Print

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

[Volfram]

Guess what my major is.

Automotive engineering?

Guess I just got told...

This makes them awesome for 'general number crunching' (see: CUBLAS), but terrible for the kinds of indirection- and memory-intensive work that CPUs usually spend so much time on.

OK, so I was right about the effect but wrong about the reason behind it.  Guess I should have paid better attention in Microprocessors and Computer Graphics.

(and Linear Algebra, to aid with the latter)

[MiamiBryce]

Just in case anyone needs to know this:

I have a 3.2ghz quad core processor, DF is split among ALL of my cores for an overal usage rate of about 33% (with 4gig of ram there is no paging going on).  On a 16x16 map w/54 zlvls i'm gettin about 35fps with just my starting 7 dwarves.  I tried out the OpenGL version of DF and it did nothing for me.  Attempting to use partial print cause very bad artifacts, so I don't use it.

So...DF does use all of your cores, and if it doesn't then there is an issue between your OS and your processor.

[G-Flex]

It can use all your cores, perhaps, but not *all at the same time*.

[azazel]

So...DF does use all of your cores, and if it doesn't then there is an issue between your OS and your processor.

No it doesn't - I'm genning a world now, and no matter what affinity I set DF to, the total CPU usage is 25% - or 1 of 4 cores at 100%. If I set affinity to all 4 cores, I still get total CPU usage at 25% - it should go higher, but... it doesn't. Because if it runs at 100% (assumed more, but you can never use more than 100%) on one CPU, it should run at least 50/50 on two, or 25/25/25/25 on 4 (which it doesn't).

Just because affinity is set to highest (access to all cores) and just because all cores experience usage doesn't mean they get used at the same time.

[jaked122]

how about a 3000 bit single core processor, that's my project...
utterly pointless

[Volatar]

Well, I have good news

How about 6.7ghz?

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1948204&art_pos=1

[Volfram]

how about a 3000 bit single core processor, that's my project...
utterly pointless

Bitwidth has about as much to do with actual processor power as clock speed.

Remember, the Xbox, with a 32-bit processor, was slightly more powerful(as I recall) than the Gamecube with a 128-bit processor.

[Draco18s]

Well, I have good news

How about 6.7ghz?

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/23/1948204&art_pos=1

Only if you own your own can of liquid N2.

[G-Flex]

how about a 3000 bit single core processor, that's my project...
utterly pointless

Bitwidth has about as much to do with actual processor power as clock speed.

Remember, the Xbox, with a 32-bit processor, was slightly more powerful(as I recall) than the Gamecube with a 128-bit processor.

... 128-bit? What?

The Gamecube used the Gekko processor.
32 bits.

[Grath]

I have to say, while I haven't tried DF on a high end single core (something like a 4ghz or so) for performance...
My new Core i7 920 rig absolutely runs DF better than my old Core 2 Duo rig which had IDENTICAL clock speed.
(Thanks to the Core i7's Turbo Boost, I can literally watch the FPS rise as the Core i7 overclocks itself to cope with DF's pathfinding. 200+ dwarf fort on a 3x3 or 4x4 with a decent number of Z-levels, running at 30 FPS)

[Volfram]

how about a 3000 bit single core processor, that's my project...
utterly pointless

Bitwidth has about as much to do with actual processor power as clock speed.

Remember, the Xbox, with a 32-bit processor, was slightly more powerful(as I recall) than the Gamecube with a 128-bit processor.

... 128-bit? What?

The Gamecube used the Gekko processor.
32 bits.

Well that's what I was told seven years ago when the Gamecube and Xbox where still in steep competition, anyway.

[CynicalRyan]

I have to say, while I haven't tried DF on a high end single core (something like a 4ghz or so) for performance...
My new Core i7 920 rig absolutely runs DF better than my old Core 2 Duo rig which had IDENTICAL clock speed.
(Thanks to the Core i7's Turbo Boost, I can literally watch the FPS rise as the Core i7 overclocks itself to cope with DF's pathfinding. 200+ dwarf fort on a 3x3 or 4x4 with a decent number of Z-levels, running at 30 FPS)

The iCores have a different design from the Core2 chips.

[Grath]

I have to say, while I haven't tried DF on a high end single core (something like a 4ghz or so) for performance...
My new Core i7 920 rig absolutely runs DF better than my old Core 2 Duo rig which had IDENTICAL clock speed.
(Thanks to the Core i7's Turbo Boost, I can literally watch the FPS rise as the Core i7 overclocks itself to cope with DF's pathfinding. 200+ dwarf fort on a 3x3 or 4x4 with a decent number of Z-levels, running at 30 FPS)

The iCores have a different design from the Core2 chips.

Yes, and various technology advancements. The Turbo Boost, which hasn't been visible in other games, gives me a 10 FPS boost up to 30 FPS from 20, which was around where the Core 2 was running.

Sidenote:
I believe a better reference name for the processor series would be 'Nehalem', rather than 'iCores'. This isn't some Apple MP3 player.

Edit #1:
Making it more clear who I'm responding to

Edit #2:
Also, by that I mean that the Core i7 920 starts off at 20 FPS, then overclocks itself (Turbo Boost feature) automatically to cope with Dwarf Fortress' high processor load.

[CynicalRyan]

Sidenote:
I believe a better reference name for the processor series would be 'Nehalem', rather than 'iCores'. This isn't some Apple MP3 player.

Blame Intel's marketing department for being unclear. Tho, "Pentium VII" sounds stupid, too.

[Grath]

Well, Nehalem is the name for the microarchitecture it uses. Currently there's the Core i7 series, but there's going to be a Core i5 series of budget CPUs as well, so it is kinda confusing. Harder to have a solid name than 'core 2'