Moving DF to what's been the standard for computing for literally a decade, and taking advantage of modern compilers which have substantial optimization improvements, is a really good idea. ![]() ![]() There's traces of that already read "A bit of background on compilers exploiting signed overflow" for an interesting summary of the considerable overhead that using old-fashioned 32-bit loop index expressions can cause on a fundamentally 64-bit processor. Windows Vista, around 2006, was 64-bit for serious users, and Windows 7, around 2009, pushed 64-bit operating systems and compilers further into the mainstream.Īs DF goes forward, we don't want it to get so far behind that it slows down even further because it has to run on an emulator. 64-bit adoption in other markets was even earlier consider the Nintendo 64 of 1996 and the Playstation 2 of 2000. x86-64 (by whatever name AMD64, Intel64, etc.) was announced in 1999, and 64-bit CPUs for desktops have been readily available since at least 2004, and the default since around 2006. The *primary* advantage is that 32-bit hardware, and therefore software, is increasingly antique. (It's also not strictly the most expensive thing you need to buy, since you don't need to buy tremendous amounts of RAM for DF. Ultimately, this means that your RAM is going to need to respond quickly to queries of small bits of data that the CPU cannot predict like it normally can, so having the lowest CAS latency possible is the best way to improve speed. which again means a huge table of data too big for the cache. The big drains on FPS are things like pathfinding (which involves querying the map almost at random - which foils caching unless you have some crazy huge cache large enough for the whole map, and also foils prediction in slicing), checks on item status as you get more and more random garbage in your fort (again, involving checking such a large table of data it can't be cached), or fluids, which are problematic mainly because they force redraws of the connectivity map. The reason for this is that most of DF is not really complex math that will tie up a CPU, it's actually a bunch of "checks". What you really want is the lowest possible CAS latency. A quick Googling says that the best is somewhere around 128 mb in a L4 cache, which isn't really there yet, but might get there in a few years.įailing that, you want the fastest memory possible. Sadly, you'd need somewhere around to 1gb in cache to really run the game entirely on cache. You want a very large cache if you can get it. What really slows DF down, however, is cache missing. This means most mid- or top-line CPUs from the past 5 or so years are all going to be fairly similar, although I think i7s are the fastest single-threaded from memory. It's also worth considering how well the computer you buy will go over the next few years as the demands newer games make change/increase, if you think you might want to play them that is.įor Dwarf Fortress, multicores don't matter because it's single-threaded. ![]() Of course each game will have its own peculiar demands. This is probably a good starting point for a rough gauge of usefulness. In terms of other gaming performance the graphics card is generally (more) important and for most other games likely to be the limiting factor. For example an i3-4370 looks like a much better buy at only about $20 more. but there are better options in both regards, depending on what exact deal you could do. Looking at the second comparison on the page says that (at normal retail price) it is a passable buy. I'm not that tech-savvy but comparing here says that you would probably get a fair bit of improvement regarding DF. My understanding is that for Dwarf Fortress it is currently single threaded performance which is the limiting factor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |