Quad or Dual Core with Vista ?

[oho]

I'm planning to upgrade my pc. Should I go for a higher frequency with a dual core or can I use the full 4 cernels of a quad core with my vista 64 bit, so that I can use the normal perfomance-checks of the usual bench-mark lists - or should I bias toward dual-core when I use these lists, because DCS-BS does not use multi-cores originally?

What's your experience?

[Feuerfalke]

DCS does support multiple-cores, but not multi-threading.

 

So it can benefit from more than two cores, but the performance gain with the third, fourth,... core won't be as much as when going from one to two cores.

 

Long story short: I'd go for multiple cores.

[beers]

I suggest waiting a few more weeks/months to see what the next DCS module does. The difference between a dual-core running over 3ghz vs a quad-core at 2.something is that DCS will run better on the cheaper dual core, but the dual-core is less powerful than the quad from many other vantage points, so depending on what DCS looks like in 2010, you might be jumping the gun. If things don't change, a dual core will serve you better, if the new module changes things dramatically then a quad might be helpful.

[sobek]

IIRC according to Wags, the next module will not incorporate any steps towards multithreading, but efforts go towards utilising 64bit to enable more units per map.

[Doc. Caliban]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the CPU speed is much more important with FPS in this sim than multi-core... correct? So a faster dual core may be better than a slower quad.

 

Can someone confirm or dispel that?

 

-Doc

[sobek]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the CPU speed is much more important with FPS in this sim than multi-core... correct? So a faster dual core may be better than a slower quad.

 

Can someone confirm or dispel that?

 

For DCS, yes, the game does not scale well with the number of cores, while it scales quite well with the speed of those cores. So if you want the most bang for the buck right now, go for the fastest dual core you can afford. Do not forget, however, that other games have moved well into the realm of multithreading, so this goes only for the current state of the TFCSE.

[Feuerfalke]

That calculation is inconclusive at best, if you compare different types of CPUs:

 

When you switch from a C2D to an i7, for example, you cannot simply compare MHz-figures. The i7 has a lot of advantages over the older CPUs, starting from larger and faster cache, special features like HT and the inbuilt tripple channel memory controller.

 

My i7 has a slower core-MHz-rating than my old C2D, but even with factory settings my i7 is much faster than my C2D was. Since I overclocked both, my C2D and i7, this performance gain is even larger, though tactrates on both chips mathematically are the same, now.

 

 

And then, of course memory comes into play, as a fast CPU won't help you much without fast and optimized memory. And the i7 does not only allow higher tactrates, but it also utilizes DDR3 memory, which is in general faster, needs less energy and causes less errors.

With i7's tripple-channel memory controler, you also can optimize Windows 32 and 64bit systems better.

 

 

If you just plan to get a new CPU on the same socket (e.g. 775), Quad-Cores still have a completely different stepping, so values barely compare.

 

And in either case you should consider that DCS in it's current state may not support multithreading, but Vista does and it benefits from multiple-CPUs.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Feuerfalke

[SUBS17]

Quad core is far more powerful than Dual core I'd suggest a Quad since its highly likely DCS will eventually get Multi-core support.

[Flyby]

DCS does support multiple-cores, but not multi-threading.

I didn't know Black Shark's coding supports multiple cores. I believed it was a one-core pony all this time. Are you referring to that affinity trick I've read about?

Flyby out

[Feuerfalke]

Almost any game can benefit from multiple cores with Vista and Win7. And the affinity-"trick" was only neccessary, because vanilla BlackShark was accidently limited to use only one core. This was patched in 1.0.1., though ;)

 

Multithreading is a different question, though, and not supported by DCS.

[sobek]

That calculation is inconclusive at best, if you compare different types of CPUs:

 

When you switch from a C2D to an i7, for example, you cannot simply compare MHz-figures. The i7 has a lot of advantages over the older CPUs, starting from larger and faster cache, special features like HT and the inbuilt tripple channel memory controller.

 

My i7 has a slower core-MHz-rating than my old C2D, but even with factory settings my i7 is much faster than my C2D was. Since I overclocked both, my C2D and i7, this performance gain is even larger, though tactrates on both chips mathematically are the same, now.

 

1. I did not talk about core frequency, i talked about the speed of one core, that may have been not obvious. A step in processor generation will of course yield more processing power at same or lower frequencies.

 

2. While the i7 is a lot faster than the C2 generation, it is also a f***ing lot more expensive, to the degree that i would call not justified ATM if you just need a fast machine for flying DCS. Hence my comment, C2s still have the best cost/performance ratio for DCS, IMHO.

 

Now how that makes my post inconclusive, you have yet to demonstrate.:huh:

 

The bottom line is still that DCS scales best with processor speed, not number of cores.

[Feuerfalke]

If you recommend a fast C2D CPU the difference is not that huge.

 

The i7 920 may be twice as expensive as the C2D E7600, but that's not really the fastest dualcore. The E8600, however, with 3,3Ghz is more expensive than the i7.

 

And as I posted above, you will not only get a faster CPU for the money. ;)

[sobek]

If you recommend a fast C2D CPU the difference is not that huge.

 

The i7 920 may be twice as expensive as the C2D E7600, but that's not really the fastest dualcore. The E8600, however, with 3,3Ghz is more expensive than the i7.

 

And as I posted above, you will not only get a faster CPU for the money. ;)

 

The question is whether you want to upgrade or buy a completely new system. It would be unsound advice to buy a new system with socket 775 now, as upgradability is limited and overall the socket is showing it's age. However, it makes no sense to switch from socket 775 to 1366 just for DCS, as C2s yield sufficient performance, most likely even with the upcoming modules.

[Flyby]

Almost any game can benefit from multiple cores with Vista and Win7. And the affinity-"trick" was only neccessary, because vanilla BlackShark was accidently limited to use only one core. This was patched in 1.0.1., though ;)

 

Multithreading is a different question, though, and not supported by DCS.

glad I asked.:thumbup:

Flyby out

[Maximus_G]

...So a faster dual core may be better than a slower quad.

 

It WILL be better in DCS, if the 2 competing CPUs are of the same architecture. When i tested C2D and i7, the latter showed better clock-for-clock FPS. So, C2D would need a slightly higher operating frequency to match i7 in this game. Posted diagrams here, some time ago.

 

Anyway, since more and more apps are using 4-core, i would be planning such an upgrade in a 1-year perspective. And if we're talking about DCS only, then 2-core is fine for at least another year.

[SUBS17]

A bit pointless upgrading to dual core then considering a Quad would likely be the standard in the near future. If/when ED did upgrade DCS to multicore support the Quad would leave the Dual for dust in performance. Also the Quad would be more compatible with future games as new games now are being developed with 64bit multicore support in mind. My question is there going to be a skulltrail style m/board for the i7s? BTW don't be surprised if they release 8 or 16 core CPUs in the near future.:D

[SUBS17]

The question is whether you want to upgrade or buy a completely new system. It would be unsound advice to buy a new system with socket 775 now, as upgradability is limited and overall the socket is showing it's age. However, it makes no sense to switch from socket 775 to 1366 just for DCS, as C2s yield sufficient performance, most likely even with the upcoming modules.

 

You can get socket 775 Quadcores.

[sobek]

You can get socket 775 Quadcores.

 

Yes, i know, aaaaaand? ;) IMHO it makes no sense to buy a quadcore, if it's just fo DCS. You get better results if you spend the money on a faster dualcore. That is, leaving all other applications out of the equation.

 

Edit: Well, maybe not better results, but most bang for the buck.

Edited November 3, 2009 by sobek

[hamelkarl]

If it is only for DCS I would go for the dual as well. I would plan the quad if I play games that ask for a much more powerful performance only. For now the dual is good enough for almost any games and application. It's what I have and the only game I had trouble with is Supreme Commander : Forged Alliance. It's up to what you gonna do with the system and how much you want to afford.

[Feuerfalke]

If you want a cheap update, then get a 775 socket dualcore and overclock it.

 

 

Vista and Win7 are both a lot faster with a quadcore, though.

 

 

In the end it's your choice wether you want to spend 150 bucks on a CPU that gives you a few more FPS or a new rig that improves FPS, loading times and memory access rates.

[leafer]

This thread is exactly what I needed. But no one mentioned AMD ...did Intel really killed them after C2D and they still haven't recovered? And what about vid cards? I think I'll spend the extra cash and go quad but with which mobo and vid cards?

[Maximus_G]

This thread is exactly what I needed. But no one mentioned AMD ...did Intel really killed them after C2D and they still haven't recovered?

 

I've read lots of reviews, seems that Phenom II (quad) is a good competitor to i7 in games. Though it's slower in multimedia rendering and encoding apps.

[hamelkarl]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclock-phenom-ii,2119.html

 

This site compare both, should interest you if you want to choose between a quad from intel or AMD.

 

Yet in the end it's still a choice of how much you wanna spend. If you want to save a few bucks, go for AMD. It is the lest expensive of both and will deliver all what you need for a while. i7, on the other side is probably the best between both and will cost a bit much. It also run on DDR3 instead of 2.

 

For the graphics cards I really like the GeForce GTX 275. It's still expensive but sure is a good graphic card. There's also the Radeon HD 4870 X2 who is also another great graphics card. Should be easy to find benchmark on the internet to compare both. There's still a factor of money between both here.

[Deigs]

...And what about vid cards? I think I'll spend the extra cash and go quad but with which mobo and vid cards?

 

 

I needed an upgrade bad as I was avaeraging about 5-12 frames per second (made multiplayer kinda hard!). So I went the quad core i7 920.

 

When looking for a motherboard, find one with 6 RAM slots, this means it'll use the triple channel memory controller thats a part of the i7 CPU architecture. Don't buy the 4 slot boards as you'll have a great CPU thats throttled unnecessarily. Brands are up to you, but I favor Gigabyte.

 

GFX cards for DCS I'd start at the GTX 275. I went the GTX295 because I also play a lot of intensive 'pretty' games as well as DCS, but I wouldn't recommend that card to anyone working with a smart budget.

[sobek]

Are ram and cpu clock speeds independent of each other, now that the FSB is gone?