Thats it ?

[Dispatch]

[Enderman]

Yes?

[minibois]

That's it.

[Guest]

 

This is also it.

[3rrant]

So.. 450ish € and a motherboard as expensive as a X299/X399

[TidaLWaveZ]

REEEEEEEE!!!!

[samcool55]

You can get an R7 1700 with motherboard for less than that O_o

[Jon Jon]

Looks a bit DOA don't you think? 

It doesn't even come with a stock cooler, so that needs to be considered as well.

 

With the R7 1700, you could use the Wraith Spire and easily OC to 1800X level without much effort (I would even argue that, in most cases, no voltage increase).

 

It also looks like it will potentially cannibalize X299 chips.

[samcool55]

20 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

Looks a bit DOA don't you think? 

It doesn't even come with a stock cooler, so that needs to be considered as well.

 

With the R7 1700, you could use the Wraith Spire and easily OC to 1800X level without much effort (I would even argue that, in most cases, no voltage increase).

The only advantage is its single-core performance but with Intel and AMD both releasing much higher core-count cpu's developers are finally basically forced to use multi-threading so the advantage of 1 very fast single core is going away. Yes i know people have yelled this before but core count is increasing quite fast right now and both AMD and Intel are doing it.

 

HEDT is a great example of this, AMD is like MOAR COREZ again and this time Intel is going EVEN MOAR COREZ (16 vs 18 cores).

 

It took them bloody long enough but it seems like a MOAR COREZ battle is finally starting.

[Jon Jon]

3 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

The only advantage is its single-core performance but with Intel and AMD both releasing much higher core-count cpu's developers are finally basically forced to use multi-threading so the advantage of 1 very fast single core is going away. Yes i know people have yelled this before but core count is increasing quite fast right now and both AMD and Intel are doing it.

 

HEDT is a great example of this, AMD is like MOAR COREZ again and this time Intel is going EVEN MOAR COREZ (16 vs 18 cores).

 

It took them bloody long enough but it seems like a MOAR COREZ battle is finally starting.

I won't hold my breath on that one.

 

We have had multi-core CPUs since 2005 in the Desktop arena, and yet we are still heavily focused on single threaded performance.

 

I would love to see more scalability, but developers seem to just do what they know and don't really try something new unless it's necessary.

[samcool55]

4 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

I won't hold my breath on that one.

 

We have had multi-core CPUs since 2005 in the Desktop arena, and yet we are still heavily focused on single threaded performance.

 

I would love to see more scalability, but developers seem to just do what they know and don't really try something new unless it's necessary.

I agree, i guess one can only hope

Well at least DX12/Vulkan should help too so at least there's that for gamers.

[Jon Jon]

1 minute ago, samcool55 said:

I agree, i guess one can only hope

Well at least DX12/Vulkan should help too so at least there's that for gamers.

I would love to see modern applications actually scale with multiple cores.

 

We live in a world where everything should be multithreaded and scale linearly.

 

I blame developers being lazy and being resistant to change

[thorhammerz]

22 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

I blame developers being lazy and being resistant to change

That's not how business works sweetie . There is no clear financial incentive to do so (read: most people are still using dual/quad core CPUs... 58% of steam users are on quad cores, and 36% of steam users are on dual cores), and the opportunity cost (read: lots of money needed to re-write an entire goddamn game engine) is ridiculously high; may as well spend those million or so dollars making games on tried-and-true game engines that utilizes less cores and make lots more money.

 

The proportion of gamer possessing high-core counts (more than 4) is just so ridiculously small, that there is absolutely no point to cater to the so-called "enthusiast" class unless you have the money to blow (large AAA studios) and the management willing to blow said money for poor financial returns (compared to using existing game engines to make more games).

 

TL;DR... I'm sorry if this sounds harsh... but you (as in, the consumers with high end gaming desktops with more than 4 cores that make up less than 3% of the market segment, you the consumers with a screen resolution larger than 1080p) just don't quite matter to many developers.

 

For statistics, see http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/.

For CPU statistics in particular, see http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/.

[thorhammerz]

34 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

The only advantage is its single-core performance but with Intel and AMD both releasing much higher core-count cpu's developers are finally basically forced to use multi-threading so the advantage of 1 very fast single core is going away. Yes i know people have yelled this before but core count is increasing quite fast right now and both AMD and Intel are doing it.

 

HEDT is a great example of this, AMD is like MOAR COREZ again and this time Intel is going EVEN MOAR COREZ (16 vs 18 cores).

 

It took them bloody long enough but it seems like a MOAR COREZ battle is finally starting.

Orly? If you have more than 4 cores, you make up less than 3% of the market right now  (most people don't have money to buy a new computer every time something comes out, and not all will bother to build their own).... you'll see a larger market segment of higher core count consumers when OEMs (especially laptop OEMs) start selling them en-masse.

[samcool55]

1 minute ago, thorhammerz said:

Orly? If you have more than 4 cores, you make up less than 3% of the market right now .

It does seem to ignore HT tho. If they would count CPU threads the result will probably change a lot.

And as we know HT can help a lot in gaming, there's a reason why people still get a 7700K even tho it's just a 7600K with HT.

[Jon Jon]

14 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

That's not how business works sweetie . There is no clear financial incentive to do so (read: most people are still using dual/quad core CPUs), and the opportunity cost (read: lots of money needed to re-write an entire goddamn game engine) is ridiculously high; may as well spend those million or so dollars making games on tried-and-true game engines that utilizes less cores and make lots more money.

 

The proportion of gamer possessing high-core counts (more than 4) is just so ridiculously small, that there is absolutely no point to cater to the so-called "enthusiast" class unless you have the money to blow (large AAA studios) and the management willing to blow said money for extremely poor financial returns (as opposed to using existing game engines to make more games).

 

TL;DR... I'm sorry if this sounds harsh... but you (as in, the consumers with high end gaming desktops with more than 4 cores, you the consumers with a screen resolution larger than 1080p) just don't matter a lot right now.

 

For statistics, see http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/.

Please don't demean me with "sweetie". That will get you nowhere fast and make your debate lose validity pretty quick, as it already did with me and completely irritated me.

 

I work in engineering and am surrounded by developers everyday, so this is from my anecdotal primary experience here.

 

There is a world out there beyond video games, in case you didn't realize.

 

The fact that you are focused on just the gaming realm is a bit short-sighted. This is a problem software development wide, not just VIDEO GAMES (which really, who cares?).

 

Also, your argument would have been valid in the mid 2000s, not over a decade later, where even the lowest powered devices are multi-core.

 

There are far too many single threaded applications out there and multi-threaded applications that do not scale well beyond two threads which leads to inefficiencies all over the place.

 

We have DLP components that scale horribly and ruin the user experience. We have consumer applications that will never engage more than a single core (see iTunes, office applications (with the exception of Excel), among others) that make them run sluggishly. The list honestly goes on, and there is no excuse for it at this point.

 

This is rooted in poor development techniques along with degree programs not teaching computer science majors the basics around memory efficient programming, error detection methods, scalability methods, and the like.

 

I won't stoop to your level and demean you, but I will suggest you take a step back, look at that box you have sitting there, and go "I wonder what ELSE this is used for besides PUBG".

 

 

 

[thorhammerz]

2 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

Please don't demean me with "sweetie".

A tad rich coming from one who would blanket-blame developers as "lazy" .

2 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

There is a world out there beyond video games, in case you didn't realize.

 

The fact that you are focused on just the gaming realm is a bit short-sighted. This is a problem software development wide, not just VIDEO GAMES (which really, who cares?).

I work in geophysics (data processing enterprise software), but thanks for the reminder .

 

But yes, who cares about an industry worth ~$25 billion (that's just for USA btw)! None clearly, amirite?

(Side note, total revenue for Steam in 2016 was around ~$3.4 billion.... of course, who would even care about that?)

 

Quote

There are far too many single threaded applications out there and multi-threaded applications that do not scale well beyond two threads which leads to inefficiencies all over the place.

 

We have DLP components that scale horribly and ruin the user experience. We have consumer applications that will never engage more than a single core (see iTunes, office applications (with the exception of Excel), among others) that make them run sluggishly. The list honestly goes on, and there is no excuse for it at this point.

 

This is rooted in poor development techniques along with degree programs not teaching computer science majors the basics around memory efficient programming, error detection methods, scalability methods, and the like.

As previously stated, the cost to develop with "better" techniques/architectures/paradigms is expensive (whether that's hiring better software developers, refactor/re-writing existing codebases, convincing/training existing developers to use said better techniques, etc), and not always justifiable (or even necessary)!

 

If low-threaded applications work "just good enough", there is still no incentive to rework then as highly-threaded applications unless there is sufficient pressure from the market (whether that's from a competitor developing a better program, or an absolute need to develop highly-threaded workloads due to the technological demands/constraints of making those specific applications work).

 

2 hours ago, Jon Jon said:

 

I won't stoop to your level and demean you, but I will suggest you take a step back, look at that box you have sitting there, and go "I wonder what ELSE this is used for besides PUBG".

Unfortunately, I do not play PUBG. Try something else !

 

Quote

That will get you nowhere fast and make your debate lose validity pretty quick, as it already did with me and completely irritated me.

And that is your own loss for allowing your emotions to cloud your logic .

[Jon Jon]

1 hour ago, thorhammerz said:

A tad rich coming from one who would blanket-blame developers as "lazy" .

I work in geophysics (data processing enterprise software), but thanks for the reminder .

 

But yes, who cares about an industry worth ~$25 billion (that's just for USA btw)! None clearly, amirite?

(Side note, total revenue for Steam in 2016 was around ~$3.4 billion.... of course, who would even care about that?)

