Print

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

[Hyndis]

Most games these days, including DF, are just single core games. You're still probably best off with two cores, so the game uses one core and your OS uses the other core.

A quad core is just a waste. Ideal would be a dual core CPU that you can overclock to a great degree.

Just your standard E8400 is quite awesome for this. You can OC it to 3.6ghz without even increasing the voltage. Tinker with it more and you can easily get 4ghz out of each core.

Something like an i7 920 will run DF much slower than an old E8400.

[Moontayle]

You have to take into account the architecture of the cpu as well. My work computer has a 2.8ghz P4 processor but runs DF like absolute shit. Some chips are simply built better so even though they have the same clock speeds, the actually efficiency of the execution of instructions might be better in one versus the other.

[Thief^]

Ideal would be a dual core CPU that you can overclock to a great degree.

Lets not get into that debate again.

Something like an i7 920 will run DF much slower than an old E8400.

Do you have a source for this, or are you just bullcrapping? Because I have a counter-argument to your claim. And another, this time at stock speeds. Admittedly they're not DF, but it's the closest I've got. If you've got better, show it.

Also, completely irrelevant as the OP wants advice for a CPU for their current AM2 motherboard.

[zarmazarma]

Dwarf fortress does not support multiple cores, however, some of the more recent quad cores have over 3.2ghz per core, so they're very well suited for dwarf fortress.

BTW Hyndis, you're information is terribly inaccurate. While there are some games that still exist in the past, such as Darkfall, you'll find that most modern day games (or the ones that are noticed, at least) support multiple cores. Run through the game requirements, you'll see that even older ones list dual cores amongst there requirements.

[Meanmelter]

I don't think it supports multiple cores, so the only potential benefit is that other background tasks won't slow down your game.

One thing I'd like to learn is if quad+ core systems have individually weaker CPUs than comparable dual cores.

I do not think so, I found it faster than my solo-core. If it does, then somhow 4GB of Ram becomes 1GB of Ram Still beats 2.75GB of ram.

[SquidgyB]

Yeah, I suspect Hyndis is slightly mistaken - a quad core vs a dual core of the same architecture running at the same clock speeds would run DF at the same speed, though background applications would effect the dual core to a greater extent.

An old dual core vs a newer quad core would be a different story - assuming they're at the same clock speeds the newer architecture would certainly have an advantage.

What Hyndis is assuming is that a dual core will clock higher than a quad core, but even this isn't necessarily the case with something like an I7, where a good quad can pretty easily be clocked up to 4GHz on air, (I have a QX9650 running at a happy 3.6GHz, if I try 4GHz it struggles with any voltage I'm happy to put through it, so I'm not going any higher unless I get a water cooling kit...)

OFC, this is all conjecture, based on what I understand about processors and other people's comments on this forum.

TL:DR - I7/I5 will be better than an older chips assuming that both are running at the same frequency. Quad core has no benefit over dual core, bar multitasking and the possibility of higher clocks on the dual core.

[Hyndis]

Depends on the CPU, yes. An i7 920 is not a particularly fast processor, but it is a very common processor. It is also easier to overclock a dual core than it is a quad core. For a single core application like DF you're likely to get more bang for the buck out of an older E8400 than an i7 920.

Now if you get one of the nice, high end i7's, it'll blow any dual core out of the water, but those high end i7's aren't cheap.

I'm not too familiar with AMD processors though.

[bombcar]

Toady should make a "benchmark fortress" - a default fortress that loads, runs for a period of time, and then exits, telling you the FPS.

Then we could benchmark things and compare numbers and be happy!

[Shiv]

A few guides here and there sent me to a playable (capped) 50FPS in most games I've played so far. <_<

Got links to those guides?  I'm using the Accelerator but never seen a really good 'guide' for improving FPS.  The others I've seen...they all just turn off parts of the init, so you're sacrificing game play to be able to run it faster.