Originally Posted by Kyure

Hey have you ever noticed that in most games your CPU usage won't go above 25, or 50? Hm, I wonder why that is?

Oh right, because the games are single-threaded.

Originally Posted by Kyure

Hey have you ever noticed that in most games your CPU usage won't go above 25, or 50? Hm, I wonder why that is?

Oh right, because the games are single-threaded.

Originally Posted by souldevilj

It doesn't normally go beyond there for the reason of running the rest of your software (such as the OS). You can take it beyond there but I'm sorry to say that reading this thread and your responses have made me cringe.

Why so ignorant to straight up facts?
I'm doing a lot of hardware related modules on my CS course at University; they touch upon hardware topics in Computer Systems.

Though I doubt I needed my Uni course to understand this, I could've quite easily just looked up online about how CPU's work and how games use processors. Google is your friend.

edit:

I should've probably said something more obvious, such as it depends on the GPU load, if your processors aren't going beyond 50% it's normally due to software limitations installed by the brand of your CPU or GPU. You can unlock this potential and make it go further so you can stress your CPU to near 100%. Though it'd only go that far if your GPU itself was being put onto max load itself. I think Pig explained it earlier by summarizing how CPUs work with background processes

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

CS GO uses around 2% therefore I have a 50 core processor. This is the only possible explanation, I see no possible flaws with this logic.

Let's just ignore all of this for a second...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=source+engine+multicore
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unreal+engine+multicore
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=unity+engine+multicore
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=list+of+multicore+games
...because clearly it's all wrong and apparently games are literally the only class of programs that do not utilize multiple cores.

Let's just totally ignore that it's the OS's job to schedule jobs, and the CPU's job to execute instructions, and pretend that games execute directly on the metal through some unknown mechanism (well, I guess Kyure knows since it exists in his imagination lol).


(But seriously, no I have not noticed that because it's not true...)

Originally Posted by Neko

Even morrowind and oblivion were multithreaded and they came out God knows how long ago.

Originally Posted by Kyure

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015...adcore-gaming/

Tahdah.

Read up before you posting dumb things based on nothing.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

You seem to have SERIOUSLY misinterpreted that article.

Firstly, they say that "more than 4 cores" is not necessary (which is already multicore, they are saying that 4 cores is all you need at the moment) - THEY ARE ADVOCATING MULTICORE FOR GAMING.

Secondly, the reason they say that more than 4 cores is not necessary is twofold, because as you add more cores the GPU is more likely to be the bottleneck, and because CPUs with higher levels of parallelism frequently do so at the cost of clock speed thus reducing performance of critical threads (eg the game loop).

Here's a few quotes to help you out:
"Anandtech has some benchmarks of Star Swarm, a demo designed to show DX12’s new multi-threading prowess at its very best. And it shows zero benefit beyond four cores."

"As for individual game titles, I’m sure some of you could find a game that runs faster on six or possibly even eight Intel cores. But they are very few and very far between. Check out these numbers on Bit-Tech for Battlefield 4, a game supposedly renown for scaling beyond four cores. Yup, thoroughly GPU limited."

"Put it altogether and being stuck on four cores for desktop PCs ought to be a major problem for gaming. And yet it isn’t. Four cores is enough."


So to reiterate once more:
1. Almost all games are multithreaded and run multicore.
2. Single threaded applications benefit from multiple cores.
3. I don't know where the hell you got this bizarre idea that games aren't multithreaded, but it is 100% false.
4. If you are going to post a citation and TALK SHIT then you better make sure you actually read what you are posting beforehand.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig

You seem to have SERIOUSLY misinterpreted that article.

Firstly, they say that "more than 4 cores" is not necessary (which is already multicore, they are saying that 4 cores is all you need at the moment) - THEY ARE ADVOCATING MULTICORE FOR GAMING.

Secondly, the reason they say that more than 4 cores is not necessary is twofold, because as you add more cores the GPU is more likely to be the bottleneck, and because CPUs with higher levels of parallelism frequently do so at the cost of clock speed thus reducing performance of critical threads (eg the game loop).

Here's a few quotes to help you out:
"Anandtech has some benchmarks of Star Swarm, a demo designed to show DX12’s new multi-threading prowess at its very best. And it shows zero benefit beyond four cores."

"As for individual game titles, I’m sure some of you could find a game that runs faster on six or possibly even eight Intel cores. But they are very few and very far between. Check out these numbers on Bit-Tech for Battlefield 4, a game supposedly renown for scaling beyond four cores. Yup, thoroughly GPU limited."

"Put it altogether and being stuck on four cores for desktop PCs ought to be a major problem for gaming. And yet it isn’t. Four cores is enough."


So to reiterate once more:
1. Almost all games are multithreaded and run multicore.
2. Single threaded applications benefit from multiple cores.
3. I don't know where the hell you got this bizarre idea that games aren't multithreaded, but it is 100% false.
4. If you are going to post a citation and TALK SHIT then you better make sure you actually read what you are posting beforehand.

Originally Posted by Mongius

tl;dr rant.

I am in a hurry to play Rust so I am also working on PC3, a 400-500$ Budget Build. It's a build while I wait for PC2 so it doesn't need to be too fancy. If it can run Rust it should be good. ^_^ So yeah I might need some help with that So for PC3 if it can run Rust at 30FPS consistently then I'll be happy. Suggestions? We don't need to overkill this or make it a good performance build really. All I really need from this is for it to run Rust at 30FPS consistently. Thanks again ^_^