Faster Memory makes better results. But you don't need it really: Compare these two:Jap2.0 wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 5:35 pm The conclusion I draw from that is as follows:
If you want to play factorio you need decent speed memory.
Code: Select all
400 MHz: 41 UPS
1333 MHz: 64 UPS
1600 MHz: 70 UPS
2400 MHz: 56 UPS*
2933 MHz: 101 UPS
3000 MHz: 83 UPS*
3266 MHz: 85 UPS*
Code: Select all
400 MHz: 36 UPS
1333 MHz: 51 UPS, 53 UPS
1600 MHz: 54 UPS, 55 UPS, 59 UPS, 61 UPS
2400 MHz: 48 UPS*, 55 UPS*, 74 UPS
2666 MHz: 87 UPS
2933 MHz: 63 UPS*, 91 UPS
2954 MHz: 91 UPS
3000 MHz: 75 UPS*
3200 MHz: 62 UPS*, 72 UPS*, 76 UPS*, 78 UPS*, 80 UPS*
3466 MHz: 67 UPS*
3600 MHz: 84 UPS*, 87 UPS*, 104 UPS, 104 UPS
3700 MHz: 96 UPS
3733 MHz: 75 UPS*, 91 UPS*
3900 MHz: 99 UPS
4000 MHz: 102 UPS
Code: Select all
667 MHz: 35 UPS*
1600 MHz: 49 UPS, 55 UPS, 56 UPS
1867 MHz: 55 UPS
2133 MHz: 61 UPS, 67 UPS, 73 UPS
2400 MHz: 55 UPS
3000 MHz: 77 UPS
3200 MHz: 64 UPS, 72 UPS, 85 UPS, 90 UPS
3600 MHz: 79 UPS
3700 MHz: 79 UPS
3800 MHz: 87 UPS
3867 MHz: 69 UPS, 78 UPS
I think the problem is more that they do not share the L3-Cache. Factorio communicates a lot with its RAM. I think on Intels a lot of this is absorbed by its L3 Cache. You don't have that on bulldozers. If one Factorio thread is communicating with the other they have to go over the RAM: Which has in addition higher latencies compared to Intel and newer processors.The issues with the Bulldozer having 2 cores share a single pipeline ?
The problem is: It can't. OS just sees: "Oh there are 10 Threads for factorio." For 90% of the applications it would be awfully stupid to put all of them on one module. – Wasting 6 of 8 cores. Only for factorio it makes perfect sense since the application has many threads but is a sequential application due to its dependencies.
