Multiple core support ?

is mine any good intel core i3 (latest model) 3.30 ghz

nvidia geforce 210 1gb (crappy but i can play crysis 2 on very high with playable fps)

those are mainly the two most impotant

 

I want to point out that you've been on this forum for quite some time, you've started three threads about hardware and you've posted in many other threads about hardware and performance. There's an immense amount of discussion on this topic with the same answers cropping up over and over. I'm going to give you an honest question. Are you showing off or do you genuinely still not understand what people have told you? I understand that you currently own a NVIDIA geforce 210, a core i3, and hope to get an AMD Radeon 7850. You are the only person who doesn't put his specs in his signature who's computer I can recite the hardware it's made from.

Please understand that we can only go by the hardware specs from Gabester and LJFHutch as a kind of ballpark estimate of the sort of computer you'd need.

 

HAI, iz mi i7 @ 14 GHz @ 3.6 per core wiz my 12 GB RAM + my Hd 7770 enough???? I can't understand the 5 people that have told me this.

This is what we don't need.

 

i know for some reason i keep forgetting if ive posted it or not i know im plain old weirf

 

OH OH OH! I WANNA SHOW MY PC SPECS TOO!

But on a serious note, there are WAY too many of these threads.....
Just wait until the game comes out and try it! If its a bit laggy, well then maybe you should upgrade!

 

I know this is an old post, but what's more important to BeamNG's performance, clockspeed, cache or cores? I'm assuming cores but just want clarification.

 

with:
-Intel i5 - 3750k 3.2 GHz
-Gigabyte Radeon HD 7870 - 2gb
-8 gb RAM DDR3
i guess im good

 

Yeah, but the CPU seems to be bottlenecking the GPU.

 

3570k bottlenecks virtually nothing though...

 

Yeah, but I would want to be running at least 3.6 on that CPU. On a physics intensive game (like beamng) it is ok but a physics and graphical intensive game it might lag a little behind. And only a little, just not perfectly balanced. I'm a bit OCD.

 

Gabester, I know you said this like 2 months ago and probably know better. The core i7's are quad core with 2 hyperthreads per core, not 8 core.

anyway, with a pentium d run it? I feel poor lol

 

He might have 2 quad i7s.

 

What does threading do? It seems like it would imitate twice the cores at half the speed? I really am stupid.

Edit: because I have a slightly underclocked i7 870 (because of heat problems) and I don't know how it would affect it.

 

maybe you could try undervolting before you underclock it? (the voltage is what produces the heat) they cant find the lowest voltage for each cpu so in the factory they just set it at something higher than it could be at. my laptop cpu can actually run at the stock 2.5 ghz at one volt.

 

Hmm, I didn't notice that here. I clearly see activity on all my cores (4), but not all threads (8). The thread implementation is quite similar to your CPU (HyperThreading).

Basic summary of hardware config: i7-4770K (3.8 GHz at the moment), 32 GB 1866 MHz memory, and the sinner GTX 280 (the blame for the struggling performance), will be switched out with a GTX 780. Possibly I'll grap up one of the next GPU's from AMD that will be released this fall.


Mind answering some questions?

1) Is it correct that Torque3D only utilize 1 CPU core? I read this on their feedback section.

2) Is it correct that your physics engine <insert name here> uses as many cores/threads available? Does that mean that it will scale indefinite on X86-64 architecture?

3) I read that you are considering using OpenCL for physics? That would make it possible to run this on either the CPU and GPU, and in theory possible to adjust where to put the load. Is this something you could consider?

 

Is there any improvements to be made on fps? In ror before the multi core update i got 15ish fps and afterwards I got 2x as much even though my processor was a dual core so it shouldn't have mattered (i think).

Sorry that this is off topic.

 

Uuh, thanks.

1) That surprises me. But that's good though.

2) Thanks. I asked Gabester this, but I might as well ask you. Is it possible to increase resolution/presision of the physics engine, or anything else? You see, I have at least 60 % of my CPU utilization free, with no overclock.
And if you ever need faster hardware to test stuff, I have a fairly good setup here, and good enough cooling for at least 4.6 GHz. Don't mind the GPU, that will be retired soon enough.

2a) Btw., what hardware do you or BeamNG have in disposal?

3) Cool. Would be preferable if it were possible to manually shift the load to the unit of choice (for the nerds). I think that customization should always be possible, there will always be people appreaciating it. ^^,