Originally posted by: Modelworks
What it means is that you made statements thinking you were talking down to someone trying to inflate your ego and found out that the person you were talking down to is actually more knowledgeable than yourself.
You're funny, man. I honestly LOL @ each of your posts. I have no reason to try to inflate my ego. However, I was talking to someone who knew less than I. That's why I was trying to explain it to you.
You did confuse the terminology when you said that people should have 3 cores because games are dual core optimized. That is not the case. Your confusing multi-tasking with multi-threading. Your thinking the game can select 2 cores and the OS can have one all to itself, and that is not how it works.
I confused nothing. If you were aware of how this worked, you'd understand. BTW, noone except you ever said anything about a game "selecting" 2 cores all by itself. I said
use two cores. There's a difference between
use and
select. What you don't know enough to have discovered is that processor affinity can very easily be set manually by any child with hands large enough to press Ctrl+Alt+Delete at the same time. I'm thinking if you weren't still using a single-core processor, you'd most likely already know that.
BTW, since you still don't seem to understand the comparison I made in my second post, I'll break it down for you. You said "A dual core actually does benefit a user , even if the application does not support smp. " And I replied "Are you aware that it's been more than a year since any major title was released that wasn't dual-core optimized? If so, you'd realize that your exact argument can be made to support only buying a quad-core today, since any newer game will be utilizing 100% of at least two cores (all by itself), meaning you'd want to buy a minimum of three cores today, now wouldn't you?"
Okay, the explanation. First, 'dual-core optimized' is just another term for an app or game that's dual-threaded, but not multi-threaded. Secondly, there are games available that can, and will if they have more than two cores at their disposal, use 100% of two cores (or as close as something that's as dynamic as a game can come to 100% core usage). Now, the fact that Windows will spread that 100% x 2 cores across the available cores makes absolutely no difference to the user. See, if they had a maximum of two cores, that game can't possibly use 100% of the resources of two cores, now can it? See, in those instances, you'd want a minimum of three cores-- two for the game, and one for Windows, DirectX or OpenGL, the video driver, and sound. And like I've already said, it really makes no difference whether you set the core affinity yourself, or you let Windows do it for you, since it isn't possible to make either 3 or 4 cores out of two.
The fact that programmers are having problems coding realtime smp doesn't concern you because you are not a programmer. You are a gamer who sees pretty pictures and thinks, oh its easy, everyone can do it, when thats not the case. Stop by the programmers forum where there just happens to be a discussion on smp.
No, the reason it doesn't concern me is because there are actually people who know how to code SMP, including in a gaming evironment. I could care less if everyone who thinks like you seem to think have to find a new line of work. The people who can actually code SMP will very quickly replace the "dinosaurs" of the coding world, no matter the actual chronological age of said coding dinosaur.
If you honestly think that you are going to see lots of quad core games coming out this year or even early next year, you are the one that is misinformed.
I hate to keep informing you of things that any programmer who worked for any company that wrote code for games would already know, but there are already at least 5 games that I'm aware of that are quad-threaded: Supreme Commander, Quake Wars, MS's Flight Simulator X, Unreal Tournament 2007, and Crysis, and all but one of them were released in the last 8 or 9 months.
Facebook
Twitter