Isn't that a quad-core processor..? Meaning that it would actually be 40% on a single core and 0% on others? Or do they really make single-core I7's?
[Merged] Discussion regarding LFS development
(1577 posts, started )
Isn't that a quad-core processor..? Meaning that it would actually be 40% on a single core and 0% on others? Or do they really make single-core I7's?
Ehhrrr you mean that the maximum that I can reach on a single core can be 25 anyway? Hhmm maybe, not sure how this is displaying nowadays.
Turbo mode would do something like that. Direct the power to one core.
Thanks but bad thread. Another one about higher Mhz is better.
Again; 1.6 Ghz here.
,
Turbo mode would do something like that. Direct the power to one core.
Thanks but bad thread. Another one about higher Mhz is better.
Again; 1.6 Ghz here.
,
If I run a program that supports only 1 core with my quad-core processor, max atleast I can reach IS 25%. But it's 100% on one core, 0% on others. Windows sees CPU as one big core, altough it doesn't work that way.
You talking about W7 now or something else? I see 8 separate threads (4 cores + 4 multi-threading) and can also assign as such (set affinity)....
Anyway doesn't really matter, the claim is here that a GPU has nothing to do. Which is false. It's the CPU who is bored.
Anyway doesn't really matter, the claim is here that a GPU has nothing to do. Which is false. It's the CPU who is bored.
You must specify what you set the graphics hog settings to for this benchmark. AA, etc.
Heh I didn't mean to show the cpu benches there, but the gpu results. (my bad, should have linked it better hehe) And what you find there is, no matter what gpu was used nor which resolution/AA+AF settings, cpu were always bottlenecking the fps while gpu's were having cold beer and relaxing
However that said, yes you can get high gpu utilization % lower the actual hardware specs goes since it has to work harder while faster stuff doesn't even break a sweat with same load.
And the windows's way to show cpu % is cpu-threads-sensitive. Meaning your quad core i7+HT's 8 threads shows around 12% per full thread use. And there for the 10% for LFS cpu utilization actually is using nearly full capacity of your system for LFS's use (this is why single threaded apps sucks with modern pc's since they can only use the quarter of resources of your system, cpu-wise that is).
Also I have to ask, which i7 you got? Sandybridge based or Clarksfield, aka 2657M or 720QM?
(based to 1.6ghz info)And to clear it up since it seems to be in fashion on this forum, none of this text was some personal attack nor negativity stuff.. Just friendly chatting with fellow simlover :eclipsee_
Which Windows are You using, mine shows me each core
That one.
Hmm.. I'm not working in the computer hardware industry anymore, but I would love to show two identical machines, one with and one without decent GPU next to each other.
Apart from all that, I stick with my beliefs that high ping and ultra low FPS is unwanted on online servers.
It tells me that
A) You don't know how to properly interpret CPU load in Windows Task Manager with a multicore CPU
B) You're probably using something like 8xSSAA and high AF settings
LFS utilizes one core at approx 80 % on a 2.66 GHz Core2 with full grid of AIs on BW GP. GPU of a sorry ass 9800M GTS is loaded at about 50 %, but it's worth noting that the GPU is clocked down to 400 MHz (from 600 MHz). That's with 8xMSAA and 16xAF.
~1 year ago I had nVidia 6800 (GS?) with 256 mb of VRAM. Then its fan stopped working and I changed to nVidia GT 240 with 1 gb of VRAM. Nothing has changed, no impact in FPS. This year I will change my current CPU (AMD Athlon +3000 1,8 GHz) to a newer one and we'll see if FPS change or not.
As long as there is hardware T&L support, then any gpu that gives you the resolution you want should work... for now !
It's quite likely that when the physics are done, one of the things that will get some attention is the graphics. Probably some subtle shader work to increase realism without being annoying.
Still, it's even more likely that the physics update will hit the cpu harder, so cpu will still be the main factor in frame rate. Improvements in AI may also have some small impact on cpu.
It's quite likely that when the physics are done, one of the things that will get some attention is the graphics. Probably some subtle shader work to increase realism without being annoying.
Still, it's even more likely that the physics update will hit the cpu harder, so cpu will still be the main factor in frame rate. Improvements in AI may also have some small impact on cpu.
(luchian)
DELETED
by luchian : wrong topic :)
LFS Development Dead???
3 years later...still waiting on VW lol....
(Somebody)
DELETED
by Somebody
Do we really need another one of these threads? There is barely a day gone by since the last one was posted to.
We've had enough of these threads. No need to create more hard feelings.
LFS is a program.
It cannot die, as it doesn't lives...
The community, if it is dead or alive, its all about the players, who are the community.
Development is not dead, until Scawen say that he gave up (i hope this never happens).
Answered?
It cannot die, as it doesn't lives...
The community, if it is dead or alive, its all about the players, who are the community.
Development is not dead, until Scawen say that he gave up (i hope this never happens).
Answered?
LFS is only "dead" to you, and you alone, when you stop playing. For those of us that play the game it is very much alive, and will be as long as we play. No difference now, same fun as 8 years ago. A software that works don't die, only your own interest.
Yes, 3 years, so what? It will be worth the wait, hopefully.. Also, why start a new thread? Every time the Devs see a post like this they probably say, right, we're leaving it longer because they keep asking.. just be patient!
Remember Duke Nukem Forever?
Now shut up, and continue waiting.
Now shut up, and continue waiting.
Would it take so much to leave a little post on the forum, every now and again saying "we're still here, still working"? If they get that pissed off with people asking about development, they're in the wrong game and they're dicks. Obviously that's just a bullshit made up line by idiots who think that any posts asking about development are daft.
Not again. Every Week the same Thread.
I understand Scavier more with every week.
I understand Scavier more with every week.
Just like those people that say new computers are too expensive to buy, yet everyone suggests buying a g27 for lfs. g27 is just as expensive as upgrading your cpu or gpu.
newer hardware is getting cheaper every year. last years technologies are relatively cheap today, so saying you can't afford a decent cpu/gpu/whatever is not a valid excuse for having a bad computer.
Not the best example. DNF was a total fail.
To be honest, LFS could only pull a DN:F if they decided that you could only fit 1 tyre to a vehicle at once, made all tracks completely straight, removed multiplayer and ensured that tracks only loaded after 10 minutes
Hail to the king, baby.
[Merged] Discussion regarding LFS development
(1577 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG