Here's the jist: I'm looking for the biggest influencer of Galaxy editor's time taken to load new maps or shift to different chunks of the data editor etc and specifically I'm trying to make an excuse for myself to upgrade the ol computron :P I currently have a dualcore and I'm wondering how people with quadcores or better yet someone who's used it on both can say the editor is performing. Currently I find the program to be abyssmally slow loading and general responsiveness drops after x hours of it being used and especially if I'm frequently loading and unloading maps in it. Just now it took a full 47 seconds to load a relatively basic map and this is pretty unacceptable to me.
More detailed relevant specs of current configuration:
Intel E8500 @4.2ghz
4GB of DDR3 @ 1800mhz
2x8800GTX in SLI
2x500gb 7200rpm sata2 drives running in raid 0
win7 x64
So I'm inclined to believe the bottle necks would be data access or general CPU load, now if the Galaxy editor can use four or more cores effectively I'm thinking this would probably be the bigger boost to say just drop in a Q9550 and clock it up (I'm already using a heatsink that'd be more then a match for it). Since I rarely hear the HDDs ticking away once assets are loaded I'm thinking that going to say a 4xraid0 like I had a while back would only help on initial load. Again I'm looking for editor performance not in-game, in game this system runs like a champ, I'm just tired of watching the editor crawl whenever I shift around in say the data editor mainly.
Ed: I realize I can drastically speed up data editor view shifting if I turn on Show Table view but frankly I much prefer the default views.
What I'm looking to reduce is the time delays between say viewing different elements within mainly the data editor, that window takes like 5-6 seconds to refresh the right-side window whenever I look at a new object or switch to a different Data type. I'm just wondering if anyone has found those numbers can be lower with the better threading capabilities more cores would provide. I watched the performance monitor for a while and I can see the editor uses both cores, just wondering how much a diff there'd be if there were four of them instead of just two. If that doesn't improve the time it takes to refresh that screen's contents though then blah there isn't much point.
I've been delaying putting a quad into this system because very few things that are relevant to my interests gain any benefits from them over a dual...but if the editor does then that is just enough excuse to do it.
I have a pretty standard quad with a slightly better graphics card and i still get the editor doing its own thing whenever it wants. Changing between data type gives me a few second hang time (and i use table view) so i doubt upgrading would make a difference. O_o
Darn, well I guess the editor is just kinda slow at those tasks and not much can be done about it. Ah well thanks for the input then for sure, you probably just saved me about 300$, heh.
(at least until I get around to buying Civ5, which I know eats quadcores quite readily :P)
Unfortunately they are just brutally expensive for their trade off in speed and for this kind of task its kinda looking like it wouldn't really help any, so far I think the price/performance of multiple magnetic disks running in a raid is much nicer...for now...believe I salivate over the thoughts of SSDs :P
Normally I'm totally into that thought train for computers but sadly I've gone from working to back to college so my toy money has largely dried up and need to spend more conservatively until I'm out into the work force again, fortunately apart from SSDs and the 480GTX(finally, new beast cards! the gens between 8 and 400s have been pretty disappointing) there really haven't been that many big new things in the last two years for me to yearn about buying :P
80gb intel SSD for windows and games (with other drives for actual storage)
8gb DDR3 ram
3ghz intel I7
GTX 295
Startup of the galaxy editor takes <5 seconds. Loading a map <10s (varies on size). Only time I ever notice delays is when in the data editor and I switch tabs without any filters up. IE viewing every single effect on the list will make it stutter for a second or two.
Although I have noticed the editor likes to heat up my CPU when in terrain view and zoomed way out with the far clip set high. Nothing dangerous, but I've seen it get up into the low 60's which is about the highest it's ever been.
Okay, it takes me about 15 seconds to load the map editor, 14 seconds to load my test map, and about 3-4 seconds to swap INTITALLY from one data chunk to the next. After that, it takes a second to swap. 16-17 seconds to shut down the editor.
My specs are: 2 GB Ram.
Intel Core 2 Duo T700 2.00 GHz processor.
Win7 Ultimate 32-bit.
200 GB hard drive.
ATI MOBILITY RADEON X1700 - 256 MB (total available graphics memory: 1023 MB).
My computer can run Starcraft II without lag on lowest specs, except it also has Medium Texture quality, and 3D portraits.
So... I only have about 10 second difference from most of you guys, but I think an upgrade won't make the editor THAT much faster. :P
Really eh with the data editor shifting view to different elements of those tables? Is that with table view or non-table view? If the quad really reduces the delay in non-table view I'm now more interested again in moving to a quad.
It just bugs the hell outta me for some reason to watch the thing pause so unceremoniously whenever you try to look at something (usually actors since that event table drawing tends to eat so much time) new in the data editor all the time.
Awe damn...that would make a lot of sense too....crap and raid0 amplifies the random access time on magnetic drives too...nuts...
ED: +the 8gb of ram probably lets the OS of choice keep those files its pulling the info from live in ram more easily too. Wait a sec...I7s chipsets far as I know use triple channel, how'd 8gb come from that?
It's only 6 gigs, just checked. Dunno where I got 8 from, then again I'm not that into hardware and just said what I thought it was. It's in non table view btw. Switching actors and letting the event tab fill up takes less than a second, scrolls right thru. I imagine the main thing is the SSD.
Yup the SSD greatly improving the speeds there makes a lot of sense, they have wicked low random access time and after some further testing by watching the resource monitor while I shifted around in the data editor it is definitely pulling that data from the disk each time you access something new. This also explains why my setup of a raid0 with two magnetic drives works against me since that increases the random access time. Strange that the editor makes no efforts to cache this stuff in ram but I guess its already got a big enough memory foot print that they didn't want to push it even higher.
Well I did just celebrate a birthday, perhaps I'll buy myself an SSD after all :P
They've come down alot now, only about 200 for an 80gig. Think that cost me about 325 about a year ago or so. Wouldn't go any lower than 80, it gets cramped fast and you only have room for a few games at one time on it. My WoW folder is 21.5 gigs, SC2 just over 8, and windows is taking up 24. Keeping it from getting cluttered is a pain but worth it.
Just did some preliminary looking around and so far it looks like crucial's c300 series or the OCZ vertex ones have pretty killer stats, and yah I don't think anything less then 120gb would do me nicely, the more I think about it this would be brutally good for fraps recording too and that devours disk space at a phenomenal rate. Was thinking if I can't find a decent single 128 for a good price there'd be nothing wrong with strapping two of the 64gb ones together into a raid as well ;)
Ed: whoa wait, the gskill 120gb phoenix pro is the king of that particular match far as I'm concerned, 260$ canadian off newegg is a decent enough price too. Turns out the c300s have brutally bad writing skills and the OCZs are all priced like they're made of concentrated unicorn farts.
Okay, the Phoenix Pro arrived this morning and I just finished getting it in place and happily mixed in with my hardware...and yah...the editor's data window is just fantastically more responsive now. Access time does seem to be the chief factor in how it updates its display. Plus well win7 barely gets time to display the logo during boot before it dumps me to the login screen, nice side effect.
Here's the jist: I'm looking for the biggest influencer of Galaxy editor's time taken to load new maps or shift to different chunks of the data editor etc and specifically I'm trying to make an excuse for myself to upgrade the ol computron :P I currently have a dualcore and I'm wondering how people with quadcores or better yet someone who's used it on both can say the editor is performing. Currently I find the program to be abyssmally slow loading and general responsiveness drops after x hours of it being used and especially if I'm frequently loading and unloading maps in it. Just now it took a full 47 seconds to load a relatively basic map and this is pretty unacceptable to me.
More detailed relevant specs of current configuration:
Intel E8500 @4.2ghz
4GB of DDR3 @ 1800mhz
2x8800GTX in SLI
2x500gb 7200rpm sata2 drives running in raid 0
win7 x64
So I'm inclined to believe the bottle necks would be data access or general CPU load, now if the Galaxy editor can use four or more cores effectively I'm thinking this would probably be the bigger boost to say just drop in a Q9550 and clock it up (I'm already using a heatsink that'd be more then a match for it). Since I rarely hear the HDDs ticking away once assets are loaded I'm thinking that going to say a 4xraid0 like I had a while back would only help on initial load. Again I'm looking for editor performance not in-game, in game this system runs like a champ, I'm just tired of watching the editor crawl whenever I shift around in say the data editor mainly.
Ed: I realize I can drastically speed up data editor view shifting if I turn on Show Table view but frankly I much prefer the default views.
I dont see what's wrong with you rigg... I mean... you can run all new on max games right ?
4GB is enough for Galaxy editor...
This looks more like show off to me.
@tigerija: Go
What I'm looking to reduce is the time delays between say viewing different elements within mainly the data editor, that window takes like 5-6 seconds to refresh the right-side window whenever I look at a new object or switch to a different Data type. I'm just wondering if anyone has found those numbers can be lower with the better threading capabilities more cores would provide. I watched the performance monitor for a while and I can see the editor uses both cores, just wondering how much a diff there'd be if there were four of them instead of just two. If that doesn't improve the time it takes to refresh that screen's contents though then blah there isn't much point.
I've been delaying putting a quad into this system because very few things that are relevant to my interests gain any benefits from them over a dual...but if the editor does then that is just enough excuse to do it.
I have a pretty standard quad with a slightly better graphics card and i still get the editor doing its own thing whenever it wants. Changing between data type gives me a few second hang time (and i use table view) so i doubt upgrading would make a difference. O_o
@Ruzial: Go
Darn, well I guess the editor is just kinda slow at those tasks and not much can be done about it. Ah well thanks for the input then for sure, you probably just saved me about 300$, heh.
