When are we getting Multi-core support?

[Invert]

As I was re-installing my game last night I came across a laughable quote on the back of the retail box which stated something along the lines of "State of the Art 3D Engine capable of scaling with future technology". As many tech heads would know the EQ2 engine STILL does not have multi-core support despite the fact that dual core technology (Not including single cores with HyperThreading) has now been available for around  2 years.Apart from Multi-core support there are several other features that the EQ2 engine does not yet support, things that are starting to become a standard  in gaming engines these days (Namely SLI/Crossfire support).I guess my question is, was the idea of the scalable engine thrown out the window? Or are these features still on the draw cards for future patches?Thanks for reading.

[Killerbee3000]

you got the scaling with future technology wrong.... the problem is that cpu's radically changed, back then when soe was making the basic code for eq2 Intel and Amd where both still praising high clocked single core cpus that dont do much per clock... canyou see where i'm comming form? instead intel scaled up a notebook cpu and amd scaled down a server cpu... can they change it? well... ultima online has less subscriptions than eq2 and they had a tech revamp too.. so it would be possible, even with limited funds.. will they do it? prolly not.

[Valena]

If I remember correctly, they deliberately disabled multi-core support as unpatched dual core processors could cause a bug where the avatar could run at insane speeds.

 I'm about to upgrade to a quad core PC and it's a little annoying knowing that EQ will still run at the same speed as it does on my dual core

[Thunderthyze]

I use a top end AMD single core processor with an 8800GTS GPU and get approaching 40fps at high quality settings everywhere except the usuals like QH/EF. When I raid I scale the graphics back to minimum and the thing looks like silk. Now....why would you want to buy a multi core JUST to play EQ2?

[Invert]

Holymoly@Runnyeye wrote:

I use a top end AMD single core processor with an 8800GTS GPU and get approaching 40fps at high quality settings everywhere except the usuals like QH/EF. When I raid I scale the graphics back to minimum and the thing looks like silk. Now....why would you want to buy a multi core JUST to play EQ2?

When it comes to gaming hardware, single core processors have been outdated now by 2 generations. PC games in general have advanced a lot since EQ2 was initially released, and now a days a single core processor just won't cut it with todays modern games. EQ2's performance in general would improve 10fold with multicore support, as the game is extremely CPU intensive (Why should we have to turn visuals down to bare minimum to achieve a descent framerate when raiding, in a game thats close to 3 years old).One can assume that EQ2's client performance will only get worse as technology advances if the developers don't do something to make there engine compatible with later hardware. As is the case now, a single 4 year old P4 CPU performs the same as a $400 Quad Core CPU, yet the overall performance to visual ratio is not worth it. Do you see the problem here?

[Laurence]

I have a Quad Core CPU which I didn't buy for EQ2 but it would be nice if EQ2 could use it, rather than having 3 quarters of the CPU noing nothing or fiddling with background tasks while I play, it's stupid.

The EQ2 engine needs a rewrite and SoE are not willing to do that. In a way I don't blame them as it IS a big job and they have more pressing things to attend to... but on the other hand just think how cool performance would be if they DID put the effort in.

[Generic123]

EQ2 doesn't make use of multiple cores, but no current game makes effective use of multiple processors no matter what they say on the box.  The way game engines are currently designed even if the game support multiple processors, all the processor intensive stuff is still running on a single core.  

What dual core does let you do is run teamspeak, a parser, have and virus scanner run in the background, run a firewall, etc all without degrading performance of the game.  If you have sufficient memory, that is. 

[Arcanth]

Lc3 wrote:

The EQ2 engine needs a rewrite and SoE are not willing to do that. In a way I don't blame them as it IS a big job and they have more pressing things to attend to... but on the other hand just think how cool performance would be if they DID put the effort in.

Maybe not a re-write, but a good bit of tweaking. The problem I have with many MMOG developers is that if their game doesn't tank it's likely to be around for a good many years. As such they should be making the engine as modular as possible so they can add to it, or change it, or replace it entirely with minimal re-work on the rest of the game. The need to do this should be planned in to the games expected life cycle.The only MMOG I'm aware of to do this so far is Dark Age of Camelot. With each retail expansion they've also upgraded the graphics engine and selected artwork in old areas. One reason they've been able to do this is they use a third party graphic engine (though heavily modified), so the graphic engine is under constant development by a third party (so it remains competitive in the engine market) and not themselves.

