You mean the post that starts out with "you can mimic microstuttering..."Originally Posted by gosh
You mean the post that starts out with "you can mimic microstuttering..."
gosh, Going by the thread you started on AMDzone would it be right to say that you believe the problem to be caused by Intels "schizophrenic behavior" and a cache problem?
And I quote;
Last edited by gallag; 07-17-2008 at 02:10 PM.
OT
No cutting and pasting, I was reading this thread yesterday and tried to reply but then the forum crashed. So I wrote it on hard
I don't know. What I do know is how these processors work internally and knowing that you can draw some conclusions. I have tried to find reviews and tests in order to look for some specific issues but it is totally impossible to find. They never test I/O when reviews are done for graphics. They are always using Intel testing video cards. I need some different cpu in the test to see variance. Checking that variance you could draw some conclusions and if the match then you have proof. When they test CPU they are always testing on low res
Some patterns have been noticed looking at members on forums but those are very hard to use for proof. Also it is difficult to know if one review site is neutral.
Also this is very specific to gaming. People are really sensitive when you question I/O in gaming. Other type of software that is very memory intensive and/or I/O intensive it’s no problem at all talking about it. Xeon scales likeon servers when they run in memory databases as an example.
These very fast video cards that are out now should really be very heavy on I/O. If there also is threading, maybe the game is running on three cores and all cores are sending and getting information from external hardware, also there is thread synchronization.
If it is a problem on servers it really should be a problem on gaming also. The latency in the FSB goes up if there is a lot of traffic. I think that the thread scheduler doesn’t switch threads during I/O operations (depends on how they are done).
Last edited by gosh; 07-17-2008 at 02:25 PM.
Actually, I go around pwning myths and biased discussion all over, so it's not a matter of need, but more a matter of when you'll get it if you go around threads making useless postsAs much as speculation doesnt require my approval, me posting whether I approve or not doesnt need yours
Reply to the actual post and care less if it is cut and paste. If you are doing that you're going off topic. Sampsa has already shown that the micro-stuttering is better than the 9800GX2, and with the absence of a GTX 2x0X2 due to thermal and die size AND power issues, we can say already that the 4870X2 has brought us a legitimate improvement.
I think he wants us to wait for official launch before we can make any conclusions, which is his right
Perkam
Last edited by perkam; 07-17-2008 at 02:25 PM.
I can see there is still a huge debate over this.
While I suppose these results from GRID aren't enough to debunk microstuttering on the 4800 series, they do look promising.
The next time you play Grid run fraps. Hit F9 to record your race (either while racing or watching the replay). You should notice the "micro" stuttering everyone is eluding to. I still don't believe it exist solely as a dual GPU problem. Because that example alone can create "micro" stuttering just by looking at the screen (among other scenarios mentioned in post 185).
Last edited by Eastcoasthandle; 07-17-2008 at 07:29 PM.
Here is one test that could indicate that there is some problems in the total package for Intel when games are running on high res and/or is advanced in graphics.
In these tests one Phenom 9600 (2.3 GHz, 2MB L2 cache) wins over one C2Q (3,2 GHz, 12MB L2 cache)
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...l_q9450/14.htm
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...l_q9450/13.htm
http://www.overclockersclub.com/revi...el_q9450/8.htm
It seems that games that are heavy on I/O is a problem on Intel. If it is something wrong with the motherboard or other problems there I don’t know. But that is the only test I have found where they compare AMD with Intel on high res with PCI Express 2.0. Video Card used is 8800GT
lol again this strange review...
look at the cod4 test and compare the 1680x1050 with the 1920x1200 (ocend q9450). There is no chance in hell that with the same single (stock) 8800gt the framerate stays the same when you increase resolution, not even a gazillion more mhz on the cpu will make your game run faster, when the limintig factor is the gpu...
Same with WiC but now on the phenom rig -> 1027x768 28fps -> 1280x1024 28fps -> 1680x1050 28fps -> 1920x1200 28fps....
Last edited by Hornet331; 07-19-2008 at 03:05 AM.
is it?lol again this strange review...
The thing is that I believe this test is more creditable because it isn’t perfect. There is a lot going on in gaming and there could be other things on the computer that effects the game, of course it could be the human factor. But the thing is that the scores seems to be honest, they don’t care if it looks strange.
The big problem is that there is so very hard to find test that somehow is checking this problem. You need to compare one slow and one fast processor on high res with one very fast video card. The speed can’t be hindered by the processor speed or the video card. Best would be to compare one slow AMD Phenom ( 9550) with a good motherboard, now that these 790GX is coming that would be very interesting to compare, with one very high clocked Intel and a very fast Video Card. Then you have one solution that has very strong I/O but the processor isn’t that fast. Another solution that has very strong processor but I/O and memory transfers isn’t that fast. Checking the behavior on these computers would say a lot on why things happens.
There is another scenario that is similar to that if you compare one single core processor with a dual core. If you have one single core processor is running at 3 GHz and one dual core running at 1.5 GHz. You are using these for normal work as word processing, surfing, chatting e.t.c. What processor would get the most pleasant experience?
If you test these then the 3 GHz will win big over dual @ 1.5 GHz
If the 3 GHz runs some threads and one thread is set to higher priority and that thread does some demanding operations, then what happens to the other threads? They just stop.
If one thread crashes on then 3 GHz in a loop with higher priority, then the other threads also will be veeery slow.
What happens if a game is multithreaded or there are some other threads in the background of a game? That thread is set to high priority and does some memory intensive thing. Remember that the only path C2D and C2Q has to communicate with other hardware is the Front Side Bus. That traffic is probably controlled by hardware but it could be that two threads is located on the same core, other threads could also be waiting for one thread to get ready.
Last edited by gosh; 07-19-2008 at 03:48 AM.
and thats the problem with that review, they are using a 8800gt, and this should mean they should see serious drops in res above 1650x1050, yet there are some total inconsistent numbers (there are a lot more in that review, then the few i have pointed out.)
most games arn't really memory bandwidth hungry. Thats why you only see a very low increases in fps (even on the amd platform) when you use faster ram.
I also play games and do some crunshing (rosetta) at the same time, but i never noticed any slowdowns while i play games, not on SC or crysis.
As said in aother thread, this review needs some deeper digging and some crosschecking.
No but some are very I/O hungry and the problem here is GRID. That game seems to scale well using threading and it is also intensive in graphics. And what we are discussing here is situations that could slow the game temporarily.
If the problem was in the GPU then it would be more logical that it showed up I more games. New games that will be out and if they are heavy on I/O, is using more threads will probably confirm or prove it false.
any source for that claims?
i just played a bit with the system monitor in xp, which allowes you to log I/O for a certain app. Crysis has avg ~100 I/O per second and ~1,7mb/s transferred (peak of ~50mb/s and 6000 I/O while loading) (level was onslaught, which has quite some action going on.)
i dont know for grid, but i doubt it will be significantly higher.
I don’t think that you only have ~100 I/O requests per second to the GPU playing Crysisany source for that claims?
i just played a bit with the system monitor in xp, which allowes you to log I/O for a certain app. Crysis has avg ~100 I/O per second and ~1,7mb/s transferred (peak of ~50mb/s and 6000 I/O while loading) (level was onslaught, which has quite some action going on.
Also it isn’t the size that is important; it is the number of requests to memory and GPU that is important.
If you fetch 1000 bytes (not much) but you get one byte on each request. If you have a cache miss for each request and say that it takes about 250 clocks to get it. Then you have 1000 * 250 = 250 000 clocks getting 1000 bytes. Compare this with finding data in the L2 cache (15 clocks). 1000 * 15 = 15 000 clocks. If the Front Side Bus is working with another thread or cache is used for another application the hit rate will go down and as you can see in this example the speed is will go down.
If one thread has all these misses in the cache and slows down and there are another thread that is dependent on work to be ready then that thread will also be slower
Now it will not be that ineffective in games but normally it is small requests and it isn’t the size that matters, it is the latency for each request. OC the FSB will improve performance for the whole computer on Intel because latency goes down.
Crysis is almost one single threaded game and the problem with scaling may not show up there. If just one thread manages the I/O and/or it also will be the main memory user then I don’t think it will be a problem.
If you are using a lot of threads and all threads are sending or getting information than complex situations could appear. Not often but in a world that executes ~2 000 000 000 operations each second it could be often if we think about it. Also if there are other applications in the computer that is working the game will have to share resources and that slows it down.
On AMD the situation is different because it has Hypertransport and that manages I/O alone, it doesn’t need to compete with memory traffic. Also AMD Phenom can read and write data at the same time.
I dont notice Micro Stuttering on my 4850 crossfire setup, i did notice it before with SLi, but not with these new cards.
Interesting to hear GAR - it looks like along with the preliminary results from Sampsa that ATI did indeed do something either driver wise or hardware wise to fix issues
Thank you very much GAR! I've been thinking if it still could affect on 4850 (you prove this wrong, thanks) or with different hardware configurations (chipsets,OS's). It would be nice to hear more comments from 48x0 users. Seeing microstuttering once, it's pretty easy notice afterwards. Thanks Crytek for this great microstuttering test called Crysis.
I was thinking the same thing it seems that AMD CPU fanboys which are really dedicated to the cause (those who refuse to leaving in droves like pilgrims to the promised land of Core2) always rake that review out.lol again this strange review...
I think..
They have a point, it's nothing to do with the CPU, but more to do with the chipsets I belive the AMD chipsets have a faster or a more favourable PCI-E 2.0 controller, either that or Intel X38 and X48 boards require a BIOS update to ensure that there are no bottlenecks at higher resolutions
I vaguely remember reading something along the lines (slightly off topic) that Intel ICH only offers six PCI Express lanes, while AMD relies on its north bridges for PCIe links, but that might not be true.
Anyway I think ATi have done something to reduce microstutter (judging by the results in this thread), however it looks like it might still be around...only subjectively though...or very hard to detect.
John
Stop looking at the walls, look out the window
That is not Microstuttering that is hardware not upto the spec to run an application, Microstutter is best described as fluid motion with the odd bit of slow motion (not jerky) and then back to fluid motion, a bit like playing a game @ 100FPS that pauses and then hits you @ 30fps then shooting back up to 100FPS all in less than a second. (and entirely at random).
John
Stop looking at the walls, look out the window
In Furmark I notice these stutters even at 100+ FPS using a single GPU solution. Could it all just be bad programming by the game devs, or flawed engines to starts with? Does setting the maximum number of frames to be pre-rendered higher help with Nvidia cards? Interesting stuff.
Many many questions, but that's only a good thing in my opinion
Blue Dolphin Reviews & Guides
Blue Reviews:
Gigabyte G-Power PRO CPU cooler
Vantec Nexstar 3.5" external HDD enclosure
Gigabyte Poseidon 310 case
Blue Guides:
Fixing a GFX BIOS checksum yourself
98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig.
LMAO, you mean there could be a shred of legitimacy to the "smoother" feel of an AMD system... It could be the case, i had never considered I/O lag :P
" Business is Binary, your either a 1 or a 0, alive or dead." - Gary Winston ^^
Asus rampage III formula,i7 980xm, H70, Silverstone Ft02, Gigabyte Windforce 580 GTX SLI, Corsair AX1200, intel x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb, hp zr30w, 12gb corsair vengeance
Rig 2
i7 980x ,h70, Antec Lanboy Air, Samsung md230x3 ,Saphhire 6970 Xfired, Antec ax1200w, x-25m 160gb, 2 x OCZ vertex 2 180gb,12gb Corsair Vengence MSI Big Bang Xpower
the northbridge of x38/x48 has 32 pcie 2.0 lanes and the ICH(R)9 southbridge offers another 4 lanes.
For P45 it is 16 pcie 2.0 lanes and 6 on the ICH10.
i think the main factor, why there is less stuttering is, that the cards are faster. Make fun of it, but i think thats the biggest reason why we dont see MS so offten now. MS is mostly noticed in the 30-40 fps regoin, in most games now CF can push past this limit -> less MS.
bottlenecks everywhere; always will be if you put settings high enuf, particularly with badly coded games
but hey i can play tf2...and grid., but only 16x12 really with a
i7 3610QM 1.2-3.2GHz
You exactly described Crysis with crossfire. Average FPS is pretty good 40-60, max is over 100fps but it still feels like 15-20. Even 10fps at times. How YOU see it on YOUR system is neccessary nothing to do with everybody elses systems. Crysis is absolutely the best microstuttering testing tool what I've found. Actually Microstuttering is somewhat continuous when you are playing, if your average fps is 40fps actually you should see/feel stuttering 20 times per second in a worst case. Not FastForwad-stop-fastforward or anything like that. That sound more like system fault than MS, to me. But every system seems to behave differently. I have seen MS in three differerent crossfire system and every one stuttered like framerate were splitted to half or more.That is not Microstuttering that is hardware not upto the spec to run an application, Microstutter is best described as fluid motion with the odd bit of slow motion (not jerky) and then back to fluid motion, a bit like playing a game @ 100FPS that pauses and then hits you @ 30fps then shooting back up to 100FPS all in less than a second. (and entirely at random).
Last edited by L7R; 07-20-2008 at 12:30 AM.
L7R, I assume all 3 of them were not 4800+ CF systems?
I believe the lucklaster texturing and Z fillrate (and also to an extent internal differences) made the 2900/3800 in crossfire not too rosy for over-demanding stuff (stuff that you can't play smoothly on 1 card)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks