Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 75485	2006-12-31 01:48:00	Intel Core 2 Duo, IS faster than 1 core in Single threaded apps/games	Master_Frost (9951)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
511239	2006-12-31 20:31:00	So for the present I will stick with single core. In the future, who knows? And the next person who tells me Dual core is the way of the future, wil get something thrown at them. Multi-core, jjjjj. Not necessarily dual. When FS12 or whatever is out it probably will have support for more than one core. Oh hang on, this is MS we are talking about - maybe FS15 then.	pctek (84)
511240	2006-12-31 20:46:00	quad core and even more cores are the way of the future :D QC is the way to increase my power bill tbh. One setup using a 7900 and a QuadFX used 600W :yuck:	trinsic (6945)
511241	2006-12-31 22:54:00	Sorry if I missed it, but the question that begs asking for those of us who aren't electronic/software engineers is... how to identify whether an app or game is single thread or multi thread?	Greg (193)
511242	2006-12-31 22:57:00	No you didn't . You're just banging on about the Intel Core Duos . There is no anti dual core posse . JJJJJ had a problem running his MS Flight Sim game with a socket 939 x2 4200+ AMD . He then bought a single core 4000 AMD and has been happy with the game since . Unless you also have compared this game with those two CPUs then leave him to his own conclusions . I myself have an AMD dual core . The only thing I noticed was Warcraft 2 runs slowly . Not so badly I can't play it but enough to be noticable . Kind of like my mouse is moving through tar . Well its an old game . . . . . Other than that I couldn't care less . We all know multi Core is the future, future games will use it and Intel is currently winning . So get over it, we all know all this already . There are members of this forum stating dual core is slower in single thread which is a blanket statement that doesn't distinguish between the different brands/models . If we are talking about Pentium D I would 100% agree When talk Core 2 Duo, no way in hell . This is NOT an AMD/Intel argument especially when I personally own 2 AMD 64's . As as for your statement ""Other than that I couldn't care less"", then stay out of this thread . You have fed ego enough for one day with your wonderful Technical insight once again lol You don't care move along, nothing to see here .	Master_Frost (9951)
511243	2007-01-01 01:35:00	My interest is 90% based on fs9 and FS X . Both programs were designed for single core cpu's . Of course they will run quite well on dual core, even if they can not use the cpu's full capacity . I have compared both types of cpu, a x2 4200+ and a single 4000+, on performance tests showing cpu useage . With FSx it is not possabe to run it and anything like maximum with either cpu . Fps is no indication of cpu capacity . With "photoreal" scenery fps can drop to as low as 10 and the program starts to stutter . But cpu resources do not seem to be affected . So for the present I will stick with single core . In the future, who knows? And the next person who tells me Dual core is the way of the future, wil get something thrown at them . Better start throwing:waughh: . I also built my new PC for FSX and it has a Intel DC . I can tell you the increase from a P4 3 . 6 overclocked with 1GB ram to a E6700 DC with 1GB makes a big difference to FSX . Sure it does not max it out but it does leave a spare core left over for running other things like Radar Contact and weather programs without affecting the core running FSX . The thing that did it for me was upping the ram from 1GB to 2GB and it made a huge difference to FSX and with most thing on max I can now get 20FPS with no stutters or stops . Sure there are tweaks but thats what its about . Every other program I own I can max out everything and that was something I could never do on my other PC but then it could be my NVidia 8800GTX helping that along as well .	Big John (551)
511244	2007-01-01 02:03:00	Ok, FYI, the DC is the better processor because of IPC,not because of how small the die is. Does anyone know what that is, it means Instructions Per Cycle. This is where AMD previously beat Intel with their P4, as Intel thought speed was the right way to go, so crwated long pipelined cpu, however those same lengthy pipes sometimes caused issues as they info had to be dumped for updated info, hence the sometimes slower processing. AMD thought more instructions per cycle with short pipelines to get better processing from lower speed cpu. Now of course Intel have cottoned on and have the undisputed crown is cpu processing. As for JJJJJ, well, I'd say the young lad has to learn some games have all sorts of issues and the best play to find solutions instead of purchasing more hardware is to visit the game web site to converse with other users of the game.	SolMiester (139)
