Workstation Motherboards for Gaming

[RancidLunchmeat]

I just read the latest buzz on the Skulltrail that is being released by Intel soon, and it reminded me that when I purchased my last (current) system, one of the configurations I was considering at the time was actually a workstation motherboard that held dual xenons.

It was a Gigabyte board, but I forget the model number because I ultimately decided not to go that route because it was determined that games couldn't take advantage of the true dual CPU nature of the board, and I didn't do anything that CPU intensive to justify it. It would have been approximately 75% more cost for no return as far as gaming goes, plus the increased cost in memory.

Now.. Intel is is fancying us all with the Skulltrail, a dual quad core Xenon board with all the bells and whistles and including the ability to run tri-SLI.

My question goes to the nature of programming. If games aren't taking advantage of dual core or quad core cpu's, they certainly won't take advantage of dual quad core cpu's, correct?

However, where I'm sketchy is if games are actually written to take advantage of dual and quad cores does that mean they will also necessarily take advantage of dual cpu's?

Or is that something ELSE that the games would have to be designed for specifically?

The same question can be asked this way: If a game takes advantage of a dual core processor, will it also necessarily take advantage of two single core processors?

 

[Davros]

yes as far as games are comcerned dual core is 2 seperate cpu's

but thats a lot of cash to spend considering games arnt really in need of more cpu power

 

[INKster]

yes as far as games are comcerned dual core is 2 seperate cpu's

but thats a lot of cash to spend considering games arnt really in need of more cpu power

Depends on the game.
Supreme Commander will certainly take advantage of all four cores in a Q6600, for instance.

 

[Skrying]

One game... Yeah, not really worth it at all. Also a server like platform for gaming is just insane. It makes no sense at all. A single quad core is superior to two dual cores, and two quad cores isn't going to be useful for a very long time in gaming.

 

[swaaye]

I'm still very torn about quad cores and gaming. It's definitely not to a point where they are at a decisive advantage over a fast dual core. Even in Sup Com, a highly-clocked dual core can run with a highly-clocked quad. And other games don't even bother with more than 2 (if that) cores. UT3 supposedly does, but that game again runs extremely well on a C2D.

Some guy tested Sup Com on an octo core and basically the game doesn't scale that high at all. It's max is a quad and it doesn't utlilize a quad all that well either. Look up Core Maximizer on the GPG forum.

 

[Albuquerque]

I may have my hand forced into building a rig in the next 30 days, and if I do, I'll "only" get a dual core and overclock the piss out of it. I will get far more benefit from a pair of 4+Ghz cores (I watercool...) from a $170 processor than I would from four ~4Ghz cores from a $280 processor.

That extra $100 can to a better motherboard, half of another video card, another 4GB of ram, or any number of other options. In a year or two when the dual core is getting old and tired and 45nm quads are cheap, even faster and actually being utilized, I can trade up.

Hopefully I won't have to even build this new rig, and I can wait until Nehalem comes out. *crossing fingers*

 

[ShaidarHaran]

Depends on the game.
Supreme Commander will certainly take advantage of all four cores in a Q6600, for instance.

I keep hearing this, but no benchmark I've ever seen has demonstrated significant scaling beyond 2 cores.

 

[Albuquerque]

Indeed. I know there are things out there that use all four cores, video and audio CODEC tools being the main ones. And while I do some tinkering with home video editing and ripping from various sources, that's still a tiny portion of the way I use my PC.

 

[Davros]

the bottom line is games arnt really crying out for more cpu power
I think the advantage of a quad core is longevity it should be a while before you get games maxing one out

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

the bottom line is games arnt really crying out for more cpu power
I think the advantage of a quad core is longevity it should be a while before you get games maxing one out

Well, that was why I asked how games would actually handle the appearance of multiple quad core CPUs.

In theory, if games treat multiple dual cores the same as a single quad core, then the games have the ability to utilize multiple quad cores.

The only question becomes whether or not the games will even need that much processing power, and if they don't, does it mean you'll be free to use that processing power for other things?

And, I did mean the question to be with complete disregard for a price/performance ratio.

For example, if you buy two cheap (ha!) quad core CPUs and run them, will their capabilities be tested harder than say two of the most expensive dual core CPUs.

Essentially, are the games going to utilize X amount of processing power, whether it comes from two high end dual cores, or whether it comes from two low end quad cores?

Same question goes for a single low end quad core vs a single high end dual core.

Understand what I'm getting at?

Are we looking at a situation where the games are going to use a certain NET processing power and then no additional processing power is going to be utilized (available or not), and those games are equally capable of utilizing that processing power whether its available from a single dual core, single quad core, double dual core, or double quad core?

 

[Skrying]

A game must be threaded properly in order to utilize multiple cores. It's not not fully true to say "If a game doesn't gain from a quad core in comparison to a dual core that it simply doesn't need more power." The game could still gain from more power, it simply could be that the game can not split its needs out to threads that are able to utilize those extra cores. The issue comes in that it is difficult to thread out your game engine and needs. As more and more cores become regular than the tools and knowledge to do so will become more common and you'll realize improvements from more cores.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

A game must be threaded properly in order to utilize multiple cores. As more and more cores become regular than the tools and knowledge to do so will become more common and you'll realize improvements from more cores.

Ahh... Thanks Sky, that was one of my original questions.

If a game is threaded for multiple cores, will it be able to utilize quad cores in the same manner as it could use dual cores. Additionally, is it different to write a game (or any program) to utilize two completely separate cores (like two dual cores) than it is to do the same and utilize a single quad core.

Is the programming different across multiple cores and separate CPUs?

So while you might be able to 'optimize' (a horrible description, I know) a game to use a quad core CPU, that isn't to say the game will necessarily be able to utilize separate dual cores?

Do games 'see' or 'interact' with separate dual cores differently than they do with a single quad core?

Or is it a matter of once the game is already multi-threaded, it treats a single quad core the same as it treats separate dual cores?

That's really the heart of the issue I'm confused about and your answer seems to contradict other's given above.

I'm not really interested in cost/performance ratio or whether there is a CPU bottleneck as opposed to a GPU bottleneck so the practical improvement would be non-existent.

I'm interested in how the games interact with multiple cores on a single chip VS multiple cores on separate chips.

I know there are few games that even take advantage of multiple cores on single chips. But for those that do, do they scale as the cores on single chips increase and do they also scale as additional chips are added?

 

[Skrying]

If a game is threaded into two threads then it will take of advantage of the two cores on a dual core or on a quad core it would still only take advantage of two cores, the other two would be idle during that time (background tasks could use them, but you might need to tell that program which core to use).

Now lets say you have two different setups. Setup A has one CPU but it has 4 cores. Setup B has two CPUs but each CPU has two cores. In the context of the game it should use these setups the exact same but that's not always the case, there might be some issues related to other aspects of the platform). So if you were to ask which setup was superior it would always bet Setup A in the context of a game.

Also, just because a program is multi-threaded does not mean it can have an infinite amount of threads. You must code the program into separate threads to take advantage of each core. So it depends on how many threads the said program has and how those threads are being handled and scheduled.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Also, just because a program is multi-threaded does not mean it can have an infinite amount of threads. You must code the program into separate threads to take advantage of each core. So it depends on how many threads the said program has and how those threads are being handled and scheduled.

Thanks! That was exactly what I was looking to figure out.

You da man.

Wait, actually.. I came up with another question.

If a game is coded for 4 or 8 (or whatever) threads, what happens when it is run on only a dual thread system? Is it just wasted effort that won't be realized, or will it actually be prohibitive?

(If developers wanted to create a game to take advantage of dual quad cores, would they just be spending extra money so those who can take advantage of it will be able to, or will they be not only do that but ALSO be putting the majority of their install base at a disadvantage from just coding the game originally to take advantage of dual cores?)

So.. two threads VS eight threads. Does this just cost them more money or does it also cost them a performance hit for the two threads if they had just focused on that?

Again, thanks for the answers, Sky.

 

[Skrying]

The advantage of having multiple threads is that you can of course put one on a different core and let it take care of that. Let's say you have four threads in your game, their names are A, B, X, and Y. These threads do not have an equal amount of required processing power. Lets say Thread A is physics and it takes a lot of processing power but thread X is audio and it doesn't need much. You can put A on core 1 and it gets all of that core while you put X on core 2. On a quad core CPU (or setup) you could put each thread on its own core. On a dual core setup you could put A on core 1 and threads B, X, and Y on core 2 because they don't require much processing power. So you can have more than one thread on a single core. The issue here is one of scheduling though and that would require a bit of overhead. So yes, you can run into issues when you have many threads. That's a pretty rough example though, but you get the idea.

Now threading your application can be hard and therefore cost time and money. Not all tasks are easily threaded. Therefore a developer must decide what advantages they have for creating a multi-threaded application. In todays market where the vast majority of systems shipping and for the last year or so (slightly longer maybe) have been dual core system it makes the most sense to target that setup.

 

[suryad]

Besides the fact that softwares are still far behind in picking up on the multicore thing the added gripe for me in this Skulltrail platform is the FB-DIMMS. Arent they known to have very high latency?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Besides the fact that softwares are still far behind in picking up on the multicore thing the added gripe for me in this Skulltrail platform is the FB-DIMMS. Arent they known to have very high latency?

Very high? I don't know. From what I've read they theoretically have more memory bandwidth and allow for more memory per controller, so instead of an 8GB max, FB-DIMMS allow for 16GB max, and they use the same chips as DDR2 (cheap) just require an additional memory controller per stick (not so cheap).

Essentially, the reviews and previews seem to come to the conclusion that there actually is an overall performance increase in most situations with FB-DIMMs but that it comes at a higher price and not necessarily an economically justifiable one.

(Just like everything else with the Skulltrail.)

 

[the maddman]

Besides the fact that softwares are still far behind in picking up on the multicore thing the added gripe for me in this Skulltrail platform is the FB-DIMMS. Arent they known to have very high latency?

Because there is a memory controller per chip, there is an extra layer of buffering and latency with FB-DIMMS. What's worse is the power draw of all those high speed memory controllers, and you really don't want ECC memory in a gaming machine anyways.

I miss programming on my C64 where the 64k of SRAM was faster than the CPU.

 

[hoho]

and you really don't want ECC memory in a gaming machine anyways.

It's more "don't need" than "don't want". Just that Intel 2P doesn't support anything but FBDIMM.

Just today I calculated that barebones 2P 2.33GHz 45n quadcore workstation would set me back by around $1500 (2x CPU, 4G RAM, mobo, PSU, watercooling). Not all that bad I'd say. Though for gaming you can safely add another $500-1000 for GPU's. Still, that isn't all that bad. It's abut as much that P1 166 with 16M RAM cost me around 10 years ago

 

[the maddman]

It's more "don't need" than "don't want". Just that Intel 2P doesn't support anything but FBDIMM.

Just today I calculated that barebones 2P 2.33GHz 45n quadcore workstation would set me back by around $1500 (2x CPU, 4G RAM, mobo, PSU, watercooling). Not all that bad I'd say. Though for gaming you can safely add another $500-1000 for GPU's. Still, that isn't all that bad. It's abut as much that P1 166 with 16M RAM cost me around 10 years ago

At least with DDR, you do pay a speed penalty with ECC. I'm not sure with FBDIMM, the ECC calculations could be done at each memory module now.

Compared to 10 years ago, you are right, it's amazing what you can buy now.