Are dual core games dying?

[Tim Drake]

I have seen that Dragon Age Inquisition and Far Cry 4 don't support dual cores almost rendering the potential of the budget builder "Pentium K" useless for new games.

 

Is this the beginning of the end for Dual Cores without hyper threading?

 

Dragon Age Inquisition

"Minimum:

OS

Windows 7 or 8.1 64-bit

CPU

AMD quad core CPU @ 2.5 GHz

Intel quad core CPU @ 2.0 GHz"

 

 

Far Cry 4

"Minimum System Requirements

• Operating system: Windows 7 SP1, Windows 8/8.1 (64bit versions only)
• Processor: Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.6 GHz or AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2 GHz"

[Sharif]

I hope 

[Guest]

Thank god I have an i3

[MLG Doge]

You can play FC4 on the Pentium G3258 with this injector or something 

 

there is a guide on the forum

[Tim Drake]

You can play FC4 on the Pentium G3258 with this injector or something 

 

there is a guide on the forum

 

But my point is you shouldn't have to.

[Tim Drake]

I hope 

 

Why do you hope? Seems very selfish of you.

[Tim Drake]

Thank god I have an i3

 

You're just in luck haha

[harrynowl]

Why do you hope? Seems very selfish of you.

because the industry needs to push forward to make better games utilising powerful hardware

[iAsuno]

well, it's good that requirements are going up but making a game not run because it is coded to not run when hardware is lower than the requirement (like COD shosts refusing to run on systems with RAM lower than 6GB) is not. let it start and let the user judge if it is playable or not.

[.spider.]

I think its just a stupid fake limitation.

If your dual core is fast enough it shouldn't be a problem.

[Tim Drake]

because the industry needs to push forward to make better games utilising powerful hardware

 

 

Yeah but a Pentium K aggressively overclocked can perform better than an i3 and close to an i5. Thus, let us run it at our own leisure but if it doesn't run then fine so be it.

[crystal6tak]

Until we somehow hit a IPC ceiling where there is absolutely no way to increase single core performance or the increase in performance is way too slow to meet the growing performance demand I don't see dual cores "dying" anytime soon.

 

Oh and the minimum specs you mentioned? Far cry 4 was an artificial limitation. It ran fine on the G3258. And dragon age origin, quad core AMD = quad core intel? LOL, I think not. If quad core AMD is enough then a dual core intel should be enough as well.

[Paul_VB]

Until we somehow hit a IPC ceiling where there is absolutely no way to increase single core performance or the increase in performance is way too slow to meet the growing performance demand I don't see dual cores "dying" anytime soon.

 

Oh and the minimum specs you mentioned? Far cry 4 was an artificial limitation. It ran fine on the G3258. And dragon age origin, quad core AMD = quad core intel? LOL, I think not. If quad core AMD is enough then a dual core intel should be enough as well.

While it's true that there still is room for improvement for single threaded performance, it's MUCH easier to boost multi threaded performance (if games were optimized for 4 cores)..

 

Honestly, i hope dual and even quad core CPUs die... 4 cores is fine for gaming, but often times i'm doing things in addition to gaming. If anything, i'd love to see games be optimized for 4 cores and 6 core CPUs become standard, leaving the other 2 cores for things like skype or game DVR (GDVR uses 25% of my quad core while active, i need more cores damnit!)

 

Next system upgrade i'm definatly going with a 6 core miniumum. and seeing as intel's 6 cores cost an arm and a leg, i'm gonna go with something like an FX 8350

 

Until i recenly started uing GDVR, my 2500k was comftably clocked at 4.4 GHz and i had 0 issues. once i got GDVR, BF4 started stuttering like crazy, going from a rock solid 65FPS down to 20FPS at times... to combat the issue ive cranked my CPU up to 4.8GHz. at 4.8, the temps and the voltages are beginning to scare me..

[Kherm]

While it's true that there still is room for improvement for single threaded performance, it's MUCH easier to boost multi threaded performance (if games were optimized for 4 cores)..

 

Honestly, i hope dual and even quad core CPUs die... 4 cores is fine for gaming, but often times i'm doing things in addition to gaming. If anything, i'd love to see games be optimized for 4 cores and 6 core CPUs become standard, leaving the other 2 cores for things like skype or game DVR (GDVR uses 25% of my quad core while active, i need more cores damnit!)

 

Next system upgrade i'm definatly going with a 6 core miniumum. and seeing as intel's 6 cores cost an arm and a leg, i'm gonna go with something like an FX 8350

 

Until i recenly started uing GDVR, my 2500k was comftably clocked at 4.4 GHz and i had 0 issues. once i got GDVR, BF4 started stuttering like crazy, going from a rock solid 65FPS down to 20FPS at times... to combat the issue ive cranked my CPU up to 4.8GHz. at 4.8, the temps and the voltages are beginning to scare me..

Or get a Core i7 quad, which blows the 8350 out of the water, and also has 8 threads. But of course it costs a bit more, but not as much as the 5820k 6 core

[Paul_VB]

Or get a Core i7 quad, which blows the 8350 out of the water, and also has 8 threads. But of course it costs a bit more, but not as much as the 5820k 6 core

i'd rather have 8 actual processing cores than 4 cores with HT.. plus the 8350 is sooo much cheaper

[.spider.]

plus the 8350 is sooo much cheaper

For a reason. You'll never get something cheaper for no reason.

[Tim Drake]

Until we somehow hit a IPC ceiling where there is absolutely no way to increase single core performance or the increase in performance is way too slow to meet the growing performance demand I don't see dual cores "dying" anytime soon.

 

Oh and the minimum specs you mentioned? Far cry 4 was an artificial limitation. It ran fine on the G3258. And dragon age origin, quad core AMD = quad core intel? LOL, I think not. If quad core AMD is enough then a dual core intel should be enough as well.

 

Did you even read it? It says it requires a quad core intel.

[Tim Drake]

While it's true that there still is room for improvement for single threaded performance, it's MUCH easier to boost multi threaded performance (if games were optimized for 4 cores)..

 

Honestly, i hope dual and even quad core CPUs die... 4 cores is fine for gaming, but often times i'm doing things in addition to gaming. If anything, i'd love to see games be optimized for 4 cores and 6 core CPUs become standard, leaving the other 2 cores for things like skype or game DVR (GDVR uses 25% of my quad core while active, i need more cores damnit!)

 

Next system upgrade i'm definatly going with a 6 core miniumum. and seeing as intel's 6 cores cost an arm and a leg, i'm gonna go with something like an FX 8350

 

Until i recenly started uing GDVR, my 2500k was comftably clocked at 4.4 GHz and i had 0 issues. once i got GDVR, BF4 started stuttering like crazy, going from a rock solid 65FPS down to 20FPS at times... to combat the issue ive cranked my CPU up to 4.8GHz. at 4.8, the temps and the voltages are beginning to scare me..

 

You realise not everyone can afford 4+ core CPUs? If they stop accounting for people who can't afford expensive things they lose A LOT of sales.

[Paul_VB]

You realise not everyone can afford 4+ core CPUs? If they stop accounting for people who can't afford expensive things they lose A LOT of sales.

By "die" i dont mean to stop being manufacured. i mean thay i hope they become less common.

 

I agree that the artifificval limitations on FC4 is stupid, but i think that most modern games SHOULD be optimized for 4 cores... 

[Paul_VB]

For a reason. You'll never get something cheaper for no reason.

I know fully well that an i7 will wipe the floor with an FX cpu, but with intel i'm paying for features that i do NOT care about.. namely lower power consumption (i don't care how much power my CPU uses... power is cheap enough anyway)

[typographie]

You realise not everyone can afford 4+ core CPUs? If they stop accounting for people who can't afford expensive things they lose A LOT of sales.

 

Anyone with an AMD APU, newer Athlon II, or a low-end Intel laptop with a J-series Celeron or Pentium has a quad-core processor. Quad core does not inherently mean expensive.

 

Agreed on your point about ignoring the installed user base, though.

[Tim Drake]

Anyone with an AMD APU, newer Athlon II, or a low-end Intel laptop with a J-series Celeron or Pentium has a quad-core processor. Quad core does not inherently mean expensive.

 

Agreed on your point about ignoring the installed user base, though.

 

I mean good Quad Cores and such. The Pentium G3258 is such an amazing dual core, I don't even know how they make profit.

[.spider.]

I know fully well that an i7 will wipe the floor with an FX cpu, but with intel i'm paying for features that i do NOT care about.. namely lower power consumption (i don't care how much power my CPU uses... power is cheap enough anyway)

So you don't need a high single thread performance?

Most games are having only one main worker thread so you still need a lot single thread performance.

[dalekphalm]

While yes, a highly clocked dual core CPU can still perform well in today's games, many people are forgetting that the more games advance, the more they become more heavily parallel-threaded. There WILL come a time, sooner rather then later, when a dual-core is simply insufficient for a Triple A game.

[Yoinkerman]

While yes, a highly clocked dual core CPU can still perform well in today's games, many people are forgetting that the more games advance, the more they become more heavily parallel-threaded. There WILL come a time, sooner rather then later, when a dual-core is simply insufficient for a Triple A game.

When that times comes people won't be mad. Right now, these artificial limits are complete horse manure.