Who still runs single core?

[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!"

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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.

Would you also recommend that for somebody like me who has no interest in new games and only wants to run some old stuff that probably always will use just one core anyway? Wouldn'T a dual core, but that one with a high Ghz, be better than a quad core with lower GHz per core?

SH5 is not necessarily a criterion for me. I demand more than just eyecandy from it. If it really offers realism and a good AI, then I may wish to join the boat (upgrading first). If it is just a 3D boat, but detail, realism and AI letting players down, I would pass.

My only sim today that could need more system power is FS9, which nevertheless is fully playable in frames even with plenty of mods.


P.S. I have started to scan the market, but I admit that the plethora of labels and terms and products and standards has left me behind, I no longer feel competent to keep up with the stuff, it changes so damn fast. There is so much input about so many things from so many sources - I can'T say which constellation gives me the loudest bang for the buck, would be a reasonable compromise modest in price, or the fastest thing you can get.

[Tarnsman]

Originally Posted by Skybird

P.S. I have started to scan the market, but I admit that the plethora of labels and terms and products and standards has left me behind, I no longer feel competent to keep up with the stuff, it changes so damn fast. There is so much input about so many things from so many sources - I can'T say which constellation gives me the loudest bang for the buck, would be a reasonable compromise modest in price, or the fastest thing you can get.

Im with you, but I will be looking to add newer sims such as BOB SOW and SH5 so an upgrade is a metter of time for me. But I havent kept up with technology. Check out the http://www.anandtech.com/guides/ site above to get the big picture. They will have overview articles about Mobos, CPU, RAM, technologies. They go into some detail and when you are through you will know the what and most importantly the why of various PC technologies. You will be much better able to decide for yourself what you need after reading up on their site. Then go to Tomshardware for comparisons and Newegg for prices and user comments. Takes a while but you will be much more informed.

[Arclight]

Aye, Anand really goes into detail, though the tech-babble can be a bit much at times. Tom's is a little more "user friendly". Best sources on the web for this kind of stuff.