How many CPU cores can be used?

[Rookie FM]

Will FM 2019 using all the cores of Ryzen CPU as they have 8 Core and 16 Threads!?

[jwchriste]

19 hours ago, Steven Chou said:

 The result must be very bad

The 3D match engine graphics weren't too terrible, maybe a little stutter here and there with reduced settings.  But the day to day simming was unbearable.  I gave up after simming through a week of game time.  I'm home now, so it's all good.

[jwchriste]

15 hours ago, Rookie FM said:

Will FM 2019 using all the cores of Ryzen CPU as they have 8 Core and 16 Threads!?

I read a thread about core count and FM but I don't remember which thread it was.  My understanding of the explanation was that all cores/threads are used however, you will only really measure a difference if you set every match the game sims to max detail (i.e. run in the full match engine).  The majority of users don't do this, they only sim their own club's games with the full engine and all the background games get quick-simmed.  The quick-simming still uses all cores but it happens so quickly that you can't measure it with a software based cpu activity monitor and there isn't really a noticeable difference in performance from a quad core or a higher core count (assuming processors from the same cpu family).  I'll see if I can find that post...

Start at this post.  @EdL explains it over several posts in the thread.  Doh!  I just realized this is from the same thread!

Edited March 12, 2018 by jwchriste

[nangaparbat]

Are there plans for FM19 to use more multi core performance to allow simulating to be faster?

[Guest]

Recently bought a i9-7940X which I will benchmark against my old i7-920.

[BMNJohn]

Based on what I've tried on my own hardware, you're going to run circles around the i7-920, multicore or not. FWIW, I did the FM17 benchmark on a i5-6600K at both stock settings (3.9GHz Turbo) and overclocked (4.5GHz) and saw a performance gain somewhere between 20 and 25% with a 15% increase in frequency. In your case, the base frequency is higher than the turbo frequency of the old CPU, nevermind the multiple cores. Obviously the benchmark is probably not the same as the situation you propose (full details for every league), and my CPU only has 4 cores and 4 threads.

[Guest]

So far I’ve benchmarked against two profiles on the 7940 & there is only one word to describe the processing performance of FM, terrible.

I’ll complete the tests on a couple more profiles and on my old rig this evening before posting the results in the benchmark thread.

[ZOXEXIVO]

Please, optimize FM 2019 for use many cores in day processing!

It's really massive parallel data processing, why developers not use it? Why i need full match simulation, when i need full simulation for all mathes, not only playable by me! 

It not that games, which need 1 main thread for gameplay. It really many independent data, which may be processing parallel.

 

[Guest]

If it was that easy SI would have done it ages ago, what you have to remember is that each FM is an evolution of the last & not a new title built from the ground up which means there are likely lines of code numbering 10s of thousands that might need unpicking to make full multi/hyper-thread processesing a practical approach.

See my previous posts about how to view the current approach & the parallels to graphics settings with higher end users being able to access a more realistic gaming experience.

[forameuss]

The thing that always gets me about this when it gets brought up is that it's usually by people that seem to sound like they know what they're talking about.  You'd think, given that, that they would think that they're hardly the first people to think it, and Si obviously would have.  Much like any feature, if they haven't done it then there's a fairly obvious reason for it.

1) They don't want to
2) They can't do it

Number 2 can expand out and may be part of future plans, either because it's lower priority, or it isn't currently possible.  And when it comes to something like optimising performance, it counts double.  People might think SI concentrate more on frivolous new features, but I'd imagine (of course, don't know) that their priority is the optimisation of the game as it is, and will always be forefront in what they're doing.  So, given that, does anyone really think it's going to be that easy to bring something like this in just like that?

[Smurf]

Like any software development, there are short term goals and long term goals. For all we know the team are working on this already, but it's not ready to be released. Or they may not be working on it at all.

Short term goals could be eas(y)(ier) to implement features, and long term goals could be introducing a good Brexit strategy that will develop with each edition of the game. And longer term goals, like making it beneficial in 64 bit and adding multi-core support for more of the game than it currently uses. 

Anyway - as already said - I'm sure they have already thought of it. 

[Guest]

Think it was FM16 when SI added hyperthreading support to the AI transfer shortlisting code & the performance gains where phenomenal, when they can add HT support they do it & do it well because they only take a decision to go live on core code changes when they know it will work without breaking the game for everyone.

[Roy Race 9]

I might have missed you posts re this when free can you please assist 

I was thinking of going down this route but feedback is pretty poor re FM

can you recommend best options I am going to self build there has been some good feedback in FM18 thread-

just wondering if you have any input particularly re RAM which is very pricey now(amazed I did a build about 3 years ago everything has become competitive except RAM) and best options to go for 

you input is appreciated

cheers

 

[Guest]

The simple answer is that faster RAM & more of it is better but you probably knew that you already knew that, my recommendation is get the fastest 8GB kit you can afford rather than compromising frequency to have 16 or 32 GB installed, you can always add more sets of faster 8GB kits later on.

[Roy Race 9]

yes agreed re Ram

with my latest build I was finding I had 16GB Ram but when I checked whilst running FM all leagues only 6GB of Ram was being used, I upped it to 32GB Ram thinking more would be allocated....it didnt so wasted my money

will invest in more top end next time just looking for best option with as you say the plan to upgrade if needed later

was going to wait until DDR 5 came out but supposedly that wont until late 2020, cant wait until then

 

[ZOXEXIVO]

I noticed that FM during the holiday began to use less CPU after the release of version 17, when experiments in mobile systems began. apparently, the development has made some calculations in the common core and made them equally slow for all platforms.

 I agree that for this game, using of 2 cores with 8 core processors is a shame. Developers must optimize this

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ZOXEXIVO said:

when experiments in mobile systems began. apparently, the development has made some calculations in the common core and made them equally slow for all platforms.

This is total rubbish, where did you read this crackpot theory?

[forameuss]

12 hours ago, ZOXEXIVO said:

I noticed that FM during the holiday began to use less CPU after the release of version 17, when experiments in mobile systems began. apparently, the development has made some calculations in the common core and made them equally slow for all platforms.

 I agree that for this game, using of 2 cores with 8 core processors is a shame. Developers must optimize this

 

Sounds totally legit.  Because obviously a developer's first thought would be to deliberately make their product perform worse.  Frankly I'm surprised more don't follow this genius plan.  I hear for FM19 they're going to send an intern around to throw a brick through the window of everyone who buys too.  Now that's customer service.

[bigmattb28]

So on this, would an i7-7700hq & 8gb ram be more beneficial than  I7-8750H 8GB ram? In terms of how fast the game goes through days / weeks?

[Guest]

If you leave FM on default settings the 7700HQ should perform better, as you increase the number of competitions using the full sim engine the 8750H will perform better.

[ZOXEXIVO]

I see it on my Task Manager. FM 2016 at holiday can use all 4 cores with HT. Current 8x Ryzen 2700x use only 1-2 coreal always!

[ZOXEXIVO]

@Barside Are you say, that most powerful processor will fully simulate match ?

What you say about this ? This load i see on match and on holiday match processing

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by ZOXEXIVO

[Smurf]

On 21/08/2018 at 14:49, bigmattb28 said:

So on this, would an i7-7700hq & 8gb ram be more beneficial than  I7-8750H 8GB ram? In terms of how fast the game goes through days / weeks?

The i7-7700hq has a faster base speed, during single core usage, like playing games etc, it will outperform the 8750h

The 8750h has a slower base speed, during single core usage it will not be as fast as the 7700hq.

During multicore use, like playing background matches, the 8750h should be faster due to having more cores, and a faster overall multi-core speed. 

But the difference is so minimal it's barely worth talking about unless over long periods.

 

I may be wrong, but that's my spin on it in simple terms.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, ZOXEXIVO said:

@Barside Are you say, that most powerful processor will fully simulate match ?

What you say about this ? This load i see on match and on holiday match processing

 

I assume you have left match processing at default which does not demand a lot from modern cpu’s.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Smurf said:

The i7-7700hq has a faster base speed, during single core usage, like playing games etc, it will outperform the 8750h

The 8750h has a slower base speed, during single core usage it will not be as fast as the 7700hq.

During multicore use, like playing background matches, the 8750h should be faster due to having more cores, and a faster overall multi-core speed. 

But the difference is so minimal it's barely worth talking about unless over long periods.

 

I may be wrong, but that's my spin on it in simple terms.

 

 

At default settings you’re spot on, add more fully simulated competitions and the additional cores will count for more.

As previously mentioned in this thread people should only consider getting the larger core cpu’s for FM if they already run large game setups in full detail or want to do that, default setting users should always go with the highest clocked i5 that thief budget can accommodate.

[Smurf]

RAM plays a big part in the large setups too. I believe, I can't find the thread where it was mentioned before, to check, but I think I read here before that for RAM and processor can play a key role for large setups. 

[Guest]

RAM is a factor but the performance gains are small across the range of frequencies (faster is always better though) & with FM as is it will always be the bottleneck that slows everything down regardless of what speed it runs at.

[wayne'o]

If you got money to spare I think the following components would be an FM BEAST.

 

[Joey Numbaz]

Best I can tell, the game is not using more than one core to simulate youth games.

Today, I set every league (like 60) in my game to max detail after reading this thread. I run at 790% or so CPU when the senior games are simming which is manageable.

But the Youth games on a Saturday take forever - much, much longer than when I had the leagues on no detail. The CPU never goes above 100%.

Is this a bug, or is this by design?

Edited September 11, 2018 by Joey Numbaz

[Guest]

Youth & reserve competitions used to have their own match detail setting in the interface however with the change for FM18 it’s no longet clear if they are now processed in full detail when selecting the maximum setting.

@Neil Brock might be able to confirm if these competitions still use the full ME.

[asdpoo]

This is the first time I see SI acknowledging the topic of multithreading so I'll dare to ask - Have there been made any progress in FM19 with the day-to-day player processing or does it still run on a single core?

Edited September 11, 2018 by asdpoo

[Guest]

If they have it would only be announced as part of the official pre-launch marketing campaign where they detail some of the  new features & updates.

[forameuss]

And unless it's something particularly ground-breaking, I don't think they'd even mention it then.  They'll have likely improved performance, even if only slightly, but it's not exactly the "sexy" new feature, at least to most people.  Wouldn't be surprised if nothing was mentioned.

[Guest]

I seem to recall that they did mention  AI transfer shortlisting getting an upgrade to utilise multi-core processing & hyper-threading.

[Joey Numbaz]

On 10/09/2018 at 23:22, Joey Numbaz said:

Best I can tell, the game is not using more than one core to simulate youth games.

Today, I set every league (like 60) in my game to max detail after reading this thread. I run at 790% or so CPU when the senior games are simming which is manageable.

But the Youth games on a Saturday take forever - much, much longer than when I had the leagues on no detail. The CPU never goes above 100%.

Is this a bug, or is this by design?

Small clarification. U23s are using all 8 cores. It's only the U18s that aren't. In case that matters.

[Guest]

As it’s just U18 matches I’d say that’s by design because match experience at that level has no impact on player development therefore using the full match simulation is a waste of processing resources.

[Joey Numbaz]

Is it 'no impact' or less impact? I've heard facilities training are *more* important, but not 100% important. They still learn your tactic, for example. Although you don't need an engine to give 'points' for role/tactic knowledge based on minutes I guess.

I've been using youth as a test for tactics too. Like if the tactic is working at the youth level (where I have better players relative to the opposition typically) that's a sign that it will work once I have better players at the big club. On the flip side, if it's not working down there, that's especially troubling. So if that's not how it works (different engine) it would be very good to know.

Also, even though it's not using 8 cores it is taking *a lot* longer for the Saturday morning youth matches to process than it did before. So that's at least one sign that the full engine is being used, just not with all the cores.

Of course, this is all a guess. I could be completely missing something here.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Joey Numbaz

[wisconsin]

On 02/01/2018 at 14:57, TheMattB81 said:

I'm using a 1950x 16 core CPU and this game appears to use no more than two cores when processing, which is a shame. I see two cores locked at 99% usage and not much else. 

Sorry to gravedig but can anyone verify if this is still true of FM20?

I'm trying to decide on a new processor and am trying to weigh up the age-old number cores vs core clock speed debate.

Do I get the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X with 16 cores and only 3.5 Ghz speed, or the slightly cheaper AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT with only 12 cores and 3.8 Ghz speed? I've set aside a fairly large chunk of money so price doesn't come into play - I just want to know which will let me play FM20 (and future versions of the game) as fast as possible, with as many leagues as possible loaded.

If FM20 only utilises 2 cores, would I be better off getting the cheaper one, as strange as it sounds, in terms of game performance?

This is solely for FM20. No other high spec games or anything like video processing is done. Just Football Manager.

[TheMattB81]

12 hours ago, wisconsin said:

Sorry to gravedig but can anyone verify if this is still true of FM20?

I'm trying to decide on a new processor and am trying to weigh up the age-old number cores vs core clock speed debate.

Do I get the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X with 16 cores and only 3.5 Ghz speed, or the slightly cheaper AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT with only 12 cores and 3.8 Ghz speed? I've set aside a fairly large chunk of money so price doesn't come into play - I just want to know which will let me play FM20 (and future versions of the game) as fast as possible, with as many leagues as possible loaded.

If FM20 only utilises 2 cores, would I be better off getting the cheaper one, as strange as it sounds, in terms of game performance?

This is solely for FM20. No other high spec games or anything like video processing is done. Just Football Manager.

Good thing you quoted me otherwise i would have missed this. 

I am now using a 3950X and can confirm that FM2020 uses every single CPU core and thread you can throw at it, when processing background matches. If you have the league detail on all games for your league, then it will use every core and thread to process the background matches. 

If you don't plan to run other leagues on full detail, then you probably won't see much benefit. 

[wisconsin]

9 hours ago, TheMattB81 said:

Good thing you quoted me otherwise i would have missed this. 

I am now using a 3950X and can confirm that FM2020 uses every single CPU core and thread you can throw at it, when processing background matches. If you have the league detail on all games for your league, then it will use every core and thread to process the background matches. 

If you don't plan to run other leagues on full detail, then you probably won't see much benefit. 

Thanks a lot! This is what I wanted to hear.

[EdL]

5 hours ago, wisconsin said:

Thanks a lot! This is what I wanted to hear.

Prettty much sums it up as I said in the thread before, in default settings like the the XT will be faster if you are going to detail level and manually setting lots of leagues/nations to full detail the 3950X is probably better.

[Brother Ben]

12 hours ago, wisconsin said:

Thanks a lot! This is what I wanted to hear.

It's still all about core speed in 90% of setups

You've stated this is only for FM.  In that case you'd be better off with Intel

Benchmark B is all leagues active and Intel processors are clearly out in front

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Brother Ben

[TheMattB81]

3 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

It's still all about core speed in 90% of setups

You've stated this is only for FM.  In that case you'd be better off with Intel

Benchmark B is all leagues active and Intel processors are clearly out in front

 

I'm going to run these benchmarks on my system as i noticed that the only 3950X user is running very slow memory so it will be interesting to see if there is any performance increase from running tightly tuned memory at 3600Mhz. 

[TheMattB81]

3 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

It's still all about core speed in 90% of setups

You've stated this is only for FM.  In that case you'd be better off with Intel

Benchmark B is all leagues active and Intel processors are clearly out in front

 

Just knocked 20 seconds off the best time in the C Benchmark thread, will add my details to the thread shortly. 

 

EDIT

Results posted here > 

Benchmark C really makes the 3950X shine. 

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by TheMattB81