511245	2007-01-01 02:30:00	Better start throwing:waughh: . I also built my new PC for FSX and it has a Intel DC . I can tell you the increase from a P4 3 . 6 overclocked with 1GB ram to a E6700 DC with 1GB makes a big difference to FSX . Sure it does not max it out but it does leave a spare core left over for running other things like Radar Contact and weather programs without affecting the core running FSX . The thing that did it for me was upping the ram from 1GB to 2GB and it made a huge difference to FSX and with most thing on max I can now get 20FPS with no stutters or stops . Sure there are tweaks but thats what its about . Every other program I own I can max out everything and that was something I could never do on my other PC but then it could be my NVidia 8800GTX helping that along as well . Very interesting . But are you sure addons like FSInn and Copilot are controlled by the second core? My experience was that fs9 and fsx would run very well with the x2 cpu . The trouble started when I loaded FSInn . Sometimes I would bomb out immediately, sometimes after half an hour, sometimes when approaching an airport . But always when I was in an area with enhanced scenery . I could fly a route a dozen times without FSInn loaded,without any trouble . But load fsinn and trouble! This of course led me to suspect problems with fsinn . But several fresh downloads of different versions made no difference . I even tried Squark Box . and fs9's own version of multiplayer,all with disastrous results . In NZ I have the 20M mesh and all the Real NZ scenery In Australiia I have FSGenesis mesh and all the VOZ addons . And in both countries I always bombed out . In the rest of the world I had no trouble . To me this proved the addons were too much for system resources . As a last desperate attempt for a solution, I removed the x2 4200+ and dropped in a single core 4000+ . The problem vanished instantly . So you can see why I am anti x2 . With fsx I now only have the NZ addons and I would describe performance as "alright" but not realy satisfactory . I have an NVidia 7950GTX and 2 gigs of ram . Just need something like a 8000+ cpu .	JJJJJ (528)
511246	2007-01-01 03:27:00	Very interesting. But are you sure addons like FSInn and Copilot are controlled by the second core? My experience was that fs9 and fsx would run very well with the x2 cpu. The trouble started when I loaded FSInn. Sometimes I would bomb out immediately, sometimes after half an hour, sometimes when approaching an airport. But always when I was in an area with enhanced scenery. I could fly a route a dozen times without FSInn loaded,without any trouble.But load fsinn and trouble! This of course led me to suspect problems with fsinn. But several fresh downloads of different versions made no difference. I even tried Squark Box. and fs9's own version of multiplayer,all with disastrous results. In NZ I have the 20M mesh and all the Real NZ scenery In Australiia I have FSGenesis mesh and all the VOZ addons. And in both countries I always bombed out. In the rest of the world I had no trouble. To me this proved the addons were too much for system resources. As a last desperate attempt for a solution, I removed the x2 4200+ and dropped in a single core 4000+. The problem vanished instantly. So you can see why I am anti x2. With fsx I now only have the NZ addons and I would describe performance as "alright" but not realy satisfactory. I have an NVidia 7950GTX and 2 gigs of ram. Just need something like a 8000+ cpu. Nice post SolMiester, 100% agree, AMD are more to thank for Core 2 Duo than Intel. AMD showed (forced) Intel how to make more efficient processor (in my opinion). Now Jack, you are quoting your experience with AMD X2 which is fine. If you want to be dubiously about AMD X2 in your FS9 and FSX be my guest, you have 1st hand experience. BTW the bottleneck in FSX is going to be your GPU not CPU unless you play at a really low resolution. When you warn a user that has one of the fastest CPU's (Intel Core 2 duo e6600) on the market that it is unstable for gaming, it is apart from being kinda funny really wrong! This is a technical forum where some people come for real help, if you can't stay up with the play don't comment as it is counter productive, but to be fair you are far from being the only one.	Master_Frost (9951)
511247	2007-01-02 04:01:00	BTW the bottleneck in FSX is going to be your GPU not CPU unless you play at a really low resolution. Nup, it aint the GPU. If it was it would play sweet as on mine which has 768MB DDR3 ram on the 8800GTX. The increase given by this card was very small over my 6800Ultra. There was an increase but not that great. It does make heaps of other games more enjoyable though so this is more proof the GPU is not the limiting factor on FSX	Big John (551)
511248	2007-01-02 04:34:00	Nup, it aint the GPU. If it was it would play sweet as on mine which has 768MB DDR3 ram on the 8800GTX. The increase given by this card was very small over my 6800Ultra. There was an increase but not that great. It does make heaps of other games more enjoyable though so this is more proof the GPU is not the limiting factor on FSX What resolution do you play in? and what CPU do you have?	Master_Frost (9951)
1 2 3 4