How fast is your game?

[bobnickbob]

I have checked out the demo Yelina stare , first three turns as the germans , and I get an average of 11 seconds on my AMD 1.4 system (256 mem pc133) geforce 3 ti 200 video card (124 meg DDR), and 19sec for the system to “think” , on my 550 AMD Irongate powered system (Geforce MX 400 64 meg video card)...

note :

I run NO programs in the background....... could this make that much of a dif......

what do you think??

need to waste some time till The Game arrives.........

bobnickbob

WC Fields) once put it:

"I cook with wine, sometimes I add it to the food"

[Jack Carr]

I just upgraded my machine from a 900mhz Athlon to a 1.5 ghz Athlon and boosted the ram to 768mb from 256mb. I think the ram is overkill but the processor upgrade definitely helped. I'm glad I did it because I too noticed that the time needed to think is much greater during the demo scenarios. My next upgrade will be to the video card which is currently a Radeon 7200 64mb card. I understand from several other posts that this card does not handle fog. Any suggestions for a card that does handle fog in CMBB/CMBO?

[Cull]

Any suggestions for a card that does handle fog in CMBB/CMBO?

I'm currently preparing myself (psychologically and financially) to build a scratch system, and I'm going with a Gainward gForce4 Ti4200 128Mb. I've done lots of research for components, and this one gets pretty excellent reviews.

The fog thing is a real bummer with ATi's cards....I can't figure them. Their brand-spanking new 9700 Pro is supposedly amazingly powerful and fast, but no "real" fog!

MSI's cards seem to get alot of respect as well. Any nVidia set card (gForce) would do, and you can get some of the gForce3 cards at great prices now. My current one is a Visiontek gForce3 Ti200, and it has been excellent. I would definitely recommend it--great "bang for the buck".

[Shatter]

Originally posted by The ol one eye.:

Heh, so Im not the only one.

** cough **

** cough **

'ere.

Nope you are not the only one. I can think of at least 5 more guys who do. Some good old Budwiesers is not bad. Some of the crazy hard stuff these guys are drinking just is not my bag. I like to have some control over my actions and hard stuff just turns me into a drooling zombie.

And as for not having patience, well that could not be farther from the truth, with CM at least. Even if I had to wait 5 mins a turn I would do it to play CM.

[Shatter]

504 your system has timed out

[ September 19, 2002, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Shatter ]

[StellarRat]

OK, I averaged about 15 - 22 sec for thinking and generating the movie (the blue bar?) combined. It took about 5 secs longer once the shooting started. Running an Athlon 2100 XP with 768 Ram and Geforce 4 Ti 200 128. However, I also had the internet (with modem connection open) and two messengers plus virus scan running while I was doing this.

[Jack Carr]

Thanks for the advice on the card Jack.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by fiftymicrolitres:

Does anyone remember these things called board wargames? Back when we used to play them, we would be thrilled if we could play a few turns per week.

I remember that, we used to play in the haunted house up the hill. It was a five hour walk, through the mud and the sleet (it always rained in those days). And before we could begin play we had to pay of 'the old man' for using his board, now we didn't have any money so we had to work twelve hours in the coal mines before we could even begin play. I could go on and on!

ps. I do agree that bitching about a 30sec turn resolution is a bit drastic, to quote Calvin:

"5 MINUTES IN THE MICROWAVE! WHO HAS THAT KIND OF TIME!"

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by Grau:

After playing all the demo games I have come to realize that this game requires substantially greater hardware requirements than CMBO. I based this on the amount of time the computer needs to 'think' before play begins.

I was wondering what times other users were experiencing. It would be interesting to know what times the people with the fast P4's and AMD chips get. How do the Mac times compare with these?

Tweaking tips for GForce and ATI cards;

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/guides/hwGuides/article.php/1463741

hope these help!

[FEBA]

BFC seems (slightly) biased towards Macs. We're lucky they put the game out for PCs at all. Can any game company make money in a Mac only environment? Any Mac owners got any G3 or G4 speeds to report ?

FWIW, My system takes about 21 seconds average for 'Yelnia Stare': P4 1.6A, DDR333 (aka PC2700), Windows XP. Although I think video and i/o have no bearing on the compute times being discussed my video card is a GEForce3 Ti200 and my disk drive is a WD1200JB (8mb cache @ 7200 rpm.)

