games and dual core processors

[MDTerp429]

most threads i read on this forum recommend single-core processors for gaming builds, since games aren't currently written to utilize dual cores (ie, they are single threaded).

however, in the amd forums, gamers contend that dual cores are still excellent choices for gaming, if folks use the concept to its fullest potential. that potential is this: delegate gaming tasks completely on one of the cores, and delegate all other tasks like windows system tasks, firewall, antivirus, music, internet, etc onto the other core.

consider the X2 3800 with 2x512 MB L2 cache at 2.0 GHz. correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't that mean that EACH core clocks at 2.0GHz, so its in theory like running two single core 3200s? I say "in theory" because real world and theory usually never line up...LOL.

the point of this thread is just to ask what folks think about this concept when recommending single core cpu's? if someone wants to "be ready" for the eventual (but not necessarily imminent) move to dual cores, whats the problem with dual core if they can use Affinity to actually utilize the dual core when gaming by letting the game run on one core with no other processes?

[pam123]

It's was basically an argument about cost not tech.
Initially the cost for dual core was much higher than single core and games don't use dual core ( The creators of Oblivion say their game will if the tech is available. We'll have to wait till March to see how that works out.) .
The prices now aren't sky high. You can get an X2 3800+ for $322 and the Athlon 64 4000+ for $334 (prices from newegg).
So, if you were the adventurous and money saving sort, that X2 would be very tempting.

[MDTerp429]

has anyone done this with dual cores to speak for/against the idea?

[jayb1234]

One thing to consider is that while there are few games or other applications that can fully utilize a dual core processor at this time, they will become increasingly common in the near future. Because of that the dual core will be more "future proof" than the single core.

[rspassey]

Games are made for the masses, they wont be threaded for dual cores until the majority have dual core processors. Otherwise they will focus in coding it for single core.

[MDTerp429]

yeah, so what about using a dual core processor in the manner described above. anyone have any comments on that?

i wonder if anyone has any benchmarks for gameply where you force the game to play on one core and all other processes on the other, or if its possible. back to the amd forums i guess...

[blue60007]

Originally Posted by MDTerp429 i wonder if anyone has any benchmarks for gameply where you force the game to play on one core and all other processes on the other, or if its possible. back to the amd forums i guess...

I'm pretty sure Windows should manage that.

[Jaggannath]

Originally Posted by MDTerp429 yeah, so what about using a dual core processor in the manner described above. anyone have any comments on that? i wonder if anyone has any benchmarks for gameply where you force the game to play on one core and all other processes on the other, or if its possible. back to the amd forums i guess...

I dare say it'd work, especially if people have done it... we're mainly saying is it worth the extra expense
And it didn't used to be

[Turbo91Bird]

If I had to build a machine right now, I would probably go with a good dual core machine. Just because I know games/applications/os will eventually take advantage of this and I don't want to hit my head later on going "Why didn't I just go dual core when I could have".

[aradon]

Im building a gaming system, i think that while dual core will defo be the future, i think that the single core market will still dominate for some time.

[MDTerp429]

i went back to scour the amd forums for more folks running games on dual cores. windows does "core manage" but it seems there is some "affinity" that you can set for each process running to tell windows which core to use for a given process. Windows favors one core over another for all of its processes, so once you know which it is, you simply use affinity (in task manager) to assign your other running processes to the same core. then you run your game and assign it to the other core. there are also tools that can "hardwire" certain progs to always use a specified core. Sounds a bit of a hassle for an average user (you have to do it each time windows starts), but for someone who games, encodes video, downloads, and has all other virus/firewall/chat programs running at the same time, its an idea...

with the release of the X2 3800 priced comparably with the A64 4000, i think dual core is worth considering. Maybe not for heavy gamers and enthusiasts, but for those people that want to attempt to future proof their systems and still be able to game now, its an idea. i think the enthusiasts will always go single core now because they are the kind that are constantly upgrading anyway, so they will go dual core when the time is right. Plus, they want the fastest and will see the benchmarks and know that single core is the fastest.

The only benchmarks show that games definitely run faster on single core processors, but I don't think/know if that is with a game being explicitly set to run on one core, all by itself, or with windows dynamically managing the processes. Benchmarks show that most times, gaming on dual cores is not as good because most activity occurs on only one core anyway.

But those in the AMD Forums who dual core game in the manner described above (not really dual core gaming, more like dual core computing), they swear by it.

[MDTerp429]

single core processing will definitely be around for a while. a long while.

[SuperBeastDJ]

Actuily gaming is going multi core...

the next FX processors are all going to be dual core.
and amd plan to have quad core cpus by 2007, dont know if those would be for desktops or servers though.

that came directly from amd.

inless 5 websites were lieing to me.

[rspassey]

If you look at it from my POV, I already have an incredible single core, and even if games do not move over to dual core I will still probably buy into a Dual Core FX, as long as each individual core is equal or better than what I have now. That means even if everything is piled onto one core, you will still have a more power CPU than what you had before, and if things take advantage of the dual core, then you will have an incredible system. I still think that right now Single is best for a gaming machine, and even when I am not gaming, I have NEVER had conflicts with photo or video editing programs, and NEVER had a need for a dual yet. Perhaps this is why I lean toward single for the time being - becuase it does everything I need it to just fine.

[Spearball]

and amd plan to have quad core cpus by 2007, dont know if those would be for desktops or servers though.

Even if they come up with a quad core.....who will use it. I mean will someone watch a movie, search for viruses, play a game, and browse the web at the same time. And i dont think a game will need quad core anytime soon. I would only say yes if its gonna be for servers or a big computer that has to be put as protection system in a huge company or something.

For games i would go with dual core. Intel or amd they both do the job great. The reason for dual core is because its a step ahead. I always like to be ahead. Who knows if a game that comes out tomorrow by whatever company will demand dual core. I can't even think about the future. A game will probably take about 10 gig, 1gb of ram, the latest video card and who knows what else........!

[rspassey]

Quad core for server applications only in the foreseable future.

[MDTerp429]

Actuily gaming is going multi core... the next FX processors are all going to be dual core. and amd plan to have quad core cpus by 2007, dont know if those would be for desktops or servers though. that came directly from amd. inless 5 websites were lieing to me.

so the fact that AMD plans to release dual core FX's and quad core CPUs means that gaming is going dual core and that single core is out? just because that technology is going to be released, doesn't mean that software will be written to take advantage of the technology, nor does it mean that masses will flock to the technology right away.

what i said is single-core systems will still be around for quite a while. and that is true as folks are still buying single core systems and will continue to. just because the newer hardware is out there doesn't mean folks will buy nor does it mean software will be developed to use it, explicitly. Lots of bugs to work out with dual core...

yes, multi-core will eventually be the norm one day, but right now and for the immediate future, most agree that it will not be tomorrow, next week, or even in 6 months. software is written for the masses. folks are still buying single core systems now and with the gaming problems peolpe are having, that small enthusiast segment is sticking to single core processors. until software can actually use the dual core technology and core-management gets better, you best believe single core is still gonna remain a viable technology. i'll find 10 websites to support that statement.

[MDTerp429]

[QUOTE]For games i would go with dual core. Intel or amd they both do the job great. The reason for dual core is because its a step ahead. I always like to be ahead. Who knows if a game that comes out tomorrow by whatever company will demand dual core. I can't even think about the future. A game will probably take about 10 gig, 1gb of ram, the latest video card and who knows what else........![\QUOTE].

i dunno what the future holds, but right now, i'm leaning to single core as the solution for heavy gaming rights. the more i research this topic, the more i see that even with setting the affinity for the various processes, there are still some games that just won't work properly. the average end-user is going to gripe and complain and not know how to work around the issues...

[MaxRat]

To answer your question....

Yes a "dual core" as in the 3800 X-2 is 2 cores each running at 2.0 gig....

[rspassey]

What you also have to include is that today, most of the heavy games may load your CPU to 100%, but they are way more dependent on the video card, and a better video card with a faster core will be more adventageous for gaming that upgrading to a dual core. A single core for the same price as a dual core is going to have a faster individual core, and if applications are using only that core, then it will still perform better than a dual core (that costs the same price). Dual core has its advantages in certain feilds like editing and multitasking, just not for gaming (yet).

[MaxRat]

Ryan is right....

Compare the speeds of a single core 3800 against a dual core 3800 and you'll see the difference...

[Burn]

dual cores is future proof....

games that support dual cores will come faster than you think. The Game Elder scoll 4 : Oblivion will support dual cores and multitread features if you have it.

[rspassey]

So will UT2K7, but you would have to wait till after their release so see if they actually perform better on a dual core than a single.

[MDTerp429]

but you would have to wait till after their release so see if they actually perform better on a dual core than a single.

agreed!

also, i think the heavy gamers and multitasking folks--the "enthusiast" segment--generally upgrade their systems frequently. so being on the "future proof" bandwagon is a bit premature, considering those that upgrade every 1-2 years will just upgrade to dual core once games can take advantage of it AND do it better then single core.

for the mainstream and those that hold on to their components a little longer, dual core is a "future proof" possibility. But these folks should know that while it might be better in the future, when software is written for dual cores, right now, there are problems with some games and to get some other games to work requires a level of tweaking that some may not be familiar or comfortable with. from the concensus i gathered from the AMD forums where there are plenty of folks gaming on dual core, the overall experience is better (they show no benchmarks), then single core, but it took a lot of tweaking and head bashing to get some games to behave on the dual core systems.

[rspassey]

Originally Posted by MDTerp429 agreed! also, i think the heavy gamers and multitasking folks--the "enthusiast" segment--generally upgrade their systems frequently

This is also true, I have been saving for upgrades on my pc (in sig); and right now I can play all games with pretty much all the eye candy (excluding SLI AA), yet I still want to do an upgrade in about 6 months. Why? Because I want to stay on top of technology, and because I have pride in a top of the line gaming computer. Some people say "why spend 1000$ more on video cards and only use them for a year?" and I respond "when you break it down day by day it cost is only 3 or 4 dollars, and I get much more than 4$ worth of gaming each day. IMO". This is the same for lots of people, we want to have a very good computer now, and will upgrade not when it is needed, but when something new and better comes out.