Who still runs single core?

[Tarnsman]

Thanks. I'll have to wait and see. I am still looking forward to SH5, but now I dont think Ill get it on day one, and will take a wait and see approach. But if Im flush on March 4 -- what the heck. Im not going to change my update schedule for just one title. After Battle of Britain SOW comes out (which is way behind schedule) and rFactor2 I will see whats on the market hardware wise and see who here is runnning SH5 on full settings and make my buying choices then.

Im only looking forward to SH5, rFactor2 and Oleg's BOBSOW, Im a simmer at heart and sim relases guide my hardware requirements. Also I want my next rig to support a 30-32" monitor at max frame rates and Id like to get a SSD and the other new tech. So I will wait and see how these sims run in the real world.

[onelifecrisis]

Originally Posted by jazman

But even clunky old games like IL-2 work better on a multi-core CPU.

Umm, wrong! IL-2 is heavily CPU locked and runs faster on my sxi-year-old FX-55 than it does on my new Core i5-750.

[jazman]

Originally Posted by onelifecrisis

Umm, wrong! IL-2 is heavily CPU locked and runs faster on my sxi-year-old FX-55 than it does on my new Core i5-750.

I bind the IL2 process to a single core and it works very well, even with a slower clock speed. If I don't it's a sloth because the OS tries to balance the load by switching it among the four cores. That's high overhead and the game runs like a sloth getting switched like that. But's that true of any monolithic CPU-eating process you run.

Your mileage may vary, of course, the FX-55 is a 64-bit AMD that had the big bandwidth between CPU and RAM (HyperTransport, I believe) that shivered Intel's timbers for a while. The Pentium 4 is a dog by comparison. And your FX-55 is two years younger than his Pentium.

FX-55: October 2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors

Intel Pentium4 520: August, 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...icroprocessors

So what you said is true in some situations, and what I said was not true in some situations. So I'll narrow it down to cases like the original poster.

Here are some old CPU throughput benchmarks:

Pentium 4 630, 3.0 GHz:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/...221-05653.html

Xeon 3040 1.86 GHz:
http://www.spec.org/cpu2000/results/...114-08106.html

Yes, it's two sets of test runs going on simultaneously. But if you run only 1 on the dual-core box, you have at least the same amount of throughput available (half of 39.7), plus a second core to do all the OS stuff.

[Tarnsman]

My Cpu is a 640 Prescott, its not a dog. It is old tech, but it runs everything I have thrown at it. It was a very good buy and I was easily able to skip the first generation dual core chips and I ve only skipped the Core2Duo because till now I havent needed it. The PIV did way more than I expected of it and Ive read my many stories of guys running newer chips and getting equal or sometimes worse performance than I.

I agree that throughput is a big performance differentiator (especially bus size), but i just could not see going for a lower clock speed once a) the 3.xmhz speed had been breached, b) despite the arguments to the contrary the chip makers were still marketing chips on clock speed and it was clear that Core2 would reach +3mhz speeds again. and c) most games were not coded to take advantage of multiple core technology. Also XP does a pretty decent job of managing processes. I hope 7 is as stable as XP was.

Now for the first time Im confronted with a game requiring dual core technology, Im kina bummed but not really, it might yet run, or I wait a bit. I still feel I saved myself one computer since 2008 with my PIV and should be well placed to swoop an i7 or whatever looks like the next long term solution.

[jazman]

OK, I was a little confused, I was thinking of the Pentium 4 520, which is the old dog. I have a lot on my mind.

I had an Athlon XP 3000, and I called it my "Hardware Convoy Detector." I was running SH4 borderline, at about 25 FPS, and when I got near a small convoy or task force, it would slow down big time. Whenever I got the slowdown I knew it was "Battle Stations!"

[Tarnsman]

No biggie.

next rig will be a custom build, then I will be able to replace things and upgrade as frequently as I wish/need. Pulling the board on this would be a major chore due to the way its built and mostly the proprietry PSU, its 500W but I dont think thats enough for the new chips.

Question -- when you change the Mobo or PSU what happens with your Windows license?

[jazman]

Originally Posted by Tarnsman

No biggie.

next rig will be a custom build, then I will be able to replace things and upgrade as frequently as I wish/need. Pulling the board on this would be a major chore due to the way its built and mostly the proprietry PSU, its 500W but I dont think thats enough for the new chips.

Question -- when you change the Mobo or PSU what happens with your Windows license?

I do the exact same thing. I like being able to change a component when needed. The big one is when you have to change the mobo. Then you get the license problem, because I think Windows OEM is licensed to a mobo, basically. If you had a retail version, you could move it around. I don't think it matters about power supply, but your proprietary PSU is a pain. There is a documented way to install Windows 7 Upgrade on a clean disk (search Paul Thurrot's site), which can save some money.

BUT. I installed an old disk of Windows XP into a Virtual Machine recently. I hadn't run this version (by which I mean serial number) for a couple of years. When I activated it online, it worked, no problems.

[fromhell]

i have been building rigs for freinds and family and myself fo several years now. i find it hard to understand enyone going out and buying a rig ready made when for less than half the price you can build one yourself. my current rig is;
quadcore 3ghz
nvidia gtx295 video card
1000 watt psu
asus p5q-e motherboard
4 gigs ram @ 1066hz
win7
48x duel layer dvd
1terabyte hitachi hd for storage @7200rpm
300gb western digital velicio raptor hd @10000rpm
x-fi platinum sc
about £1,700 to build
dell do one similar for £3,500! see what i mean.

[fromhell]

just a thought but if enyone needs help or advise on building a rig, i am here

[msalama]

Is anyone here in a similar boat?

Yep, except mine leaks even worse than yours.

You may not believe this, but I've a single core P4 2.4GHz / NVidia GeForce 7600GS / 2 GB RAM rig here and even have DCS:BS ( http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ ) running pretty well now. The secret? Tweaking the hell out of the pooter, OS (WinXP SP3) and the game all, and that includes downsizing most textures etc. to 128x128 or thereabouts.

The downside is the sim looking pretty rudimentary - and I still get some stuttering etc. every now and then of course - but that's OK in a proper study simulator like the Shark IMHO... and as a byproduct my SH3/4 now runs like a mofo on crack too

Will post BS screenshots with the FPS counter on if you like - am getting over 100 FPS in outside camera views sometimes now, and a steady 30ish in the cockpit most of the time

So yah, it's doable with an old rig (within sensible limits of course) if you're willing to live with the inevitable tradeoffs in visual quality methinks.

[Skybird]

Funny, just this morning I had to spend hours on getting my old single core, 3 GHz, AGP, working again, it did not boot whehn switching on power. Sicne two years I consider to get a new rig, and then only chnage a HD or graphics board. Don't know what the problem was this morning, but for whatever the reason, it now works again, but I had to reactivate Windows (strange) although I did not change the installation.

Why this dinosaur still is in service? Becasue it does the job I want it to do. It runs the sims I use it for, and does so with fluid (fluent?) frames. But I am not having interest in buying new up-to-date-graphics games anymore, so this is a major reason.

Various strategy titles, FS9, GTR2, SBP, Oblivion,internet stuff, office, chess - all this a 3GHz single core does fast and well.

3 GHz, 2 GB, XP, AGP nVidia 7950GT (512 MB), Audigy 2, 550 Watt PSU

[CaptainHaplo]

Those with single core machines WILL have struggles with SH5. Each core has access to memory, and with the footprint of the game being around ~15Gigs - each core will be loading quite a bit. A single core design will not have enough memory throughput to be able to run the game well.

For those thinking of upgrading - bypass dual core chips. Quad core prices are very reasonable, and your getting ALOT more power for the money. For example - a solid MB that isn't designed for overclockers, and a Phenom 2 X4 965 can be had as a package for about $250 US dollars. A solid, long term video card for a between 100 - 200 more. Add in a solid power supply that will run it all, memory (if needed) - and your upgrade cost usually is around $600 - $800. This allows you to reuse your existing drives where possible, and your case too. If you want to improve those, you can when you have the extra money.

[Tarnsman]

Will games actually use the extra cores or will they be picking thier noses managing IM and background processes while one core is working its butt off moving me accross the Atlantic at 2460X time compression?

Bad example, but since games have to be programed to use dual core, is that the same with quad? Because Id just as soon target my upgrade to the game Im playing rather than the fancyiest hardware available.

[CaptainHaplo]

Tarnsman - I don't know if SH5 will be written for multicore or not - but given its a minimum requirement, it is HIGHLY likely it is.

You don't have to go top of the line everything to still get a great gaming rig - but if you update only for one game - your going to have to update again when that next game you want is out.

[Submarine]

P4 at 3.4ghz
Geforce 7800 @ 256mb
2gb ram

We are on the same boat.. errr... submarine . It runs SH3 and COD 4 just fine, so I am good to go