For how much longer can we stick to core2duoz?

[Hunain]

Hey...I was wondering....Core2Duo requirements for gaming just started recently...this year to be precise...(to my knowledge)...and now the quads...the upcoming yorkfield quads.....then the V8 project thing.....I mean...how much do we need? and according to you, how many more years, or months or days ...a core2Duo 3.0ghz is going to last?...simply...ive got a core2duo, overclocked to 2.8Ghz...for how many years can be be assured I wont need a processor upgrade? for gaming purposes mostly....I mean thats like 5.6 Ghz of processing power....

[Funkstar]

I mean thats like 5.6 Ghz of processing power....

No, it really isn't like that at all.

Games are notoriously hrd to make multi threaded, thats why there are so few of them about (in fact, are there any?). So unless games designers find a way to really take advantage of multi core processors, chip designers are going to have to keep cranking up the clock frequencies.

[moogle]

what i thought would be a clever way was for the os to manage the cores, the application running on the os can request a core or cores for use. that would be so much easier than writing applications for multithreaded cpus. although then it would be os based. but if windows had that feature built in then apps could easily run simultaneous processes and instead of writing code to access the cores they would write code that splits the data depending on how many cores there are.

[Funkstar]

Pretty much thats what happens already, well, apart from the app requesting cores, that doesn't happen.

The problem with games is that they don't usually have simultaneous processes, they are very linear pieces of software. The other problem is keeping the different elements in sync, sure you have graphics, games logic, physics and sound, but you need to make sure they are all in perfect sync or your game won't work. This is what makes games hard to port to a multithreaded system.

There has been threads on this in the past, Directhex has made some very good posts on the subjct. that paragraph above is just what i can rmember from them, I haven't don't processor theory stuff since pre-uni days (when i used to read Byte Magazine, Uni was rubbish for this kind of thing)

[t0v3]

No, it really isn't like that at all.

Games are notoriously hrd to make multi threaded, thats why there are so few of them about (in fact, are there any?). So unless games designers find a way to really take advantage of multi core processors, chip designers are going to have to keep cranking up the clock frequencies.

The only ones i know of which benefit from multiple cores are supreme commander and crysis. Im sure loads of games will make use of quad cores in 2008

[Hunain]

well then isnt that wasting so much potential?...cranking up clock frequencies...dont you think a core2duo 3.0Ghz or so should be adequate?....there are a handful of games that take ADVANTAGE of core2duos....thats all...but the people at intel and AMD are just going on and on....where do we stop?...which buy is going to last us long enough?...what should be good enough for normal users for a long time....?

[GSte]

I think Quake four had a dual-core patch as well, and COD4 is optimised for 'em as well according to what I have read

[Funkstar]

well then isnt that wasting so much potential?...cranking up clock frequencies...dont you think a core2duo 3.0Ghz or so should be adequate?....there are a handful of games that take ADVANTAGE of core2duos....thats all...but the people at intel and AMD are just going on and on....where do we stop?...which buy is going to last us long enough?...what should be good enough for normal users for a long time....?

How long have you been following the PC industry? haven't you realised yet that if you are playing games, your PC will only be acceptable fora couple of years at the most?

For normal users, you can easily get 3-5 years from a decent spec'ed PC.

[t0v3]

well then isnt that wasting so much potential?...cranking up clock frequencies...dont you think a core2duo 3.0Ghz or so should be adequate?....there are a handful of games that take ADVANTAGE of core2duos....thats all...but the people at intel and AMD are just going on and on....where do we stop?...which buy is going to last us long enough?...what should be good enough for normal users for a long time....?

think it all depends on how happy you are playing games at medium or low settings. if you don't want the best graphics, then you could easily build a current high end PC and keep it for a few years. if you want to keep using max settings, then you have to keep upgrading, thats the nature of pc games

this is why i'm getting a quad core and am going to OC it, because if i bought a faster duel core now, and then a lot of games start using quad next year, i'd be pissed off, so im buying with the future in mind really.

my current PC which ive had for 3 years has done me well, until the latest batch of games this fall. the likes of COD4, quake wars, crysis, Gears of war, Bioshock, etc, we've moved in to a whole new generation and i can't run any of them well even at low settings! now with my new system ill be able to go back to the likes of Oblivion and FEAR and play them at 60fps on MAX. quite amazing how fast technology moves!

i expect the rig im currently building to last me another 3 years before doing an entire overhaul, and at most ill only change graphics cards inbetween those 3 years

[moogle]

yep, when we get new tech that can trounce todays pc games the game makers add more detail and much more objects/functions to utilize all that power. so there is never really an ending.

[Hunain]

Well im not so old myself....ive been following the PC industry since...around 8 years..:$...and thats why im asking...we just entered Core2Duo usage...that not properly either...and we are talking about quads...8 cores....isnt that a bit too much?...we dont even use core 2 duos to the most of their capabilities...

[moogle]

how old is not so old. i'm not so old too
i think.

[t0v3]

Well im not so old myself....ive been following the PC industry since...around 8 years..:$...and thats why im asking...we just entered Core2Duo usage...that not properly either...and we are talking about quads...8 cores....isnt that a bit too much?...we dont even use core 2 duos to the most of their capabilities...

well another advantage of quad cores isn't just gaming, but using stuff like 3D max and multi tasking. i mean, with quad you could play oblivion, and alt-tab out and do some work in photoshop and chat on msn an rip a DVD at the same time. you have 4 processors sharing the load and it just makes everything fly when you run lots of stuff

[Hunain]

how old is not so old. i'm not so old too
i think.

how old are you? (off topic i know )

[moogle]

ops 19 here

[Hunain]

well another advantage of quad cores isn't just gaming, but using stuff like 3D max and multi tasking. i mean, with quad you could play oblivion, and alt-tab out and do some work in photoshop and chat on msn an rip a DVD at the same time. you have 4 processors sharing the load and it just makes everything fly when you run lots of stuff

...hmm...ya that is one thing...all i wanted to say was that even for the number one, top game rite now...most demanding....requires a 2.2Ghz core 2 Duo....nothing is more demanding than that game....it should take sometime for games to come to a quad core as a requirement...which does not seem likely...at the rate these things are coming out...by the end of next year, everybody would be recommending a quad core for gaming lol....

EDIT : Didnt name the game mystery...lol..Crysis...