Good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
Printable View
Good point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
For a PhenomII comparison?Quote:
Originally Posted by lo squartatore
@gosh.... this isnt a personal attack:slapass:, this forum is used by many people across the world as a valuable resourse when researching anything pc related....
i'm afraid that most of what you write is absolute garbage.... so dont spoil the forum with inacuracies....:stick:
on topic.....
when i installed this game after reading about all the problems people were having, i was initially impressed.... even running dual 4870's i didnt expect the game to run well at all,
given texture quality is locked at medium :shakes:(with only having 512mb of gpu memory), the rest of the settings were reasonably high....
with a q6600 at 3.6ghz i averaged around 52fps and am actually enjoying the game.....
i have experianced quite a few crashes but they only occur after hours of play....
so it looks like having a quad finally paid off and 'may' of made this game playable....:up:
So there isn't a problem on C2Q when multiple threads are working on same memory areas?Quote:
Originally Posted by purecain
Not meaning to be a troll here gosh, but we all know the Core2 just like ANY CPU or GRAPHICS CARD, does have it's weaknesses or areas where it does not perform quite as strong as other products.
This is why intel have released the Core i7, I'm not well versed on how the things work but I belive the 8MB of cache (L3) is far more "useful" than the 12MB of L2 cache on the Core2Quad CPU's as there is less repeition going on. As for FSB, AFIAK it only really matters in a few server related operations where memory bandwidth which is accesible to the CPU matters (although I might be wrong). As posted above, it does not really matter in desktop applications, yet alone games where IMHO the ability to have a beefy Graphics card matters the most (although GTA4 appears to be very CPU dependent so I would say more cores/threads would benefit over FSB).
There is a slight point I agree with you on and that is the original quad core CPU Q6600 showed in some circumstances that 1066Mhz FSB was not enough, which is why the QX6850 and all newer Yorkfields had 1333Mhz FSB.
BUT
For gaming FSB means nothing much...
Anyway, back on topic, seeing more people frustrated with this game suggests that R* have been lazy, sloppy and not really concentrating on their coding.
I doubt we will see anymore patches, if we did it would be nice, especially if they did iron out the bugs, but the words wishful and thinking come to mind :(
John
What makes you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
I don't get it. How can you be a troll if you present one explanation that could be a problem. I am not saying it is the only problem but it could be a problem. The only thing I have read from others is "bad optimize" but no explanation. Some have said that is just a GTA recompile, but I think most games are done in C++. Compilers are very good in optimizing code and CPU's isn't that different when it comes to single assembler instructions.
If you read forums where they discuss game programming and bottlenecks and it is common to warn against accessing same memory from different threads, this is also a problem with i7 and Phenom but it is much less of a problem compared to C2Q.
The reason why you don't haven't seen this problem could be:
There isn't a large market for quads yet, processors that can handle shared resources from multiple threads have less market then quads, bottlenecking communication between hardware on the computer is always very bad because thread switching isn't done using i/o operations, that will stall the processor so you need a margin. There is also always high latency when different hardware parts is talking to each other so you will always try to avoid that if you need speed.
The front side buss handles memory traffic and i/o traffic (traffic to the GPU) so I think that game developers are very careful not overusing this because it could stall the game. That was what I learned in another thread some here is referring to. There was good information if you looked for it and as more information was presented it was possible to understand more and more how games work. it is possible to draw more conclusions from that thread but some here would go crazy if you hint about it.
Also I think that is very logic that GTA has created the game like this, it is a bit of a gamble but those who has a fast dual is able to play the game, not good but they can. Those who have quads is also able to play the game, a bit better compared to those who have duals. Those who have the newer types of quads (those with L3 caches) is able to get best performance. Why would you spend a lot of time to rewrite the game so that it would run good on an dual? Maintain two different sources for the same game does mean MUCH MORE work. They also need to maintain code for consoles. It needs to be a lot to win before they decide to that. It isn't fun either, rewrites to be able to use other types of hardware are almost as boring as correcting bugs. Doing a rewrite will add to both, more bugs and the rewrite. They are probably selling enough anyway. And maybe they think that they will sell more if they focus on new versions optimizing the same game engine compared to trying to make those that has slower duals and maybe slow quads get good performance.
It is also a bit strange that this seems to be more of a problem compared to when games need a faster GPU. I think that most people (gamers) spend more money on GPU compared to CPU and that makes it even more strange. This game should get good credits because it doesn't need a very expensive GPU.
I'v changed my e8500 for a qx9650 and only see 1fps increase?
