[Megathread] Victoria 3 AVX

[sefakas3]

You remember the time when people complained that they couldn't play without a dedicated graphics card? I do. The argument are virtually the same.
Either they use AVX or make the minimum clock speed faster. Yes, you can emulate it. Which has its own suite of problems (e.g. you have additonal elements in the stack, it costs performance, etc)

Because AVX has been out for more than 10 years, making it mandatory is likely. I know of multiple other pieces of software which make it mandatory. Most graphics intensive games can easily move their performance requirements to the graphics card. There is a reason why CUDA uses the graphics card as a giant coprocessor. Which also is the reason why nVidia loudly proclaims that Moore's Law is dead and buried. If that was true, graphics cards would be the only way to increase performance reserves. I'd recommend neither believing them or Intel proclaiming the opposite.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm not talking about emulating AVX (there are emulators but these are just designed to give you access to the software not run it normally), I'm saying that since there already is a non-AVX version it's really not like it's a core requirement of the game. Perhaps something could be done to port that over to Windows?

 

[Qxzkjp]

Apparently, the mac version doesn't have an AVX requirement but it does require an i5-6500 which is about the same as a G4560. 4 cores, 4 threads at 3.2GHz while the Pentium has 2 cores, 4 threads at 3.5GHz and is also 2 years younger. Would the game run on my CPU and other equivalent ones? Probably. Can it? No, because it doesn't have AVX. It seems odd that PI has completely ignored the low end Pentiums and Celerons and continues to stand by that decision.

Does the mac version not use the AVX instructions, or is it just that every intel processor used in the Mac since the i5-6500 has the AVX instruction set, and so they don't need to mention it? Given that for the past ten years the only non-AVX intel processors have been the low-end Pentium and Celeron, I suspect it's the latter.

 

[Metz77]

I mean removing the requirement and letting people boot the game with terrible performance is still better than not being able to boot the game...

That's easy enough to say, but "removing the requirement" doesn't mean commenting out your line of code that checks for AVX_enabled=true. They'd have to rewrite everything that uses the unique functions AVX provides.

 

[sefakas3]

Does the mac version not use the AVX instructions, or is it just that every intel processor used in the Mac since the i5-6500 has the AVX instruction set, and so they don't need to mention it? Given that for the past ten years the only non-AVX intel processors have been the low-end Pentium and Celeron, I suspect it's the latter.

It doesn't. It's compatible with the M1 chip which lacks AVX.

 

[permanently_afk]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'm not talking about emulating AVX (there are emulators but these are just designed to give you access to the software not run it normally), I'm saying that since there already is a non-AVX version it's really not like it's a core requirement of the game. Perhaps something could be done to port that over to Windows?

Right. I have a background in software development, so I could have elided some parts. I'll try to explain.

AVX is an instruction set that the physical processor is capable of using. Paradox writes their source code and then compiles from human readable form (this is where we have the "AVX_enabled=true" line) into a binary which the processor can actually use. To not use the AVX instructions, you'll have to instruct the compiler not to use them when compiling the binary, which will result in a second binary. Since having two binaries for the same game on the same platform is not a good idea (e.g. Trouble with Steam, complicates error-finding by wierd interactions with hardware), you need a solution which doesn't produce two binaries.

You can do this by using middleware (which I called emulator above). You compile the AVX-binary and then link it in another step with a AVX-to-SIMD translator. Now if the system is not AVX capable and you encounter an AVX instruction, it will be translated into several non-AVX instructions which the system can interpret. This has several drawbacks. You have to develop/buy the middleware, you have to make sure that the linking is in order and of course you'll loose performance since the unwrapping of the AVX instructions takes time. And you have the middleware as an additional item causing faults, requiring you to check if a CTD was caused by the AVX instruction or the faulty translation. Along with other "fun stuff" which most programmers can curse days on end about.

This is the short of why "simply take a part of the MAC version" doesn't work. Its not so much a limitation of the programming, but rather of compilation and deployment. Its also the reason it works on the MAC version since that is a second binary due to the OS.

 

[sefakas3]

Right. I have a background in software development, so I could have elided some parts. I'll try to explain.

AVX is an instruction set that the physical processor is capable of using. Paradox writes their source code and then compiles from human readable form (this is where we have the "AVX_enabled=true" line) into a binary which the processor can actually use. To not use the AVX instructions, you'll have to instruct the compiler not to use them, which will result in a second binary. Since having two binaries for the same game on the same platform is not a good idea (e.g. Trouble with Steam, complicates error-finding by wierd interactions with hardware), you need a solution which doesn't produce two binaries.

You can do this by using middleware (which I called emulator above). You compile the AVX-binary and then link it in another step with a AVX-to-SSC translator. Now if the system is not AVX capable and you encounter an AVX instruction, it will be translated into several non-AVX instructions which the system can interpret. This has several drawbacks. You have to develop/buy the middleware, you have to make sure that the linking is in order and of course you'll loose performance since the unwrapping of the AVX instructions takes time. And you have the middleware as an additional item causing faults, requiring you to check if a CTD was caused by the AVX instruction or the faulty translation. Along with other "fun stuff" which most programmers can curse days on end about.

This is the short of why "simply take a part of the MAC version" doesn't work. Its not so much a limitation of the programming, but rather of compilation and deployment. Its also the reason it works on the MAC version since that is a second binary due to the OS.

Thanks for your insight. This is a really tricky situation.

 

[Qxzkjp]

It doesn't. It's compatible with the M1 chip which lacks AVX.

That's a pointless comparison. The M1 has ARM's Neon instructions (which are 128-bit SIMD instructions, similar to AVX). It also just has radically different performance characteristics to x86, as you'd expect because that's the whole purpose behind creating it. That the game runs performantly on M1 (with Neon) tells you nothing about how well it would run on x86 without AVX.

 

[Rhylsadar]

AVX has been in mainstream proceccors for 11 years. Time to upgrade your toaster.

But in 11 years avx is not even about 20 games and it was removed from some of them. Why is this technology essential for video games ? Some want us to believe that Vic 3 requires a NASA PC to run, lol... Paradox uses AVX because it makes their job easier. The ease of brute force rather than intelligence. The truth is simple : for 11 years no game uses AVX.

 

[BeBeep]

Community dev answered a question in the known issues thread about avx. Pointed out that it is a hard requirement.

The game was created with AVX in mind, which makes it a hard requirement (mentioned in the minimum system requirements). Unless you are playing on Mac, but the technological bar is set much higher there to facilitate that.

View attachment 897299

I'm done.

I think I'll boot up hoi or something then. Take care all.

 

[permanently_afk]

But in 11 years avx is not even about 20 games and it was removed from some of them. Why is this technology essential for video games ? Some want us to believe that Vic 3 requires a NASA PC to run, lol... Paradox uses AVX because it makes their job easier. The ease of brute force rather than intelligence. The truth is simple : for 11 years no game uses AVX.

Lol. So Star Citizen 3.11+ doesn't exist? And Dying Light 2? Death Stranding? And Saints Row: The Third Remastered? AVX isn't common (since, as mentioned multiple times, GPUs compensate for graphics heavy games), but it isn't unheard of either. It is used when the developers think the trade-offs worth it. And so on...and I am not going into commercial software, where it is nearly everywhere. Oh, and before you complain, think about where the money is made. AVX has been around 11+ years, so backwards compability isn't really an issue.

This makes you a liar. And claiming too much. Either get a better argument, or arrange yourself with your ancient CPU.

 

[mightygaz]

Just to say a Steam user has said on the V3 Steam discussion page that support told them to use an avx emulator until they get a patch out for non-avx users. Which is very specific and also seems to be after the support article was last updated ~18 hours ago at time of this post.

Worth remembering that ck3 and hoi4 both had avx requirements added and then removed recently too.

This is the official line and until they address it (they didn't take the opportunity in the know issues article) it's gonna continue to be; they should point people toward that article or announce something as it's unfair to people who are holding out.

Personally I bought a retail key so I've got nothing else to do but keep wishing on a star.

I suspect thats a lie. while you could use an AVX emulator, to say that the performance would be terrible would be the biggest understatement ever. the game would be unplayable.

They wouldn't need to remove it entirely, why would they? Is that why people are so defensive cause they think they'll lose cycles? Ok that kinda makes sense to me now. That's not what needs to happen.

what are you talking about? this makes no sense in context.

 

[bodhi]

But in 11 years avx is not even about 20 games and it was removed from some of them. Why is this technology essential for video games ? Some want us to believe that Vic 3 requires a NASA PC to run, lol... Paradox uses AVX because it makes their job easier. The ease of brute force rather than intelligence. The truth is simple : for 11 years no game uses AVX.

I doubt very much that it's essential. I don't think many are denying that AVX can improve performance (under certain conditions) but not having it doesn't necessarily mean Victoria would be unplayable, because many non-AVX systems are still very capable and we all have varying tolerances when it comes to performance. Intel and AMD understand this. They understand that, if both non-AVX and AVX users were both able to play AVX enabled titles, the extra (I don't know) 8 fps increase in overall performance is unlikely to convince the more "frugal" among us to shell-out $2,000 on a new PC rig.

What will convince consumers to unnecessarily throw-out their computers, though, is an AVX-CPU driver and general devkit that has no (integrated, with zero performance loss for its AVX target) fallback code and makes it very difficult for third-party devs (such as PI) to make their games both AVX and non-AVX compatible. Hence, effectively, s/w locking games so that they're only playable on AVX systems.

Consumer exploitation and ecologically destructive corporate tactics such as this should be made illegal, by international, in today's "ecologically aware" world.

 

[mightygaz]

I doubt very much that it's essential. I don't think many are denying that AVX can improve performance (under certain conditions) but not having it doesn't necessarily mean Victoria would be unplayable, because many non-AVX systems are still very capable and we all have varying tolerances when it comes to performance. Intel and AMD understand this. They understand that, if both non-AVX and AVX users were both able to play AVX enabled titles, the extra (I don't know) 8 fps increase in overall performance is unlikely to convince the more "frugal" among us to shell-out $2,000 on a new PC rig.

What will convince consumers to unnecessarily throw-out their computers, though, is an AVX-CPU driver and general devkit that has no (integrated, with zero performance loss for its AVX target) fallback code and makes it very difficult for third-party devs (such as PI) to make their games both AVX and non-AVX compatible. Hence, effectively, s/w locking games so that they're only playable on AVX systems.

Consumer exploitation and ecologically destructive corporate tactics such as this should be made illegal, by international, in today's "ecologically aware" world.

Jesus... good luck with that lol

 

[BeBeep]

I suspect thats a lie. while you could use an AVX emulator, to say that the performance would be terrible would be the biggest understatement ever. the game would be unplayable.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...able-to-launch-the-game.1550323/post-28572539

 

[mightygaz]

Support are wrong here, probably as they were not old about this. it will not be fixed AT ALL. paradox have said this. it will NEVER be fixed. it is not something that needs fixed. you have bought a game that clearly stated in the requirements it needed AVX. the fault is yours.

 

[BeBeep]

Lol. It's a lie! No, it's your fault!!

My goodness.

At the end of the day some people are stuck with a product they can't use, no matter how small a percentage. I applaud support for their efforts.

 

[Sheepeasy]

Community dev answered a question in the known issues thread about avx. Pointed out that it is a hard requirement.



I'm done.

I think I'll boot up hoi or something then. Take care all.

Alright that’s the ballgame, folks. Play “Closing Time” by Semisonic and kick ‘em out of the bar. Devs said it’s a hard requirement, so everyone here with processors made back around when this game takes place can stop!

 

[mightygaz]

Lol. It's a lie! No, it's your fault!!

My goodness.

At the end of the day some people are stuck with a product they can't use, no matter how small a percentage. I applaud support for their efforts.

They are not stuck with it, refund it for god sake. and it is 100% their own fault. They do not meet the minimum specs.

 

[Haltin]

Well, don't you see the potential for the CPU industry in controlling CPU obsolescence using CPU opcode "innovation". Now that Moore's Law is dead? I do.

Well, no. In order for this conspiracy to work the CPU industry would need to convince a significant number of developers to use their new features. But for that to happen, these new features will have to provide a benefit good enough to exclude potential customers on older CPUs. And at that point we're not talking about "innovation", we're talking about innovation.

In other words this conspiracy to make your CPU obsolete by making better CPUs is not a conspiracy but perfectly honest technological advancement.

I'm able to still play most of today's most CPU intensive titles. Victoria 3 is the only game I can't even load because of (basically) s/w gating. It's the only title dictating to me that my computer must be upgraded. It's the only title using AVX.

As long as CPUs advance there will always be the first game to just outright not run on yours. Or the first productivity program. Or the first OS.

Even the Linux kernel no longer supports the i386, and is currently trying to drop support for i486 due to it lacking the cmpxchg8b instruction - and wouldn't you know it, there's a kernal developer who complained this means he'd have to upgrade

 

[BeBeep]

They are not stuck with it, refund it for god sake. and it is 100% their own fault. They do not meet the minimum specs.

I bought a retail key. So did many others. No refunds once redeemed.

Ironically bought a retail key to save a miniscule amount because I didn't think I would be refunding.

Anyway it doesn't really matter. Hopefully something can be worked out for people in my position. If not too bad.

This community is super helpful about this tho. Especially those who are not effected at all! Such technical insights, such kind heartedness, such comradery and such productive use of ones time! Amaze.