News Ultra high-end graphics are "a terrible mistake"

wether it is a waste of money or not has absolutely no bearing on the fact that games do not need to be written for a specific # of cores or not.

circular logic and fuddled arguments will get you nowhere with me.

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/10/29/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9650/9

HL2:ep2 1920x1200 QX9650 - quad core, pretty top of the range.. 115.4fps.. E6750 - dual core, nearly 4 and a half times cheaper.. 109.5fps.

 

I wouldn't expect that great a difference dealing with those kinds of margins anyway.

 

They had to re-write the source engine code to get it to be multi-threaded. Thanks for proving my point. And the performance benefit is not worth it, when any dual core processor today can max anything with ease.

Thats the whole point.

FOD saying it was the OS was the funniest thing I heard all day.

 

to be multi-threaded yes, but they did not say for a specific # of cores.

only dual core existed then, yet source takes advantage of more than 2 cores without another re-write.


thus your argument that software has to be built for a specific # of cores (2,4,8, etc) goes up in smoke


and as for the OS, heres the stream

application -> API -> Threads -> OS -> OS selects execution paths -> CPU -> Output

 

And there's the flaw in your logic. Nobody is going to build a 'gaming machine' to play games from 'today'. Has it occurred to you that games of tomorrow would scale to the number of cores available?

 

The only game that really benefits from a quad-core at the moment is Supreme Commander and unless you're playing massive battles, you won't notice it. That said, I don't think that dual-core is still the way to go (it depends on your usage model ultimately), but that's because I see a usage model for quad-core outside of gaming.

EDIT: whoops, I forgot about UT3

 

leper, go read a book called 'modern operating systems' by Andrew s. Tanenbaum. Chapter 2.2:Threads.

 

The FULLY utilize it does need to be written for 4 cores, the way valve did it, only spreads it out over the 4 cores, thus barely any increase in performance from Dual Core, Crytek, made crysis (Alan Wake as well) to use each core for a specific function, that is the proper way to get more out of quad core. It is also the same reason Supp Comm sees much bigger gains then Valve, they designed it with all 4 cires in mind. Valve makes compromises as their engine is older and not demanding anyway.

 

Seconded!!! (reminds me of a histrorical CK)
May I also suggest that you have some more respect for other forum members, all are entitled to there opinions for sure, however I dont see the need to become aggressive or enforceful of your opinion onto others, with remarks of idiots or morons.
Respect, please!


That being said..
I agree that there is no need to update hardware every month, my GTX still pwns all games I desire to play, however the inital outlay for the entire pc build excells that of a console by far.
Console being for much more casual gaming.
I know that my current build will most likely be my last as ill move to getting a nice console.

Quad core id not say is a waste at all, being fortunate enough to own one, I can say that there are many a games that support at least dual core and many more that support multi cores, any game based on the source engine, unreal 3 engine, quake4 (as stated already), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Stranglehold, Suprmeme commander, GRAW2, Flight Sim X, Bioshock (unreal 3 engine), Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, to name a few, with many more on there way.

Even with not all games being able to run multi core, it makes the whole multi tasking experience a LOT more smoother being able to run applications on different cores, better management by ones self can have its improvements.
Im not sure about others, but I know I still tend to run many an application in the background while playing games, for which the multi core is a huge aid.

That being said, it is now getting to the fact that if I desire to play a lot of the latest games with all the prittyness, I will require an uber load of kit, which brings me to my first comment, that the price excels that of consoles now.
Its not completely out of hand at the momment, but it is certainly heading that way.

 

By the time Quad Core is manistream for gaming, that PC u have now will be obsolete, it took 2 years for dual core to take off, get real. A dual core processor is fine for now.

 

technically it doesn't matter how the threads are allocated to cores, except in the recombination cycle. all it does is enable it to recombine in 1 clock cycle instead of 2. (recombination cycle here meaning the time it takes to send the output of the calculation to the correct path)

however, your first argument clearly stated that a game would not use the cores at all unless specifically designed to, yet this has been proven false.

 

This is the point that Sweeney is almost trying to make. He's saying that the ULTRA high-end solutions (like 3-way SLI/CrossFireX, etc) are a waste... not the 8800 GTXs of the world.

Like I said with 3-way SLI when I looked at it - it's a tech demo and I don't see it as anything else. The tech demo worked pretty well and gave us a glimpse of the future, but I don't recommend anyone rushes out to buy it. There's frankly no need for it for most scenarios.

 

Although by the time you are starting to use all your cores you've run out of RAM and your game has crashed.

UT3 has pretty good multi-core load balancing, my Q6600 was using about 70% of each core in bot matches when I reviewed the game. (linked to point out I'm not "just some guy")

 

Okay then, the other figure from that test.. Q6600.. 106.7fps. Slower than the Dual Core. The test was done using an 8800Ultra, so to eliminate as much gfx bottleneck as possible. As far as I'm aware, EP2 was one of the last source games released by valve (alongside TF2 and Portal). Even at 1024x768, the E6750 beats the Q6600.

 

I never said that multithreading will always be more efficient, on the contrary, badly designed multithreading can be worse by factors of 100 or more.

 

The cpu has little to no influence on gaming performance in most titles. Source-based games are a classic example where you will not be able to tell the difference in a game. You're talking about over 100 fps at 1920x1200 - you're simply not going to notice the difference. Once you enable AA/AF, you're going to notice even less of a difference.

Quite simply, the benefits of quad-core are outside of gaming. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the benefits of a fast CPU are outside of gaming... Or at least, that's the case at the moment.

 

sorry, Im a bit slow today.

 

Thank you, funny how hard that was for some here to understand.

 

wow, this thread has exploded!

totally disagree, it my seem so for the developers, but i think with just a little help from the manufactures, PC gaming can take off big time.

i totally hate those "Home Premium PC" in PCworld, which with super CPU, lots RAM, and a super large hard disk drive, but the graphics card is integrated or 8400GS?? those manufactures need to think about possibilities of gaming market!

so i say we force those manufactures to put out better PC's, eg. at LEAST a 9600GT in every machine so called "Home Entertainment". (only HTPC can have crappy graphics cards)