Mirror's Edge Catalyst won't run on Pentiums

[frozentundra123456]

Then you run the risk of some ignorant fools gamers trying to run the game on their dual core, are genuinely surprised that they get a craptastic experience and now makes it their mission in life to post a bad review of the game every chance they get and bad mouth it all over the internet.

Just not worth it imo.. If an engine is designed to run with four threads, then trying to make it run with less is just a disservice.

So do you think they will not be even more p***ed off if the game wont run at all? I certainly would be.

Maybe then we should have games that wont launch on a gpu with less than a certain number of shaders or a minimum bandwidth? After all you probably will get a "craptastic experience" with an APU or low end dgpu as well. If we are going to let the devs decide what hardware we can use, might as well get a console, and make life really easy for them.

 

[redzo]

Games are high performance apps. Don't neglect this. Forget about cores for once.
No matter if they've made a PR mistake, too many forum members are basically worshiping a 2 thread CPU. It's getting ridiculous.
A 4 thread CPU is about to become the low end for high computing stuff. What a disaster! Just deal with it!

 

[Sheep221]

Then you run the risk of some ignorant fools gamers trying to run the game on their dual core, are genuinely surprised that they get a craptastic experience and now makes it their mission in life to post a bad review of the game every chance they get and bad mouth it all over the internet.

Just not worth it imo.. If an engine is designed to run with four threads, then trying to make it run with less is just a disservice.

Locking the game for specific amount of threads is solving nothing, there are so many worthless CPUs that do feature 4 threads. It's utterly bad to think that you will run this game with Pentium 4 EE 965 which has 4 threads and not Pentium G4400, which has 2 threads, but if we combine the IPC performance the G4400 is some 15x faster. Not to mention Atoms and Celerons with 4 cores...etc, which are also in speed on par with 10 year old dual cores. If they gonna introduce this, it will be really an epic fail of disastrous proportions.

Games are high performance apps. Don't neglect this. Forget about cores for once.
No matter if they've made a PR mistake, too many forum members are basically worshiping a 2 thread CPU. It's getting ridiculous.
A 4 thread CPU is about to become the low end for high computing stuff. What a disaster! Just deal with it!

Nope you are wrong here as well.

 

[redzo]

Locking the game for specific amount of threads is solving nothing, there are so many worthless CPUs that do feature 4 threads. It's utterly bad to think that you will run this game with Pentium 4 EE 965 which has 4 threads and not Pentium G4400, which has 2 threads, but if we combine the IPC performance the G4400 is some 15x faster. Not to mention Atoms and Celerons with 4 cores...etc, which are also in speed on par with 10 year old dual cores. If they gonna introduce this, it will be really an epic fail of disastrous proportions.

Nobody in their right mind are targeting for those u-architectures. You're derailing the topic.

If they gonna introduce this, it will be really an epic fail of disastrous proportions.

From my POV, it's called progress.
Skype will run on your 4 thread atom just as bad, but let others enjoy their high demand apps as they should by letting developers push boundaries by upping the minimum specs.

 

[Sheep221]

Nobody in their right mind are targeting for those u-architectures. You're derailing the topic.

From my POV, it's called progress.
Skype will run on your 4 thread atom just as bad, but let others enjoy their high demand apps as they should by letting developers push boundaries by upping the minimum specs.

I'm targetting the topic really well, because that's what their intention will cause, I am all for technical progress and focus on quad cores, but this is poor way to do this. Since being a quad core / 4 thread CPU is no assurance that CPU has actual perfromance to even run the game, not to just play it badly. Reason behind this is quite simple, there have been dozens of architectures featuring CPUs with various amounts of cores and threads and corresponding performance, therefore amounts of threads can't be taken as performance measurement in this situation, given the various levels of IPC these architectures feature.

 

[RussianSensation]

So do you think they will not be even more p***ed off if the game wont run at all? I certainly would be.

How many people have a dual-core (not an i3) and are running a GPU faster than R9 270X? The next level up is HD7950/7970/GTX680/960. Who honestly buys $200+ GPUs and a $65 dual core after doing an ounce of research?

G4400 = $65
i3 6100 = $125
Core i5-6400 = $185

Let me put it another way. Who spends $600 on an all new rig that's outdated on day 1, when spending $660 (i3 6100) or $720 (i5-6400) ensures a system that's actually useful and can be upgraded down the line?

Let me put it a 3rd way. If a gamer is on a budget and really, really wants to have a good gaming PC, you go into the used market. You don't buy overpriced dual-core and i3 turds with underpowerd and overpriced $150-200 GTX750Ti/GTX950/960 videocards. I also do not want to hear anything about PSU requirements that "force" people to buy these weak cards out of necessity.

XFX 550W is regularly on sale for $27 USD:
http://slickdeals.net/newsearch.php...earcharea=deals&searchin=first&sort=relevance

Used PC market has stellar deals for budget gamers.

$750 CAD (~ $590 USD) for this entire rig:

- i7 2700K @ 4.2GHz Quad Core CPU
- ASUS P8Z68-V PRO Motherboard SLI/XFire Support USB 3.0
- 8GB G.Skill 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM
- XFX R9 290X 4GB Black OC Edition DD
- 120 GB Kingston HyperX SSD
- Corsair 600T Mid Tower Case
- Cooler Master Evo 212 CPU Cooler
- Cooler Master Elite 550W V2
http://www.kijiji.ca/v-desktop-comp...sd/1157554235?enableSearchNavigationFlag=true

This system that costs <$600 USD but will SMOKE 90%+ of all Steam gaming PCs.

This is AnandTech Technical Forums, not BestBuy or Apple forums. People come here to learn and with knowledge learn how to spend their $ wisely on PC upgrades. Anyone tight on $ is more than welcome to get advice from 100s-1000s of members here that'll help find awesome deals.

Even JaysTwoCents admitted that before he got into YouTube and didn't have the budget for high-end PC parts, he frequently purchased used components.

I can totally understand people in 3rd world countries with a limited online used parts market, perhaps unavailable/poor Internet connection, small local market which limits the # of people who resell parts, high tariffs that cause large mark-ups on electronics not having the choices we have, almost no opportunity to make more than $150-300 a month. But the people living in US/Canada complaining that a game may not run well on a dual-core in 2016? It's actually sad reading this type of stuff.

Literally, US is a country where minimum wage in some states is $15/USD per hour.

There is actually a YouTube channel where a guy put together a $350 PC from the time PS4/XB1 launched with the goal to show that a budget gaming rig with a 1st generation Quad Core i5 750/760 + GTX760 2GB is going to last the entirety of a PS4 generation for 1080p gaming, with minor upgrades (such as RAM) along the way:

https://www.youtube.com/user/jermgaming

Finally, there is such concept as Total Cost of Ownership.

I buy an Intel i5 6600K CPU for $240 and use it for 5 years, reselling it for $80. It cost me $170 / 5 = $34 a year for a high-end gaming CPU. Cannot afford $34 a year on CPU but can buy $60 launch software? If someone is complaining that their $65 CPU cannot run a $60 game in 2016, maybe they shouldn't be gaming on a PC. This leads to another question -- who in the world has $ to buy a $60 US game launch date but can only afford a $65 CPU? Sounds like this person pirates PC games too....?

It took an overclocked HD7970Ghz $500 US card in June of 2012 to come close to 60 fps at 1080p 4xAA in Crysis 1, a game released in November 2007.

This would be similar if it took a $500 US GPU and a $400 i7 in 2021 to hit 60 fps in Mirror's Edge Catalyst at 1080p.

I am sure a mid-range rig with a $200-250 Polaris 10 and an a $185 i5-6400 will play this game well in June. Today's gaming demands are nothing like the old days.

 

[Sheep221]

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.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This is AnandTech Technical Forums

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.)

 

[pj-]

I live in NYC, have a gaming PC, and have an iphone so I feel pretty well represented by that

 

[Carfax83]

Games already run with 50+ threads. Its just a matter of the utilization.

That's not the same thing. In modern game engines, the main processes which have dedicated threads and can potentially tie up a CPU's resources in game are always the same:

1) Game logic

2) Physics

3) Rendering

4) Streaming

On a quad core, these processes would get their own thread. On a dual core, they only have two threads to run on, which going by the example I posted with The Division, will obviously cause a lot of problems.

Artificially limiting the game to a quad isn't solving anything. The "ignorant fools" will still buy the game and just complain that it doesn't launch.

It's about liability, and design choice. By specifying four logical threads on the minimum requirements, the developer is absolving themselves of blame from people that attempt to run the game with only two threads.

Frostbite 3 engine is geared towards AAA games. Anyone that think a dual core CPU is a good choice for a gaming CPU to play these kinds of massive, cutting edge titles DESERVES to be burned when the game refuses to launch, or it runs like a car with square shaped tires.

Sorry, but gamers with toasters shouldn't be trying to play these games in the first place. The developer obviously isn't catering to those people, so they should seek their enjoyment elsewhere..

 

[Carfax83]

If we are going to let the devs decide what hardware we can use, might as well get a console, and make life really easy for them.

The program decides what hardware is required. It's always been that way.

The truth is, that the type of game that Mirror's Edge is, and the engine that it uses, makes it REQUIRE a quad core CPU..

The reason why Mirror's Edge automatically excludes dual core CPUs, is the same reason why Star Citizen is a PC exclusive.

Could Star Citizen run on consoles? Yes it could, but the developer's vision for the game would have to be severely compromised.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The program decides what hardware is required. It's always been that way.

The truth is, that the type of game that Mirror's Edge is, and the engine that it uses, makes it REQUIRE a quad core CPU..

The reason why Mirror's Edge automatically excludes dual core CPUs, is the same reason why Star Citizen is a PC exclusive.

Could Star Citizen run on consoles? Yes it could, but the developer's vision for the game would have to be severely compromised.

Well, I will be the first to admit, I am not a programmer, and did not have an ounce of input into programming the game. But there is a historical precedent that games that will not start up on a dual core actually will run fairly decently on a fast dual core if the cpu cores are assigned properly.

Did you program Mirror's Edge so that you know that it requires a quad core? DAI uses frostbyte, and did it not run on a dual core after the patch? Same for FC4.

No one is arguing that a dual core is a great gaming cpu for modern games that use a lot of threads. That is just a straw man argument. The argument is that if it is a simple matter to let the game start up on a dual core, then just let it do so and let the user decide if they want to play the game or not.

 

[Carfax83]

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.)

That's a faulty argument. As I enumerated in my response to Shintai, modern game engines have four processes that can potentially take up the most CPU time:

1) Game logic

2) Rendering

3) Physics

4) Streaming

It doesn't matter how many threads a modern dual core CPU can processes. Windows 10 uses probably thousands of threads at any given moment, but even a single core CPU can run it because those threads each require very little CPU time..

The question you should be asking is, how much CPU time is each thread requiring?

For a game like Mirror's Edge, each of those four processes I outlined will consume a great deal of CPU time, to the point where the game will absolutely either cease to function, or function so poorly as to be completely unplayable on a dual core machine.

Even a straight quad core CPU will find it's resources tested by a game like this let alone a dual core, especially if they want to game at 60 FPS and greater..

 

[VirtualLarry]

The truth is, that the type of game that Mirror's Edge is, and the engine that it uses, makes it REQUIRE a quad core CPU..

But... does it require a "quad-core", or does it require "a certain minimum amount of MT throughput, to which only current-gen quad-core or above CPUs perform that well".

If it's the first case, then it should run fine on a Z3735F Atom. If it's the second, then it should benchmark the current hardware and decide if it has enough MT throughput for the program, and not limit it by number of cores. Because future dual-cores could perform just as well as today's quad-cores.

 

[VirtualLarry]

That's a faulty argument. As I enumerated in my response to Shintai, modern game engines have four processes that can potentially take up the most CPU time:

1) Game logic

2) Rendering

3) Physics

4) Streaming

It doesn't matter how many threads a modern dual core CPU can processes. Windows 10 uses probably thousands of threads at any given moment, but even a single core CPU can run it because those threads each require very little CPU time..

The question you should be asking is, how much CPU time is each thread requiring?

For a game like Mirror's Edge, each of those four processes I outlined will consume a great deal of CPU time, to the point where the game will absolutely either cease to function, or function so poorly as to be completely unplayable on a dual core machine.

Even a straight quad core CPU will find it's resources tested by a game like this let alone a dual core, especially if they want to game at 60 FPS and greater..

Are you willing, then, to admit, that on a theoretical 2X speed dual-core CPU, that the game could potentially run acceptably? That the problem is not the number of threads, but the overall MT throughput of the CPU running the game?

 

[Magic Carpet]

Of course, 2 fast threads/cores > 4 slow threads/cores. Larry, what are you trying to prove with this, lmao. You know this, like no other

 

[Shivansps]

One thing is to requiere a quad core to run fine, and another is to run at all, the last one is 100% an artificial limit, from programing side there is just no diference to bind 4 threads to the same core than it is to bind them to diferent cores. And modern programing goes against this concept of bind threads to cores, and it just about spawning threads let the OS to decide where to run them.

 

[Carfax83]

But there is a historical precedent that games that will not start up on a dual core actually will run fairly decently on a fast dual core if the cpu cores are assigned properly.

That's completely dependent on the type of game it is..

Did you program Mirror's Edge so that you know that it requires a quad core? DAI uses frostbyte, and did it not run on a dual core after the patch? Same for FC4.

I'm going by the developer's decision to list four logical threads as the minimum requirement.

As to DAI, yes you're right. It did run on a dual core, which you can see in this video..

Both cores are maxed out to 100%, and the frame rate seems to average at 20 FPS. That said, neither DAI nor Far Cry 4 are anything like Mirror's Edge.

For one, DAI and Far Cry 4 are both cross gen games which released on both current and last gen consoles. Second, DAI isn't seamless, and the areas in the game whilst vast, don't offer much geometric complexity.

Mirror's Edge Catalyst is current gen only, and judging by the gameplay, will be totally seamless and has very complex environments with loads of animations.

The argument is that if it is a simple matter to let the game start up on a dual core, then just let it do so and let the user decide if they want to play the game or not.

One could argue that only an idiot would even attempt to play such a game with a dual core in the first place. Like I said earlier, gamers with toasters deserve to be burned every time they try to play a cutting edge title with underpowered hardware.

 

[VirtualLarry]

One could argue that only an idiot would even attempt to play such a game with a dual core in the first place. Like I said earlier, gamers with toasters deserve to be burned every time they try to play a cutting edge title with underpowered hardware.

So, not only do you have to be a member of the PC Master Race to play this game, you also have to be a member of the Quad-Core PC Master Race, a Master Race within the Master Race. Otherwise, they "deserve to be burned".

 

[Carfax83]

Are you willing, then, to admit, that on a theoretical 2X speed dual-core CPU, that the game could potentially run acceptably? That the problem is not the number of threads, but the overall MT throughput of the CPU running the game?

Yes, I would admit to that. Just like I would admit that a sufficiently powerful single core CPU could also theoretically run the game.

But the engine would likely have to be reprogrammed for that. Most of what I think is driving DICE's decision to cut off dual cores, is their design choices for Mirror's Edge Catalyst.

Frostbite 3 is scalable, like any other 3D engine and depending on the game in question, can run on a dual core CPU. But Mirror's Edge Catalyst looks like it will be a CPU intensive game due to the seamlessness, geometric complexity, draw distance, animations etcetera..

 

[Carfax83]

So, not only do you have to be a member of the PC Master Race to play this game, you also have to be a member of the Quad-Core PC Master Race, a Master Race within the Master Race. Otherwise, they "deserve to be burned".

I'm only the messenger ()

Per DICE's recommendation, the game requires at least four logical cores to run..

People should respect the developer's decision, and know what they're getting into when it comes to PC gaming. To be more specific, that it is not guaranteed for a game or any other application to work if you can't meet the basic requirements for program.

 

[ryrynz]

One thing is to requiere a quad core to run fine, and another is to run at all, the last one is 100% an artificial limit, from programing side there is just no diference to bind 4 threads to the same core than it is to bind them to diferent cores. And modern programing goes against this concept of bind threads to cores, and it just about spawning threads let the OS to decide where to run them.

Just upgrade "your" damn hardware.. People pissing and moaning about progress as per usual. Anyone doing so isn't a true gamer. Spend money or just keep playing the games your system was "designed" for.

 

[myocardia]

Like I said earlier, if minimum performance is an issue for this title, then it should benchmark the running hardware, and decide if it should be allowed to run. It shouldn't arbitrarily refuse to run on dual-cores.

What proof do you have that the developers did not benchmark any/all of the two-threaded Intel high-IPC CPUs available, before making their decision?

 

[Carfax83]

One thing is to requiere a quad core to run fine, and another is to run at all, the last one is 100% an artificial limit, from programing side there is just no diference to bind 4 threads to the same core than it is to bind them to diferent cores. And modern programing goes against this concept of bind threads to cores, and it just about spawning threads let the OS to decide where to run them.

Like I explained on the previous page, this "artificial limit" is likely put in place because DICE wants a certain standard of experience for it's customers.

Playing the game with a dual core will probably result in a similar experience as to what PCgameshardware.de had with The Division.....that is a disaster, and totally unplayable.

 

[Shivansps]

Like I explained on the previous page, this "artificial limit" is likely put in place because DICE wants a certain standard of experience for it's customers.

Playing the game with a dual core will probably result in a similar experience as to what PCgameshardware.de had with The Division.....that is a disaster, and totally unplayable.

yes because a Sempron 3850 gona offer a excelent experience.