|
It is true that most games don't use the multi core or quad core tech we have now. At most, 2 cores I think is more than enough for most, if not, all games.
The problem I have with the concept is that it actually runs your system ragged. Basically, it will shorten the life of your hardware.
Where normally you are running your system at 50-75% with spikes at 100% from time to time only, this forces your system to run at 100% most of the time.
So you basically max out your four cores, but running all 4 for long periods of time would be detrimental to life span wouldn't it.
I do some 3d rendering from time to time and my computer still has reserve processing power to run background stuff and maybe open a browser tab or two at a slightly slower load speed. But that is expected. If you render double that load, I think it is actually hardware breaking.
If you are using this for basic office work, yes, it is great as it uses your system more efficiently. But say you run complicated calculations per user, you are still limited by memory and hardware speed, that includes the hdd handling the reading of data especially if you are running 2 different programs like say d3 and sc2. It will bog down the system. Coupled with that the video card load. I run sc2 on lowest setting with my 1gb video card and I already lag on 1v1 200v200 clashes. On FFA or 4v4 maps, when there is a clash, I just look away completely. And I am only running sc2, the rest are just background stuff.
I've done this on an i3 and i5 processor, but both with 4gb dd3 ram with 1gb ddr5 video memory, one on a laptop, and the i5 the desktop.
It is not just realistic to expect it to run smoothly with 2 sessions of very "heavy" software running simultaneously. It will run, but not as good as you might want it to.
Just my two cents.
|
Took some time before this idea was commercialized. Maybe now I can have my PC hooked up so my bros could watch a movie while i'm playing
|
On March 14 2013 22:39 17Sphynx17 wrote:
The problem I have with the concept is that it actually runs your system ragged. Basically, it will shorten the life of your hardware.
Where normally you are running your system at 50-75% with spikes at 100% from time to time only, this forces your system to run at 100% most of the time.
So you basically max out your four cores, but running all 4 for long periods of time would be detrimental to life span wouldn't it.
Using your CPU at full load isn't really detrimental for the lifespan. I've never heard of CPUs dieing from heavy load and if they would, it would be way beyond their economic lifespan (in other words: Noone cares if a CPU lasts for 15 or 20 years). (And I work at a computer science research institute where many of our machines are used for the type of calculations that are also used by CPU stresstesting programs.)
I do some 3d rendering from time to time and my computer still has reserve processing power to run background stuff and maybe open a browser tab or two at a slightly slower load speed. But that is expected. If you render double that load, I think it is actually hardware breaking.
It'll be slower, but nothing will break. A computer isn't like a shelf that breaks if you put too much weight on it.
If you are using this for basic office work, yes, it is great as it uses your system more efficiently. But say you run complicated calculations per user, you are still limited by memory and hardware speed, that includes the hdd handling the reading of data especially if you are running 2 different programs like say d3 and sc2. It will bog down the system. Coupled with that the video card load. I run sc2 on lowest setting with my 1gb video card and I already lag on 1v1 200v200 clashes. On FFA or 4v4 maps, when there is a clash, I just look away completely. And I am only running sc2, the rest are just background stuff.
I've done this on an i3 and i5 processor, but both with 4gb dd3 ram with 1gb ddr5 video memory, one on a laptop, and the i5 the desktop.
Your SC2 lag is due to CPU limits, not GPU. Since SC2 only uses 2 CPU cores and hardly uses any GPU resources, a quadcore machine can easily run 2xSC2 as well as 1xSC2. On a sidenote: How much video memory you have matters extremely little, specifying your video memory without mentioning what GPU you actually have is a clear indicator of limited computer knowledge.
It is not just realistic to expect it to run smoothly with 2 sessions of very "heavy" software running simultaneously. It will run, but not as good as you might want it to.
SC2 (or D3) is not "very heavy software".
|
On March 14 2013 22:54 Rannasha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 14 2013 22:39 17Sphynx17 wrote:
The problem I have with the concept is that it actually runs your system ragged. Basically, it will shorten the life of your hardware.
Where normally you are running your system at 50-75% with spikes at 100% from time to time only, this forces your system to run at 100% most of the time.
