Video: Gaming on Intel's Kentsfield Quad Core!

[trowand]

Hey, at the Intel Developer's Forum, Intel and Remedy showed a demo of Remedy's new upcoming game "Alan Wake" which is one of the first games to be written for multiple cores running on an Intel Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield) and nVidia GPU. It looks like it uses the Half-Life 2 graphics engine (Havok?) It looks really awesome and I'm totally psyched about Kentsfield. Hopefully my links work but if they don't just search YouTube or the net for "Alan Wake Quad Core".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j6rR-Xv2Ro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axRN7ITzOwo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DetnKgOxrSI

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search

[Underhanded]

Excuse me while I clean up my spittle.

[David M]

I think the interviewer got it right... "it's like watching a movie."

[Foosa]

Games are more gpu limited. If I had the video card(s) they where running in the test, set up the same, I am sure I could have videos and performance that is just as good. I just don’t want to pay for them

As of now with multi core processing just being tapped, with programs(games, editing software etc) just now becoming able to utilize the multi cores, I don’t see a point to more than 2 cores. But I have no doubt that in the future 2 or more will be common place.

[David M]

The hardware has to stay ahead of the software for the technology to advance. This is pretty normal and a good thing for consumers.

[Chris_Rootes_Wizard]

Wow, thats cool. Too bad the video qualty wasn't too good

[als814]

If you had a quad core kentsfield overclocked to 3.7 ghz, two of the 7950 GX2 graphics cards, and 6GB of ram, you too could enjoy that kind of gaming experience.

[tigstah]

Originally Posted by als814 If you had a quad core kentsfield overclocked to 3.7 ghz, two of the 7950 GX2 graphics cards, and 6GB of ram, you too could enjoy that kind of gaming experience.

oh is that all...pffft please.....

[Sam-U-Rai]

Originally Posted by David M I think the interviewer got it right... "it's like watching a movie."

It did look great, I gotta admit but I don't think Quad-Core is gonna be the Requirement for 3-4 years to come.

[rspassey]

Looks incredible. I see 4 cores being mainstream in the near future (at least for gaming). That way, you can dedicate one core to processing the data to send to the GPU, one to process the data regarding the game's physics (perhaps workign with a PPU), and one for the rest of the game (sounds, etc). The last core can then handle the processes required to keep the PC and Windows environment running while you're in the game.

I'm hoping my next major upgrade will be some new video cards, but I might just wait another year months and build an entirely new system .

[jfk]

Originally Posted by rspassey Looks incredible. I see 4 cores being mainstream in the near future (at least for gaming). That way, you can dedicate one core to processing the data to send to the GPU, one to process the data regarding the game's physics (perhaps workign with a PPU), and one for the rest of the game (sounds, etc). The last core can then handle the processes required to keep the PC and Windows environment running while you're in the game. I'm hoping my next major upgrade will be some new video cards, but I might just wait another year months and build an entirely new system .

I disagree. There are only a VERY limited number of games currently available that take advantage of DUAL cores, let alone QUAD cores. It will be another year before you start seeing the majority of new games being threaded for dual cores. My guess is it will be 3-5 years before a quad core is a requirement, as I doubt it will be much earlier than that before quad cores are "mainstream". There is NO game manufacturer around that will build a game that can only be utilized by .1% of the PC's out there. No way. They are going to build the game so that the largest segment (currently single core users but in the next couple years dual core users) can take advantage of it. Simple business economics.

[blue60007]

I just read that Intel is going to offering more afforadable quad core options early next year.

The first quad-core CPUs will be available in November of this year, with more affordable offerings being introduced early next year.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2846&p=2

If that means replacements for Core 2 Duo, I do see quad cores become more mainstream fairly soon.

I think it was in that article that said UT2007 will be able to take advantage of multi-threading...I don't disagree in saying *currently* there aren't many multithreading games, but thre will be more in the *future*.

Originally Posted by jfk There is NO game manufacturer around that will build a game that can only be utilized by .1% of the PC's out there.

Agreed, but who says they won't find a way to adapt the game/engine to the number of cores avialable? ie, if a user has a quad core, then use all 4 cores, but if the user only has 2 or 1 core(s), then scale back.

Kinda like how if you have dual video cards in SLI/CF you can crank up extra visual settings, why not let people crank settings up according to how many cores they have?

[jfk]

Originally Posted by blue60007 Agreed, but who says they won't find a way to adapt the game/engine to the number of cores avialable? ie, if a user has a quad core, then use all 4 cores, but if the user only has 2 or 1 core(s), then scale back. Kinda like how if you have dual video cards in SLI/CF you can crank up extra visual settings, why not let people crank settings up according to how many cores they have?

I think that point is valid, but again, do you REALLY think they will spend R&D money on developing software for quad cores when they haven't even really tuned it for dual cores? I think your scenario will come to play in the future Blue, but in the real world, I stick by my timeline.

[blue60007]

A lot of multithreaded apps are threaded so no matter how many cores there are, it'll use them all. I wouldn't think developers would create something to only use 2 cores, but rather as many cores as it's got.

In that link I posted some of the programs tested performed 50-95% better compared to an equivalent dual core. That's an example...it was tuned for multi-cores (whether it's 2 or 200) and not for 2 cores only.

Point is, I don't think developers (whether games or encoders, etc) would tune programs for 2 cores only, but rather, variable amounts of cores. Kinda looks that way with those few programs in the article...

Since the dual core population is growing quickly, why not make games *multi*-threaded so it'll take advantage of 2 cores now, and 4 cores later on...of course, I'm not saying that's whay there doing, but....

[clroberts]

Heck, why not just run it on a 500 processor blade server net. Should get Millions of FPS out of that one right?

[TwoRails]

I know folks that like to play games, but don't much anymore. As one mentioned: "They don't make games for the average person anymore." I have to agree. I kinda keep up, but I also don't want to have to upgrade just to play, meaning it's kinda getting old to have to spend big bucks just to game. I run an 4800+ X2, but I wanted it for video editing, not because it was required to run games.

I'm very tired and am not explaining things to well, so I say it this way: Ok, most of us are builders here, and could easily do our own Dream Machine if we had the budget, but most folks can't build. So, here is something from Maximum PC:

November issue: IBuyPower's game machine at $4,700: It can only do 65 fps in FEAR.
October issue: Digital Storm's Twister can do FEAR at 90 fps, but who has $6,510
Or how 'bout Falcon's Mach V that does 92 fps? That one's cheap at $8,395

I love eye candy, but that does Not automatically make for a good game. Look at DooM III: what a let down, and I still have more fun playing the early versions.

//end rant

[rspassey]

We could build a system, less than $4700, that would probably stomp the falcon (After overclocking).

[blue60007]

What resolution did they run those tests at? It doesn't mean much to say, it does 65 fps without knowing the conditions. My X1800XT runs FEAR pretty much maxed out at 1280x960 at a good 40 fps (enough to be playable). Didn't cost me $5000+

[rspassey]

Their PCs cost 5000+ b/c they load them up with 2 terabytes of storage, two DVD combo drives, some insanely uneeded 850watt PSU, a full tower case, and a watercooling set up. They then toss on another couple grand for bragging rights and profit.

[blue60007]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, in Max PC's "Dream" machine they put in a $1000 Bluray/HD-DVD drive that doesn't even play CD's.

[tomster2300]

That was nice looking indeed, but nothing I'm willing to rebuild for. I'm waiting for Vista and dx10 now for my next pc.

[TwoRails]

Originally Posted by rspassey We could build a system, less than $4700, that would probably stomp the falcon (After overclocking).

That's part of my point! We're builders, most folks are not, so they're stuck buying pre-builts.

Originally Posted by blue60007 What resolution did they run those tests at? It doesn't mean much to say, it does 65 fps without knowing the conditions. My X1800XT runs FEAR pretty much maxed out at 1280x960 at a good 40 fps (enough to be playable). Didn't cost me $5000+

I believe MaximumPC runs the tests at everything full blown. I'm not saying that "we" can't build a better system for less, I'm just saying that average folks don't have that kind of money for a hot rod system, therefore they don't play many games and that in turn lowers game sales. But going back to the $$, heck I don't even come close to having a budget to build a dream machine like I'd like.

[blue60007]

OK, I see your point. Most people won't be building themselves...a $1000 BYO PC will play games well, but a $1000 Dell won't as they usually put pretty lousy video cards until you get on the high end (which goes back to your point).

[TwoRails]

Yep! You got it -- I think that's one reason why HL2 was / is popular, it'll run on "older" machines and still look reasonably well. Ever see DooM on a 2500+ with a 9700 pro? Jacked down to have reasonable frame rates? It ain't pretty as I saw it on a friend's system. It looked like the original DooM! It wasn't bad when I had my 3500+ and a 9800 Pro, but it sure could have been better as HL2 looked great on the same system (by comparison).

[Sam-U-Rai]

But really, I think Quad Core is just bragging rights. That's cool if you can build a rig for like 2000 bucks but when its 5000 :shock:!



Ah well. It's just a presentation. I hope this whole thing doesn't become a system requirement for another 3 years.

[TwoRails]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a quad core!! Below $300 seems to be my threshold for CPU prices. When AMD slashed prices, I waited and when the 4800+ dropped to $289, I picked one up. I can crunch a movie in about 1/4 the time it took with my 2700+ and about 1/3 the time from my 3500+. So, I'll be happy for quite a while now (Hopefully until quads become that cheap! )

[tomster2300]

Doom III ran pretty well on my 2500+...

[Chris_Rootes_Wizard]

Originally Posted by als814 If you had a quad core kentsfield overclocked to 3.7 ghz, two of the 7950 GX2 graphics cards, and 6GB of ram, you too could enjoy that kind of gaming experience.

I wish.

Pish, i couldn't even afford that if i scraped everything together, plus selling everything i had! lol. I will day-dream.

[trowand]

Originally Posted by blue60007 A lot of multithreaded apps are threaded so no matter how many cores there are, it'll use them all. ...some of the programs tested performed 50-95% better compared to an equivalent dual core. ...the dual core population is growing quickly, why not make games *multi*-threaded so it'll take advantage of 2 cores now, and 4 cores later on...

From all of the reading and research I've done on the matter, Blue is CORRECT. Software isn't being written for 2 cores or 4 cores, it's written for multiple cores. Also, Kentsfield is literally two Core 2 Duo processors on one die so it rips through multi-threaded applications nearly twice as fast as a C2D! That in itself is freakin' amazing. And I think that we'll be surprised with how many new games and programs we soon see start coming out multi-threaded. Also, who's to say that developers won't come out with a simple patch that can cause older or present games to take advantage of multiple cores. I think it's already happening. Isn't there a dual core patch for Call of Duty 2? I can't believe Intel is already coming out with something that tops the C2D. I'm so psyched about Kentsfield that I'm going to beg, borrow and steal to get enough money to build a new system around it.

[tomster2300]

I think Call of Duty 2 was actually one of the first games to be designed for a dual core without a patch needed.

I could be wrong though.