[Toms] CPU bottlenecking in games - the <$200 CPUs

[RavenSEAL]

Well, when someone presents an argument that uses only a very handpicked situation to try to prove a point which goes agaisnt the generally accepted facts, uses an invalid comparison to an old CPU which is bested by a newer CPU at 1/4 the price, and blames AMDs failures on the game programmers, I think it is fair to criticize them.

I'm not blaming AMDs failures on programmers, i'm blaming the failure of programmers on programmer.

How the **** can you release a PC game in 2011 that barely uses 2 cores? Honestly?

 

[Texashiker]

How the **** can you release a PC game in 2011 that barely uses 2 cores? Honestly?

What kind of CPUs do most consoles use? Single, dual, quad cores,,,?

 

[exar333]

Yup, people who work 14 hours a day, often 6 days a week are 'lazy'. People whining about lack of true multithreaded games needs to realize a few things:

(1) It's extremely hard to write good MT code.
(2) Most games are console ports, no need for MT given current processor power.
(3) When your publisher is breathing down your neck, you don't have time to fiddle with multithreading, you need to ship ... yesterday.

So what's your take on Skyrim? How is a 70% performance increase 'magically' not the result of poor development? Skyboost was the result of NON-PAID folks who did better than the shipping software for multi-threaded performance by around 30% within months of the game launch.

I work in software development, and yes it is 'lazy'. Just like you can spend 100 hours writing a research paper that sucks compared to someone else who takes only 20. Time <> quality or effort.

I know great devs that work crazy hours, and I know crappy devs that work crazy hours too. Just because you sit in your chair at work for X hours doesn't tell me if your lazy or not.

 

[exar333]

What kind of CPUs do most consoles use? Single, dual, quad cores,,,?

Xbox360 is triple-core, and the PS3 is cell. Not sure on the # of cores in the Wii off-hand.

Edit: I remember reading around 3-4 years after the 360 launched that games were just starting to actually use the 2nd core. Don't even know if most games today use all 3 or not. Maybe now they do; but mostly GPU-limited.

 

[RavenSEAL]

What kind of CPUs do most consoles use? Single, dual, quad cores,,,?

PS3 is "8 cores", 360 is 3. Also, read this:

So what's your take on Skyrim? How is a 70% performance increase 'magically' not the result of poor development? Skyboost was the result of NON-PAID folks who did better than the shipping software for multi-threaded performance by around 30% within months of the game launch.

I work in software development, and yes it is 'lazy'. Just like you can spend 100 hours writing a research paper that sucks compared to someone else who takes only 20. Time <> quality or effort.

I know great devs that work crazy hours, and I know crappy devs that work crazy hours too. Just because you sit in your chair at work for X hours doesn't tell me if your lazy or not.

 

[exar333]

Well, so do I, but we can't all afford 3930Ks.

Computers are cheap these days anyway. I bought my first computer (with my own money) when I was 15 and it was $2000. I made WAY less money back then compared to now. It's a question of priorities, really.

After parting-out my X58 rig (CPU/RAM/MB) it was only about $700 out of pocket. That's seriously not much more than a 7970 or GTX580 on the GPU side...

 

[Olikan]

This is why AMDs "more corez" approach is retarded. SC2 AFAIK is limited to 2 threads. 4 of the core in your x6 will be useless but if the 2 used ones can't keep up -> bad frame-rate.

the funny part is that, blizzard tryed hard to make a competitive level for 2x2 or 3x3 in SC2...
they dropped the idea, because the pros couldn't do anything due the major lag when 4 armies atacked each other...

google mothership lag too.

imho...blizzard failed even harder at sc2 coding, than amd at bulldozer

 

[exar333]

the funny part is that, blizzard tryed hard to make a competitive level for 2x2 or 3x3 in SC2...
they dropped the idea, because the pros couldn't do anything due the major lag when 4 armies atacked each other...

google mothership lag too.

imho...blizzard failed even harder at sc2 coding, than amd at bulldozer

LOL agreed! They could have at least scaled the game to 3 cores...2 is just silly considering SC2 will be around for a long time and quads were pretty common when it released anyway. The fact that 2 years later (almost) and still CPUs struggle with it tells you something.

 

[BD231]

I have a FX8150 @ 4.7GHz with CrossFire 2x HD6950 @ 889MHz with a ThermalTake 730W 80+ PSU.

Exaggerating much are we ??

No, but I would say that's pretty ballzy of you considering BD's power requirements at those speeds. To each their own.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Im using an E8500 and it runs bf3 like a champ. i run around 50fps steady with a 5870. little lag at the start of a match but thats it. that is on high 64p maps.

I think everyone lags at the start of a match for about 20 secs then it smooths out.

I noticed with my e8200 the only really playable map was Operation Metro then sometimes with explosions it wasn't much fun either but i did find the higher you clocked the processor the better off you will be but my pos dfi x48 refused anything over 3.2ghz or it might have been the chip.

Unless the last patch fixed some performance issues with dual cores i doubt your gonna have much fun in 64 player Caspian Border maps as that puts a strain even on my i3 2100

 

[SlowSpyder]

Really guys? You're gonna blame AMD because bethsoft cant program worth for ****?

PS, I run the game at 60fps lock.

There are spots where my FPS drop, but for the most part my Phenom II/7970 combo has no problem pumping out 60FPS the vast majority of the time in Skyrim.

 

[Olikan]

LOL agreed! They could have at least scaled the game to 3 cores...2 is just silly considering SC2 will be around for a long time and quads were pretty common when it released anyway. The fact that 2 years later (almost) and still CPUs struggle with it tells you something.

i bet it will take more than 5 years to see a cpu that don't fry in a 4x4 zerglings only game.

 

[justin4pack]

I think everyone lags at the start of a match for about 20 secs then it smooths out.

I noticed with my e8200 the only really playable map was Operation Metro then sometimes with explosions it wasn't much fun either but i did find the higher you clocked the processor the better off you will be but my pos dfi x48 refused anything over 3.2ghz or it might have been the chip.

Unless the last patch fixed some performance issues with dual cores i doubt your gonna have much fun in 64 player Caspian Border maps as that puts a strain even on my i3 2100

Yea i noticed when my E8500 was stock and after i overclocked it, i could tell a difference in fps drops. Thankfully i should receive my i5-2400 setup tomorrow :biggrin:

 

[frozentundra123456]

I'm not blaming AMDs failures on programmers, i'm blaming the failure of programmers on programmer.

How the **** can you release a PC game in 2011 that barely uses 2 cores? Honestly?

I agree with you that games should utilize 4 cores in this day. However, even in a game that uses 4 cores, an Intel i2500 is much faster than "8 core" bulldozer.

 

[AtenRa]

I agree with you that games should utilize 4 cores in this day. However, even in a game that uses 4 cores, an Intel i2500 is much faster than "8 core" bulldozer.

Lets see, a new game that can utilize more than 2 cores, even FX4100 produces the same frames as 2500K @ 4GHz

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html

 

[quest55720]

Xbox360 is triple-core, and the PS3 is cell. Not sure on the # of cores in the Wii off-hand.

Edit: I remember reading around 3-4 years after the 360 launched that games were just starting to actually use the 2nd core. Don't even know if most games today use all 3 or not. Maybe now they do; but mostly GPU-limited.

The xbox 360 not only is 3 cores but has HT(smt) so it is 6 threads. Xbox 360 games have been using 6 threads for many years now. There is no excuse for any PC game that does not use 4 threads or more these days.

 

[exar333]

i bet it will take more than 5 years to see a cpu that don't fry in a 4x4 zerglings only game.

LOL, your probably right there. Thats a LOT of zerglings!

 

[RavenSEAL]

Lets see, a new game that can utilize more than 2 cores, even FX4100 produces the same frames as 2500K @ 4GHz

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html

/thread

 

[exar333]

/thread

The issue with games like BF3 and such is that MP benches <> single-player benches. MP benches are impossible to reproduce, and that is where the CPU power really counts. You see the impact mostly in minimum frame-rates, which are really paramount to a lot of users. Thats where a solid 4 or 6 core machine really can shine.

 

[Maximilian]

Lets see, a new game that can utilize more than 2 cores, even FX4100 produces the same frames as 2500K @ 4GHz

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html

Sorry to burst your bubble but single player benches in BF3 are irrelevant.

 

[RavenSEAL]

The issue with games like BF3 and such is that MP benches <> single-player benches. MP benches are impossible to reproduce, and that is where the CPU power really counts. You see the impact mostly in minimum frame-rates, which are really paramount to a lot of users. Thats where a solid 4 or 6 core machine really can shine.

Yep!

 

[frozentundra123456]

Lets see, a new game that can utilize more than 2 cores, even FX4100 produces the same frames as 2500K @ 4GHz

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html

Duh, of course, because you cherry picked data to prove your point: you are GPU limited. Look at Skyrim, i5 75.0, 4100 56.4, how about Starcraft 2: i5 60.4, 4100 40.3, how about Metro 2033, i5 60.2, 4100 47.9. Need I go on?

According to your reasoning, using your benchmark, you might as well just get a dual core G860 (53.1 FPS) instead of an FX-8120 (53.4 FPS). This is supposed to be a valid test of utilizing 4 cores? Even the caption underneath the chart says the test is clearly GPU limited.

 

[Red Hawk]

PS3 is "8 cores", 360 is 3. Also, read this:

The PS3's Cell architecture is wildly different than x86 processor architecture. It only has one "full" core, and there are 8 "synergistic processing elements". One is reserved for OS and security functions, and one is disabled to increase yields, so only 6 are functional when it comes to games. It's no good to compare PC software development to PS3 development.

The xbox 360 not only is 3 cores but has HT(smt) so it is 6 threads. Xbox 360 games have been using 6 threads for many years now. There is no excuse for any PC game that does not use 4 threads or more these days.

Similar situation for the 360 -- it may have 3 hyperthreaded cores, but those cores use a different architecture (PowerPC) and use in-order processing rather than out of order. Not to mention console software development happens in a fixed hardware environment, while PC software development has to be prepared for any combination of RAM, GPU, CPU, OS, motherboard, etc., that gets thrown at it.

So, while consoles going multi-core may have helped PC gaming do the same, it's not like PC developers should have gone multi-core just because of console gaming.

 

[amenx]

Lets see, a new game that can utilize more than 2 cores, even FX4100 produces the same frames as 2500K @ 4GHz

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-fx-pentium-apu-benchmark,3120-4.html

And the pentium is awfully close to the 1090t as well.

 

[Dark Shroud]

And the pentium is awfully close to the 1090t as well.

Considering the "pentium" is SB based it damn well should be running that well.

I'm just hoping AMD can get their IPC up for respins and Piledriver. AMD is in for one up hill battle here.