CPU intensive game - need dual core support?

acrh2 · Post by **acrh2** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 17:05

Since this game is so much cpu-intensive, perhaps Egosoft should comission someone to write a dual-core SMP version of the executable.
They could even get some money from Intel and AMD for showcasing their brand spanking new dual core cpus - I mean, the difference between single core and dual core would be huge in this particular game. I think X3 would be a perfect case for the dual core designs, pretty and hungry.

Erev Rav · Post by **Erev Rav** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 17:08

Second

shifty lookin spoon · Post by **shifty lookin spoon** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 17:39

put one and one together and get two... two processors... second X3...

Tare69 · Post by **Tare69** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 17:54

And if you have 2x940 X2 Opterons so you have 4xCores... X4

This dualcore support is on MUST on X3. X3 so power hungry

And that AGEIA PhysX card support to count physic what there are lot on battles...

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28803

Misinformed · Post by **Misinformed** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 18:00

Or you they could just continue to optimise the game for everyone, the majority do not have dual cores.

Silent Shark · Post by **Silent Shark** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 18:01

I've recently done a PC upgrade, and now X3 runs very well.

I'm using a A64 3700 and a GF7800GT, so it's not mainstream stuff.

X3 is just 1 hardware generation too soon.

Dual core would be nice, but not neccessary.

techno-mole · Post by **techno-mole** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 18:10

dual core would be nice, but not everyone has dual core cpu's, i think it should be open to everyone who wants it without having to worry about upgrading, or worry about upgrading too much, as in a new graphics card, or another memory stick, when you upgrade cpu's you sometimes get into the realm of main board upgrades and before you know it you have spent a small fortune, like me

but i was going to do it anyway.

xeon_1 · Post by **xeon_1** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 18:20

for the next game it would be good
by that time there would be a larger portion of people with a dual core and even more people with 64bit cpu's

so a game engine that could take advantage of those 2 things would be great

Axeface · Post by **Axeface** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 18:22

Duel core support would be excellent. Im running a 4800 and only get 20-30 fps, terrible

I second this notion!

Trancepilot · Post by **Trancepilot** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 18:28

Silent Shark, do you get any slowdowns in any sectors with that setup?

aka1nas · Post by **aka1nas** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 18:53

The X series is a natural candidate for multithreading due to the simulation of every sector simultaneously. Even running OOS simulation in a seperate thread would help a fair bit, I think. Support for something like Ageia's PPU or the Havok engine that offloads physics to the graphics card would help with those big battles that have lots of projectiles flying around. It would be nice if they could even just multithread the engine that runs scripts. X usually bogs down if you run a lot of global scripts.

Guysmiley · Post by **Guysmiley** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 19:34

A multithreaded version would be nice (but a coding nightmare, if it wasn't designed to support it from the get go) but a "64 bit version" would be useless. Instructions that are 64 bits long don't automagically run faster than 32 bit long instructions.

C_M_W · Post by **C_M_W** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 19:44

Yeah,I am all for it.I just upgraded to a Asus A8N-SLI deluxe running
an AMD X2 4400 cpu & dual Geforce 7800 GT OC cards.
Unfortunately,I now need to upgrade my Antec 500 watt power supply to
power up both cards in sli mode.

Jon Tetrino · Post by **Jon Tetrino** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 19:45

Silent Shark wrote: X3 is just 1 hardware generation too soon.

funnily enough, so was X2

scritty · Post by **scritty** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 19:53

Axeface wrote:Duel core support would be excellent. Im running a 4800 and only get 20-30 fps, terrible I second this notion!

I have same processor with 2x 7800GT's (overclocked) and just get about average of 42 fps (playable) with about 6 fps (prolonged in some places)

I had about 50fps in COD 2 average. Installed the HT and Dual core patch and the frame rate jumped to 72 average.

So well worth the effort (from my POV)

Clarker

Post by **Cycrow** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 20:26

well u dont have to make the game dual core supported, u jsut have to make it multithreaded
which means changing the whole game engine
which would take alot of time and effort, which really isn't worth it, especially for a patch to help out a very small amount of ppl

acrh2 · Post by **acrh2** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 20:32

Cycrow wrote:well u dont have to make the game dual core supported, u jsut have to make it multithreaded
which means changing the whole game engine
which would take alot of time and effort, which really isn't worth it, especially for a patch to help out a very small amount of ppl

You comment sounds excessively narrowminded to me. Not even going to think about the future?

Post by **Cycrow** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 20:36

no, im just being realistic

game engines, even for simple games r incredibly complex and changing it to use multithreading is not an easy task at all
multithreading programming can be a right nightmare, especially when its a very large program

if it was to built like that in the first place, then maybe, but converting an esisting engine to properly use dual core will require an almost complete rewrite of the code

so y would they spend all that time just to benift a small number of ppl when they could spend it adding new content to thier game to improve it for everyone else

Identitystolen · Post by **Identitystolen** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 20:49

I wish I could afford a multi-core processor, but it ain't happening... Heck, I'm stuck with my FX5700 for awhile, so I find all these un-godly (to me) computer having the same problems funny.

In all fairness though, if Egosoft could get something out to support these things they should do it. I mean may as well keep the hard core guys and gals happy. Really, unless they can find some way to optimize the engine so it runs better, it won't really matter how much content they throw in if it runs like crap. So I say further optimization first, all else second.

scritty · Post by **scritty** » Wed, 11. Jan 06, 22:39

Cycrow wrote:well u dont have to make the game dual core supported, u jsut have to make it multithreaded
which means changing the whole game engine
which would take alot of time and effort, which really isn't worth it, especially for a patch to help out a very small amount of ppl

Well, don't want to sound confrontational...but that's not really true.

If the game is well coded, then there will be a separation of the various CPU controlled aspects anyway (AI, Physics, Graphic Plotting) and in somecases one of these can be relatively simply re-routed to a second CPU (if available)

I read Infinity Wards take on HT and multiple core support (which they added to Call Of Duty 2 after the games release) If I find the article again I'll put a link to it here.

Clarker

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

CPU intensive game - need dual core support?

CPU intensive game - need dual core support?