Steam Response Map Issue

[Ph?bus]

is that what mac guys think is alot?

GMA x3100 isnt really even considered a GPU around here

desktop rendering processor.
no graphics there.

 

[iOprah]

is that what mac guys think is alot?

GMA x3100 isnt really even considered a GPU around here

Well that is the minimum system requirements, and I would assume it wouldn't run to well on that because even on mine (when on the highest graphic settings) it starts kicking my fans up and uses a good chunk of my computing power.

 

[reflex99]

dual core+ low end gpu

mhmm there's your problem

 

[iOprah]

dual core+ low end gpu

mhmm there's your problem

I don't have a dual core...or a low end gpu....

 

[reflex99]

I don't have a dual core...or a low end gpu....

you were using the mac pro for this?

I thought we were refering to the 17" i7 one?

and iirc, the GT330m has only 48 SPs, that is pretty low compared to most GPUs

 

[iOprah]

I tried the steam thing on my Mac Pro and it had the same problem, and my macbook pro i7 is a quad core. It has two gpus, one integrated one separate..

 

[reflex99]

The i7 in the macbook pro is a dual core.....

You can upgrade the processor in your MacBook Pro to a 2.66GHz or 2.8GHz Intel Core i7 processor ? the fastest dual-core processor available, featuring a 4MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.46GHz.

and like i said earlier... openGL

 

[iOprah]

The i7 in the macbook pro is a dual core.....



and like i said earlier... openGL

w/e it has hyper-threading recognizes as 4 cores, on both OSX and on windows 7.

 

[reflex99]

hyper threads != real cores.

 

[CrazyKiller]

w/e it has hyper-threading recognizes as 4 cores, on both OSX and on windows 7.

hyper threads != real cores.

Yep. Hyperthreading is more of a performance hit unless you are using software (OS included) designed to take advantage of the HT technology. The software and OS have to be optimized and coded to queue process executions and time events, otherwise you will see quite an impact on performance.

The logical CPUs that are created by Hyperthreading are not capable of executing main execution resources, only processes designed for SMP-aware systems and that have HT/multi-threading support.

Also, if the logical CPUs created by HT on one of the physical CPU's get completely utilized, the HT technology will slow down your system as the system has to wait for that CPU to stop executing it's current task before it can run the tasks in the queue. The other CPU will remain idle but the system scheduler would not be able to take advantage of the other CPU unless it was optimized/designed to avoid such conflicts.

 

[WarliKe]

Calm down! First thing first

1.- "HyperThreading - a technology that allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So a dual-core MacBook Pro has four virtual cores, all of which are recognized by Mac OS X."

2.- In my experience the GT 330M is more than capable for running source games, I have played this kind of games with a Geforce Go 6150 considered class 5 by notebookcheck. In comparison the 330M is considered class 2.

 

[CrazyKiller]

Calm down! First thing first

1.- "HyperThreading - a technology that allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So a dual-core MacBook Pro has four virtual cores, all of which are recognized by Mac OS X."

2.- In my experience the GT 330M is more than capable for running source games, I have played this kind of games with a Geforce Go 6150 considered class 5 by notebookcheck. In comparison the 330M is considered class 2.

Just because you can run more than on thread doesn't mean that it runs any faster. UNLESS your operating system and the software utilizing the HT technology is optimized for hyperthreading, and the system scheduler is designed to reduce queue and process execution wait times, you will see better performance turning HT off. Optimization is key here. Sure, OSX and Windows are SMP/HT aware and support it - but are they optimized to reduce wait times on HT processes or offload threads onto idle CPUs?

From my experience if I have a program with two threads running, those threads will land on a single CPU and it's logical processor. That CPU will be fully utilized rather than offloading the threads onto separate CPUs because the system scheduler was not optimized for logical processors (which are not able to perform the main execution tasks that a physical CPU or core can).

With that being said, two physical CPU's or two physical cores will always run faster, more efficiently, and with higher performance than two logical processers from Hyperthreading.