(at least until I get around to buying Civ5, which I know eats quadcores quite readily :P)
get some SSD :D
Real men dont need excuses to upgrade; they just do it cause they can! (and to brag) :P
@Mille25: Go
Unfortunately they are just brutally expensive for their trade off in speed and for this kind of task its kinda looking like it wouldn't really help any, so far I think the price/performance of multiple magnetic disks running in a raid is much nicer...for now...believe I salivate over the thoughts of SSDs :P
@Ruzial: Go
Normally I'm totally into that thought train for computers but sadly I've gone from working to back to college so my toy money has largely dried up and need to spend more conservatively until I'm out into the work force again, fortunately apart from SSDs and the 480GTX(finally, new beast cards! the gens between 8 and 400s have been pretty disappointing) there really haven't been that many big new things in the last two years for me to yearn about buying :P
Running
80gb intel SSD for windows and games (with other drives for actual storage)
8gb DDR3 ram
3ghz intel I7
GTX 295
Startup of the galaxy editor takes <5 seconds. Loading a map <10s (varies on size). Only time I ever notice delays is when in the data editor and I switch tabs without any filters up. IE viewing every single effect on the list will make it stutter for a second or two.
Although I have noticed the editor likes to heat up my CPU when in terrain view and zoomed way out with the far clip set high. Nothing dangerous, but I've seen it get up into the low 60's which is about the highest it's ever been.
Okay, it takes me about 15 seconds to load the map editor, 14 seconds to load my test map, and about 3-4 seconds to swap INTITALLY from one data chunk to the next. After that, it takes a second to swap. 16-17 seconds to shut down the editor.
My specs are: 2 GB Ram.
Intel Core 2 Duo T700 2.00 GHz processor.
Win7 Ultimate 32-bit.
200 GB hard drive.
ATI MOBILITY RADEON X1700 - 256 MB (total available graphics memory: 1023 MB).
My computer can run Starcraft II without lag on lowest specs, except it also has Medium Texture quality, and 3D portraits.
So... I only have about 10 second difference from most of you guys, but I think an upgrade won't make the editor THAT much faster. :P
@Foolish_Fool: Go
Really eh with the data editor shifting view to different elements of those tables? Is that with table view or non-table view? If the quad really reduces the delay in non-table view I'm now more interested again in moving to a quad.
It just bugs the hell outta me for some reason to watch the thing pause so unceremoniously whenever you try to look at something (usually actors since that event table drawing tends to eat so much time) new in the data editor all the time.
it's not the quad, its the ssd. a lot of small hdd accesses slowing it down I guess
@b0ne123: Go
Awe damn...that would make a lot of sense too....crap and raid0 amplifies the random access time on magnetic drives too...nuts...
ED: +the 8gb of ram probably lets the OS of choice keep those files its pulling the info from live in ram more easily too. Wait a sec...I7s chipsets far as I know use triple channel, how'd 8gb come from that?
@BumpInTheNight: Go
It's only 6 gigs, just checked. Dunno where I got 8 from, then again I'm not that into hardware and just said what I thought it was. It's in non table view btw. Switching actors and letting the event tab fill up takes less than a second, scrolls right thru. I imagine the main thing is the SSD.
@Foolish_Fool: Go
Yup the SSD greatly improving the speeds there makes a lot of sense, they have wicked low random access time and after some further testing by watching the resource monitor while I shifted around in the data editor it is definitely pulling that data from the disk each time you access something new. This also explains why my setup of a raid0 with two magnetic drives works against me since that increases the random access time. Strange that the editor makes no efforts to cache this stuff in ram but I guess its already got a big enough memory foot print that they didn't want to push it even higher.
Well I did just celebrate a birthday, perhaps I'll buy myself an SSD after all :P
@BumpInTheNight: Go
They've come down alot now, only about 200 for an 80gig. Think that cost me about 325 about a year ago or so. Wouldn't go any lower than 80, it gets cramped fast and you only have room for a few games at one time on it. My WoW folder is 21.5 gigs, SC2 just over 8, and windows is taking up 24. Keeping it from getting cluttered is a pain but worth it.
@Foolish_Fool: Go
Just did some preliminary looking around and so far it looks like crucial's c300 series or the OCZ vertex ones have pretty killer stats, and yah I don't think anything less then 120gb would do me nicely, the more I think about it this would be brutally good for fraps recording too and that devours disk space at a phenomenal rate. Was thinking if I can't find a decent single 128 for a good price there'd be nothing wrong with strapping two of the 64gb ones together into a raid as well ;)
Ed: whoa wait, the gskill 120gb phoenix pro is the king of that particular match far as I'm concerned, 260$ canadian off newegg is a decent enough price too. Turns out the c300s have brutally bad writing skills and the OCZs are all priced like they're made of concentrated unicorn farts.
Okay, the Phoenix Pro arrived this morning and I just finished getting it in place and happily mixed in with my hardware...and yah...the editor's data window is just fantastically more responsive now. Access time does seem to be the chief factor in how it updates its display. Plus well win7 barely gets time to display the logo during boot before it dumps me to the login screen, nice side effect.
@BumpInTheNight: Go
I wish 100gb ssd's were as cheap as 100gb disk drives
going to update this weekend from c2d to phenom II x4. going to tell you what happens :)
edit: defragmentation has done a lot already. reduced it from 2-3 sec to 0.5 to 1 seconds.
used an O&O complete defrag