Dual/multi core games.

I tend to agree with a lot of the coments above, I mean we got benchies showing no difference or 3-4% difference with the dual core setup, but then again since it supports it doesnt mean were gonna see a performance gain at all.

So erm whats the point ;) take off all those games apart from Q4 from the Dual/Multicore list :eek:

Even those firingsquad benchies of Q4 do show a very healthy boost in fps which is what we desperately need in all games..... but there right once u go past 1280x1024 rez the difference is back to 0 percent, so graphics or cpu limited?

At the moment im really itching to see some dual/quad vs Single scores in Supreme Commander thats perhaps the only game where I reckon we will see any performance and what multicore setups will get, accept no ones done it!
 
Some good thinking here. I like the idea of three lists:

1) No support for multi core. This means there is no claimed support and no benefit found from running on a dual core setup. CPU usage on a dual core PC, will top out at 50%.

2) Claimed support. This is where the game, or the game after patching, is claimed to have SMP support but yet the end result is not all that noticeable. Games in this category you would not buy a multi core CPU for. CPU usage might be just over 50% and up all the way to 100%, but alas the key is no real boost in FPS is noticed.

3) Full SMP support. Games in this category, make you want to rush out and buy an X2 or C2D CPU (or quad versions!). Games make use of at least 2 cores and the result is a significant performance increase.

What do people think? As a side, I think games that only show 5%-10% improvement at best should go into #2 since most benchmarks are only accurate to a few percent and you should (in theory) get a small boost running a single core app on a dual core PC because of it having the whole core to itself. Note how we need to look at CPU limited cases, so low res settings on a fast GPU with as much CPU stuff going on as possible. Also the figures of 5% to 10% is a bit of guess.

EDIT: Sorry if it seems I am arguing with you SnowDog. I think the thread is a great idea, and one that is really tough to solve, as sometimes marketing gets in the way of the truth about multi core CPU's and speed.
 
Last edited:
How about I kick things off. There is no need to list games that fall into category #1 (EDIT: I'll mention those that are falsly claimed to have SMP support) so:

No support:
BattleField 2 - See http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_3.html

Claimed Support:
Quake 3 - Minimal increase. See http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/pentium4-670/q3.png
Call of Duty 2 (with 1.01) - Virtually zero increase. (PR stunt?) See http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_7.html
FEAR (with patch v1.08) (Anyone have any links?)
Oblivion - Blatent lie? (http://www.hardforum.com/archive/index.php/t-1036397.html)

Full Support:
Serious Sam 2 - 25% speed boost. See http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_5.html
Quake 4 - 15% speed boost. See http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/28cpu-games_6.html
Supreme Commander - (~50% speed boost) Up to 16 core support. See http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6166198/p-6.html
Rainbow Six: Vegas - (25% to 50% boost) Quad core support. http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?...s&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=279&page=2

Some links used from: http://forumz.tomshardware.com/games/Dual-Core-supported-games-ftopict94969.html
 
Last edited:
Will update the list when i'm back from school today...

np. Caustic, i agree and ill do it that way.

Reason i made this thread is because i'm upgrading from a 3ghz p4 to a 3ghz pentium D, and wanted to see wich games might run better and couldn't find any recent and accurate lists/threads on the net about it...
 
ShiWarrior said:
why dont u also list dual core and Quad core games separetly? (if any)
Click to expand...

Only 2 quad core games im sure of are alan wake and supcom, and i think crysis too, but aside that thats the list for quad or more cores...


Supcom i cant find any info atm about it(dotn have time for advanced search) but im sure it supports 16 cores.

alan wake info from wikipedia:
Alan Wake was demonstrated at the Intel Developer Forum in September 2006, running on an Intel Core 2 Quad processor clocked at 3.73GHz. The demonstration took the form of a tech demo, showcasing engine features such as day/night cycle, volumetric light, weather and physics. It was revealed that the game engine is multi-threaded and able to make full use of all four cores, with separate threads for physics, graphics & sound processing and seamless streaming of world data. It is therefore likely that the Xbox 360 version will also be able to take advantage of the Xenon CPU's three cores which have a total of 6 threads.

It was also claimed that the game is unlikely to run on single-core systems, but hyper-threading enabled Pentium 4 CPUs may be able to run it with significantly reduced detail.
Click to expand...


