What's the reason behind the common belief that the majority of video games only utilize a single processor core?
What's the reason behind the common belief that the majority of video games only utilize a single processor core?
Upon hearing this, I began playing a few of my preferred titles. Each utilized all four processing units to their fullest extent, and I observed approximately 40 threads allocated to each game within the resource monitor. Is this typical for these types of games, or do most modern games actually employ more than one core simultaneously? Despite common assertions that games traditionally only utilize a single core.
Those who continue to assert this are either devoted to retro titles or basing their argument on every video game ever created and calculating an average. One could also contend that most games run at 1080p with a GTX 1060, which is accurate, yet it doesn’t represent the complete picture.
Those who continue to assert this are either clinging to classic titles or basing their argument on every video game ever created and calculating an average. One could also contend that most games run at 1080p with a GTX 1060, which is accurate, yet it doesn’t fully represent the situation.
Historically, game engines utilizing a single processing unit have largely disappeared for over ten years. Previously, most DirectX graphics tasks were handled by one core due to performance limitations and design choices, although developers did distribute physics, networking, and other processes across multiple cores. This situation persists even after the widespread adoption of DirectX 11. If you’re reading this, “single-core” is likely outdated or based on inaccurate information.
It’s a common belief that video games only utilize one processor core; however, it's accurate to state that many games aren’t designed to efficiently manage multiple cores—particularly those with more than four threads. A significant portion of gamers (approximately 70%) still employ 4-core CPUs, and the increased use of higher core counts in gaming workstations is a relatively new trend. Consequently, game developers are increasingly attempting to optimize their titles for compatibility with +4 (6 and 8 core) processors, aiming to distribute workloads across multiple cores more effectively and ensure optimal resource utilization (as seen in games like BF1 and BF5, and AC: Odyssey). Furthermore, Direct X 11 struggles with multi-core scaling, while Direct X 12 offers a more favorable environment for this type of optimization. Therefore, as newer games transition to Direct X 12, we can anticipate improved and more refined multi-core performance.
Furthermore, it’s important to note that the number of CPU cores/threads supported in video games has historically mirrored the core/thread counts of consoles produced by major game developers targeting both console and PC platforms. This practice largely stems from cost-saving measures during porting to PC systems. While the Xbox One X initially featured 8 cores, two were reserved for non-gaming functions; consequently, only newer consoles now typically offer 6 cores for games.
Older PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 systems utilized multi-core processors, predating their release by over ten years. Dual-core architectures were prevalent during that era, and these consoles possessed a greater number of processing threads. Quad-core processors have become dominant for just four years, according to Steam’s data analysis. The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One launched five years ago. Gaming consoles historically offered more threads than the typical personal computer gamer.
Older PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 consoles utilized multiple processing units, predating the widespread adoption of dual-core systems by a considerable margin. Quad-core processors have become dominant within the last four years, according to Steam’s data. The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One emerged approximately five years ago. Consoles traditionally boast greater thread counts than the typical PC gaming setup.
Indeed, console games are developed with specific hardware in mind, meticulously optimized for their unique configurations due to the consistent nature of that hardware (identical graphics cards and central processing units with fixed thread counts). This allows consoles to function effectively with comparatively weaker components compared to high-end gaming PCs. Conversely, PC game optimization is far more complex because software must accommodate a vast array of diverse hardware setups; achieving console-level refinement isn't feasible. However, for many years, 2 and 4 core CPUs were prevalent, influencing the optimization strategies of recent games. I recall instances, several years ago (approximately ten years), where disabling Hyper-Threading and individual cores actually enhanced frame rates in titles like CRYSIS.
This is evolving now; newer games are increasingly well-optimized for multiple cores. However, exceeding 16 threads can still introduce issues within certain games.
Frag Maniac:
Those continuing to assert this are primarily former players of older titles or basing their arguments on a generalized assessment of all video games. One could argue that most games currently operate at 1080p resolution with hardware comparable to a GTX 1060, which is accurate; however, it doesn’t fully represent the situation.
Although single-threaded games are now exceedingly rare, numerous titles still rely heavily on their primary processing thread, often overshadowing the performance of others. If a single thread consumes twice the available processing power compared to all other threads, the game's overall speed will largely be determined by that dominant thread’s capacity.
The specifics vary greatly depending on the games in question. Most current AAA multi-platform releases utilize 4 or more processing cores, however, the PC environment also contains numerous lesser-known titles created by independent developers with significantly less advanced graphics and engines. Many of these games can operate effectively using just one thread.