|
Steve Mahfouz
Ecstasy Realty
Join date: 1 Oct 2005
Posts: 1,373
|
11-02-2006 21:16
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-core2-extreme-qx6700.htmlURL above for those of you new to this new Intel behemoth. Right now it's too expensive for me to contemplate upgrading to. However, is 4 cores as opposed to 2 or 1 a complete waste of money for SL ? I remember reading somewhere that SL does not support 2 cores. Thanks for your time. Steve
_____________________
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Ecstasy/128/129/31
Ecstasy: high quality residential living
|
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
11-03-2006 05:15
On my dual-core system SL is noticably less responsive when one of the cores is disabled at the OS/hardware level. SL doesn't use two cores itself, but in a multitaking OS all the little background tasks that do things like tracking your mouse and handling USB events can still take advantage of the second core instead of fighting SL for one.
I don't think that four cores would make the same clear difference to SL, so I wouldn't run out and buy one f that's all you care about, but they'll help when you want to run other software as well... for example, it should help performance when you have two copies of SL running.
|
|
Ketra Saarinen
Whitelock 'Yena-gal
Join date: 1 Feb 2006
Posts: 676
|
11-04-2006 12:29
From: Argent Stonecutter On my dual-core system SL is noticably less responsive when one of the cores is disabled at the OS/hardware level. SL doesn't use two cores itself, but in a multitaking OS all the little background tasks that do things like tracking your mouse and handling USB events can still take advantage of the second core instead of fighting SL for one.
I don't think that four cores would make the same clear difference to SL, so I wouldn't run out and buy one f that's all you care about, but they'll help when you want to run other software as well... for example, it should help performance when you have two copies of SL running. That's odd, because many people, myself included, have found that diabling one of the cores for SL (via Set Affinity... in the Task Manager), will nearly double the FPS. As for Quad Cores for SL, I think the problem would be much the same, or worse with the Quad Core. SL just does not like multiple core CPUs. There are many other benefits to a Dual or Quad core, and the Core 2 CPUs are excellent. However, if SL is all you do, then it would be a waste of money.
_____________________
From: Doctor Who J: You've been to the Factories?
DW: Once
J: Well they're gone now, destroyed. Main reactor went critical, vaporized the lot.
DW: Like I said: Once. There's a banana grove there now. I like bananas. Bananas are good. From: Clutch, 10001110101 Robot Lords of Tokyo, smile, Taste Kittens!
|
|
Kathmandu Gilman
Fearful Symmetry Baby!
Join date: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1,418
|
11-04-2006 14:35
The hardware is good, its the software that has the problem with multiple cores. Game engines are generally based on previous generations of software, just added improvements over time. SL is using software that got its start in 1998 or so and the the Havoc 1 physics engine is vintage 2000 although the coding started in 1998. Back then, dual core computers were high end servers and very rare and expensive. Fast forward to 2006 and e machines is putting dual cores in some machines and by 2007 you will have a tough time finding a single core CPU at all except dusty unsold units or laptops. The reality is that although most programs can run on a dual core, it can't take advantage of it fully because the 30 year legacy of the single processor is going to take rewriting code that very few programmers even know how to do. The consumer level multiprocessor is not 2 years old yet and colleges, if they teach game programming at all, have yet to produce any significant number of multiprocessor trained programmers. (that assumes a college that is nimble enough to change its curriculum that fast, few are)
_____________________
It may be true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease but it is also true that the squeaky wheel gets replaced at the first critical maintenance opportunity.
|
|
Alan Barbecue
Registered User
Join date: 21 May 2006
Posts: 78
|
11-04-2006 17:13
I run SL on multiple machines, two of the machines I use are single core (Pentium 4's) and the other two are one dual-core (Macbook Pro) and one hyperthreading (PC running XP).
I always run SL in a window and am commonly flipping between SL and other applications (browsing the web, IM, email, etc.) and find that on my single core machines to make other applications behave even reasonably acceptably while SL is running I have to go into Task Manager in windows and reduce the SecondLife process to "Below Normal" priority. SL hardly seems to notice but all my other applicaitons perform way better.
This is not a problem at all I've found on my Mac or my girlfriend's computer, which is hyperthreading running Windows XP. Both of those machines function like a champ, never have to change the priority of the process or muck with anything to multitask effectively.
So, with all that being said: Quad Core a benefit? Probably not if you don't multitask heavily while in SL. If you do multitask heavily while in SL I would say that it might be worth a consideration.
Someone previously mentioned that for them disabling the second core makes SL run quicker, I would have to wonder how that would be but it maybe something that is valid on some computers and not on others due to drivers, chipsets or some other random "feature" of some aspect of the computer. For me I have never purposefully disabled a second core on one of my machines to test but am very happy with the performance on the dual-core/hyperthreading machines.
|