# Multi-Threaded games - General info.



## Mussels (Jul 7, 2010)

Just like the PhysX post i wrote, i've been seeing some really weird (and bad) advice for people go buy quad core (and above) CPU's for gaming without knowing what people are talking about, just because google/wiki etc has said a game is 'multi-threaded'

When a game is multi threaded, it doesnt magically mean it uses all cores to their maximum, removing bottlenecks. thats magic, not multi-threading.



Let me give you as simple an example as i can:

Game A has one thread, with AI, sound, video, physics, and networking all in one thread.

Game A gets a patch! woo! its now multi-threaded with physics and networking on threads 2 and 3.


This game is now multithreaded. it can use three cores! awesome!

What people fail to realise is that just because its multi threaded, doesnt mean those two extra threads need all that much power - they could easily be done in one thread, in one core, with room to spare... while the other thread (with AI, graphics and audio all bundled together) is bottlenecked, running out of CPU power.

*Multithreading means each task can have its own thread, not that each task can split itself even further and run on multiple cores.*

Even if your game has 8 threads, if just one thread needs more performance than one core can provide, the extra power on the other cores is wasted - that ONE thread, on ONE core holds you back making you CPU limited even if your CPU isnt at 100% usage.


The moral here, is that just because someone tells you a game is multithreaded, doesnt mean a slower CPU with more cores is better overall.

An example (theoretical, but reality isnt too far off)

CPU A: dual core, 3GHz
CPU B: Quad core, 2.4Ghz

for the sake of this example, lets assume the quad core has exactly double the amount of cache as the dual core and they are the same basic design (think E6600 + Q6600, but at diff clocks)

Lets say the example game has four threads. video, audio, networking, physics. 
On the dual core, core 1 is maxed out running the physics, with core 2 running at 80-90% running the other three.

Lets go to the quad core:

Yes, audio video and networking now have their own threads. none of them are at risk of bottlenecking... but the physics thread now has 600Mhz less power, meaning that despite you having twice as many cores, you now have LESS power for that one critical thread that was holding you back before.

In this case, going quad was a downgrade because it had less performance per-core, than the dual.

jumping back to real world examples, look at this:
Intel E8500 has 6MB of cache between 2 cores (3.16GHz)
Intel Q9400 has 4MB of cache between 4 cores (2.66GHz)

I think my above example and the CPU comparison there (they're roughly similar prices) gives it away. Just because a game is multithreaded, doesnt mean more, slower cores helps - only upgrade to more cores if each core is the same speed or faster than what you already have.


(this may need more edits as i go along, i always screw something up)


Part 2: how to tell if you're CPU limited in a game

#1 task manager.








If any one of those bars maxes out during a game, then you're limited on one core - even if it was just briefly, you were limited, briefly. Some people will see that 100% on various cores over time and assume that a game is multi-threaded, but the truth is that windows throws your threads randomly between cores. even a single threaded game gets tossed around between cores for no apparent reason, so just look for ANY core being maxed at any time.

2. MSI afterburner

I use afterburner combined with its OSD and Vsync, to give me an FPS reading and a GPU usage reading. Very simple logic here: if my game cannot give me 60FPS solid, yet my GPU is not at 100% usage... then my CPU (or something else, perhaps network lag in an MP game) is holding me back. play an SP game, check FPS vs GPU usage and you get an easy answer.






In the above image, its very clear that neither my CPU nor my GPU is holding me back (at least, at this point in the game) since i'm getting a smooth 60FPS and my GPU is nowhere near its limit.


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 7, 2010)

Looks good to me.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 7, 2010)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Looks good to me.



just added in a part 2, with some pictures to make it less like a wall of text.


----------



## mlee49 (Jul 7, 2010)

Mussels said:


> just added in a part 2, with some pictures to make it less like a wall of text.



I still read your text wall.  Good to know that tasks arn't broken up between cores, but rather distributed.  

It's also good to know that the Q9400 example with 4MB of L2 cache is shared across all 4 cores, but core for core the e8500 w/6MB of L2 cache will trump.


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 7, 2010)

Handy thread & read, Ima play some SC2 with ya


----------



## erocker (Jul 7, 2010)

Recent review on the subject.  http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 7, 2010)

erocker said:


> Recent review on the subject.  http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1



Screw that article! I love my 6 core!


----------



## Mussels (Jul 7, 2010)

erocker said:


> Recent review on the subject.  http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/07/05/how-many-cpu-cores-do-games-need/1



that covers it very well, the crysis benchmarks cover my point exactly - its one of the ones i keep hearing of it being 'multithreaded so get a quad core'


the only one i dispute is the bad company 2 bench, i REALLY noticed that game hammering my dual core, and getting a huge boost from going 6 core. It sounds like they used a FRAPS run of a single player level for their test, when the MP portion is what really matters (the physics effects are CPU heavy in MP, and not as much in SP)


----------



## HammerON (Jul 7, 2010)

Very interseting


----------



## Lionheart (Jul 7, 2010)

Wish I had a six core I hope intel release the i7 970 6core eventually not needed but who cares its a want


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 7, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Screw that article! I love my 6 core!


Can't agree more


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 7, 2010)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Screw that article! I love my 6 core!



I agree, at the price they are at, even if they don't get used in everything, it's just an all around better setup. Also those benches are most likely done with minimal background tasks open, start up a media player, internet, a media server, and some other tasks. 

But it does show a beasty Dual Core still is a good setup, which I do agree with, even my fiancees Athlon II, when I had that at 3.9ghz I had 0 issues playing anything maxed out (including BC2) and that thing doesn't even have L3.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 7, 2010)

Nice info.


----------



## John Phoenix (Jul 7, 2010)

"only upgrade to more cores if each core is the same speed or faster than what you already have"

So, I have one core.. a P-4 (with Hyperthreading) at 3.0 GHZ.. According to this a duel or even quad if they are 2.1 GHZ will not be better than what I have.. Right?.. According to this 'rule'.


"the only one i dispute is the bad company 2 bench, i REALLY noticed that game hammering my dual core, and getting a huge boost from going 6 core" 

That's strange.. I just finished BC2 on my P-4 with an ATI 5750 all maxed out and it ran great. It did not 'hammer' my P-4


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 7, 2010)

Just my input,


But it looks like the game was just getting going, course the CPU isn't being used. In SupCom the CPU gets raped when you move 100+ units across a map and find the AI spammed 10000000 tier 1 units to do jack shit.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 7, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> "only upgrade to more cores if each core is the same speed or faster than what you already have"
> 
> So, I have one core.. a P-4 (with Hyperthreading) at 3.0 GHZ.. According to this a duel or even quad if they are 2.1 GHZ will not be better than what I have.. Right?.. According to this 'rule'.
> 
> ...



Since P4's are pretty old, any modern dual or quad will kill it... but this is due to the CPU's architecture and not how many cores it has.(or even speed)

What he said there was that it will not be worth an upgrade unless that dual or quad is running at the same clock speed or more then your current CPU. He's just addressing the misconception that you can just buy some slow quad and it'll crush multi-threaded games more then a fast dual. Your HT P4 is only running with 1 core and another virtual core(so it's not a dual core). Don't think it'll play with multithreaded games all that well.

You played BC2 with everything maxed out on a 5750 and a P4?.. what res were you playing at? I'm pretty sure it was 'hammering' the hell out of those parts.lol


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 7, 2010)

CDdude55 said:


> Since P4's are pretty old, any modern dual or quad will kill it... but this is due to the CPU's architecture and not how many cores it has.(or even speed)
> 
> What he said there was that it will not be worth an upgrade unless that dual or quad is running at the same clock speed or more then your current CPU. He's just addressing the misconception that you can just buy some slow quad and it'll crush multi-threaded games more then a fast dual. Your HT P4 is only running with 1 core and another virtual core(so it's not a dual core). Don't think it'll play with multithreaded games all that well.
> 
> You played BC2 with everything maxed out on a 5750 and a P4?.. what res were you playing at? I'm pretty sure it was 'hammering' the hell out of those parts.lol



I got to agree with CDdiude on this one. I doubt a P4+5750 did ANYTHING with BC2. Maybe he meant BF2?


----------



## John Phoenix (Jul 8, 2010)

I meant Battlefield Bad Company 2. I have another thread here asking about that game so I got it and played it. ( cus I couldn't play BC 1- not released on PC) 

I play all my games at 1024 x 768. What I mean by not seeing hammering is the game runs smoothly.. fluently with no lag or choppiness. ( I do not play online)

I think it's funny how all you guys rag on the P-4. You can say "it's not fast enough.. it must be an impossibility what you are saying.." but if you owned one and tried it yourself, you would see. 

Like I said, I have had no problem playing any game. I just finished Singularity,Sniper: Ghost Warrior and Borderlands. No problems. 

"I doubt a P4+5750 did ANYTHING with BC2".. Are you implying the game would be unplayable? LOL.. that's just crazy.. you guys believe so much hype about your duel and quad cores you don't believe a single core can do anything.. like it suddenly stops to function.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 8, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I meant Battlefield Bad Company 2. I have another thread here asking about that game so I got it and played it. ( cus I couldn't play BC 1- not released on PC)
> 
> I play all my games at 1024 x 768. What I mean by not seeing hammering is the game runs smoothly.. fluently with no lag or choppiness. ( I do not play online)
> 
> ...



No ones saying it would be unplayable.... but when you say at everything maxed out, that's where i stop believing you. But now that i see your resolution(1024x768), i can see why you can max it out.

The P4's were great chips and still are for smaller tasks, but for gaming, i wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 8, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I meant Battlefield Bad Company 2. I have another thread here asking about that game so I got it and played it. ( cus I couldn't play BC 1- not released on PC)
> 
> I play all my games at 1024 x 768. What I mean by not seeing hammering is the game runs smoothly.. fluently with no lag or choppiness. ( I do not play online)
> 
> ...



Jack up the resolution to 1920 x 1080 and see if you can still play maxed out. 8x anti-aliasing and HBAO on. Then post back here


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2010)

Q9400 actually has 6mb of cache, though it still applies.


----------



## erocker (Jul 8, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> like it suddenly stops to function.



Actually in Dirt 2 it won't work. I can play BF:BC2 with an Athlon 3300+ (s754) and a x1950 pro with 1680x1050 resolution with a mix of medium to low settings for it to be playable for me. Idk, I never really liked P4's.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I meant Battlefield Bad Company 2. I have another thread here asking about that game so I got it and played it. ( cus I couldn't play BC 1- not released on PC)
> 
> I play all my games at 1024 x 768. What I mean by not seeing hammering is the game runs smoothly.. fluently with no lag or choppiness. ( I do not play online)
> 
> ...



It may be playable with a p4 but it'll never perform _as well as_ a multicore chip in multithreaded games.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 8, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I meant Battlefield Bad Company 2. I have another thread here asking about that game so I got it and played it. ( cus I couldn't play BC 1- not released on PC)
> 
> I play all my games at 1024 x 768. What I mean by not seeing hammering is the game runs smoothly.. fluently with no lag or choppiness. ( I do not play online)
> 
> ...



i specifically mentioned online multiplayer being more demanding. you didnt read what i wrote at all, and came in to try and make your CPU sound better than it is when in fact, its completely off topic.

You can game at the lowest resolution games allow these days and you say 'max it out'? well, you'll be completely surprised how different things are when you get a higher resolution screen and go off low settings...


----------



## John Phoenix (Jul 8, 2010)

Mussels said:


> i specifically mentioned online multiplayer being more demanding. you didnt read what i wrote at all, and came in to try and make your CPU sound better than it is when in fact, its completely off topic.



I re-read the above post and no you didn't. I do not see you mentioning 'online multiplayer' anywhere in that post.

I didn't come here to make my CPU sound better than it is..I came to ask a question based on your statement because in light of that statement it did seem misleading. CDdude55 answered it.  I simply told what my P-4 can do for me - what I find it is capable of. If you don't want to believe it that's not my problem. 


I laugh at you guys with your Higher Resolution Worship. I can see if we were talking about 600x400 but 1024 x 768 looks Great. Anything more is over kill and you do not really see much of a difference. You boys like the higher resolutions so you can have bragging rights. All that testosterone flying.. that's So 80's. 

My default desktop is 1280 x 1024 and I can play most games in this too with no problems though I do not because I find it's not needed.. just a waste of resources.


----------



## zithe (Jul 8, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I re-read the above post and no you didn't. I do not see you mentioning 'online multiplayer' anywhere in that post.
> 
> I didn't come here to make my CPU sound better than it is..I came to ask a question based on your statement because in light of that statement it did seem misleading. CDdude55 answered it.  I simply told what my P-4 can do for me - what I find it is capable of. If you don't want to believe it that's not my problem.
> 
> ...



High resolution is not just for gaming. It's also needed for efficiently handling large image files and videos or doing multiple tasks at the same time in a more organized manner.

Try reading text all day on a 42" plasma at 1024x768 or photoshopping at that resolution. I have a tv just like that. The pixels can be counted from 20 feet away.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 8, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I re-read the above post and no you didn't. I do not see you mentioning 'online multiplayer' anywhere in that post.
> 
> I didn't come here to make my CPU sound better than it is..I came to ask a question based on your statement because in light of that statement it did seem misleading. CDdude55 answered it.  I simply told what my P-4 can do for me - what I find it is capable of. If you don't want to believe it that's not my problem.
> 
> ...






Mussels said:


> that covers it very well, the crysis benchmarks cover my point exactly - its one of the ones i keep hearing of it being 'multithreaded so get a quad core'
> 
> 
> the only one i dispute is the bad company 2 bench, i REALLY noticed that game hammering my dual core, and getting a huge boost from going 6 core. *It sounds like they used a FRAPS run of a single player level for their test, when the MP portion is what really matters (the physics effects are CPU heavy in MP, and not as much in SP)*




SP, MP. Single player, multi player. BC2 doesnt have any kind of multiplayer except online, so its somewhat obvious.

All your posts seem to be, is insulting us (haha, you waste money on high end CPU's/monitors/video cards/etc) and trying to tell us how awesome it is. I had a screen that did 1280x1024 when i was TWELVE. its somewhat outdated by todays standards.


----------



## John Phoenix (Jul 8, 2010)

Mussels said:


> SP, MP. Single player, multi player. BC2 doesnt have any kind of multiplayer except online, so its somewhat obvious.
> 
> All your posts seem to be, is insulting us (haha, you waste money on high end CPU's/monitors/video cards/etc) and trying to tell us how awesome it is. I had a screen that did 1280x1024 when i was TWELVE. its somewhat outdated by todays standards.



Your right.. I was looking for the multiplayer statement in your first post.. I forgot it was in a post below it. My bad on that.

On the contrary, it was you guys insulting my p-4 after I told what I do with mine. I could give a rats azz about it or my monitor being not as good as today's models.  It's all hype to make money off you guys.. if you have it to spend.. good for you.. my point was that for great gaming I find it's overkill. Sure I might "like" to have it too but it's not necessary.

 Again.. your bragging rights are showing. "I had a screen that did 1280x1024 when i was TWELVE." Talk about insulting statements. I had one too back in 98 with windows 98. so.. what are you now.. like 24? Besides, I said that was my current desktop resolution.. I can do much more than that, I don't have an old monitor.. I just choose not to because again.. it's not necessary.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Jul 8, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I laugh at you guys with your Higher Resolution Worship. I can see if we were talking about 600x400 but 1024 x 768 looks Great. Anything more is over kill and you do not really see much of a difference. You boys like the higher resolutions so you can have bragging rights. All that testosterone flying.. that's So 80's.
> 
> My default desktop is 1280 x 1024 and I can play most games in this too with no problems though I do not because I find it's not needed.. just a waste of resources.



