Multi-threaded for dual CPUs?

[bhh_]

Anyone know if the Diesel engine, and specifically GRAW itself, efficiently utilizes a second CPU, not simply a second core? With a dual Opteron system for example, will the game/engine utilize all 4 threads available?

[Striker-1991]

Anyone know if the Diesel engine, and specifically GRAW itself, efficiently utilizes a second CPU, not simply a second core? With a dual Opteron system for example, will the game/engine utilize all 4 threads available?

If the engine supports multithreading then you don't have to care about core's, pseudo cores (HT) or SMP hardware like yours. This will be handled by the operating system.

But I don't know if Diesel is multithreaded

Edited May 8, 2006 by Striker-1991

[LT.INSTG8R]

As far as I can see its not in seeing my own HT CPU and speaking to a friends regarding his Duel Core. It would really help this game out with its resource taxing engine to balance the load across 2 cores or threads. I mean they did say this was a "next Gen" game for the future so I would think somewhere along the way they would think to include it.

[bhh_]

A confirmation on this would be great from one of the devs. REALLY suprised if a game this taxing isn't multi-threaded.

[LT.INSTG8R]

Well they said themselves this game was intended for the future and considering the crap kicking the GPU is already taking becuase this game is "ahead" in the hardware dept. It would seem a little foolish of them not to use the already "current future" that is Duel Core, seems a little off balance if you ask me. I mean the fact that some people have found the GRAW.exe running on High Priority seems a little off as well thats no solution to getting more CPU time with the hardware of the future here now(Duel Core,HT,SMP) as far as thats concerned.

Oh well I guess another thing we can chock up to time contrainsts or what have you hopefully they will optimize it like the rest of the long list of things that need optimizing/fixing.

Edited May 8, 2006 by LT.INSTG8R

[bhh_]

Looks like the answer is a big NO! Pegged at around 28% the entire time. I can't believe it! This is a dual Xeon with HT. I'd get 2x the CPU performance by disabling the HT and all those dual core machines are completely useless. Multi-threading is exactly what this game needs and perhaps why so many people with high-end machines are having lackluster performance. An old single-core 3.6Ghz P4 will technically outperform all the new dual-core CPUs as they all running individiual core speeds below that still.

Edited May 9, 2006 by bhh_

[Striker-1991]

With the current PC hardware (<10% of gamers pc have dual core or SMP) enabling MT would be a drawback for all the single core systems. Dealing with threads is not simply splitting the coumputing power in a linear way, a dual core is not twice as fast as a single core. You have to create threads for functionality that can be parallelised. And you have to synchronize them. Doing all this on a single core/cpu will slow down the game. So this is a benefit for a few people and a drawback for the most people now. If more people having dual or multicore this will change.

[LT.INSTG8R]

But Striker it is has been done more than a few current games(I can list them but I dont think I have too)and as patches I might add and the single core users arent going to suffer as the game runs a quick hardware check anyway so just simply implement the multithreading path on CPU's that can handle it.

Grin did consider the massively GPU bound form of lighting so any way to balance some of the load elsewhere seems a smart move. So to say hey low end GFX card users your SOL but your single core CPU will be fine seems a little lopsided

Edited May 9, 2006 by LT.INSTG8R

[Logos]

But Striker it is has been done more than a few current games(I can list them but I dont think I have too)and as patches I might add

What you're talking about, BTW, is not multi-threading, but some minor optimizations that will allow the occasional operation to be executed on a second core. It's not steady/constant the way true multi-threading is, and the performance boost is minimal. You can't multi-thread with a patch. It gets presented that way, but it's not multi-threading. That's market-speak, the same type of market-speak that has people incorrectly thinking their hyperthreaded procs are the same as dual-cores or dual-procs.

So to say hey low end GFX card users your SOL but your single core CPU will be fine seems a little lopsided

There is a logical fallacy here in that you equate single-core procs with low-end GFX cards. The fallacy there is that single-core procs are not low-end, and they have, with few exceptions, been running games faster than their indentically clocked and cached dual-core cousins.

Devs will eventually start making true multi-threaded games in the future. It's coming, but it's not here yet. And it's not patch level work. It's a big freakin deal. And when it happens, the single-core users will be crying that their procs don't run the games as fast as the quad-cores and how it's a mistake for the devs to optimize for multi-core when so so many people still have single-cores. Bet on it.

For right now, you can get about an extra 400MHz on a single-core for a like-priced dual-core. That's definitely better for gaming. Or at the same core speed, a single-core user could save anywhere from $150 - $300, which would be a heck of a difference in your videocard if you were building from scratch. For gamers, single-core is simply the better option. That's the way it's been since dual-cores were released, and that's the way it will be for quite some time. I suspect quad-cores will be out before true multi-threading is common in games. The devs will need quad-cores to be the cutting-edge and dual-cores to be common before they start multi-threading.

[Prodigy]

The thing is, the CPU doesn't have much to do with games now days. Your definately going to get the most performance out of a fast video card. Many games I play don't even use 100% of my CPU, and my CPU is an AMD Athlon 64 3700+ Overclocked @ 2.8Ghz.

[Striker-1991]

As Logos said, these patches have nothing to do with coded multithreading, just special by the compiler optimized versions esp. for the Intel HT CPU's. This is low level stuff.

If you have to deal with multiple threads they can be really helpful but also they could bite you in the ######. Debugging is not really funny because of the parallel running code. Also you have to consider which processes run parallel in a game? There are mostly ai calculations that can be parallelised and some of the physics stuff. But all these must be syncronized because most of them depending on each other.

[LT.INSTG8R]

There is a logical fallacy here in that you equate single-core procs with low-end GFX cards. The fallacy there is that single-core procs are not low-end, and they have, with few exceptions, been running games faster than their indentically clocked and cached dual-core cousins.

I am fully aware of the differences and advantages of both but you missed my point this game is currently just as CPU bound as it is GPU bound any boost helps.

You guys are both right but my point still stands they said this game is for the future and tho they went with this "future" lighting then wheres the "future" CPU support?

Edited May 9, 2006 by LT.INSTG8R

[Logos]

I am fully aware of the differences and advantages of both but you missed my point this game is currently just as CPU bound as it is GPU bound any boost helps.

You guys are both right but my point still stands they said this game is for the future and tho they went with this "future" lighting then wheres the "future" CPU support?

Point taken.

The thing is, the CPU doesn't have much to do with games now days. Your definately going to get the most performance out of a fast video card.

This is incorrect. True, the videocard is the single most important factor, but when you're playing a game, and the framerates drop sharply, that's not the GPU; that's the proc not feeding the GPU fast enough, and it might be that the proc simply isn't fast enough to keep up, or it might be not having enough system memory.

I'm averaging in the 50's at 800x600 and in the low 30's at 1024x768. This is with a single 6600GT. That was midrange 18 months ago, but low-end now. There are people with much more powerful GPU's that can't achieve my framerates. Why is this? My assumption is that it's because the rest of my system freakin' flies. The rest of my system is never a bottlneck.

[bhh_]

SLI is essentially multithreaded video display (don't think GRAW supports that either), why not have a multi-threaded engine core? I am with LT.INSTG8R on this one as they are the ones touting the engine as "next-gen". If a game is going to REQUIRE high-end hardware to run, it really should be able to use it. As previously pointed out, Physics & AI would be excellent things to off-load to a seperate thread and i am sure there is plenty more. I do (non real-time) 3D content creation for a living using the same tools the devs use + software bucket renderers such as Mental Ray, Brazil, V-Ray, etc. The idea of even purchasing single CPU systems is rediculous and the simple fact that the latest $6,000+ workstations have no real advantage (maybe even a penalty) over a $1500, 18 month old system with an updated GPU just seems to be a poor use of system resources to me, particularly with a title that is this hardware dependant.

Anyone know what the plans are for Crytek2 in this department?

Edited May 9, 2006 by bhh_

[bhh_]

Disabling HT in my BIOS doubled CPU utilization (now at 50%) and got me another 10-15 FPS. This is the same machine with HT disabled.

[bhh_]

Disabling HT in the BIOS yields substantial performance boost on Hyperthreaded machines. 10-15fps in my case by doubling the CPU utilization.

[Threads Merged - No need to have multiple threads on same subject]

Edited May 9, 2006 by Pave Low

[LT.INSTG8R]

Disabling HT in the BIOS yields substantial performance boost on Hyperthreaded machines. 10-15fps in my case by doubling the CPU utilization.

[Threads Merged - No need to have multiple threads on same subject]

Oddly thats exactly how my P4E HT CPU looks now tho the 2nd thread(your other core) isnt as active as yours but CPU usage is about the same(with it enabled) I will disable my HT and see if I see any difference

Edited May 9, 2006 by LT.INSTG8R

[LT.INSTG8R]

Okay so I tested it myself and it is indeed utilizing the whole CPU in my case anyway

HT on

HT Off

[bhh_]

Nice. Do you get a FPS boost? That machine those screen caps are from is a dual CPU Xeon so each CPU has two HT threads (not dual core). With HT on, it was only utilizing one thread which was 50% of one CPU and only 25% of total CPU capacity. Atleast now, I am using all of one CPU (50% of total capacity) and the other CPU is basically just sitting there idle. That gives me a lot of horsepower for VOIP, lol.

Edited May 9, 2006 by bhh_

[LT.INSTG8R]

Nice. Do you get a FPS boost? That machine those screen caps are from is a dual CPU Xeon so each CPU has two HT threads (not dual core). With HT on, it was only utilizing one thread which was 50% of one CPU and only 25% of total CPU capacity. Atleast now, I am using all of one CPU (50% of total capacity) and the other CPU is basically just sitting there idle. That gives me a lot of horsepower for VOIP, lol.

yes your at an advantage with the Xeon but no I didnt see any FPS gains(combo of CPU and GPU limits more likely) and seeing as with the HT on I was only utilizing 50-60% with it on and 100% with it off I think Im better off with the overhead of having HT.

[bhh_]

I think you want it at 100% as it is pinned regardless. You are effectively getting 2x the amount of CPU cycles with HT disabled because with it on, it is only using 1/2 your CPU which has got to be a bottleneck and why you are only seeing 50-60%. The activity of the other thread and the extra 10% we are seeing is probably just windows utilizing the other thread for windows related task, the task manger, disk operations, etc. With a true dual-core, there is really nothing to disable but with HT, disabling it allows a single thread to utilize the entire CPU which in this case is good.

[LT.INSTG8R]

I think you want it at 100% as it is pinned regardless. You are effectively getting 2x the amount of CPU cycles with HT disabled because with it on, it is only using 1/2 your CPU which has got to be a bottleneck and why you are only seeing 50-60%. The activity of the other thread and the extra 10% we are seeing is probably just windows utilizing the other thread for windows related task, the task manger, disk operations, etc. With a true dual-core, there is really nothing to disable but with HT, disabling it allows a single thread to utilize the entire CPU which in this case is good.

While I will agree with that I have taken to assigning stuff to the other thread to use it as a "psuedo 2nd core" and pinning the CPU at 100% isnt leaving me any room for anything else.I shouldnt have to flip off HT for this one game, if I saw a huge performance I may but I didnt so I cant see myself doing it

[Prodigy]

I am fully aware of the differences and advantages of both but you missed my point this game is currently just as CPU bound as it is GPU bound any boost helps.

You guys are both right but my point still stands they said this game is for the future and tho they went with this "future" lighting then wheres the "future" CPU support?

Point taken.

The thing is, the CPU doesn't have much to do with games now days. Your definately going to get the most performance out of a fast video card.

This is incorrect. True, the videocard is the single most important factor, but when you're playing a game, and the framerates drop sharply, that's not the GPU; that's the proc not feeding the GPU fast enough, and it might be that the proc simply isn't fast enough to keep up, or it might be not having enough system memory.

I'm averaging in the 50's at 800x600 and in the low 30's at 1024x768. This is with a single 6600GT. That was midrange 18 months ago, but low-end now. There are people with much more powerful GPU's that can't achieve my framerates. Why is this? My assumption is that it's because the rest of my system freakin' flies. The rest of my system is never a bottlneck.

What are the rest of your settings. I'm sure that that video card won't beable to handle everything on high like the higher end video cards can. Try running everything on high, including textures (you will need to edit the XML file), then try to play the game. My statement is only incorrect if your using say a X800-series video card or 6800 series video card with a pentium 3. If someone uses any AMD 64 S939 CPU or Pentium 4 LGA775 CPU with a high end video card they probably won't have a highly noticeable bottleneck. They will still beable to play the game on the highest settings.

[LT.INSTG8R]

I am using an X800XT so when I turn everything up to High I get alot of black textures(looks like they may be using some SM3.0 stuff I guess)