Print

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

[Frobozz]

I've posted this in one other spot too, but if you want to save the most money I'd go with the ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 board. Supports Socket 775 so you could go with a $75 Pentium Dual-Core or a more expensive Core 2 Duo as well as DDR/DDR2 and AGP/PCI-express. The PCI-express runs at 4x speed and Jaqie mentioned something about power limitations. You'll want to check the manufacturer page.

[termitehead]

Remember it's not straight hardware you have to think about.  Sure you might have 4gig ram quad core rig.  But if you never defrag, have shit-tons of spyware, are running a dozen other processes, and so on...  you're gonna get shit lag.  I know a lot of people who have better pc's compared with my hardware but mine runs a lot better because I take care of it.  It's like any other game which requires decent hardware, minimize the number of processes you have running and keep a nice and clean environment - then start talking about hardware.

[Nukeitall]

I think we're all overlooking the fact that Dwarf Fortress is no Crysis. It's too alpha to even consider performance.

[Frobozz]

quote:Originally posted by termitehead:
<STRONG>But if you never defrag, have shit-tons of spyware, are running a dozen other processes, and so on...  you're gonna get shit lag.  I know a lot of people who have better pc's compared with my hardware but mine runs a lot better because I take care of it.</STRONG>

Yes quite true unfortunately. Its one of the reasons people end up having to redo Windows every few months. And its also one of the reasons I totally dropped Windows (even though I had commercial tools like Diskeeper running in the background defragmenting during system idle periods) for Linux.

Regardless upgrading hardware still has a sizable impact. Especially if you go from an AthlonXP to Pentium Dual-Core/Core 2 Duo. If anything the spyware will have an additional core to hog and thus free up resources for Dwarf Fortress.  

[mizipzor]

I have a core2due running at 2.66Ghz and 2Gb ram. Running DF through wine in Kubuntu. But the fps is silly, Its usually around 10, maxing at 25 at times when nothing is going on (when Im starting out that is). And saving all the units after generating a world took a hilarious amount of time.

But getting this low performance in linux make me suspect that something is wrong with my settings. In windows Im usually at 100.

Edit: After installing proper graphics driver the fps is rocksteady at 75, I have it capped at that, gonna try raise it later.

[ November 08, 2007: Message edited by: mizipzor ]

[Frobozz]

quote:Originally posted by mizipzor:
<STRONG>But getting this low performance in linux make me suspect that something is wrong with my settings. In windows Im usually at 100.</STRONG>

Like I said earlier, I think Wine is eating up the processing time. Maybe it is having to rework how Dwarf Fortress is doing something behind the scenes in order for it to work perfectly. Either way I think porting the game would remove a lot of the issue.

[Trukkle]

quote:Originally posted by termitehead:
<STRONG>Remember it's not straight hardware you have to think about.  Sure you might have 4gig ram quad core rig.  But if you never defrag, have shit-tons of spyware, are running a dozen other processes, and so on...  you're gonna get shit lag.  I know a lot of people who have better pc's compared with my hardware but mine runs a lot better because I take care of it.  It's like any other game which requires decent hardware, minimize the number of processes you have running and keep a nice and clean environment - then start talking about hardware.</STRONG>

Aaaaaaaaaand returning late once again.
Yep, I completely agree. I take care of my machine in just that manner, and my windows installs usually outlive my case fans because of it. There are new games out now (Not Crysis) that run better and a lot more reliably on my supposedly ancient setup than they do on current hardware. The problem is, it's never going to be possible to make it run any better in it's current incarnation. My processor is letting me down.

Can anyone get me up to speed on the current state of Intel? Comparative speed, heat tolerances, if they're still only doing 32bitx2, instead of true 64bit? Whether I'd need to get Vista (not happening)
I've been an AMD diehard for so long I forgot why I started. That's the only qualm I had with the board mentioned above. I'd gladly take this to email, PM or IM (check my profile)

[ November 10, 2007: Message edited by: Trukkle ]

[Frobozz]

quote:<STRONG>Can anyone get me up to speed on the current state of Intel? Comparative speed, heat tolerances, if they're still only doing 32bitx2, instead of true 64bit?</STRONG>

The article on Penryn on Tom's Hardware pretty much hints as to the direction they're heading. It seems they're into shrinking, speeding up, and reducing the power consumption of individual transistors. And they pretty much appear to be doing quite well at it.

I don't honestly think 64-bit is needed at this point. The only real advantage I see to it is more memory per program but I haven't run across too many programs that use more than 2GB. Specialty programs will always need it sure but you won't be running those programs on cheap processors (aka Core 2 Duo).

 

quote:<STRONG>I've been an AMD diehard for so long I forgot why I started. That's the only qualm I had with the board mentioned above. I'd gladly take this to email, PM or IM (check my profile)</STRONG>

I was somewhat into AMD myself - part of the reason I went with AthlonXP. But these days I'm into whatever gives me the most performance for my money.

[ November 10, 2007: Message edited by: Frobozz ]

[Lactose]

delete

[ November 10, 2007: Message edited by: Lactose ]