Well I have no idea what they did but bf4 is one of those very very rare games that have such an issue. Hopefully they fixed it with this latest patch.
The problem was in Win 7, with Win 8 i had no problem with 6 cores from the beginning.
The botton line of what was saying is why no OpenCL accelerated Havok yet?
The botton line of what was saying is why no OpenCL accelerated Havok yet?
Intel. Most likely they stopped the project Havok had with AMD as they want to keep physics on the CPU. The more CPU limited games are, the more reason to buy the latest and greatest. If Larrabee had ever come to fruition on the desktop it might have been brought forth as a competitor to PhysX, but it just didn't work out.
Intel. Most likely they stopped the project Havok had with AMD as they want to keep physics on the CPU. The more CPU limited games are, the more reason to buy the latest and greatest. If Larrabee had ever come to fruition on the desktop it might have been brought forth as a competitor to PhysX, but it just didn't work out.
BTW the article was updated
The botton line of what was saying is why no OpenCL accelerated Havok yet?
Actually that gain is without SMT... "Ohne" means without in German, "mit" means "with". So SMT enabled hurts performance in case of intel chips. I wonder what would happen if they disabled each odd core in 8350 and run it on 4 "strong" threads(on 4 modules).Is that gain solely from HT? Thats a massive gain.
Yes, i'm sure Intel is wasting resources on trying to stop OpenCL, (a project that is having enough trouble getting started on it's own, with no help from anyone else) so that the small number of PC gamers who have high end intel processors upgrade.
Actually that gain is without SMT... "Ohne" means without in German, "mit" means "with". So SMT enabled hurts performance in case of intel chips. I wonder what would happen if they disabled each odd core in 8350 and run it on 4 "strong" threads(on 4 modules).
I wonder if that is labelled correctly. In such a core hungry game I cant imagine hyperthreading causing a performance hit, especially since we dont even see it in normal games, and usually i7 is slightly faster than i5.
It is. They actually call it "SMT-bug" in the article.I wonder if that is labelled correctly. In such a core hungry game I cant imagine hyperthreading causing a performance hit, especially since we dont even see it in normal games, and usually i7 is slightly faster than i5.
Actually that gain is without SMT... "Ohne" means without in German, "mit" means "with". So SMT enabled hurts performance in case of intel chips. I wonder what would happen if they disabled each odd core in 8350 and run it on 4 "strong" threads(on 4 modules).
As you can see from the updated charts, now 6350 is outperforming 1100T. It was just bad scheduling. It's a testament for FlexFP unit as 1100T has 2x more dedicated pipelines but FX's pipelines are multipurpose and shared via SMT which makes them much more efficient in the end. Similar goes for 8350 vs older Phenom II X4s (same number of FP units, 2x the performance basically). I wonder how well will SR core handle BF4 with only 2 modules (but with dedicated decoders and lower latency for fp/sse and L/S instructions).It needs a "in deep" analysis of the threads that BF4 starts on each case. It could be very well related to what was happening on FX6xxx compared to a 1100T.
BTW the article was updated
The botton line of what was saying is why no OpenCL accelerated Havok yet?
Earlier in this thread I explained possible slowdown reasons. If there is a heavy thread running on one core and would saturate it on its own, then some other processes (OS, drivers) or thread on that same core would slow it down to 60-70%. If other threads or gfx output depend on its results, this alone could pull fps down. This might be caused by omitting the execution of SMT threads on all cores but one. One graph in the first posting is showing that effect.I wonder if that is labelled correctly. In such a core hungry game I cant imagine hyperthreading causing a performance hit, especially since we dont even see it in normal games, and usually i7 is slightly faster than i5.
Well, at least I know the FPS I am getting is whats to be expected. I am getting basically (Slightly better) than what the 980 scores. I have a 965BE @4Ghz.
Is there any word on steamroller based chips coming out in the next 6 months?