Brad's Multi-threaded Comments

[Fozzik]

As everyone might have seen, Brad was on the boards last night and let us know, officially, that aspects of Vanguard will be multi-threaded. He also explained that Sigil is working hard to increase the amount of multithreading the game uses as they go forward.

What this means is pretty simple... we now have a fairly compelling item to add to the CPU decision-making process. It is very likely that Vanguard will get a boost in performance from a dual-core CPU (and a bigger boost as time goes by and they continue to improve the code).

With that said, I'm going to post some articles about dual-core CPUs... all these are about the Athlon 64 X2 processors because they came out second and show direct comparisons between Intel and AMD dual-core. If you would like to read more articles about Intel's dual-core... just ask and I'll throw them up. The Intel articles are fewer and farther between, and you'll understand why once you start seeing the benchmarks. The only possible reason at all to buy an Intel dual-core CPU is if you want something cheap that will get your foot into the multi-threaded door. Intel's Pentium D 820 is cheap (around $250). AMD's cheapest dual-core processor is now the X2 3800+, which starts around $350.

Check out the benchmarks, it should be fairly clear...For gaming, and now for multitasking, multithreaded apps, and just about everywhere else...AMD is the better choice. An X2 may not be in your budget right now, but they are dropping in price and as we approach Vanguard's release they will still be a fantastic value.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1813762,00.asp
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1843630,00.asp
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-x2/index.x?pg=1
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q3/athlon64-x2-3800/index.x?pg=1
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY2LDU=

Also, just a couple comments to Dr. McQuaid if he happens to check this thread...
You're Single-core machine is going to trounce the dual-core rig in games. If you run bunches of apps in the background, the dual-core machine should catch up... but having half as much RAM is also really going to hold it back. The systems in Vanguard which are conducive to multi-threading will have to be very highly utilized I think before the dual-core machine makes up for it's 600MHz clock speed deficit. Pentium 4's are all about clock speed.

Also, everyone keep in mind that Brad seems to be a bit of an Intel fan. This isn't a bad thing at all... everyone has preferences based on their own experiences and considerations. Just keep in mind that him not buying an AMD CPU (which would trash the one he purchased in game performance =P) was not because Vanguard won't pwn on both CPUs. At least I hope.

[Bitterman]

Hmmm, just when you thought you were getting a handle on the whole CPU discussion hehe...

If you were were talking apples and apples regarding two boxes running the same number of apps, say two boxes just set up for gaming (for Vanguard of course), at what level does the dual core AMD set up start to exceed the performance of a single core Pentium set up? I guess you have to assume similar functioning component specs (video card, HDD, RAM, etc) not to include processor/MB?

This also leads to another question: After reading some of the same articles Fozz mentions above (regarding advantages/disadvantages of single core vs dual core) i'm wondering, from a cost perspective, which set up (AMD dual core CPU/MB vs single core CPU/MB) would give you more bang for the buck?

If i'm jumping the gun sorry Fozz, but after looking at and thinking about the components for a new system i'm getting a headache :)

As always, thanks for the help. And any responses are welcome.
~B

[Fozzik]

Hmmm, just when you thought you were getting a handle on the whole CPU discussion hehe...

Well, this wasn't entirely unexpected. My suspicions about Vanguard making use of multi-threading for certain systems was one of the factors that went into my decision when I picked out the CPU I'm going to buy.

If you were were talking apples and apples regarding two boxes running the same number of apps, say two boxes just set up for gaming (for Vanguard of course), at what level does the dual core AMD set up start to exceed the performance of a single core Pentium set up? I guess you have to assume similar functioning component specs (video card, HDD, RAM, etc) not to include processor/MB?

All other components being equal, with only the motherboard and CPU being different... Well, if you're talking multi-tasking or multi-threaded applications, the dual-core processors will slaughter single-core every time. Intel's Hyperthreading has been present in their single-core CPUs for a long while, and although it does give a bit of a boost to multi-tasking, it isn't even in the same league as a real dual-core processor when it comes to running multiple threads or applications.

Check out the benchmarks on this page -
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/athlon64-fx57/index.x?pg=4

It should give you a good picture of where performance is in current single-threaded games. The charts have both single and dual-core processors on them, so you can compare. Remember, these are just single games in these benchmarks... the dual-core processors really start to pull away when you run multiple applications or a game that uses multithreading. You should notice that even in a single game situation, a dual-core AMD CPU is faster than the fastest single-core Intel processor in all the games they tested.

Oh, one more thing... take note of where the Intel dual core processors (Pentium D) fall on those graphs. It's a rather good illustration of what I mentioned above... Intel's CPU need clock speed. Their dual-core processors suffer quite a bit in single-threaded performance because they had to keep the clock speed down due to heat considerations.

I'm not entirely sure if that answered your question...

This also leads to another question: After reading some of the same articles Fozz mentions above (regarding advantages/disadvantages of single core vs dual core) i'm wondering, from a cost perspective, which set up (AMD dual core CPU/MB vs single core CPU/MB) would give you more bang for the buck?

We're in a very tricky time right now in the computer industry... because the revolution of parallel processing is here. More and more applications and games will make use of multi-threading as we go forward, so any decision has to take into account where we'll be in a year or two (at least for most people, some people might upgrade more often... like Brad ;) )

Completely disregarding what I said above, and looking only at today with no care for the future...here's how I would answer your question. I would say that in terms of single application performance, currently a single-core Athlon 64 is the best bang for your buck. If games are the reason you're buying the computer... (All current games are single-threaded right now) the Athlon 64 is the better gaming processor, hands down.

