Mirror's Edge Catalyst won't run on Pentiums

[RussianSensation]

New York City = USA? Do you think that 8.5m city is same as 300m? Do you have ANY idea how many people in the US are living in powerty, dept etc? Are you aware that almost no one owns a gaming computer? Those few guys around technical/overclocking/gaming forums and youtube are representing few individuals in continental or global context.

Way to focus on the NYC. That chart simply shows that people in 1st world countries like Canada/US should have 0 to complain about. You think you have it rough or something? A doctor makes $300-400 US a month in a Central Asian country where I had to work for 2.5 years. I went into the hospital and the surgeon told me the death rate for heart surgeries is 90% since there is no modern equipment, computers, infrastructure and sanitation to perform proper modern medical procedures of such complexity. Here you are living in the US, a country where millions of people all over the world would risk their life to live in, complaining that a dual-core that costs as much as a $60 game can't run it? How do you think that sounds for people who have traveled and lived outside of North America?

The only thing stopping you from making $100,000 US in US is you, no one else. In countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Russia, Ukraine, many African countries, Turkey, Lebanon, etc. no matter how smart you are, there is no clear path of earning 6 figures by just studying books and getting an average university mechanical engineering or IT degree that in US pays $80-100K, but elsewhere in the world you'd be lucky to get $500-800/a month for such jobs because the system is broken over there.

In North America, a person with a 110 IQ can get into nursing and do well in life. Do you know how intelligent and street smart do you have to be in those other countries to get anywhere in life?

Let me know when you have to spend your monthly salary on pharmaceuticals about how life is tough in America.

Give me a break. Guess what, I am not happy with my current compensation so I am going to get off my *** and get a Masters degree to get paid more. Instead I could complain about the price of mid-range Pascal and $1500 10-core i7-6950X for another 20 years, but I know I cannot change those prices since market dictates them. I'll complain but eventually what can I do then? I will focus on earning more so I don't have to think about it.

If an opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. <If you cannot change the system (i.e, cannot force developers to run games on dual-cores), then adapt (figure out a way to be able to afford 4-8 core CPUs)> Even if DICE gets Mirror's Edge to work eventually, in 2-3 years dual cores are dead. So it's a futile argument to make. PC gaming has always been about constant evolution and upgrading are a part of that eco-system. If you don't like this aspect of PC gaming, that's what consoles are for. You acquire a $300-400 box that plays games for 5-7 years and that's it. Of course if we start adding up the price of admission of console games + XB Live Gold and PSN, and account for large discounts of PC games, then console gaming may not even be cheaper. Either way, PC gaming can be an affordable hobby but there are limits.

Yes, RS. And I've been making a technical argument all of this time.

Let me ask you this: How many software threads can a modern dual-core CPU process? (With a modern time-slicing OS, like Windows or Linux.)

GameGPU shows 97-99% usage across 4 virtual threads on an i3 2100.

2600K shows - 94%, 76%, 84%, 65%.

3970X shows at least 6 threads loaded > 56%!

FX6300 is loaded fairly evenly across 6 cores. This is excellent and how modern games should be.

You are just complaining since you don't want to face reality that dual core CPUs are dead for gaming and the world is moving to multi-threading.

This game isn't even CPU demanding as even the crappy i3-2100 can run this game well.

You might want to start a GPU thread in our other sub-forum and start blaming DICE for purposely gimping 2GB cards too.

Chances are the type of gamer who only has a $65 Skylake dual-core isn't going to have anything even remotely close to a good GPU to get playable FPS. Don't tell me a $65 Skylake dual-core user will go hunting for $80-90 HD7950/7970 cards because if someone is that knowledgeable to buy used 7950/7970 cards, they aren't buying new Skylake dual-core builds. As I said, that same gamer would go used for the entire platform, such as getting an i5 2500K-2700K + R9 290 used rig on Craigslist, etc.

Mirror's Edge is not even anywhere close to a well-threaded PC game.

If you say you are on a technical forum and you read our forum often, you would have seen the warning signs that dual cores are on life support. Why should DICE even cater to this level of tech?

The entire industry wants to become better at multi-threaded game development. That's why there is so much hype behind DX12, Mantle, Vulkan. The current gen consoles have at least 6-7 cores available to them and the Nintendo NX should be similar in this regard. Yet, you want 2016 games to go the opposite way and cater to a tiny fraction of PC gamers who still game on dual cores?

