It seems that this game is unable to use more than 64 cores.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R83W2XR3IC8
#(Windows-specific) Support for more than 64 cores
grim wraith
slate hemlock
I think it's Unity's engine limit
grim wraith
I think it's Unity's engine limit
as i was always saying, they should just turn it into an api compatible fully bespoke unity replacement at this point
they already heavily modified unity and invented a new workflow
slate hemlock
and that's mean they need to change recommended OS spec to windows 10/11 Pro to support those much core
deep bison
as i was always saying, they should just turn it into an api compatible fully be...
They made an engine before and that took them more money and time to keep at desired levels than making their games with Unity
grim wraith
and that's mean they need to change recommended OS spec to windows 10/11 Pro to ...
no, processor groups API can be detected at runtime
not all computers need to be able to reach 1 billion citizens
smaller computers can get away with smaller cities instead
slate hemlock
no, processor groups API can be detected at runtime
that's new for me, I didn't know that before
make game support 256 cores
copper hill
Why wasting time on something like that ?
threadripper is not really for gaming
and not everyone want to spend 5K just for a processor
you can have a better pc for that price
gentle portal
checked the steam hardware survey. 2% of users have more than 16(!) cores. The number of people with 64 cores and more is so small it doesn't even give a percentage. The largest number of cores that still registered was 36 with a whopping 0.01%.
I'd say there's more pressing things to worry about
I dont see that changing any time soon either
grim wraith
checked the steam hardware survey. 2% of users have more than 16(!) cores. The n...
in this case, the game is already multithreaded. adding support for multiple core groups could easily be added by a refactoring and runtime detection.
thin rapids
they need to first fix the graphics problem
deep reef
What actually would be the benefit of supporting more cores for players?
Currently on consumer hardware the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D as being the choise on high end systems has 16 actual cores. Intels i9 14900k has 24 cores (16 "efficient cores", 8 "performance cores"). Threads don't count as the Threadripper even has 192.
Many people complain they cannot run the game properly on their 2017s hardware with GTX GPUs on 8 cores, so people using a Threadripper or other server CPUs for gaming is the niche of the niche and most games, consumer simulations or applications don't even come close to utilize even 64 cores, so saying the game uses "just" 64 cores is pretty dull imho (even in the video they appreciate that it's actually using 64 cores). I don't even know a single game which comes close to this level.
"they should just turn it into an api compatible fully bespoke unity replacement at this point"
"just" probably means another 2 years of development plus testing cross platforms ( keep in mind that the same build still has to run on Xbox Series which means additional testing of something bespoke on hardware not as easy to test using the dev kit only (ask Asobo how that went when it comes down to WASM support which went just fine on PC but not at all on Xbox OS...)) on a core team of maybe to who deal with that stuff to accommodate the needs of 0.005% of all players for the next 10+ years.
Outside of university and research things have to have a real value and have to be economic. It would be just a waste of development time and resources to care about this just to say "we can run on an infinite amount of cores for basically no reason!". More important is to make the simulation run as smoothly as possible for the other 99,995% of players because they actually pay the bills.
grim wraith
Threads don't count as the Threadripper even has 192.
The programming works in terms of those threads though, every CPU thread is a logical processor.
deep reef
Yes, but for the pure comparison it doesn't add anything if one compares 96 physical cores to 16 actual cores of a high end consumer desktop CPU or 192 available threads to 32 available threads. It still doesn't have any measurable benefit for consumers running less than 64 (physical or virtual) cores for years to come anyway.
grim wraith
"we can run on an infinite amount of cores for basically no reason!"
multiplayer comes to mind