Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
2940
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 06:01:00 -
[61] - Quote
[WTT] kidney for more horsepower. EvE-mail me for details.
|
Amarr Citizen 1312151005
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 09:27:00 -
[62] - Quote
So we are talking about parallel programming right? If I am understanding this right anyways. And if this is the case there will be parts of the code that are sequential as well.
While I do not know enough about coding to know what those might be it is a little more easy to understand the limitations. A program like photoshop shop would render a picture faster is taking advantage of multi cores because each core could work on a different part of the picture as the same time Just like 1 guy painting a room vs two guys painting a room they can work in parallel with each other.
But if parts of the game require a sequence of events to take place before you can get from point A to point B I can understand the bottle neck as to why multiple core could not help to much. Just like two guys Would not roast a turkey any faster than one guy. The oven would still take the same amount of time to heat up and you could not get the turkey into the over any faster using more people.
Forgive my ignorance on the subject I am not a programmer by any means and simply trying to understand the limitations. And now for the stupid question of the day and trying to think of the proper way to phrase this. And I guess it will have to be a multi part question .
One is it even possible at this stage to even change the code to Support multi core?
I would imagine if the above statements are accurate that certain parts of the game that are sequential in nature would not benefit from multiple core while other parts might be able to work parallel together and therefor take advantage of multiple cores
And if this is also accurate could the code be written in such a way that it would be able to use multiple cores when it would benefit the game and just the single core when it does not? And would this even benefit the game at all ? Or would the actions that can not benefit from multiple cores just be a huge bottle neck and we would not see any real performance gain at all?.
Sorry for the jibber jabber nature of the post. As I said I am not a programmer so phrasing some of the things I wanted to say and or ask was a bit difficult at times and I did not really know how to phrase it all in a manner that was comprehensible. |
Carmen Electra
The Scope Gallente Federation
159
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 16:50:00 -
[63] - Quote
Amarr Citizen 1312151005 wrote:So we are talking about parallel programming right ...
Yes, you're correct. (I'm not an expert in parallel processing either for the record.) Parallel processing is good when you have a large "bucket" of data. GPUs (as opposed to CPUs) are purpose built to crunch numbers of buckets of data in a massively parallel way. This application makes sense when applying pixel shaders to a screen. Not nearly as much for the backend of a game such as EVE.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2316
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 17:02:00 -
[64] - Quote
/Bits/ of the code can be handled in parallel, which currently aren't.
Such as the client updates.
Right now, stuff is calculated, clients are informed, then more stuff is calculated.
What's being looked at already is: Calculate stuff, then hand it all off to another thread/process to take care of informing everyone, then immediately getting back to calculating stuff.
It's been talked about at fanfest, and there /should/ be a video somewhere starring CCP Veritas, talking about it.
'If it were easy, they'd already have done it.' should be the first thing you should always think. The people dealing with the deep magic in Eve are pretty smart people.
If you know better: Apply for a job. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
NEW ORDER DEATH DEALERS CODE.
138
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 17:46:00 -
[65] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote:Amarr Citizen 1312151005 wrote:So we are talking about parallel programming right ... Yes, you're correct. (I'm not an expert in parallel processing either for the record.) Parallel processing is good when you have a large "bucket" of data. GPUs (as opposed to CPUs) are purpose built to crunch numbers of buckets of data in a massively parallel way. This application makes sense when applying pixel shaders to a screen. Not nearly as much for the backend of a game such as EVE. Eh, sort of. You're correct that pixel shading is one of the most usefull applications of parallel processing, and that is why video cards have hundreds of cores. The thing is, some of the most linearly designed modern desktop applications can have upwards of 16 threads. Eve desperately needs to be refactored to make used of multi-threaded processors, but the difficulty in doing so is massive.
Most of the difficulties with designing a multi-threaded application stem from having different threads trying to access the same data at the same time, or worse, having incorrect locking and actually operating on the same data and overwriting the other thread's operations. This can be fixed, but usually requires a top down approach to system design that is difficult to do with an already working application. Also, based on the performance focused dev blogs, ccp feels that they can tackle other performance issues and have noticeable improvements before the single threaded nature of the application truly becomes a priority. I hate to disagree with you,-ábut there is nothing subjective about "boring" in connection to "mining". -á-á-á-á -- Solstice Project's Alt |
Nariya Kentaya
Always Negative
812
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 17:58:00 -
[66] - Quote
Carmen Electra wrote:As a software developer, I find it pretty easy to spot the people who are using words like "code" but don't really know the first thing about software engineering. First, read this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.htmlSecond, people keep suggesting that EVE's code is in need of some sort of "optimization". Optimization isn't really a thing, and hasn't been a thing for many years. There used to be a time when programmers would comb through code, implementing things like loop optimizations, but that was 30 years ago. One the things that gets beaten into computer science students nowadays is that the first rule of optimization is not to do it. Hand-optimizing code has a greater chance of breaking the code than making it faster. Modern compilers optimize code to a far greater degree than even the most expert software developer could hope to do. Sure, there ARE always things that can be done to improve performance, but by the time software is 10 years old, it's probably running as fast as it's ever going to run. The problem with TiDi is that computers can only crunch numbers so fast, and when you get 4,000 people on a single node, then you start running into the physical limitations of modern computers. Sure, faster hardware may exist, but it probably isn't cost-effective for CCP. TL;DR. Stop complaining about TiDi. TiDi is the price we pay for being able to have thousands of people in the same system. "optomizing" in this sense, is making god specifically for a task and ran separately, than ahving everything under the sun including the POS run off Rat AI. most of the old-code tat tends to break alot was multipurpose and stitched together, none of it was made specifically for oen task and nothign else, so there are tons fo values a fight or action can induce that come back as an error in value and things die. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |