|
gary oldmans diary posted:Sounds kinda strange if the game fails on multiple CPUs instead of just not being able to take advantage of multiple CPUs. Factory Factory hit on a pretty good possibility: Factory Factory posted:IIRC it's a problem with sockets, not cores. Some games can't handle the way memory is managed in dual-socket systems. To explain further, in older PCs the memory controller was in the northbridge of the motherboard chipset. The CPU(s) communicated with it over the Front Side Bus and every CPU ended up with the same view of the memory. In 2003 however this changed when AMD introduced the K8 family. The Athlon 64s and their server counterparts in the Opteron line moved the memory controller on to the CPU package itself to improve performance, but by doing so they split the memory space so in a multi-socket system you now have as many independent chunks of memory as you have CPUs. Look in to NUMA for the details if you want more info. Intel switched to the same kind of design with an onboard memory controller a lot more recently with Nehalem (Core i3/5/7 and related Xeons). Basically multi-socket makes for a lot more complicated of a memory environment than a single socket system with the same number of cores. I'm not sure how this would cause a game to actually crash, it should only result in significantly worse performance if it needs to use memory attached to another socket, but it certainly is a notable difference tied specifically to modern multi-socket systems.
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 05:27 |
|