• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,098
No, it wasn't. Any approach which is based on hard reservation of resources will fail on PC.
Well we're clearly never going to agree on this.
I still think it's very hypocritical of you to be saying that PCs do less in the background than consoles, while in the same breath saying that Game Mode is robbing background processes of CPU access.
If you're playing a game, smooth and consistent game performance is the priority - and Game Mode made it a higher priority than you can achieve via other means; while also only taking effect when it's the foreground application.
 

dgrdsv

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,982
I still think it's very hypocritical of you to be saying that PCs do less in the background than consoles, while in the same breath saying that Game Mode is robbing background processes of CPU access.
You don't even get what I'm saying but continue to argue. PC _may be_ doing less in the background than you've reserved resources for, it's 100% up the the user. The OS itself doesn't do much in the background.
Consoles are different because they commit to providing a set of background features no matter if a user is using them or not. Hence why it makes sense for them to wall off a CPU core or two and some GPU/memory/etc - they need to provide a stable spec to the game developers to which to tune for.
It's completely different to PC where there is no such set of guaranteed background features and no stable spec either, and this is why a console approach will always fail on PC.
 

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,098
You don't even get what I'm saying but continue to argue. PC _may be_ doing less in the background than you've reserved resources for, it's 100% up the the user. The OS itself doesn't do much in the background.
I still think you are drastically underestimating how much is going on in the background for a typical person's computer.
But when computers have 8, 12, 16 cores, reserving one for the OS is not a big deal.
"Losing" one core to gain exclusive access to the rest of them will result in better and more consistent game performance than shared access to all of them.
And you weren't forced to use it. You'd just bring up the Game Bar and click Game Mode to toggle the option.

It's completely different to PC where there is no such set of guaranteed background features and no stable spec either, and this is why a console approach will always fail on PC.
But that's exactly why Game Mode was a good idea. Enabling it did guarantee consistent performance.

Let me put this another way:
I do a lot on my PC. When I open a game, there may still be several other applications running in the background because I don't have the time/patience to shut down every single application and then re-open them again and set up my workspace as it was before. That wastes a lot of time. That's why virtual desktops are a thing.
  • Maybe I'm taking a break from a project I'm working on and still have applications open, along with reference materials and browser windows on a separate virtual desktop.
  • Maybe the PC is serving media to another device on my network, running an hourly backup script, duplicating or re-balancing data on a drive pool.
  • Or maybe I just have OBS running because I'm streaming/recording the game.
Game Mode was a simple option I could enable in a game that would de-prioritize all of that and move it off the CPU cores that the game is running on - resulting in better and more consistent performance due to a console-like utilization of the available resources.

Sure, as it was implemented it did not work well on older 4c4t CPUs, but those are not relevant in 2020, and it was optional.
It was a great idea but a non-optimal implementation. As core counts increase, so do the advantages of such a feature - because you can adjust the split so that both the game and background applications have access to more resources without affecting the other. And if you don't like that you don't have to use it.
 

dgrdsv

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,982
I still think you are drastically underestimating how much is going on in the background for a typical person's computer.
A typical person? Maybe.
A typical gamer? No, I'm not.
Remember, Game Mode showed any kind of considerable gains when a full HDD defrag was launched by a user alongside playing a game. How often does a typical gamer do something like this?

But when computers have 8, 12, 16 cores, reserving one for the OS is not a big deal.
It is a big deal. You're hard reserving 7-12,5% of resources for something which may not even be active and is completely user controlled on PC.

But that's exactly why Game Mode was a good idea. Enabling it did guarantee consistent performance.
No, it didn't. There is no standard background feature set on PC which you could reserve the resources for. Say I'd want to play a game and render a 3D video in the background - why do you assume that one CPU core would be enough for this? What if I want to allocate 6 out of 8 because the game which I'm playing doesn't use more than 2?
Hence why it's an incredibly bad idea and why it's a lot better to improve the OS scheduler to take care of these things via, I dunno, heuristics and machine learning? Like it is usually done in XXI century.
 

ILikeFeet

DF Deet Master
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
61,987
Given the PS5 specs, I guess the minimum spec for PC at 1080p would be the 2060 Super, maybe even the 2060. Knock off $100 come Ampere launch and jumping into next Gen could be cheaper than expected
 

Nzyme32

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,273
Don't worry PC 2 will be revealed soon as well.

ZnWZ3Qp.jpg
 

veras

Member
Oct 27, 2017
183
I'm mostly curious how the SSD issue is going to be handled on PC ports this gen - as of right now you can't guarantee someone has an SSD or how fast that SSD is, and it seems like next generation engines will require relatively fast SSDs

Will fast SSDs just become a requirement for pc ports? I wonder how much that shrinks the addressable market in the short/medium term if so
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,863
Given the PS5 specs, I guess the minimum spec for PC at 1080p would be the 2060 Super, maybe even the 2060. Knock off $100 come Ampere launch and jumping into next Gen could be cheaper than expected

True. If these consoles launch at $499 we might be looking at the smallest gap between console and similar PC at launch since, well, ever.
 

Pargon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,098
No, it didn't. There is no standard background feature set on PC which you could reserve the resources for. Say I'd want to play a game and render a 3D video in the background - why do you assume that one CPU core would be enough for this? What if I want to allocate 6 out of 8 because the game which I'm playing doesn't use more than 2?
Uh, I think your understanding of Game Mode is backwards.
It's to guarantee that game performance is good at the expense of the background tasks. It's not reserving cores for background tasks.
Obviously if your priority is not the game, like the example above, then you don't enable Game Mode. Why would you?

The inclusion of Game Mode does not mean that Microsoft should stop work on improving their scheduler so that examples like yours can work better than they do now.
But for game performance you cannot beat the game having exclusive access to the cores it's running on.
As soon as you allow other processes on those cores they have the potential to hurt game performance. Even if their "CPU usage" remains low, there is still a penalty for things like context switching.

If your goal is to have the best game performance on a PC, without being the most hardcore of hardcore PC gamers and having a system that is dedicated solely for gaming with absolutely nothing else running on it, then a feature like Game Mode was a great thing to have.
The problem is that it was not well-optimized for the 4c4t CPUs that were popular at the time, and those people were very vocal about it.
 
OP
OP

Deleted member 11276

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,223
Given the PS5 specs, I guess the minimum spec for PC at 1080p would be the 2060 Super, maybe even the 2060. Knock off $100 come Ampere launch and jumping into next Gen could be cheaper than expected
Indeed, playing at 1080p and lower texture detail will do wonders for these midrange cards. The consoles will heavily push 4K and also need textures that make good use of 4K. So yeah I feel like 6 and 8 GB VRAM cards will be fine next gen, just not for 4K with console level textures. Much faster streaming from SSD will help as well.

Good thing with Turing cards is also that you can enable DLSS, which significantly speeds up performance.

Personally I hope for a RTX 3050 card with 2060 specs, could make a cheap entry for next gen games.