Printable View
Expect this Winter top games to come out threaded :)Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
If you don't have a 2500x1600 screen, you will see benefits. :up:
For those with 2500x1600 , well SLI or Xfire can help :ROTF: to see the benefit of Quad cores.
The new gen of game is threaded, I got the betas, it looks good!
I fly Flight Simulators...combat flight sims mostly in the jet age, and nothing will bring a CPU to it's knees faster. Everyone talks about GPU power with games, but with sims it's very different. The majority of the load is on the CPU. There is a load on the GPU but the majority of stuff is done on the CPU.
The normal deal with flights sims is "More"...more CPU, more RAM, faster HDD's, more GPU Power in that order.
There is a new title being worked on now that will probably be worked on for a few more years called Fighter Ops. it's in development and it will bring realism to a whole new level. I currently fly a sim called Falcon 4. These sims are real, and F4 has a dynamic campaign engine. There is literally a real war going on and what you do in sim has a direct impact on what happens in the final outcome of the war. It massively taxes the CPU. Earlier versions taxed the CPU even more becasue the grpahiocs engines were not designed like they are today. More was done on the GPU.
In F4 we don't fly for the pretty graphaics although there is constant work being done on that end of it. We fly for the realism. A 10 year old sim with a DX7 engine is still the very best combat flight sim ever to be put out there. It has the love of everybody who flies it.
Even F4 that is based on some older coding performs better on multi core CPU setups. It does responmd to GPU upgrades but not as much as CPU upgrades.
This new Nehalem is not gonna hurt performance over the Penryns. It will actually increase performance so for the person upgrading now there is really no reason to go with the older 775 based stuff. The 775 based stuff will only get obsolete faster. Even with older titles like I fly it will increase performance. Flight sims are something that takes many years to develop. They are not like games. People who develop them do lots of research and some of it is hard to get. These are what we call "study sims". In any event, it takes alot of CPU to do the things I do and this new Nehalem is just what I've been looking for.
actually, did you try Flysimulator with FS Service Pack 1, because it is one of the only hightly threaded program. Nehalem will scream on this one especially :welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35547/135/
" At this year’s Consumer Electronics Show, Intel’s tech guru Francois Piednoel showed off a prototype Skulltrail-enabled Alienware system by blazing through several benchmarks. He also virtually flew an Airbus 380 (he’s French after all) in Flight Simulator, one of the very few games that can take advantage of eight cores.
"
many pc games are threaded yes, but the usage on cores 3 and 4 is small enough that a 4.0ghz dual core will beat a mid 3.x ghz quad most of the time. There are some exceptions like UE3 but UT3 sucked and Gears was infested with GFWL. Source engine can use 4 cores very well with mat_queue_mode 2 but unfortunately CS:S hasn't been upgraded to the Orange Box engine and mat_queue_mode 2 isn't very stable anyway. Maybe Left 4 Dead will fix it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Are you talking about FSX? Flight Simulator 10 from Microsoft? If so, I don't currently have the computer for it...not even close. :( I am familiar enough with it and have freinds that fly it. Currently the technology still does not exist to properly fly that sim with everything maxed. It does do well with lots of memory on Vista with the high end machines, but you have to chill on the sliders a bit.
I'd actually like to see some of these reviews done with Flight Simulators. They do put a real hurting on stuff in ways that current games don't. They are a bit different. FSX could be used as a benchmarking program. Even the most expensive system imaginable would not run it maxed. If Bill Gates has a PC running it maxed, he has something we can't get yet. I've seen it tested with a 8 core setup with an obscene amount of RAM on Velociraptors in RAID, with Quad SLi and it still can't be run maxed out. A system like that cost upwards of 10 grand. That's way more than I can spend on a computer.
More multi threaded DVD making programs, please...
:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
www.handbrake.fr does very well, if you have an ipod video or iphone, using 8 threads :)
there are now many application using 8 threads for video ...
and if you want to rotate the video of few degree, to mess up the video, you can use the new super useful features from nvidia, blur and rotation ... lol :rofl::rofl::rofl: who wants to blur his video? :shrug:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...o-editing-roll
:ROTF::ROTF:
sorry, i had to take this out of my system ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Fighters Anthology FTW! :woot:
As for Video, google badaboom. Encoding on yer NVIDIA card. :)
:shocked:
Yes! please try this! and tell us what you think ... The file will be 4 times bigger than Handbrake, and the quality will be worst, about double the PSNR (Signal noise ratio), and you will not have ANY deblocking ... a 2.6MB/s bit rate is a little too high for my taste, it is suppose to be around 700KB/s for an iPhone ... :ROTF: in Codec, the "C" is for "Compression"... somebody forgot about it :clap::shrug::shrug::shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] riptide
Nice tech demo, but if you look at it closely, it is not ready at all, like most of the CUDA demos, if you digg, it is all a joke :down:.
PS: This is my very personal opinion, as a Codec expert (I program codec for 7 years with a VERY famous codec team :up:)
Feel free to react, just stay polite :)
Which one? I'm interested :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
I could not agree more. I am working on my current build with a 3.2 Ghz Core i7, 4 15K SAS drives in RAID 0, 2 GTX 280's, 24GB of RAM (assuming DDR3 4GB sticks by the end of Novemeber. My goal is to run this program at high, not the highest, settings. Everything is going to be watercooled. Look up project Crazyness and you will see what I am talking about.
I am fairly certain even this system will not run FSX at full settings. Tech will not be around for another few years that will run that game at max settings. Finally, when a pC can drive that game at Max settings FS XI will be out and it starts all over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T_Flight
Hey man. :up: Thanks for the advice. I tried it already a while ago anyway. I wasn't interested in using it for Ipod/ Apple type formats.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drwho?
Take a look at post 4. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=198524 :)
Drwho?, I wonder if this poster means DVD generating programs (via video from a digital camcorder) like Pinnacle Studio, Ulead MovieFactory, Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere, etc. rather than recoding/compressing existing DVDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
I have an older version of Sony Vega Movie Studio (version 6 I believe) from 2004 that could generate four (4) threads. I am really looking forward to the Nehalem launch to build a new rig (and get the current version of Vegas Movie Studio).
Yes, I love Handbrake!
I wrote my post under influence of Ashampoo DVD burning software. I tried making a DVD from an avi file that day and noticed it used ONLY ONE CORE!
Helloooo it's the 21st century!!!
:yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by sdsdv10
I was demonstrating at Computex, Sony Vegas 8 uses SSE4.1 and 8 threads ... Nehalem is a screamer on it. I was able to manipulate HD video that I grabbed from an HDV cam, and I was converting it at around 25FPS , with good Blueray compression, using Main Concept codec (MPEG2).
You go a little down if you do AVC or MPEG4, because the codec is doing BI directional Motion block search, that cost memory Bandwidth, making Nehalem the dream CPU for it. The GPU guys just can't do anything like this, because if you want to archive good compression, after you are done encoding the frame you have to re decode it, and check your level of quality (PSNR) before you decide if you have enough bandwidth. The GPU guys have to go back to main memory in this case, that means they have to use PCIexpress in the "wrong" direction, at 1X PCIex speed ... and that will collapse any performance advantage they could have gain with the parralelizme of the shaders. An other issue with parrallele encoding, if you have n slices of the picture to encode, you ll get n matched motion block buffers, and if you want to compress well, you have to check for duplicates between all of those n buffers full of motion matched block ... this is a very costy operation, and this is why "software x86" codec alway does better than any hardware encode. :shrug:
So, you ll get a lot of dance from CUDA apps, but they just can t do sorting, or they can't do a special treatment for one of their threads. Codecs today already look for faces and add bits where your eyes pay more attention, making smarter choice for bandwidth constrained encoding (iPhone, Zune, and internet Divx files , youtube ...)
Cuda is very similar to the MPEG2 cards competing with the Pentium II for DVD play back ... we all know how it finished: Pentium III :ROTF:
Nobody uses complexe pipeline to decode video anymore, just a little motion compensation part in every integrated graphics and GPU ... but the big jobs is done by the CPU today, and playing a DVD today is 3% of a nehalem .... :up:
"It is a matter of time, for every generic algorythm before the processor has enough processing power to do it by itself, this is what drives the PC industry since day 1."
Have a good week end guys, I am going under my Jaguar XJS 1986 to change to Catalizer, and make it a little more nature friendly ...:D