Where's the mac version of LoG2?

[Dr.Disaster]

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.

Here we'll have to wait until Petri finished and optimized the OpenGL version of the renderer.

Is there a Grimrock 2 benchmark to end the core discussion?

Sorry about this heated and also senseless core discussion.

As long as you have a dual core or better (like the i5 quad-core in your iMac) you are fine.

EDIT
Just checked: even the oldest intel-based iMac features a dual core so the number of cores should be the least of your worries.

[badhabit]

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

It's pretty "unsuddenly" as I was mentioning this in all our discussions: that Log2 is CPU AND GPU limited for reasonable resolutions. Which makes the engine pretty heavy and unique. And, regarding the original question, this leads often to overheated systems and bad performing Laptops (and even Desktop systems).

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.

Yes, I proved the CPU boundness and single core-ness of the Log engine already multiple times. But you seems stubborn and resistive against the insight that log engine makes no use of more than 1.6 cores despite being CPU bound (and a wrong AH advertisment with quad core req.), so I suggested a way for YOU which could help you to get insight. But sure, you are free to stay in your believes.

Is there a Grimrock 2 benchmark to end the core discussion?

As long as you have a dual core or better (like the i5 quad-core in your iMac) you are fine.
EDIT
Just checked: even the oldest intel-based iMac features a dual core so the number of cores should be the least of your worries.

No, again, this is wrong: more than 2 cores makes no sense and means for HW system normally less performance. Typical quad core systems offering a lower peak clock rate than dual core system, to keep the theoretical full load (all cores) heat production at bay, especially in laptops. But for Log2 only 1 to 2 cores are used but at full speed (CPU bound) so every clock directly relates to FPS. So the optimal LOG2 system is a beefy single GPU and beefy dual-core CPU with as high as possible clock rate.

For laptops it should be also clear that cooling (due to excessive heat production) and power consumption will become a problem as both GPU and CPU will run on full load. Reports of overheating systems are common.

[Dr.Disaster]

Even when it's only 1.6 cores this is more than any single core on the planet can handle which is the whole point in this nonsense debate. Of course you are free to overclock your AMD to 5+ GHz and try to prove me wrong. Unless you managed this i consider any claim that one can run LoG2 on a single core system in min req resolution (which is already so low that very few gamers use it anymore) and do satisfying gameplay a myth.

[badhabit]

Even when it's only 1.6 cores this is more than any single core on the planet can handle. Of course you are free to overclock your AMD to 5+ GHz and try to prove me wrong. Unless you managed this i consider any claim that one can run LoG2 on a single core system in min req resolution (which is already so low that very few gamers use it anymore) and do satisfying gameplay a myth.

I proved you already and gave you instruction to to it yourself with your system. I point out principle system requirements (which are given by AH wrong CPU wise) and engine architecture (which has heavy and atypical characteristics, surprising for new players), you seems to argue for the sake of arguing.

So, If you don't do further tests yourself and you can't contribute nothing new to the discussion please stop here arguing without base.

[Dr.Disaster]

All you prove is that you have to run the game in massive reduced resolution and lowest settings to bring your fps up to speed.

[badhabit]

All you prove is that you have to run the game in massive reduced resolution to bring your system up to speed.

*sigh* the clever resolution selection was done to point out principle engine characteristics (CPU boundness). This gets only worse for stronger GPUs, the CPU boundness slides to higher resolutions. You are free to redo the tests for higher resolutions. You can do it, Dr. Disaster!

[Dr.Disaster]

You are evading.
You made a claim so it's your turn to proof it and up to now you did not.
Your tests show that all your single core setups run into overload (100% cpu). They all proof that you need 2+ cores.

Yet your claim was that you only need a single core cpu with high enough clock to play the game well. Show it.

EDIT
Ah i see you've withdrawn your claim two pages back. Well then, never mind.

[badhabit]

You are evading.
You made a claim so it's your turn to proof it and up to now you did not.
Your tests show that all your single core setups run into overload (100% cpu). They all proof that you need 2+ cores.

Yet your claim was that you only need a single core cpu with high enough clock to play the game well. Show it.

EDIT
Ah i see you've withdrawn your claim two pages back. Well then, never mind.

To conclude, the core claim is (and was always, only you liked to focus on lesser aspects): grimrock has a single core (acknowledged by petri) engine with only limited multi-core usage (maybe only due to driver internal MT), max 1.6 cores, which is in contrast to the recommended system of AH of a quad core system. This discrepancy would be not of relevance if the engine would be not also, pretty atypical today, CPU bound. Meaning, you need a fast & beefy CPU (not many cores), which is a problem for many laptops.

[Dr.Disaster]

grimrock has a single core (acknowledged by petri) ..

When/where?

[badhabit]

grimrock has a single core (acknowledged by petri) ..

When/where?

"Using DirectX and OpenGL drawing commands have to be submitted in a single thread -- so regardless of the number of cores there's a limit how many draw calls can be submitted per frame."
Sounds like the game engine's rendering pipe was designed as single core from the beginning. Also, no mentioning of other aspects of the engine running decoupled/concurrently. Optimizing wise, Petri mentions only reducing the work load or call number/overhead, typical things you do in a single core design.