Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Sounds like it was worth more than you asked and might have helped him make a profit? ;)

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

Neil Roy said:

Sounds like it was worth more than you asked and might have helped him make a profit? ;)

Well, I was asking $65 or best offer. He gave me $70 because he said all he had was a $20 and a $50. I offered to break it for him, but he said it was cool. I don't really care what it's worth; I just wanted it gone (been collecting dust for six months already). I don't think he's planning on selling it though. He told me he's been chugging along with a super old card playing some flight simulator and that the new card will be a big boost in performance. Whatever he does with it, I hope it serves him well.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Sounds a little like me. I don't tend to upgrade to the latest and greatest. The last two cards I had was a GeForce GTX 240, then I upgraded to a GTX650 when one came on sale for $100, and that is what I currently have. My old cards still collecting dust.

My CPU is a triple core AMD, also out of date compare to modern systems, but it all serves my needs well enough. I had two systems given to me which have Intel CPUs in them which, from what I researched, are a tad better than my AMD, due to their hyperthreading technology, which I didn't really understand until recently. Just dual core Intels, but with the hyperthreading, that makes them better than my triple core AMD, which is kewl. I may switch to the "new" system. My enthusiasm for computers has been on the decline in recent years to be honest. Never thought I would see the day, but I have been messing around with computers since around 1980 believe it or not.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I'm honestly amazed at the work you guys do with the hardware you have. :o

My $70 used Chromebook flashed with Linux sounds faster than many of your computers. I do all my Allegro work on it these days because I play with my laptop before I fall asleep.

Meanwhile, my desktop with an AMD FX-8370 at 4 GHZ with 8 cores (*) is too slow for my tastes. I mean, 99% of the time it's fast. But modern games, I'm CPU limited because AMD's single-threaded performance is like 2x slower than Intel. 4K quadratically increases the CPU and GPU requirements and I'm blown away by the slowness in going from 2560x1440 (~80 FPS) to 4K (~30 FPS).

(*) Technically, AMD screwed us by giving us 4 "modules" with 2 cores each and the modules have bottlenecks because the cores actually share many functional units in each module. So it's kind of like hyper-threading but not.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

Neil Roy said:

My CPU is a triple core AMD, also out of date compare to modern systems, but it all serves my needs well enough.

My CPU is an AMD FX 4300. It is well below the recommended requirements for most modern games, but it has never been an issue for me. I guess modern CPUs are just so powerful as it is. GPUs, on the other hand, are certainly a bottleneck in most games, but not CPUs (in my experience; granted I don't play simulators or anything that are CPU intense).

For example, I recently picked up Far Cry Primal. On the AMD side of things, it recommends an FX 8350, but I have all the settings maxed out and running buttery smooth despite not meeting the CPU requirement.

Look at how pretty the game is. :o

{"name":"DPS-Z6EXkAAWh79.jpg:large","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/0\/40c99b5344fa2f00e259c5b2b9ab8602.jpg","w":1920,"h":1080,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/0\/40c99b5344fa2f00e259c5b2b9ab8602"}DPS-Z6EXkAAWh79.jpg:large
{"name":"DPS-Z9jW4AAysu3.jpg:large","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/3\/f38d3faad5c96019b435dd7bac00f530.jpg","w":1920,"h":1080,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/3\/f38d3faad5c96019b435dd7bac00f530"}DPS-Z9jW4AAysu3.jpg:large

But modern games, I'm CPU limited because AMD's single-threaded performance is like 2x slower than Intel.

Is it actually a noticeable bottleneck for you?

For those who celebrate it... Happy Gluttony Day, everyone! ;)

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Is it actually a noticeable bottleneck for you?

Yes. My last CPU (~AMD Athlon X2 635) could barely run Dolphin without cracking the audio and stutters unless I overclocked it. Also, when I upgraded to my AMD FX-8370 (exact same mobo/ram/gpu, just swapped CPU in), I more than doubled my FPS on Styx: Master of Shadows and I could actually finally do video recording while playing without losing FPS.

On my current CPU, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, I get crap for FPS. The game is optimized for shit, but it's still annoying as hell. I've been planning saving up for a Ryzen setup sometime late next year.

