Mirror's Edge Catalyst won't run on Pentiums

[escrow4]

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.

Its not 2006 and Core 2. A quad should be mandatory for gaming and near mandatory for a fluid all rounder box. Dual core is dead and buried. Get over it. PC gaming has never been cheap and never will be. Not with Intel having a near total monopoly on gaming CPUs.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Its not 2006 and Core 2. A quad should be mandatory for gaming and near mandatory for a fluid all rounder box. Dual core is dead and buried. Get over it. PC gaming has never been cheap and never will be. Not with Intel having a near total monopoly on gaming CPUs.

Even during AMD top dog days, my budget cheapest in Athlon XP lineup 1700+ was only 20% cheaper than my current "Intel is ripping us off era" best-SKU-in-socket 4790K measured in 2014 dollars assuming a low 2% annual inflation. If you can't afford the prices of a mere i5 quad now, you certainly couldn't afford the equivalent either 12 years ago.

 

[Phynaz]

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.

I have yet to meet an owner of an FX that isn't running it at stock. So it's a completely valid comparison.

See what I did there? My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence.

 

[Carfax83]

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.

Already showed one example a few pages back. The Division does not run on dual core systems.....or should I say it runs, just really, REALLY badly. So bad in fact, that it's unplayable.

Link. Go down to the CPU benchmark.

All those examples shown in this thread of games running on dual cores, were mostly crossgen games. There's a few examples of current gen games as well. I've seen YouTube footage of the Witcher 3 running on a dual core system, but it was in prologue area which doesn't stress the CPU at all.

If it had been in Novigrad, then I'm sure it would have been totally unplayable.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

Already showed one example a few pages back. The Division does not run on dual core systems.....or should I say it runs, just really, REALLY badly. So bad in fact, that it's unplayable.

Link. Go down to the CPU benchmark.

All those examples shown in this thread of games running on dual cores, were mostly crossgen games. There's a few examples of current gen games as well. I've seen YouTube footage of the Witcher 3 running on a dual core system, but it was in prologue area which doesn't stress the CPU at all.

If it had been in Novigrad, then I'm sure it would have been totally unplayable.

When I was playing the witcher 3 on my pentium novigrad was running fine, game is more heavy on the gpu.

Mirrors edge doesn't seem to tax the cpu all that much either, the pentium should be able to run it easily. They just have some things hardcoded to run on the 3rd core and they can't be bothered to change it, or maybe they will, just like all the other games that had this problem. Game got postponed twice, I reckon fixing this has a lower priority than actually getting the game in a launchable state.

I don't get the pentium hate, it may only have 2 cores, but it has ~2x the performance per core per clock compared to the thing in the ps4 and you can run it at almost 3x the clockspeed. It is more powerful, sometimes it chokes on highly threaded code, but an fps limiter fixes it.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I have yet to meet an owner of an FX that isn't running it at stock. So it's a completely valid comparison.

See what I did there? My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence.

I don't think so. I suspect you are simply lying about the anecdotal evidence to make a point. AMD markets their unlocked products based on their overclocking capability. Lies won't change anything in this thread. If you polled AMD users -- it is a very safe bet that a larger percentage of them (versus Intel users) are running overclocked setups. That's probably a very safe bet, because AMD sells a lot more unlocked models in their product mix.

 

[itsmydamnation]

I have yet to meet an owner of an FX that isn't running it at stock. So it's a completely valid comparison.

See what I did there? My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence.

I have an FX-6300 in the miss's PC thats running stock. So now you have .

 

[LTC8K6]

I have an FX-6300 in the miss's PC thats running stock. So now you have .

Me too. FX-6300 at stock speeds.

 

[Jovec]

Going back only to the Phenom 2 / SB era...

Past unlocked SKUs running at stock: 550BE, 5800k
In current use unlocked SKUs running at stock: 950BE, 2500k, 2600k, 8350, 4790k
Past unlocked SKUs running OC'ed daily: 940BE, 950BE, 1090t
In current use unlocked SKUs running OC'ed daily: none

 

[IllogicalGlory]

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

More incoherent babble, buzzwords, strawman and ad hominem attacks. I'd expect nothing less. Are your poor little feelings threatened because some disagrees with you? How tragic.

I've never used a dual core CPU in my gaming rigs because I felt they provide an inadequate experience, some people might feel differently, and I don't see why people have a problem with that. To reiterate, I haven't seen anyone argue that the game needs to run well on or even "acceptably" on a dual core, just that there's no reason that the game cannot execute on a dual core, and as such, there's no reason to lock them out.

Already showed one example a few pages back. The Division does not run on dual core systems.....or should I say it runs, just really, REALLY badly. So bad in fact, that it's unplayable.

