Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: where to by a Opteron 6128+board

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    My fastest cpu is a Xeon X3380 (4 cores 3166 Mhz), i am sure it would be enough, but i don't play those games Therefore it is not "my" Phenom II, but Opteron was never made for games - raw speed is needed there - a cpu below 3 ghz is just not usefull for general purpose nowaways, those a special purpuse server cpus.
    " i am sure it would be enough,"

    you are just wrong!

    http://www.arma2.com/versorgungslage...s.html?lang=de

    i do not talk abaut loser PC mini map games in arma2

    i talk abaut the King the Overloard!

    i talk abaut CTI! CTI Conquer the Island

    http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=5862

    your system " cpu is a Xeon X3380 (4 cores 3166 Mhz)"

    can't handel this!@ 128 human players and 1500 AI's!

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,679

    Default

    If you know a benchmark for that game that does not requrie buying it i could test it for you.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,679

    Default

    Also when you look there:

    http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,68...mulation/Test/

    AMD performs really bad, my gfx card is slower than the used ATI 4890, but the cpu is faster than the Q9650 (3 ghz), in theory Intel could have named the X3380 also Q9750. Don't you think that AMD CPUs are bad choice for this special game

    When you look at your claims that the engine would be so heavyly multithreaded then the diff between a X3 and X4 must have been clearly visable, but it is not. Most likely the gfx card was too slow for that test too.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    If you know a benchmark for that game that does not requrie buying it i could test it for you.
    you don't get the point.. the benchmarks in the demo for exampel only test the normal game mode!

    ok your pc is for normal 'mode'

    but if you start a CTI (alpfa and omega mega giga ultra Realbattle Simulation)

    your cpu will go down!

    normal mode my be 100 enemys... CTI= 1500!

    and there is much more in ArmA2 there are low skilled cpu save AI's and Highend High-skilled cpu killer AI's called Commando troops!

    in a normal game mode map the 100 enemys are low or normmal AIs

    in CTI its diverend! if you spend more money on AI you geht a better troop!

    exampel a standart ak47 low skilled KI cost 300 credit

    a specialist for driving a tank cost 1000
    a well skilled ak47 one cost 1500
    a Commander AI cost 4000 and more!

    2 armys can buy 1500 Commander AI's!

    no normal map will ever have only high skilled AI's but @ CTI ALL try to get more Commander skilled AI's!

    means 1 AI kills 1 core! (just an exampel)

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Also when you look there:

    http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,68...mulation/Test/

    AMD performs really bad, my gfx card is slower than the used ATI 4890, but the cpu is faster than the Q9650 (3 ghz), in theory Intel could have named the X3380 also Q9750. Don't you think that AMD CPUs are bad choice for this special game

    When you look at your claims that the engine would be so heavyly multithreaded then the diff between a X3 and X4 must have been clearly visable, but it is not. Most likely the gfx card was too slow for that test too.
    you just don't get the point PCGH test the normal loser PC mode!

    Fact: ArmA2 can handle up to 12 real cores! and ArmA2 use it! but not in an graphic benchmark!

    PCGH use settings of arma2 and normal loser PC maps means its a graphic benchmark!

    no high-skilled Commmander AI everywere! no CTI everywere!

    no brain everywere,.. get the point!

    arma2 normal is a 'shooter' yes a tactical shooter

    checkt this.. what is wrong?

    CTI isn't a shooter at all... CTI is a Real-time-Strategic game no tactical shooter!

    if you think i talk about a tactical shooter named arma2 you are wrong!

    i talk abaut CTI! its a special game mode in arma2 its a Strategic game!

    in CTI you 'earn money' and you need 'Research' to improve your weapons and get newer one!

    on CTI the game does not run only 1-2 hours a CTI can run weeks and monds!

    the CTI runs automatic if you go to sleep your 'commander' earn money do research buy weapons send troops buy tanks buy helicopters buy bombers buy special troops do a global war!

    and you... do not need to anything you can only watch a global war!

    you also can buy troops and weaopons and mybe a ship then you can join in a big fat war!

    with tausends of tanks and bombers and ships and paara trops landing everywere and..

    hey there also resistance!

    and civilians!... the resistance fight against to to!

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,679

    Default

    Then show an url where you can see a cpu core good scaling - preferable with the mod you talk about. From that other benchmarks you can do certain guesses like from E6600 to Q6600 there have been 19% speed increase. Buth cpus are very similar just 2 cores more. Would you interpolate then you might guess that 1 core more would give 10% more from that result. But thats not the case when you see Phenom II X3 720 to X4 920 - that's only 5%. A 5% boost for 1 core more is not visable for normal users. So the new estimation is 2 -> 3 cores + 15%, 3 -> 4 cores + 5%. A 3 core optimisation would be very logical when the engine will come out on Xbox 360. That's the same for GTA 4. You can expect that more cores do only minimally improve the speed because only completely independend things can be calculated in parallel. As soon as one result has to wait for another the thread is locked. When you have too many threads then synchronization will require more time than you gain. Luckyly there are things that scale very well - but definitely no game engines. Those require in 99% of all cases first high raw speed and in 2nd maybe 3-4 cores. So with server cpus with 2 ghz instead of > 3 ghz you can only lose any game bench.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    Then show an url where you can see a cpu core good scaling - preferable with the mod you talk about. From that other benchmarks you can do certain guesses like from E6600 to Q6600 there have been 19% speed increase. Buth cpus are very similar just 2 cores more. Would you interpolate then you might guess that 1 core more would give 10% more from that result. But thats not the case when you see Phenom II X3 720 to X4 920 - that's only 5%. A 5% boost for 1 core more is not visable for normal users. So the new estimation is 2 -> 3 cores + 15%, 3 -> 4 cores + 5%. A 3 core optimisation would be very logical when the engine will come out on Xbox 360. That's the same for GTA 4. You can expect that more cores do only minimally improve the speed because only completely independend things can be calculated in parallel. As soon as one result has to wait for another the thread is locked. When you have too many threads then synchronization will require more time than you gain. Luckyly there are things that scale very well - but definitely no game engines. Those require in 99% of all cases first high raw speed and in 2nd maybe 3-4 cores. So with server cpus with 2 ghz instead of > 3 ghz you can only lose any game bench.
    "Then show an url where you can see a cpu core good scaling ":

