Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The game is already multithreaded and has been for a very long time. The free updates tend to add more threading to help with performance. There is no magic switch here, multithreading is not an all or nothing state.
Now we need the game to utilize more than 1 core. This however seems like an impossible task
That is quite literally what multi threading does.
That is however not to be confused with using multiple cores "effectively", if that is possible depends on the code and how a game or piece of software work. If most of the code is sequential then most of its processes will run on the same core (this can't be avoided, since it being sequential means that one thing has to happen after the other, thus you can't spread the work on multiple cores since they would still have to wait for the previous bit of work to be done).
The devs can't force the threads to run on multiple cores. The OS decides in which cores to run those threads. If the OS decides tu run all your rimworld threads on the same cores it's probably because in that specific case running the threads on one core is faster than on multiple cores (running code in parallel doesn't always means it goes faster).