Link. Go down to the CPU benchmark.

The game still executes and is fully functional on the dual core, it's just slow. That's fine, and all I'm asking for.

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[Carfax83]

When I was playing the witcher 3 on my pentium novigrad was running fine, game is more heavy on the gpu.

Yeah I saw some benchmarks on Eurogamer's Digital Foundry website for an overclocked Pentium dual core in Novigrad. It drops down below 30 a few times, but it's still playable.

You're right though that Witcher 3 isn't really a CPU heavy title. The Division is way more CPU heavy, as it has lots more detail in the environment.

Mirrors edge doesn't seem to tax the cpu all that much either, the pentium should be able to run it easily. They just have some things hardcoded to run on the 3rd core and they can't be bothered to change it, or maybe they will, just like all the other games that had this problem. Game got postponed twice, I reckon fixing this has a lower priority than actually getting the game in a launchable state.

I would caution against using the beta version as an indication of final performance. It's possible that some settings or content was removed to make the beta install smaller. For instance, the texture detail was definitely lowered.

I don't get the pentium hate, it may only have 2 cores, but it has ~2x the performance per core per clock compared to the thing in the ps4 and you can run it at almost 3x the clockspeed. It is more powerful, sometimes it chokes on highly threaded code, but an fps limiter fixes it.

Because in order for quad core and above CPUs to shine, developers have to thread their games in a way that hurts CPUs with less cores/threads..

And since multicore is the future, dual core must by necessity go the way of the dodo and quad core should be the definite standard.

 

[Carfax83]

The game still executes and is fully functional on the dual core, it's just slow. That's fine, and all I'm asking for.

Did you translate the pertinent paragraphs? Running the game on a dual core causes streaming issues, which tells me that the Snowdrop engine was designed to run on CPUs with at least four cores/threads..

Warning, Game Stopper! Surprised we realized that The Division in the final version with a pure 2-core / thread processor starts. However, after almost five-minute charging time we ran reproducible on an invisible wall (in the picture)! Apparently remain threads of streaming stuck, the world does not load properly.

users of older and frail processors from Schlage Core i3 must be prepared for moderate to severe problems in The Division. With four CPU threads the game logs when starting the shortfall of its minimum requirements, then runs but more or less - as long as you can tolerate minutes long load times and smooth liges streaming. With only two cores / threads the Open Beta launched not only - the final version already, as we discovered surprised at posttest. What we saw then, is unprecedented. Expected we have endless loading times and low frame rates. The what we got, but with a curious Extra: When we wiggled our way through the first measurement, ran our alter ego in an invisible wall (see picture). A real showstopper - the game with two cores in a unique way unplayable.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Me too. FX-6300 at stock speeds.

Which is a waste considering the headroom the FX-6300's are known for running even the stock cooler. That's much like buying a G3258 and not overclocking it. There are people that do it, but you are outliers..... not the norm.

 

[partol]

Despite high framerate in a lot of games, the Pentium is often a stuttering mess, thus it is not recommended.

Thanks for posting that video link and thanks to the person who started this discussion. Just joined today because of this discussion. A few months ago, I upgraded from a first generation (Clarkdale) core i3 530 to a Pentium G3258. G3258 cost me $75. 3+1VRM phase H81m (new)motherboard cost me $45. The only thing I regret is no VRM heatsink on the motherboard. Cooling that 1VRM phase which powers the ram has not been easy. total upgrade cost was $120. re-used everything else.

I have many praises for dual-core pentiums, but let's start with the negatives. First, I strongly believe, that an overclocked dual-core, if intended for gaming, should only be recommend to PC "enthusiasts". Games can stutter and even briefly freeze when played on a dual-core cpu. If the hardware/software are not optimized, then there is a good chance the gameplay experience could be stuttery or jittery or simply low frame rate. I strongly suggest not to recommend a dual-core to random people, who may know little or nothing about PC hardware/software gaming.

If you are an old-school gamer, such as me, it can be a lot of fun to game on a dual core cpu, because you must minimize cpu usage of everything except the game while also maximizing cpu performance. Anything running in the background could contribute to stutter or low fps. Also, lately, Microsoft has been aggressively pushing patches which some disable Pentium overclocking on non-Z boards. Other patches might significantly use one cpu core (windows telemetry). With only two cpu cores, it helps to have high performance ram. Many Pentium owners probably bought cheap ram to go along with their cheap cpu and cheap motherboard, but unfortunately, that low performance ram is not good when you only have 2 cores and need to finish processing something as quickly as possible in order to not stutter, jitter, freeze.

Another major pitfall is running AMD graphics card with a dual-core cpu. I have read discussion about more "dx11 overhead" in AMD drivers and in the benchmarks I have seen, it seems to be true. If I had AMD gpu, then I would definitely prefer the Athlon instead of the Pentium because the extra cores will be needed by the AMD dx11 driver, or wait for Zen.

Someone made a good point that people who buy cheap cpu's probably don't pay for PC games. And that may be true. But it's also a catch-22. Because if PC games starting blocking dual-cores, then no one with a dual-core will buy such a PC game, or they will demand a refund. I do often play mmo games, and my experience with mmo gamers is that they are quite different than non-mmo gamers. mmo gamers, from my personal experience, are gaming on laptop/notebook,or non-gaming PC, yet some mmo gamers spend a lot of money on mmo games. since I'm an old-school gamer (who plays many games including mmo's), I don't understand why mmo gamers play on weak hardware, but that's just how it is. Just pointing out that the spending/gaming habits of mmo gamers and non-mmo gamers can be quite different. Since Mirror's Edge is not a mmo, I would definitely put mirror's edge in the "more likely to pirate" category than a mmo game.

It's not easy to get smooth performance in some games. I even tried The Division (when in beta), but could not get the hack to work right, and it would not run. For sure, I won't be buying any games which are blocked on a dual-core, but I am definitely curious to know if it's possible to make them run and see how they perform

In my youtube channel, all my gameplay videos are recorded on a Pentium dual-core, and also with only 4GB ram. Most of the games are legally used/licensed, but occasionally I download something "improperly" just for testing and then delete it. If anyone wants to gift me a game to be tested/recorded with my G3258 (steam account name = partol), I will love you long time. There are more than 100 games in my steam account but most are not new.

old,unpatched GTA 5 playing smooth on G3258 @4.4GHz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TieeqIuhWqE
youtube rumor is that, when patched, GTA 5 stutters on dual core, but I cant test that.

mirror's edge 1 (fully patched through steam). 60-62fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPvZh999rUw

 

[LTC8K6]

Which is a waste considering the headroom the FX-6300's are known for running even the stock cooler. That's much like buying a G3258 and not overclocking it. There are people that do it, but you are outliers..... not the norm.

I overclocked it, it was fun to do and it was quite fast. I just didn't leave it that way.

 

[jhu]

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.

My FX 8350 is running stock. So now you know at least one person running FX stock.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yes, and the FX4100 gets 55FPS min and 69FPS average. The Pentium is only about 10% slower *in multi-threaded*. That makes it obvious there is plenty of processing power from the pentium.

The whole point of my arguments, is that this seems to be a very undemanding game on the cpu, so it seems odd that it will not run on a pentium.

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[superstition]

Yes, and the FX4100 gets 55FPS min and 69FPS average. The Pentium is only about 10% slower *in multi-threaded*. That makes it obvious there is plenty of processing power from the pentium.

Again, the FX only has two FPU units. That might mean its quad core status is questionable for this particular workload. Plus, the FX chips were designed around having a large slow cache and the 4100 has quite a bit less cache.

 

[superstition]

My FX 8350 is running stock. So now you know at least one person running FX stock.

The only good reasons to run an 8 core FX at stock are:

a) It's a 9000 series.

b) Your board is too weak to support overclocking, in which case you bought the wrong board.

c) You're running an 8320E for the 85 watts of power consumption with a compatible workload.

 

[myocardia]

...

 

[frozentundra123456]

I think you've forgotten one, you own an 8350, and aren't a gamer. 4.0 Ghz base frequency isn't exactly slow, compared to the cheaper FX's base frequencies.

Yea this is off topic. But even if you overclock to 4.5, that is about a 10% increase only (depending on if stock can hold turbo slightly above 4.0). Not really sure if in a actual game, you could tell that 10% difference, and after that power consumption goes crazy.

If one wants to overclock, you would do better to get a cheaper FX8xxx and overclock it to 8350 speeds or slightly above.

 

[Jovec]

Yea this is off topic. But even if you overclock to 4.5, that is about a 10% increase only (depending on if stock can hold turbo slightly above 4.0). Not really sure if in a actual game, you could tell that 10% difference, and after that power consumption goes crazy.

If one wants to overclock, you would do better to get a cheaper FX8xxx and overclock it to 8350 speeds or slightly above.

Might not even be 10% with the power throttling, which 8350s do even at stock (at least IDC's and mine do it).

 

[IllogicalGlory]

Did you translate the pertinent paragraphs? Running the game on a dual core causes streaming issues, which tells me that the Snowdrop engine was designed to run on CPUs with at least four cores/threads..

There are workarounds. There are lots of youtube videos showing the game running on dual cores, and besides that was the beta. We don't know if that issue is still present.