Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

Aw bummer!

I just managed to get my 'old' pc back to work.
This one is not yet dual core, but it's single cpu is an AMD Athlon that runs around 1.3 Mhz.
This is faster than a single core of my dual AMD Turion Processor.
Since DF does not (yet) use dual core technology, I thought it would run faster on my old PC.
Wrong. Quite a bit slower even.
But what strikes me as odd is that when I pause the game, the FPS count stops at 87-88 instead of going to the max of 100.
Anybody have any idea how that could be?

[Duke 2.0]

Dwarf Fortress acts odd during non-gameplay time. I remember once I had 300 fps during a load screen. This was with a machine that would normally top at 20 fps on a small-ish fortress with 50 dwarves.

I hear Toady is going to work over the bugs with save soon, like events happening while in pause mode.

Damn cats, they can even adopt a dwarf when the world is frozen.

[martinuzz]

Oh yeah, and my old pc is still running windows 2000 pro. Dunno if that makes a difference?

[toast]

i doubt it makes a difference. 2000 and xp have a lot of similarities.

also, as a point of interest, when i play this on my laptop it runs faster, even though the laptop has a slower cpu, but twice the ram. i had thought that the game speed for DF relied mainly on processor speed, but apparently not as much as i had thought

[Hier0]

From what I've noticed this game is a RAM hog like nothing else, for me it usually tops at something like 100Mb at world creation time it can go much higher

[chaoticag]

quote:Originally posted by toast:
<STRONG>i doubt it makes a difference. 2000 and xp have a lot of similarities.

also, as a point of interest, when i play this on my laptop it runs faster, even though the laptop has a slower cpu, but twice the ram. i had thought that the game speed for DF relied mainly on processor speed, but apparently not as much as i had thought</STRONG>

Guess the game is better with more ram. The computer I use can play Crysis and still strugles with all the stone around the fort.

[Frobozz]

quote:Originally posted by martinuzz:
<STRONG>This one is not yet dual core, but it's single cpu is an AMD Athlon that runs around 1.3 Mhz. This is faster than a single core of my dual AMD Turion Processor. Since DF does not (yet) use dual core technology, I thought it would run faster on my old PC. Wrong. Quite a bit slower even.</STRONG>

Simple. Just because DF is not threaded doesn't mean that having a dual core computer won't bring benefits. For one thing you've still got all those other applications, including Windows, running in the background. For a single core computer, that core would be shared between DF and all those apps. On a dual core computer, you have an additional core that can be running everything else while one core runs the game.

Also going by the hertz rating when comparing two architectures (Athlon and Turion being separate architecture families) is pointless. My last upgrade, for example, involved going from the Intel Pentium D 805 (Smithfield based on P4's NetBurst architecture) to an Intel Pentium Dual-Core (Allendale based on the Intel Core 2 architecture). The Pentium D 805 was 2.66GHz while the Pentium Dual-Core was 1.6GHz per core. Yet the speed increase per core was about 60%.

[ May 16, 2008: Message edited by: Frobozz ]

[martinuzz]

Thanks for the info.
It can't be a RAM issue though. My old PC has 2 Gig, my laptop only 1.
Must be like you say, Windows eating part of the core's power.

[brainfire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

[martinuzz]

Thanks. But still one would think that you could compare two AMD processors that came out not too far apart in time by clock speed.. Then again, maybe not, since the Turion was built for 64bit Vista.

[Jay]

quote:Originally posted by martinuzz:
<STRONG>Aw bummer!

I just managed to get my 'old' pc back to work.
This one is not yet dual core, but it's single cpu is an AMD Athlon that runs around 1.3 Mhz.
This is faster than a single core of my dual AMD Turion Processor.
Since DF does not (yet) use dual core technology, I thought it would run faster on my old PC.
Wrong. Quite a bit slower even.
But what strikes me as odd is that when I pause the game, the FPS count stops at 87-88 instead of going to the max of 100.
Anybody have any idea how that could be?</STRONG>

1.3 Mhz.
Yeah, typo, I know.  But still.
1.3 GHz isn't all that fast either..