Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
makrel

CPU upgrade question - dual vs. single core

36 posts in this topic

So - in anticipation for change comming in 1.31 I am looking at an upgrade path. Upgrade to the video card awaits the System Requirements article.

I have a pretty old system but a full system wide upgrade is just not possible at the moment. So I am looking a what I can do with the system - more specifically the CPU.

My specs are as follows:

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3000+

Video: Nvidia Geforce 7600 GT

Ram: 2 GB PC2700 SDRAM

MB: Asus A8N-E socket 939

The problem is of course my Mother Board - although it supports PCI-E (and thus can support a good video card upgrade) the socket 939 is pretty much dead.

So - I am looking at maximizing the CPU side with a used processer. The mother board can support a AMD X2 Dual-core processer up to 4800+ - but they are priced around 200 $. A single core 4000+ is 50-60 $ on the other hand.

The question is: Will I really benefit from a dual core CPU running at the same clock speed as a single core in this game?

Mind you - the PC is ONLY used for this game. So added benefits from the dual core really does not matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have an answer for you .... I am also interested in what others have to say about the number of cores. I'm considering upping from 2 cores to 3 or 4.

Are you set on keeping that motherboard? For around that same $200 you could change that out and open up a whole range of better cpus.

The reason I'm posting this is that I currently have an AM2 +4800 and I feel that is struggling to keep up.

Such as...http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.271174

nodaker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it should be a easy question, go for the dual core CPU.

why? for one when the game uses 100% of 1 core, windows has a 2nd core where it can do its background work.

if you got all your programs fighting to use a single core it'll just cause lag you do not need or want.

not to mention Nvidia and ATI upgraded their drivers a long time ago to take advantage of dual core CPU's.

I remember when ATI released its first dual core supported driver, my Intel Pentium 4 3.06Ghz CPU with HT loved it, it gave me a 10-15fps boost in all my games on my Radeon 9700 Pro. god that must of been like the year 2004?

Edited by whitten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I thought dual core is all you need, since that's what I have (AMD Black Edition). However, since playing Arma 2, I have come to the conclusion that quad core is the way to go. Then again, only a few games are optimized to run on quad core, and WWIIONLINE would be one of those that I'm not sure about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it should be a easy question, go for the dual core CPU.

why? for one when the game uses 100% of 1 core, windows has a 2nd core where it can do its background work.

if you got all your programs fighting to use a single core it'll just cause lag you do not need or want.

not to mention Nvidia and ATI upgraded their drivers a long time ago to take advantage of dual core CPU's.

I remember when ATI released its first dual core supported driver, my Intel Pentium 4 3.06Ghz CPU with HT loved it, it gave me a 10-15fps boost in all my games on my Radeon 9700 Pro. god that must of been like the year 2004?

I don´t quite get this...

When running the game windows isn´t really doing anything (any applications under windows that is). Off course the hardware layer is communicating with wwiionline application - but that won´t be on another core - will it?

Mind you - I am talking about the specific situation where only wwiionline is running. I run no other background applications.

I still can´t see what wwiionline would do with the other core - unless off course it was redone to do that which I presume is a major operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on my PC I have a dual core Intel c2d E8400.

WW2OL uses 75%+ of one core, the 2nd core basicly free to do whatever.

windows Vista and above i believe will see the game is using a buttload of 1 core, and divert everything else to the other core to create a balanced workload between the 2.

because WW2OL doesn't support multi-core CPU's it is forced on the 1st core, meaning windows will probly divert any extra workload to the 2nd core, allowing the game to have more of a CPU for itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the new i7 processors will throttle up or down the cores as they are needed...and it's been tested to actually work and contribute significant performance advantage

If you only need 1 core it will automatically increase teh actual speed of that core

this tech makes it easier to get the performance out of mult core processors that has been lacking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the new i7 processors will throttle up or down the cores as they are needed...and it's been tested to actually work and contribute significant performance advantage

If you only need 1 core it will automatically increase teh actual speed of that core

this tech makes it easier to get the performance out of mult core processors that has been lacking

didn't find an i-7 for 40 bucks which is what he is looking to spend and looks to max out at 200 Cheapest i7 core is 280

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Checked on ebay and seen a few starting at 99 and presently one has 12 hours left on it and the bid is 122 its an fx 60 which is thee fastest cpu you can get for a 939 socket.

that is a 939 board and not a 940 right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would wait until you can have money for a full upgrade. Do not buy 4000+ or x24800 they both suck.

