What is Digg?76 Comments
- lacronicus, on 11/12/2007, -2/+53No love for Supreme Commander? That game was out over a year ago and when things got hectic would likely bring even quads to their knees.
- dukeeeey, on 11/04/2007, -4/+47how old is quake3 ?
that supports 2 cpus .. - cnot3, on 11/04/2007, -0/+28quake 4 also had an option for multicore cpus
- piesforyou, on 11/03/2007, -0/+23How about inventing a time machine so we can predict if that will happen or not?
- Bega, on 11/04/2007, -0/+20err, didn't supreme commander come out in like, march?
- Rawler, on 11/03/2007, -2/+21The amount of diggs that you see when U get around to the story is not representative to the amount of people that are currently trying to view the story.
in short, ur not funny. - BobMysterioso, on 11/06/2007, -2/+20Looks like the web server does not support multi core cpus
- Eywanadi, on 11/06/2007, -1/+18Quake 3 came out in '99 but to be fair its multi-cpu support was always buggy. However you still have to hand it to id software for always being years ahead of the competition technology wise, now if only they could do the same with gameplay.
ps.
Quake 3 is still my favorite multiplayer FPS all these years later, no matter how good I get I can still find someone better. That speaks to the very high skill roof of the game. - goatfucker, on 11/06/2007, -1/+13And yet the Crysis demo is not multi-core optimized... Hope that's fixed for the final release.
- cgoff, on 11/03/2007, -1/+12The article is pretty lame. It doesn't really go in-depth about *why* it's taken so long for games to catch up with multi-core processing, and then as mentioned by the first comment doesn't mention "older" titles that have been supporting multi-core processors for well over a year. You might as well consider dual processors multi-core, and in that case titles such as Quake offered support for that way way way on back.
- DFENS, on 11/04/2007, -2/+12Yeah, but 7 months is TOTALLY a year, SRSLY
- TheVirus, on 11/04/2007, -1/+9*whoosh*
- Ninjab3ar, on 11/03/2007, -1/+8the Quake 3 servers are still up? wow..
You should try the unreal tournament 3 demo if you havent. Its awesome. - medicineman24, on 11/03/2007, -0/+7"after two years from when the first dual core CPUs" 2 years???? How about like 4-5
- polywaffle, on 11/04/2007, -0/+5I find that really hard to believe, i get about 20-30 fps in crysis and about 30-35 fps in supreme commander depending on how many units, running at a much higher res than crysis. This is with a single core btw.
- CSharpSauce, on 11/04/2007, -0/+5I havn't read the article, it's been loading for over a minute... so not much faith in getting to read it for a while. But as a programmer (former game programmer.... now i write server apps) implimenting multi-threading is nothing new. It strikes me as obvious, but apparently most gamers don't understand the dilemas, and problems with adding threads to accomplish tasks. We've been multithreading as many things as we can, but some things just can't be threaded. Games in particlular require a very precise linear procedual loop, and completing a task asyncranously can mix up the order in which things are returned, causing some very odd bugs.
- NotAChickenHawk, on 11/05/2007, -1/+6Yawn. Falcon 4.0 had multithreading back in 1999. Would use 2nd CPU (yes, we only had one core chips back then - two cores = two chips on a dual socket motherboard in 1999) just fine.
- Racerx52, on 11/03/2007, -1/+6Hello 2004?
- Chandon, on 11/03/2007, -0/+5Matt2k - If you're surprised that a brand new, graphically intensive game can't run at max settings on the card you already have then you've seriously misunderstood the whole concept of PC gaming. New games have better graphics - and they can't do that without requiring more powerful hardware. When you buy a gaming computer, you buy being able to play current games - and maybe new games for a year if you buy high end. That's it. Your year is up.
- inactive, on 11/03/2007, -3/+8Crysis is designed to sell video cards, not processors.
- electrichead, on 11/02/2007, -0/+5They digg it to mark it so that they can come back when the server has recovered. What, you just discovered this site called digg, sdlvx?
- chazuk, on 11/03/2007, -0/+5Just because some wanker diggs an article even tho the server is dead doesn't make Rawler a "*****" you stupid *****.
- Eywanadi, on 11/03/2007, -0/+5I have yet to try UT3 but it will be the reason I upgrade my computer, I am just waiting for the new nvidia card later this month. Unreal Tournament is an amazing game, 2004 even more so but I wish it had movement controls as fluid as quake 3 does. UT does have the superior weapons IMO but they are less balanced but that is to be expected when you have so many options.
- 0ldmankdude, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:http://www.you ...
slow, but working - KWhat, on 11/03/2007, -1/+5You may have wanted to check that link before posting as ChaosKing almost did...
- diatonic1, on 11/04/2007, -2/+5Multi-core CPU usage in WEB SERVERS - finally!
- wesw02, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3Yea, Quake 4 had SMP support in Linux only 3 months after release day (which was 2 years ago this November).
- Matt2k, on 11/06/2007, -2/+5I'm not surprised, I said I'm sick of it. I said I'm tired of the money sink.
And Crysis is not that visually amazing. Yes, you can shoot trees in half. My response: Oblivion. Which was released a year and a half ago. That was a well-programmed engine. Is Crysis 5x more visually appealing? Does a low setting Crysis compare?
Using the crutch of assuming the consumer will upgrade to conpensate for subpar programming, I don't know if I agree with that. At least scale downward while pushing the envelope. - PedleZelnip, on 11/03/2007, -0/+3This article is simply misleading and factually inaccurate. Just because a core is at 100% utilization doesn't mean that it's doing *USEFUL* work. I could easily write a version of Pong which puts all cores to 100% utilization but that doesn't mean that the gameplay has improved any.
Then the article implies that having full utilization of all cores is a bad thing, which makes no sense. Having 2 cores at 50% utilization is essentially doing about the same work as a single core CPU (of the same speed), so what's the benefit of dual-core then? Unless the extra cores are doing work, then you're not getting any benefit from being dual (or quad) core.
The idea behind dual-cores is that instead of just upping clock speed to make things faster, we try to do more in a single unit of time by exploiting parallelism in the code. So for example, in a single threaded game you might do a bit of AI, then a bit of level geometry, then a bit of physics, etc. In a quad-core environment you could farm the AI to one core, level geometry to another, physics to another, etc and have all of them working *at the same time*.
The problem is (and this is the reason why really good support for multicore systems in games hasn't happened yet) is that it's very difficult to design software to exploit this parallelism due to dependencies existing between the logical "threads" of execution. For example, the AI might have to depend on knowing something from the physics engine, etc. - macgiants, on 11/03/2007, -7/+10Yeah, nothing terribly new but it's good to see it becoming the norm. Giants: Citizen Kabuto for the Mac had multi CPU support and that game's been out since 2001.
- dark_helmet, on 11/04/2007, -0/+3Comparing an RTS to a FPS is like comparing apples to oranges. If you couldn't get supreme commander to work properly, there is probably something wrong with you, its not that hard if you have a normal copy of windows, with normal (fairly fast) hardware, its not hard.
- shredswithpiks, on 11/02/2007, -2/+4q3 servers are up whenever people play, I guess... I haven't even tried in 3 years or something, but dear god I loved instagib rail matches in that game. also being in an excessive clan was cool, too.
makes me want to go get rocked at Q4 multiplayer... since that game runs great and pretty on my compy (and has multi-core support...) - UtopiaInTheSky, on 11/06/2007, -3/+5Consoles cannot handle Crysis. Maybe the next-gen of consoles in a few years? You might see a port by then.
- Nerevar, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Did you play the same UT3 demo that I did? I thought it was mediocre at best, especially that multiplayer game browser...ugh gamespy.
- AnthonyA7, on 11/04/2007, -3/+5???
- tHePeOPle, on 11/02/2007, -0/+2I just tried this demo. One of the best games I've ever played. Even on medium quality it's still amazing.
- xxbrighteyed, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2the joys of the word '*****'
^_^ - lukeev, on 11/04/2007, -0/+2Supreme Commander was one of the first to support multi-core, and it is miles ahead of its time in many aspects.
- Izacus, on 11/06/2007, -0/+2Too bad that games don't paralelize very well... actually they're one of the worse types of applications to run on multiple cores.
- flair1, on 11/03/2007, -0/+2Call of Duty 2 had a multicore patch 2 years ago.
- Johan007, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1As its been said before you can not really use more than 2 cores to improve frame rate becuase the second core is dependent on the first core that will be doing all the work. In a dual core system you have freed up the first core giving you a boost. Adding any more gives no increase in frame rate however with a tri-core you could use the third core to load game information to prevent those in game level changes or pauses.
- ubergeek09, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1It will basically have to be optimized for multi-core systems as it has a pretty insane physics engine, and AI and all that.
- Frostman3D, on 11/03/2007, -1/+2I hope Unreal Tournament 3 takes full advantage of dual cores.
- ubergeek09, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1It's just so bizzare that Quake 3 has support for that kind of stuff, I mean it doesn't look impressive by any means, why would you need support for that kind of hardware in it?
- Salgat, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1Quake 3 is a game I always go back to. I remember when I was hardcore into that game..oh man good times.
- shadowcode, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1I agree. That's why I dugg this article down as inaccurate.
The author has no solid understanding what the results represent. Unless you know how the game has implemented multi-threading it's not really useful to look at the core usage results.
Also, expect any games that have been developed for both PC and X360 to use multiple cores (unless the other platform is a mere port). The thing is... developers will pick the best implementation for their game and unfortunately that doesn't always result in a better game. Performance-wise things like the framerate might go up (since you can render while you're already doing game logic on another core), load-times might go down (load up all your blobs of data and then have all cores process said data). But in the end, the net effect might be lost since games might take twice as long to load nowadays and longer to render a single frame. One wonders how long before a multi-core system is minspec? - JagoX, on 11/21/2007, -0/+1Yes...dig me down for telling the truth.
Talk about ignorant people... - apollomurga, on 11/03/2007, -0/+1so if you have a multi-core processor, it's not really doing much more? or am i somehow mistaken and confused.
- neeyo, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1Dugg for the performance chart for "Final Doom" .... hello 1995? Or was it 94?
- swordedge, on 11/04/2007, -0/+1supporting multiple CPU's in games is a rather difficult thing to do. You don't explicitly support them but multithread your code. When programmers do that, they no longer know when things in that thread get done from other threads. So solve this problem, they implement a complicated messaging system so not only do they have to be game programmers, but dynamic database / messaging system managers. Not all programmers can do this.
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is