Help with Computer comparisons to improvement compiling speeds and mapping performance -1 reply

Please wait...

acrobat

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

29 Posts

0 Threads

#1 6 years ago

I am considering a new computer because I want more compiling power, but I am uncertain if any of the current generation of computer\chips is worth the cost or even that much of an improvement. I purchased my current computer in March of 2008 making it nearly 4 years old.

This is my current computer

GEForce 9600 GT 512 MB graphics processor Intel QX9650 3 gigahtz, 12 MB cache, 4 core processor (Two of these) Patriot 1 GB DDR3 1333 MHZ LL PC3-10666 AW110 AW110 XMP intel memory 32 bit windows Vista Nvidia nforce 7901 ultra sli motherboard

I was looking at cyberpowerPC's I this was the setup I came up with that was basically maxed out on most thing (the 3960 intel chip has 15 cache memory but is overpriced and barely any improvement in performance so most say to go with 3930.)

Windows 64 bit CPU:Intel® Core™ i7-3930K 3.20 GHz 12MB Intel Smart Cache LGA2011 (All Venom OC Certified) :64GB (8GBx8) DDR3/1600MHz Quad Channel Memory [+586] (Corsair or Major Brand) MOTHERBOARD (4-Way SLI Support) Asus Rampage IV Extreme Intel X79 Chipset Quad Channel DDR3 ATX w/ ROG Connect, UEFI BIOS, BT GO, OC Key, Subzero Sense & 7.1 HD Audio, Intel GbLAN, USB3.0, SATA-III RAID, 5 Gen3 PCIe X16 & 1 PCIe X1 [+250] NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1.2GB 16X PCIe Video Card (Major Brand Powered by NVIDIA) HDD:2TB (2TBx1) SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 64MB Cache 7200RPM HDD (Single Drive)

So I look at the comparison, and even though my computer is three months short of being 4 years old, I'm not seeing that much improvement. Certainly some, but I am wondering if I would get the benefit I would want out of a new computer.

Anyone have any insight into how much improvement I would see with a setup like that?




Jonny2199

Click >HERE< to find an idiot.

50 XP

18th September 2005

0 Uploads

1,046 Posts

0 Threads

#2 6 years ago

I'm not sure that you would need a super-powerful computer to compile maps for Jedi Academy. I had an old dual core and I've recently got an i3-2120 w/ nvidia gtx 560 and it is a heck of a lot faster. Check with someone who knows PCs because I was looking at i5s before a friend (who reviews various graphics card, processors etc. for a website) said an i3 is a lot cheaper and would offer pretty much the same thing for my price range.

Obviously, a top-of-the-range PC bought now would last a while and so you should try to spend as much as you can, but don't go OTT if you don't need an i7 fire breathing whatever. My PC isn't the best of the best but it's a lot faster than my old one and can run everything I've tried so far at max settings at 1280x1024 (using my LCD TV as a monitor) without any issues e.g. Crysis, Metro 2033, Just Cause 2... Steam deals in December sent me on a spending spree...

So, anyway, you WILL see an improvement. Things will load faster, happen faster and so on. An example from my experience is Mirror's Edge. My new PC has removed the 1 second "loading" that would momentarily freeze a level sometimes and the elevator sequences (which were designed to disguise loading screens) take less time than before. If Jedi Academy is one of the only reasons you want this i7, I'd recommend reducing some of the specs.




minilogoguy18

kitty dances for rep!

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

2,675 Posts

0 Threads

#3 6 years ago

4 years is a VERY long time in terms of technology.




Mr. Wonko

Addicted to GF

50 XP

24th September 2006

0 Uploads

277 Posts

0 Threads

#4 6 years ago
minilogoguy18;55995884 years is a VERY long time in terms of technology.

Actually, due to consoles slowing development down, a 4 year old computer may still do pretty okay. Mine's 3 years old now and was rather cheap at the time and it still works. (By now it's about time for an upgrade though.)

Still, it's surely long enough for a new pc to make quite a difference - even if you don't spend much. Actually, I suggest you don't spend too much - I'd rather spend €500 twice than €1000 once, that probably gives you better average performance over time. Hardware tends to get cheap pretty quickly and the price does not scale linearly with the performance.

In general the GPU is most important, as is having a fair amount of ram (4-8gb), while the CPU is not as important in most games. For compiling it's different, of course - the GPU isn't used at all there.

In general I wouldn't spend more than €300 on any component, it's probably not worth it.




Omegasigma

Mapper and concept artist

50 XP

16th March 2006

0 Uploads

1,484 Posts

0 Threads

#5 6 years ago

I built my machine early of 2011, its an i7, quad, not built for JA mind you, more for higher end games, but the larger but the 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores still peak at 100% usage when compiling a map, I do not know for sure if JA or GTK can take advange of multi-core processing, especially for compiling, I only saw a slight increase on compile time from my old 2 core generic intel ( E2200 cpu) to the new quadcore, then agian im also running a dinosaur for an OS so I only get 3.5g of ram Another trick for compiling speeds, Note not recommended, is to turn the entire map to detail, now this can have complications, its a double edged sword technique, since various other issues can happen ive found with this. but my old Dell P3, 1000mhz, 512mb of ram, with 32mb video, still runs JA on par with this, and even compiles on about the same speed DUE to my ISP resrtictions i need 2 pcs to lan test JA maps




MaceCrusherMadunusus

Movie Battles II Mapper

50 XP

12th January 2005

0 Uploads

323 Posts

0 Threads

#6 6 years ago
Omegasigma;5600454I built my machine early of 2011, its an i7, quad, not built for JA mind you, more for higher end games, but the larger but the 4 physical cores and 4 virtual cores still peak at 100% usage when compiling a map, I do not know for sure if JA or GTK can take advange of multi-core processing, especially for compiling, but my old Dell P3, 1000mhz, 512mb of ram, with 32mb video, still runs JA on par with this, and even compiles on about the same speed

Q3map2 is able to take advantage of multi-core processing and I am fairly sure GTK is as well, but JKA isnt.

No offense to you, but your maps are fairly basic and won't take much compile time at all. Which isn't a bad thing, just saying that it makes sense that they compile at about the same rate with your maps.

However, from my experience the CPU plays a large part in GTK and compiling. For those that know Republic Assault Cruiser (Specifically the large non MB2 version) one of the reasons I had to stop working on it was because my dual core (at the time) was no longer able to handle the map file (41,000+ brushes and tons of textures, models, etc). Getting a quad core really helped to make it atleast workable in the editor.

In terms of compiling, multi core and even hyperthreading plays a large portion. We will take two of my projects as an example. When I first joined the MBII team I had a dual core pentium d 2.66ghz processor. Which compiled the deathstar level in about 4 hours. Sometime before the map was released I was able to get one of the first 45nm quad cores from intel. Just this one upgrade took the compile time from about 4 hours, down to about 50 or so minutes. This seemed to be the running case with about every map I tried, the quad core seemed to roughly 1/4th the amount of time needed in a compile. Seeing as the newer i7s are much faster (regardless of actual clock speed) and have the addition of turbo boost and hyperthreading there's no reason that the compiles should not be even faster.

Right now, even with a quad core, I still have maps that compile for 11+ hours (Taris). As I said, it is not a newer i7 however that does not have hyperthreading or turboboost. A six core i7 (my next thing I plan on getting) would of course be of even more help.

@OmegaSigma theres no guarantee that turning the entire map to detail will be of any actual benefit. It is actually worse for the map to turn it entirely to detail. There is a happy medium of about 85-95% detail, and 5-10% structural (estimate) that will actually make compile times faster and for the map to have better performance.

If you're getting this for compiling, then definitely do NOT skimp on the CPU. Almost every engine that still uses some sort of compile (Including UDK) will need as much power as you can give it there. Although UDK has incredible tools for network compiles (using CPUs from multiple networked computers) its still better to have the best possible. Of course, games will also benefit from the better CPU (though not all)




acrobat

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

29 Posts

0 Threads

#7 6 years ago
Seeing as the newer i7s are much faster (regardless of actual clock speed) and have the addition of turbo boost and hyperthreading there's no reason that the compiles should not be even faster.

32nm doesn't seem that much smaller than 45 nm, which is what you have (and me.) I wonder how much better they are or if they are worth it. If it's just a 1/4X or 1/3X improvement idk if I would be that excited about it.

Are there 6 core processors out that you're talking about? I didn't notice any high end ones being talked about when I was looking?




MaceCrusherMadunusus

Movie Battles II Mapper

50 XP

12th January 2005

0 Uploads

323 Posts

0 Threads

#8 6 years ago

acrobat;560052432nm doesn't seem that much smaller than 45 nm, which is what you have (and me.) I wonder how much better they are or if they are worth it. If it's just a 1/4X or 1/3X improvement idk if I would be that excited about it.

Are there 6 core processors out that you're talking about? I didn't notice any high end ones being talked about when I was looking?

Heres one of the intel 6 cores I am thinking of getting: Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-3930K Sandy Bridge-E 3.2GHz (3.8GHz Turbo) LGA 2011 130W Six-Core Desktop Processor BX80619i73930K

The size of the chips actually do matter a lot and 32 vs 45 is actually quite a big difference. While the numbers don't actually seem so it allows for a greater amount of everything within the CPU. (Since they dont really ever come in bigger sizes) smaller scales actually are better for heat as well which allows for better overclocking. They also need less power overall.

As I also said, the i7s have hyperthreading and turboboost, which will provide much more of an increase from your q9000 series. (Turbo boost means it dynamically overclocks the CPU based on your task, and in a lot of cases that can take it from 3ghz to 3.6-3.8ghz)

Heres a benchmark comparison for ya PassMark CPU Benchmarks - Common CPU's You will find your CPU and some of the newer ones there (not the 6 cores) but as you can see, the i7-2600k more than doubles your point value in this particular benchmark. Even though they are both quad core, theres a lot of things that actually play into the actual power of that cpu. So its roughly a 2x improvement overall based off of this over yours.

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html <--- if youd like to see where the 6 cores are




Mr. Wonko

Addicted to GF

50 XP

24th September 2006

0 Uploads

277 Posts

0 Threads

#9 6 years ago
Omegasigma;5600454Another trick for compiling speeds, Note not recommended, is to turn the entire map to detail, now this can have complications, its a double edged sword technique, since various other issues can happen ive found with this.

It also helps to delete your whole map and create a small box instead. In other words, don't do this. You should know what detail is and use it appropriately - appropriately being the important thing.