Since Oblivion does not use multiple cores it would stand to reason that:
Assuming you use the same graphiscs card:

A dual core CPU runing at 3.5Ghz will play Oblivion faster than a quad core CPU running at 2.6Ghz?

As I understand correctly, the lag is due to the CPU processing AI scripts (actors, lights, objects) and not textures VRAM usage.

Am I correct?

On another note:

As for textures, in my 140 hour gaming experience (using ATI 4870 1GB VRAM) over the past three weeks I discovered that:
Running QTP3 full and seeing VRAM consistently at 800MB outside (give or take 300MB at times) compared to running Vibrant textures and seeing VRAM consistently around 400MB consitently made no noticable difference in my game when outside. The lag when actors and lights were in play was the same - bad. I did find the vibrant textures are really nice, especially in dungeons and ruins. I finally settled on a combination of both.

I upgraded from a dual core CPU running at 3.0Ghz (AMD Athlon x2 64 6000+) to a quad core running at 2.8Ghz (i5-760) a few days ago. The difference in a heavily modded Oblivion is huge. Running 200+ mods, QTP3, Better Cities etc is now possible without dropping below the 30fps I have set OSR to. With my old computer I'd drop to 15-20 alot with Corepc Vibrant and no BC etc. And yes, I am still using the same GPU (5770). I do get some slowdowns when there's a bunch of torches around, but that seems to be all.

Not surprised, but that would be nothing to do with dual vs. quad, and everything to do with CPU architecture. If at first that doesn't sound quite right, trust me on this one. Or hey, look it up! (not necessarily you in particular, I mean, but anyone who doubts that). GHz ain't GHz, much of the time.

And yes, you're correct Peter, regarding dual vs. quad (assuming otherwise identical architecture) and CPU vs. GPU, with what affects what.


edit: For example, if I were to swap out my C2D e8400 (@ 4GHz) for a C2Q q9650 (also @ 4GHz, once I'm done with it ), there would be nothing that Oblivion could benefit from, despite doubling cores. Identical architecture, but 2x cores, same clock speed, and yes, it'd be the same FPS.

Also on an i5 760, oc'd to 3.66 and watercooled. Like Peste, the only lag I get is from a bunch of torches onscreen at the same time.

The difference between this and my old Core2duo 2.something is like night and day.

I always look at it this way:

1 Core = 100 % processing power.

2 Cores = 050 % processing power but Equal to a 1 Cores = 100 % processing power.

50% x 2 Core = 100% on 1 Core + Bonus ?.

Thats why a 2 core system gives a much smoother game play then a 1 core system.

No, that's not quite right either.

In multi-core systems, cores frequently go unused. Hence, the [re-]introduction of "turbo mode" lately.

In my system no core is unused when playing Oblivion.
The workload is balanced over both cores.
Usually 50 / 50 or above those numbers.

If my system has:

50% total workload ( Core 1 50% / Core 2 50% ) = 100% on a single core system
Sometimes
80% total workload ( Core 1 80% / Core 2 80% ) = 160% on a single core system

Interesting!

I'll have to check the usage myself, most definitely.

I know that when I've tried Oblivion on quad core setups, they seemed to do absolutely nothing for it. But perhaps... it does make (some) use of a dual after all. Hm.

Food for thought, anyway.

Here is a screenshot of Oblivion at work on my machine.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7503/cpuload.jpg
No fancy mods installed at this point, just the default game running.

I have never seen Oblivion run on a Quad core, could be different on those.
It would be nice if you could show us how that looks.

The Intel i5 and especially i7 architectures are of course superior to the old Core2Dual or Quads. It is in terms of caching, native internal commands and so on. BP, I very well remember your argument to this end of about 10 days or so ago.

As to the 50-50 question. The screenshot is not terribly conclusive. This is very much a question of resolution of the taskmanager panes, IMHO. Overall it still looks like 50-50 to me. See, I have a Logitech G15 keyboard with the LCD panel. Which is pretty useless by the way. ... BUT... I can make it display the core usage, and whenever I'm playing Oblivion it is 50-50 or 60-40 or 70-30 or 80-20... but the sum never gets above 100 which means only one fully used core. It's regrettable, but this is how it is. :shrug:

Oblivion does use multiple cores. The game is multithreaded. I can verify that by looking at my CPU gadget I use.

Testing with an i7-980X (6- core with hyperthreading)

my optical impression of CPU usage from the taskmanager
Oblivion (running around kvatch near the city wall) + OS, Firefox, AV

Core 1 a. 60 - 90 %       b. 0 %Core 2 a. 40 - 60 %       b. 0 - 5 % more 0Core 3 a. 0 - 5 %       b. 0 %Core 4 a. 0 - 5 %       b. 0 %Core 5 a. 0 %       b. 0 - 5 %Core 6 a. 0 %       b. 0 - 10 %

OS, Firefox, AV, writing ("mousing")

Core 1 a. 0 - 5 %       b. 0 %Core 2 a. 5 - 10 %       b. 0 - 5 % more 0Core 3 a. 0 %       b. 0 %Core 4 a. 0 - 5 % more 0       b. 0 %Core 5 a. 0 %       b. 0 - 5 %Core 6 a. 0 %       b. 0 - 10 %

I think Oblivion uses one core and it can use a second core, but the usage is unbalanced (poorly).




edit, Message:You have posted a message with more emoticons that this board allows. Please reduce the number of emoticons you've added to the message . edit, Message: ..., edit, Message: ..., edit, . .. where?, ... edit


EDIT:
above with OSR setting iThreadsFixedToCPUs = 6
with OSR setting iThreadsFixedToCPUs = 0 it uses more cores, but the usage of each core is more jumpy

Good feedback but let me put the question another way:

Would I have a smoother game especially where alot of NPCs were involved if I had:

4.0Ghz dual core
or
2.6Ghz quad core

I ask because I am thinking of changing my hardware for a better Oblivion game (yes I can afford it). So I could look for the fastest dual core processor or I could get the latest generation quad core processors and motherboard at slower speed. Which would improve my game AI the most? My assumption is the faster dual core as it would process the AI scripts quicker than a slower speed quad core.

faster core => better Oblivion game performance
but I recommend 2.6 Ghz quad core and overclock as much as possible
example: i7-920 2.67 GHz (oc range 3400Mhz - 4515MHz [oc- list hardwareluxx.de], 4 GHz with air-cooling possible)
example2: i5-750 2.67 GHz (oc range 3211MHz - 4720Mhz [oc- list hardwareluxx.de], 4 GHz with air-cooling possible)

I run Oblivion on a fairly underpowered laptop (Dual Core at 2.26GHz, Nvidia GeForce 9700M GT). I do experience quite a bit of slowdown at times but have come up with a reasonable balance between performance and mods for my build.

Of all the things I tried to squeeze out extra performance, messing with Oblivion.ini and setting up my graphics card to be CUDA-enabled (which just boiled down to getting the latest driver installed), helped the most. CUDA basically allows my graphics card to act as a VPU (virtual processing unit), when it has cycles available but the CPU is maxed out. I assume ATI cards have a similar capability.

EDIT: well, at least CUDA seemed to help. Now that I read up on it, I'm not sure it would have any effect in Oblivion.

I took a screenshot of CPU (and memory) usage, running Oblivion, going from one fairly busy area (via fast travel) to another *very* busy one - the latter being the Better Cities IC Waterfront District, with many other mods also adding to the impact (e.g., fish, NPCs, AI, scripts, etc., etc.)

It seems the best it can do is to use "~150% of a CPU", so to speak. That is to say, 100% of one core, and 50% of the other. From memory, this doesn't change whatsoever, if you happen to be using quad core (or more).

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/8045/memuse.jpg

I have been experimenting with some new OSR settings, plus ini tweaks. :shrug: Could be they're affecting usage, one way or the other.

You can't just go by the Ghz rating when comparing processor performance, there's lots of other factors involved. As mentioned by Tommy H, the newer quad cores are no doubt more efficient overall than the older dual-cores and can perform better at a lower Ghz rating. Just like a slower dual core can out-perform the single core Pentium 4 processor. Judging strictly by clock speed doesn't mean as much as it used to, it's only one benchmark to consider. If you're going to upgrade your system anyway, you may as well go with the most current technology available.

@Peter ID
What 4.0 GHz dual core CPU? Is that an AMD?? Is that overclocked or stock?

If you're ready to overclock, then definitely go with Baphometal's advice to overclock an i7 Intel (not a 6-core AMD, Intel has the faster architecture for games at this point), if you've got the stones for it . If you do have the stones, then build the ultimate rig and that would include an SSD, a soundcard and especially a watercooling for the CPU. It will allow you more overclocking than air cooling while being wonderfully quiet all the way. But also be ready to pay the electricity bill... the power consumption will increase quite dramatically and disproportionally...

If you want to use the OC-ed rig also for mundane tasks other than OB, you can store 2 (or more) BIOS setups: one for mundane tasks with no OC (or even some undervolting), and one with hardcoe OC settings that you load only when playing OB. Since it's a good idea to make a fresh boot before entering "serious" OB sessions, a quick visit to the BIOS is in order. By not running OC settings all the time you increase the longuivitiy of the hardware.

Being a computer guy in real life, overclocking seems to my my dumb spot. I tried twice with no success. Even looked at the screen shots. I may need to find someone who can do it for me. Thanks for all the help on how I should spend my tax refund

CPU architecture can make GHz ratings almost irrelevant. This is an old example but a latest 1500MHz Pentium 3 outperformed the initial 1500MHZ Pentium 4 due to the P3's 2 instruction pipelines vs the P4's single pipeline. In fact, I think the purpose of that single pipeline was to be able to push up the clock speeds but it was a marketing gimmick more than anything beneficial for technology. In fact, the Core 2's and I7's are decedents of the Pentium 3 while the 'Pentium 4' was a completely different species of general purpose processors (Netburst).

ACTUALLY... :laugh: Intel is coming out with new Sandy Bridge CPU's these days. The new i7-2600 top of the line is really fast and furirous according to a review in PCGamesHardware which is reliable German gaming hardware magazine that I'm reading every month. And apparently it is not even priced out of this world! You need a new motherboard for it though. For overclocking make sure you get the "K" version of the i7.

As to overclocking itself, this is mainly dependent on the motherboard you have. There are LOTS of guides out there and LOTS of forums with LOTS of geeky people who apparently do nothing but overclocking their PC's all day. This really should be least of your problems. Overclocking is bit like modding Oblivion: First of all be patient, don't rush. Start fiddling carefully, test. Fiddle some more, test again. Fiddle still more, test... until... bliviongate: .... then take one or two steps back.