Will the DCS A-10C support multi cores?

DCS currently does not use more then 1 CPU, end of story. What the OS does though is spread that load that would normally go onto 1 core to all available cores but overall usage of the CPU is not changed. It is kinda misleading to say it uses multi cores because you get no framerate increase going from 2 cores CPU to 4 cores CPU. You do get framerate increase going from single core CPU to dual or quad but that is only because the game gets more of CPU cycles free on one of the cores because now you have extra cores to have other aplications and OS to use ;)

Also funkee, you get 127fps in that last screenshot because there is nothing else in the background ;) (no objects, cities etc)

But keep in mind, the A10 Warthog may come with new (or at least upgraded) engine, that may support all CPU cores and multithreading.

Wags said in an interview some time back that first they wanted to move to 64bit, then they will possibly focus on splitting it into several threads. Dunno if that's still the plan, but i do think so.

.. DCS A10 will get a significant boost using a multicore CPU than a single core cpu...

===============

 

Actually Sobek you got me wondering now, are you saying that if I where to enable affinity for all cores on Lockon with Vista I would get the same boost that DCS:BS gets with affinity?

Are you saying that ED has talked about possibly adding multithreading to DCS:A-10 or are you saying that if they did, there would be a boost?

DCS:BS does not actually multi thread and with the latest patch there is no need to set affinities manually. There are other post here about this, and I am pretty sure the patch readme states this. edit: I see now this mentioned above.

Lock On gets no boost from setting affinity to single core, but many people report better stability, so it is a good setting to use regardless of OS IMHO.

Recently, for reasons not relative to DCS:BS, I changed my CPU. I used a E6600(2.4GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 4MB cache total) and now I am using a Q9400(2,6GHz. 1333GHz FSB, 6MB cache in total).

What I have to observed after the upgrade is that Max FPS raised just a bit but the most significant change was that overall frame rate became more solid. More detailed :

1) Flying over dense environments(cities, airbases etc) gained about 8frames (40fps now/32fps used to be)

2) The minimum FPS doesn't go so low anymore... (previously lowest was 30-32, now its 40) ...eventhought I have raised the graphics quality a bit!

3) The game runs more smoothly with little to no frame "hickups"(caused by rapid and large FPS drops).

DCS don't benefit from multi-cores that much, other games benefit a lot more. The only gain is that FPS become more solid in my case (mostly due better technology rather than multicores) but if you are thinking to upgrade just for DCS I think the same solidity with higher maximum FPS can be achieved with an E8500 or higher.

Another thing now... since DCS is something like a "core application"(more like the heart of the simulation) and Black Shark and A-10C are modules that use the same "core application", how can A-10C utilize multi-core technology or 64bit executable while Black Shark will stay the same?

I believe that if ED makes a change to the game engine with a new module release, this change will come in a form of a patch to older modules. That will ensure the inter-operability with diferent modules.

Sobek, you're totaly wrong and mislead others. DCS since v 1.01 has full multi core support:

funkee, you're totally wrong and mislead others.

"Full multicore support" equals multithreading. DCS is not multithreaded beyond Dx10 OS related advantages - that is, it's the OPERATING SYSTEM that's doing some load balancing on it's own. What the quoted part means is exactly what it says: with 1.0.1 it'll set affinity on it's own (making the old superb app called DCSMax obsolescent). Affinity is not multithreading and affinity does not make the application run on multiple cores - but it allows it to hop between the cores and allows Dx10 to do some autonomous load balancing. I repeat - this is an Operating System feature (so you'll have no benefit on obsolete Operating Systems like Windows XP), and the difference in behaviour is that DCS:BS 1.0.1 itself does the equivalent of calling up the Process Manager, right-clicking itself, and setting affinity. You could do the exact same thing through that method (or the use of DCSMax) in vanilla, for the same gains.

you may expect even 2x fps boost using CPU with >= 2 cores.

Most boosts on multiple cores are in the 30% range, with a few people having bigger gains, some lesser. All depends on the details of the system. Maximus_G and others have run extensive 4-core tests with comparisons to two-core operation on the exact same system, and there is no gain to more than two cores simply because that's all that's needed to get the advantages of being allowed to load-balance.

Keep in mind the most important ain't number of cores, but CPU frequency (the more not every game supports multicore technology)

...but I thought you said Sobek was wrong? If he was wrong and you were right, CPU frequency would have been secondary to cores!

Are you saying that ED has talked about possibly adding multithreading to DCS:A-10 or are you saying that if they did, there would be a boost?

As far as I know DCS:Warthog is unlikely to be multithreaded. There might be an experimental 64-bit exe.

There's no need discussing it all over again but I can't find the charts I uploaded in one of the older threads. I think newbies will find them useful

the next chart (attached) shows 40% average increase between Vista and Vista + affinity set to both cores.

Again - what FAQ and EtherealN says is still effective - affinity <-> better handling of resources done by operating system. I did the test long time ago.

Bucic. Was this done with the most recent Black Shark patch?

No. It was an unpatched version.

MultiThreading, hyperthreading, whatever, here u got an ansfer kingneptune117:

 

Dual core, high freq CPU for Blackshark

Quad+ core CPU for Rise of Flight and other

 

Conclusion:

 

The best (also thanks to it's price) CPU for DCS may be o'ced Intel Core2Duo E8400 - E8600

or even better, but much more expensive i5 670 - i7 975

 

But keep in mind, the A10 Warthog may come with new (or at least upgraded) engine, that may support all CPU cores and multithreading.

Hey guys,

I think im gonna go with the intel e8500, Its cheap, slightly better than the e8400, and has really good reviews. I hope what you guys are saying is true about it not supporting more than like 1 core. If it does I would probably go with the i5-750

The e8500 is a good choice. As you can see in my signature that is what I am using for my own simulator rig. Especially if you are willing to overclock and get a good enthusiast motherboard with some after-market cooling equipment (like the Zalman fans).

Of course, you can get very nice overclock results with i7 systems as well (I've seen them running at 4GHz on air cooling), but at a slightly higher price point.

kingneptune117, AFAIK there's no difference what kind of 2 core CPU you get. You will still benefit from using DCS+Vista/Windows7+affinity set to both cores roughly the same amount. IIRC there are i5/i7 threads already.

Bucic, that is why I asked if your testing was done with latest patch. With thte latest patch there is no need to set the affinity manually.

From the 1.01 readme...

* Vista users using multi-core systems will now have affinity automatically set to use all cores.

Bucic, that is why I asked if your testing was done with latest patch. With thte latest patch there is no need to set the affinity manually.

 

From the 1.01 readme...

 

* Vista users using multi-core systems will now have affinity automatically set to use all cores.

I know :) Feel free to comment if you see something wrong with my tests. I think the test can be mirrored on 1.0.1 by manually disabling affinity for the second core.

There's no need discussing it all over again but I can't find the charts I uploaded in one of the older threads. I think newbies will find them useful

 

 

the next chart (attached) shows 40% average increase between Vista and Vista + affinity set to both cores.

 

Again - what FAQ and EtherealN says is still effective - affinity <-> better handling of resources done by operating system. I did the test long time ago.

Could you imagine how much additional performance we could be getting if the game was designed from the ground up to be a true multi-threaded app.

These are system specs for the tests:

C2D E7200 2.53GHz @ ~ 3.5GHz

 

2GB DDR2-800 RAM

 

NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT 512 MB (Gigabyte GV-NX96T512HP) (factory OC-ed)

 

ASUSTeK P5E-VM HDMI Rev 1.00G (cheap micro ATX mainboard)

 

Creative Audigy Platinum (SB0090)

--

1280x1024

nV CPL settings: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=822584&postcount=15 (except I don't remember what AA setting I used and obviously Vsync was off)

graphics: all max except scenes medium, water medium, civ traff off

no manual cfg/lua files editing, no mods

I've just found a track file stress_test_views.trk so one of these may be the one used for my tests, I can't check it myself. It might as well be neither of these.

/I'm sorry for filling up this thread with various stuff...

Максималка.trk

stress_test_views.trk

Could you imagine how much additional performance we could be getting if the game was designed from the ground up to be a true multi-threaded app.

..and we could twin DCS with Fighter Ops :D

Could you imagine how much additional performance we could be getting if the game was designed from the ground up to be a true multi-threaded app.

No, because then we wouldn't even have DCS: BS by now ;)

Could you imagine how much additional performance we could be getting if the game was designed from the ground up to be a true multi-threaded app.

Isn't much as you can imagine. By design of multi-thread applications.

Each cpu, in best, with good and "right" code will bring you 50-70%, not 100%.

Reason - each CPU and thread is isolated, and have it's own part of memory. So applications must syncronize memory (i.e. state of objects in memory) between threads.

Second, if you using global objects (this objects availible for every threads) you must emplement protection of this objects (like in DB). Imagine that happend when two threads want to change same object.

All of this is additional load for CPU and memory. And not easy to implementing. Multithreading can be nightmare for dev, even for good dev.

mumble... looking forward to ED's development

Could you imagine how much additional performance we could be getting if the game was designed from the ground up to be a true multi-threaded app.

