Arniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1 Posted (8 years 7 months 4 weeks ago) and read 964 times:
Are the new Intel Dual-Core Processors supposed to be a big improvement for gaming with your PC?
I'm thinking of FS2004 and some other games that need a lot of computing power.
All of us engaged in msfs know the dreaded frame rate drop if you want your scenery or planes to look good and also have a lot of traffic and effects.
Any of you computer-techs know if the investment in a new system with this new technology brings the solution or a very significant improvement.
Nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5052 posts, RR: 36 Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 929 times:
It all depends on whether the game is written using threads or not. Basically complex games are written using multiple threads: these are eseentially paths through the code. For example you know when you get a window with a button and a progress bar? Well his will normally be written using two threads: one checks if you click the button, the other moves the progress bar.
With a single core or processor then the system must constantly switch between these threads. Ever clicked the button only to find nothing happens? thisis because the other thread is currently active, and your click isnt processed until they switch.
Now with a dual core (or dual processor) each thread is executed by a different core, at the same time, so the above would never happen.
So to summarize:
1) As long as the game is written using multiple threads you will experience a performance increase.
2) Flight Sim is not particularly processor hungry, its the graphics card that is often the bottleneck. As such a dual core processor will not offer you much performance increase, a new gfx card would be a better investment
Also, i read an article today about pricing structures for dual core software. By the way it was worded it sounds as if you my need a new version of windows to use dual core systems, and such a copy will be twice as expensive as a normal version of windows. Anyone know if that is true?