does multi core cpu matter in 3d vision gaming?
I'd like an answer from someone who really knows the technical aspect of 3d vision. how much a factor of cpu is to 3d vision gaming? will more cores help out the overall 3d gaming performance?
I'd like an answer from someone who really knows the technical aspect of 3d vision. how much a factor of cpu is to 3d vision gaming? will more cores help out the overall 3d gaming performance?

epenny size =/= nerdiness

#1
Posted 11/22/2010 10:29 PM   
I'd like an answer from someone who really knows the technical aspect of 3d vision. how much a factor of cpu is to 3d vision gaming? will more cores help out the overall 3d gaming performance?
I'd like an answer from someone who really knows the technical aspect of 3d vision. how much a factor of cpu is to 3d vision gaming? will more cores help out the overall 3d gaming performance?

epenny size =/= nerdiness

#2
Posted 11/22/2010 10:29 PM   
Not much difference between 3D or regular gaming in terms of the CPU. Of course, you still need a CPU that can provide enough power to your video subsystem.
Not much difference between 3D or regular gaming in terms of the CPU. Of course, you still need a CPU that can provide enough power to your video subsystem.

System specs:



CPU:Intel Core i7 930 2800@3880 MHz (Cooled by Noctua NH-D14)

MB: Asus P6T Deluxe v.2

RAM: 6 GB Kingston HyperX (KHX1600C8D3K3/6GX)

GPU: Zotac GTX480 AMP! Edition @ 800 Mhz (core)

HDD: 2Tb SATA-II Western Digital Caviar Black + 2Tb SATA-II Samsung EcoGreen F4EG

Sound: Creative X-Fi Titanium

DVD-RW: ASUS DRW-24B1ST

Case: Aerocool BX-500

PSU: OCZ Z-1000w

Monitor: LG W2363D + nVidia 3D Vision

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1

#3
Posted 11/22/2010 10:58 PM   
Not much difference between 3D or regular gaming in terms of the CPU. Of course, you still need a CPU that can provide enough power to your video subsystem.
Not much difference between 3D or regular gaming in terms of the CPU. Of course, you still need a CPU that can provide enough power to your video subsystem.

System specs:



CPU:Intel Core i7 930 2800@3880 MHz (Cooled by Noctua NH-D14)

MB: Asus P6T Deluxe v.2

RAM: 6 GB Kingston HyperX (KHX1600C8D3K3/6GX)

GPU: Zotac GTX480 AMP! Edition @ 800 Mhz (core)

HDD: 2Tb SATA-II Western Digital Caviar Black + 2Tb SATA-II Samsung EcoGreen F4EG

Sound: Creative X-Fi Titanium

DVD-RW: ASUS DRW-24B1ST

Case: Aerocool BX-500

PSU: OCZ Z-1000w

Monitor: LG W2363D + nVidia 3D Vision

OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 SP1

#4
Posted 11/22/2010 10:58 PM   
if you have a graphics card setup like SLI gtx 580's for example, and are playing high end games then you will need an overclocked quad core from the current generation
if you have a graphics card setup like SLI gtx 580's for example, and are playing high end games then you will need an overclocked quad core from the current generation

_ NVLDDMKM problems_ | _ problems getting a driver for a laptop graphics card_ | _What PSU do I need?_

[quote name='The Professor' date='11 August 2011 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1313055223' post='1277858']

I think Qazax is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aleins and doesnt afraid of anything.

#5
Posted 11/22/2010 11:04 PM   
if you have a graphics card setup like SLI gtx 580's for example, and are playing high end games then you will need an overclocked quad core from the current generation
if you have a graphics card setup like SLI gtx 580's for example, and are playing high end games then you will need an overclocked quad core from the current generation

_ NVLDDMKM problems_ | _ problems getting a driver for a laptop graphics card_ | _What PSU do I need?_

[quote name='The Professor' date='11 August 2011 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1313055223' post='1277858']

I think Qazax is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aleins and doesnt afraid of anything.

#6
Posted 11/22/2010 11:04 PM   
[quote name='teardropmina' date='22 November 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1290464942' post='1150170']
I'd like an answer from someone who really knows the technical aspect of 3d vision. how much a factor of cpu is to 3d vision gaming? will more cores help out the overall 3d gaming performance?
[/quote]

I posted recently something along these lines. In short, I monitored the CPU vs GPU usage while running games (and some benchmark tools) and my conclusion is that you don't need as much CPU power as some folks might lend you to believe. More CPU power certainly doesn't hurt, but you might easily end up spending hundreds of $ for a minimal performance boost.

I currently have a Q9650 quad core (stock speed, i.e. 3GHz) and I haven't yet seen a game where the CPU clearly holds the GPU back (GTX 580).
Moreover, the Medusa demo runs at 37 fps average (all settings maxed out), compared to 22 fps I was getting with my old GTX 285 card (and the same CPU).
I run 3D vision on a 'standard' 1920x1080 display at 120 Hz. So for any similar setup, a Q9550/Q9650 quad core (perhaps even an AMD Phenom II X4 or an overclocked Intel Core2 Duo E8600) should do the job.
Now if you go SLI and opt for fancy stuff such as 3D surround/Eyefinity, you might need more horsepower.

I'm no computer specialist, but I'd say your question boils down to how well the game itself supports multi-core CPU.
[quote name='teardropmina' date='22 November 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1290464942' post='1150170']

I'd like an answer from someone who really knows the technical aspect of 3d vision. how much a factor of cpu is to 3d vision gaming? will more cores help out the overall 3d gaming performance?





I posted recently something along these lines. In short, I monitored the CPU vs GPU usage while running games (and some benchmark tools) and my conclusion is that you don't need as much CPU power as some folks might lend you to believe. More CPU power certainly doesn't hurt, but you might easily end up spending hundreds of $ for a minimal performance boost.



I currently have a Q9650 quad core (stock speed, i.e. 3GHz) and I haven't yet seen a game where the CPU clearly holds the GPU back (GTX 580).

Moreover, the Medusa demo runs at 37 fps average (all settings maxed out), compared to 22 fps I was getting with my old GTX 285 card (and the same CPU).

I run 3D vision on a 'standard' 1920x1080 display at 120 Hz. So for any similar setup, a Q9550/Q9650 quad core (perhaps even an AMD Phenom II X4 or an overclocked Intel Core2 Duo E8600) should do the job.

Now if you go SLI and opt for fancy stuff such as 3D surround/Eyefinity, you might need more horsepower.



I'm no computer specialist, but I'd say your question boils down to how well the game itself supports multi-core CPU.

#7
Posted 11/22/2010 11:45 PM   
[quote name='teardropmina' date='22 November 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1290464942' post='1150170']
I'd like an answer from someone who really knows the technical aspect of 3d vision. how much a factor of cpu is to 3d vision gaming? will more cores help out the overall 3d gaming performance?
[/quote]

I posted recently something along these lines. In short, I monitored the CPU vs GPU usage while running games (and some benchmark tools) and my conclusion is that you don't need as much CPU power as some folks might lend you to believe. More CPU power certainly doesn't hurt, but you might easily end up spending hundreds of $ for a minimal performance boost.

I currently have a Q9650 quad core (stock speed, i.e. 3GHz) and I haven't yet seen a game where the CPU clearly holds the GPU back (GTX 580).
Moreover, the Medusa demo runs at 37 fps average (all settings maxed out), compared to 22 fps I was getting with my old GTX 285 card (and the same CPU).
I run 3D vision on a 'standard' 1920x1080 display at 120 Hz. So for any similar setup, a Q9550/Q9650 quad core (perhaps even an AMD Phenom II X4 or an overclocked Intel Core2 Duo E8600) should do the job.
Now if you go SLI and opt for fancy stuff such as 3D surround/Eyefinity, you might need more horsepower.

I'm no computer specialist, but I'd say your question boils down to how well the game itself supports multi-core CPU.
[quote name='teardropmina' date='22 November 2010 - 10:29 PM' timestamp='1290464942' post='1150170']

I'd like an answer from someone who really knows the technical aspect of 3d vision. how much a factor of cpu is to 3d vision gaming? will more cores help out the overall 3d gaming performance?





I posted recently something along these lines. In short, I monitored the CPU vs GPU usage while running games (and some benchmark tools) and my conclusion is that you don't need as much CPU power as some folks might lend you to believe. More CPU power certainly doesn't hurt, but you might easily end up spending hundreds of $ for a minimal performance boost.



I currently have a Q9650 quad core (stock speed, i.e. 3GHz) and I haven't yet seen a game where the CPU clearly holds the GPU back (GTX 580).

Moreover, the Medusa demo runs at 37 fps average (all settings maxed out), compared to 22 fps I was getting with my old GTX 285 card (and the same CPU).

I run 3D vision on a 'standard' 1920x1080 display at 120 Hz. So for any similar setup, a Q9550/Q9650 quad core (perhaps even an AMD Phenom II X4 or an overclocked Intel Core2 Duo E8600) should do the job.

Now if you go SLI and opt for fancy stuff such as 3D surround/Eyefinity, you might need more horsepower.



I'm no computer specialist, but I'd say your question boils down to how well the game itself supports multi-core CPU.

#8
Posted 11/22/2010 11:45 PM   
thanks for the reply. my sli days were over after 8800gtx and I don't see I'm going for 3d surround in near future (I have too many monitors around already). my current 3d vision rig has a i5 750 in it, which across the board in standard gaming benchmarks, it stands toe to toe with i7 cpus, even the hex-core ones. the problem is just that, we don't have cpu benchmark for 3d vision gaming.
I ask this question for two reasons. one is that my nerdy self going off: have a chance now to get a "cheaper" i7 970 and very tempting to build a hex-core rig, though I don't really have use of it (my i7 920 rig is more than enough for my mutlti-tasking use). if indeed more core can help out 3d gaming, I might just give my self a reason to do it^^"

another is that when I play Ghosterbusters in 3d vision, the whole library level becomes a slide show area, with all the books falling out of shelves. from that I can tell, it's the cpu doing the physics caculating. in standard gaming, there'll be no lag problem. from this I think 3d vision will somehow make cpu less efficient or work harder than in standard gaming. I just don't know how it works. when playing a game such as Ghostbusters in 3d, what exactly prevents cpu to do the physics computing as efficiently?
thanks for the reply. my sli days were over after 8800gtx and I don't see I'm going for 3d surround in near future (I have too many monitors around already). my current 3d vision rig has a i5 750 in it, which across the board in standard gaming benchmarks, it stands toe to toe with i7 cpus, even the hex-core ones. the problem is just that, we don't have cpu benchmark for 3d vision gaming.

I ask this question for two reasons. one is that my nerdy self going off: have a chance now to get a "cheaper" i7 970 and very tempting to build a hex-core rig, though I don't really have use of it (my i7 920 rig is more than enough for my mutlti-tasking use). if indeed more core can help out 3d gaming, I might just give my self a reason to do it^^"



another is that when I play Ghosterbusters in 3d vision, the whole library level becomes a slide show area, with all the books falling out of shelves. from that I can tell, it's the cpu doing the physics caculating. in standard gaming, there'll be no lag problem. from this I think 3d vision will somehow make cpu less efficient or work harder than in standard gaming. I just don't know how it works. when playing a game such as Ghostbusters in 3d, what exactly prevents cpu to do the physics computing as efficiently?

epenny size =/= nerdiness

#9
Posted 11/23/2010 06:30 AM   
thanks for the reply. my sli days were over after 8800gtx and I don't see I'm going for 3d surround in near future (I have too many monitors around already). my current 3d vision rig has a i5 750 in it, which across the board in standard gaming benchmarks, it stands toe to toe with i7 cpus, even the hex-core ones. the problem is just that, we don't have cpu benchmark for 3d vision gaming.
I ask this question for two reasons. one is that my nerdy self going off: have a chance now to get a "cheaper" i7 970 and very tempting to build a hex-core rig, though I don't really have use of it (my i7 920 rig is more than enough for my mutlti-tasking use). if indeed more core can help out 3d gaming, I might just give my self a reason to do it^^"

another is that when I play Ghosterbusters in 3d vision, the whole library level becomes a slide show area, with all the books falling out of shelves. from that I can tell, it's the cpu doing the physics caculating. in standard gaming, there'll be no lag problem. from this I think 3d vision will somehow make cpu less efficient or work harder than in standard gaming. I just don't know how it works. when playing a game such as Ghostbusters in 3d, what exactly prevents cpu to do the physics computing as efficiently?
thanks for the reply. my sli days were over after 8800gtx and I don't see I'm going for 3d surround in near future (I have too many monitors around already). my current 3d vision rig has a i5 750 in it, which across the board in standard gaming benchmarks, it stands toe to toe with i7 cpus, even the hex-core ones. the problem is just that, we don't have cpu benchmark for 3d vision gaming.

I ask this question for two reasons. one is that my nerdy self going off: have a chance now to get a "cheaper" i7 970 and very tempting to build a hex-core rig, though I don't really have use of it (my i7 920 rig is more than enough for my mutlti-tasking use). if indeed more core can help out 3d gaming, I might just give my self a reason to do it^^"



another is that when I play Ghosterbusters in 3d vision, the whole library level becomes a slide show area, with all the books falling out of shelves. from that I can tell, it's the cpu doing the physics caculating. in standard gaming, there'll be no lag problem. from this I think 3d vision will somehow make cpu less efficient or work harder than in standard gaming. I just don't know how it works. when playing a game such as Ghostbusters in 3d, what exactly prevents cpu to do the physics computing as efficiently?

epenny size =/= nerdiness

#10
Posted 11/23/2010 06:30 AM   
[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']
the problem is just that, we don't have cpu benchmark for 3d vision gaming.
[/quote]
Yeah, I was complaining about that the other day too. Though you can still benchmark yourself using Unigine Heaven 2.1 in 3D, for example. For games, all you have to consider is the 30-40% frame rate drop when switching to 3D (varies a bit depending on game and setup).

[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']
I ask this question for two reasons. one is that my nerdy self going off: have a chance now to get a "cheaper" i7 970 and very tempting to build a hex-core rig, though I don't really have use of it (my i7 920 rig is more than enough for my mutlti-tasking use). if indeed more core can help out 3d gaming, I might just give my self a reason to do it^^"
[/quote]

Put things in perspective a bit: the passmark scores for i5 720 and i7 920 are around 4200 and 5500 respectively. By comparison, the fastest commercially available consumer CPU on the market - i7 980X - has a score of around 10400. But is also costs 2.5 times more than your i7 920 and almost 5 times more than i5 720. Is it really worth it, especially if you don't really need it?
If you're really itching to throw away big bucks, why not waiting for sandy bridge, it's just around the corner. At least you'll really have the latest and greatest then.


[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']
when I play Ghosterbusters in 3d vision, the whole library level becomes a slide show area, with all the books falling out of shelves. from that I can tell, it's the cpu doing the physics caculating. in standard gaming, there'll be no lag problem. from this I think 3d vision will somehow make cpu less efficient or work harder than in standard gaming. I just don't know how it works. when playing a game such as Ghostbusters in 3d, what exactly prevents cpu to do the physics computing as efficiently?
[/quote]

I don't know enough to answer that, but my question to you is, are you sure your CPU is the bottleneck? I advise you to do the same exercise and see for yourself. Monitor the CPU and GPU load using nvidia's system monitor (or any other such tool), and save the log data to a txt file. After that use Excel to plot the data (time on x-axis, load in % on the y axis). If you plot both the CPU and GPU load on the same graph, that should give you a clearer picture, particularly when the game "stutters". I get you'll see your GPU running at 95-100% and your CPU at 50-80%.
[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']

the problem is just that, we don't have cpu benchmark for 3d vision gaming.



Yeah, I was complaining about that the other day too. Though you can still benchmark yourself using Unigine Heaven 2.1 in 3D, for example. For games, all you have to consider is the 30-40% frame rate drop when switching to 3D (varies a bit depending on game and setup).



[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']

I ask this question for two reasons. one is that my nerdy self going off: have a chance now to get a "cheaper" i7 970 and very tempting to build a hex-core rig, though I don't really have use of it (my i7 920 rig is more than enough for my mutlti-tasking use). if indeed more core can help out 3d gaming, I might just give my self a reason to do it^^"





Put things in perspective a bit: the passmark scores for i5 720 and i7 920 are around 4200 and 5500 respectively. By comparison, the fastest commercially available consumer CPU on the market - i7 980X - has a score of around 10400. But is also costs 2.5 times more than your i7 920 and almost 5 times more than i5 720. Is it really worth it, especially if you don't really need it?

If you're really itching to throw away big bucks, why not waiting for sandy bridge, it's just around the corner. At least you'll really have the latest and greatest then.





[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']

when I play Ghosterbusters in 3d vision, the whole library level becomes a slide show area, with all the books falling out of shelves. from that I can tell, it's the cpu doing the physics caculating. in standard gaming, there'll be no lag problem. from this I think 3d vision will somehow make cpu less efficient or work harder than in standard gaming. I just don't know how it works. when playing a game such as Ghostbusters in 3d, what exactly prevents cpu to do the physics computing as efficiently?





I don't know enough to answer that, but my question to you is, are you sure your CPU is the bottleneck? I advise you to do the same exercise and see for yourself. Monitor the CPU and GPU load using nvidia's system monitor (or any other such tool), and save the log data to a txt file. After that use Excel to plot the data (time on x-axis, load in % on the y axis). If you plot both the CPU and GPU load on the same graph, that should give you a clearer picture, particularly when the game "stutters". I get you'll see your GPU running at 95-100% and your CPU at 50-80%.

#11
Posted 11/23/2010 01:44 PM   
[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']
the problem is just that, we don't have cpu benchmark for 3d vision gaming.
[/quote]
Yeah, I was complaining about that the other day too. Though you can still benchmark yourself using Unigine Heaven 2.1 in 3D, for example. For games, all you have to consider is the 30-40% frame rate drop when switching to 3D (varies a bit depending on game and setup).

[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']
I ask this question for two reasons. one is that my nerdy self going off: have a chance now to get a "cheaper" i7 970 and very tempting to build a hex-core rig, though I don't really have use of it (my i7 920 rig is more than enough for my mutlti-tasking use). if indeed more core can help out 3d gaming, I might just give my self a reason to do it^^"
[/quote]

Put things in perspective a bit: the passmark scores for i5 720 and i7 920 are around 4200 and 5500 respectively. By comparison, the fastest commercially available consumer CPU on the market - i7 980X - has a score of around 10400. But is also costs 2.5 times more than your i7 920 and almost 5 times more than i5 720. Is it really worth it, especially if you don't really need it?
If you're really itching to throw away big bucks, why not waiting for sandy bridge, it's just around the corner. At least you'll really have the latest and greatest then.


[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']
when I play Ghosterbusters in 3d vision, the whole library level becomes a slide show area, with all the books falling out of shelves. from that I can tell, it's the cpu doing the physics caculating. in standard gaming, there'll be no lag problem. from this I think 3d vision will somehow make cpu less efficient or work harder than in standard gaming. I just don't know how it works. when playing a game such as Ghostbusters in 3d, what exactly prevents cpu to do the physics computing as efficiently?
[/quote]

I don't know enough to answer that, but my question to you is, are you sure your CPU is the bottleneck? I advise you to do the same exercise and see for yourself. Monitor the CPU and GPU load using nvidia's system monitor (or any other such tool), and save the log data to a txt file. After that use Excel to plot the data (time on x-axis, load in % on the y axis). If you plot both the CPU and GPU load on the same graph, that should give you a clearer picture, particularly when the game "stutters". I get you'll see your GPU running at 95-100% and your CPU at 50-80%.
[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']

the problem is just that, we don't have cpu benchmark for 3d vision gaming.



Yeah, I was complaining about that the other day too. Though you can still benchmark yourself using Unigine Heaven 2.1 in 3D, for example. For games, all you have to consider is the 30-40% frame rate drop when switching to 3D (varies a bit depending on game and setup).



[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']

I ask this question for two reasons. one is that my nerdy self going off: have a chance now to get a "cheaper" i7 970 and very tempting to build a hex-core rig, though I don't really have use of it (my i7 920 rig is more than enough for my mutlti-tasking use). if indeed more core can help out 3d gaming, I might just give my self a reason to do it^^"





Put things in perspective a bit: the passmark scores for i5 720 and i7 920 are around 4200 and 5500 respectively. By comparison, the fastest commercially available consumer CPU on the market - i7 980X - has a score of around 10400. But is also costs 2.5 times more than your i7 920 and almost 5 times more than i5 720. Is it really worth it, especially if you don't really need it?

If you're really itching to throw away big bucks, why not waiting for sandy bridge, it's just around the corner. At least you'll really have the latest and greatest then.





[quote name='teardropmina' date='23 November 2010 - 06:30 AM' timestamp='1290493814' post='1150322']

when I play Ghosterbusters in 3d vision, the whole library level becomes a slide show area, with all the books falling out of shelves. from that I can tell, it's the cpu doing the physics caculating. in standard gaming, there'll be no lag problem. from this I think 3d vision will somehow make cpu less efficient or work harder than in standard gaming. I just don't know how it works. when playing a game such as Ghostbusters in 3d, what exactly prevents cpu to do the physics computing as efficiently?





I don't know enough to answer that, but my question to you is, are you sure your CPU is the bottleneck? I advise you to do the same exercise and see for yourself. Monitor the CPU and GPU load using nvidia's system monitor (or any other such tool), and save the log data to a txt file. After that use Excel to plot the data (time on x-axis, load in % on the y axis). If you plot both the CPU and GPU load on the same graph, that should give you a clearer picture, particularly when the game "stutters". I get you'll see your GPU running at 95-100% and your CPU at 50-80%.

#12
Posted 11/23/2010 01:44 PM   
Scroll To Top