quad vs dual in gaming [Archive] - XtremeSystems Forums

M31

09-03-2008, 09:45 AM

I've seen quite a few folk swear that a quad is better in quite a lot of games that obviously don't support more than 2 cores according to the makers of them ... can only imagine they seem to run better because there are background tasks going on in the OS that the other 2 cores are taking care of that on a dual core would need some of their CPU time to do ... or maybe its the placebo effect?

In my instance ... I chose a dual core because of the potential for a much higher clock speed (4GHz on my E8400) the main reason I have this rig is to play FSX that is mostly a CPU power hog, even though it can support more than 2 cores with SP2 and Acceleration it does not do so very well, as it could and the extra 2 cores are hardly used at all, so it makes sense for me to go for a CPU that can clock higher, this theory is borne out by many FS enthusiasts from sites like Avsim and other FS enthusiast sites.

If I never played FSX as my main game title I'd have went for a quad, the next version of FS is bound to support quad cores properly so I'll be quad core by then for sure.

But for now and for me (everyone's mileage will vary) dual core high 100% 24/7 stable clock speeds are the most important thing.

Scubar

09-03-2008, 09:59 AM

most current games that are available are optimized for duals. However newer games coming out are all going to be optimized for multiple cores. How much of a difference that will make at high resolution i dont know and especially since GPUs can now do PhysX aswell taking even more of the CPU need away. I would still get a Quad just because it makes multitasking easier anyway

zlojack

09-03-2008, 10:32 AM

Those tests show some advantage in certain games, but his conclusions are faulty. He compares the Q9650 45nm with the E6850 65nm at the same speed, as opposed to comparing the E8400 at the same speed. In his conclusion he doesn't even mention the E8400, which is a much closer comparison to the Q9650 in terms of cache SSE4 etc. than the 6850. It's like he wanted his conclusion to be about the quad, so he ignored the E8400.

You can see the advantage of the quad over the dual for COH, a little bit in Quake Wars. In Devil May Cry the E8400 and the Q9650 at 3.6GHz perform roughly the same. In Quake Wars they are close, but the quad wins by about 10FPS and in Supreme Commander the quad wins by a slight margin.

Now, the Q9650 seems like a great chip that so far is hitting the 3.8-4 GHz range, which is great. The E8400 costs way less and can be run up to 4GHz or more with the better batches and now with the E0 stepping, we could see even better than that. Also the E8500 is much more accessible, in terms of price, than it used to be and about a third of the price of the quad.

Is the extra 5-10FPS you get at 3.6GHz worth $400? I'm not sure, especially when you can push a decent E8500 into the 4.2GHz range.

Of course, the methodology of the testing is not mentioned (number of runs etc.)

clayton

09-05-2008, 01:33 PM

Good luck finding games that will scale with 4 cores vs 2nd video card.

crazy1323

09-05-2008, 01:44 PM

systemviper

09-05-2008, 01:55 PM

I just switched all my systems ot quads, i like the multitasking, and use th eprograms that take advantage of the 4 cores,.
I also think having quads, you might be better future proofed wiz ze quad.

YukonTrooper

09-05-2008, 01:59 PM

It's simple as this: Some games like quads, most games like duals.

M31

09-05-2008, 02:43 PM

The only game I have ever seen that benefits more for a Quad than a second video card is Flight Simulator X. It is multi-threaded for like 16 cores or something crazy along those lines. It is a COMPLETE CPU whore. I am about to do a Core i7 Extreme Edition Build and hopefully it will handle Flight Simulator X on three monitors (1600 X 1050 each

That multi core support for FSX is just tacked on though and far from optimal, before SP1 for FSX it could only handle 1 core, now you can indeed use the other cores, but they are doing very little work ... FSX still benefits far more from sheer grunt high clock speeds, and the dual core E8** range clocked to 4GHz + do more for smooth frame rates with very high detail than a quad can just now ... I've tried it.

Of course if you can get a quad clocked 100% stable and 24/7 reliable in the 4GHz + range, then why not? but its going to be much harder to do and much more expensive as well as run much hotter than with even an E8400 clocked to same speeds.

It will be a different story with FS11 though, it will also be a different story once multi core gaming really takes off, but by that time the current generation of quads will be obsolete, for me at least ... quad can wait till next years upgrade.

flopper

09-06-2008, 04:11 AM

I was wondering for reasons of me playing mostly RTS as CoH or MMOG as Warhammer.
But I will add a second videocard, just in case ;)

MomijiTMO

09-06-2008, 04:31 AM

I don't think it matters at the res most of you play at. Your gpu plays a more important role. Power consumption and heat should also be included unless you don't care.

Bojamijams

09-08-2008, 11:35 AM

Its funny that people still list quad cores as 'future proofing' . They said this over a year ago when the Q6600 came out, and crysis has come out and still performs EXACTLY the same on a dual vs quad. So I don't know if you're futureproofing 10 years down the road (which is obviously stupid as yuo'll have replaced your chip 5 times by then), but I still see NO reason to go quad if you're a gamer.

And the whole cache is overblown too. Games run EXACTLY the same on my E7200 at 3.8ghz and my E8400 at 3.8ghz. So save yourself money.

MomijiTMO

09-08-2008, 03:37 PM

Good opinion.

There are some things that I plan to do that a E7200 doesn't offer but it's so cheap and oc's pretty damn well. Go the E7200. Anyone thinking about the E7400 (x10.5):D

vengance_01

09-15-2008, 09:35 PM

If your primary role is gaming, dual offers a better value which means you can get a better video card and overall have a better experience. :)

shaolin95

09-15-2008, 10:48 PM

I was so sure that I wanted a E8400 E0 or E8600 and then read that legion review and decided on the Q9550 or similar and now I am back with doubts..... :(

DementeD

09-16-2008, 02:54 AM

im happy with my quad..i had a dual overclocked to 3.6 and my q6600 at 3.6(which was effortless to do) and honestly noticed a pretty big difference in other applications.
converting movies, ripping them running multiple applications
im sure most of us here are probably guilty of this types of things...now u can definitely get a way with using a dual core and it running nicely..but the difference is pretty big from dual to quad on other aspects that make it worth having over a dual...gaming is slowly becoming another reason to go quad..also a g0 stepping q6600 does 3.6-4ghz on a decent water setup or really good air(core contact freezer only $40)

Carfax

09-16-2008, 07:21 AM

None of the games they tested can use a quad core effectively.

The only game I've played that seems to make good use of a quad core processor is Assassin's Creed.

My Q9450 at 3.6ghz runs at a minimum load of 50% on all 4 cores, and will spike at 75% easily.

Here's a benchmark of Assassin's Creed on various CPUs. (http://www.pcgameshardware.de/&menu=browser&image_id=797259&article_id=637474&page=1&show=original)

As you can see, the quad cores rapes the dual core processors.

The Unreal Engine III seems more inclined towards dual core, and barely sees a performance improvement from going to quad core.

Future game engines will be different though I suspect.

clayton

09-16-2008, 11:42 AM

Future means cheaper and faster Quadcore chips. Dualcore is more useful right now for gaming freaks.

BreeSpree

09-16-2008, 02:21 PM

It's simple as this: Some games like quads, most games like duals.
QFT, different games are optimized for different processing cores. Generally most all games are optimized for duals, almost no games for multi-cores...yet

adamsleath

09-16-2008, 02:48 PM

well youve got an e8600; unless they come up with a 5GHz capable dual core (on air/water cooling)
then quad core is your next step?

it is purespeculation but surely higher clocking nehalems will come...as it is the way of things with cpu's that the yields/process improves and the clocks increase :yawn:

a nehalem or a cheaper penryn. who knows what the future will bring. :hehe:

im hesitant to buy yet another dual core....

what will be the next '775 socket'? as the 1366 socket is supposedly not going to be around for long.

JaYp146

09-16-2008, 04:52 PM

Sorry to pseudo-thread hijack, but ...

What games actually benefit from having a quad core? I seem to remember hearing that Supreme Commander benefits from having a quad ...

adamsleath

09-16-2008, 05:24 PM

more pseudo-hijacking :rolleyes:

from op's link
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=0

ut3, and more or less the other games in the link, show some benefit from more cores compared clock for clock, if im reading the graphs right.

flight simulator , being heavily cpu dependent and multi-core 'able' also...

maybe there are / will be more :shrug:...rushes out for a q6600:lol:
http://www.qcgo.com.au/woolloongabba/catalog.php?pID=5334

but thats the rub, as your Jo Average cant clock a quad very high and a dual core wolfie's high clocks will probly compensate for its lack of cores...even in multicore able games.

YukonTrooper

09-16-2008, 05:32 PM

Sorry to pseudo-thread hijack, but ...

What games actually benefit from having a quad core? I seem to remember hearing that Supreme Commander benefits from having a quad ...
There are many variables with Supreme Commander. In Vista it is more noticeable, whereas in XP, the performance difference between dual and quad is much less. This is likely due to the extra processing power needed to power all the background functions in Vista. All things considered, Supreme Commander does benefit from a quad, but not as nearly as much as anticipated. It was heavily marketed as a quad-core optimized game, but it didn't quite live up to that hype.

There are very few games that actually benefit from a quad, and most of those don't benefit as much as you might think. Developing for quads is more tedious than developing for single or dual-core technology. It isn't as easy as making a game multi-threaded and letting the software figure it out for itself.

dnottis

09-16-2008, 05:38 PM

This is likely due to the extra processing power needed to power all the background functions in Vista.

That right there is why I find the Q6600 to be smoother in games than my E0 E8500 - Vista has so many processes running you dont notice it with the quad. But the dual core seems to choke up now and then, especially with Fraps running in the background.

M31

09-16-2008, 08:11 PM

That right there is why I find the Q6600 to be smoother in games than my E0 E8500 - Vista has so many processes running you dont notice it with the quad. But the dual core seems to choke up now and then, especially with Fraps running in the background.

Are you running FRAPS in the background to make a movie of your gamplay? If so, then of course a Quad would be better, but that's hardly your everyday gaming scenario.

Its still swings and roundabouts, by the time quad core games really take off, the current breed of quad CPU's will be obsolete and the current higher clocking dual's will be dinasours and just fond overclocking memories of hitting 4 to 5GHz.

I thought long and hard about my recent upgrade ... I wanted to go Quad, but for what I do with FSX, dual core at easy 4GHz speeds beats any slight advantage the poorly implemented more than dual core usage of FSX (that was tacked on) does any day.

All this current buying quad for future proofing of gaming is nonsense and pure consumer hype, respectfully speaking of course :) ... it will be a while before Quad PC gaming really takes off and by that time our current Quads will be obsolete.

In all honesty, my only worry is that PC gaming can outlive this slump we are in ... I've been PC gaming since 1990, and its never been worse ... lots of dual port PC/Console ports, but very few *pure* PC games.

Good discussion.

Carfax

09-17-2008, 04:24 AM

I would hardly say that buying a quad core for gaming is nonsense.

First off, even games that are coded for dual cores benefit slightly from a quad core. Quake Wars Enemy Territory is a good example. The Quake IV engine was originally coded for dual core processors, but it still benefits from a quad core. Looking at the benchmarks here (http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=6), the Q9650 quad core at 3.6ghz is 9% faster than the E8400 dual core at the same clock speed. Even if you adjust for a dual cores greater overclocking potential, it would not be able to make up the 9% difference in performance unless you overclock it substantially past the 4ghz barrier.

Secondly, present day quad cores won't become "obsolete" by the time multithreaded gaming engines really take off.

Thats just ridiculous. CPUs aren't GPUs, and usually have a much longer life span. It will be 4 years before the Yorkfield and Kentsfield processors become truly obsolete.

A future gaming engine such as the one that will be used for Alan Wake will run very well on a Kentsfield quad core, but will run even better on Nehalem.

Thirdly, there are other benefits associated with quad core such as better multitasking, faster video encoding/transcoding etc

M31

09-17-2008, 05:10 AM

I would hardly say that buying a quad core for gaming is nonsense.

I never said that, my opinion is that current Quad core panic buying thinking these generation of CPU's will future proof you for games is folly, over a year ago people were saying grab a Q6600, its the way of the future ... whilst I'm sure quad and even more cores *is* the way of the future, its not with these old first generation Quads.

First off, even games that are coded for dual cores benefit slightly from a quad core. Quake Wars Enemy Territory is a good example. The Quake IV engine was originally coded for dual core processors, but it still benefits from a quad core. Looking at the benchmarks here (http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770&p=6), the Q9650 quad core at 3.6ghz is 9% faster than the E8400 dual core at the same clock speed. Even if you adjust for a dual cores greater overclocking potential, it would not be able to make up the 9% difference in performance unless you overclock it substantially past the 4ghz barrier.

No two games are alike, for sure we have already acknowledged some games do seem to give slight benefits with a Quad ... in my instance I'm better off with a faster clocking Dual for now and that seems to be the experience of many. I'm not against Quads, you would have to look long and hard for someone that embrace's new technology over me, but for *Gaming* I genuinely believe Quad core is not quite prime time yet and the current crop of Quads that still cant help run games like Crysis, even co-existing with the best of the bunch top end graphic cards just now are proof of that.

Secondly, present day quad cores won't become "obsolete" by the time multithreaded gaming engines really take off.

They will, of course they will ... I've been PC gaming since my 386 33MHz and been keeping up to speed on pretty much all the landmark games since then, not once have we ever seen a period where Intel or AMD and others were not pushing the envelope to try and stay in touch with the then modern games.

Thats just ridiculous. CPUs aren't GPUs, and usually have a much longer life span. It will be 4 years before the Yorkfield and Kentsfield processors become truly obsolete.

Well, it depends what you want to do with them of course, but by that time FS11 will be out, and its already been hinted by Phil Taylor from Aces Studio's at Microsoft that we will all have to upgrade ... FSX just now can chew up and spit out the fastest overclocked Quad on the planet for breakfast when you pile on the detail and aftermarket scenery, its always been like that with FS. I upgrade at least once a year for FS alone and have done since FS2, would not want to be playing FS11 on the current gen of Quads .... FS11 will be out in about 2 years and will push whatever hardware exists at the time to extremes, its always been like that.

Thirdly, there are other benefits associated with quad core such as better multitasking, faster video encoding/transcoding etc

Agreed, but this thread is about PC gaming ... For now I can wait the extra couple of seconds my 4GHz dual does to do that kinda work on the rare occasions I need to do that.

At the end of the day its cool, its not a religion, Dual is best for me right now, I'll upgrade to Quad when the time is right.

Carfax

09-17-2008, 06:00 AM

whilst I'm sure quad and even more cores *is* the way of the future, its not with these old first generation Quads.

OK, check this out. Architecturally speaking, Phenom is more advanced than Yorkfield (multilevel cache, on die memory controller, native design etc) , but Yorkfield :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: slaps Phenom in gaming...

Why? Because Yorkfield really is the ideal gaming processor.

It has a very large and very fast L2 cache, aggressive prefetchers, incredibly accurate branch prediction, and blazing integer performance.

I'm not even sure Nehalem will really be able to unseat Yorkfield in gaming performance, unless the gaming engine can take advantage of more than 4 threads.

Nehalem has small L2 cache, and a large L3 cache. This combo lends itself more to server and workstation applications rather than gaming.

This was why AMD used a similar design for Phenom.

I'm not saying that Nehalem will be a slow gaming processor. Just that from a architectural perspective, Yorkfield is the more ideal gaming processor.

I genuinely believe Quad core is not quite prime time yet and the current crop of Quads that still cant help run games like Crysis, even co-existing with the best of the bunch top end graphic cards just now are proof of that.

Crysis isn't a good example, because it was horribly optimized in terms of taking advantage of multicore processors, and not to mention, it's sub optimal rendering engine.

Assassin's Creed on the other hand, loves multicore processors. It's one of the few games out there that can really push a quad core properly.

I posted some benchmarks on the first page of Assassin's Creed comparing different processors if you care to have a look.

They will, of course they will ... I've been PC gaming since my 386 33MHz and been keeping up to speed on pretty much all the landmark games since then, not once have we ever seen a period where Intel or AMD and others were not pushing the envelope to try and stay in touch with the then modern games.

I'm not saying that present day quad cores will never become obsolete.

Just that, they won't until about 2 or more years from now because CPUs typically remain serviceable for a few years; unlike GPUs which must be upgraded much more often.