Buying 1 or 2 pieces, will bottleneck your system anyway and it will not get a real boost on performace.

in case you dont know what bottleneck is:

If you buy an athlon 4000 and later on buy a 9600gt, the cpu will not allow the video card work propely, and you will have wasted your money. Pc pieces must be all at same level of performace or they all runs at the slowest speed to let your slower piece work.

Just like memory ram. If you buy a 800mhz stick and a 667mhz stick... they will both run at 667mhz, the 800mhz will be bottlenecked.

PLus, even dual cores are getting old by now, we are living the quadcore era. These new cpus do not have only the cores advantages, they have inumerous advantage vs the old ones, better tecnology, plataform, bandwith with the memory, cache etc etc that result on a great better performace.

Btw where the hell do you live? 200$ for a x24800?? thats almost an insult, not even in my contry the price is that, and we get alot of taxes here, the pc pieces are so overpriced.

I just bought a phenom II x3 720 black edition (newest phenom, great performace) for 160$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the good input guys - still not convinced that dual-core will win out on single core but maybe I can test this in some way when 1.31 comes out.

Please also remember that the prices listed are used prices - pricing on new components in Europe are way higher than what you see in the US. A new quad core CPU is easily 250 $ here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have some more info for you guys on recommendations as we get closer to having performance tuning complete in the beta. Look to Motormouth for an update "soon".

As to cores...

Current testing says that while MHz is still the king, all games run best with multiple cores. the best bang for the buck happens at 3 cores. Dual is better than single and triple better than that, however four is barely better than three.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cores-performance,2373-12.html

AMD just released some great sub $100 processors. I hate to do a build recommendation since we have an upcoming set of articles on that very subject but I'll maybe drop you something in a pm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've played this game with a Athlon 64 single core @2.4ghz, X2@2.6 7750@2.7 9850 X4 at 2.5ghz and I am now running a Phenom II 940 3.0ghz. As it has been stated, the MHZ is the king and I doubt this new patch will be any different. I first upgraded from my last dual core at 2.7ghz to a quad core at 2.5. My FPS went down with the quad core X4 because the CPU ran at a slower clock speed. I did overclock the CPU to 2.8 but the 9850 was not very good at any speeds higher than that. The 7750 X2 @2.7ghz OC'd very well to 3.1ghz with minimal change in temps. The game played fairly well with the 7750. Thus far my 940 has had FPS hit 184 in combination with 4gb of ram and a xfx 4870. Though the minimum specs may be a little lower I wouldn't play this game with anything less than a dual core @ 2.7ghz or higher. If your using Intel you should be able to get a processor with that speed easily as most of there CPU's have higher clock speeds. Someone explained this game would use one core while allowing Windows to run on the second core. I've done this; however, I tend to have ATI ccc open in the background as well as an overclocking program or something to allow me to check on temps every once in a while. When doing that I used a good majority of both cores and well over 2gb of ram. Windows vista uses 1gb minimum or programs lock up constantly. When using 2gb with this game, it shows memory usage at 98% but the game is playable and it does have lags. My best upgrades I've made were using 4gb of ram and a much faster processor. My graphic card went from a X1900 to a 4850 and then to a 4870 and I haven't noticed much difference in the picture quality. A dual core at 2.7-3.0+ would perform much better than a X4 quad core at slower speeds. That is from my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As to cores...

Current testing says that while MHz is still the king, all games run best with multiple cores. the best bang for the buck happens at 3 cores. Dual is better than single and triple better than that, however four is barely better than three.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cores-performance,2373-12.html

But WWII Online only runs on one core still, right?

