any real need for more than dual core? and vista memory limit ?

Warknox

As the title states.  If you got a beefy dual core would that not suffice for gaming at this stage.  Like setting affinity on cpu1 to your general processes and leaving cpu2 to handle your game?  Or would a quad core be the best route?  Or would a single for that matter?  Any info would be rockin.

 

And as far as the ram limit on vista 32.  It is 4 gigs total system memory correct?  So say I have a sli of 2 cards that have 1 gig onboard then vista could only handle 2 gigs on system ram correct or am I misunderstanding?

 

 

Thanks in advance.. 

CleffyII

Right now games are designed for at most 2 cores, games are starting to become more multi-core and in the near future there is the possibility of middle-ware engines using more then 2 cores.  Most mmos are designed for single core, and usually when a game is early in its release/beta you have to set its affinity to 1 core or face a threading swap crash/memory leak.

Having 2 cards in SLI that each have 1 gig, there will only be 1.5 GB ram left on Vista 32.  There is a use for more ram.  1st is so you can have atleast 4 gigs system memory.  Also you will get a performance boost if your system can hold the entire application in system memory.

n25philly

There are actually already a handful of games that already support quad core processors with more on the way..  Have the extra 2 cores for games designed for dual cores is also beneficial which is why a quad core will out perform a dual core at the same clock speeds.  The biggest advantage of dual cores is that it's easier to get them to higher clock speeds.

 

a quad certainly doesn't offer enough benefit to just from a dual core to a quad in the same machine, but not a bad idea to consider in a new build if the two are the same price.

Tyres100

Originally posted by n25philly


There are actually already a handful of games that already support quad core processors with more on the way..  Have the extra 2 cores for games designed for dual cores is also beneficial which is why a quad core will out perform a dual core at the same clock speeds.  The biggest advantage of dual cores is that it's easier to get them to higher clock speeds.
 
a quad certainly doesn't offer enough benefit to just from a dual core to a quad in the same machine, but not a bad idea to consider in a new build if the two are the same price.

 

But only for console games so far, not sure what developers are doing with current MMO's if they are supporting the quad design. They do support dual so far.

To the OP you have no use with such a powerful PC unless you do major graphical stuff or developing a game yourself. Crysis doesn't even scale that well with the most powerful PC, optimizations are key in order to take advantage of all this hardware today. Many don't optimize that well so it is a matter of when will we get the perfect game everyone will play that can utilize all that high end hardware.

Nadril

Dual Core is better then Quad currently for gaming.

Vista 32bit memory limitation is 3.5GB. Vista 64's limitation is 128GB (but I believe the best motherboard only can go up to 16GB so far).

n25philly

Originally posted by Nadril


Dual Core is better then Quad currently for gaming.
Vista 32bit memory limitation is 3.5GB. Vista 64's limitation is 128GB (but I believe the best motherboard only can go up to 16GB so far).

 

only at higher clock speeds.  put a dual core and a quad core clocked at the same speed with all the same stats (fsb, cache, etc) and the quad will outperform the dual core in any game.

n25philly

Originally posted by Tyres100

Originally posted by n25philly


There are actually already a handful of games that already support quad core processors with more on the way..  Have the extra 2 cores for games designed for dual cores is also beneficial which is why a quad core will out perform a dual core at the same clock speeds.  The biggest advantage of dual cores is that it's easier to get them to higher clock speeds.
 
a quad certainly doesn't offer enough benefit to just from a dual core to a quad in the same machine, but not a bad idea to consider in a new build if the two are the same price.

 

But only for console games so far, not sure what developers are doing with current MMO's if they are supporting the quad design. They do support dual so far.

To the OP you have no use with such a powerful PC unless you do major graphical stuff or developing a game yourself. Crytek doesn't even scale that well with the most powerful PC, optimizations are key in order to take advantage of all this hardware today. Many don't optimize that well so it is a matter of when will we get the perfect game everyone will play that can utilize all that high end hardware.

 

there are pc games that support quad core.  Crysis is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but I know there are at least a half dozen of them.

Nadril

---

Originally posted by n25philly

---

Originally posted by Nadril

Dual Core is better then Quad currently for gaming.
Vista 32bit memory limitation is 3.5GB. Vista 64's limitation is 128GB (but I believe the best motherboard only can go up to 16GB so far).

---

 
only at higher clock speeds.  put a dual core and a quad core clocked at the same speed with all the same stats (fsb, cache, etc) and the quad will outperform the dual core in any game.

---

What I meant is that you can get a dual core for cheaper then a quad, and they are easier to OC higher.

Plus most Dual cores have a higher FSB/cache then comparable quad cores.

Evasia

Originally posted by Warknox


As the title states.  If you got a beefy dual core would that not suffice for gaming at this stage.  Like setting affinity on cpu1 to your general processes and leaving cpu2 to handle your game?  Or would a quad core be the best route?  Or would a single for that matter?  Any info would be rockin.
 
And as far as the ram limit on vista 32.  It is 4 gigs total system memory correct?  So say I have a sli of 2 cards that have 1 gig onboard then vista could only handle 2 gigs on system ram correct or am I misunderstanding?
 
 
Thanks in advance.. 

 

xp/vista 32 can only handle max 3gig if you have a motherboard that can put 2gig strips of ram into dual channel so 2x 2gig ram is max in dual channel 3 gig nobody in entire world have more physically its impossible to have more then 3 gig, even tho when you start your computer it says 4 gig.

Microsoft just made a little program in serv pack1 vista and serv pack3 xp that it shows 4 gig but its still max 3 gig you have.

4x strips 1gig dual channel is about 2.5gig so its not realy working in dual channel then,2gig a strip of ram 2x in dual channel is only way to get max 3 gig.

If you want more then 3gig you have to buy 64bit OS.

Warknox

cool ty all for info

And now on to the os ( doing a little super pre-planning).

 

xp 64

vista 64

or ??? microsofts next (7?)

 

I heard there was a 30% drop in performance between the two (xp being the higher  xp/vista).

The intent is a mainly gaming. 

 

CleffyII

XP 64-bit isn't as supported as VIsta 64-bit.  You will run into less driver errors if you use Vista.

Warknox

cool deal ty to all for the help

Arndur

I have had no problems with XP 64 drivers I think the only reason my 8500GT didnt work is becuase someone there is a hardware issue that I and no one else can find becuase it uses the same drivers as upper 8 series cards that other XP 64 users use.