I forgot - there is an article on Sim HQ on comaparison performance tests involving single vs dual core processors. The testing "platform" was Flacon 4.0 Allied Force which takes advantage of two cores (is designed to do so).

http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_060b.html

I imagine there would be the core thread of the simulation, then a thread of displaying/interacting with the cockpit, a thread of displaying the outside world (and making it pretty) and a thread for the video displays in the cockpit (that's where i think the biggest bang will come from), etc. There's the weather & non-player world, and player input, and it wouldn't be all that much more complex than the multi-player structure, which i am sure is complex as all-get-out.

Yeah it's as easy as identifying all the things that could be split in a separate thread. NOT. ;)

funkee, you're totally wrong...

Nobody's perfect ;)

The e8500 is a good choice (...) Especially if you are willing to overclock and get a good enthusiast motherboard with some after-market cooling equipment (like the Zalman fans).

That's a negative sir, you dont need to be Zalman fan nor use any "after-market cooling equipment" ;). Reference Intel cooler (box CPU version) is good enough to O/C your CPU to 4GHz. Im getting 100% stable O/S on my own with temperatures between 30*C/85*F (idle) and 65*C/150*F (stress). Proof? http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3008/cputemp4kopia.jpg Ofcoz you need well cooled case to reach such results.

...but I thought you said Sobek was wrong? If he was wrong and you were right, CPU frequency would have been secondary to cores!

I meant higher freq. CPU with 2 cores > lower freq. CPU with 4 and more cores. Thought I was clear on that issue?

I think im gonna go with the intel e8500, Its cheap, slightly better than the e8400, and has really good reviews. I hope what you guys are saying is true about it not supporting more than like 1 core. If it does I would probably go with the i5-750

i5-750 would be the worst choice imho (at least choosing from i5 family). Poor frequency (2.66 GHz), high power usage (95 W, while the other i5 use only 73) and old 45 technology (vs 32 nm for the rest of i5 processors).

Personally i'd go for some Core2Quad (preferably Q9650 (3GHz), eventually Core2Duo. U may take a look at this site: http://www.komputronik.pl/index.php/category/407/Core2_Duo_%28S775%29.html to get some info and see what is a bestseller in my country. 10/10 and 201 reviews says much, but E8500/E8600 may be even better.

Bucic, that is why I asked if your testing was done with latest patch. With thte latest patch there is no need to set the affinity manually.

But you need an original Blackshark to patch it, what may cause problems for some ppl... :P

There's no need discussing it all over again but I can't find the charts I uploaded in one of the older threads. I think newbies will find them useful.

You talking about yourself right?

I think MT (to take advantage of MC) can be programmed... from scratch. So it is not a feasible option for ED since their advantage is the engine they already have. However it is a smart move if they can spare resources for engine R&D.

The engine should be event driven, with synchronization points. Since graphical programming relies on one fact, the frame displayed, it is a good point to use it for that purpose, as I think it is being used today in ST.

However, I do not try to tell ED how to do its work. Just a bit of smart thinking :D

You talking about yourself right?

Stop the trolling/argumentum ad hominem and maybe ppl will start to find it acceptable to listen to what you say. ;) The only person whose reputation suffers, if you keep on provoking, is yourself.

For other apps, or if you need to play an older patch version because of some compatibility issue, you can still semi-automatically have affinity set without having to do the task manager trick every time. I'm a LockOn flyer and don't have Blackshark just yet but if DCS:BS uses a batch file to launch the main .exe like lockon does this is even easier to just modify the existing game .bat file.

Basically, any batch file that has a "start <someapp>.exe" command in Vista can be modified to let you pick which core (or cores) the app uses with "start /affinity 3 <someapp>.exe" -- now it's using cores 0 and 1.

The value is a bit-mask in hex, so:

1 = core0

2 = core1

3 = core0 and core1

4 = core2

5 = core0 and core2

...

F = core0 and core1 and core2 and core3

The whole point of doing this, is simply to separate resources from hungry apps.. don't want something kicking off and ruining your framerates, make it run on a different core than your game. As others have mentioned, it's a 'play nice' load balancing operation, useful if some other app decides not to play nice and hogs a specific core and you can't control it from doing that.

To try it out, test it with something simple and fast to launch like calc.exe.

start /affinity <1, 2, or 3> calc.exe

Check in task manager for the results.

Close the Calculator app.

Hope this helps with any CPU scheduling woes and optimization, even if the latest DCS:BS patch is already doing an equivalent /affinity 3 or /affinity F for you. I use this in other games where I run multiple copies at once, or they have multi-core timing issues/bugs, so I don't have to remember each one each time.