• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

CPU scaling with a 4870X2

I thought supreme commander was supposed to be the best game for showing off a quad core, but it looks like a dual core can do just as good, if its clocked high enough.

I wish there was a review out there that showed the CPU scaling with an e8600 to see where the scaling really stops.
 
It actually confirms what I've been saying for some time. Anything past 3.0GHz on a Core 2 is usually enough.
 
redman223 said:
I thought supreme commander was supposed to be the best game for showing off a quad core, but it looks like a dual core can do just as good, if its clocked high enough.

I wish there was a review out there that showed the CPU scaling with an e8600 to see where the scaling really stops.
Click to expand...

I've run Yorkfield XE's at 4.0GHz and it does nothing in games compared to running at 3.2GHz.
 
CAD4466HK said:
LTNS got crickets still :p
Click to expand...

Man, I'm still scarred for that,but the irony after I read your post was listening to the symphony of crickets I can hear right now through the open windows.....here we go again :D

Nice to see ya again, I was wondering what happened to you, been a long time MIA.
 
Sphere said:
Man, I'm still scarred for that,but the irony after I read your post was listening to the symphony of crickets I can hear right now through the open windows.....here we go again :D

Nice to see ya again, I was wondering what happened to you, been a long time MIA.
Click to expand...

Took a long, much needed vacation. ;)
I'll be around here and jG's.
 
it is interesting how much higher the limit is. an 8800GTX is pretty well GPU limited on my machine (I have tested this) it will be interesting to see how a GTX260 or 280 (need to decide here) scale.
 
Not surprised based on the games they tested - it's not secret that some game engines wreak havoc on CPUs (Supreme Commander for example). As games become better coded and multithreaded this trend will only continue.
 
Anyone who's played a large game of supcom can tell you the benefit of quads in that game is with the sim engine, not the render framerate.
 
Just pulled the trigger on a Q6600 and a 4850...upgrading from a E6300 and 7900GTO...should be a huuuuge performance boost.
 
Damn... that isn't what I wanted to see.

My wife would kill me if I built my self a new rig, but then again.... maybe I'll just pay for her to go on a trip with her mom for a weekend and sneak the parts into the case and never tell her.... yeah.....

If I suddenly stop posting about 2 weeks after the nahelems hit the stores, will someone call the cops so I can get a decent burial?
 
E8400 is $170, a Q9650 is $550, a QX9650 is $1,000. Most programs don't take advantage of 4 processors yet so it is logical that an E8400 overclocked would perform nearly equal to that of a quad core processor.
 
a_noob said:
E8400 is $170, a Q9650 is $550, a QX9650 is $1,000. Most programs don't take advantage of 4 processors yet so it is logical that an E8400 overclocked would perform nearly equal to that of a quad core processor.
Click to expand...

How much is a q6600...?

Oh yeah.. $179..
 
Mj23foreva said:
Just pulled the trigger on a Q6600 and a 4850...upgrading from a E6300 and 7900GTO...should be a huuuuge performance boost.
Click to expand...

You better take that chip to 3.3+G as that appears to be the sweet spot for removing CPU limit without breaking the bank. I got my X3350 clocked to 3.35.
 
a_noob said:
E8400 is $170, a Q9650 is $550, a QX9650 is $1,000. Most programs don't take advantage of 4 processors yet so it is logical that an E8400 overclocked would perform nearly equal to that of a quad core processor.
Click to expand...

The e8400 stock still beats out the q6600 in most instances AFAIK, and is a better overclocker. In terms of BFTB (bang for the buck), the e8400 is pretty tough to beat, except perhaps the e2180.
 
Sounds like the old single core vs dual core argument. Where are all the single cores? :p
 
_G_ said:
Sounds like the old single core vs dual core argument. Where are all the single cores? :p
Click to expand...

That's sort of an apples-to-oranges thing. More is not always better. Most people do enough multitasking to really load up a single core, and a dual core helps split it up. But who rally multitasks to the point that you need 4 cores? 4 core can be better than 2, yes, but I don't think that the benefit you get from going to 2 to 4 is anywhere near the amount that you get by going from 1 to 2.
 
I could have swore this thread was created a long time ago...must have been nuked back when the server went down?
 
OMG stop this...why people keep defending dual cores cpu's, its obvious that a 4 core will be faster and will have a longer lifespan thats a no brainer, i dont get how some people on this forum keep backing dual cores cpu's, when they are almost finished.....face it, the future of pc's at least for now is quad cores....dual cores is the past.....

Sounds like the old single core vs dual core argument. Where are all the single cores?
Click to expand...

i totally agree with you man, i couldnt say it better.....
 
This is very interesting. I definately see that quad core is the way to go if your buying a cpu from here on out, even for gaming alone.

However I don't see ant reason to upgrade yet and I'm only using an e2180 @ 3ghz and a 8800gt oc. I can play all the games I want @ 1920x1200(Company Of Heroes, HL2, HL2 ep1/ep2, Day of Defeat Source, CS: Source, Battlefield 2, Farcry, Bioshock, C&C Generals, Grid, Dirt, etc) without sacrificing eye candy....except for crysis.
 
Do any of you guys have any idea of why there are multicore cpu's out?
 
I think the major thing to look at, though, is that the lowest end dual core they tested still averaged at worst 33 fps. Now, 33 fps isn't what I would consider good, but it is still borderline playable. Not bad at all for a 1.6ghz X2 at 1920x1200. Heck, the $50 X2 4400 had a lowest average of 43 fps. Clearly dual cores from 2005 are still "good enough" if all you want to do is play the damn game and not benchmark it.
 
