Celestia Forums

In the most detailed addons,I barely get 20 fps (Mars 2 and Titan light,for example) and even in big models,I get around 30 fps,without AA and AF,in 800X600.The question is if Celestia is already optimized to dual core.I don??t know if it worth waiting 6 months or 1 year to get a dual core or should I do it now...
Is it worth to Change only my CPU to a Athlon64 X2 3800 OR 4200 939?
Or should I wait a few more months and buy an Athlon64 X2 AM2 and DDR2 memory,letting only the video card to be changed around the end of 2008?

No matter WHAT you do, you're gonna get screwed. Trust me here...

The technology appears to be advancing so fast that no one can keep
up with it any more. How long have I had my new machine now? One
month?

In that time, I've added 57 separate and distinct updates to the
Windows Vista system alone. This does not include optional updates
for things like sound, graphics, movies, etc.

Good Luck...

After having installed the Xp Service Pack II and being goto on the net, about 77 updates has been installed on my system. Obviously altogether once connected. I believe that the true dual core we will see it from the fan installed on the motherboard: two fan = two core. Two core one fan it's a trick.

Fenerit wrote:I believe that the true dual core we will see it from the fun installed on the motherboard: two fun = two core. Two core one fun it's a trick.

Huh?

I do not recommend buying a AM2 setup at all. Not only are Intel's Core2 Duos quite a bit faster, but before long AMD will be coming out with AM3 socket stuff running DDR3 RAM. I bought my 939 setup right as the AM2 stuff came out, and I regret that now.

I just did a quick test in Celestia, buy floating along with the ISS over Earth. When running with both cores, I get around 42-45 FPS. When I use the Set Affinity option in the task manager to allow Celestia to only run on one core, the FPS dropped to around 30 fps. After re-enabling the second core, the FPS once again jumped up to 42 or so fps. So yes, it seems to have some dual core optimization.

I looked on newegg, and they have 4200+ for around $65. I don't know how much that would be for you, but you'd have to decide if that much is worth it to you.

Johaen wrote:

Fenerit wrote:I believe that the true dual core we will see it from the fun installed on the motherboard: two fun = two core. Two core one fun it's a trick.

Huh?

If with one core you obtain about 30 fps, with two core you should be able to obtain 60 fps. the 60 - 42 fps = 18 that you lost are converted in heat; therefore, two fan are required.

Johaen wrote:

Fenerit wrote:I believe that the true dual core we will see it from the fun installed on the motherboard: two fun = two core. Two core one fun it's a trick.

Huh?

Sorry: read fun = fan

Fenerit wrote:If with one core you obtain about 30 fps, with two core you should be able to obtain 60 fps. the 60 - 42 fps = 18 that you lost are converted in heat; therefore, two fan are required.

Assuming performance is limited by just the CPU, then yes. But it's not. There are issues such as memory bandwidth, and the graphics themselves.

Fenerit wrote:I believe that the true dual core we will see it from the fan installed on the motherboard: two fan = two core. Two core one fan it's a trick.

Two fans = two processors.
One Fan = one dual core processor.

Assuming equal clock speeds, performance should be similar.

BobHegwood wrote:No matter WHAT you do, you're gonna get screwed. Trust me here...

The technology appears to be advancing so fast that no one can keep
up with it any more. How long have I had my new machine now? One
month?

In that time, I've added 57 separate and distinct updates to the
Windows Vista system alone. This does not include optional updates
for things like sound, graphics, movies, etc.

Good Luck...

I wouldn't say get screwed. One should never buy the newest hardware but instead get stuff that has been out for a bit. That way you don't pay as much and besides, you don't really need the newest stuff anyways.

Reiko wrote:you don't really need the newest stuff anyways.

Debatable. Depends on just how pretty you want your graphics, or how fast you want your work to be done. I spent $1400 building my PC only a little more than a year ago, with nearly top of the line stuff. And now one year later, Crysis is unplayable on High and Very High settings, and only just barely playable on Medium. On Medium I get 20-30 fps. And yet those with their fancy Intel Core2 Duos and 8800 GTX are playing on Very High at 30+ fps. And all I can do is watch and drool.

Johaen wrote:

Reiko wrote:you don't really need the newest stuff anyways.

Debatable. Depends on just how pretty you want your graphics, or how fast you want your work to be done. I spent $1400 building my PC only a little more than a year ago, with nearly top of the line stuff. And now one year later, Crysis is unplayable on High and Very High settings, and only just barely playable on Medium. On Medium I get 20-30 fps. And yet those with their fancy Intel Core2 Duos and 8800 GTX are playing on Very High at 30+ fps. And all I can do is watch and drool.

That is where patience comes in. Wait for newer stuff to come out and then the stuff you would need for crysis will be cheaper since it isn't top of the line anymore.
You may be a little behind everybody else but you will be saving money.

Johaen wrote:
...

Assuming equal clock speeds, performance should be similar.

The problem in the argument is that a dual core processor is one processor; thus, an "equal clock speeds" would to say to half the clock for the two processor taken as a whole, not make it equal each one to the previous, which should be in conformity with a double speed; since two shouldn't be lesser than one, which is against math. I such way do one could suppose that the two processors have a double core, that is, a "quad" core and so on? This was my vague referring to that as a "trick".

Fenerit,

I suspect you are thinking about "hyperthreaded CPUs". They are not dual core. They try to simulate two processors in the microcode, trying to use more of the pipeline cycles that might otherwise be unused. They get about 15% more performance than a non-hyperthreaded processor with the same clockrate.

A core is different: 1 core = 1 processor. Dual core = 2 processors. Quad core = 4 processors on a single integrated circuit chip. (Some of Intel's next generation of multi-core chips will also have hyperthreading.)

Each processor (each core) runs at the full clock speed. With 2 cores, you can run two programs at full clock speed at the same time. If you have only one single threaded program running (like Celestia), one of the cores (one of the processors) is not used for anything and sits idle while the other is working. The current version of Celestia is single threaded and really cannot take advantage of more than one core. However, the Windows version of Celestia v1.5.0 is built with Visual Studio 2005, using its multi-threaded runtime library. That library may be overlapping some of the I/O to the disk and to the graphics display, for example.

Having an unused processor means that other programs (web browser, editor, system monitor, etc) get instant response because they can run on that otherwise idle processor. If you have a multi-threaded program, that program can use several of the cores at the same time.

Thanks Selden for the words. My obscurity it's more simple; for me processor = "single integrated circuit chip", the "socket", to say.

I hope this will not open a debate from danielj, but a long use of PCs (my first one was a Sinclair ZX, 1 KB RAM, on 1975, I suppose!), gave me the bad habit to try following the technical enhancements that occurred in all these years.
After so many years, and so many machines I changed, I can say it was the wrong approach.
Recently (two weeks ago) I changed my Athlon 64 FX-57 2.8 GHz socket 939 (with 4 GB DDR 400 RAM), with a new Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 G0 2.4 GHz, together with 4 GB of DDR2 800 MHz RAM, and, wow, after overclocking the CPU to 3.6 GHz (this CPU can bear even bigger ratings, provided that you add all the stuff needed to take it sufficiently cold) the difference is very big, so the improvement is absolutely worth the price.
But, as Bob suggests, the new generation CPUs are coming on the market in these days: they are the ones with 45 nanometre technology, that means higher clock rates and lower temperatures, so better performance.
If you want to stay tuned on technology improvement, you have to pay a lot of money, and moreover the advantage is not so big from one generation to another one.
Actually I change my hardware (CPUs and Memories) ONLY when the new stuff may give about a twofold increase in performance, and this means a change every 1.5, 2 years.
Moreover I don?€™t change to a newly released item, but I wait the announce of the new technologies, so the previous one can be bought at a very lower price.
Just an example: my actual CPU, when issued six months ago, was about 1000 US dollars.
Now, after the announce of the new 45 nanometre CPUs, its price was lowered to 250 US Dollars, so I bought it now, not previously.
The problem with graphic cards is even worst: in the last 5 years, from when I met Celestia on Jun 02, 2002 (hey, I?€™ve been the 115th to join it, I?€™m an OLD Celestian! OK, OK, I?€™m an OLD man, too!), I changed the card from Ti4600 to 5900, then to 6800 Ultra, then to 7900 GTX, and now to 8800 GTX.
A lot of cards, but all with notable increase in performance, and for my Celestia shows for the schools I NEED performance.
What I?€™m trying to explain is that probably the best way is to choose what each one TRULY needs and can afford.
My little cent.
Bye

Andrea

Generally, I agree with ANDREA. So to speak is said that "time is money"; else the equation...

ANDREA wrote:If you want to stay tuned on technology improvement, you have to pay a lot of money, and moreover the advantage is not so big from one generation to another one.

Now THAT's the most intelligent thing I've heard in this thread. Give
'em hell Andrea.

I simply had to upgrade, since my old system had been relatively
unused for a year. So, I thought "Why not go first class?" Although
I do appreciate faster times and "better" graphics, I'm almost ready
to go back to the hospital. This time for an ulcer, anxiety, lack of
sleep... Well, you get the idea.

I don't think that better technology is worth the stress index.

Reiko wrote:

BobHegwood wrote:No matter WHAT you do, you're gonna get screwed. Trust me here...

The technology appears to be advancing so fast that no one can keep
up with it any more. How long have I had my new machine now? One
month?

In that time, I've added 57 separate and distinct updates to the
Windows Vista system alone. This does not include optional updates
for things like sound, graphics, movies, etc.

Good Luck...

I wouldn't say get screwed. One should never buy the newest hardware but instead get stuff that has been out for a bit. That way you don't pay as much and besides, you don't really need the newest stuff anyways.

I'm with you on that one Reiko. Like Bob said, it's not possible to keep up with it - unless of course you're filthy rich and have money to burn. I've been saying it for years, said it once here in there forums and got blasted for it... never buy the first release of anything from Microsoft.

never buy the first release of anything from Microsoft

I really don't know why a lot of are nagging (to say the least)
about Microsoft,
of course a first product of Microsoft will contain bugs,
but doesn't that apply for ANY product, software or hardware, even our own Celestia has bugs, also the "official" releases do !!
If you don't want something new, with possable bugs or dissapointing performance,
stay off Vista, dual core, Celestia beta's and such, and wait for later editions.

Its up to you.

Ren?©

It's so true, initial releases by Apple are also notorious for containing bugs. The "negative black" ipod touch screens, condensation (!) and freezing in aluminium iMacs, etc. Always wait for the "version two" is my motto.