True, but how do you know performance on dual cares wasn't poor enough that they're just doing everyone, including themselves, a favor. If the only practical difference would be that dual core users would be disappointed and complain that it runs like crap, then what's the issue?
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
Exactly. A properly multi-threaded program will run just as well on a 2Ghz quad-core, as a 4Ghz dual-core. I'm not against multi-threading in any way.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
And... do you see anyone introducing a gaming OS, with wide hardware compatibility, that doesn't context switch?
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
I7 2600K came out January 2011, or soon almost 5.5 years ago. Those overclocked to 4.5-4.9Ghz. If you had bought one January 2011, you could still use it for another 2-3 years knowing your PC builds.
Buy i7 2600K style CPU for $350, keep it for 5 years, sell it for $150-200. TCO = ($350-$150) / 5 = $40 per year. Buy a next generation $350-400 CPU (6700K/7700K or Broadwell-E 6800K 6-core), keep it for 5 years, sell for $200 (since Intel's Tick-Tock is out the window, single threaded CPU performance will not increase at the same pace).
All this time, get cutting edge performance for games, video editing, rendering, without needing to waste any time hunting down crappy budget parts over the next 5 years, constantly upgrading.
If budget doesn't permit, it costs even less with an i5 2500K/i5 6600K; upgrade every 5 or even 6 years. Since Sandy to Skylake is 2 major architecture jumps (Sandy -> Haswell -> Skylake), it means the next similar upgrade from i5 6600K/6700K won't be until 2021 or so (Skylake -> 2018 Icelake -> 2021 next major architecture).
One day you will learn how to build a proper PC and realize that 5-6 years of great performance is worth $40-50 annual TCO vs. the CPU junk you waste your $$$ on.
That is unless you actually enjoy wasting time upgrading budget junk to slightly better junk and then complaining over the next 5 years...
When do you think you'll own a CPU as fast as an i7 6700K @ 4.7Ghz or 6-core Broadwell-E 6800K @4.5Ghz? In 5-7 years from now? Just buy it now and use it, enjoy it, and don't need to worry 1 day over the next 5-6 years that it won't play a game.
Don't believe me? Look how many people are still using i7 2600K/3570K/3770K, etc. The CPU landscape has changed completely since the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s. Back then faster and cheaper stuff came out so frequently that overspending upfront was often detrimental. Today, the opposite is true -- not spending enough ends up costing more over time while delivering more headaches and inferior user experience.
Last edited:
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 146
- 106
I am sure all those with quad core Kabini and Atoms will be estatic about the superb performance.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 146
- 106
Says the one that rejects dual cores in advance?
An i3 IB with HT on isn't going to be that much faster in MT than a Haswell/Broadwell/Skylake dual core. Hell, it may even be slower than the later.
Besides the fact that that isn't necessarily true, I think you guys equally missed my point. If a developer puts the time and effort into developing a multi-threaded program they shouldn't have to put more time and effort into making it run on unintended hardware. Maybe it is trivial matter or an artificial limit, or maybe not, we don't know yet. Calling a developer lazy though, without yet knowing all the details, is ignorant.
Also, this is just how progress works, people will always get left behind and this shouldn't be some new revelation for anyone in PC gaming. The writing has been on the wall for a while now in regards to multi-core/thread support. People who bought dual core CPUs, especially those hoping to stay cutting edge, need to just admit they made a bad choice. It's easy to be all for multi-threading up until the point you're left in the dust.
Last edited:
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
What do my personal purchasing decisions have to do with the technical issues of a game being released, that is "locked" to quad-cores, and won't run on dual-cores?
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
Any properly-written multi-threaded program written for a time-sliced OS, will run on a fast dual-core, equally as well, as a slower quad-core. There is no such thing as "more time and effort making it run on unintended hardware". As long as the threading primitives are properly written, then it will properly run.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
Especially when "left in the dust", is an arbitrary programming restriction, rather than a real performance issue.
Would you prefer, that the developers restricted the program, to only run on Red-colored RAM? Because that's essentially what they're doing.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2008
- 10,451
- 642
- 126
Nobody knows either way. However, such games as Far Cry 4 that would not run on a two thread processor until a hack came out, *did* perform fairly well on an overclocked pentium.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2008
- 10,451
- 642
- 126
Well, then why should they have to put more time and effort into making it run on a low end to high end graphics card? They shouldnt have to bother with ultra, high, medium, and low settings. Just design one level of graphics for a mid range card. If you card is weak, cant run the game. If you card is strong, cant use all its power. After all, we have moved on from older graphics levels, right?
I am obviously exaggerating, but the point is, porting to PC entails providing the game with the ability to run on a wide range of hardware. I am not a programmer, but from information about previous games with the same problem, I dont think it is a hugely burdensome task to assigning cpu priorities to make the game run on a true dual core.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
A lot. We've had affordable quad cores as of August 2007 or so with $300 Q6600. You had 9 years to get with the program. If you have not realized in almost a decade that a bare minimum good gaming PC today requires at least 4 fast cores, I don't know what to tell you. DICE makes some of the most cutting edge games so they should be almost the last company expected to waste $ and resources trying to make a modern cutting edge 2016 game running on dual cores. You are blaming the developer, while it is you who hasn't caught up with the times.
What happened during the era when all Core 2 Duos became outdated for games? What about when games started requiring dual cores? Did you complain too? I am sure today a single core 4800mhz Skylake CPU is faster than a Core 2 Duo E8400 but that's not the point.
Whether it's not having enough cores and/or not having fast enough cores, sooner or later all CPUs are outdated. You bought an outdated PC in 2015-2016 and you are complaining. It's your fault, not the developers who are trying to make next gen games (Star Wars Battlefront, BF5, etc.).
I hope for BF5 they make minimum spec i5 2400/2500K. By the time BF5 launches, it'll be almost a 6 year old CPU.
I don't want 2016-2017 PC games to be held back by gamers who are complaining they won't run on dual cores. You are complaining because you decided to save $50 from getting an i3 6100 but the developer may or may not need to spend millions trying to re-write the game to run on dual cores. You are automatically assuming it's simple and easy. What if they have AI, sound, graphics, physics split across 3-4 separate threads?
We'll see if the patch fixes it ala Far Cry 4. Either way, dual cores are junk yard status for modern PC gaming in 2016.
Just like I'll assume they split 3-4 separate, unique tasks across 3-4 virtual CPU threads.
I love it how people are talking smack about Intel not innovating, hence not enticing people to upgrade, and then we have this thread where people are blaming the developer that the game won't run out of the box on a POS $50 dual core processor. Amazing. While at it, maybe BF5 should run at 1080p Low on an HD7770 + G3258 or DICE is evil? At no point does it strike anyone that PS4 is actually more powerful for well-threaded PC games than such crappy PCs?
If anything, we should be praising the developer(s) for finally requiring i3/4-core CPUs as the bare minimum in 2016.
Like I said, most of the people complaining in this thread are also ignoring that dual-core and i3 CPUs are a major bottleneck in many other AAA games. Heck, even an i5 2500K OC is starting to become a bottleneck in many titles.
Last edited:
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
Probably don't even need to do that. Just remove / update the code that blocks running on logical cores 0 and 1, that was leftover from the console version.
It seems that people here don't understand multi-threaded programming, in the context of a multi-threaded/multi-processor time-sliced OS.
Instructions (opcodes) from a program, are essentially processed on a prioritized assembly-line, in packets (called a "timeslice").
If you have a quad-core processor, four such packets can be processed at once, in parallel.
If you have a dual-core processor, two such packets can be processed at once, in parallel.
If the dual-core is clocked at twice the clock speed as the quad-core, then twice as many instructions can be processed in each packet (or timeslice).
The only caveat, is that for one program to take advantage of four packets per timeslice throughput, the programmer has to write the program in such a way that it can be parallelized to be able to execute instructions in each of those four parallel packet "slots" per timeslice. Once this is done, then it will trivially adapt to running on a dual-core as well, for the most part. Other than possibly latency issues, which can lead to frametime calculation/present issues. But if the dual-core is clocked twice as fast as the quad-core, then there shouldn't be any additional latency. (Well, roughly.)
So you see, once the program has been properly parallelized to run on a quad-core, it will also automatically run properly on a 2X-clocked dual-core. Unless it was arbitrarily locked out, by the devs. As appears to be the case with this game.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
No, that IS the point. What if, five years down the road, some new technology pops up, and we get 10-12Ghz dual-cores again? Why should this game be arbitrarily locked out from running on those theoretical future PCs?
Where am I complaining? (That *I* can't play this game.) I haven't even commented on my personal rig running this game or not. I could care less. I hardly game any more.
Let's put it this way. What if they drew the line at an 8-core, because the consoles have 8 cores. The minimum required CPU was an FX-series 8-core. Would that please you as well?
What if i5 Skylake users had adequate performance to run the game. But they were arbitrarily locked out of playing it, because they "didn't have enough cores".
Maybe now you can see the point of my argument, which really has nothing to do with any personal desire to play this game or not.
This is not true, overclocked i7-2600K will do just fine for a few more years in games requiring quad core CPU with 8 threads. In fact an overclocked i7-950 would handle that as well.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
Again, RS, you are ignoring the difference, between needing the performance of a current-gen quad-core, to perform well, versus being arbitrarily locked out.
Edit: To put this another way - would enforced minimum frame rates be acceptable for game developers? Keep track of the frame rate, if it ever dips below 30FPS, throw an exception and abort the current game. After all, the designers just want to "enforce" their original "feel" to the game. ("Cinematic feel".)
I mean, think of what that would do for advancing technology for games. It would certainly put those "APU peons" in their place, wouldn't it, RS? Keep game developers developing for 5960X and higher CPUs, why worry about the rest of the market. "Let them eat cake!"
Last edited:
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
Just like I'll assume they split 3-4 separate, unique tasks across 3-4 virtual CPU threads.
I love it how people are talking smack about Intel not innovating, hence not enticing people to upgrade, and then we have this thread where people are blaming the developer that the game won't run out of the box on a POS $50 dual core processor. Amazing. While at it, maybe BF5 should run at 1080p Low on an HD7770 + G3258 or DICE is evil? At no point does it strike anyone that PS4 is actually more powerful for well-threaded PC games than such crappy PCs?
If anything, we should be praising the developer(s) for finally requiring i3/4-core CPUs as the bare minimum in 2016.
Like I said, most of the people complaining in this thread are also ignoring that dual-core and i3 CPUs are a major bottleneck in many other AAA games. Heck, even an i5 2500K OC is starting to become a bottleneck in many titles.
The minimum GPU spec is also high:
AMD Radeon™ R9 270x or better.
Did you not read my post. That's exactly what I said. I said it's better to buy an i7 2600K style CPU, keep it for 5-6 years, and upgrade again to such a processor. That's exactly what I am stating as opposed to spending $50 on crappy dual cores and complaining.
That doesn't mean i7 2600K isn't 30-40% slower than i7 6700K in some CPU demanding scenarios though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDo-j00vUtw
Point is, a January 2011 2600K OC is still better than any dual core/i3 released in 2016. That means the strategy of penny penching and buying dual cores and i3s for modern PC gaming doesn't work.
It's not that simple. Chances are they needed more than 2 separate CPU threads for completely different tasks. It's perfectly reasonable to expect a modern, cutting edge game to require at least 3-4 threads. OTOH, it's not reasonable to all for a modern cutting edge game in 2016 to require an 8-core CPU as the minimum. We haven't had 8-core CPUs at affordable prices since 2007, did we? Over time developers need to adjust expectations and move forward with the times. Just like single cores died, it's time for dual core to die.
OK, so let's say the developer made a game from the ground-up to use 6 CPU threads. Then when they ported it to the PC, they were able to consolidate it to run on 3 virtual threads. That means they may have tried as hard as they could already to bring compatibility to the lowest market segments of PC.
You still haven't answered the point I made. Today a single core Skylake 4800mhz is faster than a Core 2 Duo E6300->E8500 but if a game requires at least 2 cores, I won't complain that it won't run on a single core Skylake 4800mhz since back when the developer designed it, they couldn't look 7-8 years into the future and predict this. Using your logic, if in 5 years we have 10-12Ghz dual cores, they should not be locked out of 2020 games that require quad-cores as a minimum spec. Guess what, when that 2020 game is being designed in 2016-2017, maybe the developers cannot foresee 10-12Ghz dual cores in 2020 so they start coding the game properly -- you know to take advantage of multi-threading which is where the industry is heading.
You make coding sound like clicking check boxes and just allocating tasks ABCDE to Core 1 and FGHIJK to Core 2 but maybe you cannot just do it that easily.
If developers got even better at multi-threading and 90% of PC games started to use 8 cores well, I'd buy a new CPU and just resell my outdated CPU platform. If you don't want to deal with CPU/GPU/Windows OS obsolescence, there are always consoles.
Last edited:
RussianSensation
Elite Member
- Sep 5, 2003
- 19,458
- 765
- 126
If it's an arbitrary lock out like Far Cry 4, you have a point. Let's see what happens once the game releases. I am all for next gen games pushing the boundaries. If obsoleting old hardware is a side-effect, I am OK with that. What I am not OK is requiring 5960X and GTX1080 to get 60 fps at 1080P in a game like ARK Survival Evolved or similar.
Also, look at Crysis 3 and Metro 2033/Last Light, etc. Those games look awesome and run decently on 2GB videocards. At the same time, there have been many modern games that look worse and require 3-4GB VRAM for full IQ/textures. You can make the same argument that developers are artificially locking out better graphics since they didn't optimize the game engine as well as those older games. I get it, but ultimately, even if you are right to an extent, what can I do as an end user?
I cannot predict how unoptimized software will be in 2017-2020. So I deal with it by buying something decent - a more practical approach. Alternatively, vote with your wallet and not buy the game if you feel the developers are artificially gimping optimizations for lower tiers. That's a good option.
Strange they're doing this now.
Dragon age inquisition was patched to run on dualcores, and the battlefront beta ran extremely well on my pentium. Probably did something silly like hardcoding some things to run on the 3rd core.
I've swapped it out for a 4670K, but the pentium ran everything well. On high settings it got beaten by lower clocked quads, but on lower settings it's more likely you'll be limited by some piece of singlethreaded code, and the pentium can power trough it with high per core performance. In mechwarrior online for instance the performance on low settings is identical, but on high settings the i5 is noticably faster.
Dragon age inquisition was patched to run on dualcores, and the battlefront beta ran extremely well on my pentium. Probably did something silly like hardcoding some things to run on the 3rd core.
I've swapped it out for a 4670K, but the pentium ran everything well. On high settings it got beaten by lower clocked quads, but on lower settings it's more likely you'll be limited by some piece of singlethreaded code, and the pentium can power trough it with high per core performance. In mechwarrior online for instance the performance on low settings is identical, but on high settings the i5 is noticably faster.
frozentundra123456
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2008
- 10,451
- 642
- 126
Well, it is a matter of degree. I am inferring from previous games, that it does not take a huge amount of effort to assign priority so that the game will start up on dual core, as Larry said. Now if that is true, I would say the devs are lazy. And I dont know why people are so outraged at this (calling devs lazy). It is pretty much the hallmark of PC ports that they are sloppily done, with mimnimal effort and incomplete on release.
Now if it takes 50% more effort to make the game run on a dual, then yes, it is probably justified to not do that. But I seriously doubt that is the case.
BTW, I have a quad core i5, so like Larry, it is no skin off my nose whether it runs on a dual core or not. I just would like to see as many people as possible be able to at least play the game, even if they do not measure up to the hardware requirements of some posters.
Now if it takes 50% more effort to make the game run on a dual, then yes, it is probably justified to not do that. But I seriously doubt that is the case.
BTW, I have a quad core i5, so like Larry, it is no skin off my nose whether it runs on a dual core or not. I just would like to see as many people as possible be able to at least play the game, even if they do not measure up to the hardware requirements of some posters.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter