• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Quads finally coming into their own?

It doesn't matter on ocuk, the dual owners will still tell us otherwise ;) I personally don't see the point in dual processors now apart from laptops where lower power is such a factor.

Games like SupCom, Unreal Tourney and GTA IV are just the first, poorly optimised or not.
 
You often see folks saying to buy dual cores rather than quads. "They run games faster," they say.

Here's some benchies for GTA IV, which seems to show quads out stripping the faster clocked duals.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,..._with_13_processors/?article_id=669595&page=2

Compare the E6600 & Q6600 for example... The Q6600 is over 50% quicker... :) Matching an E8400 & E8500 (@3.6ghz)!

We've had this discussion like 3 times now, GTA 4 is such a failed engine that it doesn't really mean much.
 
Quads only seem good for poor programed games atm. GTA4 was made for 8 cores on the console, and it takes about that many cores to make it stable on pc too lol.

Even older quad core games like supcom need quads only because of the AI on skirmish's, even then the game slows down a lot (without 3rd party AI).

There doesnt seem to be any good quad core games yet, that run well effectivly on quads.
 
Quads only seem good for poor programed games atm. GTA4 was made for 8 cores on the console, and it takes about that many cores to make it stable on pc too lol.
Actually GTA was made for 3 cores on the 360, then ported to 6 cores on the PS3 and then ported to the PC (3 threads again afaik).

Who's we?
We we, like the 3 or 4 threads already regarding Quads and GTA.

L4D seems to keep all my four processors reasonably busy...

I'm not convinced L4D needs 4 cores to run though, or gets much benefit from the 4 threads it uses.


Overall ... Yes, quads are comming into their own but I don't see any need to upgrade to a Quad until I move to the "next" generation, which is mainly Quad-core now (Deneb/i7).
 
Actually GTA was made for 3 cores on the 360, then ported to 6 cores on the PS3 and then ported to the PC (3 threads again afaik).

That would tie up very neatly with the 50% speed increase moving from a dual to a quadcode at the same speed.
 
Actually GTA was made for 3 cores on the 360, then ported to 6 cores on the PS3 and then ported to the PC (3 threads again afaik).

The 6 core one is which i ment, the other 2 cores inside the PS3 are used for other things like OS yeah? (i know the cpu used comes with 8).
 
Even older quad core games like supcom need quads only because of the AI on skirmish's, even then the game slows down a lot (without 3rd party AI).

SupCom was actually designed more for dual core rather than quad, it just happens that quads run it better.

SupCom users one core for the physics as the game is actually a REAL simulator rather than a script based game like C&C for instance (Although there are a number of scripts in place with the game still).


Crysis Warhead is one of the ONLY games that was designed for quad cores, but as I stated in another message on the forum, developers are only really just starting to understand how to distribute load onto mulitcores when it comes to games. The problem is that games now have to be designed to run on 3 completely different methods of architecture.
 
the only people who should be buying duals are prolific overclcokers and upgrades, or people who can't afford quads.
Quads are the future and will see nice increase in speeds late 2009 when dx11 comes out. Most people like me, only upgrade every few years and for us lot quad is the only sensible choice.
 
dx11 means nothing in terms of quad/dual core and multithreaded gaming. Its simple its very hard to split gaming into separate threads. its fairly easy to split the physics, the ai and the graphics drivers, the audio and a few other bits into separate threads, but its very very very hard to further subdivide the power draws into further threads. Physics as a separate thread, yes, physics as 2 threads of itself is a completely different matter entirely. Now the problem is theres only so far you can go sticking entire sections on separate cores as the power draws, AI, physics and the 1/2 others might need more than is available on one core, as it can't separate out a new thread for a new core, new cores are useless.


GTA doesn't need quad cores, it doesn't need 1gb memory for textures either, the fact that neither console has 1gb of memory should hint at that. Theres some major failures with their port, some major things missing and some major design flaws. The power it needs yet it looks fairly poor, lots of poor quality textures, lots of popping in and out, lots of crappy shadows. Its just a really poor port and using it as an argument as to why we need quads isn't valid, in any way at all. Neither should you buy hardware for a single game unless you play it all the time. I can understand if WOW was a computer killer and needed a 4.5Ghz quad core and you did play it for 3 hours a day, buying a comp for it makes a little sense, likewise if you use photoshop with massive pictures every day 8gigs mem would be worthwhile. If you'll play gta, probably once, then forget about it for 4 years then buying a quad just for it is rather silly.


There will be few games and far between that need quad cores, Supcom isn't the start of things to come, its simply different to 99% of games out there, its a huge database with a fairly simply 3d interface, most games simply aren't like that at all, RTS's, and only a very small percentage of RTS's are cpu intensive, always have been and always will be. Supcom wanting a quad(or more) has no meaning, it doesn't indicate all games will need similar power eventually, most games aren't massive databases constantly crunching numbers.

It will probably be a long, maybe a very long time before you really see games using multithreading in the true sense, IE physics part of the engine being able to generate new threads itself and spread its load. IT was fairly easy to separate the physics from the ai and the sound/gfx, there was no reason they ever had to be in the same thread, but being there was only one core it was simply easier to generate one thread in one .exe , it was never necessary. So they've split that up, it was a piece of cake, the next step for true multithreading is going to take ages and few games will do it. Things like Supcom, because each unit can be taken individually fairly easily will be the first and maybe only types of games to do so easily.

A lot of the leading people in the industry are saying those that can really program WELL in true multithreading are very very rare and need to be truly exceptional. The average programmer isn't capable according to the most respected people in the industry.
 
the only people who should be buying duals are prolific overclcokers and upgrades, or people who can't afford quads.
Quads are the future and will see nice increase in speeds late 2009 when dx11 comes out. Most people like me, only upgrade every few years and for us lot quad is the only sensible choice.

I don't think it's as cut and dried as that, but I do agree with what you're saying.

Right now an E8600 runs at 3.33Ghz and costs you 207 squids.
The lowest Quad runs at 2.83Ghz and costs you 230 squids.

For the majority of games the dual core would be faster.

I don't think any of us can really tell when games will start making use of all cores available efficiently, perhaps a year, perhaps 3 years.

So I don't think it's as black and white as that.

What I'd suggest people did instead is get an AM2+ board, and DDR2 and a cheapo dualcore AMD, and in a year drop a Quad in.

The way AMD have the Quads working looks really good for that. Since the memory controller is in the CPU itself the newest chips they're coming out with will work with DDR2 or DDR3 and will work on AM2+ or AM3 boards. So it means you can go for a cheap stepping stone upgrade now, and then drop a quad in later.
 
Gaming is not all that PCs are for... :eek:

I've been making good use of Quads for over 3 years now, my Quad Opteron (two dual core Opterons) still rocks, although soundly beaten speed wise now by my Intel Quad boxes. My Quad Opteron ran at 100% load 24/7 for more than 2 yrs, but has a slightly easier life now
 
Non RTS games that use all 4 cores on my setup.

GOW, UT3, DMC4, GRID, LostPlanet Colonies(1-4)threads options in game,
COD5, BiosShock, Sega Rally, TurningPoint, MassEffect, Stalker SOC. TombRU, FO3, LFD, COD4,

The back of the DVD case will say MultiCore or Dual Recommended for most.
 
The 6 core one is which i ment, the other 2 cores inside the PS3 are used for other things like OS yeah? (i know the cpu used comes with 8).

It has ONE main core with 6 SPE cores that comes with it.
7th SPE core is disabled for yields. 8th one is reserved for OS. XBox360 has 3 MAIN cores.

So, yeah, saying PS3 has 8 cores is stretching it. Even 6 is not really correct. ;)

GTA IV is just badly programmed, not gonna repeat that again, everyone knows. It was so even on console level.
 
Back
Top Bottom