Game Benchmarks
Source: Tom's Hardware UK – Keywords: multi-core, cpu
Game Benchmarks
Back in 2005, when threading was first introduced to the desktop, there were no games available that would show any performance advantage with a multi-core CPU versus a single-core model. But times have changed. So what do multiple CPU cores offer the average gamer today? Let's try some popular titles and see. We ran these games at a low 1024x768 resolution with low details to minimize the impact of the graphics card so we could really see how CPU-core limited these game titles might be.
We'll start with Crysis. All details were at minimum except object detail, which was set to High, and Physics, which was set to Very High. This should create a CPU bottleneck, regardless of the graphics settings:
Crysis shows an incredible dependency on the quantity of CPU cores, which is really surprising since we thought it would be more of a graphics card-limited title. Essentially, a single-core CPU delivers half the frame rates of three or four CPU cores in Crysis (at these settings, bear in mind a more GPU-limited scenario will normalize CPU performance substantially). Also interesting is that the game only seems to take advantage of three CPU cores and that there is no performance benefit to using four cores.
But we know that Crysis is heavy on the in-game physics calculations, so let's see if this trend continues in a physics-light game such as Left 4 Dead:
Indeed, Left 4 Dead shows similar results, although the lion's share of the performance jump happens when the second core is added. There is a slight jump with three cores, and once again, the fourth CPU core seems unused. This is an interesting trend, so let's see if it continues in the real-time-strategy game, World in Conflict:
The results are once again similar, but we see a bit of a surprising twist in that three CPU cores seem to fare a bit better than four. This falls close to the margin of error but at the very least it indicates that the fourth core is unused in these game titles.
- Previous page Application Benchmarks: General Usage
- Next page Performance Analysis And Conclusion
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Best offers
- Apple To Acquire Multi-Core Processor Developer PA Semi
- Multi-core Processors: Interplay Of Hardware And Programming Models
- Multi-core Processors: Interplay Of Hardware And Programming Models
- Better late than never: Intel and Microsoft tackle multi-core...
- Multi-core processor quickly taking over the CPU market - analyst
- cpu bottleneck
- what do crysis settings do
- graphics card cpu bottleneck
- crysis graphics not all that
- crysis not starting
- crysis cpu bottleneck
- more cpu cores or better graphic card
- how to have 1024x768 resolution in games
- game low cpu
- left 4 dead 2 high graphics
- cpu bottleneck games
- crysis graphics card very high
- left 4 dead 2 very high graphic
- left 4 dead 2 graphic error
- how to change graphics settings
This great write up about multi core systems but you did not test one of the greatest benefits to multi core processors true multi tasking. When I was building my new system and was thinking about moving to the Q6600 from my E6550 I had Premier Elements in mind. But It was not only about faster encoding times, it was also about system usability while something was encoding in the background. It was barely possible on 2 cores but very responsive with 4. So you should consider doing some of your tests simultaneously.
only "men of war" maxs out my dual core E6750..
dual-core is FINE for now..don't waste your money on quad core..
don't forget that quads fit into existing dual-core mobo's, so you can upgrade later..
save yer ca$h for the graphics card! (like a nice 4850X2)
cheers,
bill
p.s. stuff and nonsense: http://www.eupeople.net/forum
or if you aren't going to upgrade for a few years, at least this writeup shows that software is getting more "core aware" so to speak. so if you're splashing out on a new rig thats gotta last you, i'd go quad core. as it'll be easier to change your GFX card than upgrade your processor in about 4 years.
PCI, and AGP have more than outlived the crop of CPU sockets they were introduced with, and PCIexpress is doing the same. So, dual core is fine for NOW. and quads fit EXISTSING mobos. but willl they fit by the time you want to upgrade? not everyone can afford to change machines every 12 months. at least you can pretty much rely on future GFX cards being pci express.
Going from dual to quad core is the best i ever did, especialy when you play with multiple eve-online or WoW clients on one pc, and even then it have enough power for the other stuf in the background like msn, jabber, teamspeak and ventrillo, all at the same time
Yah I need a quad core and some new ram, waiting 20 seconds for an alt-tab out of WoW is pretty ridiculous, but I guess vista takes its toll too.
Set the screen resolutions of WoW to the same of windows, works wonders for alt tab time.
This test is just what I've been looking for. Thanks a lot.
Should that be Core 2 Quad??
That result is really impressive, considering the shared access taking place. I would like to see how Spybot Search & Destroy fares..anyone who's ever used that will know it can take an absolute eternity to scan your computer.
Its interesting to note the effect on games. Xbox360 only has 3 cores.
+1 for multitaksing
running an anti-virus scan while gaming would show the advantage of that 4th core, I'll bet. I've stopped having to disable background processes to game since I went quad and I think that's possibly the baggest advantage rather than flat-out frame rates.
Good article though.
A good writeup in general but the fact that going from three cores to four has no performance impact needs to investigated further.
It could be down to the fact that the ageing FSB architecture of the Core processor was the bottleneck and the fourth CPU was starved for memory on some applications.
Doing the same rounds of tests with the same methodology on a Core i7 system or an AMD quad core CPU would have been a great big help in determining whether going from 3 to 4 cores makes sense.
It should be Core 2 Quad Q6700? Q6600 is 2.4GHz
It should be Core 2 Quad Q6700? Q6600 is 2.4GHz
No, it was an overclocked Q6600, which is 2.4Ghz stock you're right, but it wasn't running at stock.
Personally I run my Q6600 at 3.2Ghz, and I love it, can run every game fine, and as this shows, 3DS Max really shines in a quad core environment, and I do a lot of rendering. Autocad (which I also use a lot) gets the same benefit.
I think a quad-core is essential for multi-tasking.
As a web developer at work I often have MANY apps. running simultaneously e.g. Flash IDE, Photoshop CS4, Fireworks CS4, audio/music player, PhpED IDE, FTP client, email client, local Apache server, local MySQL server, multiple web browsers (each with multiple tabs open), Subversion client, anti-virus, etc., etc. ... the list goes on!
I don't understand why a controller on the CPU itself can not be responsible for sharing the load across multiple cores, why does this function have to be left to the software. Does a game have to be specifically coded to see the benefits of SLA or Crossfire?
Only synthetics make well use of the fourth core, what's the matter in the real (not synthetic at all
) world?.
Let's go developers!
It seems like the dual-cores are the power for most applications such as games.
However, if you want/need a work-horse for like processing many files you would be better off with quad-core.
As there would be no benefit from quad-cores in 3D-applications and such.
There is no need to transfer as many files, it just needs to process different things than heaps of files.
Maybe (or rather probably) games and such applications would eventually start to take advantage of more cores.
So if you want to be future-proof, you'd have to get a very good quad-core.
But for now they usually recommend nice dual-cores which is enough to work with.
Besides, apparently you can overclock the heck out of most anyway.
They're built better and better and thus should last longer and longer.
Multi-tasking works really well with 4 cores.. Reminds me of my Amiga 500 back in the 80s.