17 Games Already Utilise Hexa-Core (6 Core) CPU's...Apparently!

According to this article in PCGameSHardware 17 games already get performance boosts ranging from 5% to 30% in 17 games that they tested when using a hexa-core compared to a quad core. Unfortunately they don't reveal HOW they tested or what the test rig was so I am sceptical. Has anyone else seen any reviews showing anything like this?

LINK

Its not too far-fetched, but, I am going to lean to there is more to the tests than were let on.

I don't really see 6 or 8 core cpus to start being utilized to the point of seeing actual performance increases (to amount to anything) for another year or so. (as far as gaming is concerned)

According to this article in PCGameSHardware 17 games already get performance boosts ranging from 5% to 30% in 17 games that they tested when using a hexa-core compared to a quad core. Unfortunately they don't reveal HOW they tested or what the test rig was so I am sceptical. Has anyone else seen any reviews showing anything like this?

LINK

Daytona_178

There's still virtually pointless for gaming when any decent quad-core can get you over 60fps.

There's still virtually pointless for gaming when any decent quad-core can get you over 60fps.

hartsickdiscipl

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There's still virtually pointless for gaming when any decent quad-core can get you over 60fps.

UltimateGamer95

6-cores aren't that expensive.

[QUOTE="UltimateGamer95"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There's still virtually pointless for gaming when any decent quad-core can get you over 60fps.

nameless12345

6-cores aren't that expensive.

They're alot more than the $100 you can spend on a good Athlon II X4, or the $140 you can spend and get a Phenom II X4 955. I don't see the point of a hexacore for a gaming rig now. Even a fast dual core is still plenty for the vast majority of games.

Wait. Metro 2033? How does it gain from a hex core when it doesn't gain from a dual to a quad? DId they release a patch or something giving it multicore support? http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/metro_2033_performance_guide,6.html

Wait. Metro 2033? How does it gain from a hex core when it doesn't gain from a dual to a quad? DId they release a patch or something giving it multicore support? http://www.legionhardware.com/articles_pages/metro_2033_performance_guide,6.html

ferret-gamer

I was wondering the same thing.

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="UltimateGamer95"] true especially when quad cores are much cheaper ;)hartsickdiscipl

6-cores aren't that expensive.

They're alot more than the $100 you can spend on a good Athlon II X4, or the $140 you can spend and get a Phenom II X4 955. I don't see the point of a hexacore for a gaming rig now. Even a fast dual core is still plenty for the vast majority of games.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

6-cores aren't that expensive.

ferret-gamer

They're alot more than the $100 you can spend on a good Athlon II X4, or the $140 you can spend and get a Phenom II X4 955. I don't see the point of a hexacore for a gaming rig now. Even a fast dual core is still plenty for the vast majority of games.

44fps isn't enough?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

They're alot more than the $100 you can spend on a good Athlon II X4, or the $140 you can spend and get a Phenom II X4 955. I don't see the point of a hexacore for a gaming rig now. Even a fast dual core is still plenty for the vast majority of games.

hartsickdiscipl

44fps isn't enough?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Well i discovered yesterday that the Athlon ll X4 series is not adequate enough for Lost planet 2 Max settings even at 3.5ghz. In the benchmark mmy cpu had all 4 cores maxed out and the graphics only around70% and got an average of 44FPS.

ferret-gamer

44fps isn't enough?

You're very demanding! Well, as you probably know, that game is the exception rather than the rule.

The only game on that list I could believe is F1 2010, its still only dx9, but a few people have unlocked the dx11 graphics, which the next patch will do anyway.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

6-cores aren't that expensive.

ferret-gamer

They're alot more than the $100 you can spend on a good Athlon II X4, or the $140 you can spend and get a Phenom II X4 955. I don't see the point of a hexacore for a gaming rig now. Even a fast dual core is still plenty for the vast majority of games.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

They're alot more than the $100 you can spend on a good Athlon II X4, or the $140 you can spend and get a Phenom II X4 955. I don't see the point of a hexacore for a gaming rig now. Even a fast dual core is still plenty for the vast majority of games.

brownwhale

CPU has nothing to do with how high a resolution you can run.. nothing. That's pure GPU.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

They're alot more than the $100 you can spend on a good Athlon II X4, or the $140 you can spend and get a Phenom II X4 955. I don't see the point of a hexacore for a gaming rig now. Even a fast dual core is still plenty for the vast majority of games.

brownwhale

[QUOTE="brownwhale"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Well i discovered yesterday that the Athlon ll X4 series is not adequate enough for Lost planet 2 Max settings even at 3.5ghz. In the benchmark mmy cpu had all 4 cores maxed out and the graphics only around70% and got an average of 44FPS.

ferret-gamer

I wonder what you would get with the phenom II x4.

They seem to have improved a lot with quad cores wither the phenom II.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="brownwhale"] Drop down your res a notch, CPU might be holding you back, athlons dont do too well at the highest of resolutions.Hakkai007

I wonder what you would get with the phenom II x4.

They seem to have improved a lot with quad cores wither the phenom II.

My Phenom II X4 does a hell of a job for me in gaming and everything else. I'm very happy with it. Although the Athlon II X4's aren't all that much slower clock for clock. They're basically the same CPU without the L3 cache.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="brownwhale"] Drop down your res a notch, CPU might be holding you back, athlons dont do too well at the highest of resolutions.Hakkai007

I wonder what you would get with the phenom II x4.

They seem to have improved a lot with quad cores wither the phenom II.

My Phenom II X4 does a hell of a job for me in gaming and everything else. I'm very happy with it. Although the Athlon II X4's aren't all that much slower clock for clock. They're basically the same CPU without the L3 cache.

hartsickdiscipl

Have you tried Lost Planet 2?

Its not too far-fetched, but, I am going to lean to there is more to the tests than were let on.

I don't really see 6 or 8 core cpus to start being utilized to the point of seeing actual performance increases (to amount to anything) for another year or so. (as far as gaming is concerned)

Lach0121

the athlon ll is about 10% slower than an equally clocked phenom ll in games. The athlon is basically a phenom minus the l3 cache. Since mine is at 3.5ghz im probably getting performance around a stock phenom ll 940ferret-gamer

That is weird since I have a friend who has a phenom II 955 at stock and Lost Planet 2 was not maxing his CPU.

[QUOTE="Lach0121"]

Its not too far-fetched, but, I am going to lean to there is more to the tests than were let on.

I don't really see 6 or 8 core cpus to start being utilized to the point of seeing actual performance increases (to amount to anything) for another year or so. (as far as gaming is concerned)

yellosnolvr

How many games even utilize 4 cores now?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]the athlon ll is about 10% slower than an equally clocked phenom ll in games. The athlon is basically a phenom minus the l3 cache. Since mine is at 3.5ghz im probably getting performance around a stock phenom ll 940RyviusRan

That is weird since I have a friend who has a phenom II 955 at stock and Lost Planet 2 was not maxing his CPU.

[QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]the athlon ll is about 10% slower than an equally clocked phenom ll in games. The athlon is basically a phenom minus the l3 cache. Since mine is at 3.5ghz im probably getting performance around a stock phenom ll 940ferret-gamer

That is weird since I have a friend who has a phenom II 955 at stock and Lost Planet 2 was not maxing his CPU.

Nah he has a gtx 470.

The gpu wasn't maxed either.

I is dying for socket 2011 8 cores + 8 HT threads for 16 total threads. Will be so beast.

QX6700 @ 3.5ghz is nut stable or fast.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="RyviusRan"]

That is weird since I have a friend who has a phenom II 955 at stock and Lost Planet 2 was not maxing his CPU.

RyviusRan

Nah he has a gtx 470.

The gpu wasn't maxed either.

Found this though:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oanj21BdiIYPhenom ll 965 at 4.0ghz with a 5850 actually got a worse score than i did. lol.

I'm talking about benchmark B for my performance, it sounds like you are talking about normal gameplay. And im refering to DX9 not 11ferret-gamer

What gpu do you use?

And are you playing with max settings? What AA do you use?

From what I see an i7 930 only gets a few frames more comparing it to a phenom II 955.

I also notice ATI cards suffer more from AA and the directx 11 features.

I didn't see my friend use the benchmark but I don't think it should differ much from actually playing the boss battles in the game.

Oh and what resolution?

Opps I was stupid and didn't read your post.

Weird that directx9 is doing that to you.

And that video you posted is being run in directx 11 which is much more taxing.

edit: weird it is running in directx 9.

It shouldn't be running that low.

The vid i posted showed both DX9 and DX11. I ran the benchmark at 1680x1050 on a GTX 280 with 16xQCSAA and my GPU still usually was only around 70% usage However when i was looking up videos i realized that there was supposed to be a gameplay benchmark as well and my download didnt have it. So i downloaded that and using that benchmark i got 56FPS, which while not the 60fps i was hoping for was much better.ferret-gamer

Well the AA does lower frame rate by a bit.

Maybe your AA is putting more load on the CPU.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]The vid i posted showed both DX9 and DX11. I ran the benchmark at 1680x1050 on a GTX 280 with 16xQCSAA and my GPU still usually was only around 70% usage However when i was looking up videos i realized that there was supposed to be a gameplay benchmark as well and my download didnt have it. So i downloaded that and using that benchmark i got 56FPS, which while not the 60fps i was hoping for was much better.RyviusRan

Well the AA does lower frame rate by a bit.

Maybe your AA is putting more load on the CPU.

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"]The vid i posted showed both DX9 and DX11. I ran the benchmark at 1680x1050 on a GTX 280 with 16xQCSAA and my GPU still usually was only around 70% usage However when i was looking up videos i realized that there was supposed to be a gameplay benchmark as well and my download didnt have it. So i downloaded that and using that benchmark i got 56FPS, which while not the 60fps i was hoping for was much better.RyviusRan

Well the AA does lower frame rate by a bit.

Maybe your AA is putting more load on the CPU.

Things that aren't affected by CPU at all:

Resolution, Anti-Aliasing, Anistropic Filtering, texture quality, various other graphics settings. These are all almost entirely GPU-dependent, with the exception of texture quality which can sometimes affect system RAM as well.

They just don't have anything to do with CPU, period.

Well then Lost Planet 2 is not optimized very well.

An i7 wasn't getting much of a frame rate boost compared to a much cheaper phenom II.

Maybe the benchmark has problems.

I is dying for socket 2011 8 cores + 8 HT threads for 16 total threads. Will be so beast.

QX6700 @ 3.5ghz is nut stable or fast.

JigglyWiggly_

When looking at more benchmark tests of Lost Planet 2 I can conclude that test B is no where near the performance you will actually get in game. Even when fighting the boss on that lvl.

That benchmark is not an indication of how the game will run so don't use it as such.

AMD is awesome for the price.

[QUOTE="yellosnolvr"][QUOTE="Lach0121"]

Its not too far-fetched, but, I am going to lean to there is more to the tests than were let on.

I don't really see 6 or 8 core cpus to start being utilized to the point of seeing actual performance increases (to amount to anything) for another year or so. (as far as gaming is concerned)

RyviusRan

How many games even utilize 4 cores now?

More than we need to list, hell even Supreme Commander utilized four cores in 2007.

Many Many games actually utilize a quad core, 6-8 core no. (and not for another year or so, when we start to see them actually mean something in the gaming world.)

[QUOTE="UltimateGamer95"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There's still virtually pointless for gaming when any decent quad-core can get you over 60fps.

nameless12345

6-cores aren't that expensive.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Well i discovered yesterday that the Athlon ll X4 series is not adequate enough for Lost planet 2 Max settings even at 3.5ghz. In the benchmark mmy cpu had all 4 cores maxed out and the graphics only around70% and got an average of 44FPS.

ferret-gamer

44fps isn't enough?

A list of 17 games that can utilize 6 or more cores.. Also happens to be a list of 17 games that run great on a quad-core.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Well i discovered yesterday that the Athlon ll X4 series is not adequate enough for Lost planet 2 Max settings even at 3.5ghz. In the benchmark mmy cpu had all 4 cores maxed out and the graphics only around70% and got an average of 44FPS.

ferret-gamer

44fps isn't enough?

[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

44fps isn't enough?

Human-after-all

at 3.5ghz it isn't a bottleneck, more than likely just poor optimization on the Devs part.