Re: Cpu does not have POPCNT! help

---

@Cozzolino92 wrote:
You make it sound like we're trying to run a PS3 game on a PS2, when really what's happening is that they forgot to enable support for older CPUs when porting and about 10 minutes of coding would be enough to let us in.

---

That's because it is as if you are. Hardware limitations are just that, limitations. There's tons of software that has hardware limitations. Just because you do not understand the reasoning for it, doesn't mean there isn't one. It could be a security measure. Older hardware is more difficult to secure than newer, because newer software is written more for more recent hardware. That's what happened when you try to develop new things, some old things get left behind. 

Businesses don't just upgrade their hardware for performance reasons. 

@Psyrecx  said:

"I am pro-gamer, I'm just not pro-bum. I understand that times are hard, but when they are, certain sacrifices have to be made. You can't just demand everyone else bend to your wants. It's not like this is a new thing, especially in the realm of games that are made for competition, not just something you can solo offline with no one else around.

Some things have standards. You can't just demand that everything changes if you don't meet them. Sorry, but your antique's time has come and gone, it's time to move on."

--------------------------------------------------------------

This arrogance is such poor behaviour. You don't get it. I want my Xeon 5470 to receive compatibility because it's my co-op PC downstairs.

I have an i7 7700k with a GTX 1070 upstairs.  In every other major battle royale game on the market, the Xeon is active and good to go.

Get out of the thread with your elitist garbage.

And this analogy? @Psyrecx  said:

"Your case is something like someone demanding that all games have software rendering from now on because they refuse to buy a proper GPU, or someone demanding that all apps on the play store be made to work on his Android 2.0 because a lot of newer apps are incompatible."

Part 1 - Nonsense analogy, as that machine has both a proper CPU and GPU, as evidenced by the 2019-era AAA video games it plays.

Part 2 - Nonsense analogy, as my operating system is a fully updated Windows 10 in that machine, and games that don't run are in the minority. A very small minority.

---

@RevGunthak wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------

You don't get it. I want my Xeon 5470 to receive compatibility because it's my co-op PC downstairs.

--------------------------------------------------------------

And I'm sure quite a few people want their 1994 Mustang to be able to out drag a GTR. 

@RevGunthak wrote:

In every other major battle royale game on the market, the Xeon is active and good to go.

---

How many of those games are Apex?

---

@RevGunthak wrote:

Part 1 - Nonsense analogy, as that machine has both a proper CPU and GPU, as evidenced by the 2019-era AAA video games it plays.

---

Anything that doesn't support your argument is 'nonsense'. The fact that it doesn't play Apex is proof otherwise.

---

@RevGunthak wrote:

.

Part 2 - Nonsense analogy, as my operating system is a fully updated Windows 10 in that machine, and games that don't run are in the minority. A very small minority.

---

I can put Windows 10 on my phone, does that mean it should be supported as well? Or do you think it's a nonsense analogy because you didn't get the point of it? Android updates are not purely based on software. Some hardware is not supported in newer versions. I shouldn't have to explain this, but you're shown that you're completely oblivious to the point of things, you just start making strawman arguments as if they matter. 

---

@Sorenalike wrote:
@Psyrecx
what is your problem why are you trying so hard to stop us from playing this awesome game ? we got nothing against you but you are not helping we are here to get help... you don't have to join these topics
as we said "performance" is not the issue here
These cpu's are more than enough to run these type of games

---

I already gave reasons as to why it's a bad idea for them to do so. What is with you people who refuse to upgrade, ignoring everything that doesn't support your want to not?

It's almost as if the only acceptable answer is the one you want. Yes, performance probably isn't the issue. Performance isn't the only advancements in technology. You can stomp your feet all day about the performance numbers, and it won't help you achieve anything. Confirmation bias is not a smart form of debate.

@Psyrecx 

Haha, I was wondering when you'd bust out the accusation of "strawman arguments" and you didn't disappoint.

Right on schedule.

Strawmen claims don't have rich technical and anecdotal evidence for addressing POPCNT, such as:

*Black Ops IV
*Final Fantasy XV
*Resident Evil 7
*Agents of Mayhem
*Dishonored 2
*Mafia 3
*EDF
*Metal Gear Solid V
*No Man's Sky
*PUBG

All of these games have been patched and can now be launched on the affected machines.

Users with adequate specs had a compatibility problem, not a performance problem.

