Home
Downloads     
Articles Previews Blogs Popular Hardware Price & Performance Forum Get Toolbar
YouGamers.com News Core blimey - they're finally all getting used!

News





 
By: Nick Evanson Oct 31, 2007

Core blimey - they're finally all getting used!

Cores in a CPU, that is. Yes, at long last, after two years from when the first dual core CPUs (and nearly one year for quad cores) appeared on the market, we've now got games properly using the hardware that many gamers have these days. However, we've noticed on our forums that people are stating that some of the big names, such as the recent Crysis demo, are using all of the cores "fully". Read on to find out the truth behind this and what "fully" using all of the cores actually means.

To examine what's going on behind the scenes as a game is playing away, we ran Performance Monitor - Windows' built-in tool for analysing all kinds of usage figures. We'll explain how you can use it too, at the end of the news article, but to begin with, look at the following two images:

Final Doom

3DMark03 - Battle of Proxycon

To start with, a real blast from the past: Final Doom, running via Steam and a DOS emulator. The test system used a quad core CPU, so each line on the graph represents the % usage over time for each core. You can see that it's mostly using just the one core, the rest are almost certainly being used in background operations by the operating system, for the likes of Steam and the emulator. Next to that graph are the results for the Battle of Proxycon test from Futuremark's 3DMark03, running at a very high resolution with all kinds of AA, AF and shader effects on: here you can see this is definitely a "single core" test. Now let's look at Futuremark's most recent 3DMark title, 06, with the Return to Proxycon and CPU tests:

3DMark06 - Return to Proxycon

3DMark06 - CPU Test

The Return to Proxycon test is clearly up to "modern" standards because two cores are being heavily utilised (the funny drop is where the test ended) but take a look at the CPU test results - bang! All four cores, hammering away. Now ask yourself this: if this is what 100% fully used actually looks like, do I want my games to be the same? The answer is clearly "no" because you don't want the same levels of performance from 3DMark06's CPU Test in an actual game! The former is designed to be a total stress test; the latter is supposed to fun and playable. Bare in mind that the higher the usage, the more the performance of the game is going to be dependent on the CPU's speed - lower % figures either mean the graphics card is very busy and holding things up, or that the whole thing is a piece of cake for the CPU and graphics card (such as the Final Doom results above). With this in mind, now let's look at some other titles:

BioShock

The Witcher

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare demo

Crysis demo

Unreal Tournament 3 beta demo

Rail Simulator

In all cases, the maximum possible detail and graphics settings were used to ensure that the whole system is thoroughly stretched. BioShock is working the CPU pretty hard, across all of the available cores, but The Witcher isn't; Call of Duty 4 and Crysis are pretty similar, and the Unreal Tournament 3 deathmatch with 9 bots needs lots of CPU time. Not all new titles, though, grind away at every core: Rail Simulator seems to be using cores only when certain things happen, such as changing camera views and so on.

But notice that none of the testing games are using all four cores like the 3DMark06 CPU test - which is a good thing! (Edit: Just to clarify this bit, we're talking about workloads here. 3DMark06's CPU test seriously stresses all of the cores in a CPU - hence the constant 100% usage - which is exactly what you want from a benchmark with foresight, but not for games right at this moment in time.)


To use Performance Monitor yourself to check your system and games, use the following steps:

  • Click on the Windows Start menu button and enter perfmon into the Run command.
  • Windows XP users will start in the monitor immediately; Vista users must select it from the menu tree on the left.
  • Click the Delete button several times to remove all of the counters that first load up.
  • Then click Add, and select % Processor Time (Win XP) or Processor > % Processor Time (Win Vista).
  • Click, drag and highlight the number of "instances" (i.e. cores) that you have: 0 = single core, 0+1 = dual core, 0+1+2+3 = quad core.
  • Select Add, then Close/OK and away you go!



 

Comments

Unregistered users are required to complete an image verification.



Nick[FM] 2007-11-02 #1
Finally! It is a shame that devs didn't have time (or resources) until now to properly support multi-core CPUs. Nice to see that some even give it a go.. :)

Cheers,

Nick




Unregistered 2007-11-03 #2
Supreme Commander has taken advantage of Dual- and Quad-Core processors from release.




Unregistered 2007-11-03 #3
I suspect a big part of deverloper support for multi-core came about as a result of having to accomodate multi-core consoles for multi-platform titles.



.......Multi.




Unregistered 2007-11-03 #4
you idiot!!! There have been dual core processors inside macs for more than six years now, not only for two years like you said.




Unregistered 2007-11-03 #5
It said dual core, not dual processor. A machine with two processors isn't the same as a machine with two cores in a single socket. You look like the idiot now.




Drakemoor 2007-11-03 #6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
you idiot!!! There have been dual core processors inside macs for more than six years now, not only for two years like you said.
6 years?

You mean the IBM powerPC stuff? news to me....




valtterieranen 2007-11-03 #7
Every game I know except Supreme Commander is so GPU limited even with a GTX that they're not even maxing out a dualcore.




Unregistered 2007-11-03 #8
Now that the developers have finally optimized for multi cores, we will start to see the ps3 come into it's own. I'm sure most developers aren't using all 16 cores effectively yet, but it won't be long before desktops have similar number of cores, and the PS3 games will start to look a lot more impressive than their xbox counterparts (I'm actually impressed that the ps3 looks as good as it does with ports that are obviously only using 4 cores)




ajbarnes 2007-11-03 #9
These results are interesting, and I would love to hear what the developers are doing specifically to utilize multiple cores. Efficient parallel programming is non-trivial, and from what I've read games aren't well-suited to multithreaded techniques (I'm specifically recalling a Carmack quote about his preference for more MHz over more cores).

I may be wrong, but we're likely seeing the benefit of the past few years of console development filtering over to the PC, which includes more effective use of multiple cores.

I'm going to try the same test under Linux with the Quake 4 client, using both pre-SMP code and a version after SMP support was added to the engine.

Neeyik, you're posts are like schoolwork assignments. How ironic. :)




Neeyik 2007-11-03 #10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
you idiot!!! There have been dual core processors inside macs for more than six years now, not only for two years like you said.
Maybe but not in desktop PCs, and what Mac games have utilised multiple core CPUs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajbarnes
Neeyik, you're posts are like schoolwork assignments. How ironic. :)
Yeah, and I still dish out work to others too! Nothing seems to changed




Unregistered 2007-11-13 #11
LOL, Mac Games.




Unregistered 2008-02-20 #12
For years they(MAC) always talked about the great graphic they have. Where are all the MAC gamers?




Dibrom 2008-02-20 #13
holy zombie jesus!

I remember this thread...




harlequin 2008-02-20 #14
wheres carmack and his multi core/multi cpu support - oh wait he killed it in Q3 :P






Latest headlines



  About Us     Privacy and Legal     Game-o-Meter FAQ     Contact Us     Advertise With Us     Jobs     Futuremark