[-Aonein-]

There is no excuse that justifies not having a client that is compatiable with dual core processors now. Every computer that is advertised from any shop you buy a complete system from now is a dual core system. Single core processors are out dated.

The simple way to look at it is this, there will be ALOT more happy customers if they did this compaired to if they dont.....

[Wingrider01]

-Aonein- wrote:

There is no excuse that justifies not having a client that is compatiable with dual core processors now. Every computer that is advertised from any shop you buy a complete system from now is a dual core system. Single core processors are out dated.

The simple way to look at it is this, there will be ALOT more happy customers if they did this compaired to if they dont.....

DC/X2 technology is nothing new, it has been around at for at least 12 years. All this is is a enhancement of SMP processor motherboards.  Even after 12 years you can count on 1 hand the number of games that are truelly parallell processing enabled and written to take advantage of the technology.

Not to mention that even if you could use all cores on the new deca-core processor, you are still going to have the single greatest bottleneck that will put the all those processors in a wait state - your internet connection. Your processors will go into a wait state will the client transfers data from your machine to the servers and back to update the your position - and it will do this ever time you do anything on the client, walk, sit, dance, press a hotkey to cast a spell, etc.

Not even sure there are any other online games out that that truelly take advantage of parallel processing outside of Quake. WoW (was patched the same way that EQ was - to lock to a single core) doesn't, the current engine for Vanguard doesn't, LOTR online doesn't

[-Aonein-]

Wingrider01 wrote:

-Aonein- wrote:

There is no excuse that justifies not having a client that is compatiable with dual core processors now. Every computer that is advertised from any shop you buy a complete system from now is a dual core system. Single core processors are out dated.

The simple way to look at it is this, there will be ALOT more happy customers if they did this compaired to if they dont.....

DC/X2 technology is nothing new, it has been around at for at least 12 years. All this is is a enhancement of SMP processor motherboards.  Even after 12 years you can count on 1 hand the number of games that are truelly parallell processing enabled and written to take advantage of the technology.

Not to mention that even if you could use all cores on the new deca-core processor, you are still going to have the single greatest bottleneck that will put the all those processors in a wait state - your internet connection. Your processors will go into a wait state will the client transfers data from your machine to the servers and back to update the your position - and it will do this ever time you do anything on the client, walk, sit, dance, press a hotkey to cast a spell, etc.

Not even sure there are any other online games out that that truelly take advantage of parallel processing outside of Quake. WoW (was patched the same way that EQ was - to lock to a single core) doesn't, the current engine for Vanguard doesn't, LOTR online doesn't

Almost every FPS that is released today takes full advantage of it and games that are due to be released recommend having Dual Core processors in the min specs to even play it. Take a look at Crisis (not yet released), Day of Defeat:Source (been using Dual core and SLi compatibility for almost 2 years), Counter Strike:Source (same as DoD:S), UT3 (not yet released), Lost Planet, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft 2, Doom 3, Half Life 2........I could go on, but I wont. I dont think I have seen a game that is due to be released or has been released in that last 6 months that hasn't got Dual Core processor support.

The simple fact is, there is more then a hand full of games that have clients out that take full advantage of todays technology, and if they didn't, the client have been upgraded to do so, CS:S and DoD:S didn't always take advantage of it or was even compatiable with it, yet they still upgraded their platforms to take advantage of it.

Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't or won't, the simple fact is that alot of peoples compatiability, stability and just all round performance issues is because Dual Core processors arent supported. In every new computer you buy today, it has a Dual Core processor, some are even being released with Quad Core's, but for the most part, Dual Core is the norm.

Internet connections aren't the problem as at the moment, peoples internet connections are faster then a single core processor can handle anyway, what are we getting upto now? 30-40'000mb connections? Some countries probally have even faster then that. I know they must have higher speeds then that, because here in Australia, I currently have a 24'000mb connection, using www.speedtest.net, I come in at 21'000 to my house, my ping how ever, doesn't change. Your internet connection does not effect your FPS or your frame rate, im not sure how you are figuring that.......

Besides everything I have said, Benchmark tests prove time and time again that there is more then a substantial increase in performance from a single core to a dual core processor alone for platforms that support both to warrant the move into Dual Core processor compatibility that has nothing to do what so ever with a internet connection, goto any high tech nerd site and it will show you this, you can even run your own for your own peace of mind. Have you seen the resolutions they are pushing in these benchmarks?

[Wingrider01]

-Aonein- wrote:

Wingrider01 wrote:

-Aonein- wrote:

There is no excuse that justifies not having a client that is compatiable with dual core processors now. Every computer that is advertised from any shop you buy a complete system from now is a dual core system. Single core processors are out dated.

The simple way to look at it is this, there will be ALOT more happy customers if they did this compaired to if they dont.....

DC/X2 technology is nothing new, it has been around at for at least 12 years. All this is is a enhancement of SMP processor motherboards.  Even after 12 years you can count on 1 hand the number of games that are truelly parallell processing enabled and written to take advantage of the technology.

Not to mention that even if you could use all cores on the new deca-core processor, you are still going to have the single greatest bottleneck that will put the all those processors in a wait state - your internet connection. Your processors will go into a wait state will the client transfers data from your machine to the servers and back to update the your position - and it will do this ever time you do anything on the client, walk, sit, dance, press a hotkey to cast a spell, etc.

Not even sure there are any other online games out that that truelly take advantage of parallel processing outside of Quake. WoW (was patched the same way that EQ was - to lock to a single core) doesn't, the current engine for Vanguard doesn't, LOTR online doesn't

Almost every FPS that is released today takes full advantage of it and games that are due to be released recommend having Dual Core processors in the min specs to even play it. Take a look at Crisis (not yet released), Day of Defeat:Source (been using Dual core and SLi compatibility for almost 2 years), Counter Strike:Source (same as DoD:S), UT3 (not yet released), Lost Planet, Team Fortress 2, Starcraft 2, Doom 3, Half Life 2........I could go on, but I wont. I dont think I have seen a game that is due to be released or has been released in that last 6 months that hasn't got Dual Core processor support.

The simple fact is, there is more then a hand full of games that have clients out that take full advantage of todays technology, and if they didn't, the client have been upgraded to do so, CS:S and DoD:S didn't always take advantage of it or was even compatiable with it, yet they still upgraded their platforms to take advantage of it.

Just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't or won't, the simple fact is that alot of peoples compatiability, stability and just all round performance issues is because Dual Core processors arent supported. In every new computer you buy today, it has a Dual Core processor, some are even being released with Quad Core's, but for the most part, Dual Core is the norm.

Internet connections aren't the problem as at the moment, peoples internet connections are faster then a single core processor can handle anyway, what are we getting upto now? 30-40'000mb connections? Some countries probally have even faster then that. I know they must have higher speeds then that, because here in Australia, I currently have a 24'000mb connection, using http://www.speedtest.net/, I come in at 21'000 to my house, my ping how ever, doesn't change. Your internet connection does not effect your FPS or your frame rate, im not sure how you are figuring that.......

Besides everything I have said, Benchmark tests prove time and time again that there is more then a substantial increase in performance from a single core to a dual core processor alone for platforms that support both to warrant the move into Dual Core processor compatibility that has nothing to do what so ever with a internet connection, goto any high tech nerd site and it will show you this, you can even run your own for your own peace of mind. Have you seen the resolutions they are pushing in these benchmarks?

really, can you show where all these games show that they are written for parallel processing? AllI can find is that "will support dual core to some extent", lot of difference between true parallel processing support and "some support".

Curious what is the round trip transit time of a data packet between your dmark and the server dmark? Latency is the deciding factor, you ca pump 0 billion meg down a pipe, average latency on a set of 6 bonded T1's is around 580 milliseconds one way to the server, now double that and add a saftey factor, the cpu just went into a wait state for data. Never did say that it affects your FPS, it will affect the data going to and from the CPU that it has to process to take the next action. You press a hit key for the "uber destruction of all know entities Master 1 spell", it has to transmit the data to the servers, let the serves decide if you tripped over your own feet and fizzled, then transmist the data back to your client to tell it you missed - this is the bottle neck.

The game client does utilize dual core to a certain extent, it does offload some of the processes to the other core, this HAS been documented here on the forums in previous discussion on this very same subject, reported by the head QnA person and the tech's that monitor the forum, try doing some searching on it.

[-Aonein-]

Wingrider01 wrote:

really, can you show where all these games show that they are written for parallel processing? AllI can find is that "will support dual core to some extent", lot of difference between true parallel processing support and "some support".

Curious what is the round trip transit time of a data packet between your dmark and the server dmark? Latency is the deciding factor, you ca pump 0 billion meg down a pipe, average latency on a set of 6 bonded T1's is around 580 milliseconds one way to the server, now double that and add a saftey factor, the cpu just went into a wait state for data. Never did say that it affects your FPS, it will affect the data going to and from the CPU that it has to process to take the next action. You press a hit key for the "uber destruction of all know entities Master 1 spell", it has to transmit the data to the servers, let the serves decide if you tripped over your own feet and fizzled, then transmist the data back to your client to tell it you missed - this is the bottle neck.

The game client does utilize dual core to a certain extent, it does offload some of the processes to the other core, this HAS been documented here on the forums in previous discussion on this very same subject, reported by the head QnA person and the tech's that monitor the forum, try doing some searching on it.

Doom 3 and Half Life 2 both alone support multi threading and they have been around for how long now? 2 years? You will find that just about everyone of those games I mentioned support multi-threading, not single.

There is awlays a constant flow of data coming in and a constant flow of data going out, your CPU would never be standing still even if you were standing still in the game in the most remote area of the game with no movement wat so ever, it doesn't work that way. What do you think is better, having a singel core CPU do 100% workload OR  Dual Core do the same amount of work, but under 40% of the load and have 60% room to breath?

The game doesn't utilize dual core, what your thinking about is the windows scheduler. Windows Scheduler is allowing your OS and what ever other programs you are using like playing music, voice chat, running a parser, downloading updates for Windows etc etc to run of one core while the game is strictly using the other core for itself allowing to play more smoothly and become uninterupted from these previous programs running in the back ground.

"There is one more thing to keep in mind: how a computer knows when to use each core. There is a part of the Windows operating system called the 'scheduler' which tells the CPU what program to be running at any given time. This allows several programs to run at the same time, while the processor switches back and forth between them as needed. When a lot of programs are running, a computer can begin to seem slow, since Windows' scheduler is having to divert the computer's CPU resources in many directions. If a dual-core processor is present, the scheduler suddenly has twice as much CPU resource to work with. This would allow for things like being able to run one core specifically for a game, while using the other core to do "background" things that keep the rest of the system running. Sometimes both cores can even work on the same program (if it is designed to take advantage of more than one core - this is called being "multi-threaded"). However, it is important to note that if you are running a single program and it is not "multi-threaded", you will not see a benefit from more than one CPU or core."

So as you can see, you are not gaining any benefit at all except the fact that the Core your playing the game on doesn't become sluggish when the game requires the CPU to perform at its best allowing you to play more smoothly. In all actual truth, because of this prioty being scheduled in such a way, it should be giving you a hefty increase in stability also, something ALOT of Dual Core processor users simply aren't seeing and therefore giving the impression that EQ2 doesn't even remotely support Dual Core processors at all.

Your confusing it though, scheduling and multi-threading are two totally seperate things, what people is asking for is a upgrade to the client so that the game will take support of multi-threading, that in itself will increase performance on so many levels simply because of the bandwidth of these video cards we see today are causing their own bottle neck because it's getting to the point where it is simply too much GB/s for the single processor to handle on its own. Whats the bandwidth on a set of 8800 GTX Ultras again? its like 200 GB/s.

I have a site I kept booked marked for some reason that is almost 2 years old, you should take a read and see how extensive they did these tests. The tests involve Single Core vs Dual Core, like I said, these are 2 years old in Jan 2008.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2006/01...o_be/index.html

Have a read, it is very interesting. Remember to keep in mind that its 2 years old, and that those video cards are now non exsistant, or have been phased out by the 8 series.

[Tebos]

Aonein,

Stand-alone games can more easily be coded for multi-threaded support. Client/Server based games are a different beast all together.

[Vonotar]

Tebos wrote:

Aonein,

Stand-alone games can more easily be coded for multi-threaded support. Client/Server based games are a different beast all together.

You a games programmer?

[-Aonein-]

Tebos wrote:

Aonein,

Stand-alone games can more easily be coded for multi-threaded support. Client/Server based games are a different beast all together.

Tebos, most if not every one of those games I listed are MMO games, just not the scale we are here. They still require you to log into a server via a client, there is nothing really different except the cap on the amount of people per map.

The only real problem I see here is the client not only needs to be able to support multi-threading, but has to be a 64bit client also to do so, now considering the client needs a full re-write to do so, I see that as the only real hurdle that needs to be jumped.

What I find truely amazing about all of this is, the RoK box states that one of the OS systems they support is Vista, yet we still can't get a confirmation wether or not in the future they have plans to upgrade to a 64bit client.

It does how ever shine a little hope down, because they are advertising Vista support by displaying that on the box, how much Tech support you actually get though is another thing.

As another poster stated, they will eventually come to that point in time where they will simple have to upgrade to a 64bit client and if a game as old as Ultima Online can do it, there is no reason why this cant and every other game out there.

[Arcanth]

Simply compiling a 64bit version is unlikely to make much, if any difference, unless perhaps if you have 4GB or more of RAM. Even then you may just have less hitching and the like since items won't need to load as often, but I doubt you would see faster frame rates.

While I would like to see proper mult-core support, I think we'd get bigger bang for the buck if they take better advantage of the GPU. What's particular disappointing is that it was only shortly after EQ2's release that some much faster video cards were released but the increase in game performance was not equivilent mainly because they chose to rely on the CPU. This has clearly been proven to be a poor decision (it's always easy to criticise with hindsight).

What I would like to know though is what have the graphic engine coders been working on for the past few years? My guess is the original coder(s) are gone and no one else has the knowledge or capability to do anything with it...

[Wingrider01]

Magnamundian wrote:

Tebos wrote:

Aonein,

Stand-alone games can more easily be coded for multi-threaded support. Client/Server based games are a different beast all together.

You a games programmer?

You don't have to be a game programmer to understand the basic's and how to code in them, behind parallel processing coding, there is a lot more need for it in real world applications then there will every be in the niche world of game programming. Personally was coding parallell processing applications way before applications like Ultima online and Everquest 1 ever hit the project planning stage. Client/Server technology is no unique to this genre of programming.

As mentioned - do some searching on the forums, it has been stated by SOE that the client does take advantage of dc/x2 processing

[willnotuse]

-Aonein- wrote:

The only real problem I see here is the client not only needs to be able to support multi-threading, but has to be a 64bit client also to do so, now considering the client needs a full re-write to do so, I see that as the only real hurdle that needs to be jumped.

No.We've had SMP programs and operating systems that are 32-bit.  There is no reason for SoE to write this game for 64-bit with its low percentage of usage at this time. 

[-Aonein-]

Arcanthis wrote:

Simply compiling a 64bit version is unlikely to make much, if any difference, unless perhaps if you have 4GB or more of RAM. Even then you may just have less hitching and the like since items won't need to load as often, but I doubt you would see faster frame rates.

While I would like to see proper mult-core support, I think we'd get bigger bang for the buck if they take better advantage of the GPU. What's particular disappointing is that it was only shortly after EQ2's release that some much faster video cards were released but the increase in game performance was not equivilent mainly because they chose to rely on the CPU. This has clearly been proven to be a poor decision (it's always easy to criticise with hindsight).

What I would like to know though is what have the graphic engine coders been working on for the past few years? My guess is the original coder(s) are gone and no one else has the knowledge or capability to do anything with it...

To have multi-threading combatibility, you need a 64bit client to support the 64bit CPU or it wouldn't be mulit-threading, it would be single. Don't mistake a 64bit systems only upside as being able to reach higher then 32bit system ram usage allocations, there is simply alot more to it then that.

Like I said earlier, single core processors can not keep up with the amount of bandwidth SLi machines are able to process, it needs a Dual Core system to do it effciently and consistantly with no bottle necks therefore, just adding support for SLi isn't going to do much except cluster up at the CPU.

Check the link out in reguards to Single vs Dual Core.

[-Aonein-]

Wingrider01 wrote:

Magnamundian wrote:

Tebos wrote:

Aonein,

Stand-alone games can more easily be coded for multi-threaded support. Client/Server based games are a different beast all together.

You a games programmer?

You don't have to be a game programmer to understand the basic's and how to code in them, behind parallel processing coding, there is a lot more need for it in real world applications then there will every be in the niche world of game programming. Personally was coding parallell processing applications way before applications like Ultima online and Everquest 1 ever hit the project planning stage. Client/Server technology is no unique to this genre of programming.

As mentioned - do some searching on the forums, it has been stated by SOE that the client does take advantage of dc/x2 processing

I'm not searching for anything because your misunderstanding what they are talking about. There is a difference between multi-threading and scheduling.

Again, the ONLY benefit you are getting from having a Dual Core or X2 processor is that the game is running off one core on its own and therefore suppose to be uninteruptable from outside "background" programs. This is not taking advantage of it in the least. It's your OS "scheduling" it to do so, thats assuming you use Windows platform.

I dont think people truely understand how much of a difference it would make until they seen it first hand, benchmark tests obviously aren't enough it seems.......

[-Aonein-]

willnotuse wrote:

-Aonein- wrote:

The only real problem I see here is the client not only needs to be able to support multi-threading, but has to be a 64bit client also to do so, now considering the client needs a full re-write to do so, I see that as the only real hurdle that needs to be jumped.

No.We've had SMP programs and operating systems that are 32-bit.  There is no reason for SoE to write this game for 64-bit with its low percentage of usage at this time. 

Like to link me the site you are getting your numbers from? If I can, I will show you a site I use for numbers, test platforms breach the millions.

[willnotuse]

-Aonein- wrote:

Arcanthis wrote:

To have multi-threading combatibility, you need a 64bit client to support the 64bit CPU or it wouldn't be mulit-threading, it would be single. Don't mistake a 64bit systems only upside as being able to reach higher then 32bit system ram usage allocations, there is simply alot more to it then that.

I'm sorry you don't know what you are talking about.  Multiple threaded applications and operating systems have been around since the 1980s.  Please see UNIX, BSD, OS/2 2.0 and various other operating systems.  All of the above operating systems were 32-bit.  Oh and did I mention that UNIX and BSD also supported SMP at that time and still do?  Hmm... funny how we need 64-bit for that.  The real need of 64-bit is due to memory limitations both on amount total for system and amount applied per application.  A 32-bit CPU is quickly becoming limited in that in regards to games, databases and more.  Does that mean that SoE will move this game over to 64-bit?  No.  It'd require a complete rewrite and that would alienate the massive installed base of Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista 32.  For applications please see very early versions of Photoshop and for games you can check out Quake III which supported SMP and had multiple threads.

[Tebos]

Magnamundian wrote:

Tebos wrote:

Aonein,

Stand-alone games can more easily be coded for multi-threaded support. Client/Server based games are a different beast all together.

You a games programmer?

No...but I have been involved in the IT industry since 1987. SMP operations were normally reserved for network operating systems and applications that were "SMP aware" and were installed on-top of those operating systems. I don't think software vendors coded an SMP client version to work with the SMP server based application because there was no call for it. All the work was being done at the server end.

Today, we would need a multi-core or threaded game client application as-well-as multi-core or threaded written application at the server end in order to capture the full performance enhancement of what this offers. This will require several code paths to develop and maintain from the game vendor which is totally cost prohibitive. Considering the SCALE of what this game has to offer in comparison to the other games in the market that have been coded to be multi-core aware, then you can see it would be a HUGE undertaking on SoE part to accomplish this, while maintaining backward compatibility for non-SMP programing in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors.

[Wingrider01]

-Aonein- wrote:

Arcanthis wrote:

Simply compiling a 64bit version is unlikely to make much, if any difference, unless perhaps if you have 4GB or more of RAM. Even then you may just have less hitching and the like since items won't need to load as often, but I doubt you would see faster frame rates.

While I would like to see proper mult-core support, I think we'd get bigger bang for the buck if they take better advantage of the GPU. What's particular disappointing is that it was only shortly after EQ2's release that some much faster video cards were released but the increase in game performance was not equivilent mainly because they chose to rely on the CPU. This has clearly been proven to be a poor decision (it's always easy to criticise with hindsight).

What I would like to know though is what have the graphic engine coders been working on for the past few years? My guess is the original coder(s) are gone and no one else has the knowledge or capability to do anything with it...

To have multi-threading combatibility, you need a 64bit client to support the 64bit CPU or it wouldn't be mulit-threading, it would be single. Don't mistake a 64bit systems only upside as being able to reach higher then 32bit system ram usage allocations, there is simply alot more to it then that.

Like I said earlier, single core processors can not keep up with the amount of bandwidth SLi machines are able to process, it needs a Dual Core system to do it effciently and consistantly with no bottle necks therefore, just adding support for SLi isn't going to do much except cluster up at the CPU.

Check the link out in reguards to Single vs Dual Core.

funny, SMP and multi-threading capabilty in programming have been around long before a 64 bit OS hit the home pc world, they where in the mini world back when I started in data processing back in the early 70's, wonder how it was done back without ithe end all 64 bit OS? That also negates all the statements about Doom3 that you made, not to mention the coding for real world applications I did back in the mid 90's with Autodesk. Also an interesting point is that the base OS's - going back to Windows NT and the IBM/Micorosoft OS/2 where multi-thread capable, never seen a 64 bit release of Windows NT 4.0 (both server and workstation), have you?

Done with this, has gone so far out of the realm of being a something that has a legitimate reason for being on this support forum for client hardware/software issues it is not funny.  have a good day today and a better day tomorrow.

[Tox-Camilla]

This thread is getting a bit off topic. Anyways... It wouldn't be impossible for them to at least try to offload something like shadows to the GPU. A modern GPU is far ahead of utilizing a single core on a CPU. Hell, I run at 1920x1200 with 8xAA and 16xAF at full settings beyond Extreme. If i reduce this to 1440x900 with 0xAA and 0xAF, I get no framerate difference AT ALL! This game is obscenely CPU-limited. Just offload the damned shadows to the GPU and a modern PC with good hardware will be able to run it beyond Extreme settings completely maxed out today. It feels stupid for me to have to turn off Environmental Shadows, yet leave every single other setting completely maxed out, just because the game relies way too heavily on the CPU and refuses to utilize multiple cores properly (I dunk 15-20fps in major populated areas when this is enable d).  

[Naubeta]

Inverted wrote:

When it comes to gaming hardware, single core processors have been outdated now by 2 generations.

No they haven't.AMD64 x2 were the first generation of multiple core processors (and haven't been superceded just yet).And, Core 2 Duo are the first generation for Intel (not replaced yet either).

[-Aonein-]

willnotuse wrote:

-Aonein- wrote:

Arcanthis wrote:

To have multi-threading combatibility, you need a 64bit client to support the 64bit CPU or it wouldn't be mulit-threading, it would be single. Don't mistake a 64bit systems only upside as being able to reach higher then 32bit system ram usage allocations, there is simply alot more to it then that.

I'm sorry you don't know what you are talking about.  Multiple threaded applications and operating systems have been around since the 1980s.  Please see UNIX, BSD, OS/2 2.0 and various other operating systems.  All of the above operating systems were 32-bit.  Oh and did I mention that UNIX and BSD also supported SMP at that time and still do?  Hmm... funny how we need 64-bit for that.  The real need of 64-bit is due to memory limitations both on amount total for system and amount applied per application.  A 32-bit CPU is quickly becoming limited in that in regards to games, databases and more.  Does that mean that SoE will move this game over to 64-bit?  No.  It'd require a complete rewrite and that would alienate the massive installed base of Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista 32.  For applications please see very early versions of Photoshop and for games you can check out Quake III which supported SMP and had multiple threads.

Your right to a certain extent, your talking about back in the days where it was Dual Processors, not a Dual Core processor. You are also refering back to the time where the only places to even remotely use 64bit clients was......well.......almost no where, 30 years into the future, we see it everywhere.

The point I was trying to make is, with a Dual Core processor and multi-threading enabled, it allows the application to use both processors. I know exactaly what I am talking about, what you need to do is think about how much different a single core with multi-threading enabled would gain performance wise, short answer is nothing. Single Core processor with multi-threading enabled applications is gaining nothing what so ever, the whole point to how it works just hit a brick wall.

What are you talking about alienating the playerbase? Alot of those games I listed above support both 32bit and 64bit systems. They don't need to alienate anyone, they are alienating people by not supporting Dual Core processors. They are alienating the player base by ignoring the fact that Dual Core processors are a way of the future, problem is, the future is already here and has been for the last 2, almost 3 years. Tox-Camilla seems to understand about how reliant this game is on the CPU.

[-Aonein-]

Wingrider01 wrote:

-Aonein- wrote:

Arcanthis wrote:

Simply compiling a 64bit version is unlikely to make much, if any difference, unless perhaps if you have 4GB or more of RAM. Even then you may just have less hitching and the like since items won't need to load as often, but I doubt you would see faster frame rates.

While I would like to see proper mult-core support, I think we'd get bigger bang for the buck if they take better advantage of the GPU. What's particular disappointing is that it was only shortly after EQ2's release that some much faster video cards were released but the increase in game performance was not equivilent mainly because they chose to rely on the CPU. This has clearly been proven to be a poor decision (it's always easy to criticise with hindsight).

What I would like to know though is what have the graphic engine coders been working on for the past few years? My guess is the original coder(s) are gone and no one else has the knowledge or capability to do anything with it...

To have multi-threading combatibility, you need a 64bit client to support the 64bit CPU or it wouldn't be mulit-threading, it would be single. Don't mistake a 64bit systems only upside as being able to reach higher then 32bit system ram usage allocations, there is simply alot more to it then that.

Like I said earlier, single core processors can not keep up with the amount of bandwidth SLi machines are able to process, it needs a Dual Core system to do it effciently and consistantly with no bottle necks therefore, just adding support for SLi isn't going to do much except cluster up at the CPU.

Check the link out in reguards to Single vs Dual Core.

funny, SMP and multi-threading capabilty in programming have been around long before a 64 bit OS hit the home pc world, they where in the mini world back when I started in data processing back in the early 70's, wonder how it was done back without ithe end all 64 bit OS? That also negates all the statements about Doom3 that you made, not to mention the coding for real world applications I did back in the mid 90's with Autodesk. Also an interesting point is that the base OS's - going back to Windows NT and the IBM/Micorosoft OS/2 where multi-thread capable, never seen a 64 bit release of Windows NT 4.0 (both server and workstation), have you?

Done with this, has gone so far out of the realm of being a something that has a legitimate reason for being on this support forum for client hardware/software issues it is not funny.  have a good day today and a better day tomorrow.

Yet a single core processor was never able to truely gain any added benefit from multi-threaded applications unless you had a dual processor system.

Just because it was there, doesn't mean the system was putting it to use.

[willnotuse]

-Aonein- wrote:

willnotuse wrote:

-Aonein- wrote:

Arcanthis wrote:

To have multi-threading combatibility, you need a 64bit client to support the 64bit CPU or it wouldn't be mulit-threading, it would be single. Don't mistake a 64bit systems only upside as being able to reach higher then 32bit system ram usage allocations, there is simply alot more to it then that.

I'm sorry you don't know what you are talking about.  Multiple threaded applications and operating systems have been around since the 1980s.  Please see UNIX, BSD, OS/2 2.0 and various other operating systems.  All of the above operating systems were 32-bit.  Oh and did I mention that UNIX and BSD also supported SMP at that time and still do?  Hmm... funny how we need 64-bit for that.  The real need of 64-bit is due to memory limitations both on amount total for system and amount applied per application.  A 32-bit CPU is quickly becoming limited in that in regards to games, databases and more.  Does that mean that SoE will move this game over to 64-bit?  No.  It'd require a complete rewrite and that would alienate the massive installed base of Windows XP Home, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista 32.  For applications please see very early versions of Photoshop and for games you can check out Quake III which supported SMP and had multiple threads.

Your right to a certain extent, your talking about back in the days where it was Dual Processors, not a Dual Core processor. You are also refering back to the time where the only places to even remotely use 64bit clients was......well.......almost no where, 30 years into the future, we see it everywhere.

The point I was trying to make is, with a Dual Core processor and multi-threading enabled, it allows the application to use both processors. I know exactaly what I am talking about, what you need to do is think about how much different a single core with multi-threading enabled would gain performance wise, short answer is nothing. Single Core processor with multi-threading enabled applications is gaining nothing what so ever, the whole point to how it works just hit a brick wall.

What are you talking about alienating the playerbase? Alot of those games I listed above support both 32bit and 64bit systems. They don't need to alienate anyone, they are alienating people by not supporting Dual Core processors. They are alienating the player base by ignoring the fact that Dual Core processors are a way of the future, problem is, the future is already here and has been for the last 2, almost 3 years. Tox-Camilla seems to understand about how reliant this game is on the CPU.

Almost.  SMP and Dual Core technology are the same as far as your operating system is concerned.  There is no difference between them as far as Windows, Linux, BSD, BeOS, OS X, or some other obscure system is concerned.  Thus, there is no difference as far as an application sees.  The threading is done by the application unless it is strictly enforced by the operating system (BeOS).   However threading by an application can not really be used unless an operating system takes advantage of it.  And naturally multiple cores or CPUs will make more efficient use of threaded applications and operating systems.  SoE will not rewrite this game to fit a small amount of system users.   It's not economically efficient.  In about three years time, when 64-bit is more common on Windows and Linux, then we'll see a 64-bit EverQuest client... EverQuest III that is.   As it stands, the 32-bit client works under a 64-bit environment thanks to MoM.  Here's the fun part.  As I've mentioned time and again... the developers have stated that they are re-working the particle and shadow system in the game.  They have an upcoming shadow revamp going into the game.  They have a texture update being worked on.  What you will see is much the same progression as you saw in EQ1.  Modifications added onto the current engine.   Will there be a DirectX10 update?  Last interview of Smedley was that they have no plans (nada, zilch, zero) to do so.  My take on his comment?  Goes back to economics.  Until Vista is much more established they won't do it.  Much like the issue with 64-bit.