Rated: 100% (1 votes)
Loading ...Multicore gaming is here - so Dual or Quad?
combatus
Pretty much as long as multi-CPU’s have been around, there has been the overwhelming argument that most every-day applications simply didn’t benefit from more than one core. Multitasking and encoding were pretty much the only non-benchmark situations that you might actually see noticable benefits.
Then all of a sudden games developers have taken note and we are seeing real performance improvements over single core CPUs. Not only this but having four rather than two cores also makes a difference, especially in multithreaded games like Unreal Tournament 3 and Crysis. In the CPC CPU megatest (Issue53 Feb) quad-cores were ahead by similarly clocked dual-cores by noticable margins.
Crysis for example had a minimum frame rate 15% higher with a Q6600 than with an E6600. UT3 actively uses two or more cores “There is a primary thread for the gameplay and a second one for rendering. On systems with more than two cores we run additional threads to speed up various calculation tasks, including physics and data decompression. So the overall performance benefits greatly from a quad-core processor.” (EPIC’S Tim Sweeney ) and the difference is even more pronounced - with the resolution lowered to 1024×768 to eliminate GPU limitations, Anandtech found that frame rates were boosted from 154FPS to 186FPS simply by making the move from two to four cores. Read the full article here
What this means is that the bandwagon is definitely on the move as far as multi-core gaming is concerned. While benefits from quad cores at the moment are relatively small compared to the move from a single core, the increase is there nonetheless and this is important for two reasons:
1. If you want to get the most out of your system, even with games then a quad core CPU is a worthwhile investment.
2. futureproofing should naturally include consideration for future games which may make even more use of two or more cores - so with games already making use of additional cores with extra threads for things like additional calculations, if you upgrade every year or two then a quad core could be a worthwhile investment
This makes current decisions extremely difficult though. With intels new Wolfdale 45nm dual cores on the shelves this week, and proving very overclockable, is it worth waiting for the new quad cores? There is a BIG price hike too - over £100 difference from an E8200 to a Q9450 both clocked at 2.6Ghz. What’s more the Q9450 only has an 8x multiplier, while more meaty, cheaper dual cores like the E8400 and E8500 have multipliers of 9x and 9.5x. This means that they are able to clock much higher - well over 4GHz, while the Quad will have to have a FSb of 500 a s bare minimum to even reach 4Ghz.
The new Dual cores certainly offer more bang per buck, especially as current games don’t scale convincingly with 4 cores.
With the advent of games that use more than one core, I’ll have to start thinking about upgrading my whole PC.
Hardly a realistic test running frame rates at 150+ If you have the graphical grunt to do that you would increase the setting quality and resolution to get things running at a nice smooth 40 - 50 frames ps. In those circumstances would you notice any difference between dual and quad core cpu’s ?
The full article is very interesting though.
Has made me change my mind on my processor for my new build, Iwas going for a Q6600 G0 but now will buy the wolfedale E8400. Almost the same price. Article shows that there is only small performance advantage going from dual to quad core in games (my primary concern) and that cache size is more important. So as wolfedale has 3MB cache per core as apposed to 2MB on the kentsfield then it seems the better choice.
Also clock speed isn’t as important as you’d think so I’ll save a few quit and go for the E8400 and not the E8500.