Will the DCS A-10C support multi cores?

[funkee]

Thx for the tip. That may prove helpful to some 1.0 people (especially Bucic).

 

The only person whose reputation suffers, if you keep on provoking, is yourself.

 

Sorry I just do my best ;)

[Rob2222]

Let me try an _easy_ explanation.

 

The game (any computer program) are much instructions that get executed one after another.

To simplify it, think about a sheet with calculations in each line. Now I give you a calculator. You calculate it line for line.

Thats the situation it was with personal computers long time.

Well, now I give you 2 calculator or 4 calculators.

 

And NOW it depends which calculations there are. When _all_ calculations are just additions, you can split the sheet in 4 parts and use 3 friends and calculate the "whole" sheet parallel on all 4 calculators and at the end you addition calc1+calc2+calc3+calc4. Fine. This is Multi-Threading. You solved it in 1/4 of time with 4x performance increase.

 

Unfortunely this is _mostly_ not the cause.

 

THE PROBLEM with most all computer programs is, that the calculation on the sheets are depending. For Example think as EACH line on the sheet is depending on the line over it.

So you cant calculate the line WITHOUT having calculated the line over it BEFORE.

So the only way to solve the sheet is to calculate one line after another. And most of the computer programs today still work so.

 

So you still can just use one calculator for the sheet (programm) even if you have 4.

 

The Operating systems places the calculation on the CPU (calculator) that has the lowest load. So sometimes the sheet (programm) is calculated at calc1 (CPU1) sometimes at calc3(CPU3) and so on. But as long it is not a multithreaded application it never uses more then one CPU at one time. The is the most missunderstood problem. This is the affinity that was on CPU0 only. Now it is on all CPUs. But this still _just_ means, that the operating system may run BS on each CPU (on all cores). But BS still utilizes _one_ CPU at a time. But it may differ on which core it runs. But only cause the OS may put BS on each core you didnt have a 2x or 4x performance boost like it would be if the BS programm _could_ utilize all 4 cores parallel.

 

And, if you think about the sheet with lines where each line depends on the line above ... the is NO SIMPLE WAY to make a perfect multi threaded application with just one switch out of an single-threaded application.

 

You have to divide it. Maybe calculate parallel: rotor physics on one CPU, bullet physics on 2nd CPU, enemy ai movement on 3rd CPU, damage physics on the 4th CPU and then all it must be syncronized... but for this the half of the engine needs to be reprogrammed.

 

 

Thats the "problem" we have atm. The hardware industry just gave us 2 / 4 / 6 core CPUs but the the whole software industry has to reprogramm almost all of the software to use multi core. For some problems/applications its easy, for some other applications it is impossible because the have data dependencies and have to be calculated in a line after another and never can be calculated parrallel.

 

 

But, a 2core CPU still has a performance benefit for BS, becuase BS can use one core fully for itself and all the operating system tasks running on the 2nd core. So BS can 100% use one CPU.

 

So cause BS is still single threaded, a _fast_ 2-core CPU could be the best choice. For example a OCed core2duo with 3,2+ GHZ (you can bring C2Ds often simply to 3,7-4GHZ).

 

I dont know if the i5/i/ processors have more processing power (assuming using only ONE cpu) than Core2Duos. But when you have a i5/i7 with 3GHz or so, a C2D with 3,7GHz still should be better for BS.

 

BR Robert

Edited January 30, 2010 by Rob2222

[funkee]

I dont know if the i5/i/ processors have more processing power (...) than Core2Duos. But when you have a i5/i7 with 3GHz or so, a C2D with 3,7GHz still should be better for BS.

 

and this is what I was talking about in my pots. MHz wins (especially in sims).

[EtherealN]

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).

 

Yes, a perfect assembly of the stock cooler is pretty good - as long as you want to trust plastic pins. Drawback being that a small mistake during assembly will make the paste useless and you're stuck with crap cooling.

 

A good aftermarket cooler costs pretty much nothing and offers much more secure assembly methods - and gets you to 50C stable during Prime95 torture tests.

 

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

 

That is correct, but you definitely wasn't clear. ;)

 

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

 

Stop insinuating things about Bucic. I know exactly what it is you are trying to say without breaking the forum rules in an explicit way, and that type of stuff is not kosher. Showing graphs made way back with vanilla to illustrate things that are still relevant is not something you have to try to make a scene out of. You don't have to assume foul play just because you don't understand the cause of graphs being from a vanilla version.

 

and this is what I was talking about in my pots. MHz wins (especially in sims).

 

Not necessarily. It also depends a lot on the specifics of the architecture. An i7 running at 4GHz will perform better than an e8500 running at 4GHz with a measurable margin - though it's not as big a margin as would be seen in some other types of applications. The point of course is that the price points is different enough that (imo) the e8500 still wins on bang for buck - but there's no such thing as direct GHz-for-GHz when hopping between architectures.

Edited February 3, 2010 by EtherealN

[StrongHarm]

@Rob2222 - that's a good explanation. I commend you for having the patience to explain it down to that level, though it doesn't seem it was received and processed by funkee.

 

@funkee - disagreement happens but (I've said this to you in multiple threads in the mere one month I've been on the boards) there's a tactful way to make a productive argument. Constructive criticism encourages evolution, your brand of trolling creates anger. There are people who will inevitably stop reading these boards because they don't want to deal with your always negative discontent. Some of your ideas might have lead to constructive, thoughtful discussion that would have benefited these same people. You're so lucky that I'm not a moderator on this board. I would have already pulled your account for a month or more to encourage some healthy respect and restraint. You really don't deserve the patience you receive on this board. It almost seems that you accept it with a disbelieving laugh. I sincerely hope that I don't miss anything important in future posts that you've 'contributed' to, because I'm going to have to skip them.

[funkee]

Sorry Harm but I always ignore your posts due to your grumpy face ;). If you have any problem just PM me instead of spamming and posting OT.

[EtherealN]

No more bickering, no more offtopic. If you want to discuss the finer points of things, or ask about things you don't understand, do so in a respectful manner or don't post at all.

 

If you feel a post may for some reason not be appropriate, do not respond to it. Use the "report post" function instead.

 

Thankyou.

[JasBird]

Hi

 

Didn't wanna start a new thread, so I'll just drop my question in here. I about to get back in to Black Shark and look forward to FC2.0. Must admit I haven't played BS after the patch came out. I run Win XP and have a Intel dual core E6750 that runs at 2.66 Ghz I belive. Thinking about upgrading to a Dual E8500 that runs at 3.16 Ghz I think. I upgraded my graphics card from a Nvidia GT8600 to an ATI 4850 just after BS came out, but with very little improvment. I understand this game is CPU dependant mostly, but any guess how much of an improvement I would get with the new CPU?

 

The game runs ok with my setting at the moment, but I would like a little improvment and higher display setting.

 

Cheers

[sobek]

Hey, i have the same gfx card an an e8400 running at 3.6 GHz, settings are all on high except water is on normal, mirrors are off, instruments resolution a 512 and i have yet to run into a situation that will let me drop below 20 fps. Average is about 30-50. You can easily get the e8500 to run at higher frequencies, so performance should be comparable if not better

[EtherealN]

Between E6xxx and E8xxx your performance will scale roughly with the increase in clock speed, since the differences are mainly in L2 and some minor internal components. So somewhere around 18% performance increase. Obviously, this depends a lot on the other components in the system as well - for example whether there's bottlenecks in the FSB and so on, but the risks aren't big.

 

If you scan around you can find a couple tricks for boosting performance as well, such as the water=1 or water=0 trick in the config file.

 

Another option, if your computer case and motherboard architecture so permits, would be to overclock your existing processor - the one you have should be able to perform at least around 3 to 3.4 GHz with a good cooling system. Possibly more, but that is something that can vary between chips of the same type. My own e8500 runs comfortably at 4GHz. Note however, that if you decide to investigate this option you do have a lot of homework to do, since there are theoretical ways of damaging your components through bad settings - and obviously all warranties are voided. But for myself, the learning involved is part of the fun. :)

 

Another way to boost performance as well would be to switch to Windows Vista or Windows 7, since they have a lot of load-balancing features from Dx10/11 that can give a very tangible boost in performance on multicore systems like yours.

[JasBird]

Thanks for replies. I have pretty good cooling on my computer and always messed around a little with all computers I've had. Didn't have much luck with my current computer. Got a lot of crashes with BS when trying to overclock CPU and grahpics card. Always makes me nervous when computer gives blank screen on startup :) Temperature haven't been a problem just lock ups in general.

 

Around 18% increase is something I would guess aswell. Haven't really had time to get back into BS after the patch came out, but I understand there should be a small improvement in performance? I have been considering getting Win 7. So if I understand correctly, Win 7 will give a small increase aswell compared to Win XP?

[EtherealN]

Yes, you should expect somewhere between 10 and 30 percent increase with W7, maybe even more if you are lucky (it all depends a lot on the rest of the system), but somewhere around there. So if you both switch to the new processor and get W7 you might get yourself somewhere around 30 to 50% boost, in theory.

 

Note though that since W7 has a higher commit charge than XP, you might end up with RAM issues if your current system only has 2 gigs. If it has 4 gigs, ensure that it is the 64-bit version you get.

[JasBird]

I have 4 Gb of RAM. If I remeber correctly Win 7 comes with both as 32 & 64 bit on same disc? Will the 64 bit create any trouble with 5-6 year older programs? What version of Win 7 do you recommend?

 

Would there be an advantage getting a Quad CPU compared to Duo CPU when it comes to performance in DSC and Win 7?

[EtherealN]

I have 4 Gb of RAM. If I remeber correctly Win 7 comes with both as 32 & 64 bit on same disc? Will the 64 bit create any trouble with 5-6 year older programs? What version of Win 7 do you recommend?

 

I'm unsure about win7 delivery when it comes to 32/64 bit, since I use Vista64 (which has separate media) and haven't decided to upgrade. But I do not expect there to be any real difference for legacy applications due to the bit versions - the 64 bit versions are quite capable of running 32 bit applications (even with some memory-related advantages in a few cases).

 

There might be a very very minor overhead due to the 32-bit translation layer, but I've never seen any tests that have been able to show a definitive result on that.

 

Would there be an advantage getting a Quad CPU compared to Duo CPU when it comes to performance in DSC and Win 7?

 

Most likely no. Most tests show no DCS performance difference between 4 and 2 cores. However, it will have advantages in many other applications. (I am considering the purchase of a Quad for my socket 775 machine even though I'll likely end up at a slightly lower clock due to that.) That said, the i7 line is even more overclockable than the Core2's, so if you might consider overclocking they're better in both respects.

 

Also, a clarification on the 64-bit vs 32-bit thing as far as memory goes: a computer's memory is handled through what's called an "adress space", and the amount of "bits" in the "adress" to a specific memory location governs how much memory is "adressable" - that is, how much memory the computer can keep track of. (Think of it like this - if your street has 300 houses, but the post office only allows 2-digit numbers (00-99), only 100 of those houses will get any mail.) 32-bit systems can only handle 4 gigs - and normally only 2 gigs for the same process (there are some tricks there though). So nominally it might look like a 32-bit system is allright for a 4gig RAM system - but your graphics card has memory too! So if you have 4 gigs of RAM, and a graphics card with 512MB vRAM, your computer will only be able to adress 3.5gigs of the system RAM. If you have 1gig of vRAM, you'll be down to 3 gigs of system RAM being used. (I've frequently been very annoyed at some computer manufacturers selling 32-bit OSes with computers that have four 1-gig sticks and a 1-gig graphics card - essentially selling you a memory stick that you will never be able to use.)

 

The 64 bit adress space is vastly larger. Not only double - the theoretical limit of a 64-bit system is in the petabyte range. Most 64-bit processors on the consumer market have artificially lower limits for various reasons, though, but they are often in the terabyte range, so no worries. ;)

(Obviously though, there are a bunch of details in there that can change those numbers, but they're not really all that important right now.)

 

I would probably recommend Win7 Home Premium, though. It has a 16GB limit on RAM (artificially imposed), and might be more resource efficient since it has less features than the higher editions - features that you are unlikely to use as a home user. The other editions have a limit of 192GB - they do add support for multiple physical CPU's though, but you are unlikely to use that as a consumer.

Edited February 17, 2010 by EtherealN