There are people still playing games just fine with their A64 X2s for instance, and look how long the K8 architecture has been out?

FSX just now can chew up and spit out the fastest overclocked Quad on the planet for breakfast when you pile on the detail and aftermarket scenery, its always been like that with FS.

Thats because FSX isn't optimized for quad core. It only runs on two threads:

http://www.behardware.com/medias/photos_news/00/18/IMG0018379.gif

If it were capable of using two extra cores, then the performance on a quad would be considerably higher.

FS11 will be out in about 2 years and will push whatever hardware exists at the time to extremes, its always been like that.

If FS11 uses 8 threads or more, then yes, present quad cores won't be adequate.

However, if it only uses 4 threads, then I'd wager an overclocked Yorkfield will still be able to run it, providing it has a good GPU paired with it.

At the end of the day its cool, its not a religion, Dual is best for me right now, I'll upgrade to Quad when the time is right.

Yep, to each his own ;)

dnottis

09-17-2008, 06:45 AM

Assassin's Creed on the other hand, loves multicore processors. It's one of the few games out there that can really push a quad core properly.

If you are gaming at 1680+ the GPU is still the bottleneck. The CPU as long as you are 3.2Ghz or higher is no longer the bottleneck. Apps thats take advantage of quad cores - like anything using U3 engine definitely shine with quad cores.

I do see quads as being more future proofed especially for folks that upgrade every few years. As games and other apps begin to use quad core CPUs its like a free upgrade. The tech is just sitting there in your box, then one day an app gets multi-threaded and bang, it's like you just upgraded your CPU. I suggest to everyone who asks me to build then a new PC a quad core at this point, there is no reason not to.

here are some tests I ran with Assassins Creed when it came out I was comparing a 4.2Ghz E8400 to my 3.6Ghz Q6600. It definitely used 4 core.

Dual -
http://3dxtreme.net/other/dual%20-%20quad%20AC/dualcore.jpg

Quad -
http://3dxtreme.net/other/dual%20-%20quad%20AC/quadcore.jpg

Sadly Stalker Clear Sky doesn't use more than one thread :(
http://3dxtreme.net/other/dual%20-%20quad%20AC/stalkerCS.jpg

Crysis doesn't benefit from dual over a quad either. Here's hoping Warhead is multi-threaded.

systemviper

09-17-2008, 06:53 AM

not only now in some games, but while running vista, i have the cpu meter up all the time and I notice that my quad is being utilized all the time, I do multi task, but i see everyday the quad working hard for me, so i am convinced that we are at a point where the quad is starting to be usefull not only in games bu in everyday use to the point that it does add value over the duo.

Carfax

09-17-2008, 06:54 AM

here are some tests I ran with Assassins Creed when it came out I was comparing a 4.2Ghz E8400 to my 3.6Ghz Q6600. It definitely used 4 core.

Interesting. Was there a significant difference between the two platforms in terms of performance?

dnottis

09-17-2008, 11:36 AM

Interesting. Was there a significant difference between the two platforms in terms of performance?

Ah, ya see thats the problem. With quad core gaming I find performance may not be measureably faster but it's smoother. I can account this to the other cores handling OS services I would think. In Assassin's Creed, the quad was noticaeably smoother in towns where lots of NPCs were. The framerate wasnt much higher but it was much smoother walking through the towns when highly populated. I've noticed games like COD4 seems smoother as well.

This is one of those subjective things and not measureable so unfortunately unless you have one of each sitting on your desk you will never be able to experience this. The U3 games are the same way - Vegas 2, GOW, UT3. While the higher clocked dual might even benchmark faster, they are smoother in game while using a quad core cpu.

Carfax

09-17-2008, 12:04 PM

This is one of those subjective things and not measureable so unfortunately unless you have one of each sitting on your desk you will never be able to experience this. The U3 games are the same way - Vegas 2, GOW, UT3. While the higher clocked dual might even benchmark faster, they are smoother in game while using a quad core cpu.

Yep, you're right. I experienced the same thing as well.

The reason is because the quad core gives much higher minimum frame rates.

The Assassin's Creed benchmarks I posted on the first page demonstrate this.

The quad cores out performs the dual core solutions by 47% to 100% in minimum frame rates, which equals smoother game play.

jas420221

09-17-2008, 12:30 PM

I never said that, my opinion is that current Quad core panic buying thinking these generation of CPU's will future proof you for games is folly, over a year ago people were saying grab a Q6600, its the way of the future ... whilst I'm sure quad and even more cores *is* the way of the future, its not with these old first generation Quads..This completely depends on how long a person will keep the chip. Most people on sites like this have EXTREMELY myopic views in that everyone here and their upgrade habits ARE the market when in reality its EXACTLY the opposite. I would venture to guess most people on here turnover CPU's every year or two at the most. Every customer I have built computers for ask me to "make it last for at least 4 years". With that in mind, a quad would undoubtedly be the best purchase for that person at this point in time.

vcp-cur

09-19-2008, 03:26 PM

to be honest, i still think that a quad does EVERYTHING a dual can do plus more..

so go for the Q6600..

M31

09-19-2008, 05:40 PM

Thats because FSX isn't optimized for quad core. It only runs on two threads:
If it were capable of using two extra cores, then the performance on a quad would be considerably higher.

If FS11 uses 8 threads or more, then yes, present quad cores won't be adequate.

However, if it only uses 4 threads, then I'd wager an overclocked Yorkfield will still be able to run it, providing it has a good GPU paired with it.

Yep, to each his own ;)

Heh ... it seems both camps are deeply entrenched :)

Firstly ... I'm in for Dual right now because I'm a Flight sim fanatic, I have some experience of flying real light aircraft but because of my disability I'll never be able to get a flying license, with this in mind I've spent a lot on FS over the years in staying up to speed with what's needed to make the most of Flight Simulator, as well as investing in a considerable amount in FS control hardware ... arguably the best civilian flight experience is with FSX right now though I do still fly FS9 and X-Plane 9 from time to time ... FSX in particular is the most demanding leisure software to date, it always has been with this series ... if you think Crysis makes your computer work, then try FSX with photo real scenery and real weather at high to max details, there is not a computer on the planet that can do this as fluidly as enthusiasts like myself would like.

Contrary to what you say, FSX has been demonstrated running on a specialist 16 core system by the guys who designed it, they are from Microsoft's Ace's department, so they should know what they are doing. FSX can use more than 2 cores, but it does so very inefficiently because of its ancient engine that has been going since at least FS7, the real deal is FSX (FS10, the X is Roman numeral they chose for some reason) needs sheer CPU muscle to overcome this ancient engine, this is why I and thousands of other FS enthusiasts chose high clocking duals for this simulation this time round.

As I stated earlier, its swings and roundabouts ... also, FS11 Will *NOT* run too well on current Quads, it will push the envelope as all other incarnations of the series has to date, The Aces Guys who are working on this have already warned us of this ... if current high clocked Quads and duals cant run FSX (FS10) maxed out, what hope have we when FS11 hits the shelves in 2010?

Fair enough ... I concede some games right now do very well on Quad, Assassins Creed seems to do especially well on Quads, but this example cant be considered to be a blanket all covering assurance all current games do so well on Quad ... quite simply, its not that black and white. Hey I've got this on my PS3 and don't want to seem a game snob, but its hardly the best game in the world gameplay wise ... I exchanged mine at the local Game store for COD4.

Lets not fall out, lets agree to disagree ... I know my Flight Sim and how to tweak it both hardware and software inside out, it works best with a higher clocked Dual only because Duals tend to clock higher, if I could get a Quad to clock as high 24/7 so reliable I'd go for it ... I dont really play other high demanding PC games too much.

I still maintain, multi core hardware and software coding to take advantage of Quads or future Octo-cores is in its infancy. Speaking for myself ... I tend to do a major upgrade once a year and a mid life upgrade (say graphic card or ram) every six months, for what I do for the foreseeable future (FS11) I'm a happy Flight simmer and occasional Gamer.

Please don't take offence to my contrary views, its what makes the world go round :)

Cheers.

dnottis

09-25-2008, 07:43 AM

Games based on the Unreal 3 engine DO use more threads for the physics. So regardless of the resolution you are running the physics of the havok engine is multi threaded and taking advantage of the quad core. Also, with a quad core you will see higher minimums making gameplay smoother. If you are using Vista and have the 40 stock services that run on a fresh boot I believe my quad is smoother here as well. Vista has so many things happening in the backgound with my E8500 @ 4.5ghz I will get sudden dips in performance I dont with my Q6600 @ 3.8ghz.

andressergio

09-25-2008, 08:33 AM

Nasgul

09-26-2008, 07:13 PM

QFT, different games are optimized for different processing cores. Generally most all games are optimized for duals, almost no games for multi-cores...yet
So, what you're saying is that Dual Core processor at 3.60ghz is going to be better than a Quad Core processor at 3.60ghz........

Interesting!

__________________________________________________ _

K, I just got my Q6600, I OC'd to 3.15ghz (same as my old E6600) and in the 3 games I only played? The speed in loading the games has increase, a very noticeable difference IMO.

UT3, TimeShift and NFS_MW.......

I'm so happy with my new Q6600, I'm glad I waited this long to get one and made sure I got a G0

dnottis

09-27-2008, 07:56 AM

So, what you're saying is that Dual Core processor at 3.60ghz is going to be better than a Quad Core processor at 3.60ghz........

Interesting!

Yea, he's obviously wrong. A game that is multithreaded even for 2 cores isn't going to run better on a dual core over a quad. You will just see work on 2 of the cores on the quad. And with Vista, the behemoth OS will still have 2 cores to saturate with it's crap and services.

I have run my own tests and there are alot of games that will use all cores.

Assassins Creed, GOW, Lost Planet, RS6 Vegas 1 and 2, UT3, Bioshock, etc

Anything using U3 will scale to 4 cores.

M31

09-27-2008, 02:52 PM

The only advantage to using a dual over a quad at the same clock speed with a Game that does not take advantage of 4 cores would be the extra on core cache newer Duals have ... I'm guessing that's what he meant? But then again, not all games make use of that extra boost... FSX seems to do so compared to my old Conroe E6600 @3.6 and this Wolfdale E8400 @3.6. (the Conroe has 4MB per chip, the Wolfdale has 6MB) but who knows what games will benefit from L2 extra cache memory, its not something reviews tend to test.

Once again nothings black and white and I doubt we will have a definitive answer that covers all games with current hardware, it will be a different story in a year or two though ... I do think this is a transition period we are going through where everything is playing catch up.

Speaking for myself and after just coming off a 2 hour session of FSX on my E8400 at (finally) 4.2GHz, I'm a happy Bunny, of course if I could get a quad to that speed so cheaply I'd be even happier :p:

I'm actually looking forward to Quad or more once what I do fully support the extra cores.

Cheers.

RPGWiZaRD

09-27-2008, 04:00 PM

I'm still of the opinion a higher clocked dual is a better choice today.

