[GDC] Developers talking about dx12.1 features

[AtenRa]

Only thing is that every game is,and will be, designed for the consoles so the max amount of draw calls is set in stone so to speak.

Again,as far as the improved multi-threading goes just look at mantle games,still slower on FX-8cores then on i3s...it only makes sense with very slow cores ,like the sub 1,5Ghz almost-arm-cores that the consoles have.

Really ?? perhaps you should have a second look here

Even latest DX-11 games play significantly better on the 8-core FX than the Core i3.

 

[TheELF]

Maybe you should check your setups,getting framerate spikes that high even on your multicored systems is not normal...

 

[AtenRa]

Maybe you should check your setups,getting framerate spikes that high even on your multicored systems is not normal...

Every time a new excuse, now its not normal to have fps spikes on multicore CPUs.

Get your self together and understand that the future is multicore and that dual cores are dead for gaming in 2016 onward.

 

[ShintaiDK]

FX CPUs isnt part of that glorious multicore future

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Every time a new excuse, now its not normal to have fps spikes on multicore CPUs.

Get your self together and understand that the future is multicore and that dual cores are dead for gaming in 2016 onward.

The few dx12 tests I've seen show great performance on dualcores.

Dx12 should get cpu overhead to console levels, and the ps4 and xbox one have really slow cpu's, an i3 will easily beat those.

Maybe an overclocked core2quad will be good enough again.

 

[TheELF]

Every time a new excuse, now its not normal to have fps spikes on multicore CPUs.

Get your self together and understand that the future is multicore and that dual cores are dead for gaming in 2016 onward.

It's definitely not normal for a multicore CPU to have the same and higher spikes as a celeron.
Also the celeron gets 30FPS min in BF4 with the same settings (and the 30FPS is with antivirus and recording running in the background) so it's impossible for the i3 to get 42FPS minimums unless you doctored it by disabling HT or by having something wrong with your setup.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37950632&postcount=33

 

[AtenRa]

It's definitely not normal for a multicore CPU to have the same and higher spikes as a celeron.
Also the celeron gets 30FPS min in BF4 with the same settings (and the 30FPS is with antivirus and recording running in the background) so it's impossible for the i3 to get 42FPS minimums unless you doctored it by disabling HT or by having something wrong with your setup.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37950632&postcount=33

Your Celeron had an average 50fps when the Core i3 had 102fps

Also,

Your Celeron had 20ms of average frametime and Core i3 6300 had 9.8ms

what will be your next excuse ??? the color of the graphs ???

 

[TheELF]

Your Celeron had an average 50fps when the Core i3 had 102fps

Also,

Your Celeron had 20ms of average frametime and Core i3 6300 had 9.8ms

what will be your next excuse ??? the color of the graphs ???

All your CPUs get spikes up to (and over? )100ms while the highest the celeron goes is 80ms,that alone should tell you that there is something wrong.

How is dualcore gaming dead if you can get 50FPS avg on the weakest haswell celeron in the one game that everybody claims is the most demanding and calls for a lot of cores?

You can also look through a scope directly at a wall and get 200FPS...the faster your GPU is the higher max. FPS you will get, what's important is the min. and the avg.

How come it runs quite smoothly ,even with Dx11 and recording, when you claim that the i3 is having a lot of stuttering?

 

[dogen1]

The few dx12 tests I've seen show great performance on dualcores.

Dx12 should get cpu overhead to console levels, and the ps4 and xbox one have really slow cpu's, an i3 will easily beat those.

Maybe an overclocked core2quad will be good enough again.

An i3 is similar to a console cpu, not easily better. Unless you really think they're more than 3-4 times faster per core.

 

[AtenRa]

All your CPUs get spikes up to (and over? )100ms while the highest the celeron goes is 80ms,that alone should tell you that there is something wrong.

How is dualcore gaming dead if you can get 50FPS avg on the weakest haswell celeron in the one game that everybody claims is the most demanding and calls for a lot of cores?

You can also look through a scope directly at a wall and get 200FPS...the faster your GPU is the higher max. FPS you will get, what's important is the min. and the avg.

How come it runs quite smoothly ,even with Dx11 and recording, when you claim that the i3 is having a lot of stuttering?

First off all you should learn to compare same things. Your graph is only 600ms long when mine is 3600ms long. Bellow is the first 600ms from my original 3600ms gameplay run to compare it with your Celeron run.

Because of the vastly higher volume of data on my original 3600ms graphs and the smaller picture size, high spikes are more easily defined.
But at 600ms we have less data and so high spike count is also significantly less.
Comparing your Celeron to the Core i3 6300 now makes the celeron way less desirable. Not only you get half the average fps but you are also having considerable higher stuttering. If you would play with a faster GPU than your GTX650, your stuttering would only get worse.

My Core i3 6300 + HD7950 (600ms long)

Your Haswell Celeron + GTX650 (600ms long)

 

[Flapdrol1337]

An i3 is similar to a console cpu, not easily better. Unless you really think they're more than 3-4 times faster per core.

Well, the console cpu's are very slow.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8067/amd-am1-kabini-part-2-athlon-53505150-and-sempron-38502650-tested

The ps4 allows acces to 7 cores, so I guess it should perform up to 1.75 times as good as the 5150, if the developer manages to multithread perfectly.

 

[TheELF]

First off all you should learn to compare same things. Your graph is only 600ms long when mine is 3600ms long. Bellow is the first 600ms from my original 3600ms gameplay run to compare it with your Celeron run.

Longest time the celeron needs to render a frame is 80ms(while recording,in windowed mode,and with background progs) , the i3 hits 5 times over 80ms and even hits 120ms !!!
That's just not possible if everything is running as it should,the i3 would have to be much faster then the celeron in both min FPS and frame times.

 

[AtenRa]

Longest time the celeron needs to render a frame is 80ms(while recording,in windowed mode,and with background progs) , the i3 hits 5 times over 80ms and even hits 120ms !!!
That's just not possible if everything is running as it should,the i3 would have to be much faster then the celeron in both min FPS and frame times.

You keep forgetting you use a GTX650 on DX-11 and I use an HD7950 @ 1GHz on Mantle with 120fps cap. You cannot directly compare the two systems, use the same GPU and API on the Celeron and then come here and compare with Core i3 or any other CPU.

And since we are way off topic i will stop here.

 

[TheELF]

So a 650 with dx11 is faster at drawing frames then a HD7950 @ 1GHz with Mantle....ok
I guess you should stop using mantle if it is so bad.

 

[PhonakV30]

FX CPUs isnt part of that glorious multicore future

Care to explain ?

 

[AtenRa]

So a 650 with dx11 is faster at drawing frames then a HD7950 @ 1GHz with Mantle....ok
I guess you should stop using mantle if it is so bad.

Clearly you dont know what you are talking about,

Here is BF4 same settings as before with the FX-8350 at default clocks.

And for once again this is your Celeron + GTX650

I rest my case here, i will not respond to you about this subject again in this thread.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Care to explain ?

It haven't been able to perform yet. And most likely never will.

Beaten in DX12 by i3 so far.

Slow stay slow.

 

[TheELF]

Clearly you dont know what you are talking about,

Here is BF4 same settings as before with the FX-8350 at default clocks.

And for once again this is your Celeron + GTX650

I rest my case here, i will not respond to you about this subject again in this thread.

WOW, even the 8350 hits over 100ms in the last moment...
still higher then the 80ms of the celeron.

JUST NOT POSSIBLE.

 

[flopper]

Clearly you dont know what you are talking about,

Here is BF4 same settings as before with the FX-8350 at default clocks.


And for once again this is your Celeron + GTX650



I rest my case here, i will not respond to you about this subject again in this thread.

cant argue with retards.
you can try but eventually you find out how nuts it is


We will not be putting up with your attitude. Take a day off.

-Rvenger

 

[Magic Carpet]

And I doubt 8.1 will get it.

Isn't 8.1 supposed to receive feature updates for five years?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Isn't 8.1 supposed to receive feature updates for five years?

2 more years. But that doesn't include all.

 

[Magic Carpet]

2 more years. But that doesn't include all.

2 more years yeah, that what I was thinking. Microsoft already killed it. And in case anyone complains, well, here's Windows 10, the free update for you. How convenient, lmao.

 

[ShintaiDK]

2 more years yeah, that what I was thinking. Microsoft already killed it. And in case anyone complains, well, here's Windows 10, the free update for you. How convenient, lmao.

Exactly. I think its safe to say that Windows 10 is the only supported OS for anything. Like it or not.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Exactly. I think its safe to say that Windows 10 is the only supported OS for anything. Like it or not.

Yep, the harsh reality.