• throwwyacc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’d need to look at the actual implementation, it’s hard to speculate from a tiny amount of data. What game are you referencing?

    And as someone who has done multi threaded programming I can tell you that for games it is unlikely that they can just add more cores. You need work that truly can be split up, meaning that each core doesn’t needs work to do that doesn’t rely on the results from another core

    Graphics rendering is easy for this and it’s why gpus have a crazy number of cores. But you aren’t going to do graphics compute on the cpu

    • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      For that number to be 8 though suggests that there’s just a “number of workers” variable hard-coded somewhere.

      • throwwyacc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Potentially suggests, but does not prove And I’m quite skeptical they they truly have an example of a game that is running 100% on all 8 cores, high maybe but 100%?

    • deleted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was long time ago. I believe the game was BF1.

      I know it’s hard to speculate but 100% cpu usage for solid 5~7 seconds only for 8 cores cannot be separate workload (single threaded). A spike is understandable tho.

      The game play wasn’t impacted to be honest.