How many PC games are using quad core? (re: worth upgrading from dual-core?)

J

jmk396

Gawd
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
787
How many PC games are using a quad core? (ie. four threads or more, etc)

I'm currently on an Intel E8400 @ 4.0 GHz and am thinking about upgrading to a quad core (Q9550) but I'm not sure. I've heard that Battlefield Bad Company 2, Resident Evil 5, Red Faction Guerilla all utilize a quad core but I'm not sure about that either. *shrug*

EDIT: I've ordered a GTX 480 in case you are wondering what GPU I'll be using...
 
I'm sure a lot of games "use" the other cores, but I'm not sure which ones fully utilize all 4 at full throttle to where 4 is a big difference.
 
jmk396 said:
How many PC games are using a quad core? (ie. four threads or more, etc)

I'm currently on an Intel E8400 @ 4.0 GHz and am thinking about upgrading to a quad core (Q9550) but I'm not sure. I've heard that Battlefield Bad Company 2, Resident Evil 5, Red Faction Guerilla all utilize a quad core but I'm not sure about that either. *shrug*

EDIT: I've ordered a GTX 480 in case you are wondering what GPU I'll be using...
Click to expand...
I'm in a similar boat as you. I have the same CPU and want to go quad but I'm holding out as long as possible. I'm still able to play the games I want at my monitors native resolution with almost all eye candy turned on. I can't complain.

So the reality is it depends on your resolution and GPU. You said you are buying a GTX480. Wait and see how the games you have play. If it plays at the resolution you want just fine, then stick with the e8400 and save a few hundred bucks. When your ready to jump to Core i5/7 with a new build, bring your GTX480 over with you.
 
Same story here, seems the time to go quad is coming very soon. I'm going to wait until BF2 to make the jump myself.
 
That's a pretty easy move to make (drop-in replacement) so if you can find a good deal on a used Q9550 it would be a good way to breathe some additional life into your machine, without having to do the whole motherboard/ram/cpu upgrade of going to i7.
 
there is substantial difference between duals and quads these days. Nearly every game released is multicore optimized.

Makes me laugh, back 2 years ago when many people were insulting and making fun of the people who thought games would benefit more from quads. They were wrong then and it would definitely behoove you to go to quad core
 
the time to upgrade to a quad core is coming sooner than later. more developers will start to take advantage of more than 2 cores and it will be a huge benefit for those with quad cores. with the 480, you might end up bottlenecking it using the E8400. the best drop-in LGA775 upgrade is the Q9550, ESPECIALLY if you can get one used or pick one up at Microcenter for $180-ish (much better than any online store which go for $280-ish).

i was in your same boat two months ago when i decided to make the upgrade. running an E8400 and decided to take advantage of the Microcenter deal, picking up my Q9550 for $185 after tax. now, i'm set for the foreseeable future (especially with overclocking) and i can hold off for a long time upgrading cpu/mobo/ram. hoping to get 2+ years with this but we'll see how taxing games get for PC. my new quad has already improved life for me in BC2, raising my minimum frames to completely eliminate small stuttering.
 
DavePars7 said:
Same story here, seems the time to go quad is coming very soon. I'm going to wait until BF2 to make the jump myself.
Click to expand...

Good news, BF2 is already here! I know what you mean though. I bought MoH LE just to get into the beta. I am hoping my ridiculous backlog of Steam games can last me that long though.
 
edifyingkarma said:
there is substantial difference between duals and quads these days. Nearly every game released is multicore optimized.

Makes me laugh, back 2 years ago when many people were insulting and making fun of the people who thought games would benefit more from quads. They were wrong then and it would definitely behoove you to go to quad core
Click to expand...

In their defense, two years is hardly yesterday - we're a whole CPU architecture from then. At that time, there wasn't much reason for going quadcore, unless you normally plan to sit on a CPU for 2+ years.
 
Team Fortress 2 - uses lots of my 950
Left 4 Dead 2 (haven't tried L4D1) - similar to TF2, quite a bit of usage across all cores
Unreal Tournament 3 - uses quite a bit (probably same for all UE3 games/Bioshock)
Quake 4 - not very heavily but does seem to spread usage across the cores
Resident Evil 5
Street Fighter IV - probably any Capcom PC game; these all effectively use whatever cores are available

I played Crysis some and it didn't really seem to use much CPU so I'm guessing that it's more GPU-dependent. It would use small bits of cores 0,1, and 3 and have more load going on #2.

For TF2, L4D2, and UT3 they actually had a steady bit of usage going across all cores.

I just upgraded from an E8400 to an i7-950 and kept the same video card (GTX285) and I got a good performance increase in the CPU intensive games that would have the E8400 cores maxed-out.
 
^ 39% cpu usage is less than 2 cores being utilized. Windows automatically balances which core a thread gets executed on, which is why it looks like all 4 cores are doing "something"
 
Even if you play games that only uses two cores, consider the OS and antivirus running in the background. The benefit of having extra cores becomes effective in offloading those tasks onto their separate threads.
 
Kenworth said:
Good news, BF2 is already here! I know what you mean though. I bought MoH LE just to get into the beta. I am hoping my ridiculous backlog of Steam games can last me that long though.
Click to expand...

Doh! Stupid phone keyboard is stupid, nice catch. BF3 of course, from everything I've read is "the" upcoming reason to upgrade.

I'm still pretty happy with the way BC2 runs on my system, not worth the $200+ upgrade just yet.
 
Forceman said:
In their defense, two years is hardly yesterday - we're a whole CPU architecture from then. At that time, there wasn't much reason for going quadcore, unless you normally plan to sit on a CPU for 2+ years.
Click to expand...

well I think the difference is that a lot of people that went dual cores have already upgraded due to games like bc2 and gta4, while the people that went with quads are still doing pretty well :)
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
bigdogchris said:
The biggest thing I took from that is the difference between the i5 750 and i7 920 is $100 yet the performance in games is essentially identical (at least those games tested). I was a little hesitant to go i5 on a gaming system when I upgrade but I just might now.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why I've stopped recommending the i7 920/930 for mostly gaming PCs over in the General Hardware subforum.
 
There is no reason to buy a dual core, they are obsolete.

Many games now play significantly better with a quad core.
 
edifyingkarma said:
there is substantial difference between duals and quads these days. Nearly every game released is multicore optimized.

Makes me laugh, back 2 years ago when many people were insulting and making fun of the people who thought games would benefit more from quads. They were wrong then and it would definitely behoove you to go to quad core
Click to expand...

They saved money by going dual core, and now they can sell off their dual cores and use the proceeds, plus the saved money (and interest it collected in the bank) to buy a used quad core. I don't think they were necessarily wrong--nor do I think the quad core adopters were wrong. It was kind of a wash, at least gaming-wise... quads obviously do better in multithreaded apps outside of games, though. :) A fast dual core can still run most games well, and some games are STILL single or dual threads only, like StarCraft 2, or TF2 (very CPU limited and practically single thread even with multicore rendering turned on), or STALKER games. Not to mention the raft of games that are very severely GPU limited anyway (Metro 2033, etc.).
 
chinesepiratefood said:
^ 39% cpu usage is less than 2 cores being utilized. Windows automatically balances which core a thread gets executed on, which is why it looks like all 4 cores are doing "something"
Click to expand...
The OS isn't doing crap. This is what Portal looks like:
portalcpu.png


One core at ~98% , the activity in the next two cores is sporadic, mostly they're just like the 4th core. This is basically how HL2 looks as well. Windows might try to offload its own processes to whatever cores are available but games are mostly stubborn and will stick with what they're programmed to know. Some scale well, others don't.
 
bigdogchris said:
The biggest thing I took from that is the difference between the i5 750 and i7 920 is $100 yet the performance in games is essentially identical (at least those games tested). I was a little hesitant to go i5 on a gaming system when I upgrade but I just might now.
Click to expand...

The gamer who's good with money will realize this. The i5 750 is essentially a HT-less i7 and we all know HT does virtually nothing when it comes to gaming. Unless you plan on SLi-ing or Crossfiring two flagship cards you won't see much difference between the Lynnfield and Bloomfield chips. You can even save more money by going with an i3-530 clocked at 4.0+ GHz.

For further reading, Tom's Hardware did some great articles on this exact subject.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/athlon-ii-x3-440-gaming-performance,2619.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i3-gaming,2588.html

To answer the OP, I'd say it depends on what games you plan on playing. But if you have the spare cash and already have high-quality components elsewhere...I say why not.
 
Forceman said:
In their defense, two years is hardly yesterday - we're a whole CPU architecture from then. At that time, there wasn't much reason for going quadcore, unless you normally plan to sit on a CPU for 2+ years.
Click to expand...

Well I will agree with you that there was less reason for going quad at the time. Many games that were being released (mass effect, ect.) were starting to benefit from multicore. I was specifically referencing not the fact that there was less benefit of quads over duals at the time, but the countless people that downright called people considering quad cores for gaming idiots. They would say, "why would companies spend all that money to teach their programmers how to code in more than 2 cores, thats stupid." They constantly said that game developers would never use more than 2 cores. My post was just referencing that sort of sentiment
 
djoye said:
The OS isn't doing crap. This is what Portal looks like:
portalcpu.png


One core at ~98% , the activity in the next two cores is sporadic, mostly they're just like the 4th core. This is basically how HL2 looks as well. Windows might try to offload its own processes to whatever cores are available but games are mostly stubborn and will stick with what they're programmed to know. Some scale well, others don't.
Click to expand...

It should be noted on that graph that while for the most part it appears a dual-core might cut it if the avg usage is staying at ~36%...

But there are five spikes on that graph, a few lasting several seconds, where the CPU usage obviously goes to ~50% or well, well above that. So, on a dual-core that game's going to be sluggish momentarily at those spots.

Since those graphs appear to only represent the last minute or so, I'd say a game being sluggish for a few seconds an average of every 12-24 seconds suggests you should really be using a quad.
 
edifyingkarma said:
Well I will agree with you that there was less reason for going quad at the time. Many games that were being released (mass effect, ect.) were starting to benefit from multicore. I was specifically referencing not the fact that there was less benefit of quads over duals at the time, but the countless people that downright called people considering quad cores for gaming idiots. They would say, "why would companies spend all that money to teach their programmers how to code in more than 2 cores, thats stupid." They constantly said that game developers would never use more than 2 cores. My post was just referencing that sort of sentiment
Click to expand...

Still no reason to upgrade my Dual-Core, at least for me but then again I'm still happy with my system and don't think it's worth paying an extra 400-500$ to replace those components just yet. Too many damn old games to grind through anyways.
 
Grand Theft Auto IV pretty much requires 3 cores to run properly, as it was designed for the 3 core consoles and then ported over very poorly.

Bioshock 2 multiplayer uses almost all of 2 cores, which means if you have a 2 core cpu, the fan is going at full speed all the time and it's annoying. When I switched to a 4 core, it's now nice and quiet.

Civilization 5 has as it's recommended requirements a 4 core cpu.
 
eeeh, my q6600 was only 100$ more then a dual core back in dec 07. best decision i made.

the difference in cost between dual and quad of similar speeds are minor compared to the benefit. if you have a dual it might not be worth upgrading but, if you are building new, quad all the way.
 
E5300 @ 4.1 ftw. The only games I've seen use more then 90% on all 4 cores, is GTA IV and Street Fighter IV.
 
Matthew Kane said:
E5300 @ 4.1 ftw. The only games I've seen use more then 90% on all 4 cores, is GTA IV and Street Fighter IV.
Click to expand...

MT Framework excels at using 4, 8, or even 16 threads with aplomb. Partly because of the multi-threaded nature of consoles, so taking advantage of every transistor present matters. Resident Evil 5 and Lost Planet also scale extremely well with the more cores/threads you throw at them.

I don't know about Rockstar's engine, but I do hear it uses quads very well also.

OP: I bought a Q9550 last fall and haven't looked back since. I suggest the same. With the exception of a few games and using SLi/Crossfire X, Core 2 Quad is still just as good for gaming as the Phenom II or i7 processors. With the flood of console ports as of late, I don't see this changing.

I will probably be using this platform until winter 2012, when AMD's new lineup arrives, to see if I will be staying with an Intel build or going AMD once again.
 
Tolyngee said:
It should be noted on that graph that while for the most part it appears a dual-core might cut it if the avg usage is staying at ~36%...

But there are five spikes on that graph, a few lasting several seconds, where the CPU usage obviously goes to ~50% or well, well above that. So, on a dual-core that game's going to be sluggish momentarily at those spots.

Since those graphs appear to only represent the last minute or so, I'd say a game being sluggish for a few seconds an average of every 12-24 seconds suggests you should really be using a quad.
Click to expand...

Actually it looks like the spikes dont coincide, so when core 2 spikes, Core 3 has a trough, when core 3 is spiking, core 2 is in a trough. So its shifting load back and forth between core 2 and 3... at least that's what it looks like. So overall CPU usage would still probably be below 50% at any give time.

But yeah it'd be nice to have a longer stretch of data.
 
Tudz said:
Actually it looks like the spikes dont coincide, so when core 2 spikes, Core 3 has a trough, when core 3 is spiking, core 2 is in a trough. So its shifting load back and forth between core 2 and 3... at least that's what it looks like. So overall CPU usage would still probably be below 50% at any give time.

But yeah it'd be nice to have a longer stretch of data.
Click to expand...

Good catch/point, but that's still really close to the 50% margin all five times, even if so...

It's still suggesting a quad-core if you want the best performance. And to my knowledge that isn't a game that's known for being suggested you need a quad?

After seeing that, I certainly would feel my quad was a complete waste of investment, anyway...
 
Ohh right, and from rumours some reviews have gathered, Crysis 2 will be able to take advantage on systems with more then 4 cores, and better played on the new release of hexacores from AMD and Intel. But minimum specs will be a quad. Just rumours atm.
 
Matthew Kane said:
Ohh right, and from rumours some reviews have gathered, Crysis 2 will be able to take advantage on systems with more then 4 cores, and better played on the new release of hexacores from AMD and Intel. But minimum specs will be a quad. Just rumours atm.
Click to expand...
the minimum specs will absolutely not be a quad.
 
GTA 4, without a doubt. It was unplayable slow (19-30 fps) @1152x864, but I still played it most of the way through, with 2 cores, overclocked as hard as I could. I get 50-80 fps @ 1600x1200 easy after the QC, although I havent tried as hard as I could with the settings, still leaps and bounds better. So F'd up that the game was so crippled with 2 cores.
 
Simpson5774 said:
GTA 4, without a doubt. It was unplayable slow (19-30 fps) @1152x864, but I still played it most of the way through, with 2 cores, overclocked as hard as I could. I get 50-80 fps @ 1600x1200 easy after the QC, although I havent tried as hard as I could with the settings, still leaps and bounds better. So F'd up that the game was so crippled with 2 cores.
Click to expand...
saying 2 cores doesn't mean squat because its the actual cpu that matters. sorry but it drives me nuts when people act like a cpu is only defined by the number of cores. for example a 3.16 E8500 will rape a 3.73 Pentium D. that being said my "2 core" E8500 plays GTA 4 just fine.

and BS on your claim of going from 19-30fps at 1152x864 to 50-80 fps at 1600x1200 because of going from a dual core to quad core. upgrading the cpu has nothing to do with you being able to run the game at a higher res.
 
cannondale06 said:
saying 2 cores doesn't mean squat because its the actual cpu that matters. sorry but it drives me nuts when people act like a cpu is only defined by the number of cores. for example a 3.16 E8500 will rape a 3.73 Pentium D. that being said my "2 core" E8500 plays GTA 4 just fine.

and BS on your claim of going from 19-30fps at 1152x864 to 50-80 fps at 1600x1200 because of going from a dual core to quad core. upgrading the cpu has nothing to do with you being able to run the game at a higher res.
Click to expand...

Athlon BE 2350 @ 2.85 to x4 635 @ 2.9ghz. All other things stayed the same, maybe the newer core = better IPC, but not 150%+ better. The game was that poorly coded. Seriously, Stalker, which only fully utilizes 1 core was maybe 15% faster.

9800GTX+, 2 mismatched 2x1gb kits, slightly slower memory speed since it was overclocked before, don't exactly remember the speed, its 400mhz now. You want to call bullshit, fine, whatever, doesn't hurt me.
 
cannondale06 said:
and BS on your claim of going from 19-30fps at 1152x864 to 50-80 fps at 1600x1200 because of going from a dual core to quad core. upgrading the cpu has nothing to do with you being able to run the game at a higher res.
Click to expand...

Cannon, I'm so sick of your nonsense.

Simpson, Cannon's argued the exact opposite before, while getting vulgar and abusive to make his point:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035785685&postcount=8

He's nothing but a troll. Ignore him.
 
Tolyngee said:
Cannon, I'm so sick of your nonsense.

Simpson, Cannon's argued the exact opposite before, while getting vulgar and abusive to make his point:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1035785685&postcount=8

He's nothing but a troll. Ignore him.
Click to expand...
what the heck does a discussion about Doom 3 have to with this? anybody with common sense can read that whole thread and see that you were wrong about your Doom 3 comments anyway. and yes you putting a 5870 with 2.8 Core 2 duo was pretty silly. as for this topic, of course a quad helps a game like GTA 4 but you are just as wrong as Simpson5774 if you think going with a quad core will let you run a higher resolution. I am not a troll but I cant stand stupid and inaccurate comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top