this stats output for a default rh9 install on a dual xeon 2ghz with 1.5 gb of ram.
CPU In Out Uptime Users FPS Players 48.50 37.65 45.28 40 106 49.84 17
map is aztec
jake
Matthew Donnon wrote:
<snip>
Alfred: All the testing machines you have listed are AMD based, or older intel base. Given that all these architectures are more efficient per clock cycle is HLDS really emphasising the calc per clock cycle disparity between intel/amd cpus? Is there any oppurtunity for Valve testing on an Intel machine? I may be able to organise the loan of a current spec machine if you are still based in Aus.
We have tested with other INTEL machines (in particular a dual PIII). Optmisation options at this time seem to be limited to choice of compiler (testing suggests that gcc 3.x doesn't provide any significant increase in
performance).
I wouldn't describe the p3 architecture as anywhere near current and in fact group it with p2/athlon as a more efficient per mhz chip than p4.
Specifically, have you tested with the p4 core as that seems to be the one with the most performance issues.
I do not think its an optimisation issue with GCC, rather that HLDS is in particular highlighting a weakness in the P4/xeon. The P4 is the architecture which intel sacrificed significant perf per mhz so they could ramp the mhz right through the roof. Looking at many benchmarks (admittedly none that have any real relevance in game serving) the P4 needs a 500-600 mhz boost over 32bit athlon, and nearly a 1ghz boost over 64bit athlon to post similar performances. SSE2 support appears to make the biggest difference in software performance and is something I'm sure hlds lacks.
Matt
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux