• deleted@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    My point here is the developer managed to split the load evenly between 8 threads. How come they cannot do it for 16?

    The keyword, evenly, means all 8 threads are at 100% while other 8 threads are at 1-2%.

    • throwwyacc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’d need to look at the actual implementation, it’s hard to speculate from a tiny amount of data. What game are you referencing?

      And as someone who has done multi threaded programming I can tell you that for games it is unlikely that they can just add more cores. You need work that truly can be split up, meaning that each core doesn’t needs work to do that doesn’t rely on the results from another core

      Graphics rendering is easy for this and it’s why gpus have a crazy number of cores. But you aren’t going to do graphics compute on the cpu

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        For that number to be 8 though suggests that there’s just a “number of workers” variable hard-coded somewhere.

        • throwwyacc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Potentially suggests, but does not prove And I’m quite skeptical they they truly have an example of a game that is running 100% on all 8 cores, high maybe but 100%?

      • deleted@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        That was long time ago. I believe the game was BF1.

        I know it’s hard to speculate but 100% cpu usage for solid 5~7 seconds only for 8 cores cannot be separate workload (single threaded). A spike is understandable tho.

        The game play wasn’t impacted to be honest.