WOW.. that hurts my feelings. I'm still kickin an Opteron 165@2.6. It is time for an upgrade. Though that info is kinda wasted on me because I don't play any of those games.
 
As soon as devs start coding NATIVELY for multiple core processors (which is happening now) single cores will go bye bye. The big thing that always held back games\applications from utilizing multi cores was the effort in the code to take advantage of them. From what I hear doing "that" is becoming very easy. Almost as a plugin (not that lightly) but a lot easier then it was back in the ohhhhhhh I don't know Falcon 4 days? ;)

It is a good time to be alive. I just wonder what the scene will be like in 5 years, let alone 10......
 
cyclone3d said:
For those of you who still think a higher clocked dual core is better for gaming than a quad core that is clocked lower, you need to take a look at this article.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=770
Click to expand...

Those CoH results look bogus.. more than double the scaling with only double the cores?

I honestly don't think CoH is known for taking advantage of 4 cores, but maybe.

_G_ said:
Sounds like the old single core vs dual core argument. Where are all the single cores? :p
Click to expand...

Well it's a bit hard to argue that when Intel and AMD aren't even making the single cores anymore.. what else can you buy when your hand is forced? If it's not on the market, you'd have a hard time buying it, which puts these companies in a bit of a monopolistic/dictator position.

jarablue said:
As soon as devs start coding NATIVELY for multiple core processors (which is happening now) single cores will go bye bye. The big thing that always held back games\applications from utilizing multi cores was the effort in the code to take advantage of them. From what I hear doing "that" is becoming very easy. Almost as a plugin (not that lightly) but a lot easier then it was back in the ohhhhhhh I don't know Falcon 4 days? ;)

It is a good time to be alive. I just wonder what the scene will be like in 5 years, let alone 10......
Click to expand...

They won't natively code for multiple cores the way you think. First off, you still need to program around cases where people only have 1 core (unless your min spec for your application explicitly requires multi-core) for legacy purposes. You can make a multi-core optimized path but it's still typically just in the 2 core range for most programs. Why is this? Because it gets exponentially hard to divide up work that a program does so that it actually speeds up with multiple threads running in parallel, without threads waiting/stalling on each other. At a certain point, it becomes very hard to further chop up the workload that a given program is doing.

The more cores you're concerned with taking advantage of, the harder your programming task gets (exponentially), and by the time you're talking 4-8 threads, it's extremely hard to do correctly. Some programs simply don't have enough dividable workload to see any advantage with 4 or 8 cores. So it's not as simple as "natively coding for more cores". There's no guarantee 8 cores would make excel run any faster (or a game which was not fully utilizing 2 cores).

One thing to note about the review is that there are likely other programs and windows processes tying up some CPU cycles on at least one of the cores at any given time, so having more than 2 cores could be nice to essentially have a quadcore for 2-3 completely empty cores *dedicated* to a game (as opposed to the past where you basically get 1.x of the 2 total cores on a dual-core. This is why you see a small but negligible speedup between 2 and 4 cores most of the time.. it doesn't mean the game is aware of or using 4 cores.. it just means the OS and other applications are less in the way with so many cores to spare.

Above 4 cores you get:
1) Multithreading that is incredibly hard to code for
2) Hard to break up workload ("atomize" your workload)
3) Pretty much no benefit for apps which aren't aware of more cores.

Imagine a dual core currently:
Core 0 is 5-15% tied up with OS/other apps
Core 1 is 100% free.

You only get 1.85-1.95 cores worth of cycles.

With the quadcores, the OS could be balancing the load and giving you the 2 spare cores just for the game, or just spreading everything running out so thin across all 4, you essentially have 4 empty cores.

Quad core:

Core 0 is 5-15% tied up with OS/other apps
Core 1 is 100% free. Game could run here and get all 100% cycles
Core 2 is 100% free. Game could run here and get all 100% cycles
Core 3 is 100% free.

The difference between these two cases would be 5-15% performance, so that might be why you see slight differences in the review.
 
slamcmy said:
OMG stop this...why people keep defending dual cores cpu's, its obvious that a 4 core will be faster and will have a longer lifespan thats a no brainer
Click to expand...

Obvious how? The extra heat from those superfluous cores is gonna mean less lifespan, if anything. :p

Oh, and saying 4 cores will be "faster" "just because" is like saying an Atari Jaguar will have better games than the SNES because it's got MOAR BITS. It's pointless e-peen crap until Alan Wake type games start coming out.
 
slamcmy said:
OMG stop this...why people keep defending dual cores cpu's, its obvious that a 4 core will be faster and will have a longer lifespan thats a no brainer, i dont get how some people on this forum keep backing dual cores cpu's, when they are almost finished.....face it, the future of pc's at least for now is quad cores....dual cores is the past.....



i totally agree with you man, i couldnt say it better.....
Click to expand...

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about, using the foolish false logic of more must be better. No one here is saying that quad-cores aren't useful, or potentially more useful in the future. If you actually took the time to look at some data you'd find that there is a reason why dual core processors such as the e8400 maintain a strong price and find their way into many budget performance systems. Because they're fast, especially for gaming. The software engines that drive games are only starting to accommodate quad cores, nevermind being optimised for them. It will be at least 1-2 years before dual cores are considered compeltely "obsolete".
 
There is a difference between bogging down a quad core and utilizing a quad core. The games out right now are enough to utilize a quad core, but are able to bog it down because of crappy coding. Why? You wanted a game that use four cores... Doesn't mean it has to work effectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top