Mirror's Edge Catalyst runs on Pentiums

[Sweepr]

http://pclab.pl/art69428.html

 

[NTMBK]

Great news! Not shabby performance, either. I don't read Polish, did they have to do any hacks/workarounds to get it to run?

 

[Raduque]

I ran it through google translate, and it doesn't appear to mention anything special about the Pentium is only about 1/3rd slower than the core i7.

 

[aigomorla]

Why did you make a new thread when we already have one here?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2470712

 

[poofyhairguy]

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yea, but the speculation and "discussion" is half the fun. Wonder how the posters that went to such great lengths to insist four threads are necessary, are feeling now?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Yea, but the speculation and "discussion" is half the fun. Wonder how the posters that went to such great lengths to insist four threads are necessary, are feeling now?

You do realize the above benchmarks are nearly completely irrelevant to smooth gameplay. It's the frame variance benchmarks that generally cripple dual core performance.

 

[Carfax83]

You do realize the above benchmarks are nearly completely irrelevant to smooth gameplay. It's the frame variance benchmarks that generally cripple dual core performance.

I'm pretty sure they don't care about that distinction.. They only care that it runs, not how well it runs.

Anyone who says a dual core is sufficient for a gaming PC in today's World, is being willfully obstinate. And besides, if The Division is any indication, dual cores will have a rough road ahead as games become more detailed.

 

[Erithan13]

Wonder how the posters that went to such great lengths to insist four threads are necessary, are feeling now?

We'll be looking forward to enjoying buttery smooth gameplay while those people who still think it's 2006 can hold onto their pentiums a little while longer and appreciate whatever stuttery janky mess the game ends up being. Given what happened with The Division (level streaming breaking on pentiums) it's also a little early to declare 'victory' for 2 thread crowd.

I wonder how all the posters who were accusing the devs of adding code to stop the game running on 2 thread CPUs are feeling now? If they were going to that much effort to deliberately sabotage the engine when it detects <4 threads I doubt they'd have made it this easily circumvented.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Shifting the goal posts now are we? Say what you want about dual cores or being obstinate (strange you should bring that up), but this game certainly seems to run quite well on a dual core. I never said a dual core would not have problems in some games, or that it was ideal for modern games. But all you have to do is look at the cpu graphs for this game to tell that it is very undemanding on the cpu.

As for what is "sufficient", well maybe you should let the user decide. I will agree, it certainly isn't optimal, but I would bet a dual core with a decent dgpu like a 750Ti will play 90% or more of the games better than any apu or a system with a GT740 level dgpu or below.

 

[TheELF]

You do realize the above benchmarks are nearly completely irrelevant to smooth gameplay. It's the frame variance benchmarks that generally cripple dual core performance.

Isn't 8ms like 120fps?
What exactly is the point you are making here?

 

[mohit9206]

So if the game runs on a Pentium without any hacks then why did the minimum requirements state " Mirror's Edge Catalyst requires at least 4 logical cores to run"?

 

[superstition]

What exactly is the point you are making here?

this:

It's worth stressing here that actual frame-rates are not so important - relative performance between the processors is more enlightening. Also, we'd recommend keeping an eye on the consistency graphs - frame-time. This is the measure of on-screen stutter, and it's of crucial importance in understanding G3258's performance beyond the average frame-rate numbers.

... titles show the challenge of running multi-threaded software on a dual-core processor. Curiously, it's not really the frame-rates that are the problem - as you can see from the results table, the Pentium puts in a respectable enough performance in many cases. The issue is one of consistency - games are now built typically with four threads or more in mind. Dropping down to two - no matter how fast they are - causes latency and stalling issues that manifest as highly unwelcome stutter during gameplay.

Retaining ultra or very high settings in Battlefield 4 and Crysis 3 with a 780 Ti quickly exposed the frailties of the G3258. Whatever the background processing required in setting up the scene, it's just way too much, even for a two 4.5GHz cores.

In the highlighted video, you can see that running the game at the high preset (that's one 'notch' down from the ultra-equivalent, very high) in combination with a GTX 760 results in a night-and-day performance differential between the i7 4790K and the Pentium. The additional fidelity in the game simulation, coupled with the immense increase in GPU set-up costs, sees the Anniversary Edition Pentium struggle horrendously to keep pace. What we're seeing here is a classic case of a lack of hardware balance: the G3258 simply can't feed the GTX 760 quickly enough to sustain a consistent frame-rate.

We tested Battlefield 4 with the same GTX 750 Ti and GTX 760 combination, running both cards at the high quality preset but with the lesser GPU operating at 1600x900 (in line with PS4) while the GTX 760 ran at full 1080p. In both cases, the overclocked Pentium has trouble locking to 60fps whereas the i7 sails through. Our contention is that an engine built for four or more cores simply doesn't translate well to a dual-core chip, and a 4.5GHz overclock isn't a cure-all.