The real question of interest for me is what is the difference in performance between systems based on different hardware families (Mac, Athlon, P4). My guess is the code is not optimized for P4s, and since the program is probably mostly a common multiplatform code base this is to be expected. Developers usually depend on the compiler to target optimize the code. If the same executable is used/shipped for both Athlon and P4, then the speed features of each processor can't both be optimized for and no special processor capabilities of either can be used. Based on the unscientific evidence presented in this thread, it seems Athlons run CMBB faster than P4s at the same processor speeds. Many 'big' market programs (read expensive) run/install specialized code determined by detecting the customer's processor type. Never coded for that, but I imagine it takes some engineering time. Remember that CD space was an issue with this release, so a seperately targetted executable for Athlon and P4 on the same CD was probably out. I don't know what the business implications might have been for creating a third CD (MAC, Athlon, & P4), or even if it was considered, but producing and tracking a third inventory item to save a few seconds on some customers systems has to be considered low priority. My own bias is I prefer BFC spend that time and money adding more game features and we all get to enjoy a better game. Some of us (read P4 owners) at a more leisurely pace than our friends (read Athlon owners). You win some, you lose some. But it seems only a 5 to 10 second difference.

If anyone at BFC wants to confirm, deny, or correct my guessing, please do.

Still interested to see any Mac numbers, if only to burn with envy...but, since there are so few out there insane enough to use a Mac we probably won't get much response. (MacOS was so bad, they are all busy falling back to Unix, aka OSX.)

[cbb]

I don't have a big problem with the computer in CMBB taking more time to "think" than it did in CMBO. (I have a P4 2.0 ghz with 256meg of ram and I've noticed that the "thinking" time is definitely longer with CMBB). I would much rather it be that than reduced or clunky graphics.

CB Blackard

[Mike13]

I am using a Dell PII 450. My times are between 60 and 90 seconds. If that sounds long try playing PanzerBlitz. While you waiting- read a book.

[FEBA]

If that sounds long try playing PanzerBlitz. While you waiting- read a book.

I bought the board game Panzerblitz when SPI first published it in the early 70s (or was it late 60s?). You want to talk wait, try playing it double blind with a human GM resolving combat and sighting, with optional pulse movement of course. Great game, led the way for tactical armor games. One of the leaders in the 'scenario' approach to games. Ahh, the Golden Age.

[edit] Opps, it was AH that first published it. But Jim Dunningan designed it, so I always think it was SPI. Looking at the box, it was published in 1970.[/edit]

[ September 21, 2002, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: FEBA ]

[bobnickbob]

Good post FEBA

I to would like to see mac times , could be interesting , come on mac guys let the world know.............

How ever long the turns take WE all know it is worth the wait......

bnickb

WC Fields) once put it:

"I cook with wine, sometimes I add it to the food"

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by FEBA:

BFC seems (slightly) biased towards Macs. We're lucky they put the game out for PCs at all. Can any game company make money in a Mac only environment? Any Mac owners got any G3 or G4 speeds to report ?

It is obviously nonsense to think that BFC would make any version of their game deliberately slower. Even assuming they want to push the Mac, no PC owner would be able to compare with Mac speed, so there is no chance to sell a new Mac.

The real question of interest for me is what is the difference in performance between systems based on different hardware families (Mac, Athlon, P4). My guess is the code is not optimized for P4s, and since the program is probably mostly a common multiplatform code base this is to be expected. Developers usually depend on the compiler to target optimize the code. If the same executable is used/shipped for both Athlon and P4, then the speed features of each processor can't both be optimized for and no special processor capabilities of either can be used. Based on the unscientific evidence presented in this thread, it seems Athlons run CMBB faster than P4s at the same processor speeds. Many 'big' market programs (read expensive) run/install specialized code determined by detecting the customer's processor type. Never coded for that, but I imagine it takes some engineering time.

This is only partly true. Optimization for the Pentium-4 is done by a specialized compiler or by flags specializing a compiler for the Pentium-4, so much is true.

However, the amount of speedup this actually brings for the Pentium-4 is extremly dependent on the nature of the code to be compiled, on the application, or game, code. Depending on how your code is written, the code may still perform pretty badly on a Pentium-4 even when using the best Pentium-4 compiler.

For my employer's system we arrived at an estimation that about 1/3 the Pentium-4 work is to be done in the compiler and 2/3 in our application's code.

If you read the links I provided above, you will see that the Pentium-4 optimization guide provided by Intel has only a minority of tips which need to be implemented in the actual compiler, most items are about source code organization.

[ September 21, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[DougieB]

Hi

Just to join the roll.

My times for CMBB Demo Yelnia Stare (first 3 turns) average (from go to end of blue line) 26secs.

I am currently running AthlonXP 1500 on Jetway 867AS mobo with 512Mb PC2100 DDR ram. I do not think the Graphics card makes any difference but for what its worth mine is a lowly Geforce2 Ti by Gainward (64Mb 4.5ns DDR Ram). I think my HDD may have more of a bearing as it is only a 5400 WD 40 Gig. In CMBO my times for a scn on equivalent size average some 6 secs faster.

Douglas (aka DougieB)

Belfast (NI)

UK

[Ligur]

It doesn't really matter what GFX card I use, GeForce 256 and Radeon 8500 chip are both as fast. Funky, the 8500 has about 10 x more power or somefink.

What matters is processor speed ON MY SYSTEM and the side I play. I have CM:BB installed on IDE2 primary, a slow, old hard drive. Same with CM:BO.

The difference?

When the 'puter has a lot to think (Yelnia Stare, AI Russians) the time is quite long, but when I play the Russkies myself the time the 'puter thinks is only 30% of what it is compared to when I play the Germans. Duhr. Same with Citadel: The turns run real fast, but everytime I play Yelnia as the Germans it takes about the 60-90 seconds ppl are talking about.

I think it has a lot to do with the number of AI units on board and the "micromanaging" the AI does. Even if I give 20+ orders to each single squad in Yelnia as the Russkies, the round is counted in a few seconds.

I'm at loss: what the hell should I do to make the AI process faster if it has a LOT of units. Yelnia has A LOT of AI units if the AI is Russians.

Of course, your motherboard, hard drive and processor have a lot to do with it.

I'm trying to figure out a system that will run huge AI forces quickly but can't think of any. Reading the above posts left me with a feeling that, even if I upgrade to AMD 1800+ processor, the game will NOT run that much faster if the AI has a ****load of infantry to handle...

Maybe its the slow hard drive... Dunno.

[FEBA]

It is obviously nonsense to think that BFC would make any version of their game deliberately slower. Even assuming they want to push the Mac, no PC owner would be able to compare with Mac speed, so there is no chance to sell a new Mac.

I agree. Based on things that have been said on the forums in the far past I think they do their primary development on a Mac and cross-compile/port to Intel. I do not know this for a fact. I did not mean to suggest (and honestly don't think my post indicated) that they would deliberatly do things to make their code run slower on a PC in order to promote Apple. If anyone got that impression I renounce any intent to make it. But, developing on a Mac, BFC might give more attention to speed problems when experienced during development, which, if primarily developed on a Mac, might make CMBB relatively faster on a Mac, though not intentionally slower on a PC.

Depending on how your code is written, the code may still perform pretty badly on a Pentium-4 even when using the best Pentium-4 compiler.

For my employer's system we arrived at an estimation that about 1/3 the Pentium-4 work is to be done in the compiler and 2/3 in our application's code.

Thanks for providing this excellent info. If the code must be tailored to achieve high levels of optimization for a given processor, then it means it would be even more costly for BFC to optimize the code for each processor type. My point that I would rather they spend resources on more features is even more valid.

Again, I did not mean to imply that BFC had cheated us of features or PC performance by spending time on optimiziing for any particular processor. I suspect they spent their time on features.

I still would like to see Mac times. I'm still curious. I have no hidden agenda to get BFC in trouble or to promote Macs over PCs.

(I do like Macs, and if they had equal market share to windoze, I would buy one in a heartbeat. Even given those feelings, it is still fun to taunt Mac owners.)

[Redwolf]

I have to make a few clarifications onmy statements:

1) I don't think BFC seriously considered doing the Pentium-4 specific coding. In what time?

2) Anyone buying a < 2 GHz Pentium-4 for games is ill-advised.

3) I think that the speed of CMBB is perfectly fine. What's the problem of 15 seconds or so combat turn resultion for a battalion advance? I don't understand.

[FEBA]

Ligur wrote:

I'm at loss: what the hell should I do to make the AI process faster if it has a LOT of units. Yelnia has A LOT of AI units if the AI is Russians.

...

the above posts left me with a feeling that, even if I upgrade to AMD 1800+ processor, the game will NOT run that much faster if the AI has a ****load of infantry to handle...

I think redwolf said it well:

There is nothing about the graphics card or the harddisk that would cause any speedup or slowdown for what he posted the time for, which is the programmed opponent thinking and the combat resolution. He does not speak about any loading time nor does he speak about any interactive or 3D part of the game.

Video comes into play when playing back the turn and affects how fast you can change your point of view for the turn action.

Disk speed only affects the loading of the scenario when you start the game and the saving of games. Hard drive speed could affect game speed if paging occurs. But if that was happening, you would be REALLY waiting for each turn

Once you are beyond about 256MB memory (no hard data on mem size for CMBB, but 256MB is a common rule of thumb in the game community), then to increase turn calculation speed you need a faster processor and/or a faster memory subsystem (memory speed and a motherboard that can handle it). Preferably both. Hard disk speed, video speed, and video memory size won't have any effect. If your memory subsystem is too slow, then the speed of the processor becomes less important, because the processor can't get work from memory fast enough to run at full speed.

Bottom line: Go for a faster processor and faster memory. Beware that most complete system vendors do not talk about memory speed.