Obviously it doesn't make much sense to disregard what's going to happen in the industry in 6 to 12 months… since most of us keep a computer that long at a minimum. Buying a single-core processor now isn't the end of the world… you can get a very powerful one for fairly cheap, and it should certainly handle everything in the next couple years just fine. Just keep dual-core in the back of your mind as something to look at when it's time to drop the cash… if nothing else, make sure you get a motherboard with a chipset that's compatible with dual-core so you will have an easy time upgrading.

I could say that if you are going with a single-core processor, and want better multi-tasking performance (and a small boost in future multi-threaded apps), the Pentium 4 would be the better choice due to it's Hyperthreading. The problem with that is... dual-core has arrived. If multi-tasking or multi-threaded applications are a big concern for you, you shouldn't be buying a single core at all. Dual core offers dramatically better performance in those situations.

Honestly, whether you buy an AMD or an Intel dual core chip... both will give you a great performance boost in multi-tasking and multi-threaded games (like Vanguard, when it arrives). The reason I strongly recommend AMD at this time is not only because their architecture has been superior in game performance for a couple years now... but also because AMD's dual core architecture is more elegant and efficient. It runs cooler, uses less power, and as I think the articles above show... performs substantially better in the exact situations that you are buying a dual core processor for.

Hopefully I didn't get too far off track there. As always, if someone prefers one particular manufacturer over another, I'm certainly willing to give recommendations based on that. I think I may actually do an Intel and an AMD recommended system at each price point once I get going... just so those die-hard Intel fans will get some love as well. :D

[SirOddball]

Nice work as always Fozzik. Personally I'm leaning toward the AMD 64 4000+. It has shown some really nice benchmarks and is A LOT cheaper then the Intel Extreme Edition and the AMD FX series. I know it's single core, but my main concern is running Vanguard smoothly on a widescreen resolution. I'm going to try to get the most out of my current system (Intel P4 3.0 ghz Northwood core, 1 gig ram, 6800 gt video), from what I hear it will play Vanguard fairly smoothly, but maybe not at the resolution I'm shooting for. I'll let the prices drop some more and maybe early next year go ahead and build an awesome Vanguard machine. Again, thanks for the wonderful write-ups!

[Bitterman]

Thanks much for the reply Fozz, very good write up and once again I learned a lot. Sorry for the late reply.

I keep mulling over the whole idea of a new build and still haven't decided on dropping the dime yet. I'm in a position very similar to SirOddball system-wise and i've more or less come to the conclusion that I need to exercise a little patience and see what shakes out in the market prior to the launch of the game.

A few things recently have made me see that waiting is a good idea (that and every post says "wait a bit" :)):

1) Spec'd out a new system on newegg following your general ideas about hardware (more on the lines of your new system post and forgetting the whole bang for the buck idea, lol) - ASUS A8N-E Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra ATX, AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester, 7800GTX, yadda yadda yadda and it came to just over 2K, sans the monitor.
2) The monitor, lol. I have been looking at the Dell 24" and 20" and then saw a friends 32" LCD TV. Seeing Unreal play on a 32" screen was pretty amazing, and his laptop is not what you would call state of the art. I'm wondering how games like WOW and VSOH are going to look/play on something that size?
3) Two recent posts from SV, regarding the system requirements for the avg player and the release of the 7800GT.

So to make a long story short (to late) - i'm going to wait and keep reading to learn as much as I can before the game launches so that I can make an informed decision on a new build.

Thanks again for the replies (great forum btw), learning a bunch.

~B

[Finchal]

Quick question, if I dont have a dual core processor will VG be so laggy its unplayable (in your opinion)?

[Fozzik]

Quick question, if I dont have a dual core processor will VG be so laggy its unplayable (in your opinion)?

No. And that's a 100% certainty, not an opinion. Although it appears that Sigil has begun adding some optimizations to take advantage of dual core, we are a long way from dual core being required for games. A fast single core processor will play Vanguard just fine.

The optimizations they are adding may begin to add up, and give dual core systems a decent additional boost in performance (and maybe even some additional features down the road)...but it doesn't mean they would get rid of the scalability of the engine.

[Finchal]

No. And that's a 100% certainty, not an opinion. Although it appears that Sigil has begun adding some optimizations to take advantage of dual core, we are a long way from dual core being required for games. A fast single core processor will play Vanguard just fine.

The optimizations they are adding may begin to add up, and give dual core systems a decent additional boost in performance (and maybe even some additional features down the road)...but it doesn't mean they would get rid of the scalability of the engine.

Thanks for taking the time out to answer that; huge relief to know that.

[Fynn]

2) The monitor, lol. I have been looking at the Dell 24" and 20" and then saw a friends 32" LCD TV. Seeing Unreal play on a 32" screen was pretty amazing, and his laptop is not what you would call state of the art. I'm wondering how games like WOW and VSOH are going to look/play on something that size?
~B

Been thinking about taking the plasma TV plunge myself with prices falling so much and I'm *really* wondering what VG might look like on one of those big boys since most of them have dvi and just about every type of connection you can think of.

Thanks for the info Fozzik. I'll be particularly interested in an update about 30days before VG is released :)

[Merkeon]

Out of an opinion/question; Just like the 6800 Ultra, it can run lets say BF2 on max settings, full AA, high resolution etc etc, and not stutter or lag at all. Now take 7800 GTX, on exact same settings as the 6800 Ultra, the 7800 GTX will look slightly if not very noticbly better then the 6800 Ultra. In my n00bish opinion, the single core could run VG fine, but Dual Core will make it perform better. Feel free to correct me, this isnt a professional opnion just an idea.

[Mack Bolan]

I will be building a new computer probably for xmas. Since we just moved and all. Thank you for the info on the dual. I will have to keep my eyes out, and i will get a amd, even though i am a intel guy. The only reason is that i used to work for them in the warehouse in chandler.

But i will give amd a try.