Grimrock

Petri is currently working on the Mac version, so he can tell us what the minimum requirements are. He probably has a goal what is acceptable. LoG1 required OpenGL 2.1 graphic cards and LoG2 probably requires OpenGL 4.5 graphics cards.

badhabit wrote:

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:My claim represents the reality more accurate then other claims....

Sorry but that's your personal reality.

Well, this was measured also by you, some reminder: max. 1.28 cores (0.16 * 8cores =1.28 cores).

My (and your) finds are that LoG2 does require(!) (at least) a dual-core. More than 2 cores do not have a large impact on overall performance but having 2 cores is a definate MUST!

Frenchie wrote:Petri is currently working on the Mac version, so he can tell us what the minimum requirements are. He probably has a goal what is acceptable. LoG1 required OpenGL 2.1 graphic cards and LoG2 probably requires OpenGL 4.5 graphics cards.

It's too early for that but i'm pretty sure that OpenGL 4.5 won't be the LoG2 requirement because there are too few GPU supporting it. For example none of the Intel HD's can do it; best they can offer is OpenGL 4.3 and that's on the newest generations only. Thus OpenGL 3.x seems a lot more reasonable.

Right now i would go with the same requirements for Windows and Mac.

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:

Dr.Disaster wrote: Well, this was measured also by you, some reminder: max. 1.28 cores (0.16 * 8cores =1.28 cores).

My (and your) finds are that LoG2 does require(!) (at least) a dual-core. More than 2 cores do not have a large impact on overall performance but having 2 cores is a definate MUST!

No, Log2 barely utilizes multicore systems (despite the quad core recommendation), what is a must is having a high clock rate. A 3.6GHz dual-core system is totally preferable vs a quad-or octa-core 3.2GHz system. What counts is mostly the clocking. (and it is not "at least" it is "at max" a dual core system according our analysis)

badhabit wrote:

Dr.Disaster wrote:My (and your) finds are that LoG2 does require(!) (at least) a dual-core. More than 2 cores do not have a large impact on overall performance but having 2 cores is a definate MUST!

No, Log2 barely utilizes multicore systems (despite the quad core recommendation), what is a must is having a high clock rate. A 3.6GHz dual-core system is totally preferable vs a quad-or octa-core 3.2GHz system. What counts is mostly the clocking. (and it is not "at least" it is "at max" a dual core system according our analysis)

Well then, i wish you luck in building a single core system that is able to perform similar to a dual-core (or better) with LoG2 and support your claim. Tell us when you did it.

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:

Dr.Disaster wrote:My (and your) finds are that LoG2 does require(!) (at least) a dual-core. More than 2 cores do not have a large impact on overall performance but having 2 cores is a definate MUST!

No, Log2 barely utilizes multicore systems (despite the quad core recommendation), what is a must is having a high clock rate. A 3.6GHz dual-core system is totally preferable vs a quad-or octa-core 3.2GHz system. What counts is mostly the clocking. (and it is not "at least" it is "at max" a dual core system according our analysis)

Well then, i wish you luck in building a single core system that is able to perform similar to a dual-core (or better) with LoG2 and support your claim. Tell us when you did it.

Twigroot forst, 640x400, CPU bound: 3.6GHz single core: 55fps, 2.8GHz dual core: 56fps

Beyond 1.6 cores no gain at all, only CPU clock scales linearly. But this was shown & debated already multiple times, I don't know why you resist this fact.

badhabit wrote:Twigroot forst, 640x400, CPU bound: 3.6GHz single core: 55fps, 2.8GHz dual core: 56fps

Beyond 1.6 cores no gain at all, only CPU clock scales linearly. But this was shown & debated already multiple times, I don't know why you resist this fact.

Still using fake resolutions nobody plays in? How sad.
Just in case you forgot: min res is 1024x768 or 1280x720 and even these are close to unreasonable today.

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:Twigroot forst, 640x400, CPU bound: 3.6GHz single core: 55fps, 2.8GHz dual core: 56fps

Beyond 1.6 cores no gain at all, only CPU clock scales linearly. But this was shown & debated already multiple times, I don't know why you resist this fact.

Still using fake resolutions nobody plays in? How sad.
Just in case you forgot: min res is 1024x768 or 1280x720 and even these are close to unreasonable today.

*sigh* you know very well the selected resolution has only to do with the CPU boundness. The engine is not magically optimized & behaves differently above 800x600.

Infact, you have a significantly stronger GPU, you can redo this CPU bound analysis for "supported" higher resolutions. Just pin the used core number for LOG2 to 1 and 2 (and more) and downclock the CPU via BIOS CPU setup.

badhabit wrote:

Dr.Disaster wrote:

badhabit wrote:Twigroot forst, 640x400, CPU bound: 3.6GHz single core: 55fps, 2.8GHz dual core: 56fps

Beyond 1.6 cores no gain at all, only CPU clock scales linearly. But this was shown & debated already multiple times, I don't know why you resist this fact.

Still using fake resolutions nobody plays in? How sad.
Just in case you forgot: min res is 1024x768 or 1280x720 and even these are close to unreasonable today.

*sigh* you know very well the selected resolution has only to do with the CPU boundness. The engine is not magically optimized & behaves differently above 800x600.

Infact, you have a significantly stronger GPU, you can redo this CPU bound analysis for "supported" higher resolutions. Just pin the used core number for LOG2 to 1 and 2 (and more) and downclock the CPU via BIOS CPU setup.

Oh! Suddenly you do acknowledge that having an appropriate GPU is relevant and it's not all about the CPU clock speed?

But seriously, why should i do this? It was your claim that just a strong single-core system is needed to run LoG2 in a reasonable setup and 1024x768 or 1280x720 as min req's are literally nothing since resolutions tend to go HD+ nowadays.

Frenchie wrote:My 27" Mac:
OS: Mac OS X 10.10.1 (Yosemite)
CPU: Intel Core i5 3.2 Ghz
Memory: 16 GB RAM (1600 Mhz DDR3)
Graphics: Geforce GT 755M (1 GB graphics memory). Maximum resolution 2560x1440

In general i say this mac should do ok.

What i can't say is how much stress this GPU will face when you try 2560x1440 with LoG2. On my PC i see a 25% fps decrease when switching from my native resolution 1920x1080 to nVidia DSR enabled 2560x1440. Thx to my GTX 760 i still get > 30 fps anywhere.

Most people that bought a new system will have something like mine. I just wonder how it will do against a Windows PC with similar hardware in DirectX and OpenGL in different resolutions. Is there a Grimrock 2 benchmark to end the core discussion?