Does this game take advantage of multiple CPU cores????? Or should I prioritize single core performance for a new PC to play this game?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Actually a good question. I can't remember if WGRD had multi-core support. It would be a very nice feature to have as quad and hecta core CPUs are alot more common.
I would hope so, since we haven't had single threaded CPU's for a decade and even it had a HT version...
its specs called for a dual core CPU... not sure why it would need that if it was single core
I don't think you quite understand what that means. While yes a program can create multiple PID's that doesn't mean that a single PID can't use more than one thread.
I don't think the question is whether it supports more cores but rather how well optimised it is.
Of course it won't be as optimised as say video rendering
Of course it won't be as optimised as say video rendering
I do think this is recommended a lot so that in the background Windows and other processes can split threads between cores so it will not be EVERYTHING on 1 core.
nope. recommended and required are two different things. Now it could be because it needs X amount and they get around require a faster processor by saying you need 2 at this lower speed BECAUSE then the OS can move things to the other processor...
however chances are it is because:
it's far easier to code and optimize it for multiple processors then to code for the possibility of.
Unless the engine was built and not updated since the early 2000 and they coded it in a procedural style, it takes advantage of more than one core.
Nearly every game can "use" more than one core. How well it does that is a different question. Doing Multithreading right is not easy, if it were easy everyone would do it. And if you do it wrong you slow down the game insteading of making it faster
For games, you should always prioritize single core performance over more cores. There may be some games that benefit from 8 cores over 4, but if you don't do anything besides gaming on your computer rather invest the money saved into something else.
I'm looking forward to see how the Ryzen 4 and 6 cores will compare to the 8 cores in gaming. I don't expect a significant difference.
For games, you should always prioritize single core performance over more cores. There may be some games that benefit from 8 cores over 4, but if you don't do anything besides gaming on your computer rather invest the money saved into something else.
I'm looking forward to see how the Ryzen 4 and 6 cores will compare to the 8 cores in gaming. I don't expect a significant difference.
Last edited:
almost nothing would benefit with 8. as you said doing it right is key, and you will reach a point of diminishing returns the more cores/threads involved. Also I think you meant threads as a true 8 core processor is freaking EXPENSIVE. The cheapest 6900 I can find is a grand.
yes and I'll take a radeon GPU while I'm at it. 10 + years ago as a gamer I only did chips from them, but now, I'll pay the extra and get a good chip. Maybe they will get to where they once were but for now I'll be a snob.
Hah.
Well to be fair I've only been able to buy my own rig during the time of team blue/green dominating.
I'm quite happy with my Nvidia and Intel series purchases. But If I was tasked to build a secondary rig for .. say myself but in a different room like something where it's not knee-deep witcher 3 on Ultra experience but something more "casual" like say Europa that you can play while in the living room and pause whenever needed. I'd almost 100% go with the "sensible" most bang for my buck which is what team red seems be hitting !
I've never had much brand loyalty myself besides to EVGA which I've had excellent customer satisfaction experiences with (I'd rather not take my chances with someone else who might be shit xD)
I've got a step brother who might want his own PC soon (he's 13 I think?).
Starting out with .. Did they call it a "5 series" mimicking Intel? and a maybe 3- or 490 series might not be a bad idea.
I'm very happy there's some new competition out there
With intel you pay to much for what you get go AMD and get proper performance and a good price. Win Win
Intel is vastly overpriced, thats why everyone should be happy about Ryzen bringing AMD back to a competitive level, and if only to make their Intel product cheaper. The Ryzen R7 8 core/16 thread CPUs are decently priced and they are not too far behind Intel performance-wise.
Rumour has it there will be 16 core/32 thread Ryzen consumer CPUs in a few months, so AMD is pushing hard. Its just that game developers will have a hard time doing anything with that if nothing changes on the software side of things.
I did that with one, cause I was strapped for cash at the time and it's been a nightmare. Only computer I have non stop issues getting games to work.
Time will tell. I'm hoping it does but if I was building one today it'd be an intel w/ nVidia like all the others I have built over the last 10 years save the one above
I disagree and from my 5 years of helping people on these forums with tech support my opinion has been formed by which systems I have a harder time helping people to get games to work if at all. The majority of unresolved issues have a common theme.
Well I can only speak from what I have seen, and AMD has served me well back to the Thunderbird CPU hahahah playing Balders gate and Icewind Dale. I would venture to guess that most problems stem from user control not AMD or Intel.