Welcome to
Mod The Sims
Online: 1487
News:
Have an account? Sign in:
pass:
If you don't have an account, why not sign up now? It's free!
Other sites: SimsWiki
Reply  Replies: 10 (Who?), Viewed: 5769 times.
Search this Thread
Old 7th Mar 2017, 8:42 PM DefaultMulti-core CPUs and Sims #1
AmandieLove
Original Poster

Forum Resident

Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 823


Hey. How many cores and threads can the sims games use? (Specifically Sims 2 and Sims 3.) I am looking at a good multi-core processor (AMD Ryzen 1700) and I want to see if the sims games will benefit too (not just productivity apps). Thanks.

~Someday my prince will come... And he better not bring all his hood's character files with him.~
@)->----- Place this ASCII flower in your sig as a thank you to all of our amazing moderators at MTS!
TS3 vs. Your CPU: The Solution
Shameless plug for my fledgeling Simblr here
Old 8th Mar 2017, 4:14 AM #2
ajaxsirius
Site Helper

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,092
1 Achievements


You'll see diminishing returns past two cores. As far as the Sims is concerned, If you only have X amount of dollars to spend you're better off spending it on clock speed/IPC than on more cores.

Four cores is worth it, more than that, not so much.
Old 8th Mar 2017, 10:28 AM #3
Nysha
Née whiterider



Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,586
Thanks: 42228 in 82 Posts
36 Achievements

View My Journal


afaik TS2 will still only use one core, so the advantage you get with multiple cores for TS2 is being able to offload everything else onto other cores so TS2 gets a whole core to itself. Clock speed is definitely more of an advantage than number of cores for sims, anyway.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Old 19th Jun 2017, 5:30 AM #4
enterprise24
Lab Assistant

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 124


Sims 2 = 1 core
Sims 3 = mainly 2 core but 3 core give ~14% more fps than 2 core. 4 core actually slightly lower fps probably due to overhead. Hyperthreading really help with 1 core but no benefit on 2 or 4 core.
Sims 4 = perfectly optimized for 4 core. 2 core without HT is very stuttering. 2 core with HT is a lot better. But 4 core give the most smoothness.
Old 29th Jun 2017, 8:58 PM DefaultSims 4 on Ryzen: Only uses 1 Core?!? #5
davidbuddy9
Test Subject

Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 6


Quote:
Originally Posted by enterprise24
Sims 2 = 1 core
Sims 3 = mainly 2 core but 3 core give ~14% more fps than 2 core. 4 core actually slightly lower fps probably due to overhead. Hyperthreading really help with 1 core but no benefit on 2 or 4 core.
Sims 4 = perfectly optimized for 4 core. 2 core without HT is very stuttering. 2 core with HT is a lot better. But 4 core give the most smoothness.


About Sims 4, I've noticed it lagging when I have multiple sims in a small house. The game itself doesn't look like its optimized for anything past one core as per the graphs in task manager, which is really sad for my Ryzen 7 1700. OC to 3.8 Ghz makes the game run no better than my old Haswell i3-4170 @ 3.7 Ghz (of course with the same GPU, GTX 1060 6GB). HWMonitor only shows one core pulling 3 to 4 watts with the other cores drawing less than 1 watt. Unless there is a multithreading option that I missed, I think my PC should be able to handle the game quite fine on ultra which many times it doesn't.



So clock speeds are more advantageous for the Sims 4 considering other cores are practically non-existant for the game. I must say this is a really poor decision from EA to not focus on multithreading.
Old 30th Jun 2017, 5:08 AM #6
ajaxsirius
Site Helper

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,092
1 Achievements


Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbuddy9
About Sims 4, I've noticed it lagging when I have multiple sims in a small house. The game itself doesn't look like its optimized for anything past one core as per the graphs in task manager, which is really sad for my Ryzen 7 1700. OC to 3.8 Ghz makes the game run no better than my old Haswell i3-4170 @ 3.7 Ghz (of course with the same GPU, GTX 1060 6GB). HWMonitor only shows one core pulling 3 to 4 watts with the other cores drawing less than 1 watt. Unless there is a multithreading option that I missed, I think my PC should be able to handle the game quite fine on ultra which many times it doesn't.



So clock speeds are more advantageous for the Sims 4 considering other cores are practically non-existant for the game. I must say this is a really poor decision from EA to not focus on multithreading.


I think they didn't focus on multithreading because most of their customers, and target market, aren't running PCs with more than 2 cores. At most they run 4 cores.
Old 1st Jul 2017, 8:00 PM #7
Nysha
Née whiterider



Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 19,586
Thanks: 42228 in 82 Posts
36 Achievements

View My Journal


I don't think that's true any more. Most entry-level CPUs nowadays are dual core, some are even quad though that's less common. Single core CPUs are dying out. It is possible that EA just didn't foresee that market change when they were designing the TS4 engine, and by the time it became clear that multithreading was going to be an issue it was too late in the development process to go back and improve support.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Old 18th Sep 2017, 12:25 AM #8
Kunder
Lab Assistant

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 115


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nysha
I don't think that's true any more. Most entry-level CPUs nowadays are dual core, some are even quad though that's less common. Single core CPUs are dying out. It is possible that EA just didn't foresee that market change when they were designing the TS4 engine, and by the time it became clear that multithreading was going to be an issue it was too late in the development process to go back and improve support.
I have no problems running TS2 on my dual/quad core systems.
Old 18th Sep 2017, 12:49 AM #9
Citysim
Forum Resident

Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 827


You do yourself no advantage of running TS2 with multiple cores, in fact without using a switch to lock it into a single core, the game will run worse.

As for TS4 with all packs installed, I wouldn't go less than a quad core, Windows 7 or 10 64bit, 8gig RAM is plenty, just get a decent graphics card, but too powerful that it will bottleneck your CPU, which in turn causes a lot of lag.
Old 19th Sep 2017, 11:43 PM #10
Kunder
Lab Assistant

Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 115


Quote:
Originally Posted by Citysim
You do yourself no advantage of running TS2 with multiple cores, in fact without using a switch to lock it into a single core, the game will run worse.

As for TS4 with all packs installed, I wouldn't go less than a quad core, Windows 7 or 10 64bit, 8gig RAM is plenty, just get a decent graphics card, but too powerful that it will bottleneck your CPU, which in turn causes a lot of lag.
I'm running quad core right now. No problems. Actually 2 physical cores, 4 logical. All cores running full time, and in "turbo" mode. Still no problems. The only adaption I've made, is with the nVidia performance program, and use CFF explorer to force the game to use more than two gb/ram. No bloatware, and only AVAST! in startup. I disagree about the advantage thing. I ran Sims 2 on a Toshiba Tecra Ivy Bridge i5 processor (TRUE quad core), and HD4000 graphics, and with a little tweaking, runs smooth as glass.
Indeed, it runs smoothly on my current computer.
It might help those using CD/DVD versions of TS2 (I do not use a CD/DVD version), to run the game on a virtual DVD drive. This helps with lag, load time, and quality of play.
Old 21st Sep 2017, 12:03 PM #11
Citysim
Forum Resident

Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 827


Had a problem of TS2 crashing constantly on modern machines, until I noticed in task manager crashes occured after the ram usage started to go above 1.5GIG of RAM, so yeah the more than 2gig switch in CFF Explorer was a life saver.

Good rule for TS4, if your game runs constantly at 50% everything is good, you can even upgrade your graphics card for more improvement,but when it starts hovering constantly at the 80-90% mark, then it's time to upgrade the CPU.
Reply


Section jump:


Powered by MariaDB Some icons by http://dryicons.com.