COD only using 1 core and 32bit???

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by recoilfx

Actually multi-thread and multi-core are different.

CPUs can have more or elss unlimited threads (till memory/resources run out) - a thread is a small unit of processing block that the OS can schedule.

All threads within the mutli-threaded program must share the same core - unless they are multi-process (utilizing multiple cores).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multith...rchitecture%29

Sorry let me rephrase that - In this case mutlicore and multithreading is used to reach the same end result. (I indicated that this was a simplified explanation.). The wiki article is a bit outdated/strange as was noted at its start and its about the wrong type of "multithreading", completely different as it actually states it there in the first line. You are looking for this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessing
Or later in the aricle this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulta...multithreading

You are getting your definitions confused. CPU's can have multiple threads, but thats not what we are talking, because in the case of that wiki we are talking about active and innactive threads. So the cpu performs an action on a threads/process, then jumps and does another action on another thread. It is all done in a serial fashion.
When we refer to cores/threads in the context here we are talking about multiple *Simulatnous* threads. Ie its running 2 threads at once. Classically each CPU can run a single thread (which then jumps from process/thread to thread completing tasks, but it happens so quickly you dont notice that it is running everything on the computer by jumping around). Now if a cpu has multiple threads like a i7 hyperthreaded or a upcoming AMD bulldozer which uses hardwarethreading (its actually routed/processed in the core differently as the threads are manufactured, not simulated) it can run 2 tasks simultaneously. For example it can still have hundreds of proccesses but now you have 2 threads/streams doing the work that 1 did previously (the 2 work both at the same time, so before it might of run: game->steam->internet explorer->OS->game->OS. But with 2 threads it might be: 1:->game->game->game->game. 2:->OS->Internet explored->OS->Steam etc. So it allows a sharing of tasks of the ability to divide tasks up in order to "focus" on a process/thread.

[manfromx]

I'm in school learning about things like multiprocessing and multithreading right now actually. Heliocon is closest to the truth.

Definition of a thread

4. Computer Science
a. A portion of a program that can run independently of and concurrently with other portions of the program.

Threads are parts of the main process that typically have a much smaller workload than the main process. In single processor systems, programs still benefit from being multi-threaded for various reasons. However as Heliocon said, they are still processed in a serial fashion. On a multi-core system you can actually run these threads simultaneously on the other cores.

Since the Clod team has stated it's multi-threaded to run on multiple cores I'll believe them (maybe there is a bug currently, I don't know why the cpu usage is only showing on 1). What functions can be run on the extra cores is the main point. If only simpler functions can be run on them you'll see only slight gains from multi-core.

I've just really started coding and I can already see that getting the timing of your code and its threads to all match up so you have a smooth experience must be a huge pain. If some functions are always waiting on others you'll just grind to a halt.

If you guys are willing to check out the thread article on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computer_science)
you might get a headache but you'll see this is not a simple thing.

[recoilfx]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Sorry let me rephrase that - In this case mutlicore and multithreading is used to reach the same end result. (I indicated that this was a simplified explanation.). The wiki article is a bit outdated/strange as was noted at its start and its about the wrong type of "multithreading", completely different as it actually states it there in the first line. You are looking for this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiprocessing
Or later in the aricle this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulta...multithreading

You are getting your definitions confused. CPU's can have multiple threads, but thats not what we are talking, because in the case of that wiki we are talking about active and innactive threads. So the cpu performs an action on a threads/process, then jumps and does another action on another thread. It is all done in a serial fashion.
When we refer to cores/threads in the context here we are talking about multiple *Simulatnous* threads. Ie its running 2 threads at once. Classically each CPU can run a single thread (which then jumps from process/thread to thread completing tasks, but it happens so quickly you dont notice that it is running everything on the computer by jumping around). Now if a cpu has multiple threads like a i7 hyperthreaded or a upcoming AMD bulldozer which uses hardwarethreading (its actually routed/processed in the core differently as the threads are manufactured, not simulated) it can run 2 tasks simultaneously. For example it can still have hundreds of proccesses but now you have 2 threads/streams doing the work that 1 did previously (the 2 work both at the same time, so before it might of run: game->steam->internet explorer->OS->game->OS. But with 2 threads it might be: 1:->game->game->game->game. 2:->OS->Internet explored->OS->Steam etc. So it allows a sharing of tasks of the ability to divide tasks up in order to "focus" on a process/thread.

Oops, I guess I did get my definition wrong. I was always under the impression that applications are bound to one processor unless they are multicore aware, even if they are multi threaded. I guess I was wrong!

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by recoilfx

Oops, I guess I did get my definition wrong. I was always under the impression that applications are bound to one processor unless they are multicore aware, even if they are multi threaded. I guess I was wrong!

Dont worry about it. Programming is not my area (I am more into graphics because I dont have the patience to bughunt) and when I am typing I occasionally sit and stare at the monitor (thinking wtf am I typing?) because there are so many terms and the tech changes so fast that it can get overwhelming/confusing.

@Tanner - What I was thinking, ironic isnt it?