9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
9.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 28, 2017, 21:29
9.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 28, 2017, 21:29
Jun 28, 2017, 21:29
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Jun 27, 2017, 18:26:
NetHead wrote on Jun 27, 2017, 18:04:
HoSpanky wrote on Jun 27, 2017, 16:06:
If AMD can keep this up, maybe Ryzen CAN compete with the I7. Im still leaning Intel for my next build, but this is promising. Games in general still rely on higher speeds, fewer cores. If/when that changes, I'll be switching to AMD.

A big help toward that would be getting Unreal and Unity onboard with engines focused on using as many cores as possible.

The thing in, that often small performance advantage hardly ever makes a difference. Virtually everyone plays games with framerates capped at some number, as you should, and unless you're struggling to reach that framerate number that extra performance isn't doing anything. Unless it brings you over that threshold it's a price premium that isn't actually doing anything.

So in game X one CPU can push 160FPS and the other CPU 180FPS, what's the point if your monitor is a 144Hz, or even lower. What's been gained by going for that extra performance and cost. Meanwhile there are other uses which don't suffer in this regard. Compression/decompression, encoding/decoding, general PC multitasking, a world of things that don't have that "cap" and easily benefit from more cores.

Yeah, I'd say install Kerbal Space Program and learn the hard way that frame-rate and sim-rate are 2 things you WILL care about in some games, Planet Coaster, Cities Skylines also come to mind (great FPS, shit sim-rate because everything simulation wise hangs up on 1 thread that sits on 1 core and really needs that 1 core 100%)

While frame-rate is needless above a certain value, sim-rate is latency based, meaning more power = less latency = more sim = more latency. You can never have too many or too fast CPU cores in games that simulate something.

5 times faster CPU cores would mean 5times bigger Cities Skylines map, and instead of a 300 part ship, we could fly a 1500 part ship. Which would be huge, we could suddenly instead of allowing more than 500 parts simulate pressure phenomena, liquid flow calculations, exhaust-gas-behaviors etc.

And especially KSP and Cities Skylines would be depending on Unity making MT easier, more supportive and faster.

So you got it entirely wrong. CPU's have no bearing (beyond a point) on frame-rates, they make however all the difference in the world when you have a SIMULATION rate that you need to keep BELOW the frame-latency otherwise the simulation rate slows down. Meaning what is 1 second of simulation now happens in 2 seconds of real-time.

Frame-rate literally never caps simulation rate in games, in fact in most games that aren't coded by braindead idiots (aka console ports) frame-rate and simulation-rate are disconnected. The reason games don't increase in complexity is that simulation-rate performance of CPU's has not increased substantially until Ryzen 1600 and 1800 released.

"Yeah" First of all nothing you've said disqualified what I said or the point made. You've merely added another consideration, which is perfectly fine though would be better if accurate. So I'm curious as to where you're pulling such condescension from, I often feel obliged to return favours.

Otherwise I understand what you're saying, or trying to since you seem to lack the technical knowledge to articulate it. So I'll just go with it, from your CPU which is 5 times faster (which is also more mythical than hypothetical until you care to point to competing CPUs where one is so incredibly faster) to your technical pseudonyms.

Speaking of, "sim rate" can and does run into a "cap" similar to what I mentioned in framerate. If there's enough performance to get it fast enough the rest of the available performance is wasted in that instance in regard to that task, nevermind any further "premium" performance. Not only can it and does it, it hitting this "cap" is virtually always deliberate and something that needs to be painfully managed. Playing a rare old game which doesn't manage it you can watch a timer count through minutes in a few seconds. This is something that is strictly controlled and an utter screwup when it isn't, for very many reasons.

In words of Inigo Montoya "that word, I do not think it means what you think it means" literally. Perhaps at least look into things a little before dropping "literal" snark bombs. Framerate can and sometimes (wait for it) literally does limit sim rate (I'm dropping the quotation marks, you're welcome).

One of the reasons for doing this, relates to what I mentioned before about strictly controlling the sim rate and furthermore the use of the word "painfully" because controlling it is far from the easiest thing in the world. Linking sim rate to framerate, then limiting framerate is an easy way of,,, limiting/capping/controlling your sim rate. This has been done in both old and new games, it's not a great practice or good way to go about things and there are far to many games that suffer and annoy due to limiting their sim rate in this way. In such games removing the framerate may not only effect he sim rate but can result in things like breaking physics simulation. (at this rate this sim rate is going to give me a nervous "tick")

So the fact, that sim rate is and should be limited, strictly managed, is in fact an example that goes hand in hand with the point about framerate. As when the performance available exceeds what's needed that performance is not being used, / wasted.

I haven't forgotten about the 5 times faster competing CPU and even if it were to materialise it wouldn't matter, and not simply because sim rate is something that's limited. Games need to be designed with some form of lowest common denominator in mind, or rather many including performance. Such intrinsic design elements are limited by that, that's one of the reasons console ports got such vile thrown their way from the original Xbox days. Just because some have better hardware doesn't mean they're going to design and make games to fully utilise it thus excluding the vast majority from being paying customers.

Having a 5 times faster CPU in gaming would have a single standout aspect, a hell of a lot of wasted and untapped performance. While if everyone had a 5 times faster CPU, well then it wouldn't be 5 times faster because they would all be the same speed.

Single core CPU performance may truly be coming to a climax, Moore's Law will end (or it will "eat the universe" as Bob Cowell points out with his usual tongue in cheek). The whole drive behind multi-core and multi-threading is necessity and there's a distinct possibility that if devs want 5 times the performance over today's CPUs they may be forced to properly use multi-threading baring a paradigm shift in the technology.

Also sim rate as pointed out is managed/controlled, it is not latency based or latency limited. When talking about latency in regards to CPUs it's going to take a hell of a lot of reading to come to terms with it, if one ever truly does they may as well move on to cache coherence.


8.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 27, 2017, 18:26
8.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 27, 2017, 18:26
Jun 27, 2017, 18:26
 
NetHead wrote on Jun 27, 2017, 18:04:
HoSpanky wrote on Jun 27, 2017, 16:06:
If AMD can keep this up, maybe Ryzen CAN compete with the I7. Im still leaning Intel for my next build, but this is promising. Games in general still rely on higher speeds, fewer cores. If/when that changes, I'll be switching to AMD.

A big help toward that would be getting Unreal and Unity onboard with engines focused on using as many cores as possible.

The thing in, that often small performance advantage hardly ever makes a difference. Virtually everyone plays games with framerates capped at some number, as you should, and unless you're struggling to reach that framerate number that extra performance isn't doing anything. Unless it brings you over that threshold it's a price premium that isn't actually doing anything.

So in game X one CPU can push 160FPS and the other CPU 180FPS, what's the point if your monitor is a 144Hz, or even lower. What's been gained by going for that extra performance and cost. Meanwhile there are other uses which don't suffer in this regard. Compression/decompression, encoding/decoding, general PC multitasking, a world of things that don't have that "cap" and easily benefit from more cores.

Yeah, I'd say install Kerbal Space Program and learn the hard way that frame-rate and sim-rate are 2 things you WILL care about in some games, Planet Coaster, Cities Skylines also come to mind (great FPS, shit sim-rate because everything simulation wise hangs up on 1 thread that sits on 1 core and really needs that 1 core 100%)

While frame-rate is needless above a certain value, sim-rate is latency based, meaning more power = less latency = more sim = more latency. You can never have too many or too fast CPU cores in games that simulate something.

5 times faster CPU cores would mean 5times bigger Cities Skylines map, and instead of a 300 part ship, we could fly a 1500 part ship. Which would be huge, we could suddenly instead of allowing more than 500 parts simulate pressure phenomena, liquid flow calculations, exhaust-gas-behaviors etc.

And especially KSP and Cities Skylines would be depending on Unity making MT easier, more supportive and faster.

So you got it entirely wrong. CPU's have no bearing (beyond a point) on frame-rates, they make however all the difference in the world when you have a SIMULATION rate that you need to keep BELOW the frame-latency otherwise the simulation rate slows down. Meaning what is 1 second of simulation now happens in 2 seconds of real-time.

Frame-rate literally never caps simulation rate in games, in fact in most games that aren't coded by braindead idiots (aka console ports) frame-rate and simulation-rate are disconnected. The reason games don't increase in complexity is that simulation-rate performance of CPU's has not increased substantially until Ryzen 1600 and 1800 released.
Avatar 54727
7.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 27, 2017, 18:04
7.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 27, 2017, 18:04
Jun 27, 2017, 18:04
 
HoSpanky wrote on Jun 27, 2017, 16:06:
If AMD can keep this up, maybe Ryzen CAN compete with the I7. Im still leaning Intel for my next build, but this is promising. Games in general still rely on higher speeds, fewer cores. If/when that changes, I'll be switching to AMD.

A big help toward that would be getting Unreal and Unity onboard with engines focused on using as many cores as possible.

The thing in, that often small performance advantage hardly ever makes a difference. Virtually everyone plays games with framerates capped at some number, as you should, and unless you're struggling to reach that framerate number that extra performance isn't doing anything. Unless it brings you over that threshold it's a price premium that isn't actually doing anything.

So in game X one CPU can push 160FPS and the other CPU 180FPS, what's the point if your monitor is a 144Hz, or even lower. What's been gained by going for that extra performance and cost. Meanwhile there are other uses which don't suffer in this regard. Compression/decompression, encoding/decoding, general PC multitasking, a world of things that don't have that "cap" and easily benefit from more cores.
6.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 27, 2017, 17:48
6.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 27, 2017, 17:48
Jun 27, 2017, 17:48
 
Actually both Unity and Unreal are furiously working to use as many cores as possible, we'll see whose approach pays off by the Ryzen benchmarks I'll wager.
5.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 27, 2017, 16:06
5.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 27, 2017, 16:06
Jun 27, 2017, 16:06
 
If AMD can keep this up, maybe Ryzen CAN compete with the I7. Im still leaning Intel for my next build, but this is promising. Games in general still rely on higher speeds, fewer cores. If/when that changes, I'll be switching to AMD.

A big help toward that would be getting Unreal and Unity onboard with engines focused on using as many cores as possible.
Avatar 15603
4.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 27, 2017, 13:50
4.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 27, 2017, 13:50
Jun 27, 2017, 13:50
 
If you're really looking to maximize performance of Ryzen don't forget to factor in the cost of a great kit of RAM. You're still likely to come away with saving a couple hundred bucks though especially if x299 carries the typical premium costs found in x99 boards.
Avatar 50040
3.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 27, 2017, 10:41
3.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 27, 2017, 10:41
Jun 27, 2017, 10:41
 
What I'm comparing is the 6/12's:

1600(x) vs 7800x, I'm leaning currently that AMD is winning price/performance.
Avatar 17232
2.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 27, 2017, 10:01
El Pit
 
2.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 27, 2017, 10:01
Jun 27, 2017, 10:01
 El Pit
 
GothicWizard wrote on Jun 27, 2017, 09:35:
The 1800X is going to be my next mobo\CPU combo.

Or you get a 1700 or 1700x and overclock it. A lot of them can be overclocked to the same amount as the 1800x does.
"There is no right life in the wrong one." (Theodor W. Adorno, philosopher)
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes." (Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jedi)
1.
 
Re: Morning Tech Bits
Jun 27, 2017, 09:35
1.
Re: Morning Tech Bits Jun 27, 2017, 09:35
Jun 27, 2017, 09:35
 
The 1800X is going to be my next mobo\CPU combo.
9 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older