Core 2 Duo vs Core 2 Quad

Currently viewing this thread:

MAXHARDMAN

Knight
M&BWBWF&S
So , I have now Core 2 Duo 3 GHz , and want change it for Core 2 Quad 3 GHz . Have it change any sense ? I mean for playing in Warband ?

If anyone change this CPU , please write about you meaning . Or if you have any other info about Warband working with 4 core CPU.

Thanks.
 

velocity30

Veteran
M&BWBWBWBNW
Honestly, The dual to quad core upgrade is not worth the money for gaming. A lot of games don't utilize them well, & warband really isn't that CPU intensive generally. If you want the biggest bang for your buck, get an SSD (solid state drive). Warband loads in seconds, along with everything else on the computer. Also, I've found that windows 7 utilizes multi-core CPU's far better than XP.
 

The Shadow

Recruit
Warband does not use Dual Core processors, if I remember correctly, so you won't see a change.

It will only utilize one core.  And honestly, Quad Cores don't perform much better for gaming.  Best to stick with a really good Core Duo. 
 

Sheena

Recruit
I just upgraded to a i7-920 2.66ghz from a E8400 (usually overclocked at 3.6ghz) and while i see stellar performance gain in games like GTA IV / Dead space / Prototype / Dragon Age Origins , Warband on the other hand perform a bit worse (maybe 5-10% slower). Only thing that matter for WB is the processing power of ONE thread. Yes the game is multi-threaded, but barely. And when you see cpu utilization on 4 cores while playing warband that just mean one thread is splitted over 4 cores and this have nothing to do with multi-threading.

p.s. I'm not even sure i should call that an "upgrade" since 99.99% of pc games released in the last 2 decades ran better on the E8400. Maybe in 2015.
 

velocity30

Veteran
M&BWBWBWBNW
In regard to getting better performance through threading or milti-cores, here's some info people might like (or find boring):

A single core CPU should be thought of as a "big pile of functional units", not a machine that can only truly do 1 thing at a time. Functional units are useless on their own, but each one does something different. 2 examples would be "instruction fetch" and "execute". Instruction fetch gets data from ram, execute would perform integer arithmetic.

When thinking about this....The single core CPU can truly execute multiple contexts(threads) simultaneously. Context(thread) 1 could be using the instruction fetch & waiting (since ram is extremely slow). At the same time context(thread) 2 has already done its instruction fetch, & is using the execution unit......

So we'll take this idea & call it "Hyperthreading", I'm sure people are familiar with that in intel chips.

This is some fun stuff, take a look at the Tomasulo algorithm to see how this is dealt with (a long time ago). Hyperthreading is a crippled version of this idea sort of. The cripple isn't a bad thing though, it just means not all "functional units" can use this idea. Last I knew, the pentium 4 had over 20 functional units.

Roughly this boils down to 2 things:
1. Speculative execution: the hardware designer being able to multi-thread software that is not threaded.
2. True threading: can be mimicked, although slightly "crippled" (slower). True threading can only be done on multicores

#2 has to be done explicitly in the code. Since software developers are generaly bad with this whole ordeal, Intel made the crippled hyperthreading as a way for the hardware guys to do it for them.

Sheena: this is why you see a performance hit sometimes. The i7 is hyperthreaded, it uses speculative execution, the e8400 is not. And as the word speculation implies....it is sometimes wrong and can actually slow things down. More often than not its good though. Check your BIOS, you should be able to disable hyperthreading and get that 10% back.
 

Shinigami

Regular
WB
I'll keep it simple:
If you replace a 2-core CPU with a 4-core CPU working on the same frequency (3ghz) and then run a game that uses 1-2 cores, you'll see around 0% improvement for about $300.
If you replace your aging (or not) video card (lets say GTS 250) with a $300 fresh and new video card (lets say GTX 465), you might get around 50% improvement, which is easily noticeable.
If you replace GTS 250 with GTX 480, you'll get 60 fps in all games currently released in resolutions up to 1920x1200. But GTX 480 has recommended price of $500 at the moment...

So, which one would you prefer?

Sheena:
if you can afford a $250-300 CPU, make sure you can afford a $300+ video card and a $60+ CPU cooler, like Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme-1366 Rev. C (there are lots of different good coolers starting at $60). This way you'll be able to squeeze out those 3.5-4ghz from your CPU and receive same or better performance in single-thread applications.
 

Sheena

Recruit
Shinigami said:
I'll keep it simple:
If you replace a 2-core CPU with a 4-core CPU working on the same frequency (3ghz) and then run a game that uses 1-2 cores, you'll see around 0% improvement for about $300.
If you replace your aging (or not) video card (lets say GTS 250) with a $300 fresh and new video card (lets say GTX 465), you might get around 50% improvement, which is easily noticeable.
If you replace GTS 250 with GTX 480, you'll get 60 fps in all games currently released in resolutions up to 1920x1200. But GTX 480 has recommended price of $500 at the moment...

So, which one would you prefer?

Sheena:
if you can afford a $250-300 CPU, make sure you can afford a $300+ video card and a $60+ CPU cooler, like Thermalright Ultra-120 Extreme-1366 Rev. C (there are lots of different good coolers starting at $60). This way you'll be able to squeeze out those 3.5-4ghz from your CPU and receive same or better performance in single-thread applications.

Hum yea i have a GTS 250 but i play on a 720p HDTV and this is a very low resolution by today standard. I'm not sure about upgrading the video card, this one seem enough to play at 720p even in all new games. But yea , if i buy a 1080p LCD monitor soon i know i'll have to upgrade the gpu heh.
 

Flandy

Veteran
I'm running an i7 920 and WB frequently tops out the single core it uses in really close blobs of fighting, if only if could use the other cores...could run 1000 man battles :razz:

On a similar note, I'm running Windows 7 64 and trying to put the WB process into High or Realtime, I get "Access is Denied" anybody know why? :smile:
 

velocity30

Veteran
M&BWBWBWBNW
Sheena:
    Your video card will be good for awhile, I'm running an 8800gts which is a bit older than yours. I can run M&B @ 1900x1200 with all the graphics maxed out (AA off) and I'm always running > 50fps. Crysis is the most demanding game to date, I get 30 fps with 3/4 graphics quality.

Like I said before, an SSD is the best bang for your buck if you have descent hardware already, it will make your entire computer Waaaay faster with loading. Windows boots in about 15 sec. Warband loads 10x faster at least.
 

Dinostram

Recruit
I had a dual core CPU and upgraded to a quad core.
The dual core had some problems when new enemies arrived.
But the quad core didn't make any performance improvements.
I then found out that Warband only used one of the available cores.
To fix this problem
Start Warband
Go to Task manager, click on the Processes tab
Right click on warband
chose set affinity... and remove CPU 0 from the list chose OK
Restart warband
Go to Task manager, click on the Processes tab
Right click on warband
chose set affinity... and select all cores chose OK
And WB will now use all cores.
This was a great improvement on my computer I do not notice when new enemies arrive now.
I can't see any performance difference between my quad core and dual core after the core problem was fixed.
I think a new GFX would be a better upgrade in my computer
 

The Chubu

Sergeant
Same trick helped with STALKER. It used one core unless you did the same thing with the affnity.

Anyway, if you want to upgrade your GPU, since the CPU is the one in charge of the information sended to the GPU, eventualy you'll need to upgrade the CPU. Current mid to high end GPUs are already crippled if paired with Dual Core CPUs.

I cant get anywere as same fps with my core 2 duo at 3,2Ghz and my HD5770 compared to the same card but with a i7 at same speeds (or even lower).
 

Shinigami

Regular
WB
velocity30 said:
SSD is the best bang for your buck
Should I report this to moderators as phishing attempt, attempt to advertise products or just a blatant lie?

Upgrade your own PC first. THEN recommend other to be such fools as you are. I dare you.

The only way to make Windows boot fast using SSD is described perfectly in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs

The only drawback is SSD awesomeness will set you back one BMW. In my opinion, one BMW ($25.000+ if you buy $1000 Intel speedy models + raid controllers),  is still faster/cooler/better than SSD awesomeness.
PC-wise you can build about 12 PCs with latest-gen hardware, able to run Crysis maxed out in 2560x1600 with Dx10 mode. TWELVE.

$300 64GB SSD will be slower than any current-generation HDD with 2.000GB storage.

So who said something about "best bung for buck"?

Replacing CPU doesn't give a noticeable performance boost unless you're still using a single-core one or dual-core at 2.4ghz and buy a i5 750 and overclock it to some 3.5-4ghz. Less than 20% is not a noticeable boost. Because if you have 20 fps, it will only give you 4 fps, which won't fix stuttering.
Replacing GTS 250 with GTX 480 will give you at least DOUBLE FPS, which will really help.

The problem with Warband, judging by the forum, is latest patch, which drops FPS significantly whenever someone's fighting. Its not a problem with anyone's PC, its a problem with game design. I can only recommend waiting for it to be fixed.

Core 2 duo + GTS 250 is a decent system, not requiring an upgrade at the moment.
 

The Shadow

Recruit
Uh, don't report it.  He's offering advice...besides, SSDs are made by more then one company, not just one, and he's partially right.  I was considering getting one for Empire: Total War.  They are insanely fast. 
 

CalCD

Sergeant
M&BWB
If its just to play warband, the upgrade isnt really necessary.
Will have to try that core affinity trick though, sounds good  :grin:
 

Shinigami

Regular
WB
Bolkonsky said:
Uh, don't report it.  He's offering advice...besides, SSDs are made by more then one company, not just one, and he's partially right.  I was considering getting one for Empire: Total War.  They are insanely fast.
I'm being sarcastic about reporting, there was no offense or broken rules so I'm not going to add work to moderators, I'm sure they have enough to do without me.

As for SSDs:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Western-Digital-VelociRaptor-600-GB-Hard-Disk-Drive-Review/966/3
$300 600gb HDD is faster than $400 128gb SSD.

Anyone else considering getting SSD instead of HDD? Consider getting 4 SSDs for bigger size and faster speeds (in RAID 0). Also consider its price ($500-1000 or more, depending on the exact model, cheapest SSDs are slower than HDDs with same price).

Those trying affinity trick please don't forget to report if it helps, this information might be useful to other people. Me? I don't have any trouble running WB. I don't have any wish to either :mrgreen:
 

velocity30

Veteran
M&BWBWBWBNW
Shinigami said:
velocity30 said:
SSD is the best bang for your buck
Should I report this to moderators as phishing attempt, attempt to advertise products or just a blatant lie?
Well, this just makes no sense, I mentioned no brand names.

Shinigami said:
Upgrade your own PC first. THEN recommend other to be such fools as you are. I dare you.
Ive been building my own computers for over 10 years. You should check your facts & try not to be so rude.

Shinigami said:
The only way to make Windows boot fast using SSD is described perfectly in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96dWOEa4Djs
This video makes no sense to the discussion. RAID is not needed for an SSD to out perform an HDD. Windows does not need any special configurations to make an SSD function. Windows 7 actually contains support to use SSD's more effectively. The video looks like someone was messing around with an extreme case.

Shinigami said:
The only drawback is SSD awesomeness will set you back one BMW. In my opinion, one BMW ($25.000+ if you buy $1000 Intel speedy models + raid controllers),  is still faster/cooler/better than SSD awesomeness.
PC-wise you can build about 12 PCs with latest-gen hardware, able to run Crysis maxed out in 2560x1600 with Dx10 mode. TWELVE.
Yes, they are more expensive. That is why you only put the OS & programs on it. HDD's are cheap so you throw your music, movies, etc on there.

Shinigami said:
$300 64GB SSD will be slower than any current-generation HDD with 2.000GB storage.
This is just wrong. A quality 128gb SSD can be purchased for under 300.
One of my machines at home has 4 HDD's (10000rpm, 32mb cache) configured as RAID 5. Another machine at home has 1 SDD in it. The machine with the SSD completely obliterates the array of HDD's. I've ran things side by side with them sitting next to each other, my statements are based on observed evidence.

Shinigami said:
Core 2 duo + GTS 250 is a decent system, not requiring an upgrade at the moment.
That is why I said "an SSD is the best bang for your buck if you have descent hardware already". Doesn't matter how fast your machine is, if your using an HDD, you will see a huge performance boost with an SSD.

From your latter post....
Shinigami said:
Anyone else considering getting SSD instead of HDD? Consider getting 4 SSDs for bigger size and faster speeds (in RAID 0). Also consider its price ($500-1000 or more, depending on the exact model, cheapest SSDs are slower than HDDs with same price).
I'll make a pretty safe assumption that your talking about an SSD RAID through the SATA interface. If you dont know why it doesn't make sense, you should not be talking about it.
 

The Shadow

Recruit
I speak from experience, solid state is ALWAYS faster then a disc, unless the cables are slow for some reason.

It takes less time for an SSD to read, period.  Speeds are amazing. 
 

Shinigami

Regular
WB
Bolkonsky said:
I speak from experience, solid state is ALWAYS faster then a disc, unless the cables are slow for some reason.

It takes less time for an SSD to read, period.  Speeds are amazing.
True. Loading times are faster. But 64gb SSD (and 128 GB) isn't enough to install:
OS
All programs
All games
and keep some space to benefit from increased speed.

[quote author=velocity30]You should check your facts & try not to be so rude.[/quote]
I'll try.

If you have a decent PC already, you will benefit more from:
upgrading video card if its not GTX 480 or anything of its level
getting second video card if you already have GTX 480. Same card for nearly 100% speed bump, according to Nvidia press release.
upgrading CPU if its not core i7 920+ running at 3+ghz and video card is already at GTX 480 x2 level
upgrading RAM if its not 4+gb
upgrade cooling system to water-cooled system ($800 or more) if its not yet at that level. It doesn't allow extreme cooling, but it can make GTX 480 (or few) pretty quiet (worked for me with 8800 GTX SLI, works for me now with GTX 280).
... compared to installing SSD. I have no doubts SSDs perform read operations at blazing speeds, way faster than typical HDD, but I see no benefit from faster loading times if FPS still drops to 10 every time a battle starts or multiple highly detailed objects start moving on the screen. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying SSD won't make your system faster. I'm saying there are lots of better ways to make your PC faster. Because, um, SSDs don't really speed games, only allow smaller loading times.

Basically:
SSDs don't affect FPS unless the game is loading something. This is why I don't recommend SSDs to gamers. Buying a $300 video card will provide a bigger FPS bump than a $1000 SSD for reason described earlier.
 
Top Bottom