So you basically max out your four cores, but running all 4 for long periods of time would be detrimental to life span wouldn't it. Using your CPU at full load isn't really detrimental for the lifespan. I've never heard of CPUs dieing from heavy load and if they would, it would be way beyond their economic lifespan (in other words: Noone cares if a CPU lasts for 15 or 20 years). (And I work at a computer science research institute where many of our machines are used for the type of calculations that are also used by CPU stresstesting programs.) I do some 3d rendering from time to time and my computer still has reserve processing power to run background stuff and maybe open a browser tab or two at a slightly slower load speed. But that is expected. If you render double that load, I think it is actually hardware breaking. It'll be slower, but nothing will break. A computer isn't like a shelf that breaks if you put too much weight on it. If you are using this for basic office work, yes, it is great as it uses your system more efficiently. But say you run complicated calculations per user, you are still limited by memory and hardware speed, that includes the hdd handling the reading of data especially if you are running 2 different programs like say d3 and sc2. It will bog down the system. Coupled with that the video card load. I run sc2 on lowest setting with my 1gb video card and I already lag on 1v1 200v200 clashes. On FFA or 4v4 maps, when there is a clash, I just look away completely. And I am only running sc2, the rest are just background stuff.
I've done this on an i3 and i5 processor, but both with 4gb dd3 ram with 1gb ddr5 video memory, one on a laptop, and the i5 the desktop. Your SC2 lag is due to CPU limits, not GPU. Since SC2 only uses 2 CPU cores and hardly uses any GPU resources, a quadcore machine can easily run 2xSC2 as well as 1xSC2. On a sidenote: How much video memory you have matters extremely little, specifying your video memory without mentioning what GPU you actually have is a clear indicator of limited computer knowledge. It is not just realistic to expect it to run smoothly with 2 sessions of very "heavy" software running simultaneously. It will run, but not as good as you might want it to. SC2 (or D3) is not "very heavy software".
http://www.amd.com/us/products/notebook/graphics/ati-mobility-hd-5145/Pages/hd-5145-specs.aspx
Sorry here's my video card for my i3 laptop. Can't recall my desktop at the moment.
Anyway, point is, if you don't have proper cooling to handle continuous 100% loads to the system, it will break it. It can be the PSU (which is not that big), the motherboard (but this usually has overheat protection nowadays), or the video card (since high performance videocards have fans and not just heatsinks built into them). You have to have proper hardware for it as well. Running continuous 100% loads is not running your pc at normal conditions.
I run both sc2 and d3 on very low setting, and d3 causes my laptop fans to work harder for some reason, although I would have expected it to be sc2 to be doing that. Anyway, this is just of course an observation on my laptop. And I am not saying they are heavy software, I am saying that to expect a system to split into 2 users and run heavy software simultaneously properly would be incorrect.
But if you are splitting it for use as 1 heavy use, and the other as normal light use like just surfing the web, then I agree. It is okay and very practical a choice.
|
On March 14 2013 23:14 17Sphynx17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:54 Rannasha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 14 2013 22:39 17Sphynx17 wrote:
The problem I have with the concept is that it actually runs your system ragged. Basically, it will shorten the life of your hardware.
Where normally you are running your system at 50-75% with spikes at 100% from time to time only, this forces your system to run at 100% most of the time.
So you basically max out your four cores, but running all 4 for long periods of time would be detrimental to life span wouldn't it. Using your CPU at full load isn't really detrimental for the lifespan. I've never heard of CPUs dieing from heavy load and if they would, it would be way beyond their economic lifespan (in other words: Noone cares if a CPU lasts for 15 or 20 years). (And I work at a computer science research institute where many of our machines are used for the type of calculations that are also used by CPU stresstesting programs.) I do some 3d rendering from time to time and my computer still has reserve processing power to run background stuff and maybe open a browser tab or two at a slightly slower load speed. But that is expected. If you render double that load, I think it is actually hardware breaking. It'll be slower, but nothing will break. A computer isn't like a shelf that breaks if you put too much weight on it. If you are using this for basic office work, yes, it is great as it uses your system more efficiently. But say you run complicated calculations per user, you are still limited by memory and hardware speed, that includes the hdd handling the reading of data especially if you are running 2 different programs like say d3 and sc2. It will bog down the system. Coupled with that the video card load. I run sc2 on lowest setting with my 1gb video card and I already lag on 1v1 200v200 clashes. On FFA or 4v4 maps, when there is a clash, I just look away completely. And I am only running sc2, the rest are just background stuff.
I've done this on an i3 and i5 processor, but both with 4gb dd3 ram with 1gb ddr5 video memory, one on a laptop, and the i5 the desktop. Your SC2 lag is due to CPU limits, not GPU. Since SC2 only uses 2 CPU cores and hardly uses any GPU resources, a quadcore machine can easily run 2xSC2 as well as 1xSC2. On a sidenote: How much video memory you have matters extremely little, specifying your video memory without mentioning what GPU you actually have is a clear indicator of limited computer knowledge. It is not just realistic to expect it to run smoothly with 2 sessions of very "heavy" software running simultaneously. It will run, but not as good as you might want it to. SC2 (or D3) is not "very heavy software". http://www.amd.com/us/products/notebook/graphics/ati-mobility-hd-5145/Pages/hd-5145-specs.aspxSorry here's my video card for my i3 laptop. Can't recall my desktop at the moment. Anyway, point is, if you don't have proper cooling to handle continuous 100% loads to the system, it will break it. It can be the PSU (which is not that big), the motherboard (but this usually has overheat protection nowadays), or the video card (since high performance videocards have fans and not just heatsinks built into them). You have to have proper hardware for it as well. Running continuous 100% loads in not normal conditions.
Of course without proper cooling, the system may fail. But that's not really an argument though, because any system that can't handle 100% load for a couple of hours is defective to begin with (and after a few hours, the entire system should've reached a thermal equilibrium and the temperatures should be rather constant).
The stuff is designed to run at 100% loads indefinitely. The machines here at my research institute aren't special in any way, just run-of-the-mill Dell boxes, but I can run them at maximum load for weeks (and I have) without any problem. Same goes for my desktop at home (and the ones I've previously owned).
|
On March 14 2013 23:21 Rannasha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 14 2013 23:14 17Sphynx17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:54 Rannasha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 14 2013 22:39 17Sphynx17 wrote:
The problem I have with the concept is that it actually runs your system ragged. Basically, it will shorten the life of your hardware.
Where normally you are running your system at 50-75% with spikes at 100% from time to time only, this forces your system to run at 100% most of the time.
So you basically max out your four cores, but running all 4 for long periods of time would be detrimental to life span wouldn't it. Using your CPU at full load isn't really detrimental for the lifespan. I've never heard of CPUs dieing from heavy load and if they would, it would be way beyond their economic lifespan (in other words: Noone cares if a CPU lasts for 15 or 20 years). (And I work at a computer science research institute where many of our machines are used for the type of calculations that are also used by CPU stresstesting programs.) I do some 3d rendering from time to time and my computer still has reserve processing power to run background stuff and maybe open a browser tab or two at a slightly slower load speed. But that is expected. If you render double that load, I think it is actually hardware breaking. It'll be slower, but nothing will break. A computer isn't like a shelf that breaks if you put too much weight on it. If you are using this for basic office work, yes, it is great as it uses your system more efficiently. But say you run complicated calculations per user, you are still limited by memory and hardware speed, that includes the hdd handling the reading of data especially if you are running 2 different programs like say d3 and sc2. It will bog down the system. Coupled with that the video card load. I run sc2 on lowest setting with my 1gb video card and I already lag on 1v1 200v200 clashes. On FFA or 4v4 maps, when there is a clash, I just look away completely. And I am only running sc2, the rest are just background stuff.
I've done this on an i3 and i5 processor, but both with 4gb dd3 ram with 1gb ddr5 video memory, one on a laptop, and the i5 the desktop. Your SC2 lag is due to CPU limits, not GPU. Since SC2 only uses 2 CPU cores and hardly uses any GPU resources, a quadcore machine can easily run 2xSC2 as well as 1xSC2. On a sidenote: How much video memory you have matters extremely little, specifying your video memory without mentioning what GPU you actually have is a clear indicator of limited computer knowledge. It is not just realistic to expect it to run smoothly with 2 sessions of very "heavy" software running simultaneously. It will run, but not as good as you might want it to. SC2 (or D3) is not "very heavy software". http://www.amd.com/us/products/notebook/graphics/ati-mobility-hd-5145/Pages/hd-5145-specs.aspxSorry here's my video card for my i3 laptop. Can't recall my desktop at the moment. Anyway, point is, if you don't have proper cooling to handle continuous 100% loads to the system, it will break it. It can be the PSU (which is not that big), the motherboard (but this usually has overheat protection nowadays), or the video card (since high performance videocards have fans and not just heatsinks built into them). You have to have proper hardware for it as well. Running continuous 100% loads in not normal conditions. Of course without proper cooling, the system may fail. But that's not really an argument though, because any system that can't handle 100% load for a couple of hours is defective to begin with (and after a few hours, the entire system should've reached a thermal equilibrium and the temperatures should be rather constant). The stuff is designed to run at 100% loads indefinitely. The machines here at my research institute aren't special in any way, just run-of-the-mill Dell boxes, but I can run them at maximum load for weeks (and I have) without any problem. Same goes for my desktop at home (and the ones I've previously owned).
Yup. I know. It generally works in concept. But as stated as an example for say sc2 or d3, my laptop wouldn't be able to handle it although it is an i3. My desktop i5 maybe able to handle running 2 sessions of sc2 but with a 200v200 clash, it won't.
It depends on what you plan to run, 1 heavy and 1 light users (my i5 desktop can handle this), 2 light users (my i3 laptop can handle this) or 2 heavy users (i have no system able to handle this scenario). If it is 2 heavy users, I am doubtful for smooth operations, unless an i7 and maybe even an ssd being where 1 or both programs are installed. Memory 8gb ddr3 so that at least both users can share at most 4gb each.
This is what I think where that scenario would work.
|
On March 14 2013 23:29 17Sphynx17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 23:21 Rannasha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 14 2013 23:14 17Sphynx17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:54 Rannasha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 14 2013 22:39 17Sphynx17 wrote:
The problem I have with the concept is that it actually runs your system ragged. Basically, it will shorten the life of your hardware.
Where normally you are running your system at 50-75% with spikes at 100% from time to time only, this forces your system to run at 100% most of the time.
So you basically max out your four cores, but running all 4 for long periods of time would be detrimental to life span wouldn't it. Using your CPU at full load isn't really detrimental for the lifespan. I've never heard of CPUs dieing from heavy load and if they would, it would be way beyond their economic lifespan (in other words: Noone cares if a CPU lasts for 15 or 20 years). (And I work at a computer science research institute where many of our machines are used for the type of calculations that are also used by CPU stresstesting programs.) I do some 3d rendering from time to time and my computer still has reserve processing power to run background stuff and maybe open a browser tab or two at a slightly slower load speed. But that is expected. If you render double that load, I think it is actually hardware breaking. It'll be slower, but nothing will break. A computer isn't like a shelf that breaks if you put too much weight on it. If you are using this for basic office work, yes, it is great as it uses your system more efficiently. But say you run complicated calculations per user, you are still limited by memory and hardware speed, that includes the hdd handling the reading of data especially if you are running 2 different programs like say d3 and sc2. It will bog down the system. Coupled with that the video card load. I run sc2 on lowest setting with my 1gb video card and I already lag on 1v1 200v200 clashes. On FFA or 4v4 maps, when there is a clash, I just look away completely. And I am only running sc2, the rest are just background stuff.
I've done this on an i3 and i5 processor, but both with 4gb dd3 ram with 1gb ddr5 video memory, one on a laptop, and the i5 the desktop. Your SC2 lag is due to CPU limits, not GPU. Since SC2 only uses 2 CPU cores and hardly uses any GPU resources, a quadcore machine can easily run 2xSC2 as well as 1xSC2. On a sidenote: How much video memory you have matters extremely little, specifying your video memory without mentioning what GPU you actually have is a clear indicator of limited computer knowledge. It is not just realistic to expect it to run smoothly with 2 sessions of very "heavy" software running simultaneously. It will run, but not as good as you might want it to. SC2 (or D3) is not "very heavy software". http://www.amd.com/us/products/notebook/graphics/ati-mobility-hd-5145/Pages/hd-5145-specs.aspxSorry here's my video card for my i3 laptop. Can't recall my desktop at the moment. Anyway, point is, if you don't have proper cooling to handle continuous 100% loads to the system, it will break it. It can be the PSU (which is not that big), the motherboard (but this usually has overheat protection nowadays), or the video card (since high performance videocards have fans and not just heatsinks built into them). You have to have proper hardware for it as well. Running continuous 100% loads in not normal conditions. Of course without proper cooling, the system may fail. But that's not really an argument though, because any system that can't handle 100% load for a couple of hours is defective to begin with (and after a few hours, the entire system should've reached a thermal equilibrium and the temperatures should be rather constant). The stuff is designed to run at 100% loads indefinitely. The machines here at my research institute aren't special in any way, just run-of-the-mill Dell boxes, but I can run them at maximum load for weeks (and I have) without any problem. Same goes for my desktop at home (and the ones I've previously owned). Yup. I know. It generally works in concept. But as stated as an example for say sc2 or d3, my laptop wouldn't be able to handle it although it is an i3. My desktop i5 maybe able to handle running 2 sessions of sc2 but with a 200v200 clash, it won't.
An i3 is a dual-core, which means that if resources are split, neither game will be able to perform as well as it would on its own.
Your i5 is a quad-core CPU, so it will run 2 sessions of SC2 just as well as 1. Any 200v200 lag that would occur would occur in the same way with just 1 client running, since it is caused by the game running out of resources because it is programmed to only use 2 cores. Currently a good 200v200 clash will cause fps issues on pretty much any machine, but that while it's going on, the CPU is still at 50% load at most (with 1 client running).
|
On March 14 2013 21:32 Xapti wrote:
I've wanted this functionality for many many years, but never saw it in any reasonable form.
I don't see how people are saying they know their computer can handle 2 SC2's at once (namely older systems on high quality and FPS). While it's probable if this system is optimized well,it's very possible that running two SC2s will use more than double the system resources than one. While it's likely many people could run multiple of newer games, don't say so unless you do so.
You don't see how people are saying they "know" they can run 2 instances of SC2?? Well I use to 2v2 by myself and alt tab back and forth between them for shits and giggles....thats kind of how I know I can run 2 sc2s at once.
|
On March 15 2013 00:14 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 21:32 Xapti wrote:
I've wanted this functionality for many many years, but never saw it in any reasonable form.
I don't see how people are saying they know their computer can handle 2 SC2's at once (namely older systems on high quality and FPS). While it's probable if this system is optimized well,it's very possible that running two SC2s will use more than double the system resources than one. While it's likely many people could run multiple of newer games, don't say so unless you do so. You don't see how people are saying they "know" they can run 2 instances of SC2?? Well I use to 2v2 by myself and alt tab back and forth between them for shits and giggles....thats kind of how I know I can run 2 sc2s at once.
I thought someone might bring that up, but that's not a valid point in my opinion. When a game is minimized, it no longer uses as much system resources, so I'd say it's not an accurate representation. That said, I don't doubt that it's more than likely, especially at medium-low settings and at sub-optimal FPS.
|
On March 14 2013 22:39 17Sphynx17 wrote:
It is true that most games don't use the multi core or quad core tech we have now. At most, 2 cores I think is more than enough for most, if not, all games.
The problem I have with the concept is that it actually runs your system ragged. Basically, it will shorten the life of your hardware.
Where normally you are running your system at 50-75% with spikes at 100% from time to time only, this forces your system to run at 100% most of the time.
So you basically max out your four cores, but running all 4 for long periods of time would be detrimental to life span wouldn't it.
I do some 3d rendering from time to time and my computer still has reserve processing power to run background stuff and maybe open a browser tab or two at a slightly slower load speed. But that is expected. If you render double that load, I think it is actually hardware breaking.
If you are using this for basic office work, yes, it is great as it uses your system more efficiently. But say you run complicated calculations per user, you are still limited by memory and hardware speed, that includes the hdd handling the reading of data especially if you are running 2 different programs like say d3 and sc2. It will bog down the system. Coupled with that the video card load. I run sc2 on lowest setting with my 1gb video card and I already lag on 1v1 200v200 clashes. On FFA or 4v4 maps, when there is a clash, I just look away completely. And I am only running sc2, the rest are just background stuff.
I've done this on an i3 and i5 processor, but both with 4gb dd3 ram with 1gb ddr5 video memory, one on a laptop, and the i5 the desktop.
It is not just realistic to expect it to run smoothly with 2 sessions of very "heavy" software running simultaneously. It will run, but not as good as you might want it to.
Just my two cents.
actually, strategy games alone have a single feature that could easily be enhanced with multiple core use. Pathfinding. of course, your unlikely to find any significant increase in making your games pathfinding use all the cores, but its definitely a viable thing to do. But we dont just have pathfinding in a game, there is also collision detection (potentially range detection is the same, dependent on how its implemented though), graphics, game logic, networking etc etc.
i personally think that the reason most existing games only use 2 cores is because dual core cpus are more than likely the most common cpu still in home computers.
btw, 'At most, 2 cores I think is more than enough for most, if not, all games.' reminds me of a rumored phrase from Bill Gates which he supposedly said in 1981: '640K of memory should be enough for anybody'
|
On March 17 2013 10:12 CptCutter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:39 17Sphynx17 wrote:
It is true that most games don't use the multi core or quad core tech we have now. At most, 2 cores I think is more than enough for most, if not, all games.
The problem I have with the concept is that it actually runs your system ragged. Basically, it will shorten the life of your hardware.
Where normally you are running your system at 50-75% with spikes at 100% from time to time only, this forces your system to run at 100% most of the time.
So you basically max out your four cores, but running all 4 for long periods of time would be detrimental to life span wouldn't it.
I do some 3d rendering from time to time and my computer still has reserve processing power to run background stuff and maybe open a browser tab or two at a slightly slower load speed. But that is expected. If you render double that load, I think it is actually hardware breaking.
If you are using this for basic office work, yes, it is great as it uses your system more efficiently. But say you run complicated calculations per user, you are still limited by memory and hardware speed, that includes the hdd handling the reading of data especially if you are running 2 different programs like say d3 and sc2. It will bog down the system. Coupled with that the video card load. I run sc2 on lowest setting with my 1gb video card and I already lag on 1v1 200v200 clashes. On FFA or 4v4 maps, when there is a clash, I just look away completely. And I am only running sc2, the rest are just background stuff.
I've done this on an i3 and i5 processor, but both with 4gb dd3 ram with 1gb ddr5 video memory, one on a laptop, and the i5 the desktop.
It is not just realistic to expect it to run smoothly with 2 sessions of very "heavy" software running simultaneously. It will run, but not as good as you might want it to.
Just my two cents. actually, strategy games alone have a single feature that could easily be enhanced with multiple core use. Pathfinding. of course, your unlikely to find any significant increase in making your games pathfinding use all the cores, but its definitely a viable thing to do. But we dont just have pathfinding in a game, there is also collision detection (potentially range detection is the same, dependent on how its implemented though), graphics, game logic, networking etc etc. i personally think that the reason most existing games only use 2 cores is because dual core cpus are more than likely the most common cpu still in home computers. btw, 'At most, 2 cores I think is more than enough for most, if not, all games.' reminds me of a rumored phrase from Bill Gates which he supposedly said in 1981: '640K of memory should be enough for anybody'
It's hard to parallelize an RTS, SC2 is basically a single threaded application with some services running on a second thread. If it was merely "optimised for dual cores" it would max 2 cores, not one. On my overclocked 2500k it only uses about 35% cpu (40% of second core) maximum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
