What further upgrades do i need to make my pc run even faster

[DR_PC 10]

You could have 'rest your case' then when you read my first sentence on the issue, which Ghozer appears to be aggreeing with.

 

 

 

If you set all your other processes to affinity on core 1 for example, and the game on core 2, you might get a small improvement. Adding another 2 cores to the machine will not help at all with non multi core aware games.

 

you really are getting tiresome now. if you set a very CPU intensive game like GTL or GPL to run on all 4 cores. the high load is shared between all the 4 cores. FACT!

either go try it on someone you knows 4core rig and see for yourself or shut up.

[*Cinderella* 10]

you really are getting tiresome now. if you set a very CPU intensive game like GTL or GPL to run on all 4 cores. the high load is shared between all the 4 cores. FACT!

either go try it on someone you knows 4core rig and see for yourself or shut up.

 

Any chance you could put up a screenshot of a process manager showing one of these games running across all 4 cores since Cyclone's not alone in feeling incredulity? Thanks....

[Cyclone 10]

you really are getting tiresome now. if you set a very CPU intensive game like GTL or GPL to run on all 4 cores. the high load is shared between all the 4 cores. FACT!

either go try it on someone you knows 4core rig and see for yourself or shut up.

 

The FACT is that unless written specifically to run on multiple cores, what you are saying is impossible. The program is linear in nature, one instruction follows another with only a few branch points and no parallelism inherent in it. The only options the OS has regarding cores is to switch the operation of the thread from one completely to another, which is a massively time consuming process.

A single threaded programs load CANNOT be shared by multiple cores.

Go away and learn about about multi core development, writing and compiling for parallel environments and how single threaded programs run, once you've done that, you'll understand that what you are claiming is simply impossible.

[Pr0187 10]

I will go get Jerry shall I?

[DR_PC 10]

ok cyclone is too ignorant to listen. this is for you cinderella...

GTR 2 running 1 core

note the FPS in top right.

 

gtr 2 running 4 core affinaty, clearly sharing the load.

note the performance gain in top right FPS.

if you would like video evidence i can provide.

or maybe some international delegation of programmers (who cant think outside what they have been told to think) could call round my house and tell me i and many of my simracing friends are seeing the imposable.

[*Cinderella* 10]

ok cyclone is too ignorant to listen. this is for you cinderella...

GTR 2 running 1 core

note the FPS in top right.

 

gtr 2 running 4 core affinaty, clearly sharing the load.

note the performance gain in top right FPS.

if you would like video evidence i can provide.

or maybe some international delegation of programmers (who cant think outside what they have been told to think) could call round my house and tell me i and many of my simracing friends are seeing the imposable.

 

Thanks for putting those up; don't think me rude if I say they don't actually offer proof. There are 38 processes spread across the 4 cores, and I would have guessed that GTR2 has exclusive use of core 2 on the second set of screenshots, eliminating the 100% clipping on the first set; no-one would dispute that would offer a gain in performance.

 

If you used the Sysinternals Process Explorer rather than Windows Task Manager (I'm surprised you don't already), and moved the cursor between the cores while it was running, it would show which process was consuming the greatest percentage of each core at that point. If it said GTR2 across all four I'd not argue with that. Screenshots for each core would be terrific.

 

Thanks again.

[Ghozer 112]

But who needs 250 fps? The human eye/brain can only process about 55fps any ways..

yes, I know the game feels and looks smoother with higher fps, but anything past about 120 is pointless... since you already have 150+ on your first screen shot, what's the point?

 

and yes, I do/have played GTR and yes, I have played it on 60 fps, 150 and 200+ and there's not any noticable difference past about 150 (and that 200+ fps is on my DUAL core machine)

[DR_PC 10]

@ Cinderella, no problem. i will do what you ask when i find the time this week.

 

@ Ghozer well that's missing the point. also another debate completely. suffice to say if those screens were from one of my online league races with 20+ cars on track the FPS would be lower. but always the FPS is higher when on 4 cores.

[Cyclone 10]

You've proven that when it has a dedicated core (core 2 apparently) it runs faster than when it's sharing core 1.

Which seems to indicate that windows isn't very good at delagating processes to different cores efficiently, but also clearly demonstrates that the game is running on a single core only, and thus a move from a 2 core to a 4 core system will be pointless for gaming (which was what I originally said).

 

I doubt you'll try this, but if you want to verify what I've just said, set it's affinity to core 2 (or 3 or 4, your choice), and set the affinity for every other process to core 1.

You'll see exactly the same behaviour.

[DR_PC 10]

screenies as requested by cinderella...

quite difficult to show it under full load as the game pauses when i alt-tab out to take each screen.

oh and i did a little experiment for the doubting programmer here..

Race 07 is optimised for 2 cores but looky here!

there she blows! running more than two!

You can set whatever affinity you like, it only runs on one core, unless you've got a lot of other stuff running in the background to assign to the other 3 cores it will make no difference moving from 2 to 4.

still stand by that Cyclone?

here try some further reading from 2007!!

http://www.yougamers.com/news/13735_core_blimey_-_theyre_finally_all_getting_used/

[Cupowar 10]

You naughty thread hijackers

 

I don't pretend to understand what you guys are talking about in half of the above, but it would seem that there's a sliver of difference between what you're saying.

 

Is this one of those times to agree to disagree? Or perhaps start a new thread

 

I should imagine that in general a quad core PC is faster by some degree, in some characteristics, that a dual core one - can we at least agree on that? Fair enough it may not be a massive improvement, but an improvement nonetheless.

 

It seems this is spiralling towards virtual fisticuffs - How about best of three on Streetfighter to decide?!

[DR_PC 10]

You naughty thread hijackers

 

I don't pretend to understand what you guys are talking about in half of the above, but it would seem that there's a sliver of difference between what you're saying.

 

Is this one of those times to agree to disagree? Or perhaps start a new thread

 

I should imagine that in general a quad core PC is faster by some degree, in some characteristics, that a dual core one - can we at least agree on that? Fair enough it may not be a massive improvement, but an improvement nonetheless.

 

It seems this is spiralling towards virtual fisticuffs - How about best of three on Streetfighter to decide?!

 

Hehe, no malice or ill intent here. just very nice debate. thread hijacking apart. in my experience the best debates are usually hijacked threads.