OT: What DX10 (& quad core) is capable off

[DadJokeCinema 145]

Wait a minute. I thought the gripe of the moment was that they made the game look better without updating the realism for the hardcore? Did I miss a newsletter or something? Now we are mad because they ignored us and didn't make it look good enough?MAKE UP YOUR MIND I CAN'T KEEP UP!

[DadJokeCinema 145]

What's the difference?He's just saying that in theory, it does the same amount of processing as one 14.8GhZ processor. You're pretty much saying the same thing.The semantics don't really matter.

[Jack C 8]

That is incredible. I heard DX10 was gong ot be awesome but that is just unreal.

[Magic Man 2]

>Multiple CPUs are not additive. 4 3.73Ghz cores don't equal>one 14.8ghz CPU.>I don't know where some of you are getting this info from.>I'll give you lot an example, a silly example but you will get>my point.>1 car travels at 100mph,>Having 2 cars wont make any difference to the speed of the>car, but 2 cars will allow you to carry twice as many>passengers. Get the analogy?>Remember multiple CPUs are not additive. The total power>cannot be added up.>If you dont believe me go and do some research and come>back....Not additive but 4 3.73Ghz cores != 1 3.73Ghz core either.If you are able to run a single process entirely within one core and repeat that for each of the other three then, by common sense, you are processing four times that of one core. If you tried to run the four processes on one core it would obviously run slower than one per core.With regards you example...One car travels carrying a load as fast as it can.Quadruple the load and the car will travel slower because it has to do more work.Split that load over four cars and they can run as fast as the first, i.e. achieving four times the work in the same time.I've already done all my research thanks...

[Guest allcott]

OK, so it's not DX10, and we know that Multi-core is not supported in any optimised way by FSX.So these are pretty, useless to us in a flight sim forum, really? It's about as relevant as showing screenshots of Doom 3 to describe a Space Shuttle mission.Allcott

[Guest JohnEGPF]

Forget I,m right your wrong.What did you think of what you saw?, the Subtle things that make real look real are in there ... WOW:)John

[greggerm 312]

Jeebus guys. I'm fully aware that it's not a raw unfettered 13 ghz of power at the games disposal... but if you aggregate the total amount of "power" between the... oh nevermind. Sometimes I feel like the technically minded in here can be worse than the tech nitpickers over on airliners.net. Point. The video is not DX10. It's a serious example of multiprocessing being done on a 4 CPUs with a nice DX9 card. (lather, rinse, repeat)Open season on me saying its 4 CPUs and not a quad-core processor. Sorry - I'm cranky after a day of work.-Greg

[Guest FxF3]

>OK, so it's not DX10, and we know that Multi-core is not>supported in any optimised way by FSX.>>So these are pretty, useless to us in a flight sim forum,>really? It's about as relevant as showing screenshots of Doom>3 to describe a Space Shuttle mission.>>>>>>AllcottYep makes no sense. All it tells me is that my xbox 360 seems to be almost as powerful as a highend quad core computer system running the latest Video card since it seems Alan Wake will play and look the same on both systems.

[Guest nem]

>OK, this is not a flight sim & the camera work is not the>best, but look at the quality of the water, lighting,>instancing of trees, handling of physics (the tornado), etc.>and we start to get an idea of the power of DX10;It was mentioned before but it's worth mentioning again: this is DX9. But more importantly, this is quadcore. They use one core for the physics alone? If that's the result then I hope ACES are looking and learning.Yea I know "this is a shooter, it cannot be compared to a flightsim, this is completely different" yadda yadda yadda. Save it. Until recently I myself had the opinion that multicore won't do much for games. But Remedy obviously will prove otherwise (provided they are not lying to us about their use of multiple cores). So with this level of realism and simulation in a shooter engine allow me to ask: is it really still that much of a difference compared to a flightsim? Is it still so unrealistic to consider such an engine as a foundation for a flightsim engine?Regards,http://www.bremmekamp.com/img/misc/avsim.jpg

[Guest]

Looks very similar to the graphics in the Crysis demo which was running DX9 and shader model 3. As we know FSX is currently only using SM1/2. Its time for a big upgrade.

[Guest Babubhai]

I understanding what you are getting at now.You are right the AMOUNT of processing it can do is the same as a 14.8ghz CPU. But the RATE of the processing is not any faster than 3.73ghz.But many people seem to think that having more cores means a faster core clock speed when combined, which is not the case. This is what I was trying to clarify.

[Mace 1,904]

>I understanding what you are getting at now.>>You are right the AMOUNT of processing it can do is the same>as a 14.8ghz CPU. But the RATE of the processing is not any>faster than 3.73ghz.>>But many people seem to think that having more cores means a>faster core clock speed when combined, which is not the case.>This is what I was trying to clarify.>>Awais,No one here thought that. Only newbs think that way. Everyone here knows the RATE of processing is the same, no matter the # of cores...RhettAMD 3700+, eVGA 7800GT 256, ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8, etc. etc.

[Guest Sean Reeder]

quad core and dx10 look very promisingBTW alanwake.com i beleive has a higher quality video of the intel demo

[Guest drdaru1]

and now we have the start of our wish list for fs11, if it comes out.oh wait... I mean something NEW for the wish list for fs11...

[Guest Bottle]

Sorry everyone, I was led to believe it was DX10. Still impressive and points to the future.If you want a far future insight into computer technology, take a look at this article;http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4200Full photonic computers are becoming much more realistic. With a full photonic system, one is looking at massively parallelled CPUs and terahertz clock frequencies (i.e., 1000x faster than today's computers). This Intel breakthrough coupled with the already developed holographic memory could scale up to consumer items in, who knows, 10 years?