If that's not correct am I very ambivalent here. Which iMac is best:

• 3.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 8GB Ram w/ ATI Radeon HD 4850, 512MB

or

• 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 8GB Ram w/ ATI Radeon HD 4850, 512MB

There is a difference of .53GHz between the Duo and the Quad machines. Which do you think Gophur is estimated to give best perforamance when running WWIIOL?

I just thinking out loud at the moment. I might be holding my next purchase a few months to see what happens when the patch comes out. My current iMac is still very good (bought it in August 2007) why I had planned to have it at least another year, two even. But the next patch might ditch those plans why I need a back-up plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i7 is miles better than that core duo. also you can easily oc that to 3,8ghz on air cooling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a recommended way to set CPU affinities for WWIIOnline? I have a new dual core and i wasnt sure if I should set game to both CPUs or just one. If I set it to one, should I set every other process on the other CPU? If I set the game to both, do I let WinXP manage the CPU usage or should I set all other processes to the other CPU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll have some more info for you guys on recommendations as we get closer to having performance tuning complete in the beta. Look to Motormouth for an update "soon".

As to cores...

Current testing says that while MHz is still the king, all games run best with multiple cores. the best bang for the buck happens at 3 cores. Dual is better than single and triple better than that, however four is barely better than three.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cores-performance,2373-12.html

AMD just released some great sub $100 processors. I hate to do a build recommendation since we have an upcoming set of articles on that very subject but I'll maybe drop you something in a pm.

Thank you very much for taking your time to respond.

Your input is very much appriciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i7 is miles better than that core duo. also you can easily oc that to 3' date='8ghz on air cooling.[/quote']

It's a mac, dude.

But you're right, i7 destroys c2d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll have some more info for you guys on recommendations as we get closer to having performance tuning complete in the beta. Look to Motormouth for an update "soon".

As to cores...

Current testing says that while MHz is still the king, all games run best with multiple cores. the best bang for the buck happens at 3 cores. Dual is better than single and triple better than that, however four is barely better than three.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-cores-performance,2373-12.html

AMD just released some great sub $100 processors. I hate to do a build recommendation since we have an upcoming set of articles on that very subject but I'll maybe drop you something in a pm.

I am pretty much in the same situation wrt to the mb/cpu. Looking to upgrade soon and woould like to know any recommendations you may have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go with the dual or quad core it will be worth it as you will be able to play far into the future. i have a single core 3800+ and i get only around 2-3 fps in a heavy battle i will be upgrading in the next month or so as well and plan to get a quad core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many apps are running with BE? ie Teamspeak, other background apps?

I would think all that on 1 core would be slow vs multi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best thing you can do is to get a triple or quad core,if you are on a tight budget you should check out the AMD Phenom II CPUs,even dual cores are getting kinda outdated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a recommended way to set CPU affinities for WWIIOnline? I have a new dual core and i wasnt sure if I should set game to both CPUs or just one. If I set it to one' date=' should I set every other process on the other CPU? If I set the game to both, do I let WinXP manage the CPU usage or should I set all other processes to the other CPU?[/quote']

Try setting ww2 to run on the opposite as default core

my old dual core ran 15 fps on average FASTER on 1 core and the opposite of the default 1

Amd 4200

Edited by ironfist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
go with the dual or quad core it will be worth it as you will be able to play far into the future. i have a single core 3800+ and i get only around 2-3 fps in a heavy battle i will be upgrading in the next month or so as well and plan to get a quad core.

Wow - that sounds insane.

I have a single core 3000+ and rarely get below 10. Lowest I have seen is 5 for very brief moments. Sure you are not RAM restrained?

Try using Cahceman to see how much free Ram you have available while running the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don´t quite get this...

When running the game windows isn´t really doing anything (any applications under windows that is). Off course the hardware layer is communicating with wwiionline application - but that won´t be on another core - will it?

Mind you - I am talking about the specific situation where only wwiionline is running. I run no other background applications.

I still can´t see what wwiionline would do with the other core - unless off course it was redone to do that which I presume is a major operation.

Some of those other processes will take up a little bit of cpu occasionally, so having 2 cores will make the game run faster than 1. It might be so insignificant that you wont notice though ... seems wisest to save up the money for a new motherboard/cpu/memory and make a real jump in performance.

Erik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.