Both cpu's 3.6@1600x1200 cf 4870,same exact settings.
R* have never released more than 1 patch for ANY of their games. GTA3, Vice City, San Andreas all just got 1 patch which addressed issues during the launch or in last minute testing after the game was marked final.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psykocyber
Sadly Vice City and GTA3 were littered with bugs which were reproducible, at the time I reported the issue to take2games, who then forwarded it on to R*
R* contacted me and I produced several screen shots and dxlogs for them.
They admitted that I had found bugs, thanked me for my time and apologised for any loss of game satisfaction from the bugs and said that they would take on board my findings for "future games" so they are not developed with the same bugs.
I asked about a patch but they said they had moved on....(to what was San Andreas at the time).
How crap is that?
Going full circle when Half-Life was released I had a problem with a slight bug, reported it to Sierra who forwarded it onto vALVE. I then got an e-mail FROM vALVE with a link to a beta patch which resolved my issue (this patch was then later released as the 1.0.0.6 patch for Half-Life).
vALVE and even Epic back in the day looked after those who purchased their games etc, just look at the amount of patches and free content Unreal Tournament (the original) got!
Sadly R* just don't bother with us PC gamers. However I would very very very much liked to be proven wrong and see R* address the performance related bugs and tone down the RockStar Antisocial club.
Gosh
It smacks of bad programming (GTA IV), take a look at the source engine, you CAN enable upto 8 threads at a time (via console commands) and I have no problems with 4 threads on my QX9650.
Bioshock can also use 4 threads via a .Ini tweak, I believe World in Conflict Demo also uses multithreads...NONE of these games have the same problems as GTA IV. Yet GTA IV isn't ground breaking, it might sound controversial but I think even Crysis looks better...and that game is about a year old now.
They need (or should have as it is probably too far gone now..) to optimise and fine tune their engine for the PC platform.
John
How many games do they sell?Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions :p:
I have no doubt they are competent designers and story writers and artists and sound engineers etc, but development for the PC platform on all recent R* games (GTA3 onwards) with the exception of GTA San Andreas has been rather poor and buggy.
I believe this is because they design their engine solely for the consoles they develop on, although I have no prove and this is just pure speculation on the way 1 I was treated by R* and 2 the fact that Vice City and GTA3 are littered with console related stuff inside.
John
They must be doing something right then ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
I think it is a bit risky statement to say anything about that they are bad when the success for the game is that extreme. It could be that they are doing something that other haven't been able to do and if you are on the frontline there are probably some mistakes that you will do, the code might be very complex and much harder to get out without bugs.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9937851-7.html
That I will definitely agree. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by purecain
There's this thing called "shared cache"... if one part of that memory is already in the cache (from one core accessing memory previously), the other Core can access the same part of this memory directly from the cache (doesn't need to re-read from memory anymore)... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
Since when does large volume of sales determine how good a game is. It's Grand Theft Auto, and that name alone sells it. Hype FTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by gosh
"Why would you spend a lot of time to rewrite the game so that it would run good on an dual?" <- i don't really get this. Why wouldn't writing better code for a dual not be the way? Don't forget that most people out there don't have quads. Besides, i don't see why writing code that would optimize dual core performance not optimize quad performance at the same time. Then again, i'm no programmer so what do i know :p:
I think the main reason why people are pissed is not merely the poor performance; it's how BAD the game looks.
Interesting to what extent people will reach in order to defend Core 2 ;) That processor that Intel has redesigned.
Just ignore him guys, the more you put into it, the more derailed this thread becomes...
toss the FSB/cache argument out the window Gosh. Quads (and maybe tripples) run the game better than singles or duals. If FSB or cache were an issue they would not.
Yes they would, the processor doesn't spend 100% of the time moving memory. It does a lot. if it has one extra core that helps a lot if the game is using three threads (comparing to a dual core). If those threads could use memory from same location fast then that is faster compared to if those three threads have a bit trouble using memory from same location. But even if there are some trouble using memory from same location four cores will execute three threads much faster compared to a dual core processor. Remember also that a dual core has the overhead of switching between threads that at least one core needs to do. The dual doesn't have the problem of sharing memory though because the L2 cache works well there.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Again, drop the argument. If the problem was anything more than minor they would not perform better than duals. Therefor if the problem exists it is so minor as to be an excuse for an argument. Why dont you go pick on some games that actually dont scale at all with quads regardless of the number of threads they support?
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/screen...nches_1280.PNGQuote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...essors/?page=2
9950 wins in that link Abel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clairvoyant129
:up: