Multithreded gaming

Well all know about the advent of Multithreaded gaming. We have heard tme and time again about games with engines that will start to utilize dual, triple and quad cores. But we rarely see it. It is very rare to see a game that can utilize a quad core to its full potential. And with the fact that singlethreading performance increases have been very little in recent years that means a standstill to the performance gains a game will see from a multi core CPU.

So what is this all about? Well I have been thinking about it. I have see what a well optimized game engine can do with a quad core. So today I decided to do a bit of testing using 4 games. Most are pretty popular games. I will be running Crysis, Far Cry 2, Lost Planet: Extreme Condition and the just released Left 4 Dead demo for the preorder customers (for everyone else they can get it on the 11th.

Now as to why is because after playing L4D and watching my CPU and memory usage on my Logitech G15, I noticed something quite amazing. The game utilizes quad cores, and very well. I would normally have about 50-60% across all 4 cores. Considering that this is still based off of the Source engine thats quite a feat to be able to use that much power. At peak times, normally when there were hordes of infected on Advanced or higher difficulty, it gets to 70% across all 4 cores. This suprised me.

As wel all know, VALVe has been working on multithreading for Source for a while and was supposed to come out for Source 2007 in Half Life 2: Episode 2, Portal and Team Fortress 2. While it was there, it was by default disabled due to instability issues. So we went along with our normal gaming. VALVe then releases a multithreading tech demo/benchmark. It was taken off unfortunately but it shows very well what VALVe wanted to do.

What amazed me most is how VALVe could work on it and get all the kinks out and just plug it into a 4 year old engine, Source, and there are other games that focused on that and yet we have very little pleasing results.

The following is going to be screenshots of my Task Manager just seconds after I played the game. For each I will run it with as many possible ways including explosions, fire and so on and so forth. What I want you to do is look closely at the results.

Left 4 Dead:



As you can see it uses quite a bit of the CPUs power. First core hits 100% and the rest run between 50-60%, sometimes higher.

Far Cry 2:



Far Cry 2 does use the CPU a bit but not as much. It hits about 50% on core 2 but the rest hover around 20-30% and it averages about 30% as well on all 4 cores.

Lost Planet: Extreme Condition:



Lost Planet seems to fluxuate a lot. I did the benchmark in it. It seems to me that it really depends on when and where. The first area (Snow) was using about 30% across all 4 cores and the second area would spike to 60% when a lot of the flying things were around. But it was equal across all 4 cores at almost every point.

Crysis:



Crysis is unique. With the first 2 cores they fluctuate the same. But are not used as much as cores 3 and 4. In fact cores 3 and 4 saw eratic behavior. But overall across all 4 cores it averaged about 30%.

Now with VALVe finally putting MT in Source we could see a trend like this in the near future. It helps performance quite a bit. Some people were having issues running MT in the demo of L4D while others were not. Ones who did would disable MT and their average FPS was about 42 when it was enabled though they were hitting abut 72FPS. thats a 30FPS increase or 71% performance increase just having it use your CPU which is very good.

So it looks like MT is coming, hopefully sooner than later, but its on the horizon. From LP which started it to Crysis. Both had very low usage. But now we have L4D that really pushes your CPUs power and performance to new levels.

Hopefully other game companies will see this and actually start to use MTing. It shows that done properly you can get great performance increases, such as the 71% jump in L4D.

More will come but we will have to see how hard they work on it. The more work they put into it, the better the results as seen here.

BTW, L4D is AMAZING!!!! Everytime I have played through the demo, the Director AI changed the infected. It was never the same. Areas I would be cautious in before were empty and areas that were empty were filled. Oh and when you get to play it, DO NOT BUMP OR SHOOT A CAR. The alarm will send a HORDE along with a few bosses and trust me it takes quite a bit to get through on Advanced +.

Peace out and leave your comments.

PS: The operating system's scheduler decides on which core a thread will be executed not the game. So even if the game is truely multi-core enabled we might never see the effects of it.

(Can't edit my previous message or I would've put it on the end of that one)

Interesting. If you are running vista there is another way to monitor the average use of the processor. Control Panel-> Admin. Tools -> Comp. Management -> Reliability and performance. Then you open CPU and ther is a column where it says Average CPU and there you can see the average CPU that each task uses.

It can take a good 18 to 24 months to write a new game engine from scratch. Most companies will want to use their engines for as many SKUs as possible (sequels, expansion packs) to increase their return on investment. Along the way there may be time/need for some technological improvements, and that might include wedging in support for additional cores. But engines written to fully support multiple cores won’t happen until there are enough multi-core systems in the field to justify the investment. I’d say we’ve reached that point, but now it’s a question of when the existing technologies have been milked for all their worth and the game houses are ready to produce new multi-threaded engines. Multi-threaded engines are likely to start popping up from time to time, but I’d guess we have a couple of years to go before they begin to become commonplace.

I wish Source would multithread their bot code for the linux CS:S server

Pity more people don't licence source, it is a very versatile engine, hell, someone might try a crytek and say to hell with lower end systems, lets just put the source engine to it's limits.

What this shows really is if you work on it and do a good job it can be done. But it is true that Source does have one advantage over any other game engine. It is highly modular which means they can add any features to it they want, even newer ones like this. And the switch over process is not that hard either.

Whats starting to sadden me is that after playing the demo there are people crying about the graphics (which look amazing to me) not being "good for 2008" and that damns the game for them. Thats just the dumbest thing I have ever heard of.

Anywho. I doubt anyone would push Source to mid/high end only. Thats why so many people do use it for their mods and so on. Becuase they can have it on more ppls machines than if they did it with CryEngine 2.

I really don't have any gripes about Vista 64, except the PITA getting XP games to run. There did seem to be a lot of driver & chipset updates esp. for my NVidia 680i mobo. Here's hoping MS improves on it with Win7, esp. if I have an i7 by then .

Funny that the same people who demand the best graphics, physics and play in games scream the loudest for dual cores. The fact is the only way to increase these are by increased use of true multi-threading , multi-cores, multi graphics as unlkess there is some radically new technology. The MHZ race has little left to offer. This has been written about for a while now so don't be surprised with the advent of Intel's release of Nehalem, fast approaching Windows 7, and DX 11 that the rate of progress won't accelerate toward favoring multithread/multicore coding in games as well as most other apps.

While I agree with alot of what youre saying, MT will eventually become the norm. You have to remember that were on the cutting edge here, and doing something as simple as looking at statistics of gamers online, and their rigs shows the majority still using single cores, its the overall growth speed at which these transitions occur. We, the enthusiasts and businesses are and will will be the first to i7 or quad, or whatever that improves performance, while average Joe is happy to be playing wow with his single core 4 gen old gpu. Intel and AMD are looking to the future, just like when AMD was waaaay ahead of Intel, and went server with their IMC, ala K8

As for windows 7 and even Vista, both OS allows for better usage of MT, and DX11 will allow more for AI etc in games, as well as multi card support, tessalation etc, plus again, MT. Its a slow process, and only slowed more now with the current economic scenarios playing out. Itll take time, but it IS coming

Sure, I know it's coming. My guess is probably just about when or after Windows 7 hits the shelves in mainstream numbers and comfortable sales. Could be more, who knows. What's interesting is that they talked about a dual core nehalem being brought out maybe later. The way I see it, with hyperthreading being a nice addition, a dual core is looking like a nice option again. Plus it's probably going to hold a lower threshold in temps, better oc's once again. But that one is honestly just a guess.

See, since the Pentium D, we really didn't see a boost in performance with more cores as we wanted. Only that our systems ran a lot more smoother from day to day multitasking. They even took away HT just to mess with our thinking even further. I must say though, by them keeping the quad to the core arch and sticking bigger caches only on the quads for that small performance gain, it was a smart move.

Also, I hated Vista since the final rc (And the original rc1 and beta, yes, I have been through that torture) release that I downloaded years ago. When I heard that they were going to release it, as is, I couldn't believe it. I thought Microsoft had lost it's mind. Although I admit the new Vista Sp1 was a huge improvement since then. I still think it's terrible for it's time. But with Windows 7 said to be having a new file system with the Vista kernel but with better utilization of processes and memory, it looks pretty promising.

It is showing better usage accross apps for MT, Vista vs XP, and it also allows for 4 gpus usage, or better usage anyways. I agree, having a duo doing 4 threads with HT should be enough, and itll be tricky for Intel to ride the fence as to how theyll implement this, as there reall wont be any use for 8 threads for a looong while

Best save a molotov or tow for that one.

THanks for the post, I guess I have to download the demo to get some L4D lovin'.

Just post the link or I call bs. I haven't seen one link yet that supports what people are saying. And what's wrong with toms's charts?

Hey, another guy posted that in another thread.

How do you know that double the cache has nothing to do with it? You don't! Your assuming and going by what they say. Second, it scales sooooooo nicely with the oc. Why not put the e8600 and q9550 up to the task with a 4.0 ghz oc for the quad which is a generous oc prediction, against a 4.5ghz+ easily obtained by the dual. Newbies on newegg are showing these people up with low voltage oc's at 4.5 ghz. Your telling me enthuiasts can't match these people!?

I never claimed it wasn't true. I'm simply questioning the quads potential. And I do find it soooo weird that people CAN tell me the performance difference between the core 2 duo's down it's L2 cache performance. BUT!!! These same people can't tell me why a quad with double the cache over the dual core, regardless of it had fifty cores and are dumbfounded of why it performs better. But they can tell you EXACTLY why the core 2 duo with more cache can perform better. This is fine, but, if the gpu is in fact bottlenecking the cpu, how do they know that the cpu is in fact better? Such as a quad...

I was waiting for someone to kick their damn head to pluto anyways. The best part is, I didn't have to do ****. Well, I got to watch... LOL!

Take those benchmarks and shove it cause it's bs. Unless you can pull something else out of your ass and I can understand why your mad. I made you look stupid in your AMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZING discovery that when your using a QUAD.... IT USES ALL FOUR CORES!!! A two year old could figure this out while taking a ****...

Habitat stop trolling, Quad-threaded applications are the future whether you like it or not, it's good that at least a few developers are putting some effort into it. (like usual valve doesn't disappoint)

jimmysmitty and strangestranger, are you two active on the Steam L4D forums? I saw two guys with your exact usernames, so I was wondering.

Anyway, even though it's nice to see technology being developed, I don't really think four threads are really necessary to play L4D fluidly (60fps constant), but they are definitely necessary for running servers, which is more of a concern to me than the difference between 120fps and 150fps.

I'm tired of people not being able to directly explain and give some solid hard evidence of the performance they actually gain. Remember why Intel was winning the multimedia benchmarks against AMD but not gaming in the Pentium 4 era? Cause of it's cache. Multimedia likes cache. OMG!!! That's a pattern, did you see that one? That's actual FACTS right there. And I'm not saying quad doesn't make a difference. From what we've seen so far, if your head wasn't in your ass, you'd see that there was really no gains if you factor this in. Like I said before too, "people can break down the cache performance in the core 2 duo by the percentage!" and you can't see or prove why the quad only gains in certain areas? And why isn't the dual being brought closer to it's limits??? http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=35842 <---- Oh yeah, It would show neglible gains in the benchmarks and it would actually kill the quad in a lot of stuff. Can't have that now can we?

I'm not trolling, I'm simply saying "prove it". We come here to learn, not spread opinions and bs, which is actually what the true definition of troll is. And if I'm not making a good point, why do you people seem so stirred by it? Did you buy a quad and I hurt your feelings because it? Then you want to throw out names? Take that bs and shove it.

You mean to tell me that some of these people bought a quad and you can't find ONE review that SOLIDLY shows gains without any FACTORS involved? Just one... A half retarted kid could find almost anything on the internet that's FACTS of that is there. You can't give me ONE SOLID review. Your right, I will call BS! You guys are the only trolls here, and ignorant ones on top of that.

And if that wasn't enough for you, here's a quote from the site. They explained why there was gains.

"And finally, we see pretty common picture in Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. The game itself by default creates two computational threads, however larger L2 cache of the quad-core processor grants its victory in overclocked mode. In nominal work mode Core 2 Duo E6850 wins the first prize as it boasts considerably higher working frequency."

@ emp, sure I can pull up threads from about three years ago when people were saying, Multi threaded apps is the future, Multi threaded apps is the future, Multi threaded apps are the future. How far in the future exactly? LOL! Also, quad threaded applications? I can't help but laugh and notice that you made this up. Well, I think two of you have quads and are probably regretting it. That's the real problem here.

I actually have an E7200, but it definitely sounds that you regret buying a dual core deep down inside. I love my little chip, but to be honest if I had the chance to do it over with a little better budget I would've probably jumped on a Q9550.

I'm not really going to even bother arguing with you, because if a Task manager shot isn't enough to prove to you the advantages of a quad, then nothing is.

@Emp Regret buying a $84 chip? LOL! Get serious. I almost got the e7200 but the e5200 looked a lot more fun to oc. I have my eyes on the e8600 next also.

@WR Yep, but games during the time benefited from AMD's IMC. That's the factor you missed. All those are FACTS. I'm going benchmark by benchmark here. How is that simultaneously saying that games do not like cache and multimedia does? BS, you made that up.

@Jimmy I missed that part. I actually stand correct by facts. Not like some people. But I try to avoid embarassment as much as possible. But, nvm that, that's just me. And, this is one game. How did you speculate the other games the same way? See how it just doesn't make any sense? At least my stuff is accurate or I haven't found the answer yet. I was simply questioning this crazyness. I didn't make **** up.

Hmmm, well, that brings me to my question with that one benchmark or all of them for that matter. How come that quad is nearly at it's max and the dual is not? As I will mention that the game did scale very nice with the oc. The power in the dual is it's brutal oc ability. But let's just ignore that clock speed still exists today. Sure, in that one game it was better. I'm not denying that, I just saw it. And I know that the dual gets less here clock for clock, but for a dual to be able to catch up to the quad because it's getting too hot already? Ummm, I can see why they didn't want to show that. That would just baffle people more then they already are.

So the conclusion is buy a quad for Lost planet and maybe L4D if your only going to oc to 3.6 ghz. Obviously the review believe you shouldn't oc a dual closer to it's max, but putting a lot of voltage in the quad and putting it somewhat close to it's max is the answer. Then, wait for more games to come out... That's quiet impressive after three years of people talking about it.

It's good to have it for what? I doubt most people bought it for one game and are waiting for more to arrive. Hey, if you want to buy it for a few reasons, I'm not stopping anybody for that matter. I'm just questioning it's performance is all. Even if budget wasn't a factor, I'd still opt for an e8600 4.5+ghz. That's my next drop in upgrade. Plus prices might go down, who knows. Another thing about having a quad core as a good thing. Sure it is, but the point of making multitasking smoother with more cores was the idea of elminating the lag factor that single processors suffered from. Why do you expect to see the same results by adding more if it's already fixed?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing if that's what you think I'm getting at. I do think it's great too. Just one game though, and one about to arrive... Not impressive.

No no no Jimmy, you got it all wrong

its Multi - Fredded games...

were for example 4 npc characters called fred ( funny enough ) sit in the corner and throw peanuts at you - hence multi - fredded..

Another example is night mare on elm street the game where there are 4 Krugers running around the place with spoons on their fingers ( the knives cut them too much and they had to right out a safety assessment form which concluded to ban the knifes incase they fell over and hurt them selves ) hence the term Multi- Fredded,, Dual Core gaming is mis-read and really applies to the Hot Coffee incident in GTA San Andreas... Dual H... .