1) It's cheaper
2) Most games doesn't show any or very small gains with a quad still so the higher clocked dual core will run just as fine or faster
3) The longer you wait on going to more cores the better and more mature CPU you'll get and prices will get lower and more games will have a better support for it
4) If you're on a tight budget choose a better GPU instead

I'm also personally a fan of optimizing clock for clock performance which is a lot easier on a dual core CPU as they reach higher FSB, I usually run something in the 490 - 530 fsb for 24/7 usage which is a bit hard with a quad on aircooling. My E8400 runs at 500x8 rock solid and might shoot for 507 ~ 513 x 8 when I receive a better DDR2 kit that will go above DDR2-1200 speeds at 24/7 friendly voltage. I currently have no interest at all in buying a quad but on the other hand a 9x500 (4.5GHz) capable E0 Wolfdale would be quite interesting. :p:

dnottis

09-27-2008, 04:36 PM

on the other hand a 9x500 (4.5GHz) capable E0 Wolfdale would be quite interesting. :p:

yup - got one ;)

http://www.3dxtreme.net/other/E8500%20E0%20Q822A/4560-1.408v.prime.jpg

M31

09-27-2008, 04:44 PM

yup - got one ;)

http://www.3dxtreme.net/other/E8500%20E0%20Q822A/4560-1.408v.prime.jpg

I'd really like to try that one in FSX :p:

dnottis

09-27-2008, 04:48 PM

I'd really like to try that one in FSX :p:

Isnt FSX multithreaded? I thought a quad was better for FSX.

M31

09-27-2008, 05:26 PM

Isnt FSX multithreaded?

It is, but its very poorly implemented.

FSX uses an old tired engine that is on its last legs, when FSX was released it was one core only with the promise of full multi core patching and full DX10 support to follow, FSX SP1 gave very good dual core performance with very slight quad core benefit (this old rendering engine still needs sheer CPU power) MS and ACES (Aces develop the FS franchise for MS) fell short on promises for proper multi core support for FSX and DX10, while FSX can use core 3 and 4 on a quad, it hardly uses them at all :( FSX still needs old fashioned brute force of high clock speeds.

As for the DX10 support they added in FSX SP2 and Acceleration add on and also the magic screen shots they were showing of FSX using DX10 graphics, then this fell way short of expectations too, i don't know if you have seen the magic screen shot Aces were touting for FSX with DX10? but I'd guess graphics like that wont happen for about 10 years, they then tried to explain what we eventually got with FSX SP2 as a DX10 preview ... LOL :) Basically they lied to us and pushed the same old tired Flight Sim engine once more.

Its not all bad though, as usual third party add ons are making FSX very worthwhile so long as you have CPU muscle, but it wont be until FS11 around 2010 that this series will see any *real* benefit from multi core CPU, GPU or anything else some current games can do ... they are now starting from scratch with a new engine though.

Fingers crossed.

Glow9

09-27-2008, 05:32 PM

Q6600 vs. 9300 vs. 9450 vs. AMD 9950 I'm curious how the cache between the 3 really make a difference in terms of gaming. I see soo many reviews with skewed results it seems like but the AMD with only 2mb of cache does just as good as the Q6600 if not better so I have to say not too shabby.

fart_plume

09-27-2008, 06:12 PM

Glow9

09-27-2008, 06:15 PM

you know one of the benfits of a quad (this can be done to a dual core to also but to less effect) is manualy setting core affinity. set your os thread to two or three of the cores emptying the fourth core and setting the games affinity to that oneor two cores, tihs way the os does bog down and the game has full exclusive use of the core.

where is it you do this anyways?

M31

09-27-2008, 06:21 PM

jason str

09-27-2008, 06:46 PM

where is it you do this anyways?

Task manager-Processes.

Glow9

09-27-2008, 06:56 PM

Task manager-Processes.

Thx, was kinda curious but figured as much. My e4300 isnt exactly something I'd look into this so lol was just curious.

T_Flight

09-27-2008, 11:09 PM

I like everything I read in this thread, and agree with both sides. I think it comes down to the persons preference and what else they want to do with the system. Also price would figure into it.

On FSX these guys flying it are dead on the money! It is a CPU hog. You can give it all the GPU you want including multiple SLI'd cards, but if you don't have a massively powerful CPU you won't be flying much but a slide show. Even with the most powerful of systems, and the most incredibly expensive you cannot max out the sliders and detail levels on it.

I have actually witenessed a 8 core monster, with Quad SLI, and an obsecene amount of RAM (can't remember if it was 12GB or what off the top of my head, but it was alot), and while it did what I'd call excellent, it still could run it maxed. Aw, and the system cost over 10 grand. That is what I call the UltraXtreme of the Xtreme, and few can put that kind of money into a system unless they have company support.

I'm one that doesn't upgrade that much, but when I do, I go for some pretty high end stuff. I'm currently buyign stuff when i can get my hands on it for watercooling, and have bought a PSU, and will be building a Core i7 rig 2.93. The CPU and GPU will be watercooled.

I do folding, video stuff, and all kinds of CAD, and I too fly flight simulators. I fly Combat Flight Simulators. I fly the F16 in Falcon 4 and I love that simulator. Everybody who flies it does. I do lots on my system so a quad core is definitely ther way to go for me.

I think everybody has to take into account what they are gonna use the system for specifficly and judge what they want, and what kind of performance they are looking for.

Carfax

09-27-2008, 11:45 PM

Even with the most powerful of systems, and the most incredibly expensive you cannot max out the sliders and detail levels on it.

I doubt this is a result of the intensity of the game, but rather the fact that it's horribly optimized.

I've seen benchmarks of FSX with a dual core and a quad core, and the game's performance barely improved with the addition of the two extra cores.

If the game was that hungry for CPU power, it would have increased in performance..

naokaji

09-28-2008, 12:58 AM

dual or quad? quad all the way in my opinion, with the 45nm quads going close to 4ghz (or with a wc'd 9650 even above) I don't really see the point in dual cores anymore unless you are on a tight budget, just my 2 cents.

M31

09-28-2008, 01:20 AM

I doubt this is a result of the intensity of the game, but rather the fact that it's horribly optimized.

I've seen benchmarks of FSX with a dual core and a quad core, and the game's performance barely improved with the addition of the two extra cores.

If the game was that hungry for CPU power, it would have increased in performance..

Ehh?

I think you have missed the point completely, my friend :)

LOL, this is all a complete and utter headache and I'm bowing out now.

Night all.

ewitte

09-28-2008, 04:48 AM

most current games that are available are optimized for duals. However newer games coming out are all going to be optimized for multiple cores.

What I saw when people said there was no use for Dual cores in games is you got benefits once the video drivers supported it, not just the game.

Either way a faster video card is MUCH more useful in gaming.

dnottis

09-29-2008, 10:20 AM

Guys I took some data and posted an article on Q6600 @ 3.85Ghz vs. E0 E8500 @ 4.5Ghz

http://3dxtreme.net/index.php?id=e8500vsq6600p1

systemviper

09-29-2008, 10:25 AM

I think if you lived in a bubble and turned your system on right into a game, then the duo might be a good choice, but if your using Vista, then the quad helps in every aspect, Vista is constantly using all 4 cores, i watch it all the time on my cpu meter cranking away, so i think the quad vs duo comparison is dead. The quad gives you better performance.

zlojack

09-29-2008, 10:28 AM

Very nice article and a good assessment.

Basically, the dual edges out the quad but I think, judging from your results, that if someone has a decent-clocked quad, they're not going to lose very much.

dnottis

09-29-2008, 10:41 AM

fart_plume

09-29-2008, 10:49 AM

Like i said dump all os related threads to two or three cores then set your game for the empty one, should help make it run faster.

systemviper

09-29-2008, 10:55 AM

Like i said dump all os related threads to two or three cores then set your game for the empty one, should help make it run faster.

How do you control the core usage?

zlojack

09-29-2008, 11:01 AM

How do you control the core usage?

Set affinity in Task Manager

systemviper

09-29-2008, 11:03 AM

Set affinity in Task Manager

thanks, i knew how to set priority, but i guess i haven't been there for a while, ever since we had a second core -very sweet :up:

Blazing fire

10-10-2008, 04:00 AM

At higher resolutions the CPU wont matter much. I have used a Q6600 and an E8400 for CoH and found very little difference.

To obtain a more accurate comparison, what are your speeds for both Q6600 and E8400?

Also, for games like COH, RAM matters a great deal. I'm talking about 18fps boost in minimum frame rates when you compare 2GB vs 4GB.

From corsair: http://www.corsairmemory.com/_appnotes/AN804_Gaming_Performance_Analysis.pdf

From legitreviews if you accuse corsair of adjusting results because they are a RAM company. http://www.legitreviews.com/article/709/1/

gosh

10-14-2008, 02:12 PM

Crysis doesn't benefit from dual over a quad either. Here's hoping Warhead is multi-threaded.

Crysis Warhead with Phenom 9500 @ 2.2 GHz and 4870X2
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3415/crysiswareheadvl9.jpg

dnottis

10-14-2008, 03:52 PM

Crysis Warhead with Phenom 9500 @ 2.2 GHz and 4870X2
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3415/crysiswareheadvl9.jpg

Stuck with the E8500 as it was faster than the Q6600 in most games including Warhead. Sure it uses 4 cores, but with 2 faster cores it runs better.

Q6600 @ 3.8
http://3dxtreme.net/other/dual%20-%20quad%20AC/crysis%20warhead%20q6600.jpg

E8500 @ 4.4
http://3dxtreme.net/other/dual%20-%20quad%20AC/crysis%20warhead.jpg

gosh

10-15-2008, 05:20 AM

Stuck with the E8500 as it was faster than the Q6600 in most games including Warhead. Sure it uses 4 cores, but with 2 faster cores it runs better.

What's important is the lowest FPS values, checking average FPS isn't an accurate measurement. If the game does take advantage of threading this doesn't mean that the game will use threads all the time. if the game is in one area where there is little work to draw frames then there might be only one thread that is working. Suddenly enemies are attacking and there is bombs, physics etc needs to work, then more threads is activated and there is where you need the power for good gameplay.

Stalker Clear Sky is mostly using one thread, very little work in other threads. But if you are in a fight you will see more work in one additional thread.

dnottis

10-15-2008, 05:42 AM

What's important is the lowest FPS values, checking average FPS isn't an accurate measurement. If the game does take advantage of threading this doesn't mean that the game will use threads all the time. if the game is in one area where there is little work to draw frames then there might be only one thread that is working. Suddenly enemies are attacking and there is bombs, physics etc needs to work, then more threads is activated and there is where you need the power for good gameplay.

Stalker Clear Sky is mostly using one thread, very little work in other threads. But if you are in a fight you will see more work in one additional thread.

I know, I've run Fraps realtime, the E8500 @ 4.4 gave me higher minimums too. I loved my quad but the E8500 was just faster.

systemviper

10-15-2008, 05:49 AM

But now the quads are pushing over the 4G mark with ease, i got my Q9650 running at 4GHZ with minimal volts and i see people getting 4.5GHZ so what happens then, I think the quad wins at that point?

gosh

10-15-2008, 06:06 AM

I know, I've run Fraps realtime, the E8500 @ 4.4 gave me higher minimums too. I loved my quad but the E8500 was just faster.
You can't test the cpu counting frames because the video card will smear out the values (video card and cpu runs asynchronously). If you want to check the real value you need to cut the high FPS values. This can be done with a slow video card. If you set the resolution just below where the game is 100% bottlenecked by the video card and check the CPU that gets the highest value then you will see wich processor that is best for the game.
Saying that the processor have very little impact on games.
I have a phenom 9500 @ 2.2 Ghz and it can run all games I have tested. The videocard is 4870x2.

When games will increase minimum CPU to four cores than there might be a shift in needed cpu for games.

gurusan

10-15-2008, 06:15 AM

Just went from an e8500 @ 4.352ghz to a Q9650 to 4.3ghz and guess what. I don't notice a damned bit of difference.

lol but I wasn't expecting to, I just wanted a play with an E0 quad. I've already had 11 other quads, q6600s, QX6850s, and a QX9650.

E8500s are the best for gaming at the moment......getting one over 4ghz stable is very, very easy these days (more like 4.3-4.5 with an E0) and the same can only be said for new E0 quads which are 3-4 times the price....and for pretty much identical performance :/

dnottis

10-15-2008, 06:21 AM

Carfax

10-15-2008, 11:04 AM

I cant justify the price of a Q9650 here. Between my Q6600 and the E8500 I've had 2 great overclockers. Sure a Q9650 @ 4.1 would be nice, but its just not something I'm ready to drop $550 on.

Wait two more months and the Q9650 will drop in price big time :up:

I have tested extensively and trust me the minimums are still higher with the E8500.

Frames per second might say one thing, but what about subjective testing?

Does the game feel any different between the dual core and the quad in terms of smoothness?

dnottis

10-15-2008, 02:16 PM

Wait two more months and the Q9650 will drop in price big time :up:

Frames per second might say one thing, but what about subjective testing?

Does the game feel any different between the dual core and the quad in terms of smoothness?

Yea, especially Crysis Warhead, it was much smoother with the E8500.

Carfax

10-15-2008, 03:40 PM

Yea, especially Crysis Warhead, it was much smoother with the E8500.

This could very well be true, and not only because the dual core is clocked much higher than the quad core.

Despite Cevat Yerli's proclamation that Crysis is optimized for quad core, most benchmarks show that it doesn't actively use four cores.

Only a few games are well optimized for quad core, or show improvement from quad core.

Assassin's Creed, Unreal engine 3.0 games, Lost Planet and a few others.. Everything else is pretty much optimized for dual core.

With the new games coming out later this month and in November, some of them may support quadcore.

Far Cry 2 and Prince of Persia next gen more than likely, as Ubisoft usually optimizes their games for multicore. Rise of the Argonauts as well, as it uses Unreal Engine 3.

Carfax

10-15-2008, 03:53 PM

gosh

10-16-2008, 01:57 AM

Yea, especially Crysis Warhead, it was much smoother with the E8500.
Maybe if you compare with C2Q the C2D is smoother. If threads are moved from one core to another core on C2Q and the other core is located on the other C2D (C2Q = 2 x C2D) cache is invalidated and the core needs to get memory from ram again.

Using Phenom this isn't a problem, not a problem with the new i7

dnottis

10-16-2008, 05:54 AM

Yep, Far Cry 2 will utilize quad core processors to the tune of a 30% advantage over dual core set ups (http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,661894/News/Far_Cry_2_Hardware_nerdsundrsquo_gaming_experience/)

This doesn't surprise me as like I said, Ubisoft usually optimize their games pretty good ie Assassin's Creed. :)

We'll see. I have found most games that do use multi core dont really tax 4 cores. Most will hit each about 50%. However with a dual core you will see both cores up about 85% and since my 8500 is clocked alot higher it was still smoother and faster. GOW, Assassin's Creed both played better with the E8500 @ 4.4Ghz vs Q6600 @ 3.82Ghz.

I do miss having the quad but I wasn't really using it to it's fullest. And I appreciate the lower heat output of the dual core.

gurusan

10-16-2008, 06:04 AM

Wait two more months and the Q9650 will drop in price big time :up:

Frames per second might say one thing, but what about subjective testing?

Does the game feel any different between the dual core and the quad in terms of smoothness?

as I said before, I've used both and at the same clocks there's no difference between them. Dualies win price/performance. Quads win epeen status

Carfax

10-16-2008, 01:06 PM

We'll see. I have found most games that do use multi core dont really tax 4 cores. Most will hit each about 50%. However with a dual core you will see both cores up about 85% and since my 8500 is clocked alot higher it was still smoother and faster. GOW, Assassin's Creed both played better with the E8500 @ 4.4Ghz vs Q6600 @ 3.82Ghz.

I do miss having the quad but I wasn't really using it to it's fullest. And I appreciate the lower heat output of the dual core.

Likely, the Wolfdale core has something to do with it as well. The Wolfdale core has 50% more cache per two cores than the Kentsfield, as well as a host of other architectural tweaks that increase gaming performance by up to 10%.

But I reckon the biggest reason for the disparity is the tremendous clockspeed on your dualie, which more than makes up for the two extra cores on your quad.

When I switched over to quadcore, I definitely noticed an increase in gaming performance for Assassin's Creed vs my dualie, even though my dualie was clocked 600mhz higher.