iB::Topic::Micro AI on 2nd CPU ?

New Official Bohemia Interactive have been moved to a new address: http://forums.bistudio.com/.
This old forum has been switched to read only status and will be removed soon.

For Registered users: please, pay attention to this User Account Recovery manual which will help you reactivate your original user account at the new official forums engine. See you there!

	flashpoint1985.com :: BI FORUMS Bohemia Interactive Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

BI FORUMS » ARMA 2 » ArmA 2 - GENERAL » Micro AI on 2nd CPU ?

Pages: (6) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Micro AI on 2nd CPU ?

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

Uziyahu--IDF Offline

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 1070
Joined: Jan. 2003

Posted: Sep. 02 2008,02:50

Quote (Pirin @ Aug. 26 2008,16:16)

Quote (Killbert @ Aug. 26 2008,15:05)

They should put one core for physics.

There are already separate cards available for physics. NVidia boards even allow you to use a 2nd video card as a physics card instead of video.

With those options available, why would you want a CPU core to be dedicated to physics? :hm:

Because people were deciding from the very time that the Ageia card was released that it just made more sense to do those calculations on a motherboard.

Physics can affect gameplay, so if someone doesn't have the card, it changes their gameplay.

--------------

Israeli Defense Force: a group of Tactical PC Gamers who love Israel.
SpecForce.net: Covering Tactical First-Person Shooters

Lou Montana Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 270
Joined: June 2003

Posted: Sep. 02 2008,21:04

Quote

Micro AI on 2nd CPU ?

Yes, and for those who have only one mono-core CPU, no micro-AI :crazy:

--------------
Script-addict - http://lou.montana.free.fr/ - A wish in ArmA ? Just ask !

-->> If you have a dual core socket 939 (Athlon X2 I think) to sell/give, please contact me ! <<--

Wiper

Group: Members
Posts: 83
Joined: Sep. 2001

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,03:19

Quote (IceBreakr @ Aug. 26 2008,15:19)

Uh, good luck to BiS on that subject... I just wonder how will MP handle this on multiple clients (single, duo or quad)?

easily i'd say as AI will be probably processed only on the server like it's the case in OF and Arma

MP.Green

Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,05:44

very down to earth question: if u want to buy a new computer only for ArmA2, dual cores or quad?

if quad cores are not fully used or supported, is it wiser to get a dual cores with higher frequency?

nubbin77

Group: Members
Posts: 434
Joined: June 2004

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,05:55

Quote

I think this is a ligitimate no-nonesense question. Some of us may want to upgrade in the next 6-9 months. At this stage of develpment, I would think that would be a known technical detail.

Possible answers I would think are:
Yes Arma will utilize all 4 cores.
Yes Arma will benefit from a 4 core system in the fact that it will fully utilize 2 cores and the other 2 will be offsetting the pc's normal operations.
No - Arma only supports 2 cores, a quad core will add no extra benefit.

I understand the need to keep certain aspects of the engine vague or provide "maybe" answers. But in this case I would think this would have been determined by now. I doubt if it was written for dual core BIS could implement quad core support (I could be wrong, BIS has done enough other miracles). I'd love to hear something official, as I intend to upgrade around the holidays...

--------------
http://img79.exs.cx/img79/475/SOWSig.jpg

[WWS]WarWolf Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 428
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,09:34

Seconded, the information on ArmA2's planned CPU core usage needs to be available as soon as possible.

Micro-AI on 2nd Core we know about so far,

IF the machine is a 4(or more)-core, WILL some extra work such as background texture/landscape streaming from disk be offloaded to the other cores too?
I would _assume_ this to be so, but we need confirmation so that decisions over hardware paths and purchases can be made ahead of time.

We DO NOT need to know details here of what cores and what processing will happen on which core, but if BI are planning to use more than 2 cores, if available on the machine, then we'll need to know this information soon.

As noted in a previous post all this depends on the current level of modularisation in the existing code and design - only BI know whether they might be able to shift program modules around onto different cores and make it work to increase performance and fluidity.

p.s. NVidia's PhysX API will also be coming to ATI cards soon, certainly by the time ArmA2 launches, so physics processing will eventually shift across to use that irrespective of video-card type. Probably not in ArmA2 though I'd guess.
A thought here, would future use of PhysX processing enable towed objects to work in multiplayer? Or is the problem more to do with 'scope' of player view on a large battlefield?

Edited by [WWS]WarWolf on Sep. 03 2008,09:40

Suma

ArmA Lead Programmer

Group: BI Forum Team
Posts: 3144
Joined: June 2001

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,11:40

Currently I can provide only an estimation, for final words you still have to wait for later:

Our intention is to scale at least to some extent to quad cores (this means with quad cores you should have either better performance in some scenes than in dual cores). Therefore the game should run better on Quad Core compared to Dual Core assuming they both run at the same frequency.

That said, you can get higher frequency Dual Core for the same money as you could get Quad Core. My prediction is 3.3 GHz Dual Core will most likely run the game better than 2.5 GHz Quad Core, while both will cost you approximately the same.

One thing to note: different scenarios / workloads may show different performance patterns - e.g. it is possible missions with huge numbers of units will runner better on 2.5 GHz Quad Core than 3.3 GHz Dual Core.

Disclaimer: this is only a prediction and things can still change before the game is released.

--------------
Ondrej Spanel, BIS Lead Programmer

CameronMcDonald Offline

"Some kind of god"

Group: Members
Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,11:57

Interesting info, Suma. Ta.

--------------

Lt (SSO), LWC, ADF.

A better author of most, if not all, ACU textures than you.

Blargh, no internet!

sandzibar

Group: Members
Posts: 152
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,12:12

right... so a 3.3 quad core it is then

[WWS]WarWolf Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 428
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,12:18

Thank you for the reply Suma, much appreciated.

It's good to know that you are trying to mould ArmA2 to use the machine's capabilities as much as you can sensibly achieve.

Your intention to do wonders is all we need to know right now!

This is good news indeed.

Edited by [WWS]WarWolf on Sep. 03 2008,12:26

Smiley_ie

Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,13:12

I have a quad core 2.4 and bought a Zalman CNPS9500 for 40.00 euro and it clocks to 3.2 runs fine its a good cheap way for an upgrade.

2.4 quad is now only 150.00 euro

Edited by Smiley_ie on Sep. 03 2008,13:14

Hawk666

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,19:17

Quote (Suma @ Sep. 03 2008,11:40)

@Suma:

Is it planned to provide the possibility to benefit from multi-core in scripts too or is this automatically handled by the engine (I mean the Spawn command for example)

I'm thinking of running a complex algorithm in background etc.

Barely-injured Offline

Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: Nov. 2006

Posted: Sep. 03 2008,19:30

Ah good i just got my Q6600 quad core system especially for Arma II of course it is a 2.4 so it could use some overclocking in the future.

Thanks Suma :tup: