True I just figure if you are advising people to turn off or on some useful parts of your computer it should be for valid reasons.
Well this thread has been well and truly hijacked. I would prefer to know if we are going to get some optimization. ISI's silence on this is deafening.
You've made some very fair points that i don't have an honest answer to because you've brought me to the wall of what is my understanding and own experience of HT. Could a program that's multi-threaded and limited to 2 cores by design utilize more than 2 logical cores with and/or without HT?
Yes. Programs are not so much limited to two cores by design but they are designed around two main threads. They work in threads or processes and dont really know what the underlying architecture of the computer is, i.e. 2 processor, 4 processor etc. A fuller reply to your question is that the applications two main threads of execution can run on more than 2 cores but not simultaneously, the OS can move them around from cpu to cpu if it wanted to so while at times it could even occupy all 4 cores at some time during its execution, it wont be on more than two at a time.
I'm pretty sure they have responded in the last year that optimization was a WIP. Do you really think they will respond in every thread every time someone brings this up? You're being pretty over dramatic about this if you ask me. lol.
Ok, I'll join in the game and look at optimization as this magical process that makes things run faster and smoother. You don't know how much has already been done You don't know how well rF2 (in its current state) should run when 'perfectly optimized', so you can't tell how 'poorly optimized' it is now You don't know what work is currently being done (feature adding, bug fixing) that might delay optimization or require optimization of its own You don't know how any future work, currently in planning or not (which you also can't tell) will adversely affect any current efforts to optimize (ie changes that would work to 'optimize' the current code might be incompatible with, or 'de-optimize', future code) Yet, you ask about the possibility of getting 'some optimization' like none has been done. Again I'm following the theme of optimization being some mystical process that takes place separately from any other work. The OP even asks whether optimization will continue now that we're 'out of beta', despite the numerous posts from ISI explaining that development will be continuing for years, if it ever stops at all. Is there a point to these threads? Really?
What's the point of any thread. Just filling time yakking while we wait for the game to develop to the point where we can properly use it, i.e., modders take off on their projects, players finalize their hardware, leagues are formed, etc. You list all those unknowns. True, we know nothing of what has taken place or might still take place or is even possible to accomplish. What is ISI's goal? Do they have one? Perfect example of the "deafening silence". You poke fun, but of course there is no single quantitative figure to define success in FPS optomization. That doesn't make the question "stupid"... for lack of a better word. Right now for most triple screen users with "fairly good" systems the FPS pretty much sucks. How much optimization is needed? For me, double the FPS at least. So yeah I'm expecting disappointment.
Performance is not just about game engine itself. A great deal of performance is tightly related to the way content is designed. I wouldn't expect any radical performance improvements anytime soon. In fact, rF2 has some decent optimizations already, but they all must work within boundaries enforced by content. There are still some things, that can be achieved within these boundaries (like occlusion queries or geometry instancing), but they're not something that would change performance radically. For radical improvements, there would have to be radical changes to content, so don't get your hopes up.
I'm curious why anyone would buy an I7 and then turn Hyperthreading off? Would you have not been better off buying an I5? The turning off Hyperthreading to stop stuttering / Get better performance in games is a myth in my opinion. A total placebo. I had an I7 930 and now have a I7 3770k both watercooled and overclocked, the 930 @ 4Ghz on a H60 watercooler and the 3770k is now @4.5GHZ stock voltage on a H80i watercooler. I have ALWAYS left hyperthreading ON, i have never had a problem in any game i've played ( and that is a lot ). The only reason to turn off hyperthreading is to dissipate a bit less heat when Overclocking. I personally can see no other benefit.
At the time of the first i7's (mine is an i7 920), i5's were not in existence. I can't quite put my finger on an exact date as it was a few years ago now (i think it was when i was playing something like BFBC2) I found that performance was poor with very low fps and unplayable heavy stuttering. Thinking it was a gpu related issue, i tried all sorts of changes to the drivers, pci-e slot, etc, despite it having been an isolated incidence with that particular game at the time. I finally took a look online to see if i was the only one with said problems and found people with similar problems as I and advised trying with HT off. All I can say is that it did the trick beautifully and I have left if off every since. edit: did a little searching and came across newer threads from 2011 for bf3 with some people experiencing the same type of problem and some not: http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?m=1325010&mpage=1 However, what has drawn my attention in that thread is an observation made by this guy...
There is a point to these threads. Really. All of those bulleted items up there are the point of this thread. I want to know how much has already been done. I want to know how well rF2 should run when perfectly optimized so I can tell how poorly optimized it is now. I want to know what work is currently being done that might delay optimization or require optimization of its own. I want to know how any future work will adversely affect any current efforts to optimize. The point of this thread.
[h=1] Software release life cycle[/h] [h=2]Stages of development[/h][h=3][edit]History[/h]The origin of the "alpha/beta" test terminology is IBM. As long ago as the 1950s (and probably earlier), IBM used similar terminology for their hardware development. "A" test was the verification of a new product before public announcement. "B" test was the verification before releasing the product to be manufactured. "C" test was the final test before general availability of the product. As software became a significant part of IBM's offerings, the alpha test terminology was used to denote the pre-announcement test and beta test was used to show product readiness for general availability. Martin Belsky, a manager on some of IBM's earlier software projects claimed to have invented the terminology. IBM dropped the alpha/beta terminology during the 1960s, but by then it had gotten fairly wide notice. The usage of "beta test" to refer to testing done by customers was not done in IBM. Rather, IBM used the term "field test." .[SUP][1][/SUP] [h=3][edit]Pre-alpha[/h]Pre-alpha refers to all activities performed during the software project before testing. These activities can include requirements analysis, software design, software development, andunit testing. In typical open source development, there are several types of pre-alpha versions. Milestone versions include specific sets of functions and are released as soon as the functionality is complete. [h=3][edit]Alpha[/h]The alpha phase of the release life cycle is the first phase to begin software testing (alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, used as the number 1). In this phase, developers generally test the software using white box techniques. Additional validation is then performed using black box or gray box techniques, by another testing team. Moving to black box testing inside the organization is known as alpha release.[SUP][2][/SUP] Alpha software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss. The exception to this is when the alpha is available publicly (such as a pre-order bonus), in which developers normally push for stability so that their testers can test properly. External availability of alpha software is uncommon in proprietary software. However, open source software, in particular, often have publicly available alpha versions, often distributed as the raw source code of the software. The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software. At this time, the software is said to be feature complete. [h=3][edit]Beta[/h]Beta (in other words prototype) (named after the second letter of the Greek alphabet) is the software development phase following alpha. It generally begins when the software is feature complete. Software in the beta phase will generally have many more bugs in it than completed software, as well as speed/performance issues. The focus of beta testing is reducing impacts to users, often incorporating usability testing. The process of delivering a beta version to the users is called beta release and this is typically the first time that the software is available outside of the organization that developed it. The users of a beta version are called beta testers. They are usually customers or prospective customers of the organization that develops the software, willing to test the software without charge, often receiving the final software free of charge or for a reduced price. Beta version software is often useful for demonstrations and previews within an organization and to prospective customers. Some developers refer to this stage as a preview, prototype, technical preview (TP), or early access. Some software is kept in perpetual beta—where new features and functionality are continually added to the software without establishing a firm "final" release... ...more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
So, you're also OK by seeing the cars popping in your field of view? Even with 20 visible cars sometimes they pop up in mirror or in front of you, no to mention 10 visible cars... Don't you forget the 58 cars are not visible but their races are still being calculated.
