This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Will the amount of cpu cores used in PC games going to increase ?

#1Kano92Posted 12/15/2013 3:08:34 PM
In the future:
So now that we are in this new gen PS4/X1 are we going to start seeing newer PC games with more focus on using more cpu cores cause the PS4/X1 have more cores ?

In the Past:
In the last few years what was the average amount of cpu cores did the typical PC game actually could use ?


I was having a discussions with a guy at work about the new game nether he saying that this game was made to use 5 cores. I was like I'm not sure about it that. He said he runs a performance type program in the background and said that the game nether is made to use 5 cpu cores if available.

I didn't say much cause I wasn't sure. Below I copied and pasted the recommended system requirements from the nether homepage. Do you see the part that says ''Quad Core or Better'' I guess why would it say ''or better'' so does that mean it's strongly possible that the game can use more than the four cpu cores ?


Recommended
Os: Windows 7 64-bit OS
Processor: 2.4 GHZ Quad Core or Better
Memory: 4 GB RAM
DirectX: Version 9.0
Network: Broadband Internet Connection
Hard Drive: 3GB Available Space
Sound Card: Windows Compatible Sound Card
---
i5 2500k | ASUS P8P67 | CORSAIR 650W | 8GB DDR3 1600 | GTX 660 | 2TB 7200 RPM | Windows 7 64-bit
#2Killah PriestPosted 12/15/2013 3:11:24 PM
My crystal ball says check back in a month or so.
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.
#3SinisterSlayPosted 12/15/2013 7:32:21 PM
DirectX 9 sort of sets a hard limit of 3 cores.

I got no idea about dx11 or openGL. And apparently mantle can use any number of cores.
AI calculations can be done in separate threads.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#4zxelmanPosted 12/15/2013 7:35:55 PM
Hyper threading will probably be used a bit more often, but quad cores have been and still are doing a good job. It's not efficient to just have more cores however. More factors come in than I can remember.
#5simondakingPosted 12/15/2013 8:03:37 PM
SinisterSlay posted...
DirectX 9 sort of sets a hard limit of 3 cores.


Wrong.
#6SinisterSlayPosted 12/15/2013 8:17:30 PM
simondaking posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
DirectX 9 sort of sets a hard limit of 3 cores.


Wrong.


How many is it then?
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#7AltmadragonPosted 12/15/2013 8:27:59 PM
SinisterSlay posted...
simondaking posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
DirectX 9 sort of sets a hard limit of 3 cores.


Wrong.


How many is it then?


9 can use 4

And 11 is the first to take advantage of HT.
---
Ha! Made you read |TJ07| i5-3570k| Asus p8z77-v| GB GTX 770 4gb sli|16gb Corsair veng| 1TB WD HDx2| 128gb Samsung ssd| XSPC Raystorm RS360 kit|
#8Psykic PetrolPosted 12/15/2013 9:48:03 PM(edited)
Fact is, games don't naturally lend themselves all that well to parallelization outside of rendering images because player interaction - the basic concept behind games - doesn't exactly lend itself too well to it.

Almost everything in a game depends on the outcome of it (what you do, the physics, AI subroutines, etc) and calculating those outcomes usually has multiple inter-dependencies.
Attempting to multithread everything means having to constantly refresh all the separate threads with the results from the calculations from all the other threads, which can potentially lead to various threads stalling and falling out of sync because they can't make their next set of calculations without the data from another thread that's still bean counting, lest you get errors because the results don't make sense with one another. That waiting around effectively becomes response lag.

Calculating it linearly, there's no delay in waiting for the results of one set of calculations outside of the actual process of doing it. There would still be some lag if the CPU can't keep up with chain of calculations you're causing, but coding for it would have been a lot cleaner/easier since there isn't the need to add all the extra stuff to keep the separated inter-dependent threads in sync.

Rendering graphics tends to be mostly static/rarely as real-time critical, so the calculations to s*** out all the polys are easily parallelized, hence why graphics cards have like a zillion cores.
---
How do you ejaculate from plane? I try to press the buttons but I do not find it. Sorry for my bad english - Bean0
#9mrCubePosted 12/15/2013 9:59:05 PM
Altmadragon posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
simondaking posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
DirectX 9 sort of sets a hard limit of 3 cores.


Wrong.


How many is it then?


9 can use 4

And 11 is the first to take advantage of HT.


IIRC you're limited to 4 that can actually use the D3D device, pretty sure you can have as many threads as you want, you can just only make draw calls from 4
---
---
#10simondakingPosted 12/16/2013 9:59:37 AM
SinisterSlay posted...
simondaking posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
DirectX 9 sort of sets a hard limit of 3 cores.


Wrong.


How many is it then?


DirectX doesn't stop a program from using cores, so you can use all the cores on the machine. You just have to structure your program to use multiple threads.