Private coders testify that this is a trivial problem with an easy fix, all the sources indicate it is as easy as

simply setting "-arch=SSE2 -axSSE4.1,SSE4.2,SSSE3,SSE3" instead of something like "-march=corei7" in the compiler options.

To further put to rest the 'performance' angle, one example of a machine affected by POPCNT:

Intel Xeon X5470 quad at 3.8 GHz.

16 GB of fast DDR3 system RAM.

RX 580 graphics card w/ 8 GB VRAM

This spec runs all these games at 1080p / High / 60fps:

PUBG

Fear the Wolves

Fortnite

H1Z1

DOOM

Killing Floor 2

Destiny 2

The Witcher 3

Dark Souls 3

GTA V

Dishonored 1/2

Deus Ex HR/Mankind Divided

Prey

Final Fantasy XIV and XV

Resident Evil 2 Remake

+ many more

RE: Minimum Requirements and POPCNT  -

When computationally it's not a performance issue here, we are actually talking about an addressable compatibility problem.

With a (recent and valid) multi-game track record of solved compatibility for POPCNT.

---

@Sorenalike wrote:
@Psyrecx
You need to consider that its not a possibility for everyone to upgrade and yeah maybe ppl can afford a CPU but what about mainboard, ram etc ?

---

Yes, some people can't upgrade. Not everything is made for everybody.

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

Not everyone got a rich daddy to fix that for them... its a budget build which can run pretty much everything at 60fps 1080p...

---

Yes, some people have to work for things, much like your parents. Maybe it's time you got a job if you want things. You think Lamborghini should just give you one of their cars to play around it because you had a bad upbringing?

---

@Sorenalike wrote:
 all we want is a legit answer from EA team that they can't do it thats all or thats what i want... we just wanna know if its possible or not .. are they going to fix it ? or not ? this is a awesome game thats why we really want an answer. well if they don't want us here they could just tell us to go away

---

They have, it's called System Requirements.

I already do have a job .. jesus.. you are like one of those rich boys aren't you ? money value is not exactly the same everywhere you need to grow up
I don't even wanna argue about it with you .. do as you wish you highness
System Requirements is just a recommendation

---

@RevGunthak wrote:

Haha, I was wondering when you'd bust out the accusation of "strawman arguments" and you didn't disappoint.

Right on schedule.

Strawmen claims don't have rich technical and anecdotal evidence for addressing POPCNT, such as:

---

So, in other words, you knew you were making strawman arguments. Strawman arguments can have evidence. Lack of evidence isn't what makes something a strawman argument. Perhaps, you should look up what they are, because clearly you've got the wrong fallacy in you mind, though, I do imagine there's probably fairly more you frequently use.

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

money value is not exactly the same everywhere you need to grow up

---

Money value is money value. Your choices what to do with your money has no bearing on anyone else, as it shouldn't. 

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

 

System Requirements is just a recommendation

---

No, Recommended System Requirements is a recommendation. It's in the title. There's usually two with most games; a requirement, and a recommendation. They're not the same thing.

I also found it hilarious when you told me to 'grow up'. Guess what's a part of growing up. Managing your money for the things you want. Things cost money, until you can afford them, you usually can't have them.

Yeah exactly i am managing my money perfectly thats why i don't have 1000 dollars CPU in my system .. i get what i need
also money value is not the same .. the CPU you might pay to buy there for like 300 dollars its like 1500 dollars here
So if thats requirement then why my friend with G620 CPU and gt410 playing this game ? thats just a recommendation dude there is no argument about that.

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

So if thats requirement then why my friend with G620 CPU and g410 playing this game ? 

---

Because they have similar architecture. You know what doesn't... a Core2 Duo, or Quad, or a Xeon from the same generation.

exactly so you can't call it requirements specs.. a normal user don't know what tech used in his CPU he just wants to play the game find out whats the issue that he can't play and if there is a way to make it happen thats why we are waiting for an EA member to look into our issues because it happened before
Its pretty simple actually

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

exactly so you can't call it requirements specs.. 

---

Yes you can. Yet again, an understanding of how technology works would allow you to get a grasp of things here.

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

a normal user don't know what tech used in his CPU he just wants to play the game find out whats the issue that he can't play and if there is a way to make it happen thats why we are waiting for an EA member to look into our issues because it happened before
Its pretty simple actually

---

So is upgrading your PC, or if you can't, understanding that you're not going to be able to do things with it.

I want to turn my old laptop into a million dollar mining machine. I demand all mining software people get on making that possible, I'm just going to sit here and pout until that happens.

@Sorenalike 

On a positive note, at least the belligerent and unhelpful troll helps to keep the thread active.🤞

@RevGunthak
Tell me about it :D ... some ppl just don't want to understand

---

@Sorenalike wrote:

 

Tell me about it :D ... some ppl just don't want to understand

---

Oh, the irony...

ok come on end this * you guyz are getting distracted off topic and not everyone has good pc but still games can work regardless of their min req. so chill guyz 

and no need to show off your intelligence here

and  if the game works on ur pc u need to get off from this topic ASAP we don't need u here 

The level of  fud being thrown around is amazing in this thread, Cpu instructions  are not like  monolithic  supports, they are a "language" for the processor to interpret, you can do that same thing many different ways. new features are introduced to improve performance over older instructions, having specialized paths is not good , because some things will execute faster using older instructions and some on newer instructions, which is why most applications use a MIXTURE of instructions to get the best possible performance.

What happens if in 3 years  a manufacturer launches a cpu that doesn't support an older instruction, and software that lacks a fallback, will simply cease to function. this is something that can and has happened, it is best practice to leave a fall back or make it generic  incase of such an event. good example of such an instruction set is 3dnow! no current cpus support it, if you had a piece of software that depended on it exclusively, it would simply stop working.

it is frankly idiotic to argue against  having maximum compatibility, when this type of work is not done by a human, it is done almost always by the compiler.

There is essentially no cost to keeping compatibility.

my advice to anyone "defending" ea's incompetence , is to try compiling any program yourself  with some optimization flags and find a reason why fixing this issue is "very difficult " or  a "waste of time"

https://www.zdnet.com/article/amd-says-goodbye-to-3dnow-instruction-set/

read  the comments on this article for some laughs

edit: also, it probably took more work to add the error warning , than it is to change the compiler flags just an fyi

Excuse me while I disregard your uneducated opinion. This is desktop gaming, not console environment, I've been into this for longer than I care to admit and I also have some programming rudiments under my belt and I would never - never - underestimate the problem that can arise from missing a simple check.

From my research on this topic, the many contribution from actual private coders, and simply the fact that past instances have proved this to not be a big issue and certainly not a deal breaker, I can tell with modest confidence that this is a trivial problem.

That is, infact, my opinion, which is still an opinion. The very reason this thread was opened in the first place was drawing attention to the issue and get a definitive statement about it from someone both competent and officially recognized. This did not happen yet. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind your active ostracism, which at this point clearly goes to the extent of denying us a clarification, a real answer and official attention, and for what reason? I don't know, yet I don't care anymore.

This conversation is over.

All you need to know about this is at the end of page 19 of this thread.

Edit: ofc this is meant for Psyrecs and Nyone pushing that line.

---

@AlphaSoda wrote:

The level of  fud being thrown around is amazing in this thread

---

---

@AlphaSoda wrote:

it is frankly idiotic to argue against  having maximum compatibility

---

It's not bright to start off a statement like that, and then proceed to do exactly that to which you initially complained about. Why don't you try to code a program on newer hardware that has features that older hardware cannot do, and then see what happens. Compatibility is nice, but you cannot just stop your feet and demand comparability from things not capable of such.

---

@Cozzolino92 wrote:
Excuse me while I disregard your uneducated opinion. 

---

Coming from someone who behaves as if population count was just put on CPU to hold them back. You are a never ending source of irony.

---

@Cozzolino92 wrote:
I've been into this for longer than I care to admit and I also have some programming rudiments under my belt and I would never - never - underestimate the problem that can arise from missing a simple check.

---

Instead, you'd assume that because something can easily be disabled, that it has no purpose.

---

@Cozzolino92 wrote:

From my research on this topic, the many contribution from actual private coders, and simply the fact that past instances have proved this to not be a big issue and certainly not a deal breaker, I can tell with modest confidence that this is a trivial problem.

---

Your 'research' is limited to whatever agrees with you getting what you want. I've already mentioned confirmation bias... but here I am, at it again.

---

@Cozzolino92 wrote:

That is, infact, my opinion, which is still an opinion. The very reason this thread was opened in the first place was drawing attention to the issue and get a definitive statement about it from someone both competent and officially recognized. This did not happen yet. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind your active ostracism

---

You mean the fact that I'm willing to recognize that there's probably a purpose to something, and a reasoning behind it, unlike yourself; and it probably doesn't just amount to laziness or their want to exclude poor people.