Bay 12 Games Forum
Dwarf Fortress => DF Dwarf Mode Discussion => Topic started by: Romegypt on October 30, 2014, 04:12:15 pm
-
50 dwarves, and (Pocket world very short history) and I can run 1342 fps at a time!
The heck?
-
50 dwarves, and (Pocket world very short history) and I can run 1342 fps at a time!
The heck?
Did you uncap the FPS? Worlds sometimes will run pretty fast when brand-new.
-
Number of Dwarves doesn't have much affect on performance until they are trying to path to various places. If they are all chilling around early on after embark, you could probably have far more before it affected performance.
-
The fact, you have a power CPU.
lol
-
Give me your computer or else magma will find it's way to your room.
-
Do some science, designate the removal of a layer with up-ramps, try to take down a mountain like this, see what you drop to.
I'm on an i3-3220, 8 GB ram, at 1920x1080 with multilevel 3 on and calc fps at 180/graphic fps at 25 normally, it drops to 23~25/15 while removing a 10~20x10~20 hunk of stone designated all at once with a 33x33 world in year 60 and population capped at 20.
Interestingly, this is using the internal graphics as my old gt-440 gave up the ghost, but even then it rarely gets hotter than 44 C.
-
My computer runs Morwind, Minecraft, and Dark Souls 2 perfectly on their highest settings. Can barely handle Dwarf Fortress at 60 dwarves.
-
CPU is great, and I capped it pretty high. It drops only 10 fps when they are not idling, I did check that. I play dayz/nether/ghost recon games on it so...
Also, My room is really cold right now, I'd love some magma :D
-
My CPU has 8 logical cores. Four physical cores (I'm jealous of your two), of which I've only ever seen DF use 50% (of one.) I can play anything I want any way I want...except dwarf fortress. That single-threaded, no graphics, pathfinding-intensive son of a gun. And it's like the only game I play :P
$1k gaming computer and I still only play with 50-60 dwarves..multi-threaded, Toady, plox! (I know, I know, it would take as long to do as 0.40, but...augh, would be so much better!)
While we're on the subject, anyone know a way to max out DF's usage of a physical core? OP, did you do anything to that effect? I've tried shoving everything else to other cores and setting DF to realtime, but no good. If it just did that, it would double my fps :/ (I'm using a laptop, if that's relevant.)
-
Dwarf fortress can run on only a single thread and core. This means high end quad cores (i-7 4790k) are the best it can get (each core starts at 4 ghz, can turbo to 4.4ghz, which means dwarf fortress should be getting the benefit of a 4.4ghz single core in that instance). The direction the new intel extremes and AMD cores are going are more cores and more threads, so you might actually hurt dwarf fortress performance funnily enough if you bought say, a $1000 CPU in the i7 5960x
Modern games mostly aren't CPU limited like dwarf fortress is, a wildly inferior CPU can run a lot of games because the graphics card does most of the heavy lifting for modern gaming.
Anyone who wants some more performance out of their computer should try overclocking. I have a 4790k like i used in the example above at 4.8ghz rather than the stock 4.0 that i got pretty recently. Although you need to change the stock intel cooler, stock intel fan for the CPU cannot handle overclocking!
-
I'm getting an i5 something unlocked for overclocking, I think it's the 4th gen. It has a higher clock speed per core than the i7 of the same gen, but what I'm wondering is just how to manage temperature. It's not like it has an inbuilt thermometer (or does it??).
-
Dwarf fortress can run on only a single thread and core. This means high end quad cores (i-7 4790k) are the best it can get (each core starts at 4 ghz, can turbo to 4.4ghz, which means dwarf fortress should be getting the benefit of a 4.4ghz single core in that instance). The direction the new intel extremes and AMD cores are going are more cores and more threads, so you might actually hurt dwarf fortress performance funnily enough if you bought say, a $1000 CPU in the i7 5960x
Clock speeds are completely and utterly irrelevant, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth) especially when it comes to Dwarf Fortress, where a gigantic amount of the CPU's time is likely spent waiting for RAM to do stuff.
-
The chips wouldn't really be able to do a lot of what they do without internal monitoring of temperature being a designed in feature, though as I recall it is actually keeping track of the effects OF changing temperature on voltage and such, which then can be presented with various programs or scripts as a temperature.
As putnam said, the game is very much ram choked, if I was going to build a system for DF I'd go for higher speed multi-channel ram with a good cooling system on something like an i5 k so I can get in a bit of overclocking, and a video card purchased with other requirements in mind as pretty much anything will be able to run DF graphics without breaking a sweat. I've noticed no real difference after switching from an admittedly old GT-440, which was still a dedicated card, to the HD 2500 or whichever it is in the ivy bridge i3 chips... except the whole system runs cooler without the video card pumping out heat.
-
50 dwarves, and (Pocket world very short history) and I can run 1342 fps at a time!
The heck?
Unpause the game pls.
-
game was unpaused. This is my dads computer (I'm 17) and it's insanely good for gaming. It used to be a work computer at Raytheon, maybe that has something to do with it?
-
My computer runs Morwind, Minecraft, and Dark Souls 2 perfectly on their highest settings. Can barely handle Dwarf Fortress at 60 dwarves.
Morrowind is old, and there's a significant difference between those games since they tax the GPU, not the CPU.
-
Dwarf fortress can run on only a single thread and core. This means high end quad cores (i-7 4790k) are the best it can get (each core starts at 4 ghz, can turbo to 4.4ghz, which means dwarf fortress should be getting the benefit of a 4.4ghz single core in that instance). The direction the new intel extremes and AMD cores are going are more cores and more threads, so you might actually hurt dwarf fortress performance funnily enough if you bought say, a $1000 CPU in the i7 5960x
Clock speeds are completely and utterly irrelevant, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth) especially when it comes to Dwarf Fortress, where a gigantic amount of the CPU's time is likely spent waiting for RAM to do stuff.
That my friend, is why you overclock the RAM too
Also, that's using ONLY the mhz to compare processors between each other, its not about clock speeds being completely irrelevant, they arent. you can compare clock speeds within the same family of processors in apples to apples comparison. If i was to say, compare sandy bridge to broadwell, then no, the same clock speed does not mean the same thing and you have to refer to benchmarks. Does my example have backup in benchmarks? yes it does, the latest intel extreme models (5960x for example) are HEAVILY hyperthreaded and show no benefits, and sometimes can be slower than a devils canyon CPU for games, especially games that arent hypertthreaded.
-
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?_mc=sm_eet&doc_id=1324403&page_number=3
An experimental processor achieves 4x the performance compared to the currently existing approaches by using hardware multi-threading.
This may be the technology that will finally allows us to run DF at a reasonable speed! And also will make all people suggesting to add multi-threading to the game finally shut up.
Reposting this here.
-
My computer runs Morwind, Minecraft, and Dark Souls 2 perfectly on their highest settings. Can barely handle Dwarf Fortress at 60 dwarves.
Morrowind is old, and there's a significant difference between those games since they tax the GPU, not the CPU.
Sorry man, but I know a good deal about how Morrowind runs under the hood; it uses the CPU very aggressively for graphical functions. It's a DX7 title, which has DX8 vertex and pixel shading tacked on top. It also uses the CPU for atmospheric sound effects processing by default.
Almost all of the menu transparency effects are done using software overlay rendering, and not using hardware based methods. (This is likely due to the issues with transparency in hardware implementations at the time, where AMD cards and nVidia cards did things in radically different ways, which would have been tricky to deal with. That, and the gamebryo/netimmerse engine is total crap.)
Things like FPS Optimizer and pals actually patch the in-memory game executable's code to force it to run in hardware accelerated modes!
Sorry to nitpick, on that. Carry on.
That said, I recently have come into possession of a dual CPU socket (Each sporting dual core XEONs) rackmount enterprise server (An HP ProLiant DL380 G4 (http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetDocument.aspx?docname=c04283181)). It's an older model intended for use with windows server 2008 (basically winxp, but for servers), with 16gb of RAM. I am not too sure about what the memory bus width is for memory accesses, but this is still a server grade appliance. (Dual PSUs, Scsi RAID disk array, and all.) I recently decided to try running DF on it, but was... disappointed... with the outcome.
The baked in graphics chip has absolutely NO ACCELERATION AT ALL. No, Not even 2D. I suspect that this is the issue. Even with the CPU basically doing everything, and the graphics being little more than a dumb framebuffer, it gets about 25fps on a large embark. Not too bad, but I would have expected better.
-
No 2D acceleration? Just pop a Matrox in the VLB slot and you're golden :P