Hacker News Reader

Comment by munificent | Hacker News Reader

There is a potential counter-argument that this is because multicore is an example of a CPU feature that was not designed for videogames. :)

I don't know if that's strictly true, but I do feel games aren't as easy to split across threads/cores as many other types of software. Ultimately, a game boils down to one big giant blob of highly mutable and intertwined state (the world) that is modified very frequently with very low latency and where all reads should show a consistent view.

In other domains, avoiding interaction between different parts of your application state is a good thing that leads to easier maintenance and often better behavior. In a game, the whole point is having a rich world where entities in it interact with each other in interesting ways.

View on HN

If you're interested in how a game might use multiple cores, this GDC talk is worth a watch: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022186/Parallelizing-the-Naugh...

This one is quite good too: http://gdcvault.com/play/1021926/Destiny-s-Multithreaded-Ren...

I don't think any CPU features were designed specifically for video games. But video games often have workloads that fit nicely on top of the CPU.

You don't need interactions between entities at every point in time. There are very specific sync points during a frame and there isn't many of them (maybe 5 or 6). Your units can also be organized in a table where each row can be updated in parallel before moving on to the next.

Many types of software can get away using only concurrency or parallelism. Game engines have to master both. You want parallelism to crunch your unit updates and you want concurrency to overlap your render pass on top of the next frame's update pass.

To me the whole view of the game world being a "giant blob of highly mutable and intertwined state" stems from the fact that for over a decade all games had to do was have an update and a render pass in the main loop. So you could have a big mess because all of the world updates were serial, and so the developers didn't really experience the problems arising from such design.

Now it takes a change in perspective on how to structure code and data to properly exploit multiple cores to their full potential. It is certainly possible to have interaction in the game world and do it in a multi-core multi-threaded way, it just needs smarter structures and better organisation of data.

Game developers have and will adapt to this.

Its not nearly as easy as it sounds. I think game engine developers now understand multi-core a LOT better than programmers from most other domains.

Games are still just an update and render pass in a loop. Nothing will change that, they might be decoupled and overlapped but they're still present. They're just much more complex than they used to be. Some engines will fork/join at every step (sometimes hundreds of times per frame), others will build task graphs and reduce them and a 3rd team will use fibers to build implicit graphs. No matter what you do you're still executing code with very clean sequential dependencies.

Game engines started going multi-core at least a decade ago. First by using one thread per system, then moving towards tasks. Today I don't know of any AAA game engine not already parallelizing its render path and unit updates massively.

Games simulate the world, more or less. The world has mutable state.

> There is a potential counter-argument that this is because multicore is an example of a CPU feature that was not designed for videogames.

That's a common trope; it mostly applies to the rendering path. AI / Physic engines are nicely scalable with the number of cores (AI in particular, because a) it's oftern agent based, which naturally work concurrently and b) with AI, slighly relaxed synchronization constraints sometimes generate some desirable degrees of fuzziness and unpredictability ... although this is probably a very slippery slope ...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com