These new Conroes are monsters

[Lazza66]

Re: These new Conroes are monsters

well they have some catching up to do, Intel is rumoured to have Quad Core out next year

A moot point though given that games aren't and won't be multithreaded for possibly years yet.

[knghtwhosaysni]

Re: These new Conroes are monsters

Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2 are both multithreaded. Crysis is going to be multithreaded. The Unreal Engine 3 uses multithreading.

Plus, dual-core makes running two processes at once much faster. We wouldn't be recommending dual-core CPU's to everyone that can afford them if they weren't useful :)

[Lazza66]

Re: These new Conroes are monsters

Quake 4 and Call of Duty 2 are both multithreaded. Crysis is going to be multithreaded. The Unreal Engine 3 uses multithreading.

Plus, dual-core makes running two processes at once much faster. We wouldn't be recommending dual-core CPU's to everyone that can afford them if they weren't useful :)

Its a short list of supported titles though, and it's also the complete list you gave.

Here's some food for thought from http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...u_performance/

Quake 4 benchmarks...

Athlon 64 X2 4800+ 116.5fps 2.4ghz $US365
Athlon 64 3800+ 101fps 2.4ghz $US137

At those prices it's a budgeting choice not a performance choice. With the negative outlook on future multithreaded games from the major software developers it's likely the current dual core cpu's will be obsolete before they even get their legs stretched.

So far as benefiting the system in general etc with a multithreaded OS like XP, currently with modern cpu's the background use is negligible to begin with. My cpu for example is nearly always 99% idle. So sharing that 1% load across 2 cpus is a negligible benefit.

[jimmy_396_jimmy]

Re: These new Conroes are monsters

thats some crazy speeds for the cpu...........

[knghtwhosaysni]

Re: These new Conroes are monsters

I do realize that there isn't much difference between dual-core and single-core in COD2 and Quake 4, I was just stating there that there ARE some multithreaded games already out.

And Crysis (quite an important game, I would think) developers have said that there are very significant gains with multiple cores, especially with all the physics going on.

The Unreal Engine 3 isn't only going to be used by Unreal 2007. Just like any other Unreal engine, it will be used by quite a few games, and it's shaping up to be one of the more popular engines for next-generation games.

And the fact still stands that dual-core lets you play a game decently while converting music or some other application.

Plus, there will be other applications that will take advantage of dual-core, not just games.

And if multiple cores are so pointless, why would both Intel and AMD be investing so much time and money into making optimized multiple-core platforms and architecture?

[Lazza66]

Re: These new Conroes are monsters

And if multiple cores are so pointless, why would both Intel and AMD be investing so much time and money into making optimized multiple-core platforms and architecture?

No they're not pointless at all. If you're going to use a multithreaded program enough, and you can afford the price difference then sure, go for it.

But given what is generally very poor and uncertain support from games developers, if you did wait, you just might find we're into another generation of cpus and motherboards before enough games are supported.

[knghtwhosaysni]

Re: These new Conroes are monsters

Pretty much all, if not all, future generations of CPU's are going to have multiple cores. Did I not just say that Crysis, the biggest game of the year, and UE3, the most popular next-gen engine, both take advantage (with ample improvements) of multiple cores? How is that "very poor and uncertain support"?

Anywho, I think you are somewhat agreeing with me now, as games are certainly not the only thing people use their computer for.

[Lazza66]

Re: These new Conroes are monsters

Pretty much all, if not all, future generations of CPU's are going to have multiple cores. Did I not just say that Crysis, the biggest game of the year, and UE3, the most popular next-gen engine, both take advantage (with ample improvements) of multiple cores? How is that "very poor and uncertain support"?

Sharing a packaged 3D multithreaded engine will solve around 1/3rd of the problems a developer would need to overcome. Then there's the remaining 2/3rds left, which will take 2 or 3 times longer, and be 2 or 3 times more expensive if multithreaded. And even then there's a chance performance gains will be negated or lost altogether due to interthread messaging and synchronization lowering performance. Currently there is no resolution to this, and the current solution is to test every possible permutation.

At present multithreaded games would be significantly more expensive than single threaded for these reasons, and that's a gamble most developers don't want to take. So until those problems are overcome there's uncertainty.

So even before the gains of UE3 are known, which are expected at best to be 'significant', the other issues may prevent developers using the licensed engine. These concerns are also recognised, and shared by Tim Sweeney of Epic Games.

Anywho, I think you are somewhat agreeing with me now, as games are certainly not the only thing people use their computer for.

The day of the multithreaded game will come, but there's work to do yet.