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

[patrickjp93]

3 minutes 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'm not in a monetary position to buy all the equipment myself at the moment, but plenty of youtube reviews say you're full of crap.

[Bouzoo]

47 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

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

Good guy patrick, thank you for reminding me. It's official that you were wrong:

So, it's the end of the year, and where is the "Oak Ridge 400 Petaflops HPC build exclusively by Intel and Cray"? Or right, it doesn't exist since it will be built by IBM and Nvidia in 2017 and moved to Oak Ridge in 2018. Oh yes, and it will have 5-10x greater performance than Titan that peaks at 18 petaflops (said multiple times in the video on their website).

Official website. 

Unless you have some hidden inside info that even the people that work there don't... like a secretly build HPC that happens to be the best one ever build? Let's not forget, you are after all the self proclaimed "HPC expert" that was wrong on all facts that he presented in the linked thread. 

 

Still waiting for a reply for proving you wrong. Unless I didn't and you really have some hidden info. 

Mind you, this is my 3rd time asking for a response, 1st time in the thread, 2nd time in another thread and now here. Third time's a charm eh?

 

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

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

Only the single player version of the game mode was locked to i7 users. You could still play the multiplayer version in an i5, and the single player version would be unlocked to everyone in 3 months. So are you saying the developers only cared about quality assurance for single player, and only for the first 3 months? For multiplayer and after the first 3 months they just don't give a fuck about having people vomit from playing their games.

 

The length you go in order to defend Intel is massively impressive. Personally I would just go "yeah that sounds really stupid. The theory that Intel paid them to lock content down in order to try and sell more i7s sounds far more reasonable".

 

Does the game even have similar locks for GPUs? I see minimum specs listed but nothing about the game being locked and won't start if you for example have a GPU less powerful than the GTX 970. It would be pretty hilarious if you were trying to push the "it's for quality assurance reasons" if it turned out an i7 with an Nvidia GT 520 would start the game mode, but an i5 with dual GTX 1080 wouldn't.

[Misanthrope]

4 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

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

That's what you've said and implied and can be inferred from your answers, but somehow you still want to cry "straw man!"

 

Anybody with the mental fortitude can go back and read all 14 pages patrick, but most won't bother since you already lost the company went back it's not happening your precious hyperthreading will still have to fucking wait and you can't do NOTHING about that.

 

Have some of this:

[patrickjp93]

Just now, MageTank said:

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.

If your code relies on integer division or data hashing, those instructions leave very large 80-110-cycle stalls in the pipeline. Hyperthreading can fill that in in ways standard Out of Order Processing and Superscalar execution can't without a Hell of a lot of help (hence an additional 6 months to the unlock).

[christianled59]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

 

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.

 

 

Well, as already stated, we really don't know their financial state. We know Intel gave them money, so from a business perspective, wouldn't it be smarter for Intel to continue funding until optimizations were complete? Clearly, this decision, shot them in the foot. It makes intel look bad and it makes this studio look bad. 

 

 

[christianled59]

5 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

I'm not in a monetary position to buy all the equipment myself at the moment, but plenty of youtube reviews say you're full of crap.

Link please. Unless you don't want to back up that claim either.

[patrickjp93]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Only the single player version of the game mode was locked to i7 users. You could still play the multiplayer version in an i5, and the single player version would be unlocked to everyone in 3 months. So are you saying the developers only cared about quality assurance for single player, and only for the first 3 months? For multiplayer and after the first 3 months they just don't give a fuck about having people vomit from playing their games.

 

The length you go in order to defend Intel is massively impressive. Personally I would just go "yeah that sounds really stupid. The theory that Intel paid them to lock content down in order to try and sell more i7s sounds far more reasonable".

 

Does the game even have similar locks for GPUs? I see minimum specs listed but nothing about the game being locked and won't start if you for example have a GPU less powerful than the GTX 970. It would be pretty hilarious if you were trying to push the "it's for quality assurance reasons" if it turned out an i7 with an Nvidia GT 520 would start the game mode, but an i5 with dual GTX 1080 wouldn't.

Everyone knows MP is an entirely different beast. It is for COD, BF, GOW, etc.. The two cannot be compared.

 

I'm not defending Intel. Intel didn't decide to lock this down. The dev studio did.

 

When you have a CPU bottleneck, better GPUs don't help. SHOCKING I know!

 

3 minutes ago, christianled59 said:

Well, as already stated, we really don't know their financial state. We know Intel gave them money, so from a business perspective, wouldn't it be smarter for Intel to continue funding until optimizations were complete? Clearly, this decision, shot them in the foot. It makes intel look bad and it makes this studio look bad. 

 

 

Intel is still funding them. SEC filings anyone?

 

And you assume Intel was the one to instill the lockdown, and you further assume it was Intel who was the incompetent party in all of this. Rich, very rich.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

When you have a CPU bottleneck, better GPUs don't help. SHOCKING I know!

This is where I shamelessly plug the "faster ram helps in situations with high CPU overhead" speech. 

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, MageTank said:

This is where I shamelessly plug the "faster ram helps in situations with high CPU overhead" speech. 

Only when that CPU overhead is caused by a bandwidth problem.

[Drak3]

6 minutes ago, MageTank said:

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

Hyperthreading is just a cheaper way of having 8 logical cores, for those too cheap or broke to purchase a CPU with 8 proper, physical cores. It gives an edge over quad cores when it comes to multitasking, at the cost of single core performance.

For certain scenarios, it makes a shit ton of sense. In others, it's about as logical as Pat claiming that delidded "Zen" was an Intel Xeon that apparently had more name changes than a heavily hunted drug lord.

[MageTank]

Just now, patrickjp93 said:

Only when that CPU overhead is caused by a bandwidth problem.

Every problem can be a bandwidth problem if you try hard enough.

[79wjd]

2 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Every problem can be a bandwidth problem if you try hard enough.

My butt hurts when I sit on my chair too long. How far do I have to overclock my RAM to fix this issue?

[MageTank]

Just now, djdwosk97 said:

My chair hurts to sit on. How far do I have to overclock my RAM to fix it? 

Bad news buddy. Overclocking ram is the leading cause for pain in that general area. Especially if your board refuses to properly train RTL's.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

My butt hurts when I sit on my chair too long. How far do I have to overclock my RAM to fix this issue?

Well, it takes a +1000MHz offset to get my truck to run, so perhaps a 115MHz offset to fix your issue.

[christianled59]

17 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

And you assume Intel was the one to instill the lockdown, and you further assume it was Intel who was the incompetent party in all of this. Rich, very rich.

Do you have any information to suggest otherwise? I'm still waiting on that video you told me about earlier. I'm sick of your bullshit dude. You've claimed moments earlier that Nvidia and AMD do the same (which they really don't). But following that logic, Intel are the one's to blame. Incompetent? I thought this was a good decision. At least, that's what you've been claiming.

 

Also, after playing the game, the only bottleneck I've discovered (using a 4690k) was the gpu actually. A 970 had issues running the better shadows, draw distance, and resolutions as opposed to the 1070 and 1080 I've tested. The "intel advanced settings" didn't change much at all. 

[MageTank]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Well, it takes a +1000MHz offset to get my truck to run, so perhaps a 115MHz offset to fix your issue.

Are you sure it isn't a VDIMM issue getting the truck to run? Just watch out, too much VDIMM can fry an alternator. 

[Drak3]

Just now, MageTank said:

Are you sure it isn't a VDIMM issue getting the truck to run? Just watch out, too much VDIMM can fry an alternator. 

How long until Patrick jumps in this convo and says that it's because I ran a Phenom II years ago.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

How long until Patrick jumps in this convo and says that it's because I ran a Phenom II years ago.

It's not Patrick I worry about. We've gone too far, and derailed this thread several pages ago. The fact that a mod has been lurking for quite some time, means cleanup is inevitable. Perhaps it's time we dial back on our fun, and make their jobs easier, lol. 

[Drak3]

Just now, MageTank said:

It's not Patrick I worry about. We've gone too far, and derailed this thread several pages ago. The fact that a mod has been lurking for quite some time, means cleanup is inevitable. Perhaps it's time we dial back on our fun, and make their jobs easier, lol. 

Perhaps the mod is having a laugh at Pat's rant's. That's what I've been doing ever sense the Delidded Zen thread.

[79wjd]

11 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Perhaps it's time we dial back on our fun, and make their jobs easier, lol. 

NEVER! 

 

@Godlygamer23 Hi!

[Godlygamer23]

33 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Hyperthreading is just a cheaper way of having 8 logical cores, for those too cheap or broke to purchase a CPU with 8 proper, physical cores. It gives an edge over quad cores when it comes to multitasking, at the cost of single core performance.

The performance you lose from enabling hyper-threading in single-threaded tasks is low in my experience.

 

I ran Cinebench on my 3240 with and without hyper-threading enabled. I ran the single-threaded benchmark, and had a difference of 6 points. 109(hyper-threading enabled) versus 115(hyper-threading disabled). Screenshot is below in the spoiler.

Spoiler

 

[Drak3]

Just now, Godlygamer23 said:

The performance you lose from enabling hyper-threading in single-threaded tasks is low in my experience.

 

I ran Cinebench on my 3240 with and without hyper-threading enabled. I ran the single-threaded benchmark, and had a difference of 6 points. 109(hyper-threading enabled) versus 115(hyper-threading disabled). Screenshot is below in the spoiler.

  Hide contents

 

If we're being honest, a single benchmark isn't going to tell us the full story.

I also never stated how much of a performance hit it is. The common number I've come across is that a logical core can achieve 70% of what the physical core is capable of (with HTT disabled), but I've seen other numbers as well.

 

I'd also bench my Alienware Alpha's 4130T in some CPU bound scenarios, but that's too much work seeing as it means taking the HDD with my EFI partition out of my system and reinstalling Windows. I will say that with Waterfox, Word 2013, and Hulu's Win 8 app, I've seen a noticeable improvement with HTT disabled.

[Godlygamer23]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

If we're being honest, a single benchmark isn't going to tell us the full story.

I also never stated how much of a performance hit it is. The common number I've come across is that a logical core can achieve 70% of what the physical core is capable of (with HTT disabled), but I've seen other numbers as well.

I'm open to running other benchmarks.

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, Godlygamer23 said:

I'm open to running other benchmarks.

I got a 6700k, and nothing better to do. Count me in if need be.