Is 1.5 using more cpu cores now?

[Knock-Knock]

This weekend I had been overclocking my cpu a bit more, so have had some cpu monitor stuff running, and noticed that the spread across my 4 cores had become a lot more even, than in the past.

In the past I would have around 70-85% on core 3, maybe 25% on core 2, while 1 and 0 barely did anything.

But now I see around 40-55% on core 3, core 2 and 1 with 20-40%, and core 0 runs 15-50%.

 

Friend of mine asked me the same question tonight, if something had changed, cause he had noticed all his i7 cores showing similar.

1.56 has been running really well on my system since a few patches ago, so that might explain that?

[cichlidfan]

No. It is still using just two cores. ED has stated that they do not intend to pursue multi-threading.

[Pilotasso]

maybe something else was generating more threads?

[Knock-Knock]

Yea, maybe a Oculus thing. We both use the Rift.

[MadDog-IC]

This weekend I had been overclocking my cpu a bit more, so have had some cpu monitor stuff running, and noticed that the spread across my 4 cores had become a lot more even

 

Doing the same, and noticed the same effect with the 4 cores.

[Demon_]

maybe something else was generating more threads?

 

 

More like this one? :punch:

[WRAITH]

Doing the same, and noticed the same effect with the 4 cores.

 

No. It is still using just two cores. ED has stated that they do not intend to pursue multi-threading.

 

 

I doubt its DCS Sim because old discussions state only dual-core only in future development.

 

They take the opinion that GPU muti-core is the future I beg to differ and think both should be the case to have a balance between optimizing the hardware for best performance and utilization.

 

Again, I would personally like to have a full explanation from a ED Lead Engineer Programmers point of view as to why, not just running Forum commentary.

 

It should be explained and posted in a "Closed Thread" for referencing to understand the code-base framework and vision.

 

Why because we need to know when we spend $$$$$ on gaming rigs for sims and gaming.

 

But as also stated its not ED's policy to discuss these things which is also somewhat disappointing.

 

So its just another Forum thread / hearsay where we just make all sort's of assumptions and observations.

 

That have no basis of evidence given based on no info on what ED's master source-code is in current state of transition to mature code development or plans for hardware utilization standards.

 

So only the future will tell?

 

P.S - Its also why I posted this here...... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186909 ......... which would cover these areas of user interest, but sadly, well I try at least!

Edited May 4, 2017 by WRAITH

[cichlidfan]

It should be explained and posted in a "Closed Thread" for referencing to understand the code-base framework and vision.

 

Why because we need to know when we spend $$$$$ on gaming rigs for sims and gaming.

 

While I understand the desire for an in depth explanation, for a variety of reasons, I don't agree with this one. Why ED has chosen this path is completely irrelevant with regard to hardware purchasing decisions. The only thing that matters you know what hardware the sim will utilize. Knowing why doesn't matter.

[WRAITH]

This weekend I had been overclocking my cpu a bit more, so have had some cpu monitor stuff running, and noticed that the spread across my 4 cores had become a lot more even, than in the past.

In the past I would have around 70-85% on core 3, maybe 25% on core 2, while 1 and 0 barely did anything.

But now I see around 40-55% on core 3, core 2 and 1 with 20-40%, and core 0 runs 15-50%.

 

Friend of mine asked me the same question tonight, if something had changed, cause he had noticed all his i7 cores showing similar.

1.56 has been running really well on my system since a few patches ago, so that might explain that?

 

 

While I understand the desire for an in depth explanation, for a variety of reasons, I don't agree with this one. Why ED has chosen this path is completely irrelevant with regard to hardware purchasing decisions. The only thing that matters you know what hardware the sim will utilize. Knowing why doesn't matter.

 

 

Like I said cichlidfan, time will tell!

 

In 10 years time new systems, new design architecture, standards ....etc

 

The "All subject to change" clause if you wish, its just not the right time now.

 

The sim is still stuck in transition ALPHA + BETA state its a long journey to see changes or how it will work in future.

 

We dont have a guarantee if ED will be in-development in 10 years time the sad truth of the history of video games especially air combat stimulation.:megalol:

 

Other games in market today use other technologies to improve performance and quality but again old discussions yeah.:cry::smilewink:

 

Found here using Forum Search Function:- https://forums.eagle.ru/search.php?searchid=15107715 ............plus deleted threads:cry:

Edited May 4, 2017 by WRAITH

[MadDog-IC]

I am fully aware of the 2 core line they have, I don't care how many cores it uses so long as it runs ok. I am only stating an observation.

 

Why core zero and two use to do the bulk of the work, core four and six now have more load.

 

Physical cores usually doing next to nothing when at desktop, then when dcs runs (Highest values, Average across all 8 cores with (HT) is 25%):

Core 0 =50%

Core 2 = 67%

Core 4 = 65%

Core 6 = 87%

 

The other cores could be used more efficiently by windows and its sub-systems and not DCS directly.

[Demon_]

I agree with cichlidfan.

My new Ram 1500 is guaranteed for only 3-5 years.

[cichlidfan]

Like I said cichlidfan, time will tell!

 

...

 

Indeed but nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I said which was that the reason why does not matter.

 

If they change their mind down the road, we will have lots of time to think about what we want to buy since it will take years to recode DCS to use four or more cores. In the mean time, the why still does not matter.

 

Found here using Forum Search Function:- https://forums.eagle.ru/search.php?searchid=15107285 ............plus deleted threads:cry:

 

Btw, there aren't too many threads on this forum that I have not already read. :)

Edited May 4, 2017 by cichlidfan

[WRAITH]

Indeed but nothing you wrote has anything to do with what I said which was that the reason why does not matter.

 

If they change their mind down the road, we will have lots of time to think about what we want to buy since it will take years to re-code DCS to use four or more cores.

 

In the mean time, the "WHY" still does not matter.

 

P.S. There aren't too many threads on this forum that I have not already read. :)

 

 

WHY - always matters and counts as info on how the game design runs m8 as it will impact on your system settings and hardware capabilities hindering performances.

 

Building a sim rig is more intense on resources and hardware than general gaming.

 

In past discussions guys running single core + dualcore and now multicore and future who knows.

 

Who had performance issues on their rigs due to CPU and MOBO features and configuration types.

 

Thats why it all hurts when it costs, hence the "WHY" and people were looking for tech info on development hoping for CPU HT to spread the load over to CPU running i3 + i5 and the mighty i7's at higher costs.

 

Again hence the "WHY".

 

Its a huge discussion across video gamers not just a DCS thing ............. watch.........

 

 

 

 

 

Links:-

 

 

• http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/354727-28-does-hyperthreading-gaming
  
• https://pcpartpicker.com/forums/topic/144503-how-long-before-games-use-hyperthreading
  
• https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/11/558752449870153316/
  
• http://www.overclock.net/t/671977/hyperthreading-in-games
  

 

 

Most games demand at least 4cores with HT that process allot of info thats WHY again.

 

Most wanted HT over all cores and opinions are all over the place here and online.

 

Again, what did I say we all needed...........

 

I would personally like to have a full explanation from a ED Lead Engineer Programmers point of view as to why, not just running Forum commentary.

 

It should be explained and posted in a "Closed Thread" for referencing to understand the code-base framework and vision......... As to why and reasons for decisions made

But I know the answer is pretty much due to an old code-base design from 1991 that would require allot of work and the sim is already lagging behind in current state being Alpha + Beta products as nothing is finished or hardware optimized as a final release ........ Reference Link:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Dynamics

 

Others weren't aware of the current state or cleverly looking for more info hence all the drama back then, now they see and are all but gone, sadly.

 

Again an old argument - Found here using Forum Search Function:- https://forums.eagle.ru/search.php?searchid=15107715 ............plus deleted threads:cry:

 

Its all so sad we have less and less and air combat sims are just a dying breed of gaming!

 

For the benefit of all, its no point going further........So lets drop it, leave it there and let it go! :cry:

Edited May 4, 2017 by WRAITH

[cichlidfan]

:doh:

[Automan]

DCS WORLD is quad-core optimized

 

 

:smartass:

[Mking]

4 core = higher max fps

More 4 core = higher min fps

 

Plz thread close

[WRAITH]

DCS WORLD is quad-core optimized

 

 

 

 

 

LoL where is that in the change logs and which update as it was always said that the answer is NO!

 

If this is true then the Forum Mods have earned a well deserved lashing for the error :bash: LoL

Edited May 4, 2017 by WRAITH

[Brainless]

It's not multi core optimized, but video card drivers are multi core optimized.

Anyone remember Black Shark 1.0 and Windows Vista vs Windows XP (affinity setting)?

 

DCS WORLD is quad-core optimized

 

 

:smartass:

[cichlidfan]

It's not multi core optimized, but video card drivers are multi core optimized.

Anyone remember Black Shark 1.0 and Windows Vista vs Windows XP (affinity setting)?

 

The effect is also due to the fact that when you run DCS that is not the only thing that Windows and other background processes are using the CPU. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

 

LoL where is that in the change logs and which update as it was always said that the answer is NO!

 

The answer is still no. ED does not make a habit of mentioning improvements in drivers or other Windows applications in their change log.

Edited May 4, 2017 by cichlidfan

[WRAITH]

The effect is also due to the fact that when you run DCS that is not the only thing that Windows and other background processes are using the CPU. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

 

 

 

The answer is still no. ED does not make a habit of mentioning improvements in drivers or other Windows applications in their change log.

 

 

LoL, why would ED even provide info to other OEM's in their change Logs or updates, you misunderstood the comment and read it incorrectly LoL

 

Like I said earlier its been discussed to the bone already, forget it.:doh:

Edited May 4, 2017 by WRAITH

[Knock-Knock]

Dang. Didnt have the intention to rip up some age old discussions, but simply stated an observation, and was curious if others had noticed the same, and maybe knew the reason for this.

[BitMaster]

From what I understood, mostly from SkateZilla's posts iirc, it is DX11 using up to two cores for rendering (?). I have noticed this also a while ago and am very happy about this. Spread workload to as many cores as you can.

 

I gave up asking for SMP support or whatever it takes to splitt the dcs.exe workload between cores.

 

In the long run this is a crucial thing imho, time will tell.