CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling

Jimi · 2 Apr 2006 at 19:28

CPUs & Real-World Gameplay Scaling

Don't know if this has been posted, haven't seen it anyway. [H]ardOCP did an article on how the CPU really does limit the performance of GFX. Definately worth a read.

gary996 · 2 Apr 2006 at 19:42

interesting. Dont need fx60 to improve fps

DELETED_36704 · 2 Apr 2006 at 21:35

[QUOTE="Hardocp]Dual Core Gaming For The Win?

There just simply aren’t any major 3D game titles that utilize dual core processors in any way that is advantageous. Yes, NVIDIA drivers “support” dual core CPUs and are able to leverage the second core for some offloading of driver work but this did not result in any tangible real-world benefits at all. We are sorry to say if you are purchasing a dual core CPU in hopes of better gameplay you aren’t going to see any difference right now. The major discerning performance factors in games are going to be the frequency of your CPU and your level of GPU. Hopefully games in the future will properly support and benefit from dual core CPUs.

If you are building a system for 3D gaming, save your dual core budget and spend it on GHz. [/QUOTE]

There it is...7900GTX here i come

*wishes*

paradigm · 2 Apr 2006 at 21:42

Good job I bought a dual-core because my PC does more than just game.

Article is a good read, but in the real-world people do more than game. :rolleyes:

MoNkeE · 2 Apr 2006 at 22:19

Brilliant role eyes there - quite ironic how you take the "well my PC doesn't only do gaming" stance in a article dedicated to - you've guessed it - dual core gaming!

Have a medal.

-RaZ

ajgoodfellow · 3 Apr 2006 at 13:57

I think Anandtech have posted better articles in the past, where they've compared an A64 3000+ with a P4 3GHz right up to the top end FXs and P4 EEs all on the same graph so you can see the scaling immediately

This doesn't compare many CPUs, not many like for like and doesn't even have a single core A64!

easyrider · 3 Apr 2006 at 14:28

OH I think i'll get a:

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice 90nm for £195

over a

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800 for £199 :confused:

Sorry I'll get the dual core overclock it to 2.6ghz have great gaming performance and destroy the single core in everything else I do.

What a stupid article.

Jimi · 3 Apr 2006 at 14:37

easyrider said:
OH I think i'll get a:

AMD Athlon 64 3800+ Venice 90nm for £195

over a

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800 for £199

Sorry I'll get the dual core overclock it to 2.6ghz have great gaming performance and destroy the single core in everything else I do.

What a stupid article.

You talk about overclocking as if you'll be able to get huge gains out every CPU you get, that's not the case.

The article wasn't done to make the dual cores look inferior to single cores when gaming or vice versa, it's trying to show how the CPU be it single or dual core, limits the GFX card.

On the conclusion page when they talk about the dual cores, they're just pointing out that just because you have a dual core, it won't give you any significant gains over single cores.

easyrider · 3 Apr 2006 at 14:49

Jimi said:
You talk about overclocking as if you'll be able to get huge gains out every CPU you get, that's not the case.

The article wasn't done to make the dual cores look inferior to single cores when gaming or vice versa, it's trying to show how the CPU be it single or dual core, limits the GFX card.

On the conclusion page when they talk about the dual cores, they're just pointing out that just because you have a dual core, it won't give you any significant gains over single cores.

I haven't come across a x2 3800 that hasn't done 2.4ghz ever.
Most do 2.5ghz-2.6ghz without a problem.

If in the market for a new cpu it would be wise to get a dual core if you game though.

Apps can be run on either core making a more efficient system.Leading to better gaming performance.

What happens in six months when dual core optimised games are released?
That article really only provides us with what we already know.

Maybe stupid was the wrong word for the article but people dont get dual core's because thay think they willl have massive performance increases in games.They get them for multitasking etc aswell as gaming.

Arcane · 3 Apr 2006 at 17:59

With AM2 and Conroe just around the corner I won't be buying anything.

Jimi · 3 Apr 2006 at 19:15

easyrider said:
I haven't come across a x2 3800 that hasn't done 2.4ghz ever.
Most do 2.5ghz-2.6ghz without a problem.

If in the market for a new cpu it would be wise to get a dual core if you game though.

Apps can be run on either core making a more efficient system.Leading to better gaming performance.

What happens in six months when dual core optimised games are released?
That article really only provides us with what we already know.

Maybe stupid was the wrong word for the article but people dont get dual core's because thay think they willl have massive performance increases in games.They get them for multitasking etc aswell as gaming.

You seem to be missing the point of the article. Like I said before, they were trying to demonstrate how speed of a processor limits the GFX card whether it's dual or single core.

Now maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't read anywhere in that article where they recommend getting a single core instead of dual which is what you seem to be implying.

easyrider · 3 Apr 2006 at 19:20

Get's coat

turtle3 · 3 Apr 2006 at 21:32

Good article,

Its excellent that they include a min fps score in their results, ive been trying to tell people all along that a faster more expensive processor be it single or dual core WILL NOT give you any real world gains in gaming fps what so ever,, You see an fx60 may well have an average framerate of 80fps and a max of 120fps or whatever but it will always drop to the same MINIMUM framerate say 20fps as a cheaper 3200+ processor would at the same intensive points in your game. To put it simple, a faster processor will only giver you more fps where you dont need it and will not benefit from it at the top end of the range..

chaparral · 3 Apr 2006 at 21:44

Why did they not test one of the only games that supports dual core cpu's ??? (quake4 with the dual core patch)

easyrider · 3 Apr 2006 at 21:46

chaparral said:
Why did they not test quake4 with the dual core patch??

Agreed that dual core patch increases performance substantially.

chaparral · 3 Apr 2006 at 21:49

Quake4 with dual core patch

trojan698 · 3 Apr 2006 at 21:59

This opty @ 2.2 plays every single game with a higher fps than my X2 4400 at stock. Regardless of any patches or drivers or even setting the affinity manually, the single core wins, gaming wise. The stuttering is also gone.

easyrider · 3 Apr 2006 at 22:10

trojan698 said:
This opty @ 2.2 plays every single game with a higher fps than my X2 4400 at stock. Regardless of any patches or drivers or even setting the affinity manually, the single core wins, gaming wise. The stuttering is also gone.

How?

when in single core apps the 4400 is the same speed

Thats impossible

chopchop · 3 Apr 2006 at 22:56

paradigm said:
Good job I bought a dual-core because my PC does more than just game.

Article is a good read, but in the real-world people do more than game.

not me, all i do is internet a few other odds and sods and play games and even if i do encoding its so quick anyway

thats what the majority of people do with their pc's.

dual core is for people who want to do more encoding/cpu intensive tasks than game plying, althought they can play games nearly as quick as the single core users. all boils down to what you need the pc for.

kdd · 3 Apr 2006 at 22:59

paradigm said:
Good job I bought a dual-core because my PC does more than just game.

Article is a good read, but in the real-world people do more than game.

I think that was why it was called real world gameplay scaling. As opposed to benchmark scaling.