AMD Dual Core CPU's

Sasha Tsykin stsykin at
Tue Jan 31 09:56:57 UTC 2006

Billy Verreynne (JW) wrote:
> Sasha Tsykin wrote:
> > the majority of processes are handled by the cpu,
> > but the graphics is usually the point where the computer
> > can't cope. For example, my friend has an old p4 cpu from
> > 2 years ago with only 2Ghz
> <snipped>
> Well, who do I believe.. my own experience as a developer of over 20 
> years.. industry experts such as David Blythe, Microsoft's software 
> architect for Windows Graphics & Gaming Technologies... or you and 
> your friend's limited experience on an old system?
i don't care who you believe. It's probably much easier to agree to 
disagree, particular when you start with the insults.
> David Blythe, in his presentation at July's DirectX Meltdown 2005 
> conference (, flatly stated that "games are 
> CPU-limited".
maybe Microsoft games (as directx is a Microsoft library). In general 
the graphics card is more limiting.
> I'm moderate and co-own the X-Plane Development mailing list (see 
> for the software). I know Austin (the guy who writes 
> X-Plane) for almost a decade now. He on numerous occassions stated in 
> technical discussions we had that CPU is the major limiting factor. In 
> fact, in recent releases he switched to a multi-thread model in the 
> core simulator engine to address this and support platforms that have 
> the CPU capacity for it.
I already admitted that some games use this, but not many, yet. Likely 
there will be more, but not for the moment.
> >> What did you not understand Sasha? I clearly stated that even single
> >> threaded games are using a multi-threaded model when running on
> >> DirectX.
> >  
> > most aren't. You're not correct.
> Bs! Please show me a -single- game on the Windows market today that 
> does not use DirectX.
I was talking about multi-threaded support, not direct-x support. As for 
a single game that does not use directx, how about doom3. Or quake4. 
Neverwinter nights. You don't know what you're talkign about. Almost any 
game with a linux port does not use directx. They use opengl. That's why 
the developers made linux ports. Because its easy for them to port it 
because linux also supports open-gl. That's ok though. If you want to 
believe that all modern games use directx, you're welcome to. Clearly 
your developer experience is not quite so broad.
> And the processing model used by DirectX is not unique to Windows. On 
> all other platforms too there are things that a game does not have the 
> time to wait on. Like making calls to play sound. Reading textures 
> into the game cache. Making a network call during multiplay.
all of which is less demanding on the cpu than the graphics are on the 
gpu, particularly high-end graphics of the type you find in the most 
modern of commercial games.
> > if cpu requirements go up, that does not mean that extra capacity, 
> as you put
> > it will help.
> More bs. Or are you telling me that my 12 node Linux/Sun cluster is 
> not about CPU capacity meeting increase CPU requirements?
I don't care about your 12 node Linux/sun cluster. The need for extra 
cpu power does not mean the need for more cpus. If an application is 
single threaded 300 cups won't make a difference, so stop telling me 
about how important many cpus are. If you want to prove they're 
necessary, all you have to do is demonstrate that the majority of games 
are written as multi-threaded. As yu can't, because they're not, the 
point is irrelevant.
> > Extra speed will. Lower latencies will. A non-integrated sound card
> > will (lower cpu utilization). An extra core will not because this is
> > not mutithreaded.
> You are confusing ASIC's with multi-threading (a software model) with 
> the dual CPU capabilities.
I am not. Unless software supports multi-threading, hardware 
multi-threading will make no difference because it cannot be utilized,
> > no at all. It is usually a bottleneck, just not the most important one.
> Please tell that to the developers of today's game and that they have 
> it all wrong.
I have talked to them, and this is what they told me. I;ll believe them 
thank you very much.
> > I'm neither confusing nor confused.
> Ignorant then? Or simply having an opinion on everything?
Neither. I just know how to argue a point, and I don't try to insult 
people as part of my argument. If you want I can argue with you over 
whether that is good manners or just good argumentative technique, but 
this mailing list is not the place for that.
> > Starting with a manners breach is silly though, and does nothing for 
> you argument.
> When it looks like bs and smells like bs.. I call it bs.  But then 
> that is just me...
fair enough. Bad vision and a bad sense of smell. Incidentally, please 
stop insulting me. I've tried hinting at the need for manners, and it 
hasn't work so I will say this plainly. a) Insulting the opposition does 
not help advance your arguments. b) It makes it look like you don't have 
counter arguments of your own. c) Calling me ignorant is amusing and not 
offensive, and thus is not only counter-productive in general, but 
completely misses the mark in a specific sense too. Diversity of opinion 
is a good thing, and even if you disagree with me, and even if, by some 
chance I am wrong, keeping the discussion civil is the mark of intelligence.
> --
> Billy
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> This e-mail and its contents are subject to the Telkom SA Limited
> e-mail legal notice available at
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list