Anyway to speed up time between turns?

[Wodan]

Won't your OS use the extra cores for other (background) processes, leaving CIV one core all to itself? Seems to me that it will in fact improve performance, to a greater or lesser extent depending on how much crap you have going on.

(The definition of "crap" of course being anything that is not Civ.)

Wodan

 

[frekk]

I would think that dual core wouldn't really affect things all that much since background processes (at least, the kind of crap put on package machines from major retailers) generally aren't using much cpu time ... it's the drain on memory that is the problem.

It would definately help at times when the background processes become cpu-intensive, like, for instance, if the antivirus happens to be set to do a scan or download an update while you're in-game.

 

[Wodan]

I would think that dual core wouldn't really affect things all that much since background processes (at least, the kind of crap put on package machines from major retailers) generally aren't using much cpu time ...

Then why does it have a readily apparent speed increase if you go to the task manager and set the Civ process to HIGH priority?

it's the drain on memory that is the problem.

Agreed drain on memory is a problem. Has nothing to do with the question of dual (or quad) cores though.

Wodan

 

[frekk]

Then why does it have a readily apparent speed increase if you go to the task manager and set the Civ process to HIGH priority?

I've seen no such increase.

Agreed drain on memory is a problem. Has nothing to do with the question of dual (or quad) cores though.

Wodan

Absolutely it does, if the issue of (garbage) background processes is a memory issue, and not a cpu time issue.

 

[Willem]

Won't your OS use the extra cores for other (background) processes, leaving CIV one core all to itself? Seems to me that it will in fact improve performance, to a greater or lesser extent depending on how much crap you have going on.

(The definition of "crap" of course being anything that is not Civ.)

Wodan

But a single extra core is more than enough for that, you don't need a quad core for that to occur. Quad Core right now is pretty much only useful for video processing or 3D rendering. Any thing else and it's overkill.

 

[Balderstrom]

By the time Quads are useful, it will be time to upgrade again - if they are even useful by then. Which was why I noted the review of the TriCores -- they seem quite capable at gaming, and priced competitively with Intel.

 

[Wodan]

I've seen no such increase.

Have you tried it? Obviously you have to have a single core machine to do this.

Absolutely it does, if the issue of (garbage) background processes is a memory issue, and not a cpu time issue.

Disagree, but I think you misunderstood me.

I said memory has nothing to do with the question f whether quad or dual will help.

If, as you assert, memory is the issue, then having the same memory with quad core would not help.

But a single extra core is more than enough for that, you don't need a quad core for that to occur.

Agreed

Quad Core right now is pretty much only useful for video processing or 3D rendering. Any thing else and it's overkill.

Are you speaking in the context of Civ? Absolutely I agree. In other contexts? Moot point but there is plenty besides those two things that would make use of quads. Simply having the OS utilize it will spread active processes out.

Balder: I'd say computers continue to have a new generation every 6 months. That's held true for the past, oh, 15 years, I suppose. For the average person, it's always a question of being on the cutting edge or of making a more economically-sound purchase and upgrading less often.

Wodan

 

[CivCorpse]

@ T.A. BtS has been out for only a year. Why are you still waiting for a bargain-bin copy? If you had saved $1 a week from your allowance you could have a copy by now.

 

[frekk]

Have you tried it? Obviously you have to have a single core machine to do this.

I have both, I usually play civ on the single core. It's got a really big monitor even if it is a tube ... kinda like the colours on the CRT better too.

I tried that, and I couldn't really see any difference. Mind you ... the only background processes running when I play are the ones that can't be shut down and still expect the OS to run, like csrss.exe etc.

What worked really well for me was unpaking the art files and disabling the pak mapper. Little slower to launch, much faster doing turns.

 

[Balderstrom]

@ Wodan: *chuckle* Well every 6 months is a bit of a stretch. Moores law has been fairly accurately pinned to 18 months. Though Intel/AMD/Nvidia/and old ATI were never on the same release cycle. And GPUs seemed to exceed that cycle speed previously. So depending on how you want to break up your computer hardware considerations, I suppose you could technically almost get away with saying 6 months.

But what I did say, By the time QuadCore is worthwhile/useful - ie... by the time software catches up with Hardware, it will be about time to upgrade.
Multiple cores have been out for years now, there still aren't any tools for programmers to design or compile code to support it. Apple has a kit in the works, that could prove interesting. Dworkin's Game Driver (DGD) was doing threaded code years before hardware knew what to do with it, and now that we have the hardware - almost no one has built upon that base. But I do digress.

So yes, if you need to be on the cutting edge, you would be looking at upgrades at least yearly. The cutting edge is an expensive and useless place to be. And quadcores are for most intents and purposes just another shiney bauble from the mighty hardware industry. But I bet Windows7 will be so bloated that it will need Quadcore and beyond ;-)

 

[frekk]

How I miss the 486 years ... when your chip and MB could be ok for five years or so ...

 

[Wodan]

@ Wodan: *chuckle* Well every 6 months is a bit of a stretch. Moores law has been fairly accurately pinned to 18 months. Though Intel/AMD/Nvidia/and old ATI were never on the same release cycle. And GPUs seemed to exceed that cycle speed previously. So depending on how you want to break up your computer hardware considerations, I suppose you could technically almost get away with saying 6 months.

Depends on what you call a new "generation" I suppose. I do know that I bought my current pc not all that long ago and already there are a handful of hardware improvements I don't have.

But I bet Windows7 will be so bloated that it will need Quadcore and beyond ;-)

Urgh. Don't get me started.

Wodan

 

[Willem]

Are you speaking in the context of Civ? Absolutely I agree. In other contexts? Moot point but there is plenty besides those two things that would make use of quads. Simply having the OS utilize it will spread active processes out.

No, I meant in general. There's very few applications out there that can really benefit from quad-core technology. Video production and 3D rendering are the biggest since they're dealing with multiple frames at once. As you agreed on, the OS of a system has ample power just by having a single core to itself, with another application dominating the other one. There's not really that much benefit for other applications to have another two cores to play around with. I can see games may some day put them to good use, but game developers are barely even taking advantage of dual-core technology at the moment. Most are still written for single core.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Since no-ones mentioned it.....

If RAM is an issue (which it sounds like it was for the OP) open the CivilizationIV.ini file and modifiy this line

; Allows some memory savings *** ALT-TAB WILL NO LONGER FUNCTION ***
MemSaver = 0

to

; Allows some memory savings *** ALT-TAB WILL NO LONGER FUNCTION ***
MemSaver = 1

this may help a bit ...

...............................

Glad to see T.A. is still around and as baffling as ever, he probably keeps codebreakers the world around in honest employment, trying to decipher what he's talking about

 

[Willem]

Glad to see T.A. is still around and as baffling as ever, he probably keeps codebreakers the world around in honest employment, trying to decipher what he's talking about

 

[Wodan]

No, I meant in general. There's very few applications out there that can really benefit from quad-core technology. Video production and 3D rendering are the biggest since they're dealing with multiple frames at once. As you agreed on, the OS of a system has ample power just by having a single core to itself, with another application dominating the other one. There's not really that much benefit for other applications to have another two cores to play around with. I can see games may some day put them to good use, but game developers are barely even taking advantage of dual-core technology at the moment. Most are still written for single core.

What I meant when I talked about the OS was that it shares out ALL running apps to however many cores you have.

So if you're running 24 apps of eaqual size and run priority, and have 1 core, then you're running all 24 on that one core. If, however, you have 4 cores, then the OS will probably put itself on one and 8 to each of the other 3.

Clearly, this should have improved performance over 1 or 2 cores.

Your point about each individual app not being coded to use multiple cores is accurate and I agree. I do not however agree with your conclusion that 4 cores is useful only for rendering or video, because it ignores the way the OS timeshares processes among available cores.

Wodan

 

[frekk]

So if you're running 24 apps of eaqual size and run priority, and have 1 core, then you're running all 24 on that one core. If, however, you have 4 cores, then the OS will probably put itself on one and 8 to each of the other 3.

Yeah, ok, but how often is anyone running 24 cpu-intensive apps?

Most of the time, the background processes, if you aren't deliberately running something, are taking up less than 2% of the cpu's time, and that's mostly just the OS. Unless a scheduled task comes up.

 

[Wodan]

Yeah, ok, but how often is anyone running 24 cpu-intensive apps?

Most of the time, the background processes, if you aren't deliberately running something, are taking up less than 2% of the cpu's time, and that's mostly just the OS. Unless a scheduled task comes up.

The whole point of multiple cores is to enable the computer to multitask. You're saying current user patterns don't run multiple processes so it's not a problem. I say current user patterns don't run multiple processes because it's a problem.

24 was just a number and I didn't say cpu-intensive. I was thinking typical TSRs. Your 2% figure seems like a good one. If each of 24 uses 2% of cpu time, that's 48% which will slow down your civ playing by HALF.

Here's another example if we want to talk about "cpu-intensive" apps: how about not 24 but FOUR (4)?

It's perfectly reasonable to want to play civ while my computer compiles a big project, downloads a 2gb file, and also does a database conversion of 2 trillion entries.

Wodan

 

[frekk]

24 was just a number and I didn't say cpu-intensive. I was thinking typical TSRs. Your 2% figure seems like a good one. If each of 24 uses 2% of cpu time, that's 48% which will slow down your civ playing by HALF.

2% TOTAL. Unless you're running a game or a word processor or a bittorrent client or like that, chances are if you look at your System Idle Process right now it'll be at something like 98.75% - on an obsolete single core with tons of bloatware, at that.

TSR?! Blast from the past! TSR is a DOS concept, it isn't used in Windows (though the background processes seem similar, they are not really). I suppose if you really wanted to, config.sys etc is still there (even in Vista).

It's perfectly reasonable to want to play civ while my computer compiles a big project, downloads a 2gb file, and also does a database conversion of 2 trillion entries.

Yes, absolutely, it will help alot if you want to multitask.

 

[Wodan]

TSR?! Blast from the past! TSR is a DOS concept, it isn't used in Windows (though the background processes seem similar, they are not really). I suppose if you really wanted to, config.sys etc is still there (even in Vista).

TSR is just a term, and a still-applicable one at that.

Anyway.... looks like we agree, now that we're on the same page.

Wodan