@PreDom I highly doubt your 6850 is the limiting factor in your system.[/quote] 3.1ghz quad-core Phenom shouldn't be too bad either. Damn this crap multi-core scaling.
no wonders with a shitton of GOTOs i bet the code isnt very runtime efficient ... obviously in the worst case (which seem to be more like the average case) it needs more then 16ms for a full cycle and gets hickups. though ofc its not the GOTOs themselfs, they aint costly, but "GOTO is considered harmful" - thats why
Ha I was going to correct you on your first sentence but, you corrected yourself in the next one. Really the only harmful reasons not to use goto commands is that it makes things harder to understand/maintain from a code maintenance stand point. If using jmp commands, assembly's version of goto, you can royally fuck up by jumping to the wrong memory area and trying to continue execution from there. If you want to get technical... if/for/while/do are all conditional goto commands witch boil down to jmp commands. Anyways.. nuff said. ITS BAD, MKAY?!
"goto considered harmful" is the paper which started all this discussions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful
Overclock that shit. My E8400 does 3.6GHz without breaking a sweat. Modern CPUs can do quite a bit better.
my Q9550 won't go over 3,55 My mixed pairs of "overclocker" DDR-800 and DDR-1000 just dislike going over 836 mhz :/ I'd post a complete settings list if anyone wants to help me go fasterrrrrrr.
What? I got my Q9450 from 2.66 to 3.6 on air with a slightly better than stock cooler. How are you having that kind of trouble with the Q9550?
My RAM + highest from SPD Timings Table (the stuff the ram is ment to run on) 2x A-Data DDR 800 4-4-4-11 (trc 20) 2T 2.0 Volts 2x G.Skill DDR 1000 5-5-5-15 (trc 45) 2T 2.1 Volts I run on FSB:DRAM = 1:1 FSB 417 = 834 mhz == DDR 834 5-5-5-18 (tRFC 54) 2T ~1.9 Volts (auto-voltage) FSB 419 = Unstable already. Trickster my CPU is fine, I do 3,55 with only +0,0125 Volts, but I fear using wacky settings on my mixed ram and just trowing out the "slower" RAM, to overclock more, is not an option to me. My mainboard has very advanced settings for RAM controll, but no one on the internet can tell me exactly what they are for and when to use them.
I have a 1.6ghz core duo mobile. It just screams to be overclocked, when it was colder I could get 0C with fans on ( temps sensor doesn't go lower ). sadly it's locked I can only underclock it to 900mhz ( luls )
LOL @ goto FUD; Valve wrote the code with the "gotos" which is only run on the server. Performance issues are because of only having BSP and not using more appropriate culling methods. The only way to fix that is to alter the Source engine or change engines.
How much work would upgrading to Source 2010/11 require? If that's even possible. I don't know shit about modding.
I had to ask myself that question. Multi-core support, I guess. As Empires is a mod for the Source engine, upgrading to a version that actually supports more than 1 core will automatically make the mod take advantage of that too, won't it? I think it would be a big step forward though. Maybe clog up a bunch of stuff for a huge patch, eg. take two or three excellent maps and make them stock, add some lovely trees, replace the shotgun pistol and replace the NF barracks + loads of bugfixes. I think it could bring some new players to the mod with the right amount of promotion. Tiny patches that fix balance issues and some bugs that barely occur for many doesn't attract many players.
A patch like that would be a large boon for Empires. The only question is if Empires could survive long enough for it to be implemented, because to do it in any reasonable time frame would mean that no work could be done on bugfixes and balancing in the interim.
It's a waste of coding man hours. the time it would take to do something like that , we could of made a playable empires version for UDK or unity.