How does Dual Core Affect SH3?

[Sheppard]

Does it improve time compression especially in the middle of the atlantic?

[peterloo]

What I'm using now is AMD Athlon x 2 3600+ with Cool 'n' quiet on (i.e. core speed = 1000Mhz during gameplay)

Don't blame me if you have got a 4400+. I know that the one I'm using is not the best

I think that nothing changes when using high compression.
Except better stability so that the game won't crash when crossing Atlantic at 1024x or ships suddenly attack me since the watch officer cannot inform me if a DD is running straight to me

Well, it should make no difference with a Premiun 2.0Ghz w. 512Mb RAM since all the difference is made by different Display Card and RAM. CPU plays little role this time

[Cpt. Stewker]

<--- AMD Athlon X2 4800+

I'm able to run at 4096x (via sh3commander) and able to keep excellent performance/stability. Once you reach harbors or areas of high density traffic though (English Channel, etc) you have to crank it down a bit.

From what the task manager is showing me though, SH3 is strictly a one core setup, as it only utilizes one of 'em on my machne. But at the least, the other core not being utilized is helping run the rest of the system.

[CCIP]

Yea, the short answer is "it doesn't", unless you routinely have something else running in the background while you play SHIII. That said, dual-core is still :up: and you're none the worse for getting it for all sorts of reasons that don't include this game. But it won't make SHIII one any better.

[VIICDriver]

<-------AMD 3500+ Clawhammer. Yeah there is ALOT out there better than mine but it handles SH3, FS2004 and other stuff with ease. I am very satisfied with this processor considering I've had it for over a year and the bang for the buck.

Chuck

[Kiwi Commandant]

Yea, the short answer is "it doesn't", unless you routinely have something else running in the background while you play SHIII. That said, dual-core is still :up: and you're none the worse for getting it for all sorts of reasons that don't include this game. But it won't make SHIII one any better.

That sounds right. Having said that, recently I greatly increased the RAM in my comp (a reasonably grunty laptop, Clevo D900T with P4 3.4 CPU and Nvidia GeForce GO 6800 256) from 1 GB to 3 GB and got a much smoother graphics ride in SH3

[nightdagger]

It helps a lot when you have other stuff running because your game (in this case SH3) uses one whole core while the rest of the processes are on the other.

Peterloo: Don't you mean the opposite (that it throttles back to 1000MHz when NOT playing a game)?

[Wulfmann]

I had a 3500 Venice (Bench says a little better then CH)
It ran SH3 very nice (2X1024DDR400, X850XT OCed VC)
I dropped in a 4600 DC and it was a big jump.
The reason is DC optimizes what is happening. It can direct SH3 to the unused core while the other runs the constant background stuff.
The bench for a FX-55 is half way between the 3500SC and 4600DC
It should be faster if the, "DC does not help SH3" crowd was correct. Iy is not, not even close!!
One must get the DC optimizer from AMD when installing to make this happen. It is free and only a few MBs so is not hard for dial uppers.

Wulfmann

[baggygreen]

But is this dual core optimizer of which you speak solely for AMD? or is it able to be used for any system?

[CCIP]

That sounds right. Having said that, recently I greatly increased the RAM in my comp (a reasonably grunty laptop, Clevo D900T with P4 3.4 CPU and Nvidia GeForce GO 6800 256) from 1 GB to 3 GB and got a much smoother graphics ride in SH3

RAM is a different issue. I would say that there IS a bit of a gain from RAM, though far from proportional to the RAM amount. For instance I went up from 1GB to 2GB, and I would say the performance jump was only about 10-15%. Not a big deal, but still nice.

For most purposes, though, a 2.5Ghz rig or so with a gig of ram will do. I can say that going from a single-core Athlon 2400+ with 1gb ram to a dual-core 3.06Ghz P4 with 2gb ram had a net performance gain in SHIII of maybe 20%. It ran well with all the detail before, and it runs well-er now - but no fantastic improvements.

[jumpy]

But is this dual core optimizer of which you speak solely for AMD? or is it able to be used for any system?

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_13118,00.html

I think that is what you're on about at the top of the page. As far as I'm aware this one is only for AMD stuff. I would imagine Intel (or whomever) might have something similar perhaps?

I installed and ran it when I got my new pc a while back but I couldn't tell you if it 'makes a difference' or not. Having said that I've only had SHIII crash once recently due to a mod messing about thing, if that's anything to go by?

[Tachyon]

What does Cool n Quiet do for my AMD 3500+ ?? Someone here said it limits the core speed to 1000 MHZ...is that true?

[1mPHUNit0]

No 1GB is best, 2GB not best , more slow, too many location to
deal and too many empity.

Dual core it's more slow than a single 3,0 if software don't use dual core programming style.

[Firebird]

I'm wondering how much of a difference 512 MB to 1 GB of RAM would make :). Given my memory usage (including swap file) goes to 996 MB while SH3 is running, I can imagine it's quite a leap forward... :). Has anyone made that transition? I have a somewhat aged processor though, an AMD Athlon XP 2000+.

[VIICDriver]

Regardless as to what has been posted ADDING memory (RAM) will NOT slow down your PC! It will help it out some but not to the extent of "bang for the buck". That being said with todays processors, operating systems, average gaming software and utilities I would think 1gb of RAM would be a minimum with 2gb being "preferred".

Now of course as soon as Vista gets out and some DX10 this will all be rewritten again!

Chuck

[1mPHUNit0]

No, too much memory slow the pc performances if not used.
That sounds right. Having said that, recently I greatly increased the RAM in my comp (a reasonably grunty laptop, Clevo D900T with P4 3.4 CPU and Nvidia GeForce GO 6800 256) from 1 GB to 3 GB and got a much smoother graphics ride in SH3
Vista need about 1.5GB to go fast and whitout sh3

[CCIP]

I wonder where you got the idea that extra RAM slows down the PC when not used. I've certainly seen nothing but improvements from it. And since I have it in dual-channel, it's all the faster still.

Besides, as the Vista example amply shows, there's no such thing as extra RAM :p
On XP, while running any modern game I generally run over 1GB usage, SHIII included, and that extra gig sure comes in handy.

[johnno74]

No 1GB is best, 2GB not best , more slow, too many location to
deal and too many empity.

Dual core it's more slow than a single 3,0 if software don't use dual core programming style.
Ummmm... this is 100% WRONG. :damn: :nope: :damn: :nope:

I'm a win32/.net programmer, I know what I'm talking about. The more memory you have the better. There is no "overhead" to having more physical memory.

Unused memory is used for a disk cache, reducing the number of physical reads you need to make. If you don't have enough mem, and the total working set (PF usage or commit charge in task manager) is greater than your physical memory then your system will be constantly paging to disk then you are in a world of hurt.

And each core on a dual-core system is as fast as a single-core cpu running at the same speed - or even slightly faster, because the manufacturers generally squeeze a little bit more processing power out of each mhz with each new cpu.

Its true that dual-core doesn't help SH3 or most other games much, as they are (mainly) single-threaded and they can only saturate one core.

However, if you look at task manager you'll notice there is always 5-10% of background cpu usage, from internal windows things, AV, messenger, browser, and other stuff. All this can be handled by the spare core, so SH3 etc has 100% of one core to use, instead of 90% or so in a single-core system.

/rant end.

Sorry but one of my pet peeves is ignorant people spreading disinformation.

[Mad Foxes]

If you are using your pc mainly for gaming what matters most is your graphics card. With some exceptions though like FS9, in which you need more cpu speed and ram, would certainly help a lot.

[Cpt. Stewker]

If you are using your pc mainly for gaming what matters most is your graphics card. With some exceptions though like FS9, in which you need more cpu speed and ram, would certainly help a lot.

Very true in most cases, but when it comes to time compression in SH3 (which is what this topic is originally about), that is all cpu.

[1mPHUNit0]

You are not totaly wrong...but you are wrong.
It's a fact, more ram unused....more slow.
Caching slow down the memory access.
And ignotant all we are....or you know all?
And dual core works today more in a single core,
there is not a dual core with a single of 3,4 maybe a pentium D.
That sounds right. Having said that, recently I greatly increased the RAM in my comp (a reasonably grunty laptop, Clevo D900T with P4 3.4 CPU and Nvidia GeForce GO 6800 256) from 1 GB to 3 GB and got a much smoother graphics ride in SH3
Disinformations????

[HunterICX]

You are not totaly wrong...but you are wrong.
It's a fact, more ram unused....more slow.
Caching slow down the memory access.
And ignotant all we are....or you know all?
And dual core works today more in a single core,
there is not a dual core with a single of 3,4
That sounds right. Having said that, recently I greatly increased the RAM in my comp (a reasonably grunty laptop, Clevo D900T with P4 3.4 CPU and Nvidia GeForce GO 6800 256) from 1 GB to 3 GB and got a much smoother graphics ride in SH3
Disinformations????

Not correct sir,

there are many factors where 1GB and 2GB are different.

A 2GB is faster, but then again it depends on the amount of stick you use to create the 2GB ram if you use 4 sticks instead of 2 sticks, the 4 stick will leave more modules in a sort of pause mode that indeed slowsdown performance.

but people with new System that have 2GB in them , mention that the new generation of games (BF2, BF2142, Oblivion M&M Dark Messiah) etc etc that the 2GB improves their gameplay with smoother results opposed to the 1GB ram.

also its about how the system has been build and what you running on it, many factors will give you different results between 1 GB ram or 2 GB ram.

many factors play in thise case of whats faster (1 or 2 GB?)

now because of the development of newer systems and games. it only gets better and faster.
so 1mphunito you cant say 1GB is the BEST because it will be improved nor you can say 2 GB is the BEST because whats NEW today in the Computer world is OLD tommorow , the next week or the next month.

