ToiDiaeRaRIsuOy Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, LeftyRighty said: How fast the instructions are executing per second is irrelevant here. 1 core can only do one thing per tick, how many ticks it achieves per second doesn't change how it behaves, just how long it takes. Only if you want to make use of the extra cores. Again, software written to execute on a single thread will only be able to run on 1 core. Software written to execute on 2 (and only 2 threads) may run on 1 or 2 cores depending on the resource controllers in place. Again, the whole thrust of the explanation is that a thread is in software, core is physical hardware. A thread of code is executed by a physical core. I hear there is this newfangled device called "google"... I think that'll serve you much better than my uni textbooks by post Or you know, play the videos I posted here on this very same page. EDIT: of course this very own post springs to the next page. Common Klei, it's not april fools yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babba Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpy Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Well let's say you are a ultra gamer who hate those stupid pauses every day. They should add option for people with HUGE AMOUNT OF RAM 16-32GB to save game in background. They would just do raw memcpy or whatever it's called (ONI LOVES RAM) but gamer ram DDR4 3200：25.6 GB/s so even 8GB or allocated memory should take 0,31s to copy and it can just do that saving thing without bothering us. Yes double ram usage that's why you probably wouldn't want to do this with low ram machine and even 16GB would probably be borderline acceptable (24GB+ is a must). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oozinator Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, cpy said: Well let's say you are a ultra gamer who hate those stupid pauses every day... Very interesting. I did some personal studies about useless spent times in games (while in lobby/countdown for example). In World of tanks i have around 32.000 games and each has 30 sec entry timer.. I Spent 11,111 days in the waiting line.. For ONI that calculation is not so easy, because time increases with game cycles. Let's say you played 25000 Cycles and load/savetime is 5 min. average, then you spent 86,80 days in the save sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpy Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Wasted time. No I do not enjoy looking at save progress bar. Then again iron man mode! But power outage can be really nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babba Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Time is only relevant if one is not living in the fifth dimension, as a flat Cronut. 24 minutes ago, Oozinator said: Very interesting. I did some personal studies about useless spent times in games (while in lobby/countdown for example). In World of tanks i have around 32.000 games and each has 30 sec entry timer.. I Spent 11,111 days in the waiting line.. For ONI that calculation is not so easy, because time increases with game cycles. Let's say you played 25000 Cycles and load/savetime is 5 min. average, then you spent 86,80 days in the save sequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.