Six core CPU's an advantage for CoD?

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

We do know that CLIFFS OF DOVER will take advantage of multi core CPU's, the question is, how many cores can be utilized? Are 4 or 6 core processors better?

Up to this point, the technical discussion on this board has been pointing mostly towards a 2500k/2600k solution for a CPU. However, Intel also has its Core I7 970 and 980x six core processors. Would these have an advantage versus the 2600k? Can the game use the extra cores? ( I am not including the AMD six core processors in this discussion, they fall quite a bit behind in performance, although obviously not in value)

Oleg Maddox: We use a hybrid multi-threaded system. Separate threads are in sound or asynchronous loading of resources used. Moreover, we believe, for example, during loading or calculating Geometire TPL (Task Parallel Library) for the efficient use of available cores one.


Here is a benchmark test which may be relevant, none of the CPU's in this test are overclocked, the 2600k can be overclocked to 4.3, the 980x can be overclocked to 4.4, the 970, which is not shown in the test, usually falls just a notch behind the 980x in comparisons, can be overclocked to 4.1:

3DMark Vantage's CPU Test 2 is a multi-threaded test designed for comparing relative game physics processing performance between systems. This test consists of a single scene that features an air race of sorts, with a complex configuration of gates. There are aircraft in the test that trail smoke and collide with various cloth and soft-body obstacles, each other, and the ground. The smoke spreads, and reacts to the planes as they pass through it as well and all of this is calculated on the host CPU.

http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1610/van-cpu.png

This test clearly shows a big advantage for the 980x.

Of course, the 980 is priced around $1000, quite a bundle. The 970 is much more reasonable, priced under $600. (and the price is falling) But both the six core processors are quite a bit more expensive than the 2600k and especially the 2500k.

So here's the question for those hardware geeks on this board:

Are the six cores worth it? Performance wise and price wise?

[lbuchele]

Probably only somebody at Maddox Games can answer this question.

[WTE_Galway]

Or just get the 8 core SB due for release in Q3.

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,814364/Cebit-2011-Intel-bestaetigt-Sandy-Bridge-EP-mit-acht-Kernen-fuer-Herbst/CPU/Download/

[swiss]

This test clearly shows a big advantage for the 980x.



..in this single test, yes.

The real life advantage is remarkably smaller, it also varies from game to game.

[*Buzzsaw*]

..in this single test, yes.

The real life advantage is remarkably smaller, it also varies from game to game.

The thread was not referencing 'game to game', it was referencing one game specifically. CLIFFS OF DOVER.

Of course older games are going to be more dependent on raw speed, rather than multiple cores. CoD is clearly optimized for use with multiple core processors, the question is, how much use can the program make of CPU's with six cores?

Perhaps it is too much to ask of people on this board. Hopefully we might see a reply from Luthier or Oleg.

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Great question Buzzsaw. I read those sections several times myself. Of all the posts that have come to this board in it's existance - this is the thread I hope one or more of the developers posts in.

If they don't respond to this, I believe it's because - "They don't really know, exactly". Why? Because at some point, the number of various systems and software becomes an counter-productive systems-administration burden on developers, so that they are paying almost as much money keeping the varied CPU/GPU/OS's current and documented - as they are on programmers and graphics developers.

With 15 years of working with and managing development of threaded, advanced graphics and signal processing software, I can safely say: "I certainly don't have a clue"

As a simmer, I spent 18 months on the ROF beta team testing various configurations of hardware (will never do that again, too much work and too little play) against many beta builds, and comparing my results to other testers performance, in reasonably controlled conditions. What did I learn? or relearn?

That testing on 3D Mark or other benchmark software and/or examining hardware performance on non-simulation software (i.e. FPS type games) - tells you next to nothing about how applications like FSX, ROF, Il2, DCS will behave.

This gets even more complicated with threaded and partially threaded applications, of which ROF is/was.

Without knowing how the routines are structured and how the software scales under load, we can't know.

Between the Intel and AMD offerings - how significant is real cores vs hyper-cores in performance of this application?

The only "wild speculation" I would even hazard a guess on is that in my development group at work, where we do have access and choice between Intel and AMD solutions - we've tended to stick with AMD (Opteron mainly) due to cost/performance and inability to obtain significant threaded performance from hyperthreading in our applications.

Our code is fully threaded. Period. On the other hand I know of no entertainment software which is.

Hehe - so with all that I don't know crap :)

What I would recommend we do - in lieu of explict recommendations from 1C - is form our own voluntary testing team early on. Find a benchmark, set of standards and go for it. Like on day 2 of the release. With the purpose of informing the community of hardware/OS performance. All we have to do is get organinzed a little.....

It would be at least as productive as much of what's currently being discussed in every forum concerning CoD, IMHO.

S!

Gunny

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

good idea:)

[*Buzzsaw*]

What I would recommend we do - in lieu of explict recommendations from 1C - is form our own voluntary testing team early on. Find a benchmark, set of standards and go for it. Like on day 2 of the release. With the purpose of informing the community of hardware/OS performance. All we have to do is get organinzed a little.....

It would be at least as productive as much of what's currently being discussed in every forum concerning CoD, IMHO.

S!

Gunny

Excellent idea. Unfortunately, don't think I would be able to participate, since my current system probably won't run CoD. I have an older Dual Core Pentium with a 512mg video card which runs IL-2 reasonably well at lower settings. I have been waiting before I buy a new system.

Certainly if Oleg or Luthier happens to notice this thread, I'd encourage them to respond. :)

[T}{OR]

Even if the engine can support and use 6 or 8 cores - how many of us have 6 or 8 core CPU's? 8, 6 and 4 core Bulldozers code-name Zambezi (FX8000, FX6000 and FX4000) are due out in late June. And the existing high end 6 core i7's - and how many people can afford that? Not much.

This is a game we're talking about (be it a simulator or not), and if they manage to utilize all 4 cores/threads - it would be a great peace of programming indeed. As for Hyper Threading - pretty much useless in games. Video editing - by all means, games - marginal performance increase, at best.

The above linked tests are purely synthetic, and do not represent the real life scenario.


Even if the game is built to support / use more than 4 threads - it is highly unlikely that those 'switches' will be turned on for CoD, more likely for the next iteration in the IL2 series.

[choctaw111]

I am really anxious to see how well a 6 or even an 8 core CPU will handle it.
I will post some benchmarks for my quad core.
Even though it is a couple years old, it still does very well.
Hopefully I am not putting a little too much confidence in it as I have not been able to really find out how all 4 cores working together in a program designed to use them will work.

[The Kraken]

Even if the game is built to support / use more than 4 threads - it is highly unlikely that those 'switches' will be turned on for CoD, more likely for the next iteration in the IL2 series.

Hmm I don't think that would make much sense - if at least parts of the code are capable of running on more than 4 cores in parallel, they might as well use that capability. Clearly 6 cores won't give you 50% more performance than 4 cores, but in the end every bit is welcome. Whether it's worth paying for is another matter of course ;)

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Oh man Buzz, I feel bad for you. You know the right thing, but you'll miss out on day 1 or 2 and however long it takes you to order. Crap. Unless someone from 1C comes around and enlightens us.

Well, the best I can say is that my good friend TX-Thunderbolt has an I7-920 for sure. I know he'll be up on day 1 and we've tested together before.

I know a guy over at ROF that has a Phenom II X6, and he's also tested with me. He was the guy that discovered ROF will only utilize 3 cores. I'll check and see if he's going to D/L CoD on day 1.

Actually, if a user observed the cores in the Performance Tab of Windows Task manager, while an application is under load, it should be enough to confirm load distribution - so it's not as if we'd have to benchmark for hours. Let me check with some friends over at ROF to confirm that the new Intel Hex cores have been observed with the same behavior.

When the new Hex's from both vendors first started to appear, several folks grabbed them over at ROF - only to find that their performance was the same as much lower priced quads. It was the dual-cores that had issues with ROF.

Anyway, hopefully Oleg will throw a line in this thread and you'll be good to go Buzz. Maybe they have a Hex in the shop, who knows. That Phenom II X6 (Black Edition) is about U.S. $200.00 and clocks to 4 Ghz easy. If however, like ROF the 4-5-6 cores don't add anything - well Quads are a lot cheaper.


Has anyone here ever observed core utilization in DCS:A10 or DCS:BS?

S!

Gunny

[Oldschool61]

Salute

( I am not including the AMD six core processors in this discussion, they fall quite a bit behind in performance, although obviously not in value)




http://hothardware.com/articleimages/Item1610/van-cpu.png



Thats funny your weak amd X6 is faster than your 2500K in this benchmark, and the regular phenom II is beating the I5 hum what was it you said above??

[Baron]

Thats funny your weak amd X6 is faster than your 2500K in this benchmark, and the regular phenom II is beating the I5 hum what was it you said above??


The AMD is 6 cores and more expensive than the 2500K and yet barely beats it. So yes i would also say AMD is way behind at present.

As for the phenom (a buck or two cheaper than 2500K) vs i5, does any sane person even consider buying i5 today (not Sandy Bridge)?


Dont get me wrong, the same aplies to the i5 and i7`s also, SB beats them all on performance vs prize. Anyone even considering buying a i7 970/975 (twize the prize)instead of a 2500K/2600K should have their heads examined.

[Codex]

Bulldozer ...

"AMD FX-series central processing unit (CPUs) powered by the Bulldozer micro-architecture will be fully able to rival Core i7 2600-series chips."

It will be interesting to see what these chips will do.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110313163718_AMD_Aims_to_Fight_Core_i7_Sandy_Bri dge_with_Bulldozer.html

[Oldschool61]

The AMD is 6 cores and more expensive than the 2500K and yet barely beats it.


We talking performance here and yes thanks for confirming that the amd x6 beats the 2500K as well as the other uber intel cpu's. Oh wait that means amd is uber too then..

[mazex]

Even if the game is built to support / use more than 4 threads - it is highly unlikely that those 'switches' will be turned on for CoD, more likely for the next iteration in the IL2 series.

Well, somewhere else here (don't remember which tread) Oleg stated that the CoD engine will have sound and resource loading on separate threads so 2-3 cores will be of use, no more. Kind of like the DCS A10 engine then... Not that unexpected even though some non-programmers will naturally whine.

[Baron]

We talking performance here and yes thanks for confirming that the amd x6 beats the 2500K as well as the other uber intel cpu's. Oh wait that means amd is uber too then..


In this test, yes. I still wouldn't buy it over a SB 2500K any more than i would buy a i7 970 over a 2500K. For the same reasons i wouldn't buy a 5970 over a 6970 or a 580


But thats just me. ;)

[Thee_oddball]

Nice post Gunslinger, do you think the win7 program..Windows Experience Index tells you anything concrete or is it more of a suggestion? I am 7.4,7.4,7.5,6.9 (and 5.9 HD )

[Thee_oddball]

Excellent idea. Unfortunately, don't think I would be able to participate, since my current system probably won't run CoD. I have an older Dual Core Pentium with a 512mg video card which runs IL-2 reasonably well at lower settings. I have been waiting before I buy a new system.

Certainly if Oleg or Luthier happens to notice this thread, I'd encourage them to respond. :)

dual core and a 512meg card...you should be at high setting's, i had a single core (2,4ghz) and a x1650 card with 256 and i was medium to high settings.

[WTE_Galway]

beats the 2500K as well as the other uber intel cpu's.

ummh ... with the current Sandy Bridge lineup Intel released their midrange CPU's.

The high performance (8 core larger cache faster clock) Sandy Bridge CPU's and the supporting chipsets for them are not due out until Q3.

The really interesting comparison will be between those and the AMD Bulldozer lineup.

[*Buzzsaw*]

The high performance (8 core larger cache faster clock) Sandy Bridge CPU's and the supporting chipsets for them are not due out until Q3.

Ivy Bridge is the name for the 22nm 8 core processors due out Q3. They are rumoured to use the same LGA 1155 socket as Sandy Bridge though.

Intel is focused on making smaller and smaller chips, because they perceive the market is moving faster and faster towards mobile devices for all usages.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Is-20-Faster-Than-Sandy-Bridge-Rumors-Say-182353.shtml

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Nice post Gunslinger, do you think the win7 program..Windows Experience Index tells you anything concrete or is it more of a suggestion? I am 7.4,7.4,7.5,6.9 (and 5.9 HD )

Thanks OD. I don't think the Win 7 score all that valuable - between the types of CPU/GPU's that folks are talking about. On the other hand I've never compared numbers with anyone.

Since you've put yours out there here's mine (just re-ran assessment to be sure):

7.5,7.5,7.8,7.8, 5.9HD - as you know max is 7.9

So I have a last gen or so MB - LGA 775 Gigabyte EP-45 UDP
Processor is Intel Q9650 Quad OC'd to 4.0 w/4 GB of RAM
Graphics is ATI HD5870 Cat 10.10
Win 7 - 64

There are faster systems out there, that run for example ROF at higher frames and with all eye candy on - I'd say these newer systems provide a noticable difference in performance.

On the other hand they cost a lot more and I've had my system for about 2 years and current graphics card for over 1 year - and I can run 90% of what they can at the same FPS if that makes any sense. Sometimes the graphics bells and whistles are subjective - like do your really want to use Bloom, HDR, etc.... some do, some don't.

So in the end - I don't think this Win7 score tells us anything wrt CoD. Guess we'll see when it comes out.

S!

Gunny

[Thee_oddball]

Thanks OD. I don't think the Win 7 score all that valuable - between the types of CPU/GPU's that folks are talking about. On the other hand I've never compared numbers with anyone.

Since you've put yours out there here's mine (just re-ran assessment to be sure):

7.5,7.5,7.8,7.8, 5.9HD - as you know max is 7.9

So I have a last gen or so MB - LGA 775 Gigabyte EP-45 UDP
Processor is Intel Q9650 Quad OC'd to 4.0 w/4 GB of RAM
Graphics is ATI HD5870 Cat 10.10
Win 7 - 64

There are faster systems out there, that run for example ROF at higher frames and with all eye candy on - I'd say these newer systems provide a noticable difference in performance.

On the other hand they cost a lot more and I've had my system for about 2 years and current graphics card for over 1 year - and I can run 90% of what they can at the same FPS if that makes any sense. Sometimes the graphics bells and whistles are subjective - like do your really want to use Bloom, HDR, etc.... some do, some don't.

So in the end - I don't think this Win7 score tells us anything wrt CoD. Guess we'll see when it comes out.

S!

Gunny
thnx gunny I thought the WEI was not really the be all end of system definition :) My rig is a budget build ($500) from 5 months ago and i am hoping that i will be able to play CoD at medium setting's :)
ASrock 870 Extreme
AMD phenom X2 (nowX3) 3.2ghz black edition
4GB kingston 1066
ATI (saphire) 5750 1GB
Corsair 750 PSU
WIN7 ultimate 64

When i play BC2 all 3 cores are maxed out at %100

[Voyager]

[...]
When i play BC2 all 3 cores are maxed out at %100

That could easily mean they are waiting for data, or running the game's version of "wait for next input". That's one of the fun things about the windows Task Manager.

[PeterPanPan]

The real life advantage is remarkably smaller, it also varies from game to game.



Very true. I now have an i7 2600 rig and interestingly it plays ROF with all sliders to the max perfectly - very fluid frame rates. However, with FSX (which is much older than ROF) it still refuses to have silky frame rates when many of the sliders are set above medium/high - most frustrating. We'll just have to see how the i7 2600 handles CoD.

PPanPan

[Alkayd]

Very true. I now have an i7 2600 rig and interestingly it plays ROF with all sliders to the max perfectly - very fluid frame rates. However, with FSX (which is much older than ROF) it still refuses to have silky frame rates when many of the sliders are set above medium/high - most frustrating. We'll just have to see how the i7 2600 handles CoD.

PPanPan

Same here: Phenom 1090T (6cores 3.2GHz) + 8 GB RAM + nVidia GTS 250 (1GB) and it plays ROF with all sliders to the max perfectly and in FSX with most sliders set to High and a fiew to medium I get 20FPS on average ... :confused: