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

I love my computer for this reason, go AMD!!! making hexacores for the mass market when on the other side intel makes it a "if you have $1k to spend on a cpu club"

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

44fps isn't enough?

UltimateGamer95

Nothing against Lost Planet but I wouldn't use it or any console game as an example for system effeciency. I have nothing against console games (loving Batman AA right now) but you never know what kind of backend junk they have going on bogging the game down. I'm on an older yet modest Phenom III 720 BE with the 4th core unlocked, HD 3870 CF and 4 gb of ram and I can't get Force Unleashed to stay stable past the cutscenes.

Stick with games with known engines like Left 4 Dead 2 or World in Conflict or something

Odd - BFBC2 and DAO in particular showed a nearly 100% gain going dual to quad IIRC, but they only got a 5-10% difference going quad to hex?Makari

Probably because the 2 extra cores were being used for system processes. The game was actually only using 4 of the 6 cores, but that leave 2 free cores to handle all of the background processes/OS. That's my guess. That's why I find these results to be very deceptive.

[QUOTE="Makari"]Odd - BFBC2 and DAO in particular showed a nearly 100% gain going dual to quad IIRC, but they only got a 5-10% difference going quad to hex?hartsickdiscipl

Probably because the 2 extra cores were being used for system processes. The game was actually only using 4 of the 6 cores, but that leave 2 free cores to handle all of the background processes/OS. That's my guess. That's why I find these results to be very deceptive.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="Makari"]Odd - BFBC2 and DAO in particular showed a nearly 100% gain going dual to quad IIRC, but they only got a 5-10% difference going quad to hex?Makari

Probably because the 2 extra cores were being used for system processes. The game was actually only using 4 of the 6 cores, but that leave 2 free cores to handle all of the background processes/OS. That's my guess. That's why I find these results to be very deceptive.

My understanding is that you can write a game for a single core, for 2, for 4, or for 4+. This may or may not be correct, but it would explain some of these results. I don't know that since a game can utilize 4 cores that it must automatically be able to use 6 or 8, etc..