Do we know how many cores PS2 / Forgelight can use?

[Goku]

Originally Posted by Was_Ash_Emerald

Points taken, but I really hope 4 cores is used and ideal (if not required), and not 2 cores.

If PS2 will really have hundreds and hundreds of players running around blowing up shit in the same field of view, I'd think that 4 cores is what's going to make that run well.

PS1 used 1 processor and that was never enough. As more complexity was added (especially BFRs), the continent caps had to be continuous lowered. Somehow, using just 2 processors (cores) just doesn't sound like enough improvement. It's a sad reality that a Pentium 4 by itself is, after all this time, not that much slower than a single LGA 1155 I7 core.

I know there are other factors that are different than circa 2003, with far more powerful video cards and far larger memories being the obvious two.

I'm a total size queen and I really hope battles are an order of magnitude larger than we had in PS1. (So, yes, that means 1000+ players pilled up at times in a massive cluster....)

Where the hell do you get this info from??

Closet comparison I can find is a Pentium 955 XE (2 core HT from 2006) vs a i3 2100 (2 core HT from today) is shown to be at least twice as fast.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by Was_Ash_Emerald

Points taken, but I really hope 4 cores is used and ideal (if not required), and not 2 cores.

If PS2 will really have hundreds and hundreds of players running around blowing up shit in the same field of view, I'd think that 4 cores is what's going to make that run well.

Four cores aren't necessary for a game like this to run smoothly. 95% of games aren't even programmed to use four cores, let alone the hyperthreading that gives you 8 virtual cores.

Games like Total War and Supreme Commander are extremely processor intensive because they require multiple cores to perform multiple functions, such as AI, Shading and Shadows, Graphics, etc.

In a game like Supreme Commander, which is an RTS, your 5000 units would lag and not move, but your graphics would be fine. This is because one of the cores was lagging behind the others.

In a game like Planetside, all cores will be devoted to graphics processing and Clientside Calculations. The main thing for a game like this is how up to snuff your video card is, and your RAM so that the massive world can be saved.

I'm sure nothing more than a dual core 2.4ghz processor will be the recommended processor for this game. At least that's my take! I could be wrong.

2000 player battles should be fun!

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Was_Ash_Emerald

It's a sad reality that a Pentium 4 by itself is, after all this time, not that much slower than a single LGA 1155 I7 core.

This is definitely not true. Clock-for-clock Core is much more powerful...Hell in some cases Atoms can beat the P4.

[kaffis]

For people considering upgrading -- lots of people make the mistake of ignoring their CPU -- modern gaming uses a lot of CPU, simply because the rate of advancement in CPU design has been slower than the leaps and bounds made in GPU design over the last 10 years.

Furthermore, display sizes have stagnated since the introduction of HD TV's, so again, the requirements for the GPU haven't scaled in proportion to the needs for CPU power.

[Coreldan]

While not the best architechture and all that, I believe I should manage pretty long with my AMD Phenom II x6 1090T. Currently only mildly overclocked at 3,5ghz (stock 3,2ghz), should be able to get it to 4ghz with default cooler, even higher with a new cooler.

I'm just a bit noob with computers, so I'm afraid I break something

[Was_Ash_Emerald]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

This is definitely not true. Clock-for-clock Core is much more powerful...Hell in some cases Atoms can beat the P4.

Yes, it is more powerful, but consider that the Pentium 4 3.0ghz (with HT) existed in 2003 and had a pipeline that was mostly starved due to slow memory.

One can run Windows 7 32 bit on such a machine just fine even today as an acceptable desktop computer for normal stuff.

Speed improvements, based on single cpu core, have slowed drawn dramatically in the last 10 years, as the clock rates cannot get much above 3Ghz. Almost all of the "speed" improvements have been more cores and lots of cleverness.

If you use the benchmarks of 1993 vs 2003 computers were radically faster, almost incomparably so. No 1993 computer could run Windows XP Circa 2003.

The top computer in 1993 was a 486 or Pentium 1 at a blazing 66MHZ. In 2003, the fastest cpu was 3000Mhz!

To bring the discussion back to Planetside- making use of more cores seems paramount to getting the huge scale of battles to work well.

[Landtank]

Originally Posted by Was_Ash_Emerald

To bring the discussion back to Planetside- making use of more cores seems paramount to getting the huge scale of battles to work well.

I'll say it again, the amount of cores for a game like this will not be critical to the games performance. A good dual core will likely run the game just as well as a good quad core depending on the support given to the quad core.

More cores=/=better performance for all games. It depends on how much of the game can be parallelized, and in a game like this, a huge majority of the calculations can be parallelized, especially with hyperthreading.

More cores improves performance for games that have multiple applications, such as strategy games which require huge amounts of processing power to calculate the AI and massive amounts of troop movements.

[Whalenator]

I wouldn't be extremely concerned about the number of cores planetside 2 employs. Like most games, this isn't going to be extremely CPU-intensive since your computer isn't running any AI and the drawdistance is limited. The polycounts look high, but not to the extreme and they've promised mixed clientside/serverside hit detection, taking even more pressure off of your computer.

In fact, the only game where I would worry about having a halfway-decent CPU is Arma 2, and even with that you'd only need a medium-tier i5 to play smoothly.

However, a 64-bit client version would so much be appreciated. What with the thousands of camo/armor combinations there are going to be tons and tons of textures to load, and I want to use all the RAM I have (8GB).

[Coreldan]

Originally Posted by Whalenator

However, a 64-bit client version would so much be appreciated. What with the thousands of camo/armor combinations there are going to be tons and tons of textures to load, and I want to use all the RAM I have (8GB).

Now, what exactly is the difference between a 32 bit client and 64 bit client? It certainly isn't so that a 32 bit client wouldn't be able to utilize more than 2GB of RAM, cos APB sure can and it's a 32 bit client.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Coreldan

Now, what exactly is the difference between a 32 bit client and 64 bit client? It certainly isn't so that a 32 bit client wouldn't be able to utilize more than 2GB of RAM, cos APB sure can and it's a 32 bit client.

That's because the 32-bit addressing limit isn't 2GB. Windows 32 bit OSes can only address 3GB, but I believe the limit for 32-bit programs operating on 64-bit hosts is 4GB, as that's the hard limit of address space that can fit into 32 bits.

64-bit clients can also perform some mathematical operations more efficiently, as they've got access to extended instruction sets.

[Antivide]

Originally Posted by Whalenator

In fact, the only game where I would worry about having a halfway-decent CPU is Arma 2, and even with that you'd only need a medium-tier i5 to play smoothly.

However, a 64-bit client version would so much be appreciated. What with the thousands of camo/armor combinations there are going to be tons and tons of textures to load, and I want to use all the RAM I have (8GB).

Co op mission in Arma 2 are hell. You get like 80+ people with ~80 AI with tanks and a map several kilometers big and you have on gigantic cluster fuck in your hands.

[LtStaley]

Originally Posted by Whalenator

I wouldn't be extremely concerned about the number of cores planetside 2 employs. Like most games, this isn't going to be extremely CPU-intensive since your computer isn't running any AI and the drawdistance is limited. The polycounts look high, but not to the extreme and they've promised mixed clientside/serverside hit detection, taking even more pressure off of your computer.

In fact, the only game where I would worry about having a halfway-decent CPU is Arma 2, and even with that you'd only need a medium-tier i5 to play smoothly.

However, a 64-bit client version would so much be appreciated. What with the thousands of camo/armor combinations there are going to be tons and tons of textures to load, and I want to use all the RAM I have (8GB).

Do you really think PS2 isn't going to be too CPU intensive? I've been debating on whether I should build a new gaming desktop or not. The one I currently have might still be strong enough to handle PS2. Here are my specs, let me know what you think...

ASUS A8N32 SLI Deluxe Mobo
AMD 64 X2 4800+ @ 2.4 Ghz
Dual BFG 7900GTX GPUs in SLI
3GBs of RAM
Windows XP x86

[Whalenator]

Originally Posted by LtStaley

Do you really think PS2 isn't going to be too CPU intensive? I've been debating on whether I should build a new gaming desktop or not. The one I currently have might still be strong enough to handle PS2. Here are my specs, let me know what you think...

ASUS A8N32 SLI Deluxe Mobo
AMD 64 X2 4800+ @ 2.4 Ghz
Dual BFG 7900GTX GPUs in SLI
3GBs of RAM
Windows XP x86

I would upgrade to 4GB (2x2GB) of RAM at least. It's cheap, so pile it on.
I would also upgrade to Win 7 (x64)
I would get an Intel Processor over an AMD anyday.
The 7900GTX should be able to run PS2 smoothly (35FPS+) on Medium.

[SGTalon]

I used to run into lag when i played BF3 until I upgraded to a quad core AMD.

I would love to see an option to run 4-8 cores. My desktop is 4 but my laptop is an i7 =)

[Coreldan]

While APB isnt exactly... the rolemodel of an optimized game, over in APB CPU is much more important than your GPU is. APB actually has some AI though, but it is by no means in an important role, it's mostly just the peds and the driving civilians.

My CPU is loads better than my GPU, but I sorta expected to upgrade from my HD5770 for PS2..