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

[FINALCUT]

Originally Posted by Jimmuc

most games only utilize 2 cores and maybe 3 if it has too. PS2 may reach the 3 cores with so much going on but i don't really know for sure.

it's Ash from Alien, he was an android.

The first time I saw that scene was on VHS and I was eating a baked potatoe loaded with sour cream. I threw up all over the place. True story. To this day I don't eat sour cream.

[Rbstr]

I think he explained it just fine:
It'll use as many cores as it can without screwing it up for someone with a different number of cores.

Half the people on steam have a dual core system. If they want to have it run on a larger variety of systems, like they've said, you can bet they won't make a game that needs more than two.

Honestly, the CPU's on the market that makes much sense to buy for any gaming are quad core (Even Intel's Haswell next year is quad core). I don't understand the necessity of the question.

[Elude]

Originally Posted by KnightHawk ECID

Off topic but was is your signature, its kinda creepin' me out haha.

It's the android "Ash" from Alien.

[KnightHawk ECID]

Originally Posted by Elude

It's the android "Ash" from Alien.

Good thought it was some messed up gore or something, but what is all the white stuff

[Was_Ash_Emerald]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

I think he explained it just fine:
It'll use as many cores as it can without screwing it up for someone with a different number of cores.

Half the people on steam have a dual core system. If they want to have it run on a larger variety of systems, like they've said, you can bet they won't make a game that needs more than two.

Honestly, the CPU's on the market that makes much sense to buy for any gaming are quad core (Even Intel's Haswell next year is quad core). I don't understand the necessity of the question.

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....)

[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).

[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]

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

[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!

[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..

[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.