Far Cry 4 doesnt support dual core cpu's

[LePawel]

So soon PC gaming will need true 8 cores because consoles have them, except they run at 3rd of the speed? Lazy programming.

[GloriousPain]

My problem with this analysis is we don't see optimal usage of the CPU threads. One core is at 100% usage full time while the other three barely break 10% usage. If we saw better multicore usage that really hit all cores hard, then I'd call that evolution of software. Right now it's a bit of a farce.

Yeah I've been doing research since my post and found that sadly it is a bit of a farce oh well 

 

so you are telling me that I cannot use a G3258 but I can use an AMD A6 if i wanted since it has non-hyperthreaded 4 core emulation.

 

that makes COMPLETE sense.

Yeah  it does make sense both cpus aren't that good, but hyperthreading does work so you could use an i3 just true dual cores (like pentiums) don't work according to things I've found online

[NARAKU_KAT]

How did you expect to run such a game in a dual core?

[Snadzies]

Pretty dumb as there have been reports of Farcry 4 pretty much only using a single core anyway.

CPU usage shows a single core getting thrashed at 100% while all the other cares are damn near idle.

[Rohit Jackdaw]

Pentium Fanboys are in trouble !!!

[spartaman64]

and people say the anniversary pentium is better than an quad core athlon

[patrickjp93]

and people say the anniversary pentium is better than an quad core athlon

It is in such a case. One core getting hit hard while the other 3 are really on smoke break means the program could have been better designed to more evenly use the cores. One Pentium G3258 core can handle at 70% load what 3 cores handle when each are at 15% load (add in the necessary spin locks to ensure functions don't trip). It's once again poor Ubusoft programming.

[spartaman64]

It is in such a case. One core getting hit hard while the other 3 are really on smoke break means the program could have been better designed to more evenly use the cores. One Pentium G3258 core can handle at 70% load what 3 cores handle when each are at 15% load (add in the necessary spin locks to ensure functions don't trip). It's once again poor Ubusoft programming.

another advantage of having more cores is that you dont have to close all your programs and just run the game if you dont want a performance hit on your game

[patrickjp93]

another advantage of having more cores is that you dont have to close all your programs and just run the game if you dont want a performance hit on your game

You also don't have to do that if you have an operating system with a good scheduler on it. There's still no existing game which shoves all 4 cores of a quad hard simultaneously. Game devs really need to catch up with the last 2 generations of industry computer scientists.

[Opcode]

Don't forget phone quad cores have a huge disadvantage in ipc and clock speed, so they need the extra cores. I'm all for dragging the Core 2 Duo users out of the Stone Age, it's also well known ubisoft's devs use 1 core very heavily and barely use the other 3 despite having them required.

Quad cores aren't at any disadvantage over lesser core configurations. The i5-4690k clearly has a huge advantage over a G3258 clock for clock. Cores are necessary as we essentially hit a frequency barrier with silicon a long time ago. In order for microprocessors to progress beyond that barrier they needed to just simply add more cores. Which is the better route even if they could make a 15 GHz single core Pentium. It would still be a pile of shit because of it only being able to execute one instruction at a time.

[HippY]

so you are telling me that I cannot use a G3258 but I can use an AMD A6 if i wanted since it has non-hyperthreaded 4 core emulation.

 

that makes COMPLETE sense.

 

no

the game might start, but then again high high high end PC-s are struggling with ubi titles..

[LiamApex]

it's a ported game from ps4&xbox1 witch have 8 cores each so expect it to be heavily threaded so no surprise there  

you realise games are developed on a pc 

[7850OC]

dual cores are "dead" and "all" they are a "waste of money"

 

[patrickjp93]

Quad cores aren't at any disadvantage over lesser core configurations. The i5-4690k clearly has a huge advantage over a G3258 clock for clock. Cores are necessary as we essentially hit a frequency barrier with silicon a long time ago. In order for microprocessors to progress beyond that barrier they needed to just simply add more cores. Which is the better route even if they could make a 15 GHz single core Pentium. It would still be a pile of shit because of it only being able to execute one instruction at a time.

Facepalm* I said phone quads were at a disadvantage against their bigger counterparts in the pc computing arena. The only way for a phone to multitask is throw more cores at the problem. The only way to get good program snappiness is ensure it's multithreaded. That was my whole point on phone quads vs. PC duos. Also, for some applications core speed still matters greatly. When we move to carbon nanotubes we'll hit 8GHz. Graphene I expect will take us many times farther.

[That Norwegian Guy]

What about FX-6300s or Athlon II X4s? (3 and 2 floating point units each, respectively)

 

Does it see them as 6 and 4 (integer) threads, or 3 and 2 (FPU) threads?

 

Because I'd be feeling ripped off if I was on a 2/2 Intel chip with way more IPC and unable to run it, but an AMD 3 / 2 "core" could run it just because it reports 6 / 4 "threads" to Windows even though the game most likely needs the floating point performance and not the integer performance.

 

Then again, there are many reasons I haven't bought a Ubisoft game since 2004, and even then it was an accident.

[Opcode]

Facepalm* I said phone quads were at a disadvantage against their bigger counterparts in the pc computing arena. The only way for a phone to multitask is throw more cores at the problem. The only way to get good program snappiness is ensure it's multithreaded. That was my whole point on phone quads vs. PC duos. Also, for some applications core speed still matters greatly. When we move to carbon nanotubes we'll hit 8GHz. Graphene I expect will take us many times farther.

You were referring to both in that post. And mobile hardware is no different than desktop hardware. You can maintain several cores at a lower thermal threshold compared to a very few highly clocked cores. The next step is Graphene (strongest material on the planet). After that we won't need to worry about it as the architectures companies are developing will be irrelevant. We've already got fiber optic microprocessors as is.

[Pomfinator]

Pretty dumb as there have been reports of Farcry 4 pretty much only using a single core anyway.

CPU usage shows a single core getting thrashed at 100% while all the other cares are damn near idle.

And it's a weird choice of core as well.  Most games thrash Core 0, but FC4 for some reason thrashes Core 2.  

[connorpiper]

What? Dual core? Also not if hyperthreaded? Cuz I don't quite understand your wording?

 

Then alot of laptop users will be in trouble, most of those are still hyperthreaded dual cores...

 

Threads count. You can play on a i3.

[Deletive]

UGH #$%*%(^$(^)$ ^43 THIS JUST UPSETS ME. Not only do I have to upgrade my current PC but now my HTPC plans are ruined. 

[LAwLz]

This just seems weird to me. I would be totally OK with the game running poorly on a dual core because the CPU was simply not powerful enough to run it. Not allowing people to run it at all seems really weird though. Reminds me of COD: Ghost which would not start the game if you had less than 6GB of RAM. Then someone made a crack that bypassed that stupid requirement and the game ran just fine.

There are dual cores that performs better than quad cores so this does not make any sense to me.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this requirement is either as artificial as the COD:Ghost RAM one, or that the game is so buggy it simply won't work on dual cores no matter how fast they are.

[bobhays]

I understand people wanting to move towards quad-core, but doing so in a way that basically doesn't work for dual-cores is a TERRIBLE way to do it. People who built budget computer based off the pentium (which works fine in almost every game), are screwed for this. The pentium isn't a slouch and can compete with the 860k in multi-threaded loads. 

[Lord Baal]

So? Even CoD: AW does this.

Quad Core processors are becoming a requirement for AAA titles.

^This. 

Wait besides for maybe Pentium anniversary edition chips who the hell is buying or attempting to use dual cores for gaming?

Why the hell do people expect support for a massively outdated standard or cheap crappy CPU's?

To me this is like someone complaining not all games still support directX9c and they can't play them on their 9800gtx lol

[Briggsy]

years ago, it was a common thing to read "games don't use any more than 2 threads, i7 is useless" on public forums.

 

the problem with the internet, is that crap often gets repeated for years by tech parrots, and it takes brute force effort on the part of actual pc gamers to get the parrots to start repeating something else. the anniversary edition pentium was a dead end product for AAA gaming when it launched, and yet somehow the parrots kept repeating the same crap about 2 threads being enough for gaming, even though this has not been true for AAA titles for a couple years at least.

 

ughh... 

 

[Cloudyskies]

It is Ubisoft's fault for making a poorly coded game. 

Their game might not properly utilize the cores it requires, but pushing for more cores is in no way a bad thing.

 

No, If Ubisoft put in code so it won't launch with a dualcore, Then it's their fault. if their game engine legit really needs that much cpu power, just wow.

... It's a game engine, how much CPU power is it supposed to use?

[RH00D]

years ago, it was a common thing to read "games don't use any more than 2 threads, i7 is useless" on public forums.

 

the problem with the internet, is that crap often gets repeated for years by tech parrots, and it takes brute force effort on the part of actual pc gamers to get the parrots to start repeating something else. the anniversary edition pentium was a dead end product for AAA gaming when it launched, and yet somehow the parrots kept repeating the same crap about 2 threads being enough for gaming, even though this has not been true for AAA titles for a couple years at least.

 

ughh... 

 

 

I agree. The problem is most tech folks make hardware recommendations based on how they handle already released games, and give absolutely no cares for future games. I've always taken future titles into consideration before buying hardware.

 

I would have never recommended purchasing a dual-core for gaming after 2010. Quad-core CPUs have been common-place since 2007 with Intel Core 2 Quads. (7 years ago!!)

 

The fact that someone wanted to save a couple of dollars by going dual-core instead of quad isn't a developer's fault.