Far Cry 4 doesnt support dual core cpu's

[Opcode]

http://www.gizmag.com/carbyne-properties/29393/

 

Also, graphene is harder to manufacture in large quantities.

Your article also backs my current and previous statements. Graphene can already be manufactured unlike Carbyne. Graphene is the worlds strongest material to date on the planet (that can be produced). Carbyne is only a material made up of theory and has never been produced reliably (other than being synthesized by compressing graphite). By the time comes for silicon to be replaced manufacturing Graphene shouldn't be stupid expensive. As Graphene is already being used in some consumer electronics.

[Opcode]

It's funny how games run at 60+ FPS with a midrange GPU on a Pentium G3258 and how certain Ubisoft titles don't allow for such things.

I get that 4+ core CPUs are the future, but a Pentium G3258 is more than enough to play damn near any game with a decent GPU at acceptable framerates. I know that this Pentium is better than my aging Core 2 Quad but the fact that it works on a midrange CPU from 6 years ago and not on a new CPU that has plenty of firepower.

Just ugh.

It really depends on how the developer has written the game. In this case they could be relying on 2-3 other threads besides the main game thread for critical workloads. In which you would have no choice but to rule out lower end microprocessors. It would of been better for them to point out that you cannot run the game on said hardware before people went out and bought it not knowing. Tho like any type of software it's easy to get around this. I could write up a library to inject into the game at runtime to fool it into thinking the machine has four cores so it would run without issue. Regardless of any developer trying to restrict software to specific hardware configurations. There will always be a way around it.

[DeViLzzz]

[jaggysnake57]

to the people saying its ok since they listed it as a minimum requirement. If they listed the minimum requirements as a 980, would you be ok with that?

 

thats not the same thing because quad core isnt exclusive to top tear chips my i5 4570 was £140 and thats a quad core and im sure if you want amd you could get a quad core cheaper.  more and more games will start to push for quad core chips so all those guys bitchin that there dual cores just aint cutting it anymore

[LAwLz]

thats not the same thing because quad core isnt exclusive to top tear chips my i5 4570 was £140 and thats a quad core and im sure if you want amd you could get a quad core cheaper.  more and more games will start to push for quad core chips so all those guys bitchin that there dual cores just aint cutting it anymore

The thing that bothers me is that there are some dual cores which outperform quad cores. It doesn't make any sense that the best i3 can't run the game, but the lowest end Core 2 quad can.

It seems like an artificial limit (probably caused by poor programming skills) from Ubisoft. You know, like how the COD: Ghost 6GB RAM requirements were completely bullshit as well. I don't think someone will release a crack to let the game run on dual cores, but I wouldn't be surprised by it either.

[ShadowCaptain]

The thing that bothers me is that there are some dual cores which outperform quad cores. It doesn't make any sense that the best i3 can't run the game, but the lowest end Core 2 quad can.

It seems like an artificial limit (probably caused by poor programming skills) from Ubisoft. You know, like how the COD: Ghost 6GB RAM requirements were completely bullshit as well. I don't think someone will release a crack to let the game run on dual cores, but I wouldn't be surprised by it either.

 

 

I have been wondering the same thing, that its either an artificial restriction, or its just very badly coded

 

There is no reason a fast dual core cannot run all games on the market, even if it ran them poorly

[eelnico09]

I have been wondering the same thing, that its either an artificial restriction, or its just very badly coded

 

There is no reason a fast dual core cannot run all games on the market, even if it ran them poorly

Well maybe devs don't want you to run their game on a shitty quality and low FPS?

[ShadowCaptain]

Well maybe devs don't want you to run their game on a shitty quality and low FPS?

 

They released it on console didnt they? I mean there is a freaking 360 version? I bet runs at 640x480 30fps

 

That is my choice, I can still get far cry 4 and run it on low

 

EDIT: also there is no reason that it wouldnt run on dual core, if crysis 3 and metro last light (and almost every other gmae) can run fine on a dual core, far cry 4 certainly should be able to

[eelnico09]

They released it on console didnt they? I mean there is a freaking 360 version? I bet runs at 640x480 30fps

 

That is my choice, I can still get far cry 4 and run it on low

Well i mean, the thing is that you know how it works, but how many ignorant people will say the game is badly optimized because of their dual core? While trying to run it on 1080p maxed out.

 

It's your choice, but i guess that's the reason the devs do it that way, and i think that games should start doing this, it's time to let go the dual core. And we know that people that only play on console, will see the game beautiful on a 360, god bless ignorance.

[ShadowCaptain]

Well i mean, the thing is that you know how it works, but how many ignorant people will say the game is badly optimized because of their dual core? While trying to run it on 1080p maxed out.

