Would a quantum computer be enough to run this game decently?

Fule · May 2013

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22554494

A $15m computer that uses "quantum physics" effects to boost its speed is to be installed at a Nasa facility.

Jekt · May 2013

Only if its overclocked.

CyberKun · May 2013

Thing is only that fast for some math problems. Super useful for academics, mostly worthless for normal PC use.

Imbalanxd · May 2013

CyberKun said:

Thing is only that fast for some math problems. Super useful for academics, mostly worthless for normal PC use.

Thanks for setting us straight

Yuuki · May 2013

D-wave is not very well considered in the academic world:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400

>But of course, D-Wave’s claims—and the claims being made on its behalf by the Hype-Industrial Complex—are far more aggressive than that. And so we come to the part of this post that has not been pre-approved by the International D-Wave Hype Repeaters Association. Namely, the same USC paper that reported the quantum annealing behavior of the D-Wave One, also showed no speed advantage whatsoever for quantum annealing over classical simulated annealing.

Camron · May 2013

Nope. Only a nanite computer could run it.

ezekel · May 2013

I'm curious anyone running a 5ghz + clock? I'd assume around 4.6-4.8-5.0+ ghz on one or two cores you'd be able to achieve 120 frames constant

Jekt · May 2013

ezekel said:

I'm curious anyone running a 5ghz + clock? I'd assume around 4.6-4.8-5.0+ ghz on one or two cores you'd be able to achieve 120 frames constant

Nope, mine still goes to 50-60 minimum late game.

ezekel · May 2013

Jekt said:

ezekel said:

I'm curious anyone running a 5ghz + clock? I'd assume around 4.6-4.8-5.0+ ghz on one or two cores you'd be able to achieve 120 frames constant

Nope, mine still goes to 50-60 minimum late game.

What is your clock speed? and gpu also? resolution too? :P

Ghosthree3 · May 2013

I'm on 5.0ghz, drop to around 50-60 late game minimum like Jekt. I think my GPU is bottlenecking me even if it says 0ms waiting ... (GTX570). I'm on 1920x1080.

Scatter · May 2013

4.4 Ghz, 50 - 60 late game, 0ms waiting on 670 GTX at 1920x1080.

Jekt · May 2013

ezekel said:

Jekt said:

ezekel said:

I'm curious anyone running a 5ghz + clock? I'd assume around 4.6-4.8-5.0+ ghz on one or two cores you'd be able to achieve 120 frames constant

Nope, mine still goes to 50-60 minimum late game.

What is your clock speed? and gpu also? resolution too? :P

i7 3570 @ 4.6Ghz, GTX670, 1920x1080

There is no hardware configuration that can run this game at 120fps constant. It isn't possible.

ezekel · May 2013

Jekt said:

ezekel said:

Jekt said:

ezekel said:

I'm curious anyone running a 5ghz + clock? I'd assume around 4.6-4.8-5.0+ ghz on one or two cores you'd be able to achieve 120 frames constant

Nope, mine still goes to 50-60 minimum late game.

What is your clock speed? and gpu also? resolution too? :P

i7 3570 @ 4.6Ghz, GTX670, 1920x1080

There is no hardware configuration at all that can run this game at 120fps constant. It isn't possible.

Yes, the 5.0 ghz constant should be able to do it, also I'm wondering if I should OC my cpu to 4.6 ghz, I heard my aftermarket air cooler can handle it.. but meh not worth it :P

elodea · May 2013

If its not worth it, then why are you still wondering.

Nothing can run this game 120fps consistently. I doubt you can even get 120 in light combat.

ezekel · May 2013

elodea said:

If its not worth it, then why are you still wondering.

Nothing can run this game 120fps consistently. I doubt you can even get 120 in light combat.

I've had above 120 in light combat, during game start im normally 170~ fps; then it stays around 100, then in cyst heavy areas or a lot of enemies ill have 50~+ basically when you see me missing lots of shots my framerate is probably not good at the moment

on nsl maps it tends to stay decently high in a 6v6

i7 3770k @ 4.2 ghz if ur wondering
gtx 680 2 gb oced

SammyG · May 2013

I can understand that using such a high resolution makes the game look nice but since the dawn of time players have been lowering their resolutions to increase their performance among other reasons. I mostly get around 80 on public and above 100 in competitive matches on a mid spec system at 1280 x 720 @ 120 hz.

Koruyo · May 2013

@SammyG If only resolution would do something to your fps once you have a decent gfx card in your pc.

I just tested it the other weekend on my old pc... Intel Quad Core Q6600 OC@3ghz, gtx570 (a bit overkill for that cpu, but my old 8800 broke and we had the 570gtx lying around...), ingame fps of <=30 it stays exactly the same no matter if 1080p or 720p. (unplayable on that pc)

_________

From my main pc:
You do drop in the 50fps region(even in competitive 6v6 on esl maps) with a 4.5ghz i5, which is especially shitty if you play with a 120hz monitor (and well, competitive...)
So basically we still need like a 50-100% performance increase in spark to stop the whining.

GISP · May 2013

They only just managed to get about 10 atoms to work together, and can calculate single digit numbers.

QwiXXeR · May 2013

... Bitcoin

ScardyBob · May 2013

derWalter is apparently able to average 144fps: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2066155/#Comment_2066155

xen32 · May 2013

I think UWE should implement console command similar to Source's max_fps, but make it min_fps instead, and it should force that minimal framerate on your computer no matter what... oh wait

Locklear · May 2013

ezekel said:
Yes, the 5.0 ghz constant should be able to do it, also I'm wondering if I should OC my cpu to 4.6 ghz, I heard my aftermarket air cooler can handle it.. but meh not worth it :P

No, Dragon has tried above 5.0 ghz, it made no big difference and there were still FPS drops.

Xao · May 2013

Didn't ScardyBob do some huge graph porn thread on this before, I got a 3.4k i7 and 7970 and changing the res doesn't do a damn thing for frames, hovers around 80-100 first 15 mins and drops to 40-60 late game, feels bad man.

Camron · May 2013

Someone should start a thread where we beg Max to give LuaJIT another shot instead of wasting time on OpenGL (which I normally love). I know they said they broke compatibility when they made some engine changes, but I really feel like the future of Spark depends on it (or switching to another scripting language).

I really hope they plan on ditching or scaling back Lua's role in their next Spark game. The performance hit is just way too big for both clients and servers. Not to mention all the bugs it caused probably wasted all of the time it saved in development.

piratedave · May 2013

its the FPS DROPS that are the problem

i would gladly give away Max Fps inorder to get a higher min Fps and no huge drops

Tinker · May 2013

Do people really bitch (complain) about 40-60 FPS? Good god, I played for years on an old machine that could barely choke out 35 on a good day in source mods and it was completely playable. The only time I had issues was poorly optimized mods that run at 12-20 FPS which was barely playable (kinda like NS2 when I first started beta. Now that was BAD.)

Weird. I edited my post and now the curse word isn't asterisked out on my screen.

ScardyBob · May 2013

Xao said:

Didn't ScardyBob do some huge graph porn thread on this before, I got a 3.4k i7 and 7970 and changing the res doesn't do a damn thing for frames, hovers around 80-100 first 15 mins and drops to 40-60 late game, feels bad man.

Here: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2099234/#Comment_2099234

Basically, if your CPU limited, then lower resolution generally doesn't help fps, but if your GPU limited, then doing so does help. However, if your CPU limited, then a higher clockspeed will help.

My experience in getting the best fps in NS2 is this:

1. Increase your clockspeed as much as your comfortable

2. If 'waiting for GPU' is greater than zero, then lower your resolution till it stays at zero

3. Upgrade your CPU and/or GPU, rinse, and repeat

FLuX · May 2013

Camron wrote: »

Someone should start a thread where we beg Max to give LuaJIT another shot instead of wasting time on OpenGL (which I normally love). I know they said they broke compatibility when they made some engine changes, but I really feel like the future of Spark depends on it (or switching to another scripting language).<br />
I really hope they plan on ditching or scaling back Lua's role in their next Spark game. The performance hit is just way too big for both clients and servers. Not to mention all the bugs it caused probably wasted all of the time it saved in development.

Funny you should mention that.

kespec · May 2013

ezekel wrote: »

I'm curious anyone running a 5ghz + clock? I'd assume around 4.6-4.8-5.0+ ghz on one or two cores you'd be able to achieve 120 frames constant

overclocked 3570k to 4.6, no chance. but there was improvement. sad thing my current cooling system can not handle 4.6

Balmark · May 2013

ScardyBob wrote: »

derWalter is apparently able to average 144fps: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2066155/#Comment_2066155

144 .. but in his comment it's

1024x768 everything off for max fps

seems like cheating..

ScardyBob · May 2013

Balmark wrote: »

ScardyBob wrote: »

derWalter is apparently able to average 144fps: http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/comment/2066155/#Comment_2066155

144 .. but in his comment it's

1024x768 everything off for max fps

seems like cheating..

Player's have been doing that for years to max out their fps in pretty much all major fps games (all those Quake/UT players running 800x600 all details off). If you want better fps, you usually have to sacrifice resolution or quality. That's been true since the beginning of online multiplayer first person shooters.

Would a quantum computer be enough to run this game decently?

Comments