Also, I couldn't even run ARK years ago when it came out on the previous AMD CPU. Even when I put the resolution down to like 320x240. It was like 3 FPS.

There are games like GTA 5 that have extremely well-tuned engines that make every CPU and GPU cycle count. But those games are fairly rare and restricted to AAA-titles.

Check out this guy's amazing website for how Deus Ex: Human Revolution, GTA 5, Doom, etc render:

http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2015/03/10/deus-ex-human-revolution-graphics-study/

And that's "just" the rendering side. Most AAA-games also heavily optimize other paths like AI.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

My current CPU is: AMD Athlon II X3 440 @3GHz

I can unlock the 4th core inside of it with my motherboard, but I find it can be unstable on rare occasions, so I stick to just the three cores.

I have 12Gigs of RAM which helped smooth some things out.

I don't buy newer games anymore, so that is probably why I can live with this. The plus is I can max out my older games. ;)

I still play certain games like Starcraft II and World of Warcraft on "HIGH" settings and it is fine. Good enough for me, but I don't tend to be picky that way.

I have thought about upgrading it, but then I thought... why? It's a good system to develop games on. If my system can run it, anyone's can! :)

For those who celebrate it... Happy Gluttony Day, everyone! ;)

I was just on a Youtube channel I frequent, well, used to, who while wishing people well for that day, also slipped in a guilt message stating we are somehow responsible for some sort of genocide. I told him to shove his channel where the sun don't shine and unsub'd, I don't need that bullshit. I guess it's a good thing I don't celebrate any of our traditions.

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

Neil Roy said:

I guess it's a good thing I don't celebrate any of our traditions.

I think "tradition" is a bit of a slippery slope. What constitutes a tradition? I'd say a tradition is anything passed on between generations. So then going to work, brushing your teeth, or participating in events all constitute tradition. That being said, I hope you have an enjoyable day regardless of whether or not you participate in Thanksgiving.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

The difference is I play 3D indie games. Whereas while AAA-title games look better, they have dedicated graphics programmers that build and optimize their games (see this great link) to not waste any CPU/GPU cycle:

AMAZING SITE / articles:

http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2015/03/10/deus-ex-human-revolution-graphics-study/

Meanwhile, indie games rarely have graphics programmers and just throw their crap at a wall and hope the Unreal/Unity/etc engine can handle it.

PUBG is Unreal Engine.

ARK ran like piss on my AMD computer. (Before I upgraded though.)

Of course the biggest problem is !@#$!@ developers testing on their workstations and not common user target station specs. Basically, they're web developers.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

My last CPU (~AMD Athlon X2 635) could barely run Dolphin without cracking the audio and stutters unless I overclocked it.

Yeah. Dolphin works best with Intel anyway, as Intel's CPUs tend to be faster per core than AMD's.

Neil Roy said:

I don't buy newer games anymore, so that is probably why I can live with this.

Is there a reason why you don't buy newer games anymore?

bamccaig said:

Canadian Thanksgiving is in October. :P

I'm not Canadian, eh. >:(

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Oh yeah that's what I was getting at. Single thread/single core performance is much higher on Intel. But I only buy AMD CPU's. (nVidia GPUs though.)

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

But I only buy AMD CPU's. (nVidia GPUs though.)

If finances weren't a factor, would you still stick with AMD for your CPU needs?

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

Quote:

No, but Neil is. >:(

Sorry, eh. Boot. Uh... Maple syrup. ;D

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

If finances weren't a factor, would you still stick with AMD for your CPU needs?

I like to support the underdog / competition. But if AMD's really sucked, I'd buy an Intel. I've got various laptops with built-in Intel CPUs that work fine. I just don't like spending $$$ and getting crap in return. I have to be extremely judicial with my purchases.

And as you can see here, AMD tops the charts in value / price:

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html

I'm eager to try Ryzen once they hit 1.5 (actual thing) or 2.0 generation. They have way more PCI Express lines to the CPU while Intel treats you like Microsoft where you only get the better features if you buy the better CPU line. Whereas Ryzen I could buy the crappiest CPU for ~$100, keep everything, and later upgrade to the best CPU once they get cheaper.

That's the exact strategy I went for with my AMD FX-8370. I went from that 4 core Athlon X4 ~635 to a CPU with 5x the throughput, and both cost around the same price when I bought them. I just bought the better CPU when the costs went down and my old CPU was showing its age.

p.s. I really hate Intel's insane model numbering scheme where there's no easy way to tell them apart. But I'd suck it up if Intel became magically cheap. It used to be a Pentium 4 was faster than Pentium 3, etc. But now it's "newer" i3s are better than older i5's which are better than many i7's, and now there's i9's that aren't compatible with any of the sockets for i3/5/7 and WHO KNOWS which class leaves you room for the best upgrade path in the future like I did with my AMD setup. AND, it's not just i3, there's i3's, there's E3's. There's i7-7700HQ, there's i7-7600K, there's i7-5775C, there's i7-7770. There's Xeon E3 v5, v6, and v4 of the SAME CHIP. How the !@$!@$@ HELL am I supposed to know what is what, and what those letters mean? Is a 7600K better or worse than a 7600HQ? I don't know, and I bet everyone else doesn't either.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs

MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
avatar

The only pattern I know of with Intel (to lessen the crap model number scheme at least) is that it's basically i[3|5|7|9]-G### where the G is the generation. So you can at least compare within the generations.

I think the K means it's unlocked clock speed, you can overclock it if you wanted.

---
Febreze (and other air fresheners actually) is just below perfumes/colognes, and that's just below dead skunks in terms of smells that offend my nose.
MiquelFire.red | +Me
Windows 8 is a toned, stylish, polished professional athlete. But it’s wearing clown makeup, and that creates a serious image problem. ~PCWorld Article

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

Is there a reason why you don't buy newer games anymore?

Not entirely sure, just nothing has interested me enough to pay what some titles want. Some of the end of the world, survive games maybe, haven't purchased anything new. I like games with huge worlds I can explore without having to unlock new zones. But... I've been using computers since around 1980 so perhaps my enthusiasm is waning.

I started to replay Unreal again recently. I loved Unreal 2. Starcraft 2 was just made free to play (the full main game) recently, so I enjoyed that a little.

The original Deux-Ex was on sale on GOG so I grabbed it and will someday actually install it. ;D. I have a LOT on GOG, I had to stop buying them as I wasn't playing them. <shrug>

If they ever remade Redneck Rampage, I would buy it. :)

Sorry, eh. Boot. Uh... Maple syrup. ;D

{"name":"611127","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/3\/93bfc6ea76727d756a2b0cd493c69cf0.jpg","w":598,"h":402,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/3\/93bfc6ea76727d756a2b0cd493c69cf0"}611127

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

I like to support the underdog / competition.

...

And as you can see here, AMD tops the charts in value / price

...

p.s. I really hate Intel's insane model numbering scheme where there's no easy way to tell them apart.

I feel similarly. I like AMD because they're an "underdog", as you suggested, but also because they are cheaper. If money wasn't a concern, I'd probably go with whatever was the top contender on the market (likely an Intel processor right now). And I agree with the model number confusion... I have no idea how to tell which CPU is better than another when it comes to Intel. I find similar confusion when it comes to Nvidia cards. Generally speaking, the higher the number the better, but some 900 cards are supposedly more powerful than early 1000 series cards. But it's not too bad, I guess.

Neil Roy said:

I like games with huge worlds I can explore without having to unlock new zones.

You might like Minecraft and The Elder Scrolls titles then.

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

I find similar confusion when it comes to Nvidia cards. Generally speaking, the higher the number the better

With NVidia, it's fairly simple. You have the various version numbers for the cards, 600s, 700s, 800s etc... those are totally different cards. Then you have other numbers which are based on how much you want to spend...

for example, with the 600 series... you have the 610, this would be the cheapest you could buy, probably good for browsing the web, watching videos, playing games that don't require much power, or on minimal settings. Then there's midrange for people like me, with limited funds, like the 640 & 650 which are powerful enough for most games on a medium to high graphics setting, depending on the age of the game of course. And there's the high end versions, like 670+ which are for those who want to max out their graphics settings for that card.

I wouldn't go for any NVidia card lower than a x50 if you want to play any 3D games with decent quality. I grabbed a 650 for $100 which was nice. I think t he cheapest, lowest quality NVidia I have seen on sale is a 210 for like, $50. Good low cost for someone who doesn't do much more than browsing the web and such.

Quote:

You might like Minecraft and The Elder Scrolls titles then.

Yeah, I do have Minecraft, played it a bit. Been a while since I last played it, but fascinating game. I recently grabbed Skyrim finally, but haven't played it much yet.

MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
avatar

The issue people have with model numbers is the fact that a 790 is noticeably better than say an 810. Tom's hardware has a good guide (I think recently they made it stand alone so it's easier to find) in which you find the card you have, and see if the card you want is at least 2/3 tiers higher. If it is, good buy, if not, may not be worth the money (unless the new card has a feature you need now, but the old doesn't)

---
Febreze (and other air fresheners actually) is just below perfumes/colognes, and that's just below dead skunks in terms of smells that offend my nose.
MiquelFire.red | +Me
Windows 8 is a toned, stylish, polished professional athlete. But it’s wearing clown makeup, and that creates a serious image problem. ~PCWorld Article

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

Neil Roy said:

Yeah, I do have Minecraft, played it a bit. Been a while since I last played it, but fascinating game. I recently grabbed Skyrim finally, but haven't played it much yet.

Let me know if you'd ever like to play together on a server. I have a few friends who regularly play. As for Skyrim, that's a fun game. Definitely a time sink. I'm still playing Oblivion, which I got back in May, and already have 130 hours in that and am not finished yet.

The issue people have with model numbers is the fact that a 790 is noticeably better than say an 810.

That's what I was aiming for in my other post. It's not too bad, but is still a bit ambiguous at times. I believe this is the guide you were talking about, right?

MiquelFire
Member #3,110
January 2003
avatar

Yep, that's the page. They have one for CPUs as well. Though it seems that there are too many factors for it to be easy to compare anyway.

---
Febreze (and other air fresheners actually) is just below perfumes/colognes, and that's just below dead skunks in terms of smells that offend my nose.
MiquelFire.red | +Me
Windows 8 is a toned, stylish, polished professional athlete. But it’s wearing clown makeup, and that creates a serious image problem. ~PCWorld Article

NiteHackr
Member #2,229
April 2002
avatar

The issue people have with model numbers is the fact that a 790 is noticeably better than say an 810.

That is what I would expect. 790 is a top of the line, high end, FAST card. 810 is an entry level card, has all the newer features of the 800 series, but not the speed. It's for people who need their Facebook apps to run fast! ;D an x90 card will almost always outperform an x10 card, unless the version numbers are REALLY far apart. Older x90 cards like the 790 may not have all the features of the 800 cards, but it will have tons of speed. I would be very surprised to see any x90 card be outperformed by an x10 unless the versions were really far apart, like a 290 verses an 810, but even then... I could see a 290 outperforming an 810, depends on the game and the features I guess.

Tom's Hardware is excellent. It's the reason my system does so well so many years later! Like, 7 years now? I researched what to buy at Tom's, threw together the best components in my price range, the best bang for the buck basically and I have not been disappointed. I have only had ONE game in all these years that was noticeably slower, and that was Quern - Undying Thoughts (a newer Myst like game, looks amazing), but I blame the game more than my system as I have played games like GTA4, Skyrim and Portal 1 & 2 without any problems with decent settings.

For a long time I ran my system with a GTX240! I jumped from it to my GTX650, quite the leap. ;)

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

{"name":"611128","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/a\/4ab212c2a2a7e1bd28b4f358ed24fdcb.png","w":295,"h":110,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/a\/4ab212c2a2a7e1bd28b4f358ed24fdcb"}611128
{"name":"611129","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/9\/c9b9ba91a680a15859c532a336633e47.png","w":898,"h":534,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/9\/c9b9ba91a680a15859c532a336633e47"}611129

It's a pity, because I don't even hardly use the Nvidia GPU much.

Post Reply


Go to: