Print

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

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Well, I'm sitting here with DF in a window, making a new world, and task manager open, (old save-fag habit).
And I noticed, no matter what, the DF process would never consume more than 5(1)% CPU.
Is there a reason for this?

[Ghavrel]

Disclaimer: I am not a computer science person. DF doesn't use multi-core threading, so if you have a dual-core processor it's only going to be using half of your computer's TRUE POWER.

Disclaimer: I am so not a computer science person.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Aaah, you've just improved my computer science personage by +1.
That makes sense.
Must suck for quad-cores.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

euch, it just froze. wonderful.
only 900 years in too.

[MiniMacker]

It does suck for us Quadcores.

3.4 GHz x 4  = 13.6 would be my full power.

[Encased in burning magma]

It does suck for us Quadcores.

3.4 GHz x 4  = 13.6 would be my full power.

I WAS ONLY USING 25% OF MY FULL POWER
*hair turns blond*

[TurkeyXIII]

My CPU has 8 logical cores, so usage sits around 13% 

[Sir Iryn]

This has become a fairly common topic of DF discussion for as long as I've been here.

Conventional wisdom seems to be that with DF, the more cores you have, the better your performance will be, but that the speed of each core plays a bigger part than the number of cores. You'll see the greatest benefit if you dedicate a single core to DF and offload all the other programs and your OS onto the other cores.

I'm about to make a jump from a Intel Core 2 Quad (4 Cores, 2.66Ghz per core) to an AMD Phenom II (6 Cores, 3.20GHz per core).

[Fayrik]

People say it sucks to play Dwarf Fortress on a quad core machine?
Seriously you guys?
Try playing Dwarf Fortress on a single core machine.

I'm almost at the point of saying that Dwarf Fortress needs a multi-core machine, even just to run itself. I could swear that it's tripping over it's threads on this machine.

I can't wait to get my Phenom II x4 back next week. I'm going to play Dwarf Fortress with Stonesense running, browse the net, and listen to music. And still have a huge amount of processing power go to waste.
(Okay, I'll admit, this computer used to be able to browse the net and play music at the same time, but I think something's broken since then.)

Anyway, my point is, sure with a multi-core processor you might not be able to run DF so goddamned fast that you could pass an entire year within two minutes dead... But the fact to multi-core processing is that you'd never be able to do that with a regular processor anyway. So, run Stonesense, minimize DF, and enjoy the fact your computer can do more than one thing at once still.

[Dwarf]

It's just, in a dual core, the individual cores tend to have more processing power (it seems?) whilst a quad core, the total power may be higher, but the individual cores are slower.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Yeah, those specs labeled aren't per-core unless specifically stated. a 2.4 ghz dual-core isn't equivalent to two 1.2ghz cores running at once, nor is it equal to a single 4.8ghz single-core.
It's a 2.4ghz dual-core.
Apples and Oranges.
What single-cores are good for are processing a single, high-demand game.
For example, 3ghz single will process Fallout3zomgcrazygraphicsgame better than a 2.66 dual-core.
A dual core, however, will be able to handle multiple-applications better.
The reason for this is that the two cores are able to focus on two different things at once, whereas a single-core would trip over itself given multiple data streams. And that's a general descrip.

Given a game that requires a fast cpu, and without multi-core compatibility, a quad/six/eight core system will run that game like a fucking dog, whereas a single-core with half their speed will run it better. That quad will be able to run four of those simultaneously, however, given enough ram.

btw, EiBM,
derp. dbz. /masterbatesnostalgicpenisorgan

[TurkeyXIII]

Generally speaking, though, processors with more cores tend to be newer, and newer processors tend to be faster and/or more efficient.  Even though my current computer only uses 1/8th of its theoretical capacity for DF it's still many times faster than the old semperon I used to use.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

That might be due to many things, all of which become more drastic as the year difference between the two machines increases. But I don't disagree. If you had a brand new computer though, with a single, mega-tastic single core cpu, it would be faster than a comparable dual-core.

[inteuniso]

Conventional wisdom seems to be that with DF, the more cores you have, the better your performance will be, but that the speed of each core plays a bigger part than the number of cores. You'll see the greatest benefit if you dedicate a single core to DF and offload all the other programs and your OS onto the other cores.

Quick question from a multi-core noob... how do you offload all programs to different cores?

[Thief^]

Windows does it for you. Any attempts to do it manually are just placebo effect.