And for crysis :
Here is a list of confirmed information...

Crysis will run on both DX9 & DX10 as well as Windows XP and Windows Vista.
A graphics card that supports Shader Model 2 or higher is required.
CryEngine2 is estimated to scale back 2 years, and scale ahead 1.5 years.
A single 7800GTX will run the game quite well on fairly high settings according to Crysis Art Director, Michael Khaimzon.
Jack Mamais of Crytek said in an exclusive Crysis-Online interview that his X1900XT runs the game very well at reasonably high settings ( still unoptmized ).
Crysis will dynamically utilize all processing threads available. Meaning quad-core processors will be supported.
The following specs are estimates made by myself based on the above mentioned information and other sources. These estimates are NOT official - but are based on official information.
Click to expand...

From crysis-online page....
 
Last edited:
I'm updating my previous post as I find evidence etc. I'll mark those with Quad core support etc.

EDIT: Boy is it hard to get real benchmarks that show if a game really does use dual core. What is interesting is how rubbish some reviews are. One claimed that Q4's SMP coding was very good because it used 100% of both cores even tho' it yielded a 10% FPS increase.
 
Last edited:
snowdog said:
Btw caustic, cod2 has claimed support for dualcore: its based on the quake 3 engine and more than 1 forums say it has dualcore supp...
Click to expand...

Link?

EDIT: Found it!
 
Last edited:
Caustic said:
Link?
Click to expand...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/call_of_duty_2_dual-core/

Now Infinity Ward is getting in on the game too, releasing their dual core patch for Call of Duty 2 merely 10 days after id on Dec 22nd. Like the Quake 4 patch, the Call of Duty 2 patch promises performance improvements for users with dual-core processors, multiple processor systems, and Pentium 4 processors with Hyper-Threading Technology.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_III_engine

Games using the Quake III Arena engine
...
Call of Duty (2003) — Infinity Ward
Call of Duty: United Offensive (2004) — Gray Matter Interactive
Call of Duty 2 (2005) — Infinity Ward
...
Click to expand...

EDIT: Found it!
Click to expand...
lol, too late
 
I'm not counting games that use the Q3 engine based solely on Q3's experimental SMP support. I found out about the CoD2 patch but no benchmarks yet!
 
age of empires 3 is definitly not multithreaded - unless they have added it in a recent patch.
they claimed it would be before it came out but it wasn't - never used more than 50% cpu for me.
 
source engine is meant to be quad core when they update it

i remember reading the article and they were raving about quadcore and the things they could do with it compared to dual core think they said they updated all there rigs to quadcore
 
RobertN said:
source engine is meant to be quad core when they update it

i remember reading the article and they were raving about quadcore and the things they could do with it compared to dual core think they said they updated all there rigs to quadcore
Click to expand...

Yeah, the trouble is, reworking an engine to work with multiple cores is not trivial, and so until they bring out the patch, it means nothing.
 
snowdog said:
Is the top post & list ok now?
Click to expand...

Better, but I still think we should ditch the old list. Lets make a proper list, find the links to support it, and stop including Q3 based games!

On a side note, I found a link to Gamespot which shows dual and quad core benchmarks!
 
I reckon Q3 games did have it since there were people using multi-processor systems in about '95, or even earlier, way before Q3! They were rare yes, but they did exist and were known about. As time has gone on, games have had patches applied to them to support HyperThreading. About that time, development on a lot of them stopped, due to newer, more powerful engines. And since they have HyperThreading which is basically MultiThreading repackaged with optimisations, with newer CPU's, they can take advantage of these older instructions since the hardware itself is newer than the software.

So the engine was probably aware of a 2nd CPU, and as time has gone on, a 2nd core appears as a 2nd CPU to the game engine thus making it appear to support dual-core CPU's.

And, although these aren't games, i believe 3DMark03 and onwards support them. Same with PCMark04 and onwards. Also, FarCry, i think that supports dual-cores with a patch. Perhaps someone could check that. Empire Earth 2 Supports them as well i think. And oh yeah, don't forget CellFactor, with a dual-core, i saw an increase from about 3FPS on my old 3200+ to about 20FPS with my X2 4600+, and that's without Physx so i had to use software emulation which is done completely by the CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom