MultiCore processors in Gaming Specs

Hello,

I was wondering how the number of cores are calculated into running a game. Lets take Demigod, a rts/rpg that'll be released next week:

Recommended System Requirements:
* 3 GHz Processor (Multicore Supported)
* 1 GB Available System Memory
* 256 MB 3D Video Card (ATI Radeon 2600 / Nvidia GeForce 7600 or better)

Now it says multicores are supported, but I'm assuming the 3.0ghz recommended setting if for a single core processor. How much better is a 3.0ghz quad than a single, or is there some type of formula that'll determine if a processor can handle the game or not. Like could a 2.5ghz quad run this better than a 2.8ghz duo or a 3.0ghz single core?
Mostly curious because I want to know if my 3.0ghz quad will be able to run games like this at max settings, or will I have to stick to normal settings due to hitting the minimum recommended processor power.

 

2.5ghz quad r better n faster than 2.8ghz duo or 3ghz single.

 

Your quad won't bottleneck games whatsoever for many years to some.

 

Are you really concerned that your 3.0Ghz QUAD can't handle a game that has like pentium 3ghz for minimum cpu I think your are safe for quite a while at max settings with your laptop

 

As mentioned above, the clock speed specified in the system requirements likely refers to a Pentium 4 operating at that frequency; this is an unspoken standard that many developers adhere to b/c it is difficult to quantify CPU performance.

 

Well that was more of my question than whether my computer will handle a game that requires a 3.0ghz Pentium. This will be the first multicore processor I'll have owned (in a laptop or desktop). I don't know how to compare the different types to each other. How much more powerful is a duo core than a normal pentium, or a quad core compared to a duo or normal processor.

 

It is very difficult to compare a single-core CPU to a multi-core CPU, but just to give you a handle on performance between architectures: a 1.7GHz Pentium M (Dothan) will perform equally well as a 3.0GHz Pentium 4 Prescott, a 1.5GHz (the lowest end) Core Duo (Yonah) will easily outperform a 3.4GHz Pentium 4 Prescott, and any Core 2 Duo will outperform the most high-end Pentium 4 available. As for Core 2 Quads, they are beyond comparing with a P4; perhaps they can be compared to a Pentium D. In any case, it'll run whatever you want for a long time to come.

 

So if my notebook will be able to run any game for at least a couple years to come, why are they producing Desktop hardware exponentially faster than the games that are coming out for it. I mean I've seen desktop rigs with 3.2ghz quads, 12gb of ram, 15000rpm hard drvies, and dual 295 gtx 2gb cards. There obviously arent any games on the market that will be able to use all that power.

 

With the exception of GTA 4 no game will tax a decent core 2 duo or quad more than the graphics cards. In your system your cards will become the bottleneck first but not for a couple of years at least at full game settings.

Anyways you can probs push your quad to 3.2ghz

 

The reason why CPUs are not being fully utilized by games is because games do not make as much use of that component as most people think; when gaming, the graphics card is by far the most limiting factor. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule; there are games out there (such as World in Conflict) that depend heavily on the CPU for simulating AI and the like.

Core 2 Quads *can* be fully utilized for other purposes, such as:
1) computer aided design (CAD) programs such as AutoCAD, SolidWorks, Pro Engineer

2) Photo editing; Photoshop makes heavy use of CPU time, although version CS4 will start making use of available GPU power as well.

3) Video editing; encoding formats, working with HD video, etc

 

I agree, most heavy performing 3d games rely more on the video card since most of them use less powerful game engines that rely mostly on the video card for better graphics.