Mirror's Edge Catalyst won't run on Pentiums

[NTMBK]

http://www.mirrorsedge.com/news/pc-system-requirements

(Note: Mirror's Edge Catalyst requires at least 4 logical cores to run.)

 

[Sheep221]

Oh shi...all those folks with upto i3 are doomed!

 

[StrangerGuy]

So...saving $40 instead of buying a Haswell i3 (bonus sucker points for pairing an AE with a Z-board), guess all those suckers who ran along with the Pentium AE was a "great budget gaming chip" meme must be eating crow for quite a while now, and this is just another kick to the face by no-free-lunch Intel.

 

[Monk5127]

Errrm Sheep221 the i3 is the minimum CPU.

• CPU: Intel i3-3250 / AMD FX-6350. (Note: Mirror's Edge Catalyst requires at least 4 logical cores to run.)

Unless you meant upto but not including

 

[cytg111]

It will be fun to watch it run smoothly on a dual core once the first hax lands.

 

[Sheep221]

Errrm Sheep221 the i3 is the minimum CPU.



Unless you meant upto but not including

Since recommended CPUs have 8 threads I would consider i3 to not be fitting for smooth gameplay, minimum CPU is just running it on min settings I guess.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Another developer too lazy to remove the console 0+1 dedication.

I expect a trashy PC port.

 

[showb1z]

Another developer too lazy to remove the console 0+1 dedication.

I expect a trashy PC port.

And this is based on nothing, as usual?

I expect a stunning looking game that runs great on all hardware, cause that's how DICE rolls.

 

[Glo.]

Reading comprehension not working on you guys?

LOGICAL CORES. Not PHYSICAL Cores.

i3 will be fine .

 

[dark zero]

So... I3, Quad Atoms, Quads AM1 and AMD A8 onwards are the new minimun? Interesting.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And this is based on nothing, as usual?

Because its been so all the previous times. Got a quad one way or the other? You win 2 idle cores.

There is no reason but artificial that everything cant run on a single core. You can argue about performance, but unless artificially restricted it will run.

 

[LTC8K6]

"logical cores"?

I thought we had actual cores, and "logical processors"?

That is, WIN10 sees my FX-6300 as 3 cores and 6 logical processors, and my E3-1231V3 as 4 cores and 8 logical processors.

So, a 4.2ghz FX-4350 should be okay with 4 logical processors, yet a 3.9ghz FX-6350 is the minimum.

 

[redzo]

When it doesn't load up all them cores, it is not multi-threaded enough.
When they design / start from at least a 4 threaded machine, they are lazy.
People are damn hard to please.

 

[parvadomus]

nm

 

[VirtualLarry]

When they design / start from at least a 4 threaded machine, they are lazy.

It's one thing, to actually run on a dual-core, yet not perform well unless it runs on a quad-core, it's another thing entirely if it won't even run on anything less than four threads.

I'm with Shintai on this one, lazy devs, lazy port. No good reason it shouldn't at least properly execute on a fast dual-core. (My G4400 @ 4.455Ghz is still faster, I think, than my Q9300 @ 2.85Ghz. Yet, that slower CPU will run this game, but the faster one won't? Makes no sense.)

 

[ShintaiDK]

I am quite sure the game would run on a tricore btw, since the 3rd core would be available for the game.

 

[hojnikb]

So...saving $40 instead of buying a Haswell i3 (bonus sucker points for pairing an AE with a Z-board), guess all those suckers who ran along with the Pentium AE was a "great budget gaming chip" meme must be eating crow for quite a while now, and this is just another kick to the face by no-free-lunch Intel.

Now its a good time for them to upgrade to something better

 

[redzo]

It's one thing, to actually run on a dual-core, yet not perform well unless it runs on a quad-core, it's another thing entirely if it won't even run on anything less than four threads.

I'm with Shintai on this one, lazy devs, lazy port. No good reason it shouldn't at least properly execute on a fast dual-core. (My G4400 @ 4.455Ghz is still faster, I think, than my Q9300 @ 2.85Ghz. Yet, that slower CPU will run this game, but the faster one won't? Makes no sense.)

Why would you let people run your app at all when you know that it will under perform anyways?
Just ask yourself why are you running a dual-core G4400 and not a faster single core G4400? I believe it is about time for the quad threaded cpus to replace dual cores minimum specs, at least for high performance apps; just as the dual-c replaced single core a long time ago.

 

[showb1z]

Yeah this could be like locking out texture settings for cards lacking VRAM.
We'll see. DICE doesn't have a history of releasing shitty PC versions at all. If this isn't just a PR fluke they probably have a better reason than "We're too lazy, hurr durr".

 

[VirtualLarry]

Why would you let people run your app at all when you know that it will under perform anyways?
Just ask yourself why are you running a dual-core G4400 and not a faster single core G4400? I believe it is about time for the quad threaded cpus to replace dual cores minimum specs, at least for high performance apps; just as the dual-c replaced single core a long time ago.

Why limit your program arbitrarily? If it's a performance issue, then let the program benchmark the system, and decide on settings, or whether or not it will run.

What's next? Checking L2/L3 cache sizes, and deciding not to run, if you don't have enough cache memory?

More cores, are just a means to an end - higher overall performance. They're not an absolute requirement.

And if Intel comes out with a 10-12Ghz single-core with HT in the next five years, what are you going to do? It probably would have enough performance to run this game, but ... it won't play. Arbitrarily locked out.

There's a big difference, between "it works, but it doesn't perform well unless you use it with a (current) quad-core CPU", and "No, it won't ever work, it's just ... arbitrarily locked out, due to the technology available at the time that the game was written".

Again, it's either lazy devs, or some sort of Intel-sponsored conspiracy to sell quad-cores to gamers. Which wouldn't really surprise me. (Reminds me of tessellation and NVidia video cards.)

 

[Rakehellion]

Another developer too lazy to remove the console 0+1 dedication.

I expect a trashy PC port.

Yeah, they should include a software renderer and let it run on 64MB of memory too.

 

[LTC8K6]

So...saving $40 instead of buying a Haswell i3 (bonus sucker points for pairing an AE with a Z-board), guess all those suckers who ran along with the Pentium AE was a "great budget gaming chip" meme must be eating crow for quite a while now, and this is just another kick to the face by no-free-lunch Intel.

Well, the G3258 was released 2 years ago.

Some folks probably argued that a 4 core FX-4350 or X4-860K was a better gaming chip than a 2 core Pentium.

But apparently none of them are good enough for this game, 2 cores or 4 cores.

 

[freeskier93]

Why limit your program arbitrarily? If it's a performance issue, then let the program benchmark the system, and decide on settings, or whether or not it will run.

What's next? Checking L2/L3 cache sizes, and deciding not to run, if you don't have enough cache memory?

More cores, are just a means to an end - higher overall performance. They're not an absolute requirement.

And if Intel comes out with a 10-12Ghz single-core with HT in the next five years, what are you going to do? It probably would have enough performance to run this game, but ... it won't play. Arbitrarily locked out.

There's a big difference, between "it works, but it doesn't perform well unless you use it with a (current) quad-core CPU", and "No, it won't ever work, it's just ... arbitrarily locked out, due to the technology available at the time that the game was written".

Again, it's either lazy devs, or some sort of Intel-sponsored conspiracy to sell quad-cores to gamers. Which wouldn't really surprise me. (Reminds me of tessellation and NVidia video cards.)

Get your head out of the sand, the future is multi core. It takes a significant amount of work to parallelize something, calling a developer lazing because they won't put more work in to make it run on your low end hardware is mind boggling.

Depending on how deep the engine is parallelized it could create a significant amount of work to make something serial again, as it turns into a domino effect timing wise.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Get your head out of the sand, the future is multi core. It takes a significant amount of work to parallelize something, calling a developer lazing because they won't put more work in to make it run on your low end hardware is mind boggling.

Depending on how deep the engine is parallelized it could create a significant amount of work to make something serial again, as it turns into a domino effect timing wise.

I think you completely missed the point.

Nobody is against more multithreading.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well if past versions of games that wont run on 2 threads are any indication, it is not a matter of parallism or multithreading. It is simply a matter of the way the consoles assign cores, and it should be relatively trivial to make the ports run on a high performance 2 thread cpu.