PDA

View Full Version : Better use of the CPU - It's pathetic



rlmergeuser
05-28-2009, 03:22 AM
Hi everyone, this is mostly aimed at the developers...

Sometimes i monitor CPU usage of games while playing, the CPU usage is displayed on my second monitor...
Now after doing this with Trials 2, i'm getting around 2 - 3% CPU usage! Which is just RIDICULOUS.
The game runs smooth as i have a GTX295, but most people dont have a high end card and could be getting way better game performance as this game relies way more on the GPU, with the CPU just sitting there not doing much..

I'm also on a Core i7 overclocked to 4.2GHz, but just about no other game uses such a low amount. Such a waste of CPU power, it just sits there idle.
Even on a average Core 2 Duo or Phenom CPU theres still going to be very low usage, with most of the power not being used.

Having said that, even most games, including graphics heavy ones like Crysis, are only using about 8 - 25%. The only games around that seem to make good use of multiple cores are games based on Valves Source engine (like Left 4 Dead).

But will there be a update that will make Trials 2 actually do something with all this idle CPU power in multi-core systems these days?

Toa72
05-28-2009, 08:07 AM
I think the biggest problem is that the GPU runs at 100% no matter what graphics settings you use. This makes my graphics card run very hot http://forum.redlynx.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_asleep.gif have a passivly cooled 3870 gfx-card), and I have to downclock my card to not make everything crash. That happens sometimes on other games too (depending on the gfx settings), so I guess I will buy a gfx-card with a nice big noisy fan next time...

sebastianaalton
05-28-2009, 01:29 PM
CPU usage is very low, as the game is optimized to run smoothly on the mini laptops with 700 MHz Celerons and very low voltage Atom CPUs. We cannot change the game logic or physics to be more complex on better computers, as we have online high score lists, replays and ghost racing. The game logic has to behave exactly the same on all computers, or the replays/ghosts do not work (replays/ghost are simply a series of recorded keypresses).

This is the reason why we only scale the GPU usage on Trials 2. Graphics outlook does not affect gameplay (better looking materials, textures, lighting, post process effects, etc).

Future Trials games will surely be optimized for multicore CPUs, as all current and next gen gaming computers and gaming devices have a multicore CPU. i7 has 4 cores with 2 hardware threads each (8 hardware threads), Xbox 360 has 3 cores with 2 hardware threads each (6 hardware threads) and PS3 has 1+6 cores (8 hardware "threads"). And the forthcoming Intel Larrabee CPU will have 16 cores. Even the new Atom has 2 hardware threads. It would be silly just to run everything on one thread in the future.


I think the biggest problem is that the GPU runs at 100% no matter what graphics settings you use.

Enable v-synch (wait for vertical retrace) at your graphics card control panel. This way the game rendering is locked at 60 fps (or higher depending on how many frames your monitor can display). This setting also should make the game feel a bit smoother, as there is no frame tearing.

rlmergeuser
05-28-2009, 03:04 PM
CPU usage is very low, as the game is optimized to run smoothly on the mini laptops with 700 MHz Celerons and very low voltage Atom CPUs. We cannot change the game logic or physics to be more complex on better computers, as we have online high score lists, replays and ghost racing. The game logic has to behave exactly the same on all computers, or the replays/ghosts do not work (replays/ghost are simply a series of recorded keypresses).

This is the reason why we only scale the GPU usage on Trials 2. Graphics outlook does not affect gameplay (better looking materials, textures, lighting, post process effects, etc).

Future Trials games will surely be optimized for multicore CPUs, as all current and next gen gaming computers and gaming devices have a multicore CPU. i7 has 4 cores with 2 hardware threads each (8 hardware threads), Xbox 360 has 3 cores with 2 hardware threads each (6 hardware threads) and PS3 has 1+6 cores (8 hardware "threads"). And the forthcoming Intel Larrabee CPU will have 16 cores. Even the new Atom has 2 hardware threads. It would be silly just to run everything on one thread in the future.

I understand that you cannot change the logic and physics, but isn't there anything you can do with offloading any of the visual aspects to the CPU? I know CPU's are poor for rasterized graphics and that, but there must be something you can do? What will Trials 3 do to make use of more cores?

And you say Trials 2 is optimised for underpowered CPU's like the Atom and Celeron... but in netbook type devices that use these CPU's, i cant imaging them even being able to run Trials 2 at a playable level anyway because of the very poor integrated GPU's they come with... (i've not tried Trials 2 on a Atom machine though so i dont know!).

sebastianaalton
05-29-2009, 06:37 AM
What will Trials 3 do to make use of more cores?

Physics, game logic, particle animation, sound mixer, networking, data background loading and graphics setup (animation, viewport culling, shadowmap culling, etc) will be offloaded to worker threads. The main thread will schedule these threads and do data synchronization between them.


And you say Trials 2 is optimised for underpowered CPU's like the Atom and Celeron... but in netbook type devices that use these CPU's, i cant imaging them even being able to run Trials 2 at a playable level anyway because of the very poor integrated GPU's they come with... (i've not tried Trials 2 on a Atom machine though so i dont know!).

On my Atom based 8.9 inch mini laptop Trials 2 SE runs at 30 fps on very low graphics settings on the native 1024x600 resolution. It's very much playable. The biggest bottleneck is actually the CPU, not the GMA 950 graphics chip. High graphics doesn't even work on GMA 950, as it does not support all features required by the high end deferred renderer and does not have enough memory either to run it.

rlmergeuser
01-24-2012, 12:16 AM
CPU usage is very low, as the game is optimized to run smoothly on the mini laptops with 700 MHz Celerons and very low voltage Atom CPUs. We cannot change the game logic or physics to be more complex on better computers, as we have online high score lists, replays and ghost racing. The game logic has to behave exactly the same on all computers, or the replays/ghosts do not work (replays/ghost are simply a series of recorded keypresses).

This is the reason why we only scale the GPU usage on Trials 2. Graphics outlook does not affect gameplay (better looking materials, textures, lighting, post process effects, etc).

Future Trials games will surely be optimized for multicore CPUs, as all current and next gen gaming computers and gaming devices have a multicore CPU. i7 has 4 cores with 2 hardware threads each (8 hardware threads), Xbox 360 has 3 cores with 2 hardware threads each (6 hardware threads) and PS3 has 1+6 cores (8 hardware "threads"). And the forthcoming Intel Larrabee CPU will have 16 cores. Even the new Atom has 2 hardware threads. It would be silly just to run everything on one thread in the future.


I think the biggest problem is that the GPU runs at 100% no matter what graphics settings you use.

Enable v-synch (wait for vertical retrace) at your graphics card control panel. This way the game rendering is locked at 60 fps (or higher depending on how many frames your monitor can display). This setting also should make the game feel a bit smoother, as there is no frame tearing.

wow first you guys say no one can run the "editor" and now u say the game is optimised to run on **** computers... give us a editor please ffs

sebastianaalton
02-09-2012, 09:59 PM
wow first you guys say no one can run the "editor" and now u say the game is optimised to run on **** computers... give us a editor please ffs
The editor build had high hardware requirements back in 2008 (four years ago), because it didn't have any low quality graphics mode. Geforce 8800 GTX, 4 gigs of memory and Windows Vista are pretty low for todays standards, but back then these were pretty high requirements. However the main reason the editor wasn't released four years ago was that it would have allowed very easy cheating on online high score lists (it allowed you to warp to any checkpoint, and you could modify existing tracks with it). It would have ruined the game experience.

Looking four years back in time, I am very happy that we didn't release the unfinished (and very hard to use) editor. Trials HD editor was a huge step forwards compared to the old Trials 2 editor in every possible way. It's a completely false assumption that the Trials 2 editor would have offered similar features or ease of use compared to the Trials HD editor. We just didn't have time and resources to create a polished high quality editor four years ago. RedLynx was a very small company back then. We focused all our energy to make the game as good as possible, and I think we succeeded in that goal, because there are still many players playing the game today (four years after the release) and many have clocked over 1000 hours of playtime.

rlmergeuser
02-10-2012, 08:05 PM
... We focused all our energy to make the game as good as possible, and I think we succeeded in that goal, because there are still many players playing the game today (four years after the release) and many have clocked over 1000 hours of playtime.I plead guilty.

rlmergeuser
03-04-2012, 05:51 PM
... We focused all our energy to make the game as good as possible, and I think we succeeded in that goal, because there are still many players playing the game today (four years after the release) and many have clocked over 1000 hours of playtime.I plead guilty.

I dont.

Also, sebbbi's face when saying "there are still many players playing the game today" -> http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkbihyZ1D61qdo7yb.gif