Yeah monitor resolution, and refresh rate are what affects the GPU, not size. Your laptop isn't magical when it connects to a 120in projected screen with a resolution of 1024x768. It's just as easy to run as a 5 inch screen with that resolution.
How many pixels do you want to draw a second? Refresh rate and resolution both make massive differences. However 2 1080p60 monitors would be identical
but there is GPU rendering and other stuff on the other cores. There is a performance difference between a dual core and quad core on BeamNG, especially with dynamic reflections and shadows on high.
Yes, but the statement was physics. I also very much disagree with the statement that render is CPU bottled right now. I have no issues, I do not have a high single core throughput CPU --- Post updated --- Do remember. The GPU tied to single core restriction is an inherent part of all graphics APIs except vulkan, DX12 and metal, not a uniquely BeamNG thing
If you examine how game engine renders scenes you will notice that lot of stuff that is not visible is also rendered, that means more wasted drawcalls and DX11 is CPU limited by drawcalls, it takes great measures to avoid that bottleneck. This engine is very heavily single core limited because of that, also how cars add those drawcalls, it is pretty massive 700 drawcalls or more, from available 4000 or so, depending from CPU and also from what you have on those drawcalls. JC3 is DX11 game that does manages this better, but largely because shadows are not so expensive, in BeamNG shadows can use 1600 drawcalls. On 8086K paired with gtx1080 single core performance is what limits number of vehicles. I have done my research on this and can assure you that you have false impression, you can be GPU limited, but that is easily sorted out with faster GPU, I can easily be GPU limited with iGPU it does not tell anything how engine is working. Also devs did made changes to how physics gets assigned to cores, they now have, stacking I believe it was called, now you can also spawn more than 100 cones without trouble, but yeah, 1 core per 1 vehicle still mostly applies. However in a future BeamNG will run with Vulkan, very likely, which will help, maybe they also change something in shadows too, but BeamNG is one game which can benefit greatly from Vulkan, even GPU performance does suffer a bit, it is quite small difference though (download gfx bench and see how it is in your system, smaller CPU power benefits more).
I am running a GTX1070 and a 2600K I have no issues. I hit the multicore wall far before singlecore Remember. BeamNG is not actually that high poly compared to many other games out there. Dont try educating me on how basic rendering works. I have written render code, this isnt new to me. Your experience and statements simply dont align with anything I can duplicate
Don't believe then, don't examine, live in bliss and all that, but if you don't even try to understand, you will never learn.
I basically want to run 3 times the same monitor put together into one bigger picture like some racing simulator setups The monitors would be either my current one and two similar ones as the one i currently have is from 2009 or something or 3 new ones all of the options would be 1080p 60fps. https://iiyama.com/de_de/produkte/prolite-b2409hds-1/ this is my current one
Dont examine? I literally cannot duplicate your issues. I run into multicore bottleneck long before singlecore, I have no CPU bottlenecking of GPU, with a weaker CPU than yours and a pretty powerful GPU. Dont try to understand or I wont learn? Come back to me once you've written some OpenGL code, perhaps come back to me with an explanation of why render culling is actually an incredibly difficult task and why DX11 is marshalled from a single thread. --- Post updated --- 3 times 1080p, aka, roughly 3 times harder to drive than a single 1080p monitor. Simple maths.
So, is that what I need to be the best of with a gaming rig? Would I be correct that RAM is for loading? I'm assuming so because of two reasons: It's also referred to as "memory," and after I've used the Loading Screen mod for C:S, which adds a box in the center of the screen with a timer and what appears to me as a counter showing you how much GBs is being used. With my system, that GB counter goes red a lot. And with my Laptop's AMD E1-6015 mentioning R2 graphics, I'm assuming it dictates graphics and FPS. What would you say? Also, I do apologize if I come off as irritating.
From that I can tell you clearly are missing few pieces of the puzzle, but I let you ride your high horse, you won't need that info soon anyway as things progress beyond such limitations. Sorry if I'm edgy, but I had to kill someone today for self defense, so it does affect a person.
Kind of. Say you first boot your PC then load a program, some assets get loaded into ram. These could be things like certain arrays of data or variables, or something like that for the sake of simplicity. The whole program isn't loaded in, only what it needs quick, fast, and in a hurry while running. Another example would be the meme that is Google Chrome, which keeps browsing assets and such in ram, then gets rid of them when you close a tab (or the program). And your R2 graphics are your CPU's built in graphical processor (or iGPU). They're usually pretty weak, but with recent AMD desktop Ryzen APUs, that trend is starting to shift a tad. --- Post updated --- And that person wasn't me, shame on you.
Makes sense. Yeah, they like to say that Chrome is an absolute hog. I do think it's the best browser though, at least for me it is. Internet Explorer feels so weird and slow ever since I switched, but I don't regret that. And yeah, I believe it was @SixSixSevenSeven who told me about the graphics being built into the CPU. The system info also kinda hints at it, as it reads as "AMD E1-6015 APU with Radeon R2 graphics." I tell you one thing, everything I learn about computers from either you guys or anywhere else is really making me dislike my CPU. Not only is it slow, you can't switch it for anything better because of how it's built. I think it's pathetic. What? Are you for real or being metaphorical?
Sadly for real, some guy had taken bad drugs I guess, had gun and a knife and was going to attack a woman, right at door of where I live, so I thought I can bring him down as I was behind him, however wrestling match was not quite successful. Living in a bad area is cheap, but there are all kind of trouble here. Last time of that was 80's, didn't sleep much for a week then, doubt I will sleep much now either. Then there will be court cases etc. crap to deal with, so I would of been better to walk away, however I'm not that kind of person. I think these people on bad area should be taught programming or something, so that they would use or build computers instead of doing substance abuse, it is so sad to see mess here.
Well it at least it sounds like you may have saved that woman's life. It's a shame that had to happen.
Ram in any machine is something you need enough of. But having too much won't help. Computers are glorified calculators, theyre running instructions that process data. Ram is where the instructions and data live while the computer is running. There are variances in ram speed, for *most* people even slower ram is adequate, but for most people, the amount is far more important than speed, and ram that is problematically slow tends to come in computers like yours where you have a super slow CPU and GPU (in your case in one chip) making a bigger performance difference. One exception to this which I'll come back to. However. Ram is like a jug of water. If you only need to store 2 pints of water, having an 8 pint jar is no better than a 4 pint jar, you aren't going to fill either. But storing 15 pints in your 8 pint jar, that's not going to work. I'm not familiar with that mod, though the red bar sounds like you're using up all your ram and could do with more. *many* laptops you can upgrade ram, though you'll still be held back by the CPU and GPU. GPU. The maths for drawing a picture from some given data is quite specialised. CPUs can do it, but they suck at it. A GPU is basically a specialised processor designed purely for that, drawing a pretty picture. Your CPU will sit around and run game logic, physics, that sort of stuff, but for drawing, it will just take the instructions saying "draw a triangle here" and hand it off to the graphics card like "oi mate do this for me please", letting the CPU carry on with what it was doing while the graphics card breaks out the crayons and draws you a triangle. GPUs also need some ram. In a proper dedicated graphics card in a desktop, that ram will be on the card, attached to the GPU and separate from the rest of your ram, the CPU can't use it and give versa, it's just ram that gives the GPU space to draw it's pretty triangle in (most 3d renders are made up of triangles, like beamng jbeams really) without interfering with the CPU. Except, you have an APU, in the APUs, the CPU and GPU have to be nice and share ram. Also 2 people sharing the ram means it should probably be faster ram so it can help both and should probably have more of it so it has space for both. Your laptop was never designed to run games, is doubtful this was accommodated for. It probably has slow ram and not enough of it, which really, isn't worth fixing as it's also one of the slowest CPUs when it was new and the slowest GPU when it was new. It was designed for someone to open a web browser and maybe do some word documents and such. The fact it runs games at all is miraculous. You may be able to upgrade the ram and cities skylines may run better, beamng might a bit as well but difference might not be as drastic, but really, laptop ram modules aren't cheap, and they aren't always easy to install (my old laptop needed complete disassembly, every single component needed removing, others there's just a nice flap on the bottom and it's easy, and others are like my new one where it doesn't use a removable module and so I can't upgrade it). I wouldn't bother. You'll still run into CPU and GPU bottlenecks. You've got 3 problems and ram is only one. Oh as for why yours is built the way it is. Cost. That CPU was meant for cheap budget laptops. A CPU that goes in a socket so it can be removed is usually more expensive, plus you then have to pay for the socket it fits in, plus the connector on the CPU makes the CPU a tad larger and the socket is a bit bigger. Laptop is meant to be small and cheap, it's easier for them to take a version of the CPU that just gets soldered straight onto the motherboard with industrial machinery (they already use such machinery for other parts). Even higher end laptops like mine have a soldered CPU rather than a socketed one just for size reasons. In a laptop, it makes sense. In a desktop, is just a horrendous idea (but has been done)
From what all I've read, the Loading Screen mod helps improve the way Cities: Skylines loads. I'll let the Workshop description speak for itself. If it improves performance to any degree, I'll use it, and I think this mod helps make the loading process less agonizing to sit through, since it can tell me things I'd want to know. As for the RAM counter turning red, I say you're probably right on the nose. My laptop only has 3.45 usable GBs. It's kinda strange since on Cities: Skyline's Steam Store page, 4 GBs is the minimum amount of ram required, with 6 being the recommended maximum. Since I'm considering getting one with RAM of more than at least 10 GBs, it shouldn't be a problem with either Cities or BeamNG. If I do get one with the kind of RAM I'd like to have, I could probably easily run BeamNG maps like bob.blunderton's Tennessee Roane County and primo3001's American Road. I haven't ever downloaded them because I know what would happen, and it'd be the same thing as the GTA IV airport map. I was able to run it for like a few seconds before it crashed. With an experience like that, I'm honestly surprised I was able to run WCA. And yeah, from everything that you've told me, it just sounds to me like any attempts to upgrade this system in any shape or form is pretty much pointless, which is why I'm sticking to my plan for a gaming rig, though I'm convinced now I may not have to spend as much as I originally thought. And like I said, I got in mind how much CPU and RAM power I will be looking for, and in theory it should be a tad more than enough to put my current gaming problems behind me.
This is interesting behavior. Z370 motherboard has 2 PCI-E slots, when GPU is at upper slot CPUID HWmonitor shows CPU package having 10% higher power consumption. Z170 motherboard has 3 PCI-E slots, I can observe same behavior. There is actually difference in full load temperatures too. PCI-E speed is 16X on both two upper slots on Z170 board and on both slots on z370 board. I did test with 1050Ti and 1080, GPU seems not to matter at all to this, as long as there is GPU on upmost slot, CPU will have 10W higher power consumption on both platforms. What I thought was that it might be bug in HWmonitor, but doubt that as CPU temperature seems to be higher with higher power usage. Cooling is not affected by where GPU is as test was done in test bench. --- Post updated --- Oh great, it was 8X with 170Z after all, I'm just being excellent.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/throttlestop-overclocking-desktop-pcs.235975/ Remember my old dell E520 ? Core 2 Quad at 2.4 GHz, someone got it over clocked to 4GHz. ON A DELL! Madness, that's on air cooling btw. I reckon at 4GHz a Core 2 quad should be able to run BeamNG at high speed
