Why Single Cores outpace Duals and Tri's.

[aPanzerIV]

Ok, people think im crazy when I said I wanted a single core for my dream machine. Here is my explanation made by using passmark scores, and my gaming experience.

So you have a dual core, big huge passmark score somewhere in the 800's, now over here, you have a bigger tri sitting in the 1200's, and now you have a single sitting in the 500's, that outpaces them all in one game.

A single core, unlike other multi cores, can combine its power into one game, which makes it run fast. When it runs 2 games, it splits its power into which one consumes more power. But leaving only a small portion of its power to the other game, which runs slowly.

A dual core, like ALL other multi cores, cannot combine the power of both cores into one program, whuch means, while your fiddling with one game, half of the proccesor is just idling off into space... But you can find increased preformance when you play 2 or 3 games at once, because both cores arenow highly active, both splitting a tiny portion of their power to a third game, if nessicary.

How do I find out which is better?

Amd Phenom II X2 3.2Ghz will definatly outrun any single core on the market today, as its split passmark is about 1184, but what about someone who doesn't have $100 for a cpu?
The fastest single core is about $75 and reaches a whoping 700 passmarks, killing out most dual cores of the same price, and some even more, for instance, take this 2.5ghz athlon 64 fx 57, and compare it to a 3.8ghz Pentium D, passmarks are unevenly tilted tward the Pentium, but it has 2 cores, so you have to divide it by 2 to get its real preformance, and its astonishing, the Pentium D gets only 400 passmarks per core, as the 64, 700.

But at what point does this rule stop getting effective?
As I said, the fastest single core ONLY gets 700, and if your paying $75 for a single core, you need some asprine for your marbles.

My Advice: If your planning on getting a cheap little computer to fiddle your games at a low price, go single, but if your wanting so adrenaline gaming going on, go with a dual or tri core, remember, the more the cores, the more the games, but, the more you have to split its passmarks to get its raw preformance.

Always remember: Look at the number of cores, and its passmark score before deciding on a cpu, you might be surprised at its raw preformance...

And: to find its raw preformance, divide the passmark score by the number of cores/cpus...

I hope this helped fight some confusoin here...

[Atomic Rooster]

Nope, it didn't. How does that work with games that utilize all four cores of a quad core processor?

[aPanzerIV]

The game utilizes four cores then, but it won't play well on incorrect settings.

It probably has a setting that splits the programs instructions into four sections, making work for all cores of the cpu.

But most games I play can't do that...

[celegorm]

Originally Posted by aPanzerIV

The game utilizes four cores then, but it won't play well on incorrect settings.

Define "incorrect settings" because my quad screams through all games, including those designed to use only a single core.

[Atomic Rooster]

Then that would make the quad core much faster than a single core in today's high powered games. A single core CPU is fast becoming obsolete.

[aPanzerIV]

Originally Posted by celegorm

Define "incorrect settings" because my quad screams through all games, including those designed to use only a single core.

Because, if you READ ALL OF IT, you will see the miidle sections says: when this uneffective, your quad core probably has a passmark of 6,000+, if you divide by 4, you get more than the 700 found in a single, READ BEFORE POSTING!!!!


And don't forget: READ BEFORE POSTING

[foothead]

Ummm most games are threaded for at least two cores nowadays. There are even quite a few that are threaded for four or more.

Games are one of the few types of programs that does benefit from multicore processors. and even if you do have a dual core with a single threaded program, the game will be able to use 50% (equivalent of a single core) leaving the other 50% Open for any background processes running.

I need to ask what the point of this thread is though. It seems to just be you being unable to accept that you are wrong, so you are dragging it out. Again.

[devonbart102]

the games will catch up to the processors

[Mutant Corn]

I'm not sure If I've ever seen so much fail in one post.

Most newer games are threaded for at least for cores, often more. Most games that came out in the last few years have at least two. Bioshock supports eleven, IIRC. Anything running on the Source engine is, AFAIK, coded to use as many cores as you have available, with no limit.

Further, most new single cores are almost literally half of the equivalent dual core. The AMD Sempron 140, which has a passmark score of 830(yeah, you failed to find the fastest one), is pretty good for a single. But, only one core of an Athlon II X2 240 will perform almost exactly the same...difference is, you've still got another core to process everything else.

[celegorm]

Originally Posted by aPanzerIV

Because, if you READ ALL OF IT, you will see the miidle sections says: when this uneffective, your quad core probably has a passmark of 6,000+, if you divide by 4, you get more than the 700 found in a single, READ BEFORE POSTING!!!!


And don't forget: READ BEFORE POSTING

I did, i still fail to see what defines an "incorrect setting"