BeamNG with 1Ghz CPU + some more

Some fun experiment with i7-8086k and 1050Ti 4GB, note that this is normal graphics without ssao or reflections and bit less than 1080p resolution in windowed mode.

CPU is set to 4 cores and HT is on, which results 8 threads.

1Ghz results 27fps


1.5Ghz results 41fps
(No, nothing on CPU shows 100% even CPU is limiting factor of fps)

3.8Ghz results 80fps and was minimum clock speed which GPU was fully loaded


3.8Ghz Banana bench with lot of stuff running background:


Different graphics settings have different point where GPU is fully loaded and different parts of map, different vehicles will have different results, that is quite CPU heavy spot, but there you go, BeamNG works somewhat with 1Ghz too (just don't try a bus).

 

What happens then

 

About 12fps on gridmap, because physics kinda can't keep up and everything just grinds to halt

 

And that is on a CPU with really good IPC. Try that on a Pentium 4 (or an AMD FX underclocked to 1 GHz), and I doubt the game would even run correctly, if at all.

 

For fun here is 1.5Ghz 6 cores / 12 threads Bananbench, still getting 92.191, but that 1 vehicle result is under 16 which makes it kinda bad to play game already as can be seen from first post, such low clocks is not able to keep 1050Ti more than 50% loaded in test spot and normal graphics.

Highest core temp was 29C during banana bench, it might be 2C higher than idling.

AMD FX-8350 would be pretty close to same, it is slightly faster, So maybe 1.6-1.7Ghz 8th gen intel would be same performance to AMD FX, that is rough guess.

It is quite amazing that game manages to work with AMD FX already, Tri-Articulated bus is starting to get issues when I set clock speed to 3Ghz or below so can't imagine such ever working well with some of those slower CPUs.

 

well there is Generational improvements... i had a Intel Q6600 2.4 GHz and when we were looking online for a new Processor, a Dual core 2.4 GHz no hyper threading was actually faster! so my current i3 8100 VS that burning hot on idle q6600 (idles at 70C 90+C on load) is probably a few times faster at the same clock and since my CPU is 3.6 GHz instead of 2.4 it is a lot faster.

here are some Bench mark links to prove this:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6400/1980vs3512 (a processor in range)

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-Intel-Core-i3-8100/1980vs3942 (my processor)

http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6200U (the closest match i could find but on an other site)

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-Intel-Core-i7-8086K/1980vsm516988 (your CPU)

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-FX-4100/1980vs2878 (a AMD FX 4100)

google "intel q6600 vs i5 2.4 ghz" and the page it full ;P

any how generational improvements can make the game feel totally playable on 1 GHz even tho some other processors would lag at 2 GHz and be unplayable... i guess it is weird like that.

 

That is called IPC which was discussed earlier. If you start doing research on that, you will find out that after 4th gen Intel to 6th gen there was some improvement, but between 6th gen and 8th gen hardly anything at all.

Now that is important then, when looking for new CPU their clock speed in practice can be lower than old one, because of more cores is being added and you actually get worse gaming performance then, which then is often overcome by overclocking.

What your links are showing is giving false impression as that is masking the real issue, which is stagnated CPU IPC improvements. IPC and clock speed sadly still matters in such way that extra cores might be resting, very important with BeamNG for example.

 

Its interesting that someone actually underclocked their own PC to do this....

 

There is no room for walls in science, every experiment is needed to find out more

For example 4c/4t is pretty much same that 6c/12t in practice, some uses obviously benefit more, but I'm surprised how small difference actually is.

 

It would be interesting to see what my fire spitting (4 year old) cpu would do if I locked down HT and made it a single core chip....

 

well what my old Q6600 from 2007 (original First Quad core) could do back then was amazing but probably could get done by 1 or 2 cores of today without Hyper threading... so you say "false" but those are just examples of how 10 years of CPU improvement can do for a CPU compared to just adding MHz. 1 or 2 Generation adds not much but 10 years of it REALLY matters! like if i overclocked the Q6600 to 3.6 GHz (impossible due to thermals but lets break that rule of physics for the comparison...) the processor would probably only be 70% of the capabilities of my i3 8100 at best... probably closer to 50% tho depending on the task.

like when i was modding terrain in Crysis, it took about 20 minutes to make a simple road change on the actual map when clicking apply... i have not tested it yet but IF what i understand from it is true... it should take like 5 minutes instead of 14 ish like RAW GHz would appear to suggest. (hence why when my friends were suggesting an upgrade, i kept refusing 2 cores CPU even with hyper threading since no point in getting some thing that is not at least 1.5 to 2 times faster... unlike a GPU, a CPU is some thing you keep for 5 years at least.

