Assassinator Wrote:

SchmilK Wrote:Hi, welcome to the reason i quit playing computer games after bashing console games and only playing PC games for the past 20+ years.

Alot of great games just play straight up poorly on multicore computers :(  Infact, Battlefield 2, the game i put in 1000+hours online significantly played worse and worse the faster my computer got :(  Going from a Pentium 4 to AMD X2 to CoreDuo to Core2Duo...each time the game introduce more lag, more loading time, less fps during high action times :(  Each new cpu also got the latest in video cards...which helped less as well :(

Now I say Playstation 3 for m3  :)  (or the wii with the wife :P )

It's still illogical, because even if the game is only using 1 core, the processing power of that single core should still be rising (eg. each core of your core2 is more powerful than a core of your old AthlonX2).


I've always been GPU limited, all the way from the start of time to now.

Well, Pentium 4 had a 3.06GHz HT single core.. average Core Duos were lower single core clocks.

I know clocks may not make a difference but its a reasonable assumption I think xP

Senseito7 Wrote:Well, Pentium 4 had a 3.06GHz HT single core..

The fastest P4 is much higher than 3.06GHz.  They had a 3.8GHz one I think (really expensive extreme edition).

Senseito7 Wrote:average Core Duos were lower single core clocks.

I know clocks may not make a difference but its a reasonable assumption I think xP

If I remember correctly, Core2 is like twice or more as powerful per clock as P4...

And his core2 is an E8400, 3GHz.

SchmilK Wrote:Hi, welcome to the reason i quit playing computer games after bashing console games and only playing PC games for the past 20+ years.

Alot of great games just play straight up poorly on multicore computers :(  Infact, Battlefield 2, the game i put in 1000+hours online significantly played worse and worse the faster my computer got :(  Going from a Pentium 4 to AMD X2 to CoreDuo to Core2Duo...each time the game introduce more lag, more loading time, less fps during high action times :(  Each new cpu also got the latest in video cards...which helped less as well :(

Now I say Playstation 3 for m3  :)  (or the wii with the wife :P )

c'mon,. PC gaming looks way more awesome then the PS3,.

I have a corei7 with a 295gtx and this is still the fastest way to computing games,.
(prob untill the new nvidia directx11 graphics card comes out)

although i stepped from PC to PS3 gaming lately, i can't say games look better,. or load faster etc,..
I like the PS3 because of the ease of using the console, trophy system and some exclusive PS3 games,. but again the PS3 and Wii is no match for the PC (multi platform)

If a game only uses1 core,. then the game must be either very old or something is wrong with the drivers >!>?!?

Thing is if you're computer config is stuffed, then games will suffer.  On a console, you don't get these stuff-ups - it's like how Mac OSX fans say that things "just work" without viruses and stuff since you can't get them there.
It's certainly a valid point I guess - though I'd say a few simple tricks could get around these issues - such as having two OSes - one a "gaming OS" and the other for work.  Will be more difficult to set up and may not suit your tastes I guess.

I think the reason for the issue in this thread would be the OS/installed applications causing problems.  If Hellgiver has a clean spare install of Windows, he could confirm it.


Games definitely shouldn't get slower on newer processors, at least games made later than around 1996.  It would most likely be software or perhaps newer platforms causing problems.
For some reason, for example, FEAR seems to cap itself at 15fps on Windows 7 at various places.  Runs perfectly fine on Windows XP though (have tried the latest patch to no avail).

(This post was last modified: 14/02/2010 06:43 PM by ProperBritish.)

99% of the time your gaming performance is probably GPU bottlenecked rather than CPU (unless you're one of these guys who spend $1500 getting 2x 5970).  Games really don't require all that much CPU power compared to GPU power.

Hellgiver Wrote:Hmmm... may just be the software, like you guys have said.

But if the game IS single thread only, AND can't run properly on a single 3.4GHz i7 core, that's extremely dumb.  Because if it doesn't run on that, it won't run properly on 98% of the systems out there.  In terms single thread performance, core i7 is still among the best.  (core i5 probably better, because they're duals with much higher average clock).

Assassinator Wrote:

Senseito7 Wrote:Well, Pentium 4 had a 3.06GHz HT single core..

The fastest P4 is much higher than 3.06GHz.  They had a 3.8GHz one I think (really expensive extreme edition).

Senseito7 Wrote:average Core Duos were lower single core clocks.

I know clocks may not make a difference but its a reasonable assumption I think xP

If I remember correctly, Core2 is like twice or more as powerful per clock as P4...

And his core2 is an E8400, 3GHz.

Only mentioned 3.06GHz cause I had one xD

Pentium 4s had Hyperthreading ~ it was taken out up until "Intel released the Nehalem (Core i7) in November 2008 in which hyper-threading makes a return. Nehalem contains 4 cores and effectively scales 8 threads." >> perhaps Torchlight was made to take advantage of it.. and the lack of it hurts performance?

---

Anyway.. you probably have already but I thought it might be worth mentioning.. tried patching it?

http://www.torchlightgame.com/download/

(This post was last modified: 16/02/2010 03:07 AM by S7*.)