Quoting: GroganHere's one for contrast, on 12 year old hardware (video card is RX 570 Polaris10... don't know what that Ellesmere shit refers to. I hate all these "code names")

You can pry this hardware from my stiff, dead hands. It's actually fine for gaming at 1920x1080, the only problem I'm running into are inconsiderate devs that bake in unsupported instructions. I know I have to upgrade hardware soon, but I'm procrastinating complicating my life.

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load. Source: www.mikeserv.org
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

Hey, that looks way better than expected for hardware with such an age... So why waste money & resources if you're still happy with it. As long as your games remain playable, it wouldn't make any sense to upgrade.

Quoting: Grogan... the only problem I'm running into are inconsiderate devs that bake in unsupported instructions. ....

Yeah, using "hidden features" is a nasty thing, but they're just trying to max out performance / visual appearance, so it's difficult to blame someone at this point.

Quoting: peta77Yeah, using "hidden features" is a nasty thing, but they're just trying to max out performance / visual appearance, so it's difficult to blame someone at this point.

If you're shipping (especially selling) binaries, you have to compile them for the baseline arch (x86_64). If you're going to use gimmicky instructions you need to do CPU detection (tests, not just reading CPUID strings) and alternate code paths/libraries, otherwise your software/games are going to have problems on a lot of CPUs. Distributors can't even do that, they want to create a new arch (x86_64-V2) just to bring it up to MY level (Nehalem is the oldest CPU that would support) to use the newer SS*E instructions.

Cyberpunk 2077, for an example off the top of my head, does this. (though they broke it with updates a few times, letting Microsoft's compiler defaults creep in for some audio events and such.

P.S. An example of bad behaviour, the Linux port (and the enhanced Windows version) of Metro Exodus bakes in AVX2 instructions, which would cut out a lot of CPUs. I wouldn't be surprised if it's unstable on some that even report it in the features string. I'm relegated to sticking with the original Windows version running in Proton (it's probably what's best for me anyway, it couldn't run smoother or look better on my hardware). That's a game I really like and still play periodically, so I do care.

Last edited by Grogan on 10 January 2023 at 6:48 pm UTC

Quoting: Grogan... you have to compile them for the baseline arch (x86_64)....

That's the main thing and question: What is the baseline arch? Some "ancient" architecture? Do you expect it will still run on an Amiga500? Where do you set the cutting point for hardware support? Are new AAA-games supposed to run on any hardware that managed to survive up 'til now? This adds a lot of additional work in the development process to make sure it support such old hardware. But what for? If it can't manage the necessary amount of data or doesn't do enough t/g/mflops, why care to support it? I think it's a tough decision to cut out some people from potential customers, but if you want to create something with a specific quality, at some point you will have to. OK, some people might not do a perfect job on how to do it (my system needed a CPU upgrade to be able to run Metro Exodus in a manner where you could say it's playable, I didn't like that either) but at some point there's not many choices you have... I do understand both sides and I'm afraid, there's no solution for that problem....

Quoting: peta77

Quoting: Grogan... you have to compile them for the baseline arch (x86_64)....

That's the main thing and question: What is the baseline arch? Some "ancient" architecture? Do you expect it will still run on an Amiga500? Where do you set the cutting point for hardware support? Are new AAA-games supposed to run on any hardware that managed to survive up 'til now? This adds a lot of additional work in the development process to make sure it support such old hardware. But what for? If it can't manage the necessary amount of data or doesn't do enough t/g/mflops, why care to support it? I think it's a tough decision to cut out some people from potential customers, but if you want to create something with a specific quality, at some point you will have to. OK, some people might not do a perfect job on how to do it (my system needed a CPU upgrade to be able to run Metro Exodus in a manner where you could say it's playable, I didn't like that either) but at some point there's not many choices you have... I do understand both sides and I'm afraid, there's no solution for that problem....

Please don't be obtuse, you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say the baseline x86_64 arch (Amiga...). You've got basically SSE and SSE2 for core streaming instructions that you can rely on everyone having for that arch.

You still can't even use SSE for i686 if you want your binaries to run for people.

So... these companies that do stupid things like that need not look for my money. I don't trust software I can't compile in the first place. Software goes poof.

P.S. I am not offended by this:

Death Stranding System Requirements

Minimum:
Requires a 64-bit processor and operating system
OS: Windows® 10
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-3470 or AMD Ryzen™ 3 1200
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: GeForce GTX 1050 4 GB or AMD Radeon™ RX 560 4 GB
DirectX: Version 12
Storage: 80 GB available space
Sound Card: DirectX compatible
Additional Notes: AVX instruction set required

I knew immediately, not to buy that game. I was disappointed, but not angry. I do respect being up front. That's not inconsiderate, it's rather thoughtful because they know it's going to get people. Nobody can take listed CPUs in system requirements literally, there are so many variations.



Last edited by Grogan on 10 January 2023 at 11:57 pm UTC

I have a new toy and this is just the first random run




P.s. done with KDE + wayland

Last edited by HerrLange on 29 June 2023 at 7:47 pm UTC

those curious of 7900 xt performance with linux + mesa vs windows + closed drivers:

Quoting: drdindu2those curious of 7900 xt performance with linux + mesa vs windows + closed drivers:

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load. Source: i.imgur.com
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

Wow. That's a little unexpected, surely.

Inspired to give this a go. Very pretty little benchmark. My 6900XT did as expected, in line with others running similar hardware.

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: drdindu2those curious of 7900 xt performance with linux + mesa vs windows + closed drivers:

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load. Source: i.imgur.com
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

Wow. That's a little unexpected, surely.

here is some more comparisons.
this is extreme quality - windows pulls out a lead at extreme vs medium where linux won:


and here is a very interesting one. extreme quality opengl vs opengl on both platforms:

windows not only pulls out the lead again like it did with direct x, but opengl on extreme is faster on windows than direct x is on windows. i find this very interesting. so i tested again at medium but this time with opengl vs opengl:

and windows is faster with opengl than direct x at medium! linux has a marginal lead, but windows really catches up with opengl. amd really did improve their opengl performance on windows.

Last edited by drdindu2 on 6 August 2023 at 9:45 pm UTC

Hey,
PSU, GPU and from the last benchmarks, also CPU upgrade :)



Last edited by sterky on 8 October 2023 at 7:05 am UTC