Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Latrobe on August 25, 2011, 10:01:59 AM
-
I have a dual-core processor and I'm wondering what is the difference of running a game through one processor vs two processor? Is there even a difference? I've been reading about this recently and from what I've read (so far) you can run a game through one processor and run your background stuff on the other processor. This would increase your game speed since there is less activity going through the one processor, correct? I may be completely wrong about this though.
What difference does it make if you run a game through one processor or if you run it through both? Or, does it make no difference and I'm just wasting my time?
-
geez, there is such a large number of variables that have to taken into consideration with your question. in very generalistic terms, yes you could have a game use just one or two cpu cores and have all other processes/applications run on the others. also just generally speaking core speed will make more difference in program performance than the number of cores available. according to htc, ah will only use a maximum of 2 cores on intel cpus and only 1 core on amd cpus, so the speed of each core makes a lot of difference. the operating system has processes that will use all available cores and some programs/games will as well. if a program has the ability to be directed to a specific cpu core, then it's best to have it do so if you want to be able to multi task and maintain overall performance.
again, that's in very general terms. what is it you're trying to do anyway?
-
Someone please confuse him more with quad core processors
Signed, Ripsnort who used to used to burn ants on the sidewalk with a magnifying glass ....
-
If you have an AMD processor, AHII will only use one core IIRC.
Coogan
-
If you have an AMD processor, AHII will only use one core IIRC.
Coogan
Interesting. Anyone knows why?
-
Someone please confuse him more with quad core processors
Signed, Ripsnort who used to used to burn ants on the sidewalk with a magnifying glass ....
Used to only because his Mom took his maginfying glass away yesterday. :ahand
-
Multi core processors allow multitasking better.
Add to this your graphics cards processor and it is spread around rather than all through one point. Single core has to cycle multiple tasks through meaning each is slowed a little.
Program X
Program L
Program Z
Single core XLZXLZXLZXLZXLZ
Quad Core XXXXXXXX
LLLLLLLLL
ZZZZZZZ
________ << at rest
A bit simplistic but basically how it works.
-
anyway to assign programs to seperate cores, or does this happen on its own? i've always wondered about quad cores ( i have a quad core AMD)
-
Interesting. Anyone knows why?
skuzzy has mentioned it in several discussions under the hardware section, something about a "bug" in amd multi-core cpu's, it may be related to using nvidia chipsets and/or graphics cards or just the cpu's themselves. i believe tequila chaser has the baddest amd system running right now with the latest amd 890 chipsets and he has said ah is only using a single core on his system.
obviously ah will run better on a dual core 3+ghz intel cpu than it will on a 3+ghz quad core amd, but with the right combination of parts ah will run very well with an amd.
-
What I'm getting from Latrobe is he's wanting to manually assign which core(s) are being used by which tasks.
Logically speaking, it would seem to me to make sense on a dual core system (for example) to have the OS processes running on one core, and AH running on the other. Quick, cursory googling indicates to me that Windows doesn't appear to like it when people assign the processor for system processes manually so I doubt a person would be able to set it up that way. In any case, if you assign it manually it only takes for as long as the program is open.
It's a nice thought, but I suspect allowing the OS to do whatever it does may be the better choice.
Wiley.
-
OK here's the deal with cores. Each core is like a separate processor. If a program isn't specifically designed to run on multiple cores it will only use one core, *BUT* since other programs that may be running can use the other core(s) it can still make a difference. However if a program is designed to use multiple cores then it will take advantage of them all even though it's technically one program but since programs often have to do multiple things at once this can prove to be a definite improvement in performance.
Think of it like a highway. The processor speed is like the speed limit and the number of cores is like the number of lanes. If there is only one car on the highway it's going to go the speed limit regardless as to how many lanes there are. If there is a lot of traffic then then things will start to get backed up pretty quick unless they start using more lanes. Having multiple lanes allows for more traffic to occupy the same road without slowing it down.
Now lets say you have a really big program... which in this example would be like hauling a double-wide trailer-home on that highway. Even with no other traffic if there is only one lane they would have to cut it in half vertically and run two trucks because it wouldn't physically fit on the road. If there were two lanes then they could occupy both lanes and make the trip without having to split it up. Of course a custom truck would be needed that can run on both lanes at once but it could still be done.
And using that example with Aces High... well it can run on one core but it is designed to take advantage of up to two cores if need be. I don't know about the whole single core AMD thing you guys keep mentioning. I know on the older AMD processors you had to limit it to one core in order to prevent issues but I thought that had been resolved a couple of years ago. I don't use an AMD processor so I don't really know for sure but it would be nice to hear something official about this.
So if Aces High only uses two cores then why would you want to run a processor with even more cores? Well there is still a little bit of performance to be gained because even though Aces High will use both cores, if you only have a dual core processor then the other Windows functions still have to share those two cores with Aces High as well. If you have a three core (or more) processor then it can leave two cores dedicated to Aces High and still run other functions on the remaining core(s). How much of a difference this really makes is debatable and the general consensus is that if you have to choose between a slower quad-core or a faster dual-core processor than the faster dual-core processor will yield a higher performance gain. Since dual cores are now pretty much "yesterday's technology" this is probably a moot point for anyone building or upgrading a system.
While it is possible to manually assign specific programs to specific processor cores there really is no need to do so. It does a pretty decent job of managing all of this automatically.
-
Interesting. Anyone knows why?
skuzzy has mentioned it in several discussions under the hardware section, something about a "bug" in amd multi-core cpu's, it may be related to using nvidia chipsets and/or graphics cards or just the cpu's themselves. i believe tequila chaser has the baddest amd system running right now with the latest amd 890 chipsets and he has said ah is only using a single core on his system.
obviously ah will run better on a dual core 3+ghz intel cpu than it will on a 3+ghz quad core amd, but with the right combination of parts ah will run very well with an amd.
As Gyrene mentioned, it's a "bug" of sorts. I asked Skuzzy once, and hopefully he doesn't mind me posting this but a brief exert was:
"I cannot say a lot, due to non-disclosures with AMD. [. . .] The problem with Aces High is the use of multiple high resolution timers in
conjunction with threading." - Skuzzy
-
This is all very interesting stuff. As Wiley said, I am asking about manually assigning programs to a certain processor. After some more reading though, it seems that after you close the program, all setting changes you did return back to default. So if I set the game "Minecraft" (for example) to run only on processor 1, then it'll run using only that processor. However, once I close Minecraft the settings will return back to default and Minecraft will use both processors the next time I play it unless I manually change it again.
From what I'm hearing, running a game on both processors gets better performance. When I buy a new computer (which I plan to some time soon hopefully) should I buy a quad-core or is a dual-core just as capable to run high end games like Aces High, Rise of Flight, or BF3?
-
Tigger, your analogy is close, but missing one bit of data. There is only one lane to and from the system RAM. Any time a core needs to read or write to system RAM, all other cores must wait before they can access system RAM.
Like a one lane bridge that can only hold the weight of one car at a time.
The AMD issue is not as big a problem as it used to be.
-
Interesting. Anyone knows why?
It's a bug with the AMD chips.
ack-ack
-
It's a bug with the AMD chips.
ack-ack
but if it was a "bug" on AMD multi core cpu's........... then how come I am able to have full use of my quad core ( all 4 cores ) in my DVD burning and encoding/converting......... and have full use while I am running my AutoCad, or many other software that are able to utilize multi core processors ??? if it was a "bug" I would not be able to do these things, I would only have the same cpu ability I have in Aces High
Aces High is the only piece of software I have on my PC that does not use my AMD cpu to it's full potential of 2 of the 4 cores available.......
