Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 "You're a bum, Rock"

About PineappleBlender

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Does FM16 actually do stuff in parallel though? For FM14 at least, I demonstrated that the quick match engine only uses a single core; I had 7 cores sitting idle doing nothing when it should have destroyed the benchmark. Until that problem is fixed, I'm never buying another FM game. I'm not going to support software written like it's still the mid 90s, especially when it's an embarrassingly parallel problem.
  2. If you don't need portability, desktops give better performance for the money. High end laptop components are typically far more expensive, and less powerful than their desktop equivalent. If you do care about pure power, desktops having more room to fit components in helps. For example, only very very expensive laptops can fit 2 graphics cards in, and it's usually using some nonstandard tech. For example, it needs a specially designed mirror image of the main card in a master/slave config. If the main card fails, you're screwed. On a desktop, both cards would be identical.
  3. CPU is mid range to decent for laptops and competing against the likes of mobile i5s. GPU is competing against more modern integrated chips. RAM is a good size and all you should need these days for the average person. A good standard is relative. For gaming pretty much everything touted around these parts is some off the shelf overpriced crap from Currys or something, when you could get something far better buying direct from a PC manufacturer. People should only really be getting off the shelf stuff if they're desperate and need a machine now, and those who suggest such PCs pretty much don't know what they're doing. The ISP equivalent is going with AOL or Tesco broadband or something. Come to think of it, FM is quite weird in this regard; PC gamers usually have some decent understanding of where hardware ranks in the scheme of things. Yes every game will have "can I run X at Y settings" questions, but you don't tend to see "will this toaster play this at high settings" posts.
  4. The laptop is far better, possessing a CPU that according to benchmarks is around 20% faster. It also has a dedicated graphics card which is about 25% faster, and also has its own memory which will amount to a de facto increase in system RAM since the intel 'card' won't reserve any. The laptop has a slower main hard drive, but a small SSD which will mean the OS and general apps installed load much faster. Since you aren't aware that system RAM is mostly irrelevant for the average user once you get to around 8 or so (and the RAM is identical in each), as well as the fact that one PC doesn't have a card at all, I submit your advice is bad.
  5. Not trying to be condescending here, but if you don't know what VRAM is, it doesn't seem that you're in a good position to say it doesn't really matter. VRAM does matter for graphics. Some applications will be hard coded not to start if there isn't enough. It's used to store all sorts of graphics related information, such as textures, models, and so on, and when it's done on dedicated memory, this is much faster than waiting for it to be retrieved from main system RAM (and also provides far more bandwidth which you need when you're drawing complicated stuff at a high resolution). As an integrated card, your graphics 'card' (actually just a chip!) has no dedicated memory, whereas a high end card might have 4-12GB. To operate, it has to reserve RAM from the system which cuts into memory available for everything else, and is much slower than the memory on a dedicated card. Laptop BIOS settings will not usually allow you to alter the amount of memory reserved for an integrated card. Does it matter? Yes... sort of: * Some games require a certain amount to load up in the first place, or to avoid crashing. See the minimum specs. * VRAM allows more complicated graphics (not really a massive concern for FM) * The amount of VRAM is usually a decent reflection of a graphics card's capabilities; VRAM exists to help allow the card to achieve its full potential. Basically you'd need to try the demo and read the minimum specs to get an exact answer as others have stated.
  6. It's probably realistic. I know someone in the sports media trade and they've told me that their job is quite predictable, as it's usually the same old questions with the same old answers. Now whether it's fun is another question...
  7. Football Manager strikes me as a game that for the most part is embarrassingly parallel. I don't know if the AI actually responds to other results in the league, but even if they did (which would make the game more realistic), it should still be possible to separate out different leagues. Quite easily. For example, running through Prem matches on Core #1, L1 on Core #3, and so on. EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm talking about this from a theoretical viewpoint; I obviously don't have access to the source code. But you have a lot of independent calculations, all that needs to be done is to implement a way of splitting them up across multiple threads /EDIT The game certainly does this when running on full detail, but the quick match engine doesn't support it. Which given that this doesn't even simulate matches properly, it wouldn't make sense for it to care about results in the same league. As basically almost every computer in the market is multi core these days, having the QME run across multiple cores would result in a large speed boost for pretty much every player. From someone playing on an integrated card on a 10 year old laptop, to someone running a supercomputer desktop. It makes no sense to say "think of older hardware" because older hardware uses multiple cores. It doesn't matter how old the hardware is, because the game still doesn't take advantage of it. Are you telling me that players running an 8 year old dual core wouldn't mind the game being 1.5-2.0x faster? Quad core users wouldn't mind it being 4x faster? According to Steam's stats, having FM fully support multiple cores (instead of just via the full match engine) would result in a faster game for over 97% of players. Dual core and quad core users make up over 90% of gamers on Steam.
  8. I'm not disappointed, but I've yet to be convinced that this is the year to part with my money.
  9. Even allowing for the fact it's lower resolution, it looks awful and like you'd find on a mobile free-to-play game, farmed out to a dirt cheap dev in the middle of nowhere. There's a loss of detail (no textures on buttons or the pitch), and the square box players with 'chocolate oranges' on them look extremely ugly. It feels like the UI has gone about 20 years back in time.
  10. How long does that take you? Bear in mind my test using the benchmark of 1 week of the European leagues on full detail took 12 minutes, with a CPU that's around 4-5x more powerful than a 920. Because if a match day takes 2 hours to process, I'd say that's not something the average person wants to sit through. That's not much of a consideration, since, assuming there's no bug or weirdness going on, the ramifications of this is that under normal circumstances the game does not make full use out of any CPU on the market today, or built in the past decade. For dual and quad core users, that's still a game that's 2-4x faster. 8x faster if you're using a quad core with hyper threading. And when you get onto 6-8 cores...
  11. That did indeed dramatically raise the CPU usage, at the expense of completely skewing the benchmark, and rendering the game almost unusable due to match days taking 5 minutes on one of the most powerful CPUs on the market. The entire test just now took 12 minutes, so we'd probably be looking at 30-40+ minutes for other CPUs on the list in the OP. Clearly there needs to be a lot of work on the quick match engine module to optimise it across multiple cores. The game should not effectively be single core by default and on sane settings, and players should not have to dramatically slow their game down to get full use of their hardware. If the game is only using a single core as standard, something seems very, very wrong there, and completely against the intent of the game. Is this a bug? I don't remember past versions of the game only using a single core by default.
  12. That's a little like asking "will my PC run FM, it contains PC stuff?" And DDR2 is even a thing in 2015?
  13. Leave what settings at the default level? And as you can see in my example, even if it was only supposed to use physical cores for the sake of argument, it clearly wasn't. Whichever way you look at it, it was using a tiny fraction of what was available.
  14. I know this is an old thread now, but hey. I gave the benchmark a go on my 8 core 5960X overclocked to 4.4 GHz. I was extremely surprised at how relatively badly it performed, with many of the cores barely being used. CPU: Intel i7 5960X CPU Frequency: 4400 MHz RAM: 32GB 2400MHz DDR4 OS: Win 7 64-bit Time: 2 mins 32 seconds Storage was a Samsung 850 SSD. Not sure if FM15 has improved on this, but based on the results of FM14 there need to be dramatic improvements in multithreading and parallelization. All in all, I was extremely disappointed with this score, because this CPU is born to do stuff like this. Had the processor been used to its fullest, it would have likely crushed this test with ease, coming in at less than a minute. As it stands, I'd estimate the total use was around 20-25%, with only Core 1, Virtual Core 1 being used at 100%. Edit: Have some images for reference. One shows FM14's performance, compared to another program (Handbrake) that is extremely multi threaded. In fact, it doesn't even look like FM14 was working across multiple cores in my example; Windows was probably allocating it to different cores.
  15. Yes, that's always been rather stupid. Along with being considered underdogs after having won the title 3 years in a row. I'd also like to see "we always expected you to do this" after winning something taken out the back and shot as well. I've just brought unrivalled success to the club after a decade of good decisions by me. You could at least acknowledge that winning multiple pieces of silverware in a season is impressive. Typical FM board: "I've just turned this club into the best in the world" "Meh, we expected it" "But I've had a run here that makes me one of the most successful managers of all time!" "No, that's nothing special" "And what about our finances? We're near a billion in the green after my plan of developing talent!" "We expect this from all our managers. Don't think we won't replace you if you don't keep up your amazing record that no-one has ever achieved before"
  • Create New...