General computer talk/advice

Yup, the worst Power supplies I've ever came across where the ones made in the early to mid 2000's during the capacitor crisis, botched chemistry causing even name brand caps to fail, but by far the worst are a specific line Bestec power supplies that had no protection circuit, man I've seen those things kill peripherals after a 5v rail regulator fails due to a cap going bad. Funny thing is I just collect them now replace the capacitors in them and sell them on for dirt cheap with a 3 month warranty on eBay. Once you get some good quality low ESR caps in them they'll probably outlive the machine they're going into.

 

Sadly, it is not possible to put old bios to board, F21 update was irreversible update that closed BClock loophole which Intel demanded.

I'm currently putting Win 10 to old laptop HDD, it will be slow as hell, but in order to eliminate variables potentially causing my CPU to die on BeamNG shadows, it must be done, if it still acts same way, then running out of ideas again, perfect benchmark results, so leaves directX, Nvidia or BeamNG bug, I guess.

 

I did this today.



Teething pains. Lots and lots of teething pains. #worth_it_tho

 

I truly hate Win10, that is almost only thing I hate actually.

It is so difficult and slow to use and I don't get why it has to read or write HDD all the time, even when doing just downloading updates it goes like that, after about 1 hour HDD dropped below 100%, but it will still take long time to get it all updated for testing.

Twice when writing this it has stopped accepting writing, HDD load to 100%, just download updates, yeah, right, so it claims, truth is that it does whole lot more which it tries to hide best way it can.

 

That is GPU fan. It only starts after reaching 40*C

 

Nadeox posted some graphs to my thread in questions and support, his FPS will be really low too as well as mine in that test, it is because of shadows run on CPU and on single thread.

This leads me to believe that there must be something different how you have tested it, 2 roamers with extra lights added, that is 6 lights each, instead of default 4 lights each, shadows enabled etc. like settings in video and that specific location. With single core result of 100, your FPS should be quite bit less than what I got in the video, despite faster graphics card.

 

Shadows cause massive butt-hurt in this game, even on my Radeon Rx 480 8gb (XFX RS XXX edition, too, with slightly better corespeed).
No hardware faults, working order, no overheats (74C on the card under 100% sustained for hours load, highest temp in the box!).
Sure, Radeon's have long been known that shadows are their enemies especially in Nvidia-biased game (gameworks games), but regardless.
I surely will wait with baited breath on their newest updates.
Edit: I despise Windows 10.
If you do your OWN backups (with a seperate program, or uploading savedgames to the cloud or a personal backup site like mega - writing down your passwords incase of system failure etc), disabling the windows 'volume shadow copy' service might help you.
There's also a registry tweak when accessing files to not update the 'last accessed time' when making a list of directories. This can speed up accesses to folders especially ones with large collections of files.
Laptop hard drives especially the 5400rpm variety are notoriously slow. consider buying a cheap SSD (I know, if you cannot afford it, I understand, try to pinch some pennies here if possible, they're lovely!).
Hard drives are reaching the end of their service life with modern open-world video games, as the amount of data they can stream, especially when many random files are accessed in a quick manner, without slowing the game down (hitching), is becoming greater and greater as more people switch over to SSD's for their OS *AND* games.
I have 1.6tb of SSD in this box, I cannot stress enough how good even one Planar MLC Nand drive is (I use primarily Toshiba MLC nand drives here), compared to anything a mechanical HDD can offer. When I built this box back 2.5 years ago, I didn't care what intel CPU I could afford, or If I had to make some reservations and buy a used scratch-and-dent (stress the DENT, it's more like CRUSH*) case for the PC, but I made darn well sure to buy some SSD's for this machine. I thank myself everytime I load anything anywhere.
*Crush = Arc XL by Fractal, a case shipping damaged, someone received this unusable case, smashed in the top back, with some metalworking skills, some wood blocks, and a hammer and patience, I took out all the rivets, and smacked it back into shape. Woke up the neighbors, but I brought them donuts the next day. An hour or so later, or not even, I had a great case. Slapped on a little black paint and some nuts&bolts where the rivets were and I have a great case to this day! I love my Fractal Arc XL if anyone's looking for a big quiet case btw, even better than my Lian-Li cases for the price asked. Got this for 30¢ on the dollar.

