How many aaa games have avx2 requirement beside uncharted

[quiteman.exe]

as the title says beside this game i have not encountered avx 2 req before and if u say u should know by saying it says i5 4 th gen poeple thin it terms of raw power not what instruction set it has or not for eg when i say 19 13900k or amd r9 7950 x are fast cpus
not that oh intel does not suport avx 512 so r9 is better
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-reportedly-kills-avx-512-alder-lake-cpus

[Jehuty]

Originally posted by CyrFox:

if they someday make a patch that removes avx2 (which i doubt since avx2 is harder to remove than regular avx)

Devs don't agree with you:

Originally posted by PortableKingpin:

Originally posted by Xbox Killer:

Iron Galaxy Studios and Naughty dogs Please listen to us we will refund the game if you do this please hear us out please remove this AVX2 requirement for all gamers I beg you

We appreciate your patience, and I can assure everyone that we are listening and are presently evaluating this issue. We hope to have more information for everyone in the next 24 to 48 hours.

[Jehuty]

Originally posted by MancSoulja:

Zero games require ray tracing, zero games require shadows, zero games require global illumination

Unreal Engine 5, even with ray-tracing, shadows and everything maxed out still don't require avx2.


Same with Marvel's Spider-Man Remastered btw (it's the only ps port with ray-tracing options currently as far as I remeber).

[MancSoulja]

Originally posted by Jehuty:

Originally posted by MancSoulja:

Zero games require ray tracing, zero games require shadows, zero games require global illumination

Unreal Engine 5, even with ray-tracing, shadows and everything maxed out still don't require avx2.

Nothing requires AVX2, it is a CPU instruction set that improves floating point performance, if you remove it, performance gets worse.

Why should the people who spend money keeping their PCs updated be held back by people on decade old systems?

That's how you kill an industry.

[Jehuty]

In general, AVX2 instructions are focused on increasing the speed of the processor in integer computing (provided that appropriate software is used).

From the point of view of an ordinary user, this is work with video, photos, sound, as well as with software that use voice, face, gesture recognition algorithms (which you can see from the list of software where avx and avx2 are used).


Only Horizon Zero Dawn and Death Stranding use avx (not avx2) and are pretty fine with it.

[EternalLoop]

Originally posted by Jehuty:

Originally posted by CyrFox:

if they someday make a patch that removes avx2 (which i doubt since avx2 is harder to remove than regular avx)

Devs don't agree with you:

Originally posted by PortableKingpin:

We appreciate your patience, and I can assure everyone that we are listening and are presently evaluating this issue. We hope to have more information for everyone in the next 24 to 48 hours.

Nice job just quoting a small fragment of my text, also terrible reply, it does not confirm or deny the avx removal.

I hope they don't remove it, so you can stay mad for not playing this game, and I also hope more games future upcoming games use AVX 2, it was about fking time that some dev finally started to used this crap after 9 years since its release of nobody using it.

[Rod]

Originally posted by CyrFox:

Originally posted by Jehuty:

Devs don't agree with you:

Nice job just quoting a small fragment of my text, also terrible reply, it does not confirm or deny the avx removal.

I hope they don't remove it, so you can stay mad for not playing this game, and I also hope more games future upcoming games use AVX 2, it was about fking time that some dev finally started to used this crap after 9 years since its release of nobody using it.

Can you say this in the thread i created to support AVX2? Poetry my friend.

[Jehuty]

Originally posted by CyrFox:

after 9 years since its release of nobody using it.

A lot of software actually uses avx2 (optionally or not), it's just not games:

- Blender
- Bloombase
- Botan
- x264, x265 and VTM video encoders
- Various CPU-based cryptocurrency miners
- libsodium
- glibc
- Linux kernel
- EmEditor
- Microsoft Teams
- Pale Moon
- Tesseract OCR

to name a few.

[EternalLoop]

Originally posted by Jehuty:

Originally posted by CyrFox:

after 9 years since its release of nobody using it.

A lot of software actually uses avx2 (optionally or not), it's just not games:

- Blender
- Bloombase
- Botan
- x264, x265 and VTM video encoders
- Various CPU-based cryptocurrency miners
- libsodium
- glibc
- Linux kernel
- EmEditor
- Microsoft Teams
- Pale Moon
- Tesseract OCR

to name a few (the full list is too big).

I know that, I said it in my first reply to this thread, hell even some skyrim mods use it, like fast hdt-smp, some emulators like yuzu loves avx2 too (the ps2 emulator for some reason), and a rgb keyboard software called signal rgb uses it and don't forget Maya integrated remesher.

I even have 700+ hours on blender,

The thing is this tech has not really seen use in gaming, I don't even care about this game, it only took my attention because I saw this is probably the first pc(non emulated) game using avx2 for the first time in the 9 years of life that thing.

[Jehuty]

Originally posted by CyrFox:

I saw this is probably the first pc(non emulated) game using avx2 for the first time in the 9 years of life that thing.

Maybe because it's not really suitable for gaming applications actually?

[NatEff3ct]

Originally posted by J0ust:

Originally posted by Jehuty:

I've seen even people on NVME failing to run this or having crashes.

Also original ps version runs pretty fine from hdd, it's a 2013 game at it's core after all.



The root cause is bad pc porting.

The same people who ported this also did awful pc port for batman arkham night.

It was so bad that Warner pulled it from steam to fix it somewhat, offered refunds to everyone who've bought it and gave unlucky owners of a game previous batman games for free.

Hey, Einstein. 2015 called, they want their tired meme back. incidentally, the state of the Arkham port was on WB since they basically gave Iron Galaxy zero time, zero support, and didn't even have tech liaison set up between IG and Rocksteady. None of that was on Iron Galaxy, they just got to carry the can for Warner Brothers BS.

So yeah, I don't know how according to you a company responsible for "...bad pc porting" can get so much high budget, high profile, cross platform work sent their way.

Unless of course you're full of sh!t, or have a smooth brain. Maybe both, where you're concerned.

ROOOOFFFFLLLLL You just reinforced the point of """BAD PORT""" regardless of who's fault it was it was a bad port! o lordy

BTW if Iron Galaxy was so hot they would have known that they couldn't properly build the port without the afor mentioned technical support . . . .

[emn13]

So, for some perspective: I'm not a game-dev, but I am a dev, and I started compiling and using avx2-requiring programs in 2013. It's a useful tech, because it can speed up all kinds of bulk-data-processing - which games typically includes tons of, btw. It works for floating point and integer workloads; it's useful even if you have just dozens of numbers that need similar processing. If your similarly-processed set of numbers is limited to e.g. 4 standard precision floats, then AVX (the ISA extension from 2011, as opposed to AVX2 from 2013) is just as fast.

Also, supporting multiple configurations is a hassle. It's not free. Every extra config means extra testing load, which in practice can easily mean "just test less per config." Depending on the workflow, it might also increase build times, which is also a real productivity killer.

There's an AVX2-specific wrinkle here: early AVX2 CPUs had some power consumption related trickiness running AVX2 which lead to the situation that using it sparingly could perform worse than not using it at all; which perhaps explains why it wasn't a very attractive tech to start sprinkling in, and why it took so long to gain traction. It's also the kind of thing people didn't always test when overclocking, which could lead to stability issues if your program happens to be one of the first to use it; and that's a support hassle.

From my perspective: I build things to be used not just now, but for at least a few years into the future. It's pretty normal to me to make fairly stringent feature requirement cutoffs when those have any significant technical benefit, because by the time the software is widely used, those will bite slightly less, and over the lifespan of the software it's a shame to make everyone suffer worse performance just to support a tiny fraction of hardware. But the exact cutoff naturally depends on all kinds of things, including engineering resources, how useful the new shiny tech is in this use-case, how widely used the older unsupported platforms are, whether the older platforms are likely to be upgraded, if there's a workaround, etc etc etc.

In general: if you want quality, fast software: be careful demanding support for niche hardware configs that require these kinds of build system changes. Sometimes support for old stuff is easy: fine! Sometimes, it's not; and as an outsider (even if you've got ample technical background as I do) - it's generally hard or impossible to judge stuff like this; it tends to depend on real nuts-and-bolts details of the exact system you're building.

As a dev, I'm actually more excited about AVX512 than I ever was about AVX2 - that may sound like just yet another wider SIMD extension, but it's actually a lot more flexible than AVX2, and that means it's more broadly applicable too, and can perform a lot better in somewhat more complex scenarios. Now if only that were actually broadly supported by CPUs...