Now, in theory, DICE's Big Idea - the Mantle API - should help. By reducing the CPU load caused by setting up all those draw-calls, processing resources are redirected to other CPU-intensive tasks like physics. We paired the G3258 with a Radeon R9 280 - AMD's answer to the GTX 760. We see Mantle handing in consistently higher frame-rates, but the stutter issues are not resolved. Battlefield 4 still appears to require more threads than the Pentium provides, latencies kick in and the experience isn't that great at all.

The future of games development is many-core in nature and we wonder whether a little more investment in a better CPU in the here and now could end up being the better option overall in the medium to long term. Despite the ludicrous clock-speeds, on the most advanced titles, you do find yourself lowering quality presets or introducing frame-rate caps in order to combat some notable stuttering. In some respects, the G3258 Anniversary Edition feels like an anachronism - a modern-day rendition of an outdated type of processor that's had its day, bludgeoning its way to success through sheer brute force alone.

 

[Erithan13]

Unless AI research is a lot further along than I'm aware of, a CPU itself is going to have problems being obstinate . Now, people suggesting that anything less than an i3 is suitable for a modern gaming rig really do need to get up to speed with things especially given the gains HT gives for its small extra cost. I'm sympathetic for people stuck with tiny budgets, I've been there myself, but at a certain point you have to put a cutoff and say that it isn't worth losing a whole heap of performance to save a little cost. Basically the opposite of the high end where you have to pay dearly for that last bit of performance.

I am interested to see exactly what needed to be done to get the game running on a 2 thread CPU though. I don't like to ascribe malice to developers where there may be one, although I note from the other thread that they did say it requires 4 threads. Not recommended, requires....it could be they were meaning required as in required for a reasonable performance rather than absolutely required in a technical sense.

After all this if it does run decently well on pentiums I'll accept that as valid and join the calls not to claim games need 4 threads where they don't.

So if the game runs on a Pentium without any hacks then why did the minimum requirements state " Mirror's Edge Catalyst requires at least 4 logical cores to run"?

Do we know if it needed hacked/modified to run on the pentium? It'd be strange indeed if it runs ok on it right away, going back to what I said about maybe they meant 'required' 4 threads because they expected most dual cores these days would be too slow to offer decent performance.

 

[Sweepr]

Looks perfectly playable on a Pentium G3258 with Geforce GTX 960. Very high CPU utilization but no major issues.

 

[Magic Carpet]

So, apparently, the devs were only lazy enough to put out the wrong minimum CPU specs? lmao, so much fuss over here.

Hang on, maybe it was the minimum recommended specs

 

[pj-]

So if the game runs on a Pentium without any hacks then why did the minimum requirements state " Mirror's Edge Catalyst requires at least 4 logical cores to run"?

For the same reason that any game will launch on hardware below the minimum specification. It's difficult/pointless to enforce and people get angry if you do. If people want to have a crappy experience, let 'em. If they want to use old parts and overclock them into the stratosphere to get decent performance, let 'em.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Looks perfectly playable on a Pentium G3258 with Geforce GTX 960. Very high CPU utilization but no major issues.

Heresy, I say. It seems playable on a dual core cpu and a 2gb gpu.

 

[monstercameron]

Heresy, I say. It seems playable on a dual core cpu and a 2gb gpu.

What about the the framerating? How does it fair? Are there artifacts like microstutter etc?
What defines playable nowadays?

 

[mohit9206]

Heresy, I say. It seems playable on a dual core cpu and a 2gb gpu.

I'm sure it will also run just fine on a 1gb gpu even though the minimum requirements state 650ti 2gb/r9 270x 2gb. Might not run on a 512mb card but so far every game runs on a 1gb gpu.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I'm sure it will also run just fine on a 1gb gpu even though the minimum requirements state 650ti 2gb/r9 270x 2gb. Might not run on a 512mb card but so far every game runs on a 1gb gpu.

After all, Doom 3 was made run on Voodoo 2 12MB in SLI mode. Geez, if there is a will, there is a way. Always.

 

[NTMBK]

Yea, but the speculation and "discussion" is half the fun. Wonder how the posters that went to such great lengths to insist four threads are necessary, are feeling now?

The devs put out an incorrect and misleading statement, not surprising that people (I.e. me ) thought it would require 4 threads.

Glad that it doesn't- the more people can enjoy a game, the better!

 

[frozentundra123456]

What about the the framerating? How does it fair? Are there artifacts like microstutter etc?
What defines playable nowadays?

I was being sarcastic because if anything on these forums gets more hate than dual core cpus it is 2 gb video video cards.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The devs put out an incorrect and misleading statement, not surprising that people (I.e. me ) thought it would require 4 threads.

Glad that it doesn't- the more people can enjoy a game, the better!

Exactly. I just dont understand the quad or go home crowd. And to be honest, I have a quad, but I also would like as many people as possible to be able to play the game.

 

[escrow4]

After all, Doom 3 was made run on Voodoo 2 12MB in SLI mode. Geez, if there is a will, there is a way. Always.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUVXAl0dgYY

A line has been crossed and not it shall never be uncrossed. D: