MT 94-20131104 - Page 4

MT 94-20131104

Post just about everything that isn't directly related to Spring here!

Moderator: Moderators

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: gpl violation 94-20130812

Post by zerver » 14 Aug 2013, 00:25

If someone has a fancy hexacore i7, or a very high-end AMD with 6-8 cores, and would like provide a benchmark, please PM me. Thanks!
Anarchid wrote:Does it still only get to run BA? Or is it somehow capable of using LuaRules/LuaUI/LUPS/LUS/Lua-anything without desync?
AFAIK all games run fine and there are no known desync issues. The amount of Lua employed can be a limiting factor performance wise, because the Lua-based simulation code is single threaded, and is likely to remain so. Still, I expect even a Lua-heavy game like Zero-K to be >50% faster on gpl violation with a quad core. The ZK demo available for download on the gpl violation website indicates that this is also the case.

The BA demo rendering runs much smoother than the ZK one though, because BA supports ASIM and ZK does not.
0 x

User avatar
jamerlan
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 683
Joined: 20 Oct 2009, 13:04

Re: gpl violation 94-20130812

Post by jamerlan » 14 Aug 2013, 01:13

I have "hexacore i7", whay I need to do?
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: gpl violation 94-20130812

Post by zerver » 14 Aug 2013, 02:04

Great, check your inbox :-)
0 x

User avatar
jamerlan
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 683
Joined: 20 Oct 2009, 13:04

Re: gpl violation 94-20130812

Post by jamerlan » 17 Aug 2013, 14:48

zerver wrote:If someone has a fancy hexacore i7, or a very high-end AMD with 6-8 cores, and would like provide a benchmark, please PM me. Thanks!
Sorry I failed. I have only 4 core cpu. So person with hexacore i7 is still wanted!
0 x

User avatar
CarRepairer
Cursed Zero-K Developer
Posts: 3359
Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 21:48

Re: gpl violation 94-20130812

Post by CarRepairer » 17 Aug 2013, 16:34

jamerlan wrote:
zerver wrote:If someone has a fancy hexacore i7, or a very high-end AMD with 6-8 cores, and would like provide a benchmark, please PM me. Thanks!
Sorry I failed. I have only 4 core cpu. So person with hexacore i7 is still wanted!
Aren't you angry? That salesman lied to you!!
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: gpl violation 94-20130812

Post by zerver » 29 Aug 2013, 15:53

CarRepairer wrote:Aren't you angry? That salesman lied to you!!
Not the slightest bit, not only did he provide the first Linux benchmark, it was also the fastest result yet.

i7 hexacores are only 600+ bucks, so I'd expect someone to have one!
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: gpl violation 94-20130831 with multithreaded pathfinder

Post by zerver » 16 Oct 2013, 18:44

Spring 94.1 OMP vs gpl violation 94-20131015 MT-ASIM MT-APATH GML

First half of the vid is Spring. Game speed and FPS in top right corner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zcLFWjvkZk
0 x

varikonniemi
Posts: 447
Joined: 03 Jul 2011, 11:54

Re: gpl violation 94-20131015

Post by varikonniemi » 16 Oct 2013, 19:01

How much is the performance difference of current GIT vs gpl violation? To me it feels like GIT already has decent gains compared to 94.1 so this comparison is not really fair.

Impressive multicore utilization btw.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14598
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: gpl violation 94-20131015

Post by Forboding Angel » 17 Oct 2013, 12:51

Too bad that in order for it to be useful, you get to forgo your luaz.
0 x

zerver
Spring Developer
Posts: 1358
Joined: 16 Dec 2006, 20:59

Re: gpl violation 94-20131015

Post by zerver » 17 Oct 2013, 13:16

Forgo is not the right word. Of course it is up to you how you want to shuffle your EVO code around, but it is very doable.

I expected a MT version of Zero-K to be tons of work, but it turned out I was wrong:

http://www.file-upload.net/download-818 ... t.sdz.html
Last edited by abma on 28 Oct 2013, 00:11, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: rtsmp link
0 x

User avatar
AntiAllez
Posts: 105
Joined: 06 Mar 2012, 18:22

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by AntiAllez » 03 Jan 2014, 20:22

Benchmark results on:

NEW MT 94-20140101 vs Spring 94.1.1-826, BA SPAM demo, SimFrame @ 5:00

i7 2600K, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 176s
MT: 34s (415% faster)

FX 8350, 8 Cores, Windows
Spring: 208s
MT: 53s (290% faster)

i7 3630QM, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 203s
MT: 56s (260% faster)

PhenomII 840, 4 cores, Windows
Spring: 360s
MT: 96s (275% faster)

Core2Duo E6600, 2 cores, Windows
Spring: 334s
MT: 131s (155% faster)


MT 94-20131104 vs Spring 94.1.1-826, BA SPAM demo, SimFrame @ 5:00

i7 2600K, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 176s
MT: 40s (340% faster)

FX 8350, 8 Cores, Windows
Spring: 208s
MT: 63s (230% faster)

i7 3630QM, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 203s
MT: 63s (220% faster)

PhenomII 840, 4 cores, Windows
Spring: 360s
MT: 110s (230% faster)

Core2Duo E6600, 2 cores, Windows
Spring: 334s
MT: 148s (125% faster)


MT 94-20131015 vs Spring 94.1.1-826, BA SPAM demo, SimFrame @ 5:00

i7 2600K, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 176s
MT: 43s (300% faster)


MT 94-20130831 vs Spring 94.1.1-826, BA SPAM demo, SimFrame @ 5:00

i7 2600K, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 176s
MT: 47s (275% faster)

FX 8350, 8 cores, Windows
Spring: 208s
MT: 64s (225% faster)


MT 94-20130812 vs Spring 94.1.1-826, BA SPAM demo, SimFrame @ 5:00

i7 3770K, 4 cores HT, Linux
Spring: 142s
MT: 63s (125% faster)

i7 2600K, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 176s
MT: 72s (144% faster)

i7 870, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 215s
MT: 87s (147% faster)

FX 8350, 8 cores, Windows
Spring: 208s
MT: 96s (117% faster)

i7 3630QM, 4 cores HT, Windows
Spring: 203s
MT: 98s (108% faster)

PhenomII 840, 4 cores, Windows
Spring: 360s
MT: 214s (68% faster)

Core2Duo E6300, 2 cores, Windows
Spring: 479s
MT: 361s (33% faster)
Last edited by AntiAllez on 07 Jan 2014, 18:07, edited 2 times in total.
0 x

User avatar
Forboding Angel
Evolution RTS Developer
Posts: 14598
Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 02:43

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by Forboding Angel » 04 Jan 2014, 00:04

Yo dawg, I herd u had sauce code!
0 x

User avatar
Jools
XTA Developer
Posts: 2804
Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by Jools » 04 Jan 2014, 02:28

You should benchmark vs spring 95 or 96...
0 x

User avatar
jamerlan
Balanced Annihilation Developer
Posts: 683
Joined: 20 Oct 2009, 13:04

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by jamerlan » 04 Jan 2014, 09:13

Jools wrote:You should benchmark vs spring 95 or 96...
Sad but r-t-s-m-p is spring 94.1 based.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by smoth » 04 Jan 2014, 16:52

Doesn't matter the implication is that it is faster. If it is not vs the current what is the point.

Also if he fork failed to keep up with spring features it is vapor ware
0 x

User avatar
AntiAllez
Posts: 105
Joined: 06 Mar 2012, 18:22

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by AntiAllez » 05 Jan 2014, 00:21

bring up that crappy engine downloader ← thats vapor ware ;) and btw your level of informations about is getting worse xD

you banned that project and now you look like him:

Image
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by smoth » 05 Jan 2014, 00:26

AntiAllez wrote:bring up that crappy engine downloader ← thats vapor ware ;)
Give it a name
AntiAllez wrote:and btw your level of informations about is getting worse xD
What does that even mean?
AntiAllez wrote:you banned that project and now you look like him:{image from "nerd" humor show}
I don't watch that retarded show. Seriously, so you will have to explain the joke.



Image
0 x

User avatar
AntiAllez
Posts: 105
Joined: 06 Mar 2012, 18:22

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by AntiAllez » 05 Jan 2014, 20:04

Mt is included the most patches but v95 sucks alot, lets see how 96 works on multiplayer...
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by smoth » 05 Jan 2014, 20:46

AntiAllez wrote:Mt is included the most patches but v95 sucks alot, lets see how 96 works on multiplayer...
Detail how 95 sucks "a lot"(2 words mate)
0 x

User avatar
AntiAllez
Posts: 105
Joined: 06 Mar 2012, 18:22

Re: MT 94-20131104

Post by AntiAllez » 06 Jan 2014, 23:10

laggy and bugged - thats enough my dear? :mrgreen:

seriously, which mods working on it? BA TechA ... the rest is still on 91, 94 or awaiting 96
0 x

Locked

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”