CPU intensive game - need dual core support?

General discussions about the games by Egosoft including X-BTF, XT, X², X³: Reunion, X³: Terran Conflict and X³: Albion Prelude.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Martin Logan
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun, 26. Sep 04, 10:42
x3

i dont think they should

Post by Martin Logan » Fri, 18. Aug 06, 20:35

the way i see it that transferring data between two cpus would require some power as well i think it would be better to improve one cpu then simply putting two slower cpus together of course its just my opnion but i think transferring data between two cpus just takes too much power away in the first place

Jon Tetrino
Posts: 3276
Joined: Mon, 2. Aug 04, 22:27
x4

Re: i dont think they should

Post by Jon Tetrino » Fri, 18. Aug 06, 21:25

Martin Logan wrote:the way i see it that transferring data between two cpus would require some power as well i think it would be better to improve one cpu then simply putting two slower cpus together of course its just my opnion but i think transferring data between two cpus just takes too much power away in the first place
Ummm when the speed is given for a dual core CPU, it is given PER CORE.

so a 2.6Ghz Core 2 Duo has 2.6Ghz per core of processing power, and there is very little if any power taken away fromt he two cores running together.

snyderm
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed, 1. Mar 06, 20:09
x3

Post by snyderm » Fri, 18. Aug 06, 21:30

Edited for quality content.

There was none.

Sorry for the spam.
Last edited by snyderm on Fri, 18. Aug 06, 22:06, edited 1 time in total.

Cycrow
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Posts: 22201
Joined: Sun, 14. Nov 04, 23:26
x4

Post by Cycrow » Fri, 18. Aug 06, 22:00

Zakalwe wrote:OOS update doesn't need to be at a high frequency, right now it's soemthing like one in 3? seconds. I cannot see a real problem with synchronisation. But then i am not a programmer...

In any case seperating OOS wouldn't help much as most CPU usage is used for IS, whatever other people say. Even i have my >>60fps when seeing only starfield in a not busy sector and i haven't got the high-end CPU. It get's slow when there are objects on the screen (I can blame my TI, other players can't).
Just so you know, game engines generally update as fast as they render, ie, if you ur running at 60fps, then the game will update 60 times a second.

slightly more than every 3 seconds ;)

Carl Sumner
Posts: 5145
Joined: Mon, 23. Feb 04, 01:28
x4

Post by Carl Sumner » Sat, 19. Aug 06, 01:55

Cycrow wrote:Just so you know, game engines generally update as fast as they render, ie, if you ur running at 60fps, then the game will update 60 times a second.

slightly more than every 3 seconds ;)
That's a different kind of update. Actually each thread can have it's own cycle rate, usually limited to allow other threads some processing time.

Plus, if there are locally controlled thread systems, each thread controller kernal will have it's own cycle rate depending on the load. In X3 the script processor seems to be a locally controlled, cooperatively scheduled, thread system.
:)

As far as the talk about protecting access to hardware or global variables from thread collisions, the Windows API provides several tools for this, built in. The programmers just have to use them. :wink:
Tinker

"If engineers built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization!"

Zakalwe
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun, 22. Feb 04, 12:52
x3tc

Post by Zakalwe » Sat, 19. Aug 06, 10:43

@Cycrow, i was speaking of OOS update and it's about 3 per second when looking at OOS ship positions, shields, etc
Zepto Nox A15 - P8400, 4GB 800MHz DDR2, Nvidia 9650GT 512MB DDR3, WSXGA, 200GB SATA 7200rpm, Blu-ray, Vista Business UK 64-bit

andrewas
Posts: 1498
Joined: Thu, 10. Mar 05, 21:04
x3tc

Re: i dont think they should

Post by andrewas » Sat, 19. Aug 06, 11:25

Martin Logan wrote:the way i see it that transferring data between two cpus would require some power as well i think it would be better to improve one cpu then simply putting two slower cpus together of course its just my opnion but i think transferring data between two cpus just takes too much power away in the first place
The thing is, we have reached the stage where we cannot improve a single CPU anymore, not without a radical improvement in technology. But we can add cores to existing chips. Intel are talking about 32 cores in one CPU in the next ten years. In fact, in the near future we are going to be seeing less powerful cores, not more powerful. The time to design a core rises geometricaly with its complexity, so by working with large numbers of simpler cores they will be able to design new CPUs much more rapidly. While you are correct in that there is some overhead in running a program on multiple cores, once we have efficient hardware designs and once developers have learned to code multithreaded applications quickly, we will see massive gains in overall performance.

Kindred Spirit
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue, 14. Dec 04, 14:38
x4

Re:

Post by Kindred Spirit » Mon, 7. Jan 19, 09:33

Kindred Spirit wrote:
Thu, 12. Jan 06, 05:29
Hopefully SMP/multicore support will be considered when they do X4 :)

SMP forever! Dual-core SMP even :)

KS
And so they did :)

AleksMain
Posts: 907
Joined: Thu, 21. Sep 06, 11:05
x3tc

Re: CPU intensive game - need dual core support?

Post by AleksMain » Mon, 7. Jan 19, 11:03

Good thing, that X3 is not "upgraded" as X4.

I can't play X4 and could not play any "upgraded" to X4 version of X3 either.

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30368
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: CPU intensive game - need dual core support?

Post by Alan Phipps » Mon, 7. Jan 19, 13:13

I don't think we need a 12 year old thread reopened for no apparent reason. <click>
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

Locked

Return to “X Trilogy Universe”