Is BF2 Multi-Threaded?

[MBrown]

?

 

[nsafreak]

I don't believe that it is multi-threaded. Come to think of it the only game that I can think of that was multi-threaded was Quake 3.

 

[watdahel]

I would think yes given that you got multiple people playing and it would be more efficient if you got multiple threaded AIs.

 

[MBrown]

I hope at least.

 

[Concillian]

I HIGHLY doubt it.

BFV was not and "you got multiple people playing and it would be more efficient if you got multiple threaded Als." (to try to demonstrate why erwin1978's logic may not be very valid).

Given the recent hype of dual-core CPUs, don't you think if there would be considerable hype about a multi-threaded game?

Anyway the BF series has never been CPU hogs, they've been some of the least CPU demanding games compared to other games available at the time. From what I've seen of the BF2 demo, it doesn't appear to be any different.

 

[kojava]

It presume it is threaded because if you Ctrl-Alt-Del and look at the running process for the game in the Windows Task Manger while the game is running, the thread count column is greater than 1 (in my case it is 12).

 

[MBrown]

wait. I have almost 400 threads and I dont even have anything on. Whats going on there?

 

[Concillian]

Yeah, I don't think that's accurate, I can startup windows pinball and it has multiple threads listed in task manager, but I'm pretty skeptical that it's actually multi-threaded

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: kojava
It presume it is threaded because if you Ctrl-Alt-Del and look at the running process for the game in the Windows Task Manger while the game is running, the thread count column is greater than 1 (in my case it is 12).

Components like Direct3D and networking code are probably responsible for most of those.

To really earn a "multithreaded" title a program needs to be built to spawn threads that split up the game's most time-intensive tasks, not just count the bit of multithreading built into Windows.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: Concillian
I HIGHLY doubt it.

BFV was not and "you got multiple people playing and it would be more efficient if you got multiple threaded Als." (to try to demonstrate why erwin1978's logic may not be very valid).

Given the recent hype of dual-core CPUs, don't you think if there would be considerable hype about a multi-threaded game?

Anyway the BF series has never been CPU hogs, they've been some of the least CPU demanding games compared to other games available at the time. From what I've seen of the BF2 demo, it doesn't appear to be any different.

While the Client side was not a CPU hog, the Server Side / AI Side is, especially with bots (at least with BF 1942 and BF Vietnam.) Even running a linux dedicated server , my old spare Athlon XP 2000+ box could only handle 30-40 bots or so in BF Vietnam before LAN games would lag and have ping spikes > 50. Granted the Athlon XP wasn't top of the line when BF Vietnam came out, however, making the game multithreaded (even if it was just 1 AI thread, and 1 thread for everything else), would make a BIG difference for little lan games with lots of bots and a few people. (Assuming the server was SMP or Dual Core)

 

[CubicZirconia]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: Concillian
I HIGHLY doubt it.

BFV was not and "you got multiple people playing and it would be more efficient if you got multiple threaded Als." (to try to demonstrate why erwin1978's logic may not be very valid).

Given the recent hype of dual-core CPUs, don't you think if there would be considerable hype about a multi-threaded game?

Anyway the BF series has never been CPU hogs, they've been some of the least CPU demanding games compared to other games available at the time. From what I've seen of the BF2 demo, it doesn't appear to be any different.

While the Client side was not a CPU hog, the Server Side / AI Side is, especially with bots (at least with BF 1942 and BF Vietnam.) Even running a linux dedicated server , my old spare Athlon XP 2000+ box could only handle 30-40 bots or so in BF Vietnam before LAN games would lag and have ping spikes > 50. Granted the Athlon XP wasn't top of the line when BF Vietnam came out, however, making the game multithreaded (even if it was just 1 AI thread, and 1 thread for everything else), would make a BIG difference for little lan games with lots of bots and a few people. (Assuming the server was SMP or Dual Core)

I can't confirm that making the game multithreaded would help (I don't know sh!t about programming, and iirc it didn't make much difference in Q3), but I can confirm that BF bots are a giant CPU hog. Back in the day I used to LAN with some friends and 64 bots, and it reemed my then top of the line system.

 

[Concillian]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

While the Client side was not a CPU hog, the Server Side / AI Side is, especially with bots (at least with BF 1942 and BF Vietnam.) Even running a linux dedicated server , my old spare Athlon XP 2000+ box could only handle 30-40 bots or so in BF Vietnam before LAN games would lag and have ping spikes > 50. Granted the Athlon XP wasn't top of the line when BF Vietnam came out, however, making the game multithreaded (even if it was just 1 AI thread, and 1 thread for everything else), would make a BIG difference for little lan games with lots of bots and a few people. (Assuming the server was SMP or Dual Core)

And you'd only get about half as many bots doing the same thing in UT2004 in ONS mode or assault mode before that computer would be brought to it's knees. I use UT2004 as an example here, because it's release date was not that far from BFVs.

Compared to other, similar, games BFV was easier on the CPU. Of course if you run 30 bots on it it uses CPU, but compare that to running 30 bots in another dedicated server and it's a whole different story. My comments were intended to be relative. Is there a game of the same vintage with 30 bots that uses less CPU than BFV would? I'm not sure there is.