Redwolf Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by Watson & Crick: Hmmm, well I have a hyperthreading 2.8, so that might explain the differences from others I noted above. I am running Windows XP. How does one shut off one of the processors? Not sure if I would want to do that just for CM. In the BIOS at boot time. Windows XP and 2000 should automatically detect it and start the multiprocessor capable variant of the OS kernel. Given what I learned about Hyperthreading so far I would say you should only turn it on if you find something that benefits from it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Watson & Crick, There's another (non-permanent) way to disable hyperthreading without fiddling with the BIOS: - Start the game (go only as far as the menu). - Alt-Tab out of it. - Bring up the task manager. - Click on the processes tab. - Find the CM Afrikakorps process. - Right click on it and go to 'set affinity.' - Uncheck one of the cpu's. - Alt-Tab back into the game and play. This will need to be done every time you start the game as this is not a permanent solution. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 Juju, that won't keep Win2K or XP from running other programs on the second virtual CPU - which is the original problem. The only thing your procedure does is to prevent CM from constantly switching from one virtual processor to the other. That shouldn't happen anyway when no other programs are competing for the processors. No OS would be that dumb. Or would it? What about trying and reporting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: Juju, that won't keep Win2K or XP from running other programs on the second virtual CPU - which is the original problem. Oh, I know that. I was responding to this particular question from W&C: How does one shut off one of the processors? Not sure if I would want to do that just for CM. That way he could only disable it for CM without any BIOS hassle (should he want to, that is). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 But it would be of no use for this benchmark. You want the second processor out of the way, so that 1) the OS uses the kernel for single-processor machines 2) activity of other processes on the second virtual CPU does not disturb the virtual CPU CM is running on You can only do that by rebooting with hyperthreading disabled. You can probably do that in Windows, not the BIOS (Linux and FreeBSD certainly can), but you cannot do it at runtime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antonius 007 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 I've got myself a AMD64-3400+ with 1 GB ram and a GeForce Ultra 6800 Here are my benchmark results: 1) 41 sec 2) 44 sec 3) 42 sec I've to go to bed now, sorry.. Hans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Pentium-M 1.6Ghz 512k RAM 1:02 av The RAM usage hardly blipped during the run - maybe an extra 50-80Mb of RAM was used during the calculations according to Cacheman. For me, however, I hardly care about the battle calculation time. I care much more about the frame rate and the time-to-load the graphics. In fact, my highest performance related frustration for CMAK is the long wait to load the graphics. GaJ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 - the times you got for the blue bar without computer player - what kind of CPU you have, clockspeed - overclocked, if yes what is original and what is overclock speed? - how much RAM? - (EDITED to add: how fast is your RAM, e.g. "333 MHz" or "800 MHz dual-channel") - (EDITED to add: if you know, the processor core you have (Prescott, Thunderbird etc.) or if you don't know that, post your cache sizes and socket) My system: Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2 AMD Athlon XP Thoroughbred Core 2800+ 2.25ghz running at 333mhz (NOT OVERCLOCKED) Chaintech GeForce Ti4600 128MB Video Card 1.5GB RAM Kingston PC2700 333mhz Chaintech motherboard 7NJL1 Apogee 400mhz bus capable. BIOS set to 333. I left sound on and all graphics at Full. My times were: 50, 49, 48, 50, 51 - Seconds that is. Thinking about an upgrade? Your times didn't appear poor really. I can upgrade to the 3200+ processor and invest in PC3200 RAM but I'm not sure what kind of a return I would get. The 3200+ has more memory on the processor and I would be operating at a better bus speed but the actual clock speed of the 3200+ is slightly less than my Thoroughbred 2800+ 2.2 vs 2.25. Maybe in a few more months when the prices make it possible to do this for $200 or less I will try it. This was a good test. Just an FYI on my system. I have all of the unnecessary services that load at boot-up turned off. The operating system from a services perspective is stripped down for maximum processor freedom. AKA - Black Viper website. [ September 02, 2004, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: Jack Carr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by GreenAsJade: In fact, my highest performance related frustration for CMAK is the long wait to load the graphics. To solve this you need fast harddisks. And if you put two or more together in a RAID-0 (stripe) you will get much better performance. Another (brutal) solution is to use a network server which holds all the BMPs in RAM, connected via Gigabit ethernet to the Windows machine. If you have enough RAM, say two gigabytes, you can probably load CMAK from a RAMdisk in one Gigabyte. I don't know whether Win2k or XP allow you to create a RAM-disk which is never paged out. But the stripe/RAID-0 will probably do good enough. [ September 03, 2004, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Antonius 007: I've got myself a AMD64-3400+ with 1 GB ram and a GeForce Ultra 6800 Is your address in the profile and do you have a dog? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Quick question for anyone who may know the answer. Both my CMAK and CMBB environments are heavily modded with higher resolution BMP's. Will this increase the wait time at all upon hitting the "GO" button? Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Carr: Quick question for anyone who may know the answer. Both my CMAK and CMBB environments are heavily modded with higher resolution BMP's. Will this increase the wait time at all upon hitting the "GO" button? It should not. It should only make the "loading 3 graphics" phase longer, and that not even much because most of the overhead is by file, not by megabyte (CM loads lots of small files). There is a possibility that RAM is being taken up by the textures or data managing or associated with the textures, from the previous phase where you were moving around in the 3D display. This could make the turn calculation live in less RAM. But since we only need 50-80 MB and most people have at least 256 that shouldn't matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Given what I learned about Hyperthreading so far I would say you should only turn it on if you find something that benefits from it. I am not sure that this is good advice. I have seen considerable benefits at work with my hyper threaded computer. Run 2 processor expensive programs at once and the speed gains can be quite impressive. I am a programmer and often run multiple compilers and have found that the time required to compile a single program is often little different from the time required to compile 2 programs at once. Maybe you do not get much benefit from CM but computers are not usually used for only one purpose. One thing that has surprised me with hyper threading is that you do seem to get much benefit with multi threaded programs. I have not looked into this much though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade: In fact, my highest performance related frustration for CMAK is the long wait to load the graphics. To solve this you need fast harddisks. And if you put two or more together in a RAID-0 (stripe) you will get much better performance. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 GreenAsJade, many notebook models, some Dell among them, can mount a second harddrive in the extension bay. Or if you usually play CM from the same place you can have two firefire or UBS 2.0 drives (check speed of that bus first, can be disappointing). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Lurking Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Hi one and all! Running on a B&W/G3/400 with 448MB ram I get... 3 min 42 sec. averaged over five runs. (which is why I play small battles). With sound on it adds about 20 secs to this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Oh man I remember using an old B&W G3 300Mhz... man did that hurt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilroy Lurking Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Hi Panzerman! ... man did that hurt. You never had the joy of a "Performa 6200" :mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Well our first computer was a Mac classic with 96k RAM and a Huge 900k HD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 i have an apple iie with two floppy drives 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Okay, I'll play My results: - Intel 3.0 gig Pentium (1066 MHz bus) - not overclocked - 1024 MB RAM at 1066 MHz One trial at about 75 seconds. Odd, other people with slower processors are posting better results... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 amd duron 1.2 512 sdram 100 bus mb 4-7% cpu usage with cm minimized in task manager with online streaming audio 2:15 2:13 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 -Power Mac G4 1.2Ghz (Sonnet Encore/ST G4 upgrade card) -not overclocked -512MB RAM -L2 Cashe 256 L3 Cashe 2MB -Bus Speed 100Mhz With Sound turn off I cut about 10 seconds off my times. With an average of 1:22 seconds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted September 3, 2004 Author Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by Runyan99: Okay, I'll play My results: - Intel 3.0 gig Pentium (1066 MHz bus) - not overclocked - 1024 MB RAM at 1066 MHz One trial at about 75 seconds. Odd, other people with slower processors are posting better results... I didn't know they even made 3 GHz Pentium-4 and mainboards for them that can take RAMBUS/RDRAM. Can you be more specific about processor and mainboard? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Oops, I lied. It's an 800mhz bus. INTEL D875PBZ MOTHERBOARD INTEL PENTIUM 4 3.0GHZ 512K L2 CACH800 MHZ FSB 4 x 256MB DDR PC3200 ATI RADEON 9700 PRO 128MB DDR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.