 

As previously stated, the cost to develop with "better" techniques/architectures/paradigms is expensive (whether that's hiring better software developers, refactor/re-writing existing codebases, convincing/training existing developers to use said better techniques, etc), and not always justifiable (or even necessary)!

 

If low-threaded applications work "just good enough", there is still no incentive to rework then as highly-threaded applications unless there is sufficient pressure from the market (whether that's from a competitor developing a better program, or an absolute need to develop highly-threaded workloads due to the technological demands/constraints of making those specific applications work).

 

Unfortunately, I do not play PUBG. Try something else !

 

And that is your own loss for allowing your emotions to cloud your logic .

No, I just don't go on the internet to belittle people in conversation.

 

The goal of discussion is to learn from one another. The moment you open that door of a borderline insult, your validity in your logic plummets.

 

And no, sorry, but you don't just insult people and belittle them, and walk away with that "allowing emotions to cloud your logic." nonsense, as if it's a high road.

 

Come onto forums to generate valuable and quality interactions and conversation, since the regulars here will tell you the same.

 

It's a shame too, because for someone who just made a ton of quality points, and made a quality counter-argument to "lazy developers", your credibility is low, due to your belittling attitude.

 

Imagine the type of respect you could gain, if you treated others with respect

 

 

 

 

 

[TahoeDust]

E-Feelers....puke.

[thorhammerz]

4 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

The moment you open that door of a borderline insult, your validity in your logic plummets.

Look at it another: at least I belittled a single person, rather than making a demeaning and generalizing blanket statement on a group of people .

Quote

And no, sorry, but you don't just insult people and belittle them, and walk away with that "allowing emotions to cloud your logic." nonsense, as if it's a high road.

 

Come onto forums to generate valuable and quality interactions and conversation, since the regulars here will tell you the same.

 

It's a shame too, because for someone who just made a ton of quality points, and made a quality counter-argument to "lazy developers", your credibility is low, due to your belittling attitude.

 

Imagine the type of respect you could gain, if you treated others with respect

As stated earlier, it is your own loss for allowing your emotion to cloud your logic.

 

You are free to reject any and all arguments based on how well (or not) you like the other guy, but reality is still reality regardless of whether you like it, whether you stick your head into the sand to ignore it.

[Jon Jon]

2 minutes ago, thorhammerz said:

Look at it another: at least I belittled a single person, rather than making a demeaning and generalizing blanket statement on a group of people .

As stated earlier, it is your own loss for allowing your emotion to cloud your logic.

 

You are free to reject any and all arguments based on how well (or not) you like the other guy, but reality is still reality regardless of whether you like it, whether you stick your head into the sand to ignore it.

Oh I am not rejecting the argument. You made really good points.

 

However, it falls flat by being insulting, period.

 

Who wants to conduct a conversation with someone who is going to directly insult them?

 

If you require belittling people to correct them, then that just says only negative things about your character.

 

Maybe I am just old fashion, but I just don't treat people that way.

[AncientNerd]

1 hour ago, thorhammerz said:

But yes, who cares about an industry worth ~$25 billion (that's just for USA btw)! None clearly, amirite?

(Side note, total revenue for Steam in 2016 was around ~$3.4 billion.... of course, who would even care about that?)

 

The trouble is that this is tiny in the scale of either the total US economy or the software industry over all - the US economy is 18.7 Trillion, and the software industry is 3.7 Trillion. So the games industry is less than one-tenth of 1% of the US economy. and less than 1% of the total software industry. So yes the basic idea is that "who care about the game software industry". They produce a small amount of the software, and very little of the actual innovation and forward motion of the actual software industry.

 

I have been writing software since the early 1980's and haven't written a single program that isn't multi-threaded/multi-process since 1992. But then I don't write game software... 

[thorhammerz]

9 minutes ago, Jon Jon said:

Who wants to conduct a conversation with someone who is going to directly insult them?

 

If you require belittling people to correct them, then that just says only negative things about your character.

 

Maybe I am just old fashion, but I just don't treat people that way.

My apologies then; I am a human being eminently capable of making (a lot of) mistakes. Just consider it one of the many possible reactions when you generalize a profession as "lazy" .

[Jon Jon]

Just now, thorhammerz said:

My apologies then; I am a human being eminently capable of making (a lot of) mistakes. Just consider it one of the many possible reactions when you generalize a profession as "lazy" .

And my apologies as well.

 

Look at how that worked out?

[thorhammerz]

16 minutes ago, AncientNerd said:

The trouble is that this is tiny in the scale of either the total US economy or the software industry over all - the US economy is 18.7 Trillion, and the software industry is 3.7 Trillion. So the games industry is less than one-tenth of 1% of the US economy. and less than 1% of the total software industry. So yes the basic idea is that "who care about the game software industry". They produce a small amount of the software, and very little of the actual innovation and forward motion of the actual software industry.

Certainly it is comparatively small.

 

Although money is money, even if the pie is ~1000x smaller .