Activision Blizzard Annual Report

For the Year Ended December 31, 2014

PC Revenue = 13% of all platform game sales

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015

PC Revenue = 14% all platform game sales
http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...n-Blizzard-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-Full-Year

EA's last quarter PC revenue was only 17% of their total game sales.
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952277

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's not financially viable or worthwhile to optimize a 2016 PC game that was made for consoles in the first place to run on a small fraction of outdated dual-core gaming PCs?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

How about a 4.7GHz Skylake Pentium vs a 3.6GHz BD FX-4100? I'd bet the Skylake is faster in every situation (significantly), but the strictly slower CPU gets to run the game because of some arbitrary criteria.

What about mythical graphene dual cores that hit 100GHz? They won't be able to run the game either.

I've have yet to meet an owner of an FX that didn't overclock the crap out of it. So it's completely pointless comparison.

On top of that, your numbers don't jive... Either.
Passmark rates the FX-4100 at 4041. A G4400 Skylake Pentium rates below it at 3690.
Bulldozer may be a slow quad core by today's standards, but it will still outmuscle the dual core at anything heavily multi-threaded.

 

[Sheep221]

Way to focus on the NYC. That chart simply shows that people in 1st world countries like Canada/US should have 0 to complain about. You think you have it rough or something? A doctor makes $300-400 US a month in a Central Asian country where I had to work for 2.5 years. I went into the hospital and the surgeon told me the death rate for heart surgeries is 90% since there is no modern equipment, computers, infrastructure and sanitation to perform proper modern medical procedures of such complexity. Here you are living in the US, a country where millions of people all over the world would risk their life to live in, complaining that a dual-core that costs as much as a $60 game can't run it? How do you think that sounds for people who have traveled and lived outside of North America?

The only thing stopping you from making $100,000 US in US is you, no one else. In countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Russia, Ukraine, many African countries, Turkey, Lebanon, etc. no matter how smart you are, there is no clear path of earning 6 figures by just studying books and getting an average university mechanical engineering or IT degree that in US pays $80-100K, but elsewhere in the world you'd be lucky to get $500-800/a month for such jobs because the system is broken over there.

In North America, a person with a 110 IQ can get into nursing and do well in life. Do you know how intelligent and street smart do you have to be in those other countries to get anywhere in life?

Let me know when you have to spend your monthly salary on pharmaceuticals about how life is tough in America.

Give me a break. Guess what, I am not happy with my current compensation so I am going to get off my *** and get a Masters degree to get paid more. Instead I could complain about the price of mid-range Pascal and $1500 10-core i7-6950X for another 20 years, but I know I cannot change those prices since market dictates them. I'll complain but eventually what can I do then? I will focus on earning more so I don't have to think about it.

If an opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. <If you cannot change the system (i.e, cannot force developers to run games on dual-cores), then adapt (figure out a way to be able to afford 4-8 core CPUs)> Even if DICE gets Mirror's Edge to work eventually, in 2-3 years dual cores are dead. So it's a futile argument to make. PC gaming has always been about constant evolution and upgrading are a part of that eco-system. If you don't like this aspect of PC gaming, that's what consoles are for. You acquire a $300-400 box that plays games for 5-7 years and that's it. Of course if we start adding up the price of admission of console games + XB Live Gold and PSN, and account for large discounts of PC games, then console gaming may not even be cheaper. Either way, PC gaming can be an affordable hobby but there are limits.

I live in Europe and have mediocre income and have been running quad core for several years, I am also not a gamer, so I'm not defending either the dual cores or the gamers owning them, my point was that this game does not address this issue correctly, why, it has been explained in my previous posts. Health care in my state is free, been under the knife few times and been ill few times, I got everything free. I only pay mandatory insurance in cost of $40/mo. I don't do anything special in my work and I don't even know anything that special either. I'm studying at university alongside job and I have to pay $750 per year for school. That's all. Entire engineering degree(6 years)will cost me some $4500. Those prices are dirt cheap. I have no dept. Even dozens of Americans and Asians are going to Europe because local unis don't want them to go bankrupt before they even get to finals. Education and healthcare should be free or very cheap at best, since everyone has to have at least some of it.

 

[escrow4]

How is this thread still going on. Dual cores are rubbish in 2016. Smartphones haven't had dual cores for years*, neither have half decent tablets and by now you shouldn't be surprised that desktops are following, at least in gaming. 2 cores isn't enough for anything. I've run systems with hexa cores down to Celerons and dual cores are just meh. The internet is so fat and bloated now compared to 2008 I'm surprised being are still using them in general either.

See this:

https://www.soasta.com/blog/page-bloat-average-web-page-2-mb/

https://mobiforge.com/research-analysis/the-web-is-doom

The price is irrelevant anyway. RS has gone on about TCO - total cost of ownership - and in the end an extra $200 or $300 over the life of a desktop is nothing.

*I do have a dual core smartphone but I've crippled everything Google and turned it stupid purely for calls and text. Trying to do anything smart on it would be futile anyway. And it was just over $30, I'm not expecting S7 performance.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Not every user with a dual core has an overclocked Pentium. Even if it could run it, it is probably easier to rule out dual cores as my guess is the vast majority of them could not run this game well. The small percentage of those with 4.5GHz Pentiums may be able to run it, who knows, but I can see why they'd just glance over dual cores today, especially if the game engine does warrant it by being built for more cores.

 

[IllogicalGlory]

I've have yet to meet an owner of an FX that didn't overclock the crap out of it. So it's completely pointless comparison.

On top of that, your numbers don't jive... Either.
Passmark rates the FX-4100 at 4041. A G4400 Skylake Pentium rates below it at 3690.
Bulldozer may be a slow quad core by today's standards, but it will still outmuscle the dual core at anything heavily multi-threaded.

It's not a pointless comparison at all, you haven't proven my numbers don't jive, since the comparison is stock, and not to mention, one single benchmark.

Furthermore, the FX-4100 is hardly an example of the slowest quad core on the market, we can move down into Bay Trail, Sempron, desktop Jaguars, or Core 2 if we wanted to search more thoroughly.

And why is it that the FX-4100, despite only performing 9% faster, at stock compared to Skylake should be able to play the game and the Skylake while can't?

Doing a very rough scaling, based on gamegpu's CPU benchmarks, the Skylake Pentium gets 50 FPS min, 63 FPS average with a 980 Ti. Doesn't look unplayable at all, and that's just compared to the FX-4100. Put a 2GHz Athlon 5150 in there and I wonder what would happen. Or a pathetic 2 core/4 thread laptop chip that has about half the single thread performance of a Skylake Pentium.

If we're going to lock dual-core owners out of the game, why not just lock anyone who misses the minimum spec out of the game too? It sounds like some arbitrary limitation to me.

Once again, not arguing the game has to be optimized for the dual-core market, just that it should run on dual core systems, same way a game like Crysis 3 will run on your Core 2 duo/Radeon 5450 machine.

 

[superstition]

Furthermore, the FX-4100 is hardly an example of the slowest hybrid quad/dual core on the market

Fixed. That FX chip has just two FPU units.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Way to focus on the NYC. That chart simply shows that people in 1st world countries like Canada/US should have 0 to complain about. You think you have it rough or something? A doctor makes $300-400 US a month in a Central Asian country where I had to work for 2.5 years. I went into the hospital and the surgeon told me the death rate for heart surgeries is 90% since there is no modern equipment, computers, infrastructure and sanitation to perform proper modern medical procedures of such complexity. Here you are living in the US, a country where millions of people all over the world would risk their life to live in, complaining that a dual-core that costs as much as a $60 game can't run it? How do you think that sounds for people who have traveled and lived outside of North America?

Bonus points for complaining about spending $50 more on a i3 CPU but having no qualms spending $5 on Starbucks everyday.

 

[SPBHM]

this CPU load graph reminds me of when I tried BF4 beta with the i3 2100, but, the game could be played with just 2 threads, it just ran slower and with more stuttering, I would expect the same here, like the Far Cry that wouldn't run on Pentiums until hacked or patched, but still didn't perform all that great in the end.

from what I remember from the i3, some games had more performance gains with HT than BF4, specially the codemasters racing games, but with newer i3 this might be more difficult to notice.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Way to focus on the NYC. That chart simply shows that people in 1st world countries like Canada/US should have 0 to complain about. You think you have it rough or something? A doctor makes $300-400 US a month in a Central Asian country where I had to work for 2.5 years. I went into the hospital and the surgeon told me the death rate for heart surgeries is 90% since there is no modern equipment, computers, infrastructure and sanitation to perform proper modern medical procedures of such complexity. Here you are living in the US, a country where millions of people all over the world would risk their life to live in, complaining that a dual-core that costs as much as a $60 game can't run it? How do you think that sounds for people who have traveled and lived outside of North America?

The only thing stopping you from making $100,000 US in US is you, no one else. In countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Russia, Ukraine, many African countries, Turkey, Lebanon, etc. no matter how smart you are, there is no clear path of earning 6 figures by just studying books and getting an average university mechanical engineering or IT degree that in US pays $80-100K, but elsewhere in the world you'd be lucky to get $500-800/a month for such jobs because the system is broken over there.

In North America, a person with a 110 IQ can get into nursing and do well in life. Do you know how intelligent and street smart do you have to be in those other countries to get anywhere in life?

Let me know when you have to spend your monthly salary on pharmaceuticals about how life is tough in America.

Give me a break. Guess what, I am not happy with my current compensation so I am going to get off my *** and get a Masters degree to get paid more. Instead I could complain about the price of mid-range Pascal and $1500 10-core i7-6950X for another 20 years, but I know I cannot change those prices since market dictates them. I'll complain but eventually what can I do then? I will focus on earning more so I don't have to think about it.

If an opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. <If you cannot change the system (i.e, cannot force developers to run games on dual-cores), then adapt (figure out a way to be able to afford 4-8 core CPUs)> Even if DICE gets Mirror's Edge to work eventually, in 2-3 years dual cores are dead. So it's a futile argument to make. PC gaming has always been about constant evolution and upgrading are a part of that eco-system. If you don't like this aspect of PC gaming, that's what consoles are for. You acquire a $300-400 box that plays games for 5-7 years and that's it. Of course if we start adding up the price of admission of console games + XB Live Gold and PSN, and account for large discounts of PC games, then console gaming may not even be cheaper. Either way, PC gaming can be an affordable hobby but there are limits.



GameGPU shows 97-99% usage across 4 virtual threads on an i3 2100.

2600K shows - 94%, 76%, 84%, 65%.

3970X shows at least 6 threads loaded > 56%!

FX6300 is loaded fairly evenly across 6 cores. This is excellent and how modern games should be.

You are just complaining since you don't want to face reality that dual core CPUs are dead for gaming and the world is moving to multi-threading.

This game isn't even CPU demanding as even the crappy i3-2100 can run this game well.

You might want to start a GPU thread in our other sub-forum and start blaming DICE for purposely gimping 2GB cards too.

Chances are the type of gamer who only has a $65 Skylake dual-core isn't going to have anything even remotely close to a good GPU to get playable FPS. Don't tell me a $65 Skylake dual-core user will go hunting for $80-90 HD7950/7970 cards because if someone is that knowledgeable to buy used 7950/7970 cards, they aren't buying new Skylake dual-core builds. As I said, that same gamer would go used for the entire platform, such as getting an i5 2500K-2700K + R9 290 used rig on Craigslist, etc.

Mirror's Edge is not even anywhere close to a well-threaded PC game.

If you say you are on a technical forum and you read our forum often, you would have seen the warning signs that dual cores are on life support. Why should DICE even cater to this level of tech?

The entire industry wants to become better at multi-threaded game development. That's why there is so much hype behind DX12, Mantle, Vulkan. The current gen consoles have at least 6-7 cores available to them and the Nintendo NX should be similar in this regard. Yet, you want 2016 games to go the opposite way and cater to a tiny fraction of PC gamers who still game on dual cores?

Activision Blizzard Annual Report

For the Year Ended December 31, 2014

PC Revenue = 13% of all platform game sales

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015

PC Revenue = 14% all platform game sales
http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...n-Blizzard-Announces-Fourth-Quarter-Full-Year


EA's last quarter PC revenue was only 17% of their total game sales.
http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952277

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it's not financially viable or worthwhile to optimize a 2016 PC game that was made for consoles in the first place to run on a small fraction of outdated dual-core gaming PCs?

Are you seriously trying to say that anyone in the USA can make 100,000 (per year, I assume)? Do you know that only about 20% of the households in the US make over 100,000 per year? And that is HOUSEHOLD income, probably at least half of which are two wage earners, not an individual.

I guess the other 80% are worthless, uneducated, lazy bums that just simply are too stupid or too lazy to make the easy 100k.

 

[escrow4]

Are you seriously trying to say that anyone in the USA can make 100,000 (per year, I assume)? Do you know that only about 20% of the households in the US make over 100,000 per year? And that is HOUSEHOLD income, probably at least half of which are two wage earners, not an individual.

I guess the other 80% are worthless, uneducated, lazy bums that just simply are too stupid or too lazy to make the easy 100k.

The majority are. They don't call them unwashed masses for nothing. :sneaky:

 

[StrangerGuy]

This is getting hilarious. Game devs should clearly cater to people who can barely afford gaming PCs and software because these things are clearly not luxury goods they can live without.

Then again I'm only some lazy bum who makes $32k/yr.

 

[Erenhardt]

I make 6.5k USD/yr after taxes. Which is not bad for a civil engineer without professional experience here. Guess I'm too poor to be considered console peasant.

I'm running 8 cores (vishera, but still)

If I decide to get 3 r9 290 with pcie risers I would earn more $ mining cryptos than in my actual job ^^

 

[Sheep221]

I make 6.5k USD/yr after taxes. Which is not bad for a civil engineer without professional experience here. Guess I'm too poor to be considered console peasant.

I'm running 8 cores (vishera, but still)

If I decide to get 3 r9 290 with pcie risers I would earn more $ mining cryptos than in my actual job ^^

I'm sure you wouldn't when considered power use by cards.

 

[Erenhardt]

I'm sure you wouldn't when considered power use by cards.

Oh considering Power usage, it is very nice indeed. less than 0.1$/kwh and free heating for my room is welcome. I turned down the heating system for my room by almost 50%.
With 3 more I could turn it completely off. :thumbsup:

I spend almost 2 times more for petrol to my car driving to work, than it would cost to run 4 of those cards. So mining is even better!

 

[IllogicalGlory]

This is getting hilarious. Game devs should clearly cater to people who can barely afford gaming PCs and software because these things are clearly not luxury goods they can live without.

You're arguing against nothing. The only thing I and others are asking is that dual cores users not be arbitrarily locked out. We're not asking for them to be catered to - just to skip the part of the development process where the devs add a few lines of code that shut the game down if it detects a dual core.

And this argument that "they can live without x" is a ridiculous anyway. Maybe they can afford something better, but they're low-end enthusiasts like VirtualLarry, maybe they got it for free or $5 on sale, maybe anything, certainly nothing the devs need to worry about.

 

[mohit9206]

Quad cores have been around for a long time atleast i can agree with that. So most serious gamers already have a quad core cpu in their PC by now. Those who still cannot afford a quad core cpu probably cannot afford the game either. So I'm ok with new AAA games not running on Pentiums because Pentium owners would not be able to afford the game anyway. So i guess in hindsight its not a big deal.

 

[Erithan13]

You're arguing against nothing. The only thing I and others are asking is that dual cores users not be arbitrarily locked out. We're not asking for them to be catered to - just to skip the part of the development process where the devs add a few lines of code that shut the game down if it detects a dual core.

Is this actually the case though? As I understand it, the game is developed with the consoles as the main focus, so the engine expects to have 4+ threads available. It won't run on a dual not because the devs explicitly added a bit of code to stop it, but because it simply can't run with less threads than it expects. I see 'arbitrary lock out' is quickly becoming the favorite phrase of the moment, but I'm very uncomfortable applying it unless I can be sure that's what's happening.

I said earlier that if the devs know fine well the engine can run on 2 threads but lock that out, then I'd be mad. If instead the situation is the engine has spent 3+ years in development targeting 4+ thread systems so by default it won't accept running on less that in my mind is not the same situation. You could argue it's an arbitrary lockout if you wish, but it's not the same arbitrary lockout as adding code to sabotage itself on dual cores.

Now, if the game can be made to run on a dual simply by tweaking some minor configuration file or whatever, then I'd agree that dual cores should not be excluded provided that tweak is easily implemented. The issue as I see it is that there may be genuine difficulties in forcing the 4+ threads the game expects through two physical cores regardless of how fast those cores are. I'm not an engine programmer, but this far into the 2010s I'm inclined to believe that if the devs say the game needs 4 threads it really does need 4 threads. Yeah I could get obtuse about it and say why won't it run on a dual if it could run on some ancient bottom of the barrel quad but I understand what '4 threads' means in the context of modern gaming and it doesn't mean a Pentium regardless of how high it's clocked.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Those who still cannot afford a quad core cpu probably cannot afford the game either.

This :thumbsup:

 

[Zodiark1593]

I'll go along the lines of "Innocent until proven otherwise" here. If a simple modification allows the game to run nearly flawlessly on a dual thread cpu, then break out the pitchforks. If the game cannot run at all on a dual core, or is a horrible, stuttery, glitchfest no matter what your clockspeed is, then you will probably need to step up to play.

 

[StrangerGuy]

You're arguing against nothing. The only thing I and others are asking is that dual cores users not be arbitrarily locked out. We're not asking for them to be catered to - just to skip the part of the development process where the devs add a few lines of code that shut the game down if it detects a dual core.

And this argument that "they can live without x" is a ridiculous anyway. Maybe they can afford something better, but they're low-end enthusiasts like VirtualLarry, maybe they got it for free or $5 on sale, maybe anything, certainly nothing the devs need to worry about.

Buys a 2C/2T CPU for gaming and expects non-obsolescence by 2016 - Check.
Claims to be an expert in game programming - Check.
Brands people like himself as a "low-end enthusiast" to hide the fact they are too cheap to properly build a gaming PC - Check.

What's next, poor people can't be stupid?

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Buys a 2C/2T CPU for gaming and expects non-obsolescence by 2016 - Check.
Claims to be an expert in game programming - Check.
Brands people like himself as a "low-end enthusiast" to hide the fact they are too cheap to properly build a gaming PC - Check.

What's next, poor people can't be stupid?

Only people who fit into to your definition of "proper PC gamers" should be able to play games in 2016? Well, that makes sense to me.

Well, no it doesn't, it's a negative PC gamer stereotype, but good to see that there's some truth to it.

And yeah, the reason why people own the game and a dual core CPU is really not anyone's concern. It's not the dev's job to punish what you define as "stupid poor people", or indeed what you define as posers, nor I think should they applauded for doing so.

If anyone can prove that this game literally requires 4 threads to play, which as far as I know is not true of any extant game, I'm not going to change my opinion.

And yes, some low-end hardware is great, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying/benching it. It's no worse than people who buy decent things and rarely game, and even more rarely play modern games (like me).

On the other hand, I agree VirtualLarry should buy something decent.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Only people who fit into to your definition of "proper PC gamers" should be able to play games in 2016? Well, that makes sense to me.

Well, no it doesn't, it's a negative PC gamer stereotype, but good to see that there's some truth to it.

And yeah, the reason why people own the game and a dual core CPU is really not anyone's concern. It's not the dev's job to punish what you define as "stupid poor people", or indeed what you define as posers, nor I think should they applauded for doing so.

If anyone can prove that this game actually literally requires 4 threads to play, which as far as I know is not true of any extant game, I'm not going to change my opinion.

And yes, some low-end hardware is great, and there's nothing wrong with enjoying it. It's no worse than people who buy decent things and rarely game, and even more rarely play modern games (like me).

On the other hand, I agree VirtualLarry should buy something decent.

AHAHA, please don't make me laugh. You and your dual core buddies are the ones here who are claiming this game can run well on dual cores, and should be proving that to us when the rest of us have overwhelming evidence to prove beyond doubt a 2C/4T i3 is the minimum needed for modern PC gaming.

BTW if you't can't afford PC gaming, means you can't afford PC gaming. But please keep SJWing about how #cheapgamerlivesmatter

 

[scannall]

I know guys. It feels great 'getting one over on the man', running a dual core on modern games. But ya know, the party isn't quite over, but it's getting there. All the good looking girls have left, and the people with jobs and lives. Just the usual 'drain the kegs dregs' are left.

Quad cores have been around for quite a few years now. And quite frankly, it's taken the gaming industry far too long to utilize them very well. Instead of bitching about it, a better response might be 'It's about damn time!". I suppose you could argue that a single core running at 20 Ghz would be better than any 4 Ghz quad. And you'd be right. But ya know, physics isn't just a suggestion, it's the law.

Go buy a modest I5, or a 8320e and game your butt off. Be happy that game developers are finally figuring out how to multi-thread. It's a good thing. Really.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Nobody want to take away your quad and hex core cpus and 980Tis. Nobody is asking devs to do away with multithreading. All we are asking is to let the game run on a dual core and let the user decide if the experience is acceptable. Based on previous situations it most likely is relatively trivial to do so. I also dont like to see devs locking out hardware (actively or passively), even if it is Dice. But even if there is some new paradigm in this game that makes it totally impossible to run on a dual core, could we not at least be civil about it?