AMD X2: is the 2nd core used -- how do I know ??

[carrera d'olbani]

I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the
message saying that "the game requires at least a 2.2 GHz processor,
and this processor is 1.9 GHz. Continue anyway ?".

So, my question is: does the game utilize the second core (and how do
I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/
computer is using the second core ?

 

[Shawk]

I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the
message saying that "the game requires at least a 2.2 GHz processor,
and this processor is 1.9 GHz. Continue anyway ?".

So, my question is: does the game utilize the second core (and how do
I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/
computer is using the second core ?

Simplistic answer - go into Task Manager/Performance and see if there
are two small screens for CPU Usage History. If so your two cores are
recognised and are being used. If you are using two screens drag Task
Manager to the second (non-gaming) screen and play HL2 - see how the
load is being distributed (or not)

Probably much cleverer ways of doing what you want but its a decent start...

 

[carrera d'olbani]

Simplistic answer - go into Task Manager/Performance and see if there
are two small screens for CPU Usage History. If so your two cores are
recognised and are being used. If you are using two screens drag Task
Manager to the second (non-gaming) screen and play HL2 - see how the
load is being distributed (or not)

Probably much cleverer ways of doing what you want but its a decent start...

Thanks, Shawk ! I did what you prescribed. Indeed, there are two
screens in the CPU performance section of the Windows Task Manager.
Both of them show activity, one slightly more than the other. When
playing Half-Life 2 DM, the CPU was utilised about 50% (I presume this
is for both cores). It was probably good idea, after all, to ge a dual-
core processor instead of single-core processor.

 

[Conor]

Thanks, Shawk ! I did what you prescribed. Indeed, there are two
screens in the CPU performance section of the Windows Task Manager.
Both of them show activity, one slightly more than the other. When
playing Half-Life 2 DM, the CPU was utilised about 50% (I presume this
is for both cores). It was probably good idea, after all, to ge a dual-
core processor instead of single-core processor.

No, the 50% will be for one core. You need the application and the OS
to support SMP. HL2 doesn't.

 

[Sleepy]

I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the
message saying that "the game requires at least a 2.2 GHz processor,
and this processor is 1.9 GHz. Continue anyway ?".

So, my question is: does the game utilize the second core (and how do
I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/
computer is using the second core ?

that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at 1.9ghz
it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate. the Source engine
that HL2 uses doesn't currently use dual-core CPUs properly but that will
change later this year. Valve have promised to release an update when HL2
Episode 2 is released that will add proper dual-core functionality to the
game engine.

 

[carrera d'olbani]

that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at 1.9ghz
it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate.

It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
(just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
application together, their performance is equivalent to the
performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
+ 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
(kHz) is derived from.

So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core
(processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This
could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).

So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??

 

[PeterC]

I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the
message saying that "the game requires at least a 2.2 GHz processor,
and this processor is 1.9 GHz. Continue anyway ?".

So, my question is: does the game utilize the second core (and how do
I know if it does) ? And generally, how do I know if the rpogram/
computer is using the second core ?

I use Process Controller (partly as it's better at stopping a reluctant
app. than Task Manager is) and it shows a column for RAM used and a dual
column for the processors, in the tray.

 

[Oldus Fartus]

It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
(just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
application together, their performance is equivalent to the
performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
+ 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
(kHz) is derived from.

No, that is not the way it works. AMD claim that the rating is the
speed compared to their older Athlon CPUs, and come about because the
newer ones run more efficiently than the older. (IOW, they are saying
the new 1.9 GHz with more efficient architecture is equivalent to the
older Athlon running at 3600.

snipped

 

[John Weiss]

It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
(just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
application together, their performance is equivalent to the
performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
+ 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
(kHz) is derived from.

No.

The AMD CPU architecture is significantly different, and more efficient, than
the old Pentium 4 architecture. The 1.9 GHz AMD is equivalent to an old P4
running at 3.6 GHz, according to AMD's estimates. THAT is the source of the
"3600" designation.

FWIW, the new Intel "core" (as in Core2Duo) architecture is also of a more
efficient variety, so their clock speeds have come down significantly from the
P4 as well.

So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core
(processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This
could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).

What was your old computer? What background apps was it running, compared with
the new one?

Game performance these days relies on the GPU as well as the CPU. Some parts
of it may be tied to absolute CPU clock speed, while other aspects are tied
more to GPU performance or memory bandwidth...

While the game itself is only using 1 CPU core, the OS can shift other
background tasks to the other core.

So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??

The answer is "Maybe..."

The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around. OTOH, if
you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.

If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game, maybe
a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For general use,
though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.

 

[Chris B.]

that 3600+ is a performance rating - i.e. even though the CPU runs at
1.9ghz it performs like a 3.6ghz CPU so its more than adequate. the
Source engine that HL2 uses doesn't currently use dual-core CPUs
properly but that will change later this year. Valve have promised to
release an update when HL2 Episode 2 is released that will add proper
dual-core functionality to the game engine.

Uh, no.

 

[pc games]

I installed the game Half Life 2 into my new PC with a double-core
processor AMD 64 X2, 3600+. When I am starting the game, I get the

Hey STEAM LOVER, CRAP STEAM INFECTED HL2 in not the only Game made for
the PC!
Don't you ever play anything else MORON?

And btw stop CROSSPOSTING your CRAP STEAM INFECTED posts to others
groups!
Your STEAM ORGY! ORGY! ORGY! BELONGS ONLY TO ALT.GAMES.HALF-LIFE!

 

[Shawk]

Hey STEAM LOVER, CRAP STEAM INFECTED HL2 in not the only Game made for
the PC!
Don't you ever play anything else MORON?

And btw stop CROSSPOSTING your CRAP STEAM INFECTED posts to others
groups!
Your STEAM ORGY! ORGY! ORGY! BELONGS ONLY TO ALT.GAMES.HALF-LIFE!

Pot, kettle, moron

 

[Rob]

Pot, kettle, moron

You can tell it's getting round to "that time of the month" can't you?

 

[Jon Danniken]

"carrera d'olbani" wrote...


The answer is "Maybe..."

The Core2Extremes are arguably the best performing machines around. OTOH,
if you're on a budget, you have to balance CPU, RAM, and GPU.

If all you want to do is play a current-generation single-CPU-aware game,
maybe a higher clock speed single-core CPU would have been better. For
general use, though, dual-core CPUs have the edge.

Yep. I'm using a single chip (AMD64 3700+), and it handles all of the
latest games without a problem (even ET:QW). Eventually, games will
actively use the second core (physics and whatnot), but until something
comes of that, and in a game that I am actually interested in, I'm sticking
to my single core.

Jon

 

[carrera d'olbani]

Yep. I'm using a single chip (AMD64 3700+), and it handles all of the
latest games without a problem (even ET:QW). Eventually, games will
actively use the second core (physics and whatnot), but until something
comes of that, and in a game that I am actually interested in, I'm sticking
to my single core.

I feel the advantage of double core is that the switching between the
running programs occurs more smoothly (e.g. switching between the
running game and the windows desktop). This is a whole new experience.
With all the other "houskeeping" tasks redistributed by Windows to the
second core, the first core can concentrate entirely on running the
game (I presume), and the 1.9 GHz processor can be equvalent to 3 GHz,
which is already good.

I noticed that the players of Half-Life 2 (and of other Steam-
distributed games) have a quarter of their machines with dual cores,
http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

 

[nobody]

Any of you dual core guys running motherboard raid 5 ?

I was wondering if having dual cores speeds up the abysmal raid5
performance any.

 

[Sleepy]

It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
(just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
application together, their performance is equivalent to the
performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
+ 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
(kHz) is derived from.

So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
architecture well ? Essentially, your saying means that only one core
(processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor. This
could be too slooow. Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).

So, the question is: should I have gotten (in general) a dual-core
processor for my new gaming PC, or a single-core one ??

dual-core is *definitely* the way to go so you made the right choice - no
question about it.

HL2 currently doesnt utilize multicore CPUs well but that will change in a
month or two.

Valve are working on adding *hybrid threading* to the source engine which
will make good use of both cores.

Most games that currently support multicores only use coarse threading -
offloading one or two functions to the 2nd core. ie the 1st core does the
rendering of graphics (90% of the work) and the 2nd core does physics and
sound (10%) - in this case you only get a 10% boost in performance at best.
Valves' hybrid threading approach will yield a much better increase than
that.

whats the rest of your system? what RAM and graphics card do you have?

 

[Sleepy]

Yep. I'm using a single chip (AMD64 3700+), and it handles all of the
latest games without a problem (even ET:QW). Eventually, games will
actively use the second core (physics and whatnot), but until something
comes of that, and in a game that I am actually interested in, I'm
sticking to my single core.

Jon

I recently went from a AMD64 3700 (san diego with 1mb L2cache) to a x2 3800
(socket9390 and games performance is about the same atm. Windows
multitasking is however a whole lot better and worth going to dual-core for
all on its own IMHO.

The only ppl so far to add *real* dual-core support to their engine is ID
and latest patches for Doom 3 and Quake 4 add a significant performance
boost.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_dual-core_performance/page4.asp
that should work for ET:QW too of course.

I play DOD:Source myself so Im looking forward to the hyrbid threading patch
that should be out soon.

 

[spodosaurus]

It occurs to me that each core (processor) runs at a speed of 1.9 GHz
(just like what the game detected). When the two cores run an
application together, their performance is equivalent to the
performance of a single-core processor with a speed of roughly 1.9 GHz
+ 1.9 GHz, which is 3.8 GHz. This is where the performance rating 3600
(kHz) is derived from.

That'd be MHz, and no, it's not where the performance rating is derived
from. It's quite an easy matter to google this.

So, you are saying that Half-Life 2 does not utilize the two-core
architecture well ?

No, he's saying it doesn't utilise it at all. It's written to use a
single core/single CPU, and that's all it will use.

Essentially, your saying means that only one core
(processor) is running the application, i.e. a 1.9 GHz processor.

Only one core is running the application, yes.

This
could be too slooow.

You really need to do some reading as to what the 3600+ really means.
It'll explain to you why you may be in error here, too. Speed in GHz is
no longer a valid measure of CPU performance. CPUs are changing, and the
refinements in how they work are what is brining performance up more
than just raw speed. Use benchmarks to compare CPUs now, not GHz.

Maybe this is an explanation why the game feels
too slow sometimes, compared with using my previous single-processor
computer (even if I put the image quality settings on minimum).

Have a look at how your new CPU compares to your old CPU in gaming
benchmarks. There are too many other factors, such as RAM type and
speed, motherboard, etc, to make the conclusion you're heading towards.

Regards,

Ari

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

 

[Marcus Redd]

That'd be MHz, and no, it's not where the performance rating is derived
from. It's quite an easy matter to google this.

What would you Google for?