DUO cores, the amount of ram and the amount of Memory the Graphic cards are getting....it never stops.

what a wonderfull decade we live in isnt it

[Tachyon]

um..can anyone please answer my question regarding the Cool n Quiet feature of AMD? Refer to my above post , thanks.

[1mPHUNit0]

Never i said thet 1GB it's better than 2GB, i say it depends

[HunterICX]

Never i said thet 1GB it's better than 2GB, i say it depends
:hmm:No 1GB is best, 2GB not best

No offence but this is what I understood from ur post

[nightdagger]

um..can anyone please answer my question regarding the Cool n Quiet feature of AMD? Refer to my above post , thanks.

When Cool n Quiet is enabled, if the CPU isn't being utilized beyond a certain point, it will throttle back to 1000MHz to save power and keep it cooler.

[1mPHUNit0]

With sh3 1GB it's better than 2GB of course.
Not in absolute
And i was referred to

Originally Posted by Kiwi
That sounds right. Having said that, recently I greatly increased the RAM in my comp (a reasonably grunty laptop, Clevo D900T with P4 3.4 CPU and Nvidia GeForce GO 6800 256) from 1 GB to 3 GB and got a much smoother graphics ride in SH3

It's a fact, more ram unused....more slow.
Caching slow down the memory access.
That's why it's depends

[johnno74]

1mPHUNit0: Care to give us a reference for your claim that more memory makes your computer slower if it is unused?

I'm especially interested as to why you say caching shows down memory access?

After all, a read from a memory address in cache is at least 10x faster than a read from main memory. Thats why you have cache.

If you can show me there is a small theoretical slowdown from having more memory in your system, this performance hit would be completely negligable compared to the large performance gain you get from having a bigger disk cache.

[nightdagger]

Agreed. It just doesn't make since that more RAM is worse.

[Flick]

Here are my systems specs that I am running;

AMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ 2411.2

Processor Speed2411.2 1400 Mhz (1.4 Ghz)


Memory:
System Total 2047.4 Virtual Total 2047.9 Pagefile Total 3429.3

System Memory2047.4

Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 (Build 2600)


Display Device:


MSI NX7600 GS (NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS)

Local Memory: 256.0Driver Version: 6.14.10.8419Device

Description MSI NX7600 GS (NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS) Manufacturer NVIDIA Corporation GUID D7B71E3E-40D2-11CF-D277-22260EC2CD35 Driver

Version 6.14.10.8419 Module nv4_disp.dll Date 3-7-2006

Memory

Total 256.0 Available 247.0 Non-Local 376.0 Texture 623.0

And SH3 plus IL2FBAEPPF just rocks.....:)

[Kiwi Commandant]

[quote=1mPHUNit0]With sh3 1GB it's better than 2GB of course.
Not in absolute
And i was referred to

Originally Posted by Kiwi
That sounds right. Having said that, recently I greatly increased the RAM in my comp (a reasonably grunty laptop, Clevo D900T with P4 3.4 CPU and Nvidia GeForce GO 6800 256) from 1 GB to 3 GB and got a much smoother graphics ride in SH3

It's a fact, more ram unused....more slow.
Caching slow down the memory access.
That's why it's depends[/quote}

With respect: I posted this before I saw a recent post ("What Do You Know") that showed me how to see my Frame Rate (Ctrl + F8) so I have no proof - but - and it's entirely subjective, I still say I have way better graphics with 3 GB Ram in my system than when I had 1 GB.

[nightdagger]

Use the program Fraps for framerate. You can also record videos and crap, but it's a great program.

Once again, though, more RAM does not slow you down, no matter what.

[ecm747x]

Use the program Fraps for framerate. You can also record videos and crap, but it's a great program.

Once again, though, more RAM does not slow you down, no matter what.


There are some instances where more ram can slow you down. In some motherboards if you fill all 4 slots with ram, say 4 sticks of 512, using pc3200 ram, the 400 speed has now been dropped to 333. But, I have one of these MBs. At one time I filled all 4 slots up. But, the extra gig of ram I put in sure made games like BF2 load and play so much better. It far more helped in more memory than the slow down in the bus speed.
I have never found an instance, other than what I mentioned above, where more ram has slowed a system down at all.
I just rebuilt a rig for a friend of mine who only had 512mb of ram. he was complaining that his games would become laggy. He was running out of physical memory and writing to the disk, lagging out everything.