Waco Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 WoW actually scales pretty damn nicely with increased cores. Of course, you have to enable affinity for cores 3 and 4 every time you start it but it smooths out frame rates considerably. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocmooz Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) WoW actually scales pretty damn nicely with increased cores. Of course, you have to enable affinity for cores 3 and 4 every time you start it but it smooths out frame rates considerably. Lets face it WoW will run on anything newer than a Comodore 64. That being said I don't understand why people who play it upgrade the snot out of their comp to try and get it to run better or, heaven forbid, look better. It was programed the way it was so that they can spread the addiction to anyone with an internet connected computer. I still don't get why it takes up 9GB of HDD space though. Now honestly back to the subject at hand. How many games really support multi-core processing? And by that I mean that there is a substantial difference in game performance not just 4 more FPS on average. Edited December 3, 2008 by ocmooz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xPETEZx Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 I would hazard a guess at very few. Of the games I currently play, very few even load my Dual core 100%. Infact, the ONLY game I have seen where I get a 100% Load reading is Flight Simulator X. Red Alert 3 Is single Core. Source Games seem Dual, but never load the CPU to 100% FarCry 2 is the same. Loads both CPUs, but never 100% Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow47 Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 I would hazard a guess at very few. Of the games I currently play, very few even load my Dual core 100%. Infact, the ONLY game I have seen where I get a 100% Load reading is Flight Simulator X. Red Alert 3 Is single Core. Source Games seem Dual, but never load the CPU to 100% FarCry 2 is the same. Loads both CPUs, but never 100% Yeah, I've played RA3, and to me it looks almost totally GPU bound. It only used up to 30% of the cpu, and mostly it hovered around 25%. It's a shame that games don't seem to support quad very well, given the number of gamers that have them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Lets face it WoW will run on anything newer than a Comodore 64. That being said I don't understand why people who play it upgrade the snot out of their comp to try and get it to run better or, heaven forbid, look better. It was programed the way it was so that they can spread the addiction to anyone with an internet connected computer. I still don't get why it takes up 9GB of HDD space though. Now honestly back to the subject at hand. How many games really support multi-core processing? And by that I mean that there is a substantial difference in game performance not just 4 more FPS on average. RTS's are the only games that tend to really be impacted by the CPU as they involve a lot of calculations. That is why Supreme Commander sees great improvement with quad core. Other genres rely heavily on the GPU instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Lets face it WoW will run on anything newer than a Comodore 64. After the last two expansions it's substantially harder to run than it was before. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhenKittensATK Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) I only get like 15 fps in capital cities at peak hours . 30+ outside of capitals. Yes WoW can run on most computers, but when you Max it out on a high resolution there is so much to render. Takes a toll on FPS. Edited December 3, 2008 by Krazyxazn Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ir_cow Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 i know orange box only uses 1 core, maybe source has support for more but its not used. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fight Game Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Of course if a game only had support for 2 cores, it would still be beneficial to have more cores to do things in the backround Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crow47 Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Of course if a game only had support for 2 cores, it would still be beneficial to have more cores to do things in the backround Yeah, that's what I was thinking myself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardnrg Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 google: multi threaded games list Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xPETEZx Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 Yeah, that's what I was thinking myself. If only it worked that way. As far as I am aware, if a program is not Multi-CPU aware, or only Dual aware, it will only EVER use CPU #0 or #0 & #1. So, if you are playing a game, that is Single Core, and running a load of single core apps in the background, they are all going to try to use CPU #0. Meaning the other 3 are sat there idel. (This is how I understand the use of Multiple CPUs, please correct me if im wrong) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now