Do games really use more than 1core?

>Do games really use more than 1core?
No, as every computer nowadays has multiple cores, this is a very effective way to make the game run worse. And making a game is all about having very bad performance. Because obviously a modern video game needs multiple threads, this one of the biggest challenges for a programmer when making a game.

why don't you just leave your ego from your 8700k at the door and wonder if maybe you should save yourself 200$ next time you buy a cpu?

oh wait you wasted 350$ not 200$.

like im on a 4core atm but im seriously thinking about getting a 7350k for a ITX build just to meme people and get higher fps than them with a overclock.

when was intels last single core cpu or is it so long ago that its not practical to meme with?

>last shitty single core housefire
Cedar Mill Pentium 4
>last notebook-tier CPU with one core disabled
Core 2 Solo

also does a cpu having a tdp of 60w and a gpu with 285w tdp mean the gpu needs 5x the cooling as the cpu or is it different to that?

thinking of paring a i3 (2core) 7350k oc to 5.3ghz with a 2080ti

cpu is 60 gpu is 285 tdp on spec sheet. or in reality would the cpu only require half the cooling of the gpu in reality?

oh so 10 years ago that's fine ill just go with a recent 2core and maybe look into disabling a core for the memes.

Supcom is only very weakly multi threaded, you'll see 100% utilization on one core and like 20% on another one or two.

Go back to holy shit

but it gets same fps lol? heaps of games show stuff on other cores but get same fps.. and come to think of it I think the only reason the higher core cpus get higher fps is they have more PCI lanes and I think the retarded benchmark people run them with PC with other stuff on the lanes so with the lower core cpus they run at 8x pci3.0 and 16xpci3.0 on the larger cpus so really they not multithreaded at all. and the diference is prob just pci lanes and cache and not actually multicore.

Is OP a mongoloid? all games use 4 cores now. like minimum. PUBG wont even run at a decent framrate without a 4/8 cpu

I'm confused by this thread
Even counter strike is optimized to at least 8 cores

yes it will it gets same frame rate at a 2core of same generation same clock only thing its worse at is the main menu takes like 5secs longer to load idiot. the actual game performance is exactly the same on 2core.

show a benchmark because its not if your comparing stock speeds of dif cpu at dif speed that's not a proper benchmark all cpu have to be clocked the same speed and be same generation to compare.

3kliksphilip YouTube channel has it which is the only reason I know that

Supcom is weird in the fps stays constant but the simulation slows to fractions of real time. In multiplayer you are completely bound by the slowest cpu in the match.

he prob didn't clock them at same clocks because hes retarded.

>no im not saying that just saying maybe we are being scammed to pay 200-800$ more than we need to on processors by underhanded deals.
What are you even trying to imply? That it would be better if these games didn't use multiple cores?

since Xbox 360 and PS3 came out, games have asked for at least dual core x86 cpus, nowadays, DX11 games can use 4 cores just fine if they want to use more they have to adapt their engine. DX12 and vulkan can use as many as it needs.

To draw a frame in a video game you go through a pipeline with lots of dependencies. You cannot for example draw the shadow of some box before you have simulated the physics interations with other elements in the game world. Unless you want to render multiple frames in advance (which would mean higher input lag), you cannot really scale games to multiple cores.

please kys

Brainlet

>Even counter strike
CS games are optimized very well even if they do not have the best graphics

Why should he? He's perfectly correct.

Near Tomato uses 16

if the developer isn't retarded they can get some pretty good utilization of multiple cores. But it's not easy to do it right.

GTA-V and X-Plane

running several subsystems in parallel is a bitch yeah, but you can also parallelize the tasks of subsystems themselves. Especially ones that deal with large amounts of data that go through the same process.

Your OS scheduler will be able to put processes on different threads, and even parts of the kernel if it's MPsafe I think so you're not getting scammed.

>you cant even buy 2core cpu
2c4t is barely enough for me and that's only because I run GNU/Linux. I can't imagine the pain that a Windows soiboi gaymer must experience when trying to run games on a 2c4t machine.

>Especially ones that deal with large amounts of data that go through the same process.
But less so the ones that have complex internal dependencies.

Yes it is all a scam. Gamers are so easily scammed with muh GPUs, RGB LEDs and slow processors that will never get utilized.

so you telling 3 devs on the verge of bankruptcy managed to do it while devs with 3000+ more staff than them like Ubisoft and blizzard cant do it.

I call bullshit intel paid them its fucking obvious

Is this what you want OP?

Attached: file.png (490x587, 533K)

GTA-V and X-plane get same fps on a 2core at same speed same gen? whats your point....

also xplane gets double the fps on Linux than it does windows. it literally gets 115fps on windows at 240fps on the same hardware with a 1080ti or some thing. its a shit made game.

GTA 5 utilizes all 4 cores of my core2quad fully

im prog going to buy a 8350k i3 or 9350k i3 that are 4core and disable 3 cores just to meme you fucks. games don't use multicore intel is a peace of shit for paying these devs. I understand dx12 can do some shit with multicores and gpu but why don't other dx12 games like gears or shit use more than 1core? that's fucking Microsoft that's ridiculous

utilizing doesn't mean shit it swaps processes out all the time go disable 2 of your cores and you will get exactly same fps.

My fps .1% and .01% went to shit when I disabled 2 cores on my 3470

The overall FPS didn't change much

But the smoothness dropped.

>I'm going to buy a 4 core processor and disable 75% of it. Then I'm going to run proprietary software and games on it. That will show them.

Lol you do you senpai.

Attached: glubglubhewhispers.png (1136x640, 616K)

did you ever run htop or w/e bad clone windows has and look at the cpu usage while in a game? you'd get your answer, idiot

usage doesn't mean shit if you disable the cores you get same fps cpu swap out tasks to other cores just out of habit not because they need to that 30% on all of your 8cores or what ever would be less than 1% load on your main core.

yer jay two cents reported this as well he noticed he got same fps but on high core cpu the fps was more consistant. but its hard to tell if that's just the fraps software reporting per cpu core so it might have actually been exactly the same.

to check smoothness you need to check framepacing you can get fraps style programs that record that. I expect it would be the same thou. any other effect is placebo.

I just people talking about how games are getting better and better multicore optimized and some people saying they have been doing it since the ps3 and 360 (360 had 3cores btw) but it doesn't seem like its happened in reality at all and it was all bullshit.

mind you thou I did notice FMOD the sound engine for bioshock would fuck up on a single core even thou that singlecore could get super high fps in the game. but I think that was a bug and not actually a performance thing it would make the sound crack and pop on single core.

Most easy and common way programming is using single thread application, easy to reason and debug.

OpenGL/DirectX begin mostly single thread API, developers using one thread for draw calls(send orders to GPU), some multithread begin on other effects, but build and programming mutithread draws calls is very hard and Only Vulkan/DirectX12 support full mutithread draw.

mm ive looked at some gears4 benchmarks and it does look like its multithreaded ill admit that but on 980/1060 hardware it makes no difference if you have 4core or more. but on a 1080ti 6+ makes sense +hyperthreading.

I guess ill keep this in mind. what other games are even dx12 beside tomb raider and gears4? I understand tomb raider got it via a patch did metro last light get it via the redux patched version as well?

that makes sense then and ill admit that dx12 is multithreaded. but it only make sense if you have a gpu that's faster than midrange 1060/680 etc and on a 2070 or some thing might literally not be worth getting more than 4core.

but I mean seriously it took what till 2017 for true multicore support to be in gaming via patches for dx12 support?

that's a decade of Intel scamming gamers selling multicore. wtf. why didn't they make a single core "gaming" cpu and sell it for last decade instead of wasting peoples money fuck them... makes sense now thou but wtf. that's like nvidia selling sli for a decade and it doing nothing and only paying off now. wtf.

Just what retardation is this? Yes, most games nowadays use more than 1 core. It's trivial to check CPU usage while running a game and see this in practice. This doesn't mean they scale indefinitely, it just means that 1 core is insufficient.

Yes, 4cores begin Good for gaming, game developer need a lot years to multithread engine.

actually looks like only dx12 games use more than 1core and even then 4+ only makes sense if you have 1080ti for 1060/980 1/2core would perform the same. and these games have only started doing this in last 12months via dx12 patches.

every other non dx12 game will perform same on a single core. so your wrong.

new volkan games apparently can do multicore as well now but I don't know any that exist.

multicore cpu games litearlly have only existed in the last 12months and only for 1080ti level performance lol. if you have less than that every game is 1core.

how have intel managed to sell multicore to retards for last decade when it only makes sense in last 1-2 years? any quad or i5 or i7 you brought from like 2006-2013 is unusable now any way. fucking scammers.

like you guys where literally buying useless shit for 8 years and now its so dates its 4/6 cores or 8/12 threads cant even be used. lol.

Go play BF1 in DX11 on a 64 player map on 1 core, let me know how it goes. Try TWWH in DX11 as well while you're at it in a battle with 5000+ unit models. Maybe try emulating something in RPCS3 too.

Let me know how your 1 core garbage works.

>TWWH
what is this game?

bf1 literally gets same fps on a 2core with same clock from same generation so you just talking about placebo.

multicore support has only come about with dx12 game patches in 2017 and gears in 2016.

its literally like 18months old. and even then its only a double digit fps improvement if you have 1080ti or higher.

for midrange 1060/2070/3060 etc I don't think more than 2/4 cores will never give more than a 3-5fps or some thing.

multicore will make sense in 2025 or some thing for most people that buy 1000$ pc.

It would be impossible to run any modern games on consoles current hardware if everything ran one a single core, PS4/Xbone both uses really shit AMD jaguar based SoCs.

that literally means intel has been selling multicore cpus to idiots for 2decades before it was even supported and made any meaningful distance. that's still a scam. I bet most of you wasted 1000$ plus on up core cpus in this timeframe. intel won

but you literally can run any dx11 game on a 2core and get same fps..... maybe even if you disable a core in windows and only run 1

oh the witcher… it gets like 8fps more 131 instead of 127 on more than 2cpu with a 1080ti with lower its same fps. your guys egos are seriously hurt.

because game developers want to sell as many games to as many people possible. This is why 4 core cpu's and a gtx 1060 will last most people just fine through 2021.

1 main thread with like 2-3 auxiliary threads is pretty standard

lmao, do you even know what a bottleneck is?

WoW allows to utilze every core

since 2010 btw.
wowwiki.wikia.com/wiki/CVar_processAffinityMask

Uh. Look guy, you're likely (definitely) not running a single task realtime OS, you have a lot going on with your machine at a given point in time that you don't see. Drivers figuring stuff out, IO, other stuff running, and the game itself. All of this has to be scheduled by the kernel, and all of it needs CPU time. You're better off running with some headroom. Don't buy the bare minimum, that's just foolish.

I'm running an AMD sempron something or other right now, 2.8GHz, single core. Things like this have become quite obvious, especially when benchmarking.

>Housefire
This is more a matter of the power supply, and has to do with high switching speeds, and neutral return wires that are too thin to handle the resulting high frequency transients. Therefore, they heat up and can cause fires.

disable all your cores and run it on 1cpu gets same fps. it only has 2core support in the engine and it uses the second one for the sound engine that has 0 effect on FPS. cpu usage is not core usage test it yourself.

to get the most efficient cores your forced to get 4core atm and by the time 6/8+ core matters for midrange gpus you will be forced to get 6/8core as minimum any way.

my point is intel has cheated gamers from money for 15-20 years in this period with 0 multicore performance gains.

people complain about how raytracing on 2080 is bullshit and will never be used. in 2-3 years games will 100% require it games didn't even see a 1fps increase from multicore until the end of 2016/2017 via gears and dx12 patches and that's with a 1080ti with a 1060 its 0 improvement and will stay that way until 2026. that's 2decades of literally scamming people intel is cunts.

Intel has cheated and fucked over everyone for most of their existence. That's what Intel is. Just another parasite that forces its own relevance.

Setting WoW to run on all cores

Important: Intel and AMD have both recently in last few years dramatically changed which processor models support HT, especially in lower model processors. As of 2017, nearly all new major brand processors will have something similar to HT, or more than one logical processor per core. Also, cores and HT can be disabled for the system, even if you know the maximum your processor model supports.

Firstly, knowing how many actual logical core you have is important to knowing which mask to use. The easiest way on a PC to tell how many system logical cores are running, is to open Task Manager and switch to the Performance tab (and then "CPU" on win 8 and 10) and read the number logical processors value. As an aside, setting a mask for a larger value than the number of logical cores you have, should produce the same result. So setting value to "7" would limit WoW to first 4 logical cores available, would still be safe and produce the same result of up to 4 cores as available on any CPU.

Dual-cores without HT, Core 2 Duos, most older Pentiums, i3s, and i5s, some i7s (2c):

SET processAffinityMask "3"

Tri-cores without HT, many older AMD (3c):

SET processAffinityMask "7"

Quads without HT, some older i5s and i7s (4c):

SET processAffinityMask "15"

Quads with HT, many older i7s (4c/8t):

SET processAffinityMask "255"

Hex-Core with HT (6c/12t)

SET processAffinityMask "1344"

16-core / Generic 8-core hyper-threaded (8c/16t):

SET processAffinityMask "65535"

doesn't effect frame rate and game sets them process via default

What the fuck is this retard talking about

Multithreading is pretty shit for games, even the best multithreaded games only get about a 30% performance increase over how they would be singlethreaded and many games just dont even bother with it

not wasting 1500$ on buying multicore cpus from 2006-2016 that never got used.

unless you use the config

no it doesn't go benchmark it has 0 effect on FPS.

i don't have to, it was done and confirmed.
mmo-champion.com/threads/841087-processAffinityMask-Testing?p=10347527&viewfull=1#post10347527
you can read the whole thread, if you want to.

Thing that helps with games more than anything least in titles made before 2007 is clock speed. Back in the day when dual cores first hit, a higher clocked single core chip would out do a dual core slower clocked version despite both cores combined would give better performance due to nothing using that extra core. Yeah the os (NT/2000/xp) would use it but your primary application (game) would not. Same thing applies today, clock speed maters also how fast that cpu crunches data internally is a big thing to. This is why FX series sucked in games, yeah it had cores, yeah it had clock speed, but how well it did internal data crunching was a big performance drop compared with Phenom II. Modern hardware should run those games at 100+ fps with all things jacked at high res without breaking a sweat. If not, then something is very wrong.

RAGE does, in fact it runs like shit on anything with less than 3 cores

Monster hunter world runs best with at least 4 core 8 threads or 6 core 6 threads. But thats just crapcom being shit in managing thread switching

Attached: cpu_1080p.jpg (732x405, 37K)

Overwatch????

Games are making better use of multicore every year. I guarantee you BF5 will scale with 16+ threads

game are at least 15 years behind tech.

Humans think linearly not parallely

Games are the LEAST efficient software ever produced in the history of mankind.

they're made first to entertain. today for money.
never for efficieny.

these tests are some times not accurate because the benchmark machine has a nvme or pci ssd installed so on lower core cpus the gpu can only run at 8x compared to 16x which gives a small fps decrease.

on that same lower core count with out the pci/nvme ssd it could run at 16x fine. so the tests are bogus. the reviewers always forget available pcie lanes change per cpu/cores

There are single core sandy bridge celerons.

>mmo-champion.com/threads/841087-processAffinityMask-Testing?p=10347527&viewfull=1#post10347527
increasing CPU usage in task manager isn't increasing FPS you retard. blizzard has these settings in the engine but doesn't turn them on because they make 0 difference.

cpu swap out threads and loads between cpu naturally if program allows it doesn't mean the cpu is actually using the other cores its just how their drivers are made. unless it gives fps increase its not a multicore game.

just like a game can use 11gigs of vram if it has it but perform the same on a 3gig card because that 11gigs is being swapped out constantly and most of it is just sitting there doing nothing.

Learn2Tech. just because you look at task manager and feel good isn't a benchmark you dumb cunt. you wasted your wow gold money on multicore cpus.

You are the only one ever talking about fps.
i just stated and proven my point WoW support multicores. (Yes utilizing more cores IS multicore, that's common sense)
Also
>implying i bought a CPU only based on a game
>implying i don't compile shit on Linux

true
but it's not even in the top 10 list of priorities
hence beefier and beefier hardware that pretty much amounts to minimal gain, because devs are still using dx9 utilizing a single core and chewing through as much ram as it can handle