Quad Core Support

[Laronzo]

Hey all,

I know the game isn't written to take full advantage of four cores, but I've heard that some games have problems running on quad core processors and have been coming up with "multiple processor errors" or something along those lines.

As I plan to soon buy a new quad core PC I wanted to check that this game will be able to run smoothly on a quad core setup.

Thanks alot,
Laronzo. :)

[KlosterKatten]

Wasn't there a patch in Quake 4 that made it possible to fully support several cores? Maybe it was just two cores thought.

[Rampant]

I can say this much, quake 4 and doom 3 run exceptionaly smooth on my qx6700 and sli 8800 gtx system. Infact i have yet to run into a game that gives me the error you mentioned. In short, im sure you will be fine, go get that quad :D

[Mr. Redline]

will QW be multithreaded to take advantage of quad core processors?

[Squishy]

All the benchmarks I've seen show the QX6700 under performing against its 2 core counterpart, which makes sense because of the added overhead. I had a chance to get a free QX6700 or a free X6800, I chose the X6800. Quad core gaming is quite a ways away and by then the quad chips will be much less expensive. Most devs are just now getting into dual core, let alone 4. Quake 4, Doom 3, SC all only utilize 2 cores, and Quake 4's support is mediocre at best.

[Rampant]

The performance difference between a duel core and quad core (exact same clock) in games that arent optimised for quad core is around 1-2 fps and it can go either way. Just look at every review done by Anandtech, Firingsquad ,Hardocp and Tomshardware ect. There is no difference bar maybe 1 - 2 fps. Its pointless to get a duel core over a quad core unless money is an issue.

Quad core do not perform worse than duel core at all.

Plus in the very near future quad core will deffinetly prove its value. Games like Crysis, Half Life 2: Episode 2, Left 4 Dead and Alan Wake all come out this year. Which all take advantage of the quad core goodness.

[sddo]

All the benchmarks I've seen show the QX6700 under performing against its 2 core counterpart, which makes sense because of the added overhead.no. the quad did worse because it has a lower clock speed per core [2.66 vs 2.93] and the quake4 patch only supports two threads, not four. so basically two of the cores were going unused so it couldn't make up for the difference in clock speed.

I had a chance to get a free QX6700 or a free X6800, I chose the X6800. Quad core gaming is quite a ways away and by then the quad chips will be much less expensive. Most devs are just now getting into dual core, let alone 4. Quake 4, Doom 3, SC all only utilize 2 cores, and Quake 4's support is mediocre at best.and here you even state that you knew q4 had support for only two cores? stupid move to turn down the quad core then. it's pretty simple to overclock the meager 300mhz on a core2 chip and those other two cores WILL be used eventually. in fact they're already being used by some games like supreme commander and games based off unreal engine 3.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiw2LCxobmV3cw==
http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=279&page=3

[Squishy]

no. the quad did worse because it has a lower clock speed per core [2.66 vs 2.93] and the quake4 patch only supports two threads, not four. so basically two of the cores were going unused so it couldn't make up for the difference in clock speed.

No. It's not linear, there's still overhead that hinders performance with the extra 2 cores. A 2.66GHZ E6700 still outperforms a 2.66GHZ QX6700 in dual threaded applications like Quake 4 or any other application that only utilizes 2 threads.

http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=897



and here you even state that you knew q4 had support for only two cores? stupid move to turn down the quad core then.

Not at all. I get complimentary CPUS from Intel a few times a year. I'm sure I'll have a quad core in my hands at some point, but I'll wait for higher clocks and games that really utilize the extra cores.

[Nappy]

In the Dev Blog...
I want to thank Intel and NVIDIA for providing some amazing hardware for the event (and my play-testing rig here at Splash Damage!). Playing ETQW on the Intel CORE 2 Duo processor with an NVIDIA 8800 GTX graphics card driving the visuals was just perfect.
Obviously this does not mention quad core, but it does imply that your quad core would be more than enough to run this game.

[Rampant]

Squishy it doesnt underperform on q4 ect, go read benchmarks it gets exact same fps as same clocked duel core, bar 1-2 fps at the most. You cant call that underperforming or use that to justify taking a duel core over a quad core because its nothing at all.

[Laronzo]

Thanks alot for all the replies. I am currently planning to just get a QX6600 instead of the Kentsfield as my rig is already above my previously laid down budget. :p

But I'm really glad to hear there won't be any problems in running this game as I've been looking forward to it for so long. :)

Thanks again,
Laronzo. :)

[Squishy]

Squishy it doesnt underperform on q4 ect, go read benchmarks it gets exact same fps as same clocked duel core, bar 1-2 fps at the most. You cant call that underperforming or use that to justify taking a duel core over a quad core because its nothing at all.

Fair enough, it is very close I admit. I chose the X6800 over the QX6700 because it overclocks much better and outperforms it in every game sans Supreme Commander.

By the time Crysis comes out I'll be sure to be running a quad core.

[sddo]

No. It's not linear, there's still overhead that hinders performance with the extra 2 cores. A 2.66GHZ E6700 still outperforms a 2.66GHZ QX6700 in dual threaded applications like Quake 4 or any other application that only utilizes 2 threads.

http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?articleid=897this link shows the quad on top at 640x480 which is the most cpu bound benchmark, but only by ~2fps which is well within the margin of error. the dual is on top in the 1600x1200, but again only by ~2fps. since the core2 quads are two c2d's slapped together you may be right about the overhead if the os decides to use one core from one chip and another core from the second chip instead of the two that don't use the fsb to communicate. that would be the only overhead difference between using two threads on a dual core vs a current gen quad core. at least that's the only difference i can see. i could very well be wrong, but your link doesn't prove it.


I'm sure I'll have a quad core in my hands at some point, but I'll wait for higher clocks and games that really utilize the extra cores.they overclock to the same point as dual cores and the games are already here. look at the fear benchmarks in your own link and my previous ones. but you don't care so i don't either. =)

edit: damn my long posts. laronzo wins. =P

[Rampant]

Thanks alot for all the replies. I am currently planning to just get a QX6600 instead of the Kentsfield as my rig is already above my previously laid down budget. :p

But I'm really glad to hear there won't be any problems in running this game as I've been looking forward to it for so long. :)

Thanks again,
Laronzo. :)

Well if you go with the qx6600 and plan to overclock the chip make sure you get a board that supports high fsb with the quad cores. The first revisions of 680i boards from EVGA could only reach 300 fsb. However the A1 revision is alot better and can easily reach 400+ fsb.

[Laronzo]

I don't really overclock, although it improves the performance you're going to need to be replace it alot sooner. Especially as I'm still a teenager I can't really expect my parents to be replacing a Quad Core too frequently. :p ;)

Laronzo. :)

[fusen]

I'm more interested in dual core support, the majority of new cpus being sold are dual cores compared to the very small 4core market

[ZR750S]

I hope there isnt much a difference from a dual to a quad! I would hate to upgrade again!

[Sublim3]

there isnt unless you do insane amount of multitasking.

The diff between a Dual and Quad core in gaming right now is basically 0... and i can bet for a long time that there wont be any larger diff of about 5-10fps as GFX card manufactuerers are working on taking more and more load off of the CPU during gaming and putting it on GPU load.

If you worried about gaming, pay most attention to your Ram and GFX, those two pump out more performance per $ than a CPU. Even Single vs Dual core cpu the gaming difference is less than impressive or warrant breaking the bank over the upgrade just for gaming alone... but right now dual core is about the same price as a single sooooo. lol