a GPU gets rather old after 3 years... well until the Nvidia 10 series at least ;P (i bet they hit the diminishing returns ceiling... hence why RTX instead... tho movie making studio must of been one of the few exited people for that. making a 24 hour job render in a hour or some thing, is a huge gain in their application. to them RTX is literally "Real Time" Ray Tracing instead of 1 frames per hour ray tracing...)

all that to explain that those extra weird processors are things that are like shortcuts like of a particular mathematical equation would be continuously used... you need to fetch from RAM, put in cashe, do the math step, write to cashe, fetch more math steps, put in cashe, do the math, put final answer to the RAM... like zigzag in and out of RAM and cache for the math steps... with a specialized chip in the processor... the WHOLE math equation can be done in one step (or at least a ton less) by fetching the data and it says "Number: X to Equation Y" and spews out the answer...

like it just fetch the numbers like they are parameters and plug it in the pre arranged mathematical equations step in the form of a chip and gets the output right away without having to go back and forth each step. like 2πr in a chip would be faster than going and putting π=3.1415926535897932384626433832795 r=15 ((2*3.1415926535897932384626433832795)*15) or what ever you would have a chip that has all those and only needs to accept a "r" so you only need to put 15 and get the result in one step.

sorry turned into some idiotic explanation of random stuff lol... anyhow i bet my old Q6600 would only be able to run 1 car 40 FPS and 2 cars the frames would drop at 10 FPS like when i fave 5 cars (tho i can put 10 Automation cars since they are less complex.)

 

No, I'm not saying false, just that it was not 10 years, more like 5-6 years after Core 2 which become Core i series after some improvements, but last 5 years there has been pretty much no gains to IPC, 9th generation gave some very small improvement, but if you see how much improvement there has been between 4th gen and 9th gen and then how much there has been between Core 2 and 4th gen, you can see that quite big part of improvements did happen up to 4th gen.

Power usage has gone down of course a lot, but IPC improvements slowed down a lot.

Memory bandwidth matters a lot for map making as that also affect what single core can do quite a bit, same for Crysis too I believe, memory bandwidth is not all megahertz though, latency needs to be sensible too, with DDR4 latency might not be quite as important as old times, but slows down things if too high and megahertz increase might be eaten by latency increase. If Q6600 would have dual channel 3200Mhz CL13 DDR4 it surely would be quite bit faster, sadly it had not


GPU performance improvements did not slow down, this made slight issue where graphics grew out of what CPU could deliver to fastest of GPUs, which is why new solutions in software are now getting used more and more and also as hardware is moving to more cores that can open road to real VR experience etc.

GPUs are different there that those have been great at parallel workloads for really long time, CPU world is bit behind in that.

Interesting to see what comes from GPU front to keep up then as 4K, 8K and VR really starts to becoming mainstream.


Hmm, I think 8800GTS gave me something like 6 or 8 fps, Skylake integrated was much much more over 30fps I think, so there was bit of improvement too, their performance jumps might of been slowed down too, but it is not like with Intel where their improvements to IPC practically stopped completely. 6700k vs 7700k they could not even tell which is which if using same clocks, 8700K added more cores, but when running same amount of cores with same clocks, there just is no difference to write about.

Really hoping that new hardware can start boosting up at least clock speeds if even IPC stays same, as it would allow more complex vehicles to be created.

BeamNG has improved a lot in performance department, but we then create just more complex mods to eat all that performance gain

 

yeah in the nano meter department they reached the threshold for speeds... 5 GHz is the top cap... like you can have 4.7 GHz with air, 4.9 to 5 with water and water chilled with ice and about 5.6 with nitrogen... tho there are tome 7 GHz records... those are not the same CPU and "der8auer"'s level of OC is outside of my knowledge range. but what i see on Gamers Nexus on Youtube... it is pretty much 5 GHz the limit for the current architecture and needs a totally different method or even materials. (replacing silicon with??? and copper with silver i guess... or nano carbon tubes...)

so seeing 6GHz on air might be a far fetched idea ;P

 

It comes to surface area essentially, desktop chips just are defined to be size they are, making them bigger is avoided, but making them bigger with added dead silicon would make them more expensive, bigger and easier to cool.

With Zen2 you have 7nm CPU, but I/O is 14nm as separated chip, which I guess is one way to achieve that extra cooling surface.

Another pet annoyance of mine in CPU design is to stick with same old TDP while adding more cores to put more heat out on same size chip, they could do better, they just would need to give up some old habits, desktop CPU don't need to be same size as before, they can change that if they really want to, well they could if...

