a new type of shilling - game developer locks content to specific Intel i7 CPUs [updated]

[patrickjp93]

3 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

"We agree to disagree"...... Just admit that you were wrong and that you were pulling shit out of your ass. 

 

They're a different shape, the 2830 has notches, the 2830 has a much smaller heat spreader relative to the size of the PCB, and the 2830 has components outside of the heatspreader. You were 100% wrong and you know it. 

 

It's a match 

[patrickjp93]

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

It uses CPU cycles but it should never be enough that it negatively impacts performance unless you're pinned to 100%, which in that case something is wrong with the engine. Vectorization or not, even a couple generation old i3 has enough power to run modern games without hitching.

Not at 90fps on 2x 1080.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Why are you guys hating on patrickjp93? All hes been doing is politely arguing with you, yet you seem to be targeting him nearly as bad an Apple product.

 

He knows hes stuff and i respect that . Hes that type of guy, that wont post a reply unless he knows what hes saying, even if not always 100% correct, he surely isnt one you should be making of as lowkey in what he says.

 

Sorry for being a tailwind rider overhere, just sayin this fellah is the beast.

 

Right patrick :l? Allow me to shed a tear, in honor for your knowledge!

[79wjd]

7 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's a match 

See, this is why no one gives a shit about your merit/credentials/experience/whatever you decide to back your bullshit up with. You're either so delusional that those two CPUs genuinely look even remotely the same to you, or your so unwilling to be proven wrong that there is a strong likelihood that whatever you're spewing is wrong but you just won't admit it. 

 

1 minute ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Why are you guys hating on patrickjp93? 

 

He knows hes stuff and i respect that .

Scroll up a few posts (to my picture post) and then feel free to say that again. 

[Misanthrope]

11 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

In VR?! You're out of your mind. Maybe if vectorized optimization was just as good here as it is in HPC land, but with current coding standards? No way in Hell.

"I can't understand anything that is not an hyper technicality so let me try to daze you with this faux outrage whilst ignoring are non-technical arguments!"

 

Since yesterday I debunked this bogus claim: it's a bad business practice to close a platform because of performance: Nvidia allows gameworks features to be activated even on extremely underpowered parts.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Well djdwosk97, im not really sure what to say.

 

To be honest, you think arguing with patrick will lead to any agreeable term between you two as of now?

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Why are you guys hating on patrickjp93? All hes been doing is politely arguing with you

Politely?

[christianled59]

22 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I've been riding on merit of fact and knowing this industry. This is exactly what Nvidia does to get GameWorks into games and what AMD does to get Gaming Evolved in. The only difference is where you have to address different bottlenecks.

 

The claims have been backed up. You have done nothing to convince me you have a clue about optimization, so I stand by my claim you're clueless.

If users proved me wrong, I'd quote them. Still waiting.

Nvidia and AMD do not lock out entire gamemodes. Merely graphical features.

 

Also, why should I convince you that I know anything about optimization? I don't see how that at all fits in with the discussion. You made that completely baseless claim about me. (and frankly, I still don't understand why you said that to me. I was pretty much in agreement with you on terms of what the devs can and cant do regardless of Intel's help). I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies upon you, friend. 

 

You see, my argument is that this was a business move; not an optimization one.

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

"I can't understand anything that is not an hyper technicality so let me try to daze you with this faux outrage whilst ignoring are non-technical arguments!"

 

Since yesterday I debunked this bogus claim: it's a bad business practice to close a platform because of performance: Nvidia allows gameworks features to be activated even on extremely underpowered parts.

And instead of allowing shitty experiences, this dev studio decided to maintain the standards at a higher level.

 

And you did not disprove the claim in that post.

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Politely?

 

As politely as possible. If you want an example of ugly, we can take this to a group discussion.

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Well djdwosk97, im not really sure what to say.

 

To be honest, you think arguing with patrick will lead to any agreeable term between you two as of now?

No, but I'm not going to back off. I'm sick of seeing him post nonsense garbage constantly. He needs to learn to stop talking out of his ass just because he doesn't like what someone else is saying, and he also needs to learn to accept when he's blatantly wrong. 

 

And I'm clearly not the only one with the issue. He does this in every thread. 

[VerticalDiscussions]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

-snip-

Theres over 300 posts in here xD!

 

Im not sure if he said something wrong or not anymore :/.

 

Still, i have faith on some of the things he said and that you guys have said. Lets try to mix all of them together in a happy way

[christianled59]

Just now, patrickjp93 said:

And instead of allowing shitty experiences, this dev studio decided to maintain the standards at a higher level.

 

It runs just fine on my 4690k. Get out of here. 

[VerticalDiscussions]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

-snip-

Glad to know your a fierce person with a fierce stance. Hopefully this will work out well in the end between ya tough.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

And instead of allowing shitty experiences, this dev studio decided to maintain the standards at a higher level.

This studio already went back and changed it's mind so your argument has been defeated by the people you claim support it, congratulations you can move on from this autistic fueled 13 page rant!

 

[patrickjp93]

Just now, christianled59 said:

Nvidia and AMD do not lock out entire gamemodes. Merely graphical features.

 

Also, why should I convince you that I know anything about optimization? I don't see how that at all fits in with the discussion. You made that completely baseless claim about me. (and frankly, I still don't understand why you said that to me. I was pretty much in agreement with you on terms of what the devs can and cant do regardless of Intel's help). I'm pretty sure the burden of proof lies upon you, friend. 

 

You see, my argument is that this was a business move; not an optimization one.

Because VR requires certain framerates to be tolerable. For new content with more advanced effects, you need more well-tuned performance. You have to have more optimized code. It fits perfectly.

 

Because you started attacking me sideways when I said the industry lacked the expertise but hired Intel to teach them how to do it, and you contested that it should take 6 months when you've clearly never looked at more than a couple thousand lines of code.

 

I've given my proof.

 

And your argument is bogus.

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

This studio already went back and changed it's mind so your argument has been defeated by the people you claim support it, congratulations you can move on from this autistic fueled 13 page rant!

 

And the frame dips down to 65 fps have some people getting dizzy and vomitting! OOPS!

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Nvidia and AMD do not lock out entire gamemodes. Merely graphical features.

They're often not even locked: you absolutely can tank your performance to the point of unplayability by doing something stupid like Witcher 3 Hairworks on a 950.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, patrickjp93 said:

And the frame dips down to 65 fps have some people getting dizzy and vomitting!

Weren't you earlier saying "buyer's beware" about the feature being locked away? Why doesn't it apply here: Turn on a feature we strongly suggest against? VR'ers beware: you might hurl.

 

We've been seeing gamers get motion sickness for decades now and nobody has ever said "we won't allow the game to run at all if you can't maintain certain framerate or lower  FoV below a certain thereshold cause fuck personal choice, we know better!"

[christianled59]

10 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

No, but I'm not going to back off. I'm sick of seeing him post nonsense garbage constantly. He needs to learn to stop talking out of his ass just because he doesn't like what someone else is saying, and he also needs to learn to accept when he's blatantly wrong. 

It should be noted, he DOES seem to know his way around c++. His blogs are an interesting read.

 

8 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Because VR requires certain framerates to be tolerable. For new content with more advanced effects, you need more well-tuned performance. You have to have more optimized code. It fits perfectly.

 

Because you started attacking me sideways when I said the industry lacked the expertise but hired Intel to teach them how to do it, and you contested that it should take 6 months when you've clearly never looked at more than a couple thousand lines of code.

 

I've given my proof.

 

And your argument is bogus.

If I really felt like it, I can run the said gamemodes on my i5 4690k without any sort of reprojection an with the intel settings turned on and show you the framerates. It is a steady framerate. 

 

And no, I suggested they shouldn't have released if it wasn't finished within those 6 months. (actually 5 but hey, you're clearly not using facts anymore).

 

Quote

And your argument is bogus.

How so? My proof is the community feedback. What makes you think this was a good decision based on the feedback? Keep in mind this is in regards to a business move. It hurt sales. I don't give two shits about how much more they can optimize it. I'm merely implying that these decisions were bad because they cost them sales. Don't be dense. 

 

[MageTank]

10 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

As politely as possible. If you want an example of ugly, we can take this to a group discussion.

If this ever happens, please invite me, lol. 

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

How so? My proof is the community feedback. What makes you think this was a good decision based on the feedback? Keep in mind this is in regards to a business move. It hurt sales. I don't give two shits about how much more they can optimize it. I'm merely implying that these decisions were bad because they cost them sales. Don't be dense. 

Don't you know that all those people are just wrong because @patrickjp93 has decided so and he's the universal Secretary of Technology all around the globe and his opinion is literally law everyone should obey unquestionably?

 

Doesn't matters you actually could turn on the feature, patrick already said you can't because intel needs to sell more i7s (not i7s that are perfectly capable of the settings even under his extremely narrow argument like the 4790k, it has to be a newer i7!)

[christianled59]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Doesn't matters you actually could turn on the feature, patrick already said you can because intel needs to sell more i7s (not i7s that are perfectly capable of the settings even under his extremely narrow argument like the 4790k, it has to be a newer i7!)

You misread. Hilariously, this I'm referring to a 4690k. An i5 chip. If the cache and hyperthreading mean so much, then why can my little ol i5 chip run it just fine? Because patrick doesn't know what he's talking about; at least in this situation. Lol.

 

Patrick, in all genuine respect, you should pick up a vive, and buy the game and do the tests yourself. That's what I'm doing.  And thats my proof. 

[patrickjp93]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Weren't you earlier saying "buyer's beware" about the feature being locked away? Why doesn't it apply here: Turn on a feature we strongly suggest against? VR'ers beware: you might hurl.

 

We've been seeing gamers get motion sickness for decades now and nobody has ever said "we won't allow the game to run at all if you can't maintain certain framerate or lower  FoV below a certain thereshold cause fuck personal choice, we know better!"

Because that just opens the door for bad reviews! It's better to segment the experience so it's best for everyone.

 

And I don't think that was the best way for the industry to tackle the problem. If you can't guarantee a great experience, you shouldn't offer it.

5 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

It should be noted, he DOES seem to know his way around c++. His blogs are an interesting read.

 

If I really felt like it, I can run the said gamemodes on my i5 4690k without any sort of reprojection an with the intel settings turned on and show you the framerates. It is a steady framerate. 

 

And no, I suggested they shouldn't have released if it wasn't finished within those 6 months. (actually 5 but hey, you're clearly not using facts anymore).

 

How so? My proof is the community feedback. What makes you think this was a good decision based on the feedback? Keep in mind this is in regards to a business move. It hurt sales. I don't give two shits about how much more they can optimize it. I'm merely implying that these decisions were bad because they cost them sales. Don't be dense. 

 

Thank you.

 

I'll pay to see this, because we already have youtube videos showing dips down to 65fps in the new modes.

 

And get buried in debt and turn off sales due to delays? No. That impact has been measured before, and it's way higher than this little snafu.

 

Because it's the same reason Apple retains its customers, and Apple is a proven success. A guaranteed experience, even if pricier than the competition, as hassle-free as possible, is incredibly desirable.

 

It cost them fewer sales and less debt than a delay would have.

 

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Don't you know that all those people are just wrong because @patrickjp93 has decided so and he's the universal Secretary of Technology all around the globe and his opinion is literally law everyone should obey unquestionably?

 

Doesn't matters you actually could turn on the feature, patrick already said you can't because intel needs to sell more i7s (not i7s that are perfectly capable of the settings even under his extremely narrow argument like the 4790k, it has to be a newer i7!)

That is not what I believe, not even close, but all the evidence is stacked against my detractors in this thread.

 

I did not say that.

 

Evidence shows they're not perfectly capable, but w/e.

 

 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

You misread.

I didn't I know it can but even considering his argument without your example, it's still stupid since 4790ks were still not allowed. But it's understandeable there's so many inconsistencies on so many levels he's way past explaining away all of them and wants to drawn you out on technical papers and explanations when simple logic and the reality of the backlash negates all technical arguments anyway.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, christianled59 said:

You misread. Hillariously, this I'm referring to a 4690k. An i5 chip. If the cache and hyperthreading mean so much, then why can my little ol i5 chip run it just fine? Because patrick doesn't know what he's talking about; at least in this situation. Lol.

 

Patrick, in all genuine respect, you should pick up a vive, and buy the game and do the tests yourself. That's what I'm doing.  And thats my proof. 

I question that too. People are under the impression that HT is magic. If Intel's programmers are so amazing, and are helping optimize this game, shouldn't they be able to program so well, that HT won't leverage any additional performance? Let's be honest, HT only makes sense in an imperfect world. Perhaps it's my inability to understand the software side of things, but I don't buy the fact that 4 cores with HT magically out perform a normal quad core, unless the game itself is poorly coded. Just like I don't buy games booting fine with a stock i3, but failing to boot with a G3258. Shenanigans are at play.