 

It's your choice, but i guess that's the reason the devs do it that way, and i think that games should start doing this, it's time to let go the dual core. And we know that people that only play on console, will see the game beautiful on a 360, god bless ignorance.

 

Then the dev is treating us all as idiots which is insulting, most people that buy low end PCs are not bothered by graphical fidelity, I know people that play games like TF2 on their £250 laptop in a small window on lowest settings just so they can play it - they KNOW their pc is shit, and that is why the game runs bad, they would not be like "omg ubisoft is shit their game wont run in 4k ultra on my intel atom"

[eelnico09]

Then the dev is treating us all as idiots which is insulting, most people that buy low end PCs are not bothered by graphical fidelity, I know people that play games like TF2 on their £250 laptop in a small window on lowest settings just so they can play it - they KNOW their pc is shit, and that is why the game runs bad, they would not be like "omg ubisoft is shit their game wont run in 4k ultra on my intel atom"

Believe me, the other day i saw a post where a kid was saying FC3 was shitty optimized, while trying to play it on 1080p with AAX8, ultra, and was not getting 60fps. And he had a sinle 7850. So yeah, there are a lot of people like that.

 

I'm not saying it's good or bad, insulting, or whatever, i just say that imo that's the reason they do it, i think it's good, and it's time, for AAA games to require a minimum of 4 cores to play, it's time to move on we like it or not, and in the future 4 core cpus won't be enough for AAA games and we'll need to move on too, is how technology works.

I guess that saying the min/rec requirements is pointless if the minimum is a cuad core and you see people playing it on dual cores, so yeah it's time to the minimum to be actually the minimum, and not some random info.

[ShadowCaptain]

Believe me, the other day i saw a post where a kid was saying FC3 was shitty optimized, while trying to play it on 1080p with AAX8, ultra, and was not getting 60fps. And he had a sinle 7850. So yeah, there are a lot of people like that.

 

I'm not saying it's good or bad, insulting, or whatever, i just say that imo that's the reason they do it, i think it's good, and it's time, for AAA games to require a minimum of 4 cores to play, it's time to move on we like it or not, and in the future 4 core cpus won't be enough for AAA games and we'll need to move on too, is how technology works.

I guess that saying the min/rec requirements is pointless if the minimum is a cuad core and you see people playing it on dual cores, so yeah it's time to the minimum to be actually the minimum, and not some random info.

 

Kids do that haha, they have less knowledge and experience, generally the people doing that are either complete novices, or younger people that are new to computers and computer gaming

 

I agree we need to move on, but if you look at the steam hardware survey nearly 50% of people on steam are using a dual core PC.. so instantly that means only 50% of people can now buy and play your game

 

EDIT: as you can see, there are MORE people with dual cores than quad cores - imagine if ALL monitors were suddenly made 4k in order to push the industry? or all cars suddenly made electric but nowhere to charge? these things have to come slowly and to be implemented at the right time 

[eelnico09]

Kids do that haha, they have less knowledge and experience, generally the people doing that are either complete novices, or younger people that are new to computers and computer gaming

 

I agree we need to move on, but if you look at the steam hardware survey nearly 50% of people on steam are using a dual core PC.. so instantly that means only 50% of people can now buy and play your game

 

EDIT: as you can see, there are MORE people with dual cores than quad cores - imagine if ALL monitors were suddenly made 4k in order to push the industry? or all cars suddenly made electric but nowhere to charge? these things have to come slowly and to be implemented at the right time 

Oh come on, you have to know that you're exagerating when you say it's the same to move on from dual core to quad core, than moving from 1080p to 4k, i can agree if you say from 1080p to 1440p, and maybe 60hz to 120hz, but not 4k.

 

I understand that, but there should be a chart that says how many owners of the last AAA games have dual cores, i mean, yeah a lot of people have dual cores on steam, but how many of them plays anything else than tf2? I don't say that because i want to argue or anything, i say it from a point of view, in which i assume that ubi and any company is aware of this kind of stuff, they wouldn't forbid dual-core owners from playing their game, if they were the 50% of their AAA game sales.

[ShadowCaptain]

Oh come on, you have to know that you're exagerating when you say it's the same to move on from dual core to quad core, than moving from 1080p to 4k, i can agree if you say from 1080p to 1440p, and maybe 60hz to 120hz, but not 4k.

 

I understand that, but there should be a chart that says how many owners of the last AAA games have dual cores, i mean, yeah a lot of people have dual cores on steam, but how many of them plays anything else than tf2? I don't say that because i want to argue or anything, i say it from a point of view, in which i assume that ubi and any company is aware of this kind of stuff, they wouldn't forbid dual-core owners from playing their game, if they were the 50% of their AAA game sales.

 

I am not at all, 1440p is pretty much being skipped out, currently I can buy a 4k 60hz IPS monitor cheaper than most 1440p 60hz IPS monitors... 1440p is a middle resolution, since Cameras film in 1080p or 4k and very few even support 1440p, 4k will become the next standard, hence the push towards 4k, its already happening now! everything is like "4k ready" 

 

120hz is also a luxury, I would say 60fps minimum standards

Sure thats true, but its still cutting off yourself from the market, they should still provide a product that people can run, 

THAT said, there is nothing wrong with not supporting dual cores, as long as it is explicitly stated on the box, and on the website, "Does not run on dual cores"

[eelnico09]

I am not at all, 1440p is pretty much being skipped out, currently I can buy a 4k 60hz IPS monitor cheaper than most 1440p 60hz IPS monitors... 1440p is a middle resolution, since Cameras film in 1080p or 4k and very few even support 1440p, 4k will become the next standard, hence the push towards 4k, its already happening now! everything is like "4k ready" 

 

120hz is also a luxury, I would say 60fps minimum standards

Sure thats true, but its still cutting off yourself from the market, they should still provide a product that people can run, 

THAT said, there is nothing wrong with not supporting dual cores, as long as it is explicitly stated on the box, and on the website, "Does not run on dual cores"

 

But the problem is everyone don't giving a fuck about requirements, like, it asks for a quad core, and people are like fuck this shit, and play on a dual core, i mean if it needs a minimum, it's a minimum. And requirements have never been on the box of a game, i don't see why it should say "doesn't run on dual-core"

They try to make 4k happen, but it's too soon, but my point is that, they are not new on this, it's like the games that come out only for ps4/xbone, yeah they are losing some sales by not selling them on the old gen, but maybe the investment on developing a game that runs on those old gen consoles too, is not worth it, well maybe here the same thing happens, it's not worth it make the game run on dual cores, since it might no be worth it, ofcourse this is al speculation, but cmon, we're talking abot ubisoft, money is all that matters, dual-core users can't be that strong if ubi would rather have the game to be able to run in quad-cores or more.

I mean, like it or not, today a quad core is a standard, like 1080p is a standard, like 2-3gb video cards are a standard, like 60hz is a standard. It's how it works, when dual-cores were strong, 720p was strong, 1gb graphics card were strong, and all that, well the change was inminent, ubi and activision made the first steps, it's time for other companies to do it too.

[ShadowCaptain]

But the problem is everyone don't giving a fuck about requirements, like, it asks for a quad core, and people are like fuck this shit, and play on a dual core, i mean if it needs a minimum, it's a minimum. And requirements have never been on the box of a game, i don't see why it should say "doesn't run on dual-core"

They try to make 4k happen, but it's too soon, but my point is that, they are not new on this, it's like the games that come out only for ps4/xbone, yeah they are losing some sales by not selling them on the old gen, but maybe the investment on developing a game that runs on those old gen consoles too, is not worth it, well maybe here the same thing happens, it's not worth it make the game run on dual cores, since it might no be worth it, ofcourse this is al speculation, but cmon, we're talking abot ubisoft, money is all that matters, dual-core users can't be that strong if ubi would rather have the game to be able to run in quad-cores or more.

I mean, like it or not, today a quad core is a standard, like 1080p is a standard, like 2-3gb video cards are a standard, like 60hz is a standard. It's how it works, when dual-cores were strong, 720p was strong, 1gb graphics card were strong, and all that, well the change was inminent, ubi and activision made the first steps, it's time for other companies to do it too.

 

 

Requirements are always on the back of the box? nearly always, at least here in the UK they are, turn the PC box over and it says "minimum and recommended requirements" - 

 

If it doesnt run on dual cores it should say "minimum spec quad core, note dual core cpus not supported" - its like selling water that is poisonous but not writing it on the bottle, the WHOLE point of minimum specs are that they help the consumer work out if it will run on their PC

 

4k will happen, its happening now, slowly but surely it will make its way into homes, and it will happen increasingly faster, people always want the new hotness, and as it gets cheaper and more accessible more and more will get it

 

 

As far as ps3/360 goes, development IS more expensive, because the PS4 and XboxONE are PCs basically inside, making a game for xbox one and for PC is very similar, but making it for the 360 is very different, and requires a lot more work than just a simple port

 

Yes its about the money, they are a company out to make money, but that is not why ubisoft dont support dual cores, I bet if this was properly coded it would run fine, every other game works fine, far cry 3 worked, and this game is the same engine

[eelnico09]

Requirements are always on the back of the box? nearly always, at least here in the UK they are, turn the PC box over and it says "minimum and recommended requirements" - 

 

If it doesnt run on dual cores it should say "minimum spec quad core, note dual core cpus not supported" - its like selling water that is poisonous but not writing it on the bottle, the WHOLE point of minimum specs are that they help the consumer work out if it will run on their PC

 

4k will happen, its happening now, slowly but surely it will make its way into homes, and it will happen increasingly faster, people always want the new hotness, and as it gets cheaper and more accessible more and more will get it

 

 

As far as ps3/360 goes, development IS more expensive, because the PS4 and XboxONE are PCs basically inside, making a game for xbox one and for PC is very similar, but making it for the 360 is very different, and requires a lot more work than just a simple port

 

Yes its about the money, they are a company out to make money, but that is not why ubisoft dont support dual cores, I bet if this was properly coded it would run fine, every other game works fine, far cry 3 worked, and this game is the same engine

 

But that's the thing, they probably don't want to program the game to run it on dual cores, laziness, not worth it, or whatever the reason, they didn't do it, we'll have to see if they will keep this policy, but for whatever the reason, dual-core pc owners are not big enough for ubisoft or activision to care.

 

And 4k will be the next standard but WAY later than the time when quad cores will be the standard, because the people that can properly play (decent quality, minimum filters, 60fps) on 4k are way less, than the owners of quad cores, i mean you'll need like 1000USD on graphics cards to run games like that on 4k, but we'll have to see, i think GTA V is a defining game in terms of upcoming standards.

[ShadowCaptain]

But that's the thing, they probably don't want to program the game to run it on dual cores, laziness, not worth it, or whatever the reason, they didn't do it, we'll have to see if they will keep this policy, but for whatever the reason, dual-core pc owners are not big enough for ubisoft or activision to care.

 

And 4k will be the next standard but WAY later than the time when quad cores will be the standard, because the people that can properly play (decent quality, minimum filters, 60fps) on 4k are way less, than the owners of quad cores, i mean you'll need like 1000USD on graphics cards to run games like that on 4k, but we'll have to see, i think GTA V is a defining game in terms of upcoming standards.

 

Im not sure about GTA.. GTA 4 was a horrible mess, this could be the same

[eelnico09]

Im not sure about GTA.. GTA 4 was a horrible mess, this could be the same

I know, but i think it would be a freaking joke if GTA V is as bad as GTA IV was at the beginning, with all the time to develop the game, and they even took a couple of months to focus only on pc.

[ShadowCaptain]

I know, but i think it would be a freaking joke if GTA V is as bad as GTA IV was at the beginning, with all the time to develop the game, and they even took a couple of months to focus only on pc.

 

We shall see, rockstar do not have the best record of PC ports, though some have been fine, they have also been working on the PS4 and Xbox One versions, so they are basically developing  for 3 platforms

[eelnico09]

We shall see, rockstar do not have the best record of PC ports, though some have been fine, they have also been working on the PS4 and Xbox One versions, so they are basically developing  for 3 platforms

As you said, new consoles are like a pc, i am expecting a nice port, since they were fine on new consoles.

[ShadowCaptain]

As you said, new consoles are like a pc, i am expecting a nice port, since they were fine on new consoles.

 

I hope so

[harrynowl]

RIP G3258.

[patrickjp93]

Your article also backs my current and previous statements. Graphene can already be manufactured unlike Carbyne. Graphene is the worlds strongest material to date on the planet (that can be produced). Carbyne is only a material made up of theory and has never been produced reliably (other than being synthesized by compressing graphite). By the time comes for silicon to be replaced manufacturing Graphene shouldn't be stupid expensive. As Graphene is already being used in some consumer electronics.

Produced reliably meaning what? It can be made, just in tiny quantities with chains no longer than 60 atoms.

[Lord Baal]

They released it on console didnt they? I mean there is a freaking 360 version? I bet runs at 640x480 30fps

 

That is my choice, I can still get far cry 4 and run it on low

 

EDIT: also there is no reason that it wouldnt run on dual core, if crysis 3 and metro last light (and almost every other gmae) can run fine on a dual core, far cry 4 certainly should be able to

To be fair the game looks no better on PS4 then Far Cry 3 did on 360 and ps3 so I'm sure the older consoles are able to play it but even the 360 has more then 2 cores lmfao.

I'm also reasonably sure after the 1.04 patch come out for 12hours before Ubi pulled it back down the only bug I've seen complained about since(by those that did download it) is the black screen cashes on dual cores that they intend to patch it and fix it so it's able to run on dual cores or they could have just left the patch up.