Print

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

[microtank]

I'm about to build a new computer and I'm ready to put up to $500 just in the cpu.

Question is this.

Since this game does not make use of multiple cores.  I'm assuming that if you're going to purchase a multi-core like a quad-core, the best performance would be the quad-core with the fastest ghz speed per core, since only 1 core can be used towards the game while playing. 

1.)  Is this logic correct?  (if not explain in detail if possible)
and
2.)  If you had $500 to put towards any cpu on the market, which would benefit Dwarf fortress the most?

Thank you DF computer genius's.  You're imput will be appreciated!!!

-microtank

[Girlinhat]

It depends.  If you go all out on single-core, and then next patch Toady makes DF multi-core, then, lol.

[PopeRichardCorey]

It depends.  If you go all out on single-core, and then next patch Toady makes DF multi-core, then, lol.

Won't happen next patch; if I understand the technobabble of the Threading discussions, it's a huge (and arguably impossible?) project to multithread.  That's happening a long while in the future!

[microtank]

It depends.  If you go all out on single-core, and then next patch Toady makes DF multi-core, then, lol.

I have no intentions of a single-core processor, especially when a high quality single core can be duplicated by 4 or 6.

[microtank]

So, for example, if I'm thinking about this correctly, DF would actually run faster on a quad-core 3.4ghz (per core) than it would on a more expensive 6-core 3.0ghz (per core) since the mentioned 3.4 quad has greater speed per processor and the game can only utilize 1 of the processors. 

Correct?

[bobhayes]

So, for example, if I'm thinking about this correctly, DF would actually run faster on a quad-core 3.4ghz (per core) than it would on a more expensive 6-core 3.0ghz (per core) since the mentioned 3.4 quad has greater speed per processor and the game can only utilize 1 of the processors. 

Correct?

Probably.

It also depends on what else you're doing with the machine. If you're playing Dwarf Fortress as one task among several CPU-heavy applications, then you might be faster on the slower machine with more cores. If your PC is basically acting as a DF console, though, then yes, all else being equal the faster clock speed is going to give you higher FPS.

But memory speed also factors into it - all else won't necessarily be equal, in other words. If the 6-core CPU has a faster memory architecture than the 4-core, it might be faster overall, even on a single-thread application like DF.

[ledgekindred]

There are a lot of factors and probably no "single" answer.  Things like per-core clock speed, how much other stuff may be running at the same time, what the memory speed is, whether or not the CPU/chipset supports overclocking, etc.

My i7 Mac for example has the intel "speedstep" (I think it's called) that can overclock one core at the expense of underclocking the other cores.  So even though it's technically 2.66Ghz, from what I understand, it can overclock one core up to 3.2Ghz.  And at least in the past I've bought cheaper CPUs that were able to be overclocked faster than more expensive ones which did not support overclocked bus speeds.

And depending on your video card, it may or may not support some of the more advanced rendering modes which might have some minor impact on overall FPS.

Overall clock speed + bus speed + memory access speed + overclocking + multitasking + video rendering = how fast DF runs.

Buy something "fast enough" and good quality hardware. 

[microtank]

Im looking into this one from newegg

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115070

Its the 2nd gen i7 quad 3.4ghz, but its the "k" model thats unlocked for overclocking with what appears to be a built in measure to put it at 3.8ghz with little to zero effort.  This looks like it will do the job very nicely without breaking the bank.  $329

[krenshala]

Overall clock speed + bus speed + memory access speed + overclocking + multitasking + video rendering = how fast DF runs.

Don't forget the amount and speed of the L1 and L2 cache on the CPU(s).  The cache sizes, in conjunction with the clock speed, plays a major part in how fast the core can work on their tasks.

Buy something "fast enough" and good quality hardware.

This, essentially, is the key.

[Cydonian Monk]

Echoing the above post, pay special attention to the L1/L2 cache speeds and sizes.  Those really come second after processor clock speed (for something like DF), and before anything else.  (And don't rule out AMD unless you just don't like them for some reason.  More bang for the buck, but Intel's bang is currently better - Just 10x more expensive.)  But yes, your logic regarding processor speed vs #cores for DF is valid.


And multithreading a simulation isn't impossible [especially a frame-based sim like DF] , it just requires a different approach and a firm understanding of threading and synchronization.  (And you may not get much of a performance improvement, if any, on current hardware.  Context switching can be a pain.  And beyond that it really depends on how the OS and/or hardware handles your threads, and a thousand other variables.)  Not likely to happen to DF or any other existing large codebase without a long delay for redesign/rewrite.

[Maklak]

GHz is important factor is CPU speed, but so is architecture. Newer processors are usually faster clock for clock than old ones. For example fastest Pentium 4's were at about same clock speeds, as current processors, and DF runs with more FPS on Core 2 Duo, than on Pentium 4 with faster clock. That might have something to do with bigger cache and more memory bandwidth tough.

[Grax]

Won't happen next patch; if I understand the technobabble of the Threading discussions, it's a huge (and arguably impossible?) project to multithread.  That's happening a long while in the future!

This is very sad.

We just would have a 4x times speed up with a six-core. But no.

[Sean Mirrsen]

If we promote DF enough, it could force the hardware market to develop towards more power per core, rather than more cores per CPU. I'm pretty sure that if we get some of the higher-ups at Intel hooked on DF, we'll see a dynamic-scaling CPU capable of overclocking one core to above 8GHz at the cost of shutting down others, in about a year. No, better, get their kids hooked on DF. Then it'll be a month. Just so their daughter's pet megaproject (a hundred-level towering inferno of misery and death) can run at 100FPS as she requests.

[Nekudotayim]

If we promote DF enough, it could force the hardware market to develop towards more power per core, rather than more cores per CPU. I'm pretty sure that if we get some of the higher-ups at Intel hooked on DF, we'll see a dynamic-scaling CPU capable of overclocking one core to above 8GHz at the cost of shutting down others, in about a year. No, better, get their kids hooked on DF. Then it'll be a month. Just so their daughter's pet megaproject (a hundred-level towering inferno of misery and death) can run at 100FPS as she requests.

The hardware market won't change their path because of one application and they have gotten to the limits of what is possible to archive on a single core related to what people are capable to pay for. Same counts for harddrives. There is a big abyss between the speed of a CPU and the speed of the harddrive. That's why all the caches have been introduced.

Seriously, the most easy way to get this game multi-threaded, as I already said, would be to rewrite it in Erlang. It's like a copy and paste job - less likely but the fastest way to archive this. The compiler will do the rest then.

[Shurikane]

IIRC, some (or most) Core i processors possess a Turbo Boost features, which ups the clock speed of a core in demand when the other cores are inactive.

This means that if you're running an i7 with just DF and the load on the other cores is marginal, then the DF-running core will be given a jolt to help it out.