Far Cry 4 doesnt support dual core cpu's

[ShadowCaptain]

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.

 

Yeah but the point is, far cry 3 works fine on dual cores, far cry 4 is the same engine, basically the same graphics, and suddenly does not work, its pretty bullshit

[Lord Baal]

Yeah but the point is, far cry 3 works fine on dual cores, far cry 4 is the same engine, basically the same graphics, and suddenly does not work, its pretty bullshit

Read the last part of my post bud. I'm 90% sure they intend on fixing it if they're able I'm not excusing the fact they released it in a broken state though. Attempting to fix this issue is the only reason I can think of for them releasing the 1.04 patch then pulling it back down after only 12 hours when all reports I've seen from those who were able to download it are that it fixed all other crashing issues except for dual cores

[Recon97]

So?

[ShadowCaptain]

Read the last part of my post bud. I'm 90% sure they intend on fixing it if they're able I'm not excusing the fact they released it in a broken state though

 

its defiantly no excuse, if there is a genuine reason it needs it, and it is stated on the game "does not work on dual cores" then I would have no problem

 

But people buying it will have no idea, especially if they had Far Cry 3 and expect this to work just fine

[Lord Baal]

its defiantly no excuse, if there is a genuine reason it needs it, and it is stated on the game "does not work on dual cores" then I would have no problem

 

But people buying it will have no idea, especially if they had Far Cry 3 and expect this to work just fine

I wasn't trying to even in the slightest defend them releasing it in a broken state just pointing out those who did buy it and do own shitty dual cores have some hope of it being fixed.

I put them in the same boat here as I do with AC:U the games fundamentally broken and shouldn't have been released yet.  I've played some of my buddies copy on ps4 and before this 1.04 it was beyond frustrating it would randomly just change weapons when ever the hell it wanted.

[Opcode]

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

It's difficult to produce because of each layer consisting of 3 atoms. If they fall out of order they essentially explode. There's technological hurdles to getting it to a state where it can be mass produced.

[patrickjp93]

It's difficult to produce because of each layer consisting of 3 atoms. If they fall out of order they essentially explode. There's technological hurdles to getting it to a state where it can be mass produced.

And currently graphene has a huge rate of defect in production. There's also no mass-production technique available, and all the experimental ones are at least six years to market right now (growing on a glass substrate for one).

[Opcode]

And currently graphene has a huge rate of defect in production. There's also no mass-production technique available, and all the experimental ones are at least six years to market right now (growing on a glass substrate for one).

That gives you insight on how long it will be before Carbyne will make it to the market. A single Graphene layer only consists of a single atom. It's production has made it far enough now to be used in consumer electronics (specialty battery's use Graphene). In a couple more years I would expect it to be mass produced (as commercial applications are planning on using it as of 2014). Tho like said I doubt we will go beyond using Graphene. When we reach the limits of that material fiber optic microprocessors will start becoming the norm.

[STRMfrmXMN]

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.

People will always find a way. How, exactly, do you trick something to run as if your CPU had more cores...?

[Opcode]

People will always find a way. How, exactly, do you trick something to run as if your CPU had more cores...?

There's many different ways of going about it. The easiest way would probably be to inject code that patches out or jumps over the core count check.

 

As for fooling it you could just detour whatever function is used to scan the machine for logical processors. From there once it's called you can alter the count to whatever you want on the fly.

[NumLock21]

Many users are reporting that Far Cry  refuses to work with dual-core CPUs, however chips that don’t use hyperthreading to “fake” having additional cores do. Attempting to launch the game on just such a system results in a black-screen “failure to launch” bug according to many users.

For those that don't get what that says, I'll make it easier for you

What they're trying to say is, dual core CPUs such as the Core i3, which has HT, to mimic a quad core, with its 2 virtual cores, won't work well with the game and may have that "failure to lanuch" bug.  Dual core CPUs such  as the Pentium G3258, which does not have HT, don't have this sort of problem. 

Now I'm thinking

-If HT is disabled in the bios, will the Core i3 work with the game?

-Does this game have problems with CPUs that have HT technology? If yes, won't it have problems with Core i7, since it also have HT?

[STRMfrmXMN]

There's maybe different ways of going about it. The easiest way would probably be to inject code that patches out or jumps over the core count check.

 

As for fooling it you could just detour whatever function is used to scan the machine for logical processors. From there once it's called you can alter the count to whatever you want on the fly.

I know HTML.

[Opcode]

I know HTML.

Damn, you must teach me this HTML :3

[Yoinkerman]

If my g3258 can't play a console game, the game is coded poorly.

[ACatWithThumbs]

If my g3258 can't play a console game, the game is coded poorly.

The consoles have 8 cores so no it shouldn't run on an dual core if coded correctly.(Even the last gen consoles had more than 2 cores)

And if you really thought a dual core would be enough for gaming in 2014 you've been living under a rock.

 

[Yoinkerman]

The consoles have 8 cores so no it shouldn't run on an dual core if coded correctly.(Even the last gen consoles had more than 2 cores)

And if you really thought a dual core would be enough for gaming in 2014 you've been living under a rock.

8 potato cores. It's sure funny that my g3258 plays every other game, but apparently can't play this one.

I could see it not being able to push max settings, but not even low? I don't believe it for a second.

[mkil5]

8 potato cores. It's sure funny that my g3258 plays every other game, but apparently can't play this one.

I could see it not being able to push max settings, but not even low? I don't believe it for a second.

Exactly, gaming is much more on your GPU.  My OC'd G3258 can push Crysis 3 with mostly High settings at 60fps after its been tuned in.

[LAwLz]

The consoles have 8 cores so no it shouldn't run on an dual core if coded correctly.(Even the last gen consoles had more than 2 cores)

And if you really thought a dual core would be enough for gaming in 2014 you've been living under a rock.

The 8 cores in the PS4 and Xbone could suck a water melon through a straw (yes they suck that hard). I wouldn't be surprised if an overclocked G3258 could outperform them even if the game is very well coded to take advantage of however many threads you throw at it.

The game is not properly coded if it doesn't even start with a dual core.

[7850OC]

no matter where you see it

 

a dual core processor

 

could not do 8 jobs at the same time (or 4 in this case)

 

 

it is a physical problem

 

no matter if the processor runs 10.000 mhz

 

old tech 

 

 

is old tech 

[ACatWithThumbs]

The 8 cores in the PS4 and Xbone could suck a water melon through a straw (yes they suck that hard). I wouldn't be surprised if an overclocked G3258 could outperform them even if the game is very well coded to take advantage of however many threads you throw at it.

The game is not properly coded if it doesn't even start with a dual core.

If the game is fully multi threaded they could have several engine parts running on different cores which means no matter how good those 2 cores are it wouldn't run.

As an example the game could have 2 cores for physics while running 1 for graphics and 1 for AI.

Most games simply use the additional cores as a speed up instead of actually using them for different tasks which is why you can run them on a dual core.

I'm not sure though if you can even code that low level on DX11 this is at least how they code exclusives on console.

 

[Opcode]

If the game is fully multi threaded they could have several engine parts running on different cores which means no matter how good those 2 cores are it wouldn't run.

As an example the game could have 2 cores for physics while running 1 for graphics and 1 for AI.

Most games simply use the additional cores as a speed up instead of actually using them for different tasks which is why you can run them on a dual core.

I'm not sure though if you can even code that low level on DX11 this is at least how they code exclusives on console.

You don't need to even toy with DirectX in order to pull how many siblings a machine has. Tho in this case it seems like Ubisoft just has a bug on their hands.

[LAwLz]

If the game is fully multi threaded they could have several engine parts running on different cores which means no matter how good those 2 cores are it wouldn't run.

As an example the game could have 2 cores for physics while running 1 for graphics and 1 for AI.

This alone would make it impossible to run on an dual core no matter how fast it is.

Most games simply use the additional cores as a speed up instead of actually using them for different tasks which is why you can run it on a dual core.

Far Cry 4 is for sure not such a case with maxing out 1 core while the other are barely hitting 50% but there are games

I'm not sure though if you can even code that low level on DX11 this is at least how they code exclusives on console.

You do know that you can run multiple threads on a single core, right? They might not be executed at precisely the same time, but a fast dual core might finish all the tasks quicker than a slow quad core. You're also not taking thread dependencies into consideration. For example some calculations simply can't run in parallel. If the AI has to wait for something else to be calculated and completely locks the core while waiting for that, you would end up with higher performance (in that instance) with faster cores over more cores.

 

Imagine if you had 4 identical tasks which needed to be done as quickly as possible. Would you employ 4 children which could finish one task in 2 day each, or would you employ 2 experienced adults which could finish 2 tasks each in a single day? Sure everything might not end up being done at the exact same time with the adults, but the result is still that more work is being done in less time.

 

My point is, running things in parallel might still be slower than doing things sequentially, so why not let people at least try to run it? To me it seems like Ubisoft just fucked up on the programming side.

I totally understand needing a fast quad core to run a game because you simply need that much raw performance. I don't get allowing slow CPUs to run the game simply because they are quad cores, and at the same time block faster CPUs simply because they are dual cores.

[ACatWithThumbs]

-snip-

 

My point is, running things in parallel might still be slower than doing things sequentially, so why not let people at least try to run it? To me it seems like Ubisoft just fucked up on the programming side.

I totally understand needing a fast quad core to run a game because you simply need that much raw performance. I don't get allowing slow CPUs to run the game simply because they are quad cores, and at the same time block faster CPUs simply because they are dual cores.

I totally agree that Ubisoft shouldn't lock the game for dual core users or anything else.(Looking at you CoD with the  6GB ram lock)

I was just trying to point out that people shouldn't expect a dual core to run every game especially newer games.

 

 

[Norman_the_Owl]

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.

"That much cpu power"

 

Yea, that's not very much CPU power at all. Dual cores are old news, and the new dual cores are never better than pentiums.

 

You really shouldn't be spending 60 dollars on a game if your cpu isn't worth that much

[STRMfrmXMN]

Damn, you must teach me this HTML :3

It's kinda all I know in the ways of non-hardware-related computer stuff...