not that it really matters, I am still able to max everything out in Aces High full graphics, advanced graphics, hires 2048 textures, 4096 shadows ( using the 8192 shadows I will experiene about a 5 to 8 fps drop at times ) while running 1920 x 1080 screen res at 60 Hz
Thermaltake Level 10 GT Case
Thermaltake TR2 RX 850watt Modular PSU (single rail, 80+)
AMD Phenom II 975 X4 3.6 GHz Quad Core CPU
CORSAIR CAFA70 120mm Dual-Fan CPU Cooler
ASUS M4A89TD PRO/USB3 AMD AM3 Motherboard
16 Gig's of Corsair Vengance 1600 MHz DDR3 Sys. Memory
WD Velociraptor 450Gig HD SATA III 6.0 Gb/s
XFX HD6870 1 Gig GDDR5 Videocard
Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme Fatality Pro Series PCI Sound Card
ASUS BluRay Burner
LG BluRay Reader / DVD ReWriter
ASUS VE27Q 27" WideScreen HD LCD Monitor
This PC runs Aces High with everything maxed out ( except the shadows are 4096 instead of 8192 ), all I have left to do is install my 128 gig Crucial M4 SSD ( CT128M4SSD2 128 GB SATA III 6.0 Gb/s )...... to make it have nearly the same setup as my Intel i7 PC........
after I do this I doubt I will see any difference at all between this AMD based PC and my ASUS i7-2600K Intel PC that has the exact same components
...(except it has an XFX HD6950 2GB VideoCard , ASUS Xonar PCI Sound Card and a 1.5 TB Hitachi SATA III hard drive, HannsG 27.5" 1900x1200 Monitor ........ to where my AMD has the 450GB Velociraptor, Creative X-Fi PCI soundcard and XFX 6870 1BG VC, ...... )
even without the SSD my AMD 975 seemed to be nearly right there neck-n-neck with the INTEL i7-2600K although the i7 had an SSD ( same as listed above for the OS / boot drive )
playing Aces high, burning Video, mixing Audio, usinf Cad, etc......
TC
-
Tigger, your analogy is close, but missing one bit of data. There is only one lane to and from the system RAM. Any time a core needs to read or write to system RAM, all other cores must wait before they can access system RAM.
Like a one lane bridge that can only hold the weight of one car at a time.
The AMD issue is not as big a problem as it used to be.
Yes you're correct. I thought about that as well but decided to leave it out to keep things as simple as possible.
-
but if it was a "bug" on AMD multi core cpu's........... then how come I am able to have full use of my quad core ( all 4 cores ) in my DVD burning and encoding/converting......... and have full use while I am running my AutoCad, or many other software that are able to utilize multi core processors ??? if it was a "bug" I would not be able to do these things, I would only have the same cpu ability I have in Aces High
Aces High is the only piece of software I have on my PC that does not use my AMD cpu to it's full potential.......
not that it really matters, I am still able to max everything out in Aces High full graphics, advanced graphics, hires 2048 textures, 4096 shadows ( using the 8192 shadows I will experiene about a 5 to 8 fps drop at times ) while running 1920 x 1080 screen res at 60 Hz
Thermaltake Level 10 GT Case
Thermaltake TR2 RX 850watt Modular PSU (single rail, 80+)
AMD Phenom II 975 X4 3.6 GHz Quad Core CPU
CORSAIR CAFA70 120mm Dual-Fan CPU Cooler
ASUS M4A89TD PRO/USB3 AMD AM3 Motherboard
16 Gig's of Corsair Vengance 1600 MHz DDR3 Sys. Memory
WD Velociraptor 450Gig HD SATA III 6.0 Gb/s
XFX HD6870 1 Gig GDDR5 Videocard
Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme Fatality Pro Series PCI Sound Card
ASUS BluRay Burner
LG BluRay Reader / DVD ReWriter
ASUS VE27Q 27" WideScreen HD LCD Monitor
This PC runs Aces High with everything maxed out ( except the shadows are 4096 instead of 8192 ), all I have left to do is install my 128 gig Crucial M4 SSD ( CT128M4SSD2 128 GB SATA III 6.0 Gb/s )...... to make it have nearly the same setup as my Intel i7 PC........
after I do this I doubt I will see any difference at all between this AMD based PC and my ASUS i7-2600K Intel PC that has the exact same components
...(except it has an XFX HD6950 2GB VideoCard , ASUS Xonar PCI Sound Card and a 1.5 TB Hitachi SATA III hard drive, HannsG 27.5" 1900x1200 Monitor ........ to where my AMD has the 450GB Velociraptor, Creative X-Fi PCI soundcard and XFX 6870 1BG VC, ...... )
even without the SSD my AMD 975 seemed to be nearly right there neck-n-neck with the INTEL i7-2600K although the i7 had an SSD ( same as listed above for the OS / boot drive )
playing Aces high, burning Video, mixing Audio, usinf Cad, etc......
TC
Ding! I got the part that it is a bug. I was looking for a little more like what it is and how does it affect the game. Who knows, maybe it is causing trouble in our computers at work. Would be useful info.
-
but if it was a "bug" on AMD multi core cpu's........... then how come I am able to have full use of my quad core ( all 4 cores ) in my DVD burning and encoding/converting......... and have full use while I am running my AutoCad, or many other software that are able to utilize multi core processors ??? if it was a "bug" I would not be able to do these things, I would only have the same cpu ability I have in Aces High
Aces High is the only piece of software I have on my PC that does not use my AMD cpu to it's full potential of 2 of the 4 cores available.......
not that it really matters, I am still able to max everything out in Aces High full graphics, advanced graphics, hires 2048 textures, 4096 shadows ( using the 8192 shadows I will experiene about a 5 to 8 fps drop at times ) while running 1920 x 1080 screen res at 60 Hz
Thermaltake Level 10 GT Case
Thermaltake TR2 RX 850watt Modular PSU (single rail, 80+)
AMD Phenom II 975 X4 3.6 GHz Quad Core CPU
CORSAIR CAFA70 120mm Dual-Fan CPU Cooler
ASUS M4A89TD PRO/USB3 AMD AM3 Motherboard
16 Gig's of Corsair Vengance 1600 MHz DDR3 Sys. Memory
WD Velociraptor 450Gig HD SATA III 6.0 Gb/s
XFX HD6870 1 Gig GDDR5 Videocard
Creative SB X-Fi Xtreme Fatality Pro Series PCI Sound Card
ASUS BluRay Burner
LG BluRay Reader / DVD ReWriter
ASUS VE27Q 27" WideScreen HD LCD Monitor
This PC runs Aces High with everything maxed out ( except the shadows are 4096 instead of 8192 ), all I have left to do is install my 128 gig Crucial M4 SSD ( CT128M4SSD2 128 GB SATA III 6.0 Gb/s )...... to make it have nearly the same setup as my Intel i7 PC........
after I do this I doubt I will see any difference at all between this AMD based PC and my ASUS i7-2600K Intel PC that has the exact same components
...(except it has an XFX HD6950 2GB VideoCard , ASUS Xonar PCI Sound Card and a 1.5 TB Hitachi SATA III hard drive, HannsG 27.5" 1900x1200 Monitor ........ to where my AMD has the 450GB Velociraptor, Creative X-Fi PCI soundcard and XFX 6870 1BG VC, ...... )
even without the SSD my AMD 975 seemed to be nearly right there neck-n-neck with the INTEL i7-2600K although the i7 had an SSD ( same as listed above for the OS / boot drive )
playing Aces high, burning Video, mixing Audio, usinf Cad, etc......
TC
I think your quad core is a _lot_ newer and a few generations down the line from the circa... I wanna say ~'00-'04 AMD duel cores that were the problem child and it took a couple more years for them to push them outa the market (probabley were still around for dirt cheap until they got used up a few years later). I don't think quad cores have been around for even 5 years yet.... but time does fly.
Edit: And good god TC! I don't even think _premium_ mother boards supported more than 2-4 gigs of memory at the time when AMD introduced to the market their duel cores. We're talking about an issue inherent to computers back in the stone age compared to what your working with currently. ( I'm jealous )
-
I have two coconuts
-
Sigh, I have explained thiss dozens of times.
The 'bug', which AMD fully acknowledges, impacts ANY application which makes use of the high resolution timers AND threading. There are a handful of applications, I am aware of, which fit this criteria. Aces High is one of them.
The bug was sufficient enough, AMD provided those companies with workarounds to get around the problem. It does work-around most of the steppings which have the problem, but it does not work around those implementations which deliberately disable multiple high resolution timer support (laptops working to save power were/are pretty guilty of this one).
I really wish those of you who insist on it not being an AMD problem would stop doing that. AMD has acknowledged it is a problem and provides code work-arounds for it. You really think AMD would lie about this?
-
Sigh, I have explained thiss dozens of times.
The 'bug', which AMD fully acknowledges, impacts ANY application which makes use of the high resolution timers AND threading. There are a handful of applications, I am aware of, which fit this criteria. Aces High is one of them.
The bug was sufficient enough, AMD provided those companies with workarounds to get around the problem. It does work-around most of the steppings which have the problem, but it does not work around those implementations which deliberately disable multiple high resolution timer support (laptops working to save power were/are pretty guilty of this one).
I really wish those of you who insist on it not being an AMD problem would stop doing that. AMD has acknowledged it is a problem and provides code work-arounds for it. You really think AMD would lie about this?
I was just asking what the bug was and what problems it was causing for AH since I did not know about it.
-
I was just asking what the bug was and what problems it was causing for AH since I did not know about it.
Was not neccessarily pointing that at you ded. It gets frustrating knowing how many man-hours we have put into this issue (knowing it was an AMD problem and having AMD publicly admit they goofed) only to have players blaming us for the problem.
-
my apologies for making it look like I was placing blame on Aces High / HTC
I am not, I am fully aware of the incompatibility of Aces High vs AMD Dual or Multi Core cpus
I am fully aware that we originally had to disable one core back in WinXP / 2000 /98 / etc.....
then AMD put out the Optimizer patch file for the workaround....... I have many posts/replies on the subject, helping others with their graphics glitches, freezes, spinning clipboards, etc...
I still do not call it a bug, though....... it is an incompatibility of software/hardware
I posted that Aces High is the only software I experience this problem with ( not having use of multi/dual cores )........ however, I am sure with out a doubt there is probably many other hundreds of software types out there that I would might experience the same problem ......... I just do not have any on my personal PC....
my apologies Skuzzy....
edit: the optimizer patch was not put out for Aces High, specifically..... it was put out for a variety of software titles
TC
-
It is a hardware issue. A design choice AMD made, which conflicts with Intel's CPU designs assuring some level of compatibility problems with any software products which make use of multi-threading AND high resolution CPU counters.
-
Now for a cup o java and a donut. :D
-
After reading the information on this thread how aces high uses processors..........
Individual core performance is very important.
When searching the internet for processor performance charts, there is a caveat that most I've seen display the sum of every core running.....which gives you the overall performance of the processor package.
For aces high, a more important spec. would be the individual core performance figures......which are rarely shown in a chart.
I usually use these charts to select my processors using the score divided by the amount of processors.....unless a performance review actually shows individual core performance.
It's possible that aces high will run faster on a core I3 2150 or even a Core™2 Extreme Processor QX9775 than it would on the average coreI7 processor.
That said, the Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processor QX9775 is immensely expensive because of the specs ..........(12M Cache, 3.20 GHz, 1600 MHz FSB) but it illustrates a point.
Of course, when running integrated graphics, the core I7 has more muscle in that area than earlier processors that outperform it in a core to core comparison.
Price/performance is where it's at and you really have to read between the lines concerning published performance of processors or you could end up with less than you want.
Six weak cores do not compare to two powerful cores in our case.
I threw together a computer for aces high and web browsing to keep my digital audio workstation free from the internet and it cost very little.
I used a phenomII X2 555 black edition for $87 and an asus M4a785-m mother board for $79.
I was planning on adding a discrete video card but the integrated ati HD-4200 plays aces high at 59fps at 1024x768 with only a couple of graphics eye candy turned off and only goes below 59fps when I am on a hill panning a tank turret over the enemy city as it burns.
It is a comparitvely weak video card to most any discrete card but my gameplay is not affected badly by it...........or the fact that my connection is a cell phone (edge....not even 3g) tethered to my computer.
Nobody has complained of me warping!