Dual Processors

[GnarPow]

Does this game make use of dual processors? i know not every game out there makes use of both of them so I was curious if SH4 did. If it doesnt then I basically am running this game with a 1.83ghz computer and that would explain why my FPS doesnt go much over 15 when Im on the conning tower and much over 30-60 fps in the campaign map.

I have about Medium graphics settings I would say and no AA on. I was running AA for awhile but wanted to see if not running it made a big difference and I dont see too much of a difference which is whats making me believe my CPU is the bottleneck at the moment.

[ReallyDedPoet]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=108291

There is some stuff in here that may answer some of your questions:yep:

RDP

[flintlock]

Unfortunately, SH4 isn't multithreaded (in the true sense of the term). SH4's code would require significant re-engineering to implement multithreading correctly, and that just likely wasn't in the cards with the accelerated development schedule this time around. Perhaps down the road some future version of SHx may be multithreaded.

As multi-core processors become more popular by the day, I would be surprised if the next incarnation of SHx wasn't designed from the ground up as a multithreaded app.

[codeseven]

Ya, hopefully the SH game engine has been pushed close to the limit (I wanna see the next patch max it out!:D ) so SH5 will have a new, multithreaded, DX10 capable game engine!

[ReallyDedPoet]

When I was building a new computer I decided to put in a cheaper processor for now, P4 D 3.2ghz, rather than the Dual Core for this reason, that it would take developers some time to catch up with the technology. The mobo will support a dual-core down the road, they will be cheaper then to:yep:

RDP

[meatball]

When I was building a new computer I decided to put in a cheaper processor for now, P4 D 3.2ghz, rather than the Dual Core for this reason, that it would take developers some time to catch up with the technology. The mobo will support a dual-core down the road, they will be cheaper then to:yep:

RDP
Money is money but clock speed is not an accurate gauge these days when you are talking old technology vs. new technology. See the following thread, specifically the post by InteliotInside, for why buying even the cheapest dual core is better than buying a P4:

http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/Pentium-E4300-ftopict234530.html

[VonBlade]

As multi-core processors become more popular by the day, I would be surprised if the next incarnation of SHx wasn't designed from the ground up as a multithreaded app.

I'd be surprised if the next incarnation of SH was designed from the ground up.

They've got our money this time by releasing a woefully under-finished mod of SH3. Why put in the effort if the reward is the same.

Although wouldn't a pukka multi-threaded version be lovely. :wistful sigh:
VB

[Bill KUnert]

I have seen posts indicating that disabling one of the cores on a dual core processor will make SH4 run a bit better. I can't confirm it and I don't remember where I saw it but it can't hurt to try it.

[-Pv-]

I've watched both cores using processor time in my AMD 2.2 DC while playing SH4. I don't think anyone running this kind of setup is wasting their money on DCore in SH4. I'm getting consistant 40-60 frames in outside 3D with no complaints. I'm getting a lot of performance for the buck and I've measured my performance with bench tests on identical P4 3.0 machines I've built and the 2.2 DC matches or beats the P4 3.0 and the AMD2.4 smokes the P4 3.0.
-Pv-

[stabiz]

It is also important to note that even though there is no (or very little) multi threading in SH4, the other core will take care of Windows.

[RickC Sniper]

I have seen posts indicating that disabling one of the cores on a dual core processor will make SH4 run a bit better. I can't confirm it and I don't remember where I saw it but it can't hurt to try it.


I saw those posts too and tried it, but my framerates were slightly higher leaving both cores active. I have an intel E6600 duo core and I have no complaints with how it handles this game.

[Tarl]

ReallyDedPoet, sorry to correct you sir, but a P4 D 3.2 processor is a "DUAL CORE."

It is old generation dual core, but dual nonetheless. The P4 D's were the end of the P4 line, whereas the C2D (core2duos) are the "new" generation of dual core chips.

[maerean_m]

When I was building a new computer I decided to put in a cheaper processor for now, P4 D 3.2ghz, rather than the Dual Core

FYI: Pentium D is Dual Core :) (link to intel.com (http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium_D/index.htm))

[Grothesj2]

I get good frame rate with my AMD dual core.

[Fercyful]

I have a core2duo e6600 and I´m very happy with it in SH4 (ARMA and Oblivion also loves it...) so no problems, and both cores are used in some way while playing, don´t know if the game is optimized or not but works well and that is the important thing x me!

:rock::arrgh!:

[Rilex]

To answer the op, yes, SH4 is multithreaded:

http://rilex.nauplius.net/sh4threading.png
Very few games, if any, are single threaded applications. This would lead to a whole slew of performance issues when it came to input, sound, and video if true.

[Marko_Ramius]

When running SH4, with Teamspeak (or other same software), virus-scanner, maïls stuff, monitoring, and so on ... It is very good to have a dual :yep: Even if the game is not multi-threads.

But if you have a good single core, no hurry to upgrade. Better to look in some ram or better graphic card.


Soon, we will see the quad-core for all ... and so on. They will never stop the war, LOL !!



EDIT : Hé !! my picture "Shore leave" is funny !! I like it.

[Zantham]

Multi-threaded does not equal multi-core compatibility. The ability to utilize dual-core (or multi-core) depends on two things: The operating system must support it, and the application running must support it. Windows XP (and Vista) support it fine. As for the application, an app that runs multithreaded wont necessarily be optimized for dual core. This can be seen when running a demanding app on a dual core machine, often one CPU will run at 100% the other will barely do anything. An app that is programmed for dual core will run 100% on both cores.

An example: you have two Pentium 4 processors. One is single core (assume no hyperthreading to make it fair) running at 3.8GHz, the other is a dual-core, running at 2.8GHz. The processors are otherwise identical. A game that takes advantage of dual core will run significantly faster on the 2.8GHz machine than the 3.8GHz. But a non-optimised game will run faster on the single core 3.8GHz, and this is true of most, but not all, games today.

Oddly, I have seen the odd motherboard that was running single apps I knew to not be optimised for dual-core....and windows reported both cores in use, but at 40-60% or so each (both adding up to 100% total at any given time). Go figure.

And as Marko_Ramius says, It is very good to have a dual :yep: Even if the game is not multi-threads.

[Rilex]

The ability to utilize dual-core (or multi-core) depends on two things: The operating system must support it, and the application running must support it.


This is half incorrect. Only the OS must support SMP/SMT/multi-core given the application creates more than one thread. The OS is what determines where a thread goes, not the application (much like the OS, or Windows rather, determines memory allocation, not the OS). The scheduler is a kernel/operating system component, not an application component.

The application should be coded in such a way to take advantage of more than one CPU/core, but just because it isn't does not mean you will not see even a small percentage gain in performance (given identical clock rates and architecture).

There is, of course, the possibily for a performance loss if a thread is waiting for another thread to complete. This would create a deadlock on one CPU/core until the other thread finished on the other CPU/core.

[Zantham]

The ability to utilize dual-core (or multi-core) depends on two things: The operating system must support it, and the application running must support it.

This is half incorrect. Only the OS must support SMP/SMT/multi-core given the application creates more than one thread. The OS is what determines where a thread goes, not the application (much like the OS, or Windows rather, determines memory allocation, not the OS). The scheduler is a kernel/operating system component, not an application component.

The application should be coded in such a way to take advantage of more than one CPU/core, but just because it isn't does not mean you will not see even a small percentage gain in performance (given identical clock rates and architecture).

There is, of course, the possibily for a performance loss if a thread is waiting for another thread to complete. This would create a deadlock on one CPU/core until the other thread finished on the other CPU/core.
First let's not confuse Multiple CPU's with a Multicore CPUs. For all the similarities, the two are quite a bit different and were outside the scope of what I was talking about. XP can handle a dual-core CPU just fine, but really performs badly with multiple physical cpu's. Vista uses both multi-core and/or multiple CPU's fine. A prime example is the Athlon FX-7x series chips which are two cpus, each dual core. They do not do well in XP, but do well in Vista (and Server operating systems).

And I do agree with you that you will see a performance gain in a dual core vs a single core clocked at the same speeds, which is why I agreed with the comment " It is very good to have a dual :yep: Even if the game is not multi-threads." My example listed a faster single core vs a slower dual core that was still well over half the clock speed of the single core. An app not designed to use multiple cores will run faster on the higher clocked single core machine than the lower clocked dual core whereas an app that supports multicore will run faster on the slower dual core. Obviously if you throw a dual core into the mix (for the sake of my example running 3.8GHz dual, same as the single core) that will be potentially faster again even for a nonoptimised app, tho even this is somewhat argueable since adding more cores and/or CPU's increases certain other overheads which are again outside of the point I was trying to make (your threadlock being one example), which is again offset by the 2nd core being able to run unrelated background tasks such as antivirus, thus enhancing overall performance, and so on pro and con...

And don't forget, even tho the OS itself does schedule an apps threads as you said, this is based on thread priority. And if you check an app that is not designed to use multiple cores, you will find that there will generally be only one thread in that process that uses most of the CPU at a given time, while the other threads will use relatively little CPU time, whether the CPU is single or multiple core. In fact, there are some apps out there that are dual-core aware, but when run on a quad core, will still only utilize two cores, either by creating only two processes instead of four, or utilizing only up to two main threads, esentially leaving the other two cpu's mostly idle.

edit: wow I got some long sentences in there! :D

[Rilex]

XP can handle a dual-core CPU just fine, but really performs badly with multiple physical cpu's.


This is untrue. While the Intel GTL+ bus hobbles Intel SMP systems, XP "dealt" with them just fine (unless you're willing to imply that NT4 and Windows 2000 also dealt with SMP horribly).


either by creating only two processes instead of four, or utilizing only up to two main threads, esentially leaving the other two cpu's mostly idle.


Let's not confuse processes with threads. Threads are what are spread out across CPUs, not processes. In your example of processes, both processes could have their threads attached to a single core/CPU.

[Zantham]

XP can handle a dual-core CPU just fine, but really performs badly with multiple physical cpu's.

This is untrue. While the Intel GTL+ bus hobbles Intel SMP systems, XP "dealt" with them just fine (unless you're willing to imply that NT4 and Windows 2000 also dealt with SMP horribly).



Please forgive my poor wording :doh: . I was still referencing AMD FX-7x from here:

Zantham
A prime example is the Athlon FX-7x series chips which are two cpus, each dual core. They do not do well in XP, but do well in Vista


Yes...SMP works in XP, 2000, NT. It is the non uniform memory architecture AMD has used in their FX-7x chips that doesnt work well in XP, not the presence of multiple physical processors.

As far as this:


Let's not confuse processes with threads. Threads are what are spread out across CPUs, not processes. In your example of processes, both processes could have their threads attached to a single core/CPU.


I tried to find the site I read the other week where they were testing quad vs dual core performance on Intel and AMD, Vista and XP. They had problems finding software that would properly utilize all 4 cores properly. It seemed that the multi-core programs they were using were still generally restricted to two cores and would not use the other two cores. They finally found some programs that they could use. I very distinctly remember one created 4 separate processes to do its calculations, as viewable in task manager. Another program simply created four execution threads, showing as a single process in task manager. Does this make sense or am I totally making a mess now? :dead: