Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM  (Read 2253 times)

TheBeardyMan

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« on: June 09, 2009, 11:03:06 am »

In games that allow choices of map size, I prefer the largest that my PC can handle. What's the largest embark rectangle size that would run OK on 3.2GHz, multi-core (8, but I gather that any beyond the second doesn't matter yet), 12GB RAM?
Logged

loopoo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2009, 11:12:18 am »

My gaming PC can handle the whole embark screen, i.e, the 10 x 10 square or whatever it is easily. Sad though :c I'm on my shitty laptop cause my PC is in another country :c This shitty thing can barely handle a 4 x 4 map with 100 dwarves.
Logged

Jay

  • Bay Watcher
  • ☼Not Dead Yet☼
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2009, 11:16:40 am »

My gaming PC can handle the whole embark screen, i.e, the 10 x 10 square or whatever it is easily. Sad though :c I'm on my shitty laptop cause my PC is in another country :c This shitty thing can barely handle a 4 x 4 map with 100 dwarves.
It'd be nice to know what the specs of your gaming PC were.

To the OP: I'd experiment and see what works for you, there's a large number of variables involved.
Logged
Mishimanriz: Histories of Pegasi and Dictionaries

ilsadir

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2009, 11:44:26 am »

You only need a couple GB of RAM for any size map.  And since DF is only single threaded, it doesn't matter how many cores you have, beyond the first.

At any rate, embark sizes can generally be handled fine by anyone.  It's when you've mined half the map and have 200 dwarves that your CPU will be chugging.
Logged

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2009, 11:52:06 am »

I like to play with 6x6 maps, sometimes a bit bigger. I don't generally have a problem with FPS. Although sometimes it will suddendly slow down for no reason at all, but a save, close, and restart fixes that. Not sure if there is a memory leak since it only happens after a long while.

Also, the terrain will affect your FPS, my current game is on a treeless/plantless desert/mountain combination and my FPS is pratically going at light speed. Once things get crowded, it does drop down to like 30 or 40 FPS, but that's with alot of dwarves.

Honestly though, I usually have a problem with HUGE amounts of mineral resources and rock on larger maps than with lag.
Logged

Derakon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2009, 11:57:13 am »

Jaybud has the right of it. It's not just map size, but also the number of units, how much flowing fluids you have, how many items you've made, and a bunch more things that factor into your game speed.
Logged
Jetblade - an open-source Metroid/Castlevania game with procedurally-generated levels

loopoo

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2009, 01:50:02 pm »

My Gaming PC specs are:

4gb DDR2 Ram
Quad-core, dunno the make
I have 2 9800 GS cards, I usually use them with SLI games for awesomeness, not sure it affects DF

Thats the main stuff, and I run maps with a constant 70 FPS fine. I limit my FPS to 70, cause 80-100 is way too fast for me, the Dwarves zip about and I lose track easily. I prefer my dwarves to move at normal, dwarvenly speeds.
Logged

Tokkius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2009, 02:23:49 pm »

Quad-core 2.8 GHz
4 GB RAM

I can run a 10x10 with ease until I get to about 60 dwarves. At that point, things slow down noticeable, but don't skip around.
Logged

Kadath

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2009, 03:15:17 pm »

I envy you people ;)

I can only handle 2x2 to 3x3 areas with a maximum of 25-30 dwarves on my laptop.
Logged

Opirian

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2009, 03:32:55 pm »

2.4 Ghz AMD Athalon
1gb of Ram
Radeon 9800 (I know I need to upgrade)

40d11 with 100 dwarves on an 8x8 runs at an average of 70 FPS for me.
Logged
Don't go drowning your boss for telling you to work.

damn nobles management.
Minedstockades

Zancor Mezoran

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #10 on: June 09, 2009, 06:17:27 pm »

2.4 Ghz AMD Athalon
1gb of Ram
Radeon 9800 (I know I need to upgrade)

40d11 with 100 dwarves on an 8x8 runs at an average of 70 FPS for me.

Well, I must be doing something wrong then....This is my setup:

3ghz Q6600 Quad-core
4gb DDR2-800 ram w/ 4-4-4-12 timings
HD Radeon 3870 @ 665mhz engine, 1242mhz memory

6x6 Map
1 brook, 1 magma pipe, not much else
Heavily forested, thick vegetation
132 dwarves, FPS 30 or so (at 100 dwarves it was around 40-50)
Logged
Anyway, I figure that the dwarves are only marginally less wasteful of metal than they are of wood. The moody dwarf's selecting only the best 5% of each bar of metal, and eats the rest to sustain him as he works on the artifact.

Peewee

  • Bay Watcher
  • Watcher Of Bays
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2009, 10:41:59 am »

Specs:
Intel core 2 duo E8500, 3.16GHz
4GB DDR2 memory, but less is actually available because I use 32-bit XP home edition.
NVidia GeForce 9800 GT, though it really doesn't matter.

With [PRINT_MODE:STANDARD] I get about 200-280 FPS... in my 4x4 embark zone with 15 dwarves.

SORRY FOR THE IMAGE THAT WAS HERE!
Apparently, that host doesn't like people stealing bandwidth.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 05:07:38 pm by Peewee »
Logged

gtmattz

  • Bay Watcher
  • [PREFSTRING:BEARD]
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2009, 11:11:58 am »

DO NOT CLICK THE SPOILER IN PEEWEE'S POST  >:( :o
Logged
Quote from: Hyndis
Just try it! Its not like you die IRL if Urist McMiner falls into magma.

Tokkius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2009, 11:29:05 am »

I've used the internet for far too long for that stuff to affect me.
Logged

Derakon

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Embark rectangle size vs CPU speed/cores/RAM
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2009, 11:48:51 am »

Post reported to the moderators. This is not one of your scum-sucking bottom-of-the-barrel forums, Peewee. That crap doesn't fly here.
Logged
Jetblade - an open-source Metroid/Castlevania game with procedurally-generated levels
Pages: [1] 2