Here is a tool for you, right click on column headings and add GPU metrics so you can know what happens with fps drops etc. if ever experiencing such. For example running out of vram is something not many other tools can show:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/process-explorer

 

i just did a quick test with my best car i used to drop at 10 FPS with 10 of them, in V0.16 right now i was getting from 18 to 24 FPS in game! i mean they may have messed up with the UI but they definitely did not on the 3D side of things! i think that if they did some thing similar to a roll back... like keeping the current UI and it's features BUT give the user the option to load the game with the V0.15 UI instead, the ones like me with the issue would probably be set!

also i noticed they removed drop down menus in UI apps... that kind of sucks for the Traffic tool since a few commands are in drop down menus. i made custom cops... i kind of want them to stay white and black like i loaded them in... no need for them to start going all "rainbow" on me ;P tho with all this UI thing i stopped working on them... i was about to figure out how the real ones use sirens and lights (i can just use turn signals under the prop to fake the light.) but with this turn it kind of derailed.

i instead started to work on random cars after and forgot. i made a drift car, Noriyaro's "Beercan" drift car. (real guy's name is Alexi something... has a youtube channel, i also watch a lot of Cleetus Mcfarland too... those gives me ideas for cars some times.)

i should really concentrate on the Police Cars and make a few other cars since i wanted to make some Low CPU intensive traffic cars to make traffic a possibility since a 5 car traffic is pretty limited but a 7 to 10 car one is starting to be more sane! and 20 FPS is nothing to me, i once put C4 on a Jet in a Custom Halo Map called ColdSnap while it was trying to ram me... that was at 2 FPS while recording! the video is even on my old Youtube page! (not the new one tho.)

 

That is just torture to the Q6600, what kind of cooler is it? It ought to be better than that under pretty much any cooler... my Dell E520 (oem heatsink) idled at 40-45c and under load got say 55c..

 

If you update your copy of the Traffic Tool the drop downs have been changed to support the 0.16 update.

 

it was the original Q6600, not the revisioned one so that was normal (with stock cooler, even with the better paste i put when i had a trouble with CMOS battery and not knowing it was that, it came to 68C idle 86C load.) that processor had to be revisioned right at launch and kind of became a meme for it's insane heat. i used to heat my Room with the Q6600 and the pair of 8800GT 512 MB in SLI back in the day! well i changed the Pair of 8800GT for a 550Ti and did not gain much more than 10% performance but WAY less heat! the 8800GT Idles near 100C and under heavy load could reach 105C! and that was with a 120MM fan hacked in the PCI grid pulling outside air RIGHT on them! (i think Nvidia was trying to make a toaster but realized they could play games with it!)

my friend had the second Q6600 and it idles at 55C and goes 70C under load so... yeah.
--- Post updated ---
i need to add that by heating the Room i mean i am a Canadian, and i never turned the heating on in winter with that PC and it was rear 10C at the start of the day BUT it quickly became 30C one hour later!

EDIT the 8800GT 105C under load was in the summer and it practically crashed... that was not really the norm and i was trying to show off lol... but in reality i would guess normal would be 85C and close to 100C and touching 100C in the summer... in the winter it was closer to 90C but still that was with a fan in the PCI grid feeding it the coldest air (15C average) and not the Case air (40C internal) dirrectly on and the 8800GT would be pushing air right out it's back!

 

some good stories yeah the one i have is stepping G0 which has 95w tdp i think, originals had like 105w tdp not a huge difference stated, but i bet under idle it was a lot different

 

Well, that heat and noise stuff has improved massively.

As one can see from 1st post, CPU is under 30C while playing Italy and that is 1.5Ghz which is closely of what AMD FX-8350 can do with much higher frequency and sure enough that is not under 30C even when idling!

My gtx1080 is between 40-55C even in heavy use, 3x 80mm fans in it + sturdy heatpipes make good cooling of that 180 Watts of heat, which I believe is same as 8800GTS 512 were putting out, very same that could produce only few fps in BeamNG.

I remember measuring about 300W of power usage with my Core 2 Duo and 8800GTS, my current system uses same amount of power at 3Dmark combined benchmark, but computer insanely more polygons to screen with that power.

Sensible person builds system with i5 and gtx1060, lot less heat and almost same performance in BeamNG when running same clock speeds.

There is now free weekend of the Surviving Mars game on Steam, I did test it out and see my CPU is 32C while running 4.3Ghz and 6 cores, that is similar how it is with most games, so BeamNG is really good benchmark, if you can run this complex to compute game, you can probably run any other game on market. I don't know if much other games are putting AVX loads on all cores so that this game is when running several cars, also cooling systems need to bit better for this game than most because of that aspect.