Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why dual cores will still own quads in games

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 9:35:18 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Sweeney-Epic-GPU-GPGPU...

Epic Games' chief executive officer Tim Sweeney recently spoke during the keynote presentation of the High Performance Graphics 2009 conference, saying that it is "dramatically" more expensive for developers to create software that relies on GPGPU (general purpose computing on graphics processing units) than those programs created for CPUs.

He thus provides an example, saying that it costs "X" amount of money to develop an efficient single-threaded algorithm for CPUs. To develop a multithreaded version, it will cost double the amount; three times the amount to develop for the Cell/PlayStation 3

this is by far one of my biggest arguments that has been floating around for a looong time now and constantly dismissed as garbage. well - guess what? i was right q6600 fanboys.

get a quad for gaming is STILL useless ->

games are not multithreaded for the most parts - and the ones that are see little to no advantage from the additional cores. even games like gta4 run like crap on quad cores. supreme commanders shows little difference on my computer vs. my friends q6600. what is the point?

by purchasing a quad now for gaming now - you will get owned by future 6-8 core processors that will be introduced with REAL multithreaded games. 4 vs 8 core cpu for REAL multithreaded gaming in the future - which do you want?

now one thing the quad fanboys will constantly shove down your throat is the fact that quads are more 'future proof'. while this may be true - it is masking the real fact -> quads are STILL useless now. by the time they become efficient in any respect, there will be 6-8 core cpus that will draw less power and have a higher IPC.

please tell me quad core boys, what is the point of your purchases? only speculation as usual! companies WILL NOT PUT IN THE MONEY TO MAKE A MULTITHREADED GAME NOW WHEN THE MAJORITY OF COMPUTERS ARE NOT QUAD CORES! thank you kthx bye.

More about : dual cores quads games

August 14, 2009 9:51:36 PM

He said many stupid things. Who cares... In every sentence that he said, are just little parts true, that doesn't make the whole sentence true.
August 14, 2009 9:54:45 PM

Hmmm, interesting take. I agree with the current situation thing, but arent we enthusiasts also?
Whos going to break ground for MT future usage if not us, that live on or close to the cutting edge?
When has the cutting edge ever been safe? I mean pocketbook wise?
Look deeper into what hes saying. Consoles make a greater customer for game devs nowadays, so thats where the monies at.
Console games are set for 3 cores max, thats why the huge tail off in perf, higher than we would normally see, as MT has its limitations.
As to the recommendations Ive seen here, just today I was defending the OP in his own thread about this very thing.
His pocketbook told him dual, alot of people were saying nothing but quad, and some had him switching mobo and a quad setup, which is obviously not what he wanted, asked, or even hinted at.
People will give their POV, which is fine, but if asked, that POV should take into consideration the OPs wishes.
As to the current scenario, same applies. Im not all gungho for quads hexes etc, but Im still an enthusiast.
In another thread, someones putting down the single threaded perf increase as being foolish because their particular usage requires MT.
Well, single threaded improvements would do more in the ling haul than any doubling of cores, as theres a limit to its effectiveness no matter what we do, whereas, make all those cores more efficient, it will perform better.
With all this, its no wonder I hate giving advice, as well as other things. It seems I always get caught up, in the middle of it all.
Im just glad we do have so many choices for so many usages we do today, unlike a few short years ago
Related resources
August 14, 2009 9:55:31 PM

werxen said:


please tell me quad core boys, what is the point of your purchases? only speculation as usual! companies WILL NOT PUT IN THE MONEY TO MAKE A MULTITHREADED GAME NOW WHEN THE MAJORITY OF COMPUTERS ARE NOT QUAD CORES! thank you kthx bye.



To make people like you, nerd rage over this stuff.

I see we are doing a fine job. Good entertainment.

kthxbye.
August 14, 2009 10:14:08 PM

Are you the boy who cried?, when his mom wouldnt buy you a quad.

And now 2 years later taking revenge!.. The cruelty when does it stop eh?

OH and why?.. BECAUSE I CAN
August 14, 2009 10:41:40 PM

Im using 1680x1050 res with my main rig.

There are my USAGE while playing the "old" TF2 completely maxed....

~100%
~30%
~30%
~30%

GTA4 everything on HIGH and 30-60-60 gives an AVG of 85% CPU Use ...

Not multi threaded..... I just agree with the above post ;) 
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 10:51:58 PM

Somebody here is a real BS artist. I've already found quad core for gaming useful.
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 11:05:09 PM

LOL. Hating because your mommy didnt buy you one.

You want to know what the funny thing about computers is? They can do more things then game, OMG I just taught you something you obviosly didnt know.

Try playing a game, burn a movie, download some torrents, and watching a movie, and scanning viruses on your dual core piece of crap, all at the same time and lets see how good your gaming experience is.

Also you dont even understand what the article is about.

Hes talking about what Nvidia would like the future to be. Nvidia claim it can do what a CPU does and do it better. This is the technology the article is about. Muli cores are and will be the future, devs will have to comply or get left behind by companies that do upgrade.
August 14, 2009 11:07:39 PM

lol This is a bunch of fail sauce, you think quads are just used for gaming? Be realistic man, quad cores do more work than a dual core? wanna see proof? i will send you a mathematical calculation done by mathematica (real time) and it will tell you how long a dual core or quad will take. Quads are a great tool if you are running complex programs, editing, modeling and simulations. All games are based on mathematical modeling, simulation, linear algebra, matrices. I am not saying to go buy a quad core so you can play all your games but they have many other benefits. I use my Pc for modeling differential equations all the time, and their graphs, some of those calculations can take more then 60 seconds with all the cores working. i had a dual core running at same clock speed as my quad (also half the cache) and it would take 2+ minutes sometimes to model solutions to some equations. One more thing about toms hardware, they mostly care about gaming and will recommend a setup that fits most peoples budgets and gives them the maximum fun, if you were a researcher you would not care about playing games but care about getting your data compiled as fast as possible......Also soon i believe that CPU's role might become limited when they are going to use GPU for much of the stuff, but also remember GPU has a lot more cores compared to CPU, a gtx 285 has 240 cores, a quad has just 4!!!!.
August 14, 2009 11:13:06 PM

daship said:
LOL. Hating because your mommy didnt buy you one.

You want to know what the funny thing about computers is? They can do more things then game, OMG I just taught you something you obviosly didnt know.

Try playing a game, burn a movie, download some torrents, and watching a movie, and scanning viruses on your dual core piece of crap, all at the same time and lets see how good your gaming experience is.

Also you dont even understand what the article is about.

Hes talking about what Nvidia would like the future to be. Nvidia claim it can do what a CPU does and do it better. This is the technology the article is about. Muli cores are and will be the future, devs will have to comply or get left behind by companies that do upgrade.



yes i also agree with daship, i believe gpu programming is the future, he should look into CUDA and tesla. maybe he will understand what the article is about =]
August 14, 2009 11:21:24 PM

Are his other 791 posts this trollish too?
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2009 11:25:57 PM

Great point by jaydeejohn which is that anyone that posts about a proposed build or upgrade or anything else read what the OP is looking for and not just inject their own wants and opinions into a thread. The point is to help a questioner get what they want, not force a build on them because it's what you want.
August 15, 2009 12:03:32 AM

Well Mr. Benz look who's laughing since my two horses are faster and can pull more than your auto-mo-bile. It'll never catch on. Why are people still developing them its just a passing fade..... oh wait! :D 
August 15, 2009 1:37:45 AM

hahaha...all i can say is GTA IV

BTW: it isn't a game either :D 
August 15, 2009 2:00:00 AM

GTA IV is a direct port, using 3 cores, thus a quad is 1 too many, now all we need is 8, so well have 5 that dont help games
a c 125 à CPUs
August 15, 2009 2:12:00 AM

The thread name should be. Why dual cores will still own quads in some GAMES.

There are still several games that DO see a improvement. Epic is not the only company in the world.

For the price and everything else one can do with a computer, i think quad is the way to go for many people. But dual does get the job done(slower at some things) and save power
August 15, 2009 2:17:00 AM

You seem to be missing some key points.

The quad core isnt JUST for video games! I bought the quad core for multi tasking! I can be playing crysis with cpu 1 and 2, while cpu 3 does some calculations for me in the background and cpu 4 handles windows and such. This makes cpu 1 and 2 JUST for crysis, and 3 can focus JUST on what its doing. If there all doing there own thing then it allows them all to do there 1 task faster, and thats why i bought my Q6600.
August 15, 2009 2:21:20 AM

no, not crysis
August 15, 2009 2:23:53 AM

+1 Joshbad !

Before buying my Q9550, i had a E6850. Clock for clock i can tell my Q9550 is better, and REALLY better if the game is CPU intensive.

Im not Encoding, video editing, and nothing that is really using the potential of my quad. Sometime i do some MusicEditing with soundforge.... My gaming experience is just better with this Q9550 vs my E6850.
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2009 2:24:54 AM

The title of this thread doesn't reflect the OP accurately so it has been changed. Also, the news article doesn't even mention games.
August 15, 2009 2:27:26 AM

randomizer said:
The title of this topic has been edited by Randomizer


Thank you for clearing that up randomizer
August 15, 2009 2:28:07 AM

Well, who wants a PC just only for gaming?

I own several dual core sets and a quad. among them, i always prefer the quad since it does more than gaming. Although i'm a game lover i also play with vegas pro 9, adobe after effects, and other video editing software which are cpu intensive stuff. a dual core will take ages for these to manipulate.

I think the greatest reason to buy a quad is the true multitasking abilities it could throw. It has greater room to run several programs concurrently and simultaneously. Game, surf, chat, convert music & videos etc.... using dual monitor display on a quad is pretty cool experience.

just my two cents.
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2009 2:37:18 AM

randomizer said:
The title of this thread doesn't reflect the OP accurately so it has been changed. Also, the news article doesn't even mention games.




You forgot to make it some games.
a c 125 à CPUs
August 15, 2009 2:46:38 AM

randomizer said:
The title of this thread doesn't reflect the OP accurately so it has been changed. Also, the news article doesn't even mention games.

ahh better :) 
August 15, 2009 2:55:24 AM

werxen said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Sweeney-Epic-GPU-GPGPU...

Epic Games' chief executive officer Tim Sweeney recently spoke during the keynote presentation of the High Performance Graphics 2009 conference, saying that it is "dramatically" more expensive for developers to create software that relies on GPGPU (general purpose computing on graphics processing units) than those programs created for CPUs.

He thus provides an example, saying that it costs "X" amount of money to develop an efficient single-threaded algorithm for CPUs. To develop a multithreaded version, it will cost double the amount; three times the amount to develop for the Cell/PlayStation 3

this is by far one of my biggest arguments that has been floating around for a looong time now and constantly dismissed as garbage. well - guess what? i was right q6600 fanboys.

get a quad for gaming is STILL useless ->

games are not multithreaded for the most parts - and the ones that are see little to no advantage from the additional cores. even games like gta4 run like crap on quad cores. supreme commanders shows little difference on my computer vs. my friends q6600. what is the point?

by purchasing a quad now for gaming now - you will get owned by future 6-8 core processors that will be introduced with REAL multithreaded games. 4 vs 8 core cpu for REAL multithreaded gaming in the future - which do you want?

now one thing the quad fanboys will constantly shove down your throat is the fact that quads are more 'future proof'. while this may be true - it is masking the real fact -> quads are STILL useless now. by the time they become efficient in any respect, there will be 6-8 core cpus that will draw less power and have a higher IPC.

please tell me quad core boys, what is the point of your purchases? only speculation as usual! companies WILL NOT PUT IN THE MONEY TO MAKE A MULTITHREADED GAME NOW WHEN THE MAJORITY OF COMPUTERS ARE NOT QUAD CORES! thank you kthx bye.



Obviously not a multi tasker!
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2009 3:00:12 AM

Try doing ray tracing on a dual core and then on an i7. :pt1cable: 
August 15, 2009 3:05:30 AM

Who needs any of this with LRB coming, itll blow the doors off all these clunky quads/hex cores etc
Including RT
August 15, 2009 7:11:30 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Who needs any of this with LRB coming, itll blow the doors off all these clunky quads/hex cores etc
Including RT


Because Intel will cannibalize its CPU market because LRB is going to make its future CPUs obsolete? Intel might as well shut down all CPU projects and just focus on LRB then. I should call Intel right now so I can save them billions!
August 15, 2009 7:20:40 AM

Eventually, it will.
August 15, 2009 7:22:52 AM

lol, If Intel gives up on the CPU market, then AMD can be #1 again! :)  Poor AMD...
August 15, 2009 7:26:41 AM

No, its not what I mean.
LRB will be the muscle, and the cpu will shrink, be more a scheduler/compiler type
August 15, 2009 7:43:10 AM

By the time Intel gets everything they want to run on LRB, there wont be much left for a cpu to do, besides working in harmony with it, and itll become dependent, or theyll be co dependent on each other
August 15, 2009 8:24:51 AM

Werxen:

You are under arrest for attempted intelligence... but cheer up: maybe you'll be able to afford a better processor some day :-p

the new number two
August 15, 2009 8:27:09 AM

lol man this thread should be locked up, and thrown away into deep space. This reminds me of when chevy used to make fun of toyota for introducing the Prius and now look what has happend..............hahaha actually looking at the title is making me laugh now :) ....lock? :) 
August 15, 2009 8:30:23 AM

Once they made science and innovation scary, and then tried to blame it all on religion, they won.
August 15, 2009 8:35:34 AM

Quote:
I've had a 4.75Ghz E8500 and a 4.2Ghz I7 now. As much fun as the E8500 was. The I7 destroy's it in everything else besides games.




lol clock for clock i7 will beat anything, the bandwidth on that thing is amazing. I might have to get that 80 core processor from intel to beat all you i7 people :pt1cable: 
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2009 10:28:17 AM

My single core San Diego will smash all of you. Who needs progress?!
a c 145 à CPUs
August 15, 2009 12:39:29 PM

Show me a dual-core that can handle the best TRI-SLI setup compared to a top i7 CPU.

Sorry. Do your homework. It's not like Tomshardware has benchmarks or anything...
a c 95 à CPUs
August 15, 2009 1:48:42 PM

randomizer said:
My single core San Diego will smash all of you. Who needs progress?!


ROFLMAO :lol: 

Seems the OP got some original bad build information, thats unfortunate but does happen here a lot, users tend to point those in question, to the best for their money, I don't think any of them are trying to mislead, the original build suggestions and it seems to me thats what the OP was really upset about.

You posted earlier you renamed the thread to, "Why dual cores still own quads in games", maybe it should be, "Why dual cores still own quads in some games", as Flight Simulator X can and does take advantage of a quad core CPU and beyond.
August 15, 2009 1:50:16 PM

photonboy said:
Show me a dual-core that can handle the best TRI-SLI setup compared to a top i7 CPU.

Sorry. Do your homework. It's not like Tomshardware has benchmarks or anything...



Your part right. The I7 SLI/CF performance is part of the platform too. Its not ONLY the I7 that gives him this advantage but the entire chipset.

But your damn right about it. 775 Become "bottlenecked" over simple SLI. 3 SLI gives nearly no improvement for the added power.
August 15, 2009 2:15:11 PM

lol i think the guy who started this thread was banned by toms hardware or left the country.......... :pt1cable: 
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2009 2:20:14 PM

4Ryan6 said:
You posted earlier you renamed the thread to, "Why dual cores still own quads in games", maybe it should be, "Why dual cores still own quads in some games", as Flight Simulator X can and does take advantage of a quad core CPU and beyond.

It originally just said "Why dual cores still own quads" and I don't want to change the title to something that doesn't reflect the OP's argument. Clearly he's saying that quads are useless in all games.
August 15, 2009 2:21:57 PM

freezed1 said:
lol i think the guy who started this thread was banned by toms hardware or left the country.......... :pt1cable: 



He is affraid to arg's ....
August 15, 2009 2:29:41 PM

lol man the guy just got misinformed that's all.
August 15, 2009 2:35:03 PM

to the OP I'm not sure if you've heard but the PC can other things besides gaming. The PC is what we call an "open platform". That means anyone can design applications for it. Some of those applications may take advantage of more than 2 CPU cores. So quite frankly who cares what some ditzy game developer says about the state of quad cores when the majority of computer time will be spent in other applications that are not games.
a c 95 à CPUs
August 15, 2009 2:41:49 PM

In all fairness to the OP this has gone far enough, theres no sense dragging him through the mudd, I'm closing this thread. Ryan
!