Dual Core / Quad Core

[gunsage]

Hello everyone. I've run into the following problem twice and I think this is something that needs to be addressed:

- Game comes on sale.
- Buy game.
- Game doesn't work.
- Try to get help from forums.
- lol, u only hav dual core, ur rig suuuuuxxx

In the first instance, I was able to get the game to run (Witcher 3), but it required using this B.E.S. tool. However, yes, it does run and without issue. Without the B.E.S. tool, cutscenes don't play properly, but everything else in the game runs fine. The developer's rationale for this was they applied an update that further optimized quad core systems and dual core systems were never really supported anyway (which isn't entirely true as they worked before the update and G.O.G. allowed players to rollback the version to make it work without the B.E.S. tool).

In the second instance, Far Cry 4 was on sale, so I got it, downloaded it, and it simply comes up with a black window and that's it. I tried every single possible fix prescribed both on here and Ubisoft's forums to no avail. What I kept seeing, of course, is people saying it simply wouldn't run if you had a dual core system, but absolutely no reason why other than "welp, it's not supported, so whatever."

Anyway, the purpose of this post is if you look at the minimum system requirements for both of these games, NEITHER one mentions you need a quad core system. Sure, it mentions recommended processors, but for someone who isn't that well versed in what processors are dual, quad, or whatever, this becomes a problem.

My suggestion is in the future when a game comes out, we should still have the min/recommended sysreqs, but have a small (dual core) or (quad core) out to the side to help the less techie people out a little. I'm in the works to potentially get a new PC, but that might take a couple of months.

If I had known the games weren't supported for a dual core system, I would have bought them for the PS3 or waited until I got a PS4, new PC, etc. I'm also not the only gamer who has been burned on this and I probably won't be the last, so adding in something that explicitly said you needed at least a dual/quad would help.

Even better would be something that would analyze your system before purchase and let you know if it was going to work or not and why. Anyway, thanks for the read. I know it was a bit long, but I think this would definitely help the community and prospective buyers.

[ KARR™]

It'd still confuse people.

Adding in 'Single Core', 'Dual Core', 'Quad Core', 'Hexa Core', 'Octo Core' or 'Deca Core' would be fine assuming you KNOW what you have. But then you'll confuse the matter as people say "i can see 8 processors in my pc!" when they actually have 4 and have HyperThreading.

In the case of Far Cry it states it requires an i5-750. i5 processors can be either a dual or quad core type, but the 750 is a quad core processor. You may find that some items will work with EITHER a quad or dual core, but sometimes it just comes down to knowing which processor you have and what the minimum is. You may find that it states a dual core, but you still don't have the processor power needed - so you meet the core requirements but not the speed requirements!

[Buck]

Originally posted by K.A.R.R.:

But then you'll confuse the matter as people say "i can see 8 processors in my pc!" when they actually have 4 and have HyperThreading.

The # of physical cores doesn't actually matter, a 4 core with hyperthreading is still 8 logical cores and is still able to run 8 threads at a time (2 per physical core), thus increasing the potential workload performed as compared to a 4 core running 4 threads.

An extreme example of the concept of logical cores is the UltraSPARC T-Series RISC CPU's. The T2 Series came in 4, 6 or 8 core variants which could run 8 threads per core. That means running 32, 48 or 64 threads at one time. This is HIGHLY symmetric processing. This means that those CPU's are REALLY awesome at running multi-threaded workloads, but stink at single threaded stuff. (X86 CPU's don't have this weakness, it's just an aspect of the UST series design)

When it comes to game requirements, unless X# of cores or greater is explicitly specified then it doesn't matter there either. What matters then is a relative comparison, and more so, what software you are running. For example, a newer model dual core running 4ghz could theoretically outperform an older model quad core@3Ghz, or even 4.5ghz (assuming it could OC stabily). But only with multi-threaded software designed to take advantage of more cores (this is not exactly true. the OS can schedule single threads on any CPU core, but a multi-threaded app still takes better advantage)

Basically OP, you're going to need to learn how to do a relative comparision between your system and requirements if you want to play games on your PC. You can use tools like "can i run it? (google for it), too. If you just don't want to be bothered then gaming on console may be the better option for you.

[Joki the Disco Bandit]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

According to that page 2-CPU users and 4-CPU users are virtually tied in terms of total share, with dual actually enjoying a slight lead over quad.

I think you can safely ignore these people: "- lol, u only hav dual core, ur rig suuuuuxxx". Even if they weren't simply being jerks, they're in the minority in comparison to your setup anyway, if only slightly.

Other people have pointed out the more technical details of the situation, so I figured I'd chime in on the human aspect. :)

[gunsage]

Originally posted by Buck:

Basically OP, you're going to need to learn how to do a relative comparision between your system and requirements if you want to play games on your PC. You can use tools like "can i run it? (google for it), too. If you just don't want to be bothered then gaming on console may be the better option for you.

Uh, I think you're missing the point. The point is currently there is NOTHING to say whether the processor in question is a single, dual, quad, megatron, or whatever core processor. Nothing. Literally nothing. Yeah, every single time I go to buy a game, I could go "hmm I wonder if that's a quad core processor" and then go to look it up...or Steam could have something beside it to help the layman by TELLING them it's a dual/quad/whatever.

Secondly, it would be helpful to have a tool that would automatically tell the user and caution them if they did not meet the system requirements as set by the developer when you actually went to purchase something. Third, I play games on my PC. Almost 700, in fact. What a stupid thing to tell someone who has been on steam as long as I have.

This was actually stated in another thread to another user, that OBVIOUSLY they weren't using a gaming PC because OF COURSE only gaming PCs have quad or higher processors. No, that simply isn't true. This also further distracts the issue that if someone who isn't very techie comes across a minimum system requirement that throws out some random processor, that literally does not mean anything to them.

While most people that play games on their PC are a tad more techie, there are many who would still save a lot of time and heart ache by having it simply laid out there for them. Finally, again, I'm not the only one. There are plenty of people complaining in the forums because they bought a game and it simply doesn't work because they didn't meet the minimum system requirements.

In a lot of these cases, having one of the methods I recommended would have prevented such an instance from occurring.