Print

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

[Bloax]

As we all know, DF isn't exactly the strongest in terms of using fancy CPU features (and we're talking about SIMDs and not only multithreading here) - what do you think would make a nice, solid DF machine?

Intel recently released an unlocked Pentium G3258 processor (which can go above 4 GHz if you so wish), so I'm wondering whether or not it's a solid (and cheap since DF doesn't use fancy shit) choice.
An "alright" GPU would probably help, but I don't exactly know how much DF utilizes that.

the question is just whether or not i am incorrect in this shit
i probably am :^)

[klefenz]

DF uses only one core, so performance depends mostly on clock speed. If you overclock a CPU like shit it would make DF faster. Now overclocking requires extra cooling, I know some people even use water cooling.

[Evaris]

A few points -
1.  You'll need a good motherboard, and one which is capable of overclocking.  In the budget region, the AsRock Anniversary edition motherboard may be a good deal, otherwise I tend to recommend the Fatal1ty series boards, or an MSI Gaming series board.
2.  You'll also be wanting as high speed of RAM as you can get, though by what I've heard, DF prefers lower latency to outright bandwidth, though undoubtedly you would see gains from any speed increase.  GSkill AEGIS/Ares series RAM will probably be your best bet since they're low profile. 
3.  You will need a good CPU cooler to overclock with, your best bang/buck for overclocking will probably be a Xigmatek Dark Knight II, Coolermaster TPC 612, or a Phanteks PH-TC12DX; along with a suitable thermal interface compound.  I personally prefer GELID GC-Extreme, though Artic MX-4 and Noctura NT-H1 are solid offerings, although GC-Extreme will stay frosty for longer, in my experience.  (less frequent TIM reapplication)
4.  Is DF the -only- thing you are making this computer for?  If not, then an i5, i7, or a offering from AMD may be more suitable, as the majority of programs are tailored for quad-cores anymore. 


That's just my input.  When it comes to hardware, feel free to ask me any questions. 

DF uses only one core, so performance depends mostly on clock speed. If you overclock a CPU like shit it would make DF faster. Now overclocking requires extra cooling, I know some people even use water cooling.

Let's not spread misinformation here.  Intel CPUs offer higher performance / clock compared to AMD offerings, newer CPUs on both sides for the most part deliver more performance/clock than older platforms  (eg, the newest AMD APUs perform about the same performance/clock as Ivy Bridge, which is what, 2 generations behind Intel's offerings and about 15-20% slower/clock?).  And water cooling is actually only middle-grade.  There is also mineral oil immersed rigs, and I know people running peltiers to keep their CPU sub-zero 24/7, and then there are the liquid nitrogen / helium junkies scoring overclocking records.   But most of that is besides the point. 

Also, don't take my statements as AMD being a bad choice, on the contrary, I only buy AMD (Brand loyalty + someone has to keep them in business.) And I just prefer overclocking with them, though that may be from a biased point of view.

[Trickman]

DF uses only one core, so performance depends mostly on clock speed. If you overclock a CPU like shit it would make DF faster. Now overclocking requires extra cooling, I know some people even use water cooling.

No more of this, please. As Evaris said. Using clock speed as the only measurement for a core's output is like measuring how hot a woman is for her height alone, or something.

To simplify: a processor with a slower clock but which does more "tasks per clock tick (or cycle)" has a much better/faster output than one which is faster but does less tasks in each cycle. In the same way you'd rather bang a hot small girl than a tall ugly one (provided you like tall women better).

[KingKaol]

I would guess that a bigger cache might help

[Miuramir]

I would guess that a bigger cache might help

Not as much as you might think; the problem is that you can't get one big *enough* to really matter.  My understanding is that on a good modern CPU, the main limitation is that it has to process a significant fraction of a gig from main memory through the CPU all too often.  This is unlike almost any other game, and much closer to the sort of constraints you have dealing with large datasets in non-parallizable scientific computing.  Pick out the best memory architecture available (or that you can afford), get the best single-core performance in a CPU that talks to said memory architecture on a solid motherboard, cool it well enough that the "native" turbo code (by whatever name) can run at least one core flat out, and most everything else is minor details.  Putting DF on a SSD will help things like initial load and seasonal saves, but probably doesn't help normal play DPS significantly.  (Caveat: It's not yet clear where the performance issues are with the calendar, and Toady's working on optimization anyway.) 

If you're looking to overclock, it's distinctly possible that memory overclocking will buy you more DF performance than CPU overclocking, so look for motherboards and chips that give good features for that, and consider comparatively aggressive cooling for your memory compared to a "typical" over the top gaming rig.  Note that in some cases, there may be tradeoffs between how much memory you have and how fast it goes; DF is still 32-bit, so having a lot of memory doesn't help it much. 

Possible thing to thing about: It's moderately likely that DDR4 memory will be helpful for DF, but it's not really rolled out fully yet.  You might be able to build a significantly better DF system with, say, DDR4 memory and Broadwell series CPU... but exactly when is fuzzy. 

[HigginsObvious]

2.  You'll also be wanting as high speed of RAM as you can get, though by what I've heard, DF prefers lower latency to outright bandwidth, though undoubtedly you would see gains from any speed increase.  GSkill AEGIS/Ares series RAM will probably be your best bet since they're low profile. 

Note that latency on ram is usually measured in clock cycles, so faster clocked RAM will usually have comparable or better response times anyway even if the listed CL is slower.

[undersuit]

Note that latency on ram is usually measured in clock cycles, so faster clocked RAM will usually have comparable or better response times anyway even if the listed CL is slower.

Some (performance) numbers:

DDR3-1333 should have a cas of 7.
DDR3-1600, cas of 8. 9 is unacceptable and gross.
DDR3-1866, cas of 9.
Any faster and it's overclocking on the majority of platforms.

I've tightened my dimms down to DDR3-1333@1400MHz 6-7-6-20 1T, I'm very sure it's helping on my 8x8 Volcano Island embark.

I hope someone decides to build a Pentium G3258 Dwarf Fortress machine, I'd like to see if it's worth it after my hours of searching yesterday for a motherboard that supports ECC and multiplier overclocking ended with frustration in Intel's market segmentation.

[JayThePro]

[ArmokGoB]

[Miuramir]

I hope someone decides to build a Pentium G3258 Dwarf Fortress machine, I'd like to see if it's worth it after my hours of searching yesterday for a motherboard that supports ECC and multiplier overclocking ended with frustration in Intel's market segmentation.

Interesting question; for someone on a budget but willing to deal with overclocking, the unlocked G3258 does look like an interesting choice for a low-end CPU.  The G3450 is a bit better on stats, but not unlocked.  (Of course, for people with more budget, one of the unlocked "Devil's Canyon" Haswells such as the 4790K would give considerably more performance.  Off the cuff a 4790K with Z97 chipset is probably the best out of the box DF combination right now.)

I'm particularly curious about the relation between memory and CPU; I suspect that for optimal DF operation you need a minimum memory bandwidth (usually in GB/sec) *per equivalent computational CPU cycle*.  In other words, if it takes X math operations to process Y GB of fortress, if you increase CPU core beyond your memory bandwidth's ability to supply it with data, you can't use the extra core speed properly.  On the flip side, extra memory bandwidth beyond your CPU core's current ability to process doesn't help.  It's entirely likely that the ratio / curve needed for DF is a distinctly different shape than that measured or assumed by most benchmarks or synthetic tests. 

[Xazo-Tak]

DF uses only one core, so performance depends mostly on clock speed. If you overclock a CPU like shit it would make DF faster. Now overclocking requires extra cooling, I know some people even use water cooling.

You won't need extra cooling for Dwarf Fortress, you won't be using all your cores.

[Evaris]

DF uses only one core, so performance depends mostly on clock speed. If you overclock a CPU like shit it would make DF faster. Now overclocking requires extra cooling, I know some people even use water cooling.

You won't need extra cooling for Dwarf Fortress, you won't be using all your cores.

If you're overclocking you will need extra cooling no matter what. 

[TheCoolSideofthePIllow]

DF uses only one core, so performance depends mostly on clock speed. If you overclock a CPU like shit it would make DF faster. Now overclocking requires extra cooling, I know some people even use water cooling.

Would it be possible to use a utility to temporarily disable the other 3 cores on my CPU and "divert power" as it were to the one core the game will be using?

I'm guessing no, but that would be awesome. It would be like performing Star Trek stuff before playing the game.

Though, if my CPU says it's 3.4Ghz, that's for each core right? Not just the combined clock speed?

[Evaris]

DF uses only one core, so performance depends mostly on clock speed. If you overclock a CPU like shit it would make DF faster. Now overclocking requires extra cooling, I know some people even use water cooling.

Would it be possible to use a utility to temporarily disable the other 3 cores on my CPU and "divert power" as it were to the one core the game will be using?

I'm guessing no, but that would be awesome. It would be like performing Star Trek stuff before playing the game.

Though, if my CPU says it's 3.4Ghz, that's for each core right? Not just the combined clock speed?

1.  You can do the first part of that in admin tools on windows, and shut down all but one core to reduce heat output and power consumption.  You cannot however boost the clock of the remaining core through this measure, and sometimes this can reduce system stability or cause bugs.  Some CPU's however do have an automatic "boost" function, when extra cores are not needed (Any AMD CPU since 2010, and all Intel i3 and higher CPUs) where they temporarily disable half the cores, while boosting the clocks of the remaining cores to the TDP limit.

2.  That is the clock speed for each individual core, not a combined clock speed.  Clock speed is just that - how many clock cycles per second.  In your case, one CPU core runs 3,400,000,000 clock cycles per second.  This is not the same as instructions per clock though, which varies.  A brand new Kaveri CPU core on the AMD side processes 7 instructions per clock, whereas a new Intel Devil's canyon CPU will give you about 8.5-9 instructions per clock.   Compare to an old Core 2 Duo, where each core only does about 4.5 instructions per clock, or a pentium 4 which only processed 3 instructions per clock cycle on average.