Current and future 32bit programs should not use x87, MMX, or 3DNow!. Skyrim PC received a fair bit of flack for failing to adhere to this (and for not turning on largeaddressaware).Originally Posted by Microsoft
Our mystery developer(s) didn't do that and I presume it was a purposeful choice. The idea of wanting to make sure a fourteen year old game retained it's ability to run on ancient equipment. The very definition of Microsoft's statement on backwards compatibility. Remember that the DX6 rendering path is still accessible to the game.
There are secondary arguments against MMX being worthwhile due to it's known limitations with regard to the mixing of integer and fpu operations. I don't find that discussion topical.
Thief 2 with patch v1.19
performance is greatly improved but it still uses only one thread.
Last edited by partol; 29th Sep 2012 at 19:12.
seems to be using both cores here.
Only 1/2 an hour? \O/ That's way better than it used to be with 1.18!~
The reason two cores are used is becaue windows can move a single thread from one cpu core to the other cpu core.
multi-threading = one process uses two or more cores simultaneously.
In order to prove there is multi-threading, it must be possible to show more than 50% total cpu usage on a 2-core cpu.
Or more than 25% total cpu usage on a 4-core cpu.
Or more than 13% total cpu usage on a 8-core cpu.
Last edited by partol; 30th Sep 2012 at 09:38.
It's worth pointing out that although modern compilers can produce code capable of multi-core use, it would still require the original code to have been designed with the assumption that multiple cores would be used. I've no idea about the original code for Dark, but I would have thought it reasonable that the code was written without multi-thread handling being used (things like mutex's and so on) since multi-core CPUs were very rare back then, so a compiler would struggle to parallelise the code.
I see only 12-13% usage while playing Shock 2 on my 8-core (4 physical, 8 logical) i7, so the engine is indeed a linear process.
greater than 12-13% (in your case) would indicate that, sure, but less than 12-13% doesn't mean it's not happening. Only that it didn't need those cycles for what it was doing. You can't prove it either way with less, only with more will you know.
Funny, when I look at my processes in HTOP (A console-based task manager for Linux), the game seems to only be using one core of my 4-core system. But it' using about 8-10% on Rose Cottages' epic front porch sequence, and the game doesn't hardly wince at the Castle in King's Story, so the optimizations really pay off. Still, I planned on buying a newer card: The ATI 4000 HD series has some minor graphical glitches which really stands out with the dark environments of Thief.
Also, I tried out Darkhook and it crashes now. Anyone know of this Dark Engine command prompt has any new features?
Not that it really matters, but looking at my cpus during a complete processing (32-bit lightmap lighting at the time, I think) I see all cores seriously active. My bet is that if DromEd itself is running on just one core, it has helper utility programs that spread the load. I saw total cpu spike above 55%. It's interesting to watch while DromEd chugs away at the misison.
Oh, my normal cpu levels are at 3-5%, so I think it's safe to say something DromEd does uses all cores.
Last edited by LarryG; 30th Sep 2012 at 03:46.
This is a great patch!
Small problem though; when picking up loot I'm missing the rotating item in the lower right corner now.
Any suggestions? Thanks!