The only performance increase I have seen is a CPU in the same family (P4 vs. P4 or i7 vs. i7) at different clock speeds outperform each other because of Hyperthreading. A CPU at a lower clock speed with HT can run with a slight performance gain over a CPU in the same family at a high clocker speed with HT off, but the difference is minute at best.

 

[WarliKe]

Just because you can run more than on thread doesn't mean that it runs any faster. UNLESS your operating system and the software utilizing the HT technology is optimized for hyperthreading, and the system scheduler is designed to reduce queue and process execution wait times, you will see better performance turning HT off. Optimization is key here. Sure, OSX and Windows are SMP/HT aware and support it - but are they optimized to reduce wait times on HT processes or offload threads onto idle CPUs?

From my experience if I have a program with two threads running, those threads will land on a single CPU and it's logical processor. That CPU will be fully utilized rather than offloading the threads onto separate CPUs because the system scheduler was not optimized for logical processors (which are not able to perform the main execution tasks that a physical CPU or core can).

With that being said, two physical CPU's or two physical cores will always run faster, more efficiently, and with higher performance than two logical processers from Hyperthreading.

The only performance increase I have seen is a CPU in the same family (P4 vs. P4 or i7 vs. i7) at different clock speeds outperform each other because of Hyperthreading. A CPU at a lower clock speed with HT can run with a slight performance gain over a CPU in the same family at a high clocker speed with HT off, but the difference is minute at best.

That was true with HT P4s, you'd get maybe a 20% boost.
On the newer Intel CPUs it seems to be equivalent to about 30-50% of a core for CPU-intensive tasks.

 

[CrazyKiller]

That was true with HT P4s, you'd get maybe a 20% boost.
On the newer Intel CPUs it seems to be equivalent to about 30-50% of a core for CPU-intensive tasks.

Really?

Is that 30-50% between CPU's of the same family or others? Either way, that actually is a pretty big jump in performance even if it's just between two CPU's of the same family at different clock speeds.

 

[Ph?bus]

That was true with HT P4s, you'd get maybe a 20% boost.
On the newer Intel CPUs it seems to be equivalent to about 30-50% of a core for CPU-intensive tasks.

No. HT still does nothing.
Unless, like Crazykiller says, the program is specifically designed to take advantage of HT. Even then, it's 30% more at the most.

 

[reflex99]

HT helps a lot in programs that can use 8 cores, such as video encoders and stuff like that.

and folding

still, it barely does anything for games

 

[iOprah]

HT helps a lot in programs that can use 8 cores, such as video encoders and stuff like that.

and folding

still, it barely does anything for games

Hey thats funny because as you all know, I do video editing, and use video encoders, in fact its the reason I bought my first mac. I don't "game" much, I play the sims 3 CS:S and sometimes DOD:S on realism night. I don't have any of my computers because I play games, thats what my rarely used xbox and ps3 are for. I use this for school, video editing,and webdesign. My mac pro does the same thing, except on a higher level, and it runs my home automation system. However when I do use my macbook pro for games it does work well, with all settings turned to the max I get 120-150 fps on CS:S. Mac OSX incorporates a program called grand central dispatch which manages system control, and optimizes the utilization of processing power.

 

[CrazyKiller]

Hey thats funny because as you all know, I do video editing, and use video encoders, in fact its the reason I bought my first mac. I don't "game" much, I play the sims 3 CS:S and sometimes DOD:S on realism night. I don't have any of my computers because I play games, thats what my rarely used xbox and ps3 are for. I use this for school, video editing,and webdesign. My mac pro does the same thing, except on a higher level, and it runs my home automation system. However when I do use my macbook pro for games it does work well, with all settings turned to the max I get 120-150 fps on CS:S. Mac OSX incorporates a program called grand central dispatch which manages system control, and optimizes the utilization of processing power.

Mac have their place (in the trash :chair, but I will admit they are useful in certain circumstances and have come a long way..

 

[reflex99]

I thought that we were talking about gaming here, and how HT is useless for gaming?

 

[iOprah]

When I play css All 4 cores are being used (2 real 2 virtual) Mac OSX uses grand central dispatch (mac program) to utilize the cores more efficiently.