I happen to play a game that can take advantage of quad cores, then that's just icing on the cake.

Edit:

Hell, I actually thinking about replacing the E6600 CPU in my HTPC with a quad core so that I'll have two PCs that can handle H.264 encoding.
July 20, 2009 3:54:37 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Personally the one game I am interested in right now is Max Payne 3. But I am not sure about it mainly becuase of the changes to Max himself and the location. I guess as long as they stick to the original way Max Payne was (being a Noir style game) I will be fine.


It's gonna be in the capital of my state. I was actually surprised to read that. I don't know whether the game will be good, but I'm pretty sure the location won't be a source of disappointment - except to the ones who swear it must be a jungle with plenty of palm trees, although they've never seen it.
a c 122 à CPUs
July 20, 2009 3:56:06 AM

dattimr said:
It's gonna be in the capital of my state. I was actually surprised to read that. I don't know whether the game will be good, but I'm pretty sure the location won't be a dissapointment - except to the ones who swear it must be a jungle, with plenty of palm trees, although they've never seen it.


As I said. As long as they keep it Max Payne style (Noir with a tad bit of comedy) and bullet time it will be great. That and try to keep the same voice actors.
July 20, 2009 4:22:13 AM

I think that I read somewhere (perhaps Shacknews) that the voice actors had changed, but I'm not quite sure. I just hope they don't turn it into a GTA-like crap.
a b à CPUs
July 21, 2009 2:48:11 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Well, this is the end for alot of quad uses, and maybe the helping end of MT in gaming
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/200907201453...



I just want a game that you can play, unlike Terminator Salvation, Damnation to name but two...

Ive played Ghostbusters on the pc btw and i got to admit it is just awesome.


Having a quad core is like having a big todger with no girlfriend and fewer girls on the horizon...

No real point...

get a 8600 intel and sit back and wait... no decent dx11 games will be around.. well all be playing wii by then anyhow.
July 21, 2009 4:07:33 PM

Most current DX10 games will be easily patched, all but the tessellation anyways. That means more AO,AA etc or just more fps.
Alot of games have been postponed, due to the economy, and the first few months or so is when they make their real monies, as thats when they can charge full price, and since they arent selling now, theyre waiting, and while they wait, they may just come in DX11 capable, or parts, again without the tessellation.
Seeing LRB on the horizon will put a stop to all this needing a quad for rendering, as will buying a G300 using Cuda. Theyll squash any cpu easily, and with duals coming in with SMT and turbo, possibly @ 4Ghz, using a quad may become redundant
!