[Laughing Man]

Originally posted by Plad Bayer:

Originally posted by Rodders:

Google says it offers a 2x 8% uplift in code so i guess its faster and saves time for troubleshooting. You need a 10yr old cpu to encouter this problem. They cant expect to play a 2022 game on a 10yr old CPU. Would Sony support the PS3? Nope they focus on a 5yr lifespan typically. I think asking for DX12 and AVX2 is perfectly reasonable. If it costs too much then buy a PS5. If you cant afford 599 PS5 or to upgrade a 10yr old CPU then should you really be demanding to play late AAA 2022 games?

This could be an internal choice between paying staff to support 10yr old hardware or spending that time on game fixes. Id rather have the game fixed before they look at spending time on AVX2.

Yeah but the thing is and some of you don't understand, is that avx2 is not a 2022 thing, it's a 2014 thing, released with the intel 4th gen processors so it's 8 year old, so they are supporting old cpus anyway at least not as old as sandy or ivy but is still old, i mean people can just buy an i7 4790 for 60 usd and a z87 MB for just 100 usd, so it's not a really expensive upgrade if they really want to play this game. I mean if they managed to play a lot of games with old ass 10yo cpu like the 2600 or 3770. why not just doing an small cheap sidegrade.

So AS i said before, what i find weird is they are using avx2, this is an obscure thing to use that i've only found in some emulators and skyrim mods, so it's weird that a full native PC game is using it now, and 8% faster perfomance from avx 2 is nothig compared to the wooping 50% performance increase from an avx512 codeset (at least theorically).

the only reason why i think this game needs avx 2 is because this game is a direct ps4 port, not a ps5 one, since avx2 and the ps4 have the same age (2013-2014), maybe they used some old ps4 code and the only way to optimize it for pc is running it through and avx2 instruction.

with that said, i think we wont see an avx2 fix ever for this game, people should really upgrade. or at least sidegrade to a 4th gen cpu if they really want to play this game on PC.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

(Sorry, couldn't resist a Billy Madison quote)

On a serious note though AVX2 is not obscure, nor has it been replaced by AVX-512. The latter has specific use cases, mostly in HPC, but no game dev is going to compile their project for AVX-512 given that 99.9999% of retail SKUs don't support it.

In almost all cases, and again certainly for a game dev, the instruction sets used are also not decided implicitly. It is done when the project is compiled and the optimiser decides what low-level instructions to utilise for specific problems.

As an example in UE4 it would simply be a case of setting the below appropriately prior to compiling[docs.unrealengine.com]:

bUseAVX (Boolean)
Direct the compiler to generate AVX instructions wherever SSE or AVX intrinsics are used, on the platforms that support it. Note that by enabling this you are changing the minspec for the PC platform, and the resultant executable will crash on machines without AVX support.

[Android994]

Originally posted by Rod:

Originally posted by CyrFox:

I mean maybe there is a reason this game needs avx2, for example emulators need it for better performance, acurracy and compatibily and of course stability, so less crashes with better speed, some skyrim mods needed (I've testing a lot of recent mods lately, and they needed for better physics performance and collisions) And then there is this keyboard rgb software that also uses avx2 for some reason.

So I don't think this is because "programmed obsolence" or whatever.

Google says it offers a 2x 8% uplift in code so i guess its faster and saves time for troubleshooting. You need a 10yr old cpu to encouter this problem. They cant expect to play a 2022 game on a 10yr old CPU. Would Sony support the PS3? Nope they focus on a 5yr lifespan typically. I think asking for DX12 and AVX2 is perfectly reasonable. If it costs too much then buy a PS5. If you cant afford 599 PS5 or to upgrade a 10yr old CPU then should you really be demanding to play late AAA 2022 games?

This could be an internal choice between paying staff to support 10yr old hardware or spending that time on game fixes. Id rather have the game fixed before they look at spending time on AVX2.

I have a 10+ year old CPU and i can play most modern AAA games just fine after spending a bit of time tweaking the settings. Even games that originally required AVX2 and were later updated to not require it usually run just fine.

If you cant afford 599 PS5 or to upgrade a 10yr old CPU then should you really be demanding to play late AAA 2022 games?

$599 is a non-trivial amount of money for most people. Do you really think this hobby should be limited solely to the middle class and up?