You can buy TRANSCEND MLC ssd's for dirt cheap and they're fairly reliable and long-lasting. They won't slowdown on long file copies when they get into 'steady-state' mode (run out of buffer) nearly as bad as TLC-nand drives will, nor do they slow down as much with old data. Just buy a drive with MLC-nand, even if it's 120gb, that's enough for a hungry OS, a few games, and Beamng.drive and it's mods(even my huge maps!).

 

You could have a TITAN and it would not help with the shadows as they are done by CPU, GPU is not doing them, that is because Torque 3D shadows are old and that is also why they are so hard when number of shadows increase (that is when either num. of objects or lights increases).

Only way to improve performance of shadows at the moment is to have fast single core performance.

I think you missed my earlier message about Win 10 test install.
I did install Win10 on old laptop drive to diagnose this shadows kill performance issue, but it turns out I was right all the time, it does happen to everyone, it's just that many don't test accurately same way and then are mislead to believe it would not happen in their system. There is no way for anyone having 60fps with two off road roamers using settings I use in this test, or maybe some overclocked CPU that has well over 161 Cinebench score will have, but I doubt:


Nadeox gets same kind of low FPS, but what might confuse many is task manager's lower than 100% CPU utilization, for some reason MSI Afterburner causes that, but it does not affect to framerates, just to what task manager shows as CPU load.
His screenshots are here https://www.beamng.com/threads/low-fps-cpu-gpu-usage.35667/#post-558481

So problem is not GPU, it is just how Torque 3D is, some GFX causes CPU load and it is easy to get lag spikes because of single core performance being too little. I too look forward of coming updates and if they find a way to split that load to over more cores or maybe even getting better shadows, but probably not happening in 0.9.
Funny thing here is that while BeamNG is very much GPU limited when using 1080p or higher resolution and max settings in vanilla content, it turns to CPU limited by GFX, not by physics, when resolution is lower and you have bit more shadows running than typically.

Knowing that all helps to tune settings much better and of course to focus hardware upgrades to which would help, for example if I would go and get a faster GPU, it would not really help me as I can run most of the time near max settings because I use 720p windowed mode, where I need more performance is shadows and only faster CPU improves that.

I don't like Win 8.1, but that is what I normally run, it runs on Samsung 951 M2 Nvme drive, it was fastest (at least in my price range) when I got it around year ago, still not many faster around, I think my computers boot time is something like 7 seconds to desktop, so for me 5400rpm laptop drive was big shock in speed. Even still, I have had test install of Win 8 on same drive using Core 2 Duo setup and it was lot faster than Win 10, as 10 really needs SSD because of that insane disk usage it has.

I simply love this drive, going to buy 961 (not always easy to come by as it too is OEM) soon to replace this as I have now 3TB writes and 5000 hours on it, surely there is lot life left, but for OS drive I think once a year is good time to swap new one in so no need to worry about SSD life too much.


Running WinXP on this kind of performance level would be quite snappy experience of course, too bad it was forced down, too good to die by itself.

 

Oh no, just clean reinstall to another drive, took my SSD out from machine so it would not get infected with this W10 virus

For me, Win10 never attempted to force itself to my computer, but thing is I have always had updates on manual way only, MS is known from bad updates that have even caused systems to need fresh new install of OS to fix, never have updates on automatic if you do anything on computer that needs to be done, because you never know which restart is leading to hours of diagnostics and repairs with automatic updates.

I have images of Win10 on DVD, though and also I did have free upgrade which after I returned back, because Win 10 simply is too horrible. Win 8 is too, but at least old shell and some registry hacks makes it somewhat usable.

I don't get why MS has to invent wheel over when they had found most efficient already, but for me mobile things are not any sensible reason, always felt those should be kept out from computer world, sadly I seem to be alone with this

One of the shocks in Win10 was also how when I tried to keep windows update progress bar page open and then adjust some settings, it was not possible, because it refused to open settings in new window and replaced content on that window that shows update progress, very much a thing you would except in phone or tablet, but computers are for multi tasking, that is something they have forgotten.

Of course it can be that I'm just too old for modern computer world

 

This, entirely this. Win7 hold-out here, being in my mid 30s... if it's not broke, don't fix it; that sort of thing.
I feel it was only yesterday that MS finally got Windows 7 solid and somewhat/fairly reliable for a Windows operating system. I don't want to have to set up EVERYTHING and try and figure out all my passwords again... I only built this i7 2.5 years ago (that's when I installed this copy of Windows 7)... that's short timeframe for me. I will keep this machine for a while just to not have to reinstall stuff AGAIN.

I have a 4790k that's a real heat-monger. I'm happy with the speed not with the heat issues. Made it worse delidding it this past week, going to have to take the IHS off the cpu again and use less then a shovel full of thermal paste this time(didn't glue it on, thank goodness).
It's real good for single-core speeds which is why I picked this cpu out vs my AMD FX 6300 I had previous.

I am actually writing back to say thanks, I didn't know Beamng.drive did shadows on the CPU. That's what's slowing down my map(s) alright. I can run 8 cars and still be graphics limited due to this, even with the Rx 480.
An 8 car test on Tennessee map ran me out of 16gb of system memory in a hurry though, I will mention that part.
8 cars on Nevada Interstate is 35~50fps or such... sometimes more ... when seeing only a small section of the map. When there's no shadows or just the car, it's smooth. When there's lots of shadows or the whole map in view it chugs at 25~32fps or such. It takes 40~60% of the frames away when doing shadows. Reflections have a similar performance impact (they always have, historically, as it must render an additional slightly simplified scene behind you that would normally be hidden).
Glad to hear you have an SSD already. It's surely one of the best investments you can make after a good psu, good motherboard, and good cpu cooler. PC is only as fast as it's slowest part that's in-use, after-all.

I learned something today, thanks - very interesting. This definitely warrants attention though I must add.

 

I need to test multiple cars on Tennessee, I think most I have had has been 4 around Burger place spawn, which might be one of the heaviest places on that map with shadows enabled, but I know now much more about what settings have which effect on CPU and GPU.

If you look sun object, there is distance for shadows, I haven't actually tested how it would affect performance for your maps, but it might be something together with visual distance that could give you a little performance boost, shadow resolution seems to have small effect too, but not too big.

I think that I run into shadow issues lot because I can keep other graphical stuff on that is taxing CPU, because of low resolution I use even my not so fast 1050 Ti is able to keep up. Another thing is that I aim for never below 60fps even for a small moment, running less FPS is easier for CPU, so if GPU manages to do only 55fps CPU is getting away easier already.

Problem with many objects is that you get shadow to shadows, more calculations compared to single object, but it is not all that, there are other things in play, like collisions and such.

Mesh detail for example at highest uses more CPU than when I set it to normal, but also it uses GPU too, so there are many variables in play which affect each other. On vanilla content shadows comes to issue only when you add lights, like rally lights in sunburst or off road Roamer with extra spots, but with bigger maps with more objects shadows can be issue even without headlights on. Maybe with better understanding some clever workarounds can be found.

I guess that at some point devs might get better shadow system, but it might be that some other change will free CPU cycles and be easier to implement, at the moment though.

One thing about map performance that I have been thinking is that if map has parts which run easily on max settings and parts where one needs to lower settings considerably to keep FPS at target, that might be for players lag spiking, with smaller maps it is easier to keep GFX load (for GPU and CPU) quite closely same everywhere, with bigger maps that is challenging because object limits etc. Adding stuff to map to keep it performing close to slowest performing section might feel bit stupid at first too, but I think official maps have some of such in their design.

So like map making would not be enough challenging already without such aspects to think about, there is now something to chew.

 

straying off topic here, but what annoys me is that Intel seemingly cant make a good mobile processor, like say the Apple A9X (found in iPad Pro) still beats new kabylake Core M chips. Oh and Intel Atom is still a piece of crap, like it needs to be better, its competing with MediaTeks (yuk) and Core M CPUs are expensive too, like Core M tablets can go well above £700 which doesnt help. I dont think the 4.5 watt thermal allowance can handle a Core architecture CPU and iGPU at full swing either, and there is no way of bypassing it. And for god sake the battery life is continuosly awful on almost every single 2 in 1 i have seen, the only ones that are decent (competing with iPads) are Intel Atoms, but Atoms cant keep up! I like the idea of a fast CPU (longer life of device) but i cant stand IOS at all, i think what needs to happen is a comeback of Intel Pentuim 3700's in tablets (not just fanless laptops) oh and OEM's need to make good battery capacity laptops/tablets.

Oh and Intel, improve the bloody atom, send clock speeds upwards (peak clocks)

Windows is also at fault too, the clockspeed on my atom tablet is all over the place, i move a webpage and the cpu jumps to turbo frequency using lots of power in the process, in reality it maybe should use 800mhz instead of 1500mhz.

 

I find it hard to believe A9X is faster, considering its an A57 derived design, and the A57 is not faster. More likely unfair benchmark.

 

The Atom doesn't need more clockspeed. It needs less cores.

Intel mobile I3's I5's and I7's (excluding HQ) are dual cores, yet for some reason they make the Atoms quad core. The result is awful single core performance, if they were dual core with similar multithreaded performance they would be ok. Equally I doubt the A9X would run very well if it had to run Windows, since windows is heavy and not mobile optimised.

On the topic of battery life, my Linx 10 Intel Atom tabet gets very good battery life, it can go for multiple days of note taking at university. The Lenovo 2 in 1 its been replaced by has an I7 (5500u so 2 gen old) and can also last 2 days of use since it has a larger battery in it. However I do use it a lot more and more heavily including outside uni, so it only gets a day of battery. Performance is also rock solid too, its like using a desktop for the most part.

The reason the clockspeed jumps all over the place is not the fault of windows, that is what it is supposed to do. It runs at a low clockspeed most the time to make the battery last longer then bumps it up when it needs to do something. With web browsing it will likely bump a single core up to a boost clock speed and keep the others lower.

Core M CPU's are really damn impressive too, considering the power limitations they get really damn close to their I3/I5/I7 counter parts. Its worht noting however that the core M CPU's are not always the same, different manufactorers can apply different power limits to them in order to balance battery life and performance. For example the Cube I9 has a lower default power setting, but if you replace the heatsink and change some settings you can increase performance.

 

93% of all AMD Ryzen R7 1700 chips are able to be overclocked to 3.8 GHz.


GUESS WHICH FORUM USER'S CAN'T.

 

Does putting computer to sleep and waking up trick do anything for your chip?

 

Doesn't work like that. It's actually one of the timer's running slowly and so it thinks it's done more operations in 5 seconds then it's really done as it's idea of 5 seconds is really 6 seconds (exaggeration).

 

So with stopwatch there is no difference then? Bummer, I guess it would of been too good to be true to have such free way to get bit extra performance out from the chip.

I was kinda hoping to see 4.5Ghz from Ryzen, not sure if that will come later via some Bios update magic, but chip kinda needs bit of boost for gaming use.
Win 10 patch might of course help too for gaming use. After all the hype I was hopeful of bit better performance, it does perform really well in Blender rendering though, so maybe full potential will be unlocked later.

 

But consider this, you're trying to overclock 8 physical cores, not all of them are going to agree with a certain overclock as, say a quad core would. So the fact people can get almost 4GHz is pretty good for a 16 Thread CPU, IMO.

 

Maybe, it just is so lame how these more than 4 core CPU's overclock, Intel included (actually 4 cores too), so I was hoping to see bit more. Now I'm hoping that Windows patch will get it to perform as well in other stuff at it does in Blender, there seems to be some issues based on what I have read and hopefully they get performance improved by that.

I kinda miss those over 50% overclocks of old times, but then there was only 1 core and thread. Is it the CPU's cache that is really holding back as it would seem odd cores being the issue, when alone they would go faster, I would think problem would lie in some parts that make cores to work together more than in cores itself? Of course knowing that will not help with overclocking at all.

When I look overclocking lists, there is lot of 7-8Ghz results with many different types of CPU's, I really could use some nice 6Ghz 4 core performance, so hopefully CPU wars put this CPU business to high gear again and we start to see some new level of performance.

If 2600K is still able to keep up with new CPU models, there really must be some kind of room for improvement.

 

To get 6GHz even with today's 14nm processors you'd still need liquid nitrogen cooling. Apparently 14nm is the smallest manufactures are able to do, any smaller and they either don't work or are highly unstable. I'm just sat here waiting for quantum computers to become a user obtainable thing.