1024x768 is still a 4:3 resolution, I used that resolution back in 2002 (not trying to be insulting). Just trying to say that even on console gaming they have moved to a wider aspect ratio. And I know oyu don't think the difference is noticeable, but with the extra pixels on screen it really is, heres the difference between the resolutions. To get the greatest detail out of the newer games it's just going to require you to play at a higher resolution. You got to look at it like this 1024x768 = 786,432 pixels on screen, where as the 16:9 resolution of 1920x1080 = 2,073,600 (a bit over 2 million), and the 16:10 1920x1200= 2,304,000. The amount of detail gained through over double the amount of pixels is a lot, with my current setup I use AA simply because I can, but if I came across a game that stressed my system I wouldn't have an issue dropping down the AA simply because I got the resolution where I don't need to make huge jaggies go away.

Playing at 1024x768 with todays videocards makes them all compete very closely, it's just not enough stress for them to really have to do anything. Here you can see, even the weakest videocards out there play the game just fine.

Also take al ook at the best card in this, it's a 5750 like you got, you can see at that resolution it destroys the game (granted I'm sure this isn't maxed out settings on this game.






Now here's 1920x1200, once again I'm doubting maxed out settings, and you can see the 5750 is almost actually at unplayable settings. sub 30 fps gets choppy and thats at 36fps average which means it will be under 30fps a lot.





If it makes you happy that is all that matters, but the increase to a modern resolution is a large jump, and is very noticeable.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 9, 2010)

Grim_Reaper said:


> A bit off-topic.
> 
> Yeah. That's what defintely I gonna agree with. But, it would be awesome, that game developers, would do "multi-thread" patches, for every, or at least some, games of past 4 years? in which they recommended multicore cpu. Seems? they just advertise new quads, since Q6600, and till now, but the real amount of games, which really require more than 2 cores, could be count on the fingers of both hands. And it's sad. I guess this is only obstacle, witch makes difference between X360 and PC in technological level. And I don't mean PC is worse. It's definetly beats Xcoffin to ashes, in GPU part, but still has rakes in CPU multi-threading.
> 
> It would be great, if games had some tools, to configure process loading, on every thread, depending on the CPU, that user has. Even if these tolls would be a third-party made, but if they could to use extra cores in the old games, which I still love, as GRAW, Vegas 2, Gears Of War, GTR Evolution, or even Dawn Of War 1. I know, that this sounds like total nonsense, and whining, but just another wish and hope.



it kind of is nonsense, yeah.

You cant get a thread, and split it in two. As i said earlier: one thread, on one core will always limit you. having more threads wont help you in the slightest, so long as that bottleneck exists.


----------



## horizon2600 (Aug 18, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I re-read the above post and no you didn't. I do not see you mentioning 'online multiplayer' anywhere in that post.
> 
> I didn't come here to make my CPU sound better than it is..I came to ask a question based on your statement because in light of that statement it did seem misleading. CDdude55 answered it.  I simply told what my P-4 can do for me - what I find it is capable of. If you don't want to believe it that's not my problem.
> 
> ...



I guess you still waiting for 4320p until you upgrade four 14" CRT?

OT: Good read


----------



## pantherx12 (Aug 18, 2010)

John Phoenix said:


> I laugh at you guys with your Higher Resolution Worship. I can see if we were talking about 600x400 but 1024 x 768 looks Great. Anything more is over kill and you do not really see much of a difference. You boys like the higher resolutions so you can have bragging rights. All that testosterone flying.. that's So 80's.



It's not really bragging have a now standard resolution screen.

There is a huge noticeable difference in screen resolutions I find, I went from 1280x1024 to 1400x900 ( about the same amount of detail but now I had more peripheral vision) to 1680x1050 and I tell you what, it's easier gaming on a high res screen, due to the extra pixels I can actually see enemies from further away, say something is so far it's only 3x2 pixels on your screen it might be 6x4 on mine, I'd have a better chance of shooting that target eh.

I want to get two other monitors so I can game : 5040x1050 which probably sounds obscene to you.

But the centre screen just functions as normal I'd have the same field of view there as normal. only I have an extra 1764000 Pixels either side of that normal field of view giving me nigh on regular peripheral vision. 

It's not just a case of quality you can fit more visual data in a higher resolution screen : ]



Edit: in regards to this thread.

Who here leaves their CPU at stock anyway? Buy a quad and overclock it, then play 4hd pron movies at once!


----------

