Dual Core ?

[EvEnLeaSe44 0]

Im geting a new computer soon. And i was wondering if Game 2 will support Dual Core? If so then cool. DUAL CORE ROCKS.

[JdB 151]

I don't think BIS is going to release this (or any other) technical detail until they see fit

Edit: typo

[Murmur2k 0]

Well, by the time game 2 comes out I would expect all new CPU's to be dual core.

[shinRaiden 0]

Asked before, and locked here :

(search for "core")

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....hl=core

Asked before, with more useful discussion - but old - here : (search for "64")

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....3;hl=64

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

Until M$ get's their act together and makes a properly multitasking OS, and programmers then have sufficent reason to utilize it, we're all going to continue to be scammed by 64bit dual cores. If you haven't figured it out yet, here it is again :

64bits do not make for faster processors, faster processers make for faster processers.

Now, why do you want a dual-core? Well for starters hopefully you'd be able to task switch Windows onto one core while the active application runs on the other core. That's still crippled logic though.

So you need to reverse the logic process and think like a developer. Instead of "make your software run on my hardware", look at what hardware is suitable for running software developed within the constraints of the OS and API's.

Secondly, where would an application benefit from more "processing power"? Please be more specific. Games have a high degree of sequential logic, ie receive net code, generate virtual objects, prepare model and texture data, calculate physics, derive results, and send to GPU render. It's fairly trivial to keep everything sorted single-threading on one core. Add in multiple cores however and maintaining syncronization becomes exponentially more complex, and for what value other than moving a poorly coded shell clobbered into an OS out of the primary processing pool?

Aside from the delightful and obscure technical trivia, you also have to consider marketing demographics. What % of the target market demographic is going to own a dual-core system during the peak post-launch revenue window? What would be the return-on-investment (ROI) for adding dual-core? ie, will there be sufficent increased sales or reduced development costs to offset the expense of designing with full multithreading multitasking logic? Unlike Duke Nukem Forever, real products have to do real compromises and evaluations in product design and management.

Enterprise applications that take advantage of multi-threaded dual-processing options generally are justified under resource consolidation principles. Dual-core is merely a refinement and optimized variation.

There's two approaches to development, you can take the FarCry road and design the 900lb gorilla of applications that bloats simply because it can, and demand that you conform to its hardware standard levels, or you can take the OFP route and make you application scalable for actual customer baselines.

[Moving Target 0]

in 2 years the majority of processors sold WILL be dual core, primarly because intel have got the process so small that parts of the processors gates will be made of handfuls of atoms. the only way to increase performance is more cores, yet slapping two prescotts together when there are no dual core programs means that HT enabled processors easily outperform Pentium D's which only run with one core.

"Im geting a new computer soon. And i was wondering if Game 2 will support Dual Core? If so then cool. DUAL CORE ROCKS"

Im afraid to say that dual core's dont rock, Intels is just two cheap pentium 4's slapped together, and AMD's is vastly overpriced. Dont believe the marketing hype and buy dual core now (or not at least till they make a proper processor)

[EvEnLeaSe44 0]

I understand what ure saying, but my dad do's work for intel and yes dual core do's rock.

[shinRaiden 0]

Which is why the F/A-18's flight controls run off redundant multi-cpu 68040 processors. And which is also why BeOS or the Amiga run circles around Windows on equivelent hardware. And that's not even getting into the protected mode CPI instructions shipped in the 286 that most lazy MS dev's never bothered to properly leverage, so that the rest of us we kept back in the dark ages.

[metallicAL 0]

dual core proccessors are not dessigned for gamers/games.

Games using dual core will probably be next, next generation.

by that time, new Cpu will have come out 4cores etc.

btw i have a x2 3800

[quiet_man 8]

dual core proccessors are not dessigned for gamers/games.

Games using dual core will probably be next, next generation.

by that time, new Cpu will have come out 4cores etc.

1. CPU for games makes no sence to me

PC CPUs are general propose Machines, this was a huge step forward! Before this, Hardware was build for exactly one mission

PC victory was laid by being general propose but with the ability to add hardware to support specific tasks (any one remembers numeric Processor cards?) It is up to the Software to use additional Hardware or not. If lots of Software uses special Hardware, it can become Standard (today Numeric Processors are integrated into all CPUs)

2. Todays Games are ALREADY Multi-threaded

Ever wondered why gameplay stays the same while FPS changes? Or why sound continues to play while the game freezes? No it wasn't always this way, I think with the 286 the famous "Turbo" switch was introduced, in fact to reduce CPU speed to previous CPU levels for running/slowing Programms designed for specific Hardware.

Once I tryed an old version of the U-Boat simultation "wolfpack" on a brand new 486 PC, hitting Mission start and "automatic" just same time, the average mission lasted I think ~5seconds, I skiped trying to play it

With today range of operational hardware this is unthinkable

The game physical and gamelogic engines needs to be syncronized by clock to keep gameplay constant at different CPUs. Graphic and Sound engines are already independend.

Generaly I doubt that synchronization is done in a "unsystematic" way. Thread syncronisation errors can be nasty.

So for minimal dual core support I would look for the existing synchronization code and change it to support mulitcore

A none BIS game (version 2 was just releast ) even have unsynchrinized AI. With the annoying result that AI calculation is simply dropped when big action starts. What would you think of your squad just standing around when you arrive at a battle? Comment from the company: "Singleplayer is supported but multiplayer should be played for full experience"

Also a way to improve graphics

quiet_man

[quiet_man 8]

oh, an important factor for BIS to act, could also be the hyppe.

Intel and AMD pushing very hard the "advantages" of multicore.

Adding "multi core support" on the box might get some people to buy the game who normaly would not

But it is up to BIS to assess possibilities and advantages

I hope they know their engine good enough

quiet_man