1. #11
    Well, WB_Outlaw's explanation does a good job of explaining it (though multithreading in VB6 really wasn't meant to be ).

    As far as I know the only flight sim that is really multi threaded is the old trusty Falcon 4.0, so this is not bleeding edge technology. It runs the "sim part" on the main thread and the ground war on a separate thread - thus utlilizing a second CPU if running on an OS that supports it...

    /Mazex
    Share this post

  2. #12
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ku101-Shrike:
    Hardware threading and software threading are two completely separate topics, software threads reside in the same program, xp program manager doesnt show what these threads are doing, they only show the hardware threads which is what the newer cpu's are handling in better ways now. C++ has always had multithreading capability, its just the way .NET framework handles it that it has become a talked about topic lately.

    with regards 64bit, its simply more and faster memory addressing, where we before could handle up to 4GB Ram, 64bit i read somwhere will allow for thousands of terrabites of ram, MS are limiting theyre servers to 230 terrabytes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    just a pojtn here.. C++ does NOT have multithread support. Always multithread is implemented by Operative System API.


    Very soon we will have multi-core CPU.. so HyperThreading will be a complete waste of time.
    Share this post

  3. #13
    Outlaw, you ever heard of Myasitchev bombers?

    in the '50s, these were supposed to fly supersonic from USSR to USA and back... talk about achievements. You can check a littel about it here:

    http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/m-50.htm

    interesting thing, it was flown with a mini joystick on the side of the pilot, like the F16 some 25 years later
    Share this post

  4. #14
    lbhskier37's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,153
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WB_Outlaw:


    AMD will release a 64 but multi-core chip way ahead of Intel. You can already buy quad Opteron boards for around $1500 that support up to 16 gig of RAM. I had my eye on one but decided to see how multi-core goes.



    -Outlaw. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Actually dual core Pentiums are supposed to be out in the second quarter of this year. 4 Dell systems with Dual core Intel CPUs were given away to attendees at IDF, so Intel will have dual core out before AMD. According to what they said at IDF, something like 80% of all the CPUs Intel makes with be dual core by 2006.
    Share this post

  5. #15
    As far as i can see from Olegs post in russian forum, Yes BOB will have those features.
    Share this post

  6. #16
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>just a pojtn here.. C++ does NOT have multithread support. Always multithread is implemented by Operative System API.

    Very soon we will have multi-core CPU.. so HyperThreading will be a complete waste of time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Hmmm, and what if these dual cores chips are both capable of 'hyper'threading? Do you then get four logical's?

    Mark
    Share this post

  7. #17
    According to the Intel propaganda, the answer is yes. You can run four concurrent threads on a dual hyperthreaded cpu. I did a little research on hyperthreading, and it sounds like it really works (check out tomshardware.com). Apparently some parts of the cpu sit idle a lot, so having two threads run at the same time makes more efficient use of the cpu resources. This might also explain why P4 is hot as a toast-R-oven.
    Share this post

  8. #18
    Hyperthreading gains are minimal when compared to true dual core. So if you can diminish the silicon in a core to make it cheaper and put more of cores in a chip.. you gain much more than by logical multiprocessing.

    in HT only units inside processor that are not being used can execute code of another thread. But even single thread code can execute in PARALLEL with itself in modern x86 processors. Your FPU units, ALU and Integer units can operate in parallel as long as onde does not require the results of the other to start current instruction.


    So a VERY well written program.. made to make use of full capacity of you CPU on a single Thread,will gain ALMOST NOTHING with hyper threading. (You could make a program to gain even 40% with HT... but you can gain same performaance just by making its single therad use your CPU fully). My physics engine gains 1.15% on performance when running with HT on... not much by the extra money you pay on it.


    In other words, when Dual..or quad cores become common.. HT will be just waste of silicon that could otherwise be used to add an extra core.
    Share this post

  9. #19
    Aaron_GT's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    6,131
    Not only is HT less good than multicore, HT is less good than AMD's version of the same, and AMD's internal memory architecture is much less of a bottleneck. Intel is beginning to catch AMD up, but AMD is still out in front. Also in the pipeline are 4 core Sparc chips (as far as I remember AMD is also working on 4 core chips), and IBM's cell architecture. The latter may well trump all the competition, but it remains to be seen. [With regards to FPUs, etc., some chips have multiple FPUs that can work in parallel, e.g. Ultra Sparc III, or vector coprocessors such as the Power series].

    Multicore, etc., works superbly for systems that are busy doing a whole variety of tasks and are a huge boost for web servers and the like as apache and so on spawn a separate thread for virtually everything. Quite how much advantage a program like BoB running alone will actually gain from multiple cores depends a lot on how well it is programmed. If you are running BoB, Track IR, Team Speak, Shoot, etc., all at once then you can automatically take some advantage of multiple cores, except that everything except BoB is relatively light weight. Anyway, it also depends on how well the OS can dispatch threads to the processors.
    Share this post

  10. #20
    BaldieJr's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    this don\'t make no sense!
    Posts
    4,272
    Quake3 engine is smp capable. I went through driver hell back in the day, but once I got everything lined out, the Arena became a megaton of fun. It took about 150 bots before it bogged down.... oh the fun!

    I just got the AMD64 processor drivers installed and have found performance to be similar. This game runs incredibly smooth with lots of AI or online players. I get the feeling that, with one of those physics processors, I could easily keep playing on this 1-year-old machine for another 2 years.
    Share this post