Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

17 Games that already benefit from six cores CPUs

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a c 161 à CPUs
October 20, 2010 1:45:47 PM

Quote:
Since March 2010 (Intel Core i7-980X) or June 2010 (AMD Phenom II X6 1055T and 1090T) respectively, there have been early desktop processors that carry six CPU-cores. Processors with eight or even twelve cores are in progress. What gamers might ask is: What's the gain of these additional cores?


Source
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2010 1:49:15 PM

shhh, the whole "you can't fully utilize a quad core never mind a hex core" will be ruined!!
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2010 2:40:15 PM

I again stress: Unless a piece of code is fully parallel of the main program thread, using extra CPU cores is almost more trouble then its worth, especially if syncronization comes into play. If CPU0 by itself can run a game without ever going above 80% capacity, what advantage does using more CPU resources actually give?
Related resources
a c 161 à CPUs
October 20, 2010 2:44:55 PM

^Easy answer? Maybe nothing :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  at least in home or games use :lol: 
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2010 3:36:56 PM

Where are the benchmarks?

It'd be funny if they compared an AthlonII x4 quad with a PhenomII x6 hexa.

Or a Core2 Quad with a Core i7 980x hexa.
a c 117 à CPUs
October 20, 2010 5:14:23 PM

gamerk316 said:
I again stress: Unless a piece of code is fully parallel of the main program thread, using extra CPU cores is almost more trouble then its worth, especially if syncronization comes into play. If CPU0 by itself can run a game without ever going above 80% capacity, what advantage does using more CPU resources actually give?


You're wasting your breath :lol:  See ...

sportsfanboy said:
shhh, the whole "you can't fully utilize a quad core never mind a hex core" will be ruined!!


No offense intended, SFB.



a b à CPUs
October 20, 2010 5:17:36 PM

lol none taken
a c 117 à CPUs
October 20, 2010 5:25:20 PM

sportsfanboy said:
lol none taken


[:jaydeejohn:5]

The point we have tried to make is games today (for the most part) barely spawn multiple independent parallel threads. What is happening is the OS is balancing the load across all those cores - not executing multiple program threads in parallel.

In many cases this reduces actual performance.
a b à CPUs
October 20, 2010 7:48:25 PM

Quote:
The point we have tried to make is games today (for the most part) barely spawn multiple independent parallel threads. What is happening is the OS is balancing the load across all those cores - not executing multiple program threads in parallel.

In many cases this reduces actual performance.


Correct. I know my standard procedue for any work-intensive program is to split the program into two threads so I don't lock up the windows GUI (something I wish Microsoft would do for some of their own software, like IE for instance...). Aside from that, unless I'm working on something that is fully independent of main program execution (such as a non-time critical task) OR can be scaled across multiple cores (Such as AI routines for multiple objects, where each AI is its own seperate thread), then I don't thread, because theres no gain to it.
!