    http://www.bistudio.com/developers-b...ticore_en.html

    " From that other benchmarks you can do certain guesses like from E6600 to Q6600 there have been 19% speed increase. Buth cpus are very similar just 2 cores more. Would you interpolate then you might guess that 1 core more would give 10% more from that result. "

    thats only true if you test it in the same loserPC-mode scene!

    but if you test it @1500 commander AI's its diverend!


    "You can expect that more cores do only minimally improve the speed because only completely independend things can be calculated in parallel. As soon as one result has to wait for another the thread is locked. When you have too many threads then synchronization will require more time than you gain. Luckyly there are things that scale very well - but definitely no game engines. Those require in 99% of all cases first high raw speed and in 2nd maybe 3-4 cores. So with server cpus with 2 ghz instead of > 3 ghz you can only lose any game bench."

    i do not talk abaut the graphic! i talk abaut the AI! and ArmA2 do not need synchronization the AI because its a multiplayer game every human don't akt like a synchronism swimmer! only the graphical output and the coordinates of the troops need to synchronization!

    every single AI starts a new Thread! means you have over 1500 threads!

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,679

    Default

    The target of the AI is to find a path for the troup, so what do you think that means? Of course it has to know the position of all other troups. Logically you need shared data which contains at least the positions of all things on the map. When 1 of it is moved you have to lock the access, that means only 1 can move the same time - otherwise more than 1 could be at the same position which is not logical. You can have have as many threads as you like - on as many core you want, all others have to wait till the write access is over. Maybe you can partition your shared data a bit that this will not happen all the time, but you should really write a sample app that uses threads which are not completely independent from each other. Maybe they use more tricks now, but the AI is certainly not extremely scaling. Compile threads are much more easy, because you can compile lots of source code files which do not depend on each other first and only at the linking stage all have to be there. You example is just stupid for so many cores - it will definitely not get faster. Buy your opteron and you will see how slow it is which that game.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    The target of the AI is to find a path for the troup, so what do you think that means? Of course it has to know the position of all other troups. Logically you need shared data which contains at least the positions of all things on the map. When 1 of it is moved you have to lock the access, that means only 1 can move the same time - otherwise more than 1 could be at the same position which is not logical. You can have have as many threads as you like - on as many core you want, all others have to wait till the write access is over. Maybe you can partition your shared data a bit that this will not happen all the time, but you should really write a sample app that uses threads which are not completely independent from each other. Maybe they use more tricks now, but the AI is certainly not extremely scaling. Compile threads are much more easy, because you can compile lots of source code files which do not depend on each other first and only at the linking stage all have to be there. You example is just stupid for so many cores - it will definitely not get faster. Buy your opteron and you will see how slow it is which that game.
    "The target of the AI is to find a path for the troup,"

    not only! the AI also check for tactical managment and other stuff.

    "Of course it has to know the position of all other troups."

    no tats wrong! the AI do not cheat in arma2 the AI only know troups in view distance and only troups in valid targed podsitions if a enemy is in the gras/green the AI can't see the enemy!

    "Logically you need shared data which contains at least the positions of all things on the map."

    you only have shared data in a low range mybe 5km! but the game is 225mkČ!

    ". You can have have as many threads as you like - on as many core you want, all others have to wait till the write access is over."

    i think this is wrong because the AI do not work100% thats because a human do not work 100% they wana have errors because they do not wana GOD's they wana KI played just like humans!

    its ok if a AI have a wrong data and shot in the wrong way thats because humans also shot on wrong positions! because humans are not GOD's and not 100%

    "Buy your opteron and you will see how slow it is which that game."

    you are just wrong i still have 2 Opteron systems!

    and my friend do have a 3,6ghz overclocket E6600

    and arma2 runs faster on my system! with only 4cores@2,6ghz

    in your calculate the speed-up for multi core is only 20% but he do have much more clock speed and still loses!

    his 3,6ghz dualcore system have 100% cpu usage with no AI no troups!

    in the same no troup no ai benchmark with the same hd4890 my system only have 50%-60% cpu usage..

    ok if you put troups in it and AI and you play a game then his system goes down the FPS drops hardly!

    on my system the FPS is just the same the AI do only pull the cpu vom 60% to 80% or more if we put more AI in it!

    in shorts words you are just wrong!

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,679

    Default

    Well it scales best from 2 to 3 cores, why do you think it will scale even more?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •