The dev teams/games that use AVX are a microscopic minority, i feel terribly unlucky with vic3.
- 4
- 3
[Megathread] Victoria 3 AVX
- Thread starter Bogdan2master
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
jesus christ this is ridiculous. i had one of those. it was replaced long ago, as was the replacement, and the replacement for that.
there is no way you are playing stellaris just fine, it must be like a slide show.
- 14
- 3
- 2
Yeah, but why do you think Paradox has decided to go with AVX in Victoria 3? Just randomly or to spite you?
- 3
- 2
What is AVX..and more specifically do I need to go get a booster shot for it?
- 8
- 2
That is what i would like to know. AVX was implemented many years ago and nobody use it.
- 11
- 1
- 1
I take 100 on what is an instruction set, why are instruction sets important and ......
Instruction Sets are as much hardware as they are software, and if they are used for performance, they are quite necessary.
- 5
got to love how you have taken his post and COMPLETELY missed the point.
- 7
- 1
- 1
To be completely honest with you, I don't believe that those games run "fine" on that hardware in an advanced gamestate. But you can convince me by showing a large advanced ~15 pawns with machines and livestock Rimworld colony running at an acceptable FPS (>40) on max speed. Or don't, I'm just a person on the internet so you have no obligation to care about what I think.
I don't think you are lying.
My old CPU (I7 4770) being faster than your current one is simply a fact, it is a same class CPU but several years newer. Performance however is subjective so what you consider to be running "fine" I and most other people might consider very slow.
FPS is not relevant to this discussion, because the rendering is mostly done by the GPU, your CPU however would cause you to have a pretty low TPS(ticks per second) which would look like the games clock moving slowly even if the FPS stays high, your decent GPU is hiding the weakness of your CPU by keeping FPS high even as TPS is low.
Yeah, this sucks. but you are going to see it happening with more and more new games as things like expected drive/cpu speed leave your config behind.
GTA V has not been ported to the PS2 for the same reasons, at some point hardware is too old and wont be able to deal with new games anymore.
- 10
- 2
- 2
- 1
This is the reason I never buy the most expensive hardware at any time. No matter how much brute force they have, somewhere down the road it'll miss a newer feature set that'll be absolutely required even though they still have decent performance. I'd say 11 years is still a much longer life than you can hope for PC hardware.
- 7
- 1
- 1
- 1
Of course my old cpu will get too old one day, but as it concerns AVX i think you're wrong, this feature will be abandoned. In computing, progress that doesn't spread quickly usually dies. AVX is way too old.
Last edited:
- 10
- 1
I would assume that the reason for them deciding to go with AVX is this:
To further elaborate, imagine that there are only seven CPU-types in existence: A, B, C, D, E, F and G, with A being the most modern and G being the oldest. CPU A has a market share of 1%, B 5%, C 25%, D 38%, E 25%, F 5% and G 1%. CPUs F and G are too old to be AVX-capable while CPUs from A to E are AVX-capable.
Now imagine that Paradox have performance tested Victoria 3 both with and without AVX:
- With AVX CPUs A and B have great performance, C and D have decent performance and E has acceptable performance. CPUs F and G can't run the game at all (because they lack AVX).
- Total market share able to run the game at all is 94%
- Total market share able to run the game at least decently is 69%
- Total market share able to run the game really well is 6%
- Without AVX CPU A has great performance, B and C have decent performance and D and F have acceptable performance. CPUs E and G can technically run the game, but their performance is deemed unacceptable.
- Total market share able to run the game at all is 74%
- Total market share able to run the game at least decently is 31%
- Total market share able to run the game really well is 1%
Obviously there's more than seven CPUs in real life, but the main point is, that requiring AVX probably allows more low-end (but AVX-capable) CPUs to run Victoria 3 than it prevents old (and thus non-AVX-capable) high-end CPUs.
- 9
- 3
- 1
- 1
Your reasoning is interesting but does not explain why a feature as old as avx is used so little and so late.
- 8
- 1
I can only find reference to AVX512 being abandoned on >12th gen CPU's, AVX-2 seems to still be supported even by 13th gen. So do you have any sourcing on industry intentions being to phase out AVX?
Also, this moment right here, is your CPU getting too old.
If it not supporting pretty old instruction sets causing it to not work with new software isn't it getting old. I don't know what would qualify as it getting old.
You are disappointing not being able to play an anticipated game, I felt the same way when I couldn't play Spore because my PC didn't have an internet connection. I was also pretty annoyed at that, but looking back not having internet in 2008 was pretty unreasonable, and if the games industry would never use new innovations because it might exclude some people we would never have progressed past arcade cabinets.
- 10
- 2
I'd assume (but naturally don't know for certain) that it is a combination of most of the games being more GPU than CPU heavy and the market share of non-AVX CPUs slowly dropping (i.e. requiring AVX prevents less and less people playing and, conversely, gives performance gains to more and more people)
- 8
My processor will be too old when this problem affects more than 0.00001% of games released on the Market. In several years. Right now my setup is far higher than most recommended games conf, sorry ( i7 990x / 32 go /rtx 3070). Just because for 99% of games Gpu is more important than Cpu. I didn't say my cpu was not old i said that my setup runs latest games on highest settings. Nothing else.
Last edited:
- 11
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Unless the game is doing avx operations over huge datasets, I doubt the performance difference is even measurable.
Though even if it is, PI could provide two binaries & have the launcher automatically pick the one appropriate for your CPU.
I'd wager avx is just an oversight, as it clearly can't be worth the disgruntled customers that its use will create.
Though even if it is, PI could provide two binaries & have the launcher automatically pick the one appropriate for your CPU.
I'd wager avx is just an oversight, as it clearly can't be worth the disgruntled customers that its use will create.
- 3
- 3
- 1
The purpose of AVX is to do certain kinds of math faster.
Most games don't need to do that kind of math fast enough on "current low-end/mid-range" rigs to justify losing sales to "old high-end" rig users.
- 7
- 2
- 1
- 1
Actually, that's probably the case now. You said earlier that there are 10 to 15 games you can't run because they require AVX. 10 is 0.000001% of 10,000,000, and while estimates of how many video games exist vary wildly, the highest I found was 831,523, most of which are mobile games and thus not really relevant for discussing PC gaming.
- 11
- 5
- 3
Looking at it from that mindset, I guess you wont be playing certain modern games (including Vic3) until the critical mass is reached that makes you finally consider your CPU to be "too old".
Look at it from the bright side, the game will have been trough a couple of patches and maybe DLC by then, so it'l (hopefully) be even better.
- 2
- 2
- 1
- 1