What machines do the devs use?

Do the developers all have the same computers in the BeamNG office building or do they use their personal computers, if so can someone please tell me their specs?

 

Out of curiosity, why'd you get a non-OC motherboard with a K-series CPU?

 

Sometimes the K CPU is cheaper. Maybe that's why.

 

YUP

 

I was curious on how much one of those laptops cost and I
was blown away by the price of one.
Gaming laptops are expensive for what you get,for the price of a good gaming laptop you could get a decent 15 year old car.

 

What distro?

 

Ah, so what's best for what?

 

In the office there are two computers dedicated for testing (benchmarking), these are the specs:

Intel i7 4790K + AMD R9 290X OC 4 GB + Win 10 (64 bit)
AMD FX-6350 + AMD R9 280 OC 3 GB + Win 7 (64 bit)

Most of the developer PCs are using Intel CPUs (better single-thread performance) and Nvidia GPUs (better drivers) though.

 

Isn't that just a myth now? I had more troubles with nVidia in past and 2xx , 4xx, 6xx series than I have now with my first AMD card, actually I had none troubles so far with highly OCed R9 380 -
+20% Power limit,
from 950 to 1085 MHz on core,
from 1450 to 1576 MHz on memory,
beats every single OCed GTX 960 and it never went up more than 59*C under BeamNG, Witcher 3, War Thuder and even furmark (usually in games it stay under 52*C). Seriously, AMD with old upgraded CNG rebrands cards still gives you just a bit of better performance per dollar. I've been nVidia fanboy in past, AMD never counted for me, but I started to watch benchmarks, learning more about PCs, and I gave AMD a try, I'm more than happy with it right now. And yeah nVidia kills slowly previous generations with drives it's proven, that's why I had FX 5200, GT 6600, GTS 8800, GT 9800, GTX 280 (burned after drivers update) went to GTX 260 (till 2016 in my PC), then for my brother I bought GTX 470 - biggest fail ever fermi was such a bad architecture, but I still went with nVidia... and then also for my brother PC GTX 670 which actually was good, but it tends to restart PC after not very high OC or disable connection with monitor for like 15 sec. due to "driver issues" - that's what Windows says. So with my newest build I went with AMD GPU and it looks like I'm going to stay with red for a longer while - till vega/navi or nVidia next gens - whatever will be better.

I just want to make it fair that AMD drivers issues aren't a thing now.

 

I would also say that AMD's drivers are better then Nvidia's now, especially since the annoying "Geforce experience" stuff. I have no problems with a R9 380 at home.

This is from a user perspective though. For developers, Nvidia's DirectX 11 drivers are still a little bit better. This will change with Vulkan and DirectX 12, which move more stuff out of the driver. The benchmarks I've seen so far already show what huge potential Fiji has (Fury X beating 980 Ti in DirectX 12 for example).

 

The Geforce Experience sucks. It auto installed with my 8500gt driver, I was curious what it was, and it configured, and all the options were grayed out. It is useless. Also, Nvidia has mostly been overpriced compared to the AMD equivalents, like the Titan Z vs R9 295x2.

 

I've found that as long as you use fairly current cards (600-series and newer), the nvidia drivers are, for the most part, fine. If you go much older, the support simply just drops off. As for the Titan Z, it should be erased from the memory of, well, everyone. It was a complete flop. Dual-GPU cards are a dying trend. Game support for them was spotty at best.

 

I have a FX 6300... i feel your pain.

 

False, it's going to be future, to explain this I'd need like 2 hours, and probably nobody would read this, so I'll try as short as possible.
AMD have control over PS and Xbox architecture, now they'll have also Nintendo. PC "market" is going down every year, while researching and producing are getting way way more expensive, while profit goes down for hardware producers (mainly AMD, nVidia and Intel). So what does consoles "market" have to PC gaming, and PC architecture? It's simple for big companies like Ubisoft, Rockstar, CD-Projekt red, Blizzard etc. etc. console sales are 5 to 10 times bigger than PC sales, and PC sales goes down and down every year, so yeah "this much" more money from consoles. PS, Xbox and Nintendo gives actually about ~90 of market share of gaming. Now look AMD is the only company that is capable o doing both CPU and GPU on one die, it's called APU (Accelerated Process Unit), and they are safe in terms of getting a lot of "wafers". Also AMD done it's best to help with low profile APIs like DX12 and Vulcan to give multi core hardware proper software, right now DX11 or another APIs don't stack GPU VRAM, gives just a bit performance gain, but only in games ( or programs ) that support SLI/Crossfire, also CPU Intel have done it's best to improve IPC, which AMD just cannot invent and produce and Intel wouldn't like DX12, because it actually support multi cores(4+), which AMD have. Right now in most games cores workload looks kind a like this 1st core 100%, 2nd core 50%, 3rd core 33%, 4th core - 25%, next cores usually don't count because performance gain is too low to compensate lower (AMD) IPC and aren't even used, so this is what AMD did, gave proper software and now every core will give performance gain, cores will be used more effectively. It's becoming fair isn't it? AMD have control about architecture in ~90% of gaming market share, helped to create low profile API, which will use more threads and cores properly, also don' forget about VR, dual cores GPUs are perfect for it with Liquid VR technology, AMD is the only one who can create good enough APU, and now you'll be able to connect integrated graphical process, AMD and nVidia cards at once with good results (Vulkan, DX12 - ftw!) so they are going to produce multi cores GPU, and more than 8 cores CPUs to consoles, while most AAA games are first made on consoles, then ported to PC, AMD will produce similar technology to PC in ~2019 when low profile APIs will be mastered by developers, well Vulkan once again, it's multiplatform low profile API, if PC will have similar architecture it will be way way easier to port it and will run very, very good on them with way lower workload. So... developers will mostly do game once on Vulkan API, then PC components from AMD will have similar architecture and porting it will be easy, but nVidia GPUs and Intel CPUs will have to change first, or games will work worse on their components. To be honest AMD have money (which wasn't expected) and have their own technology, knowledge and experience and ~90% of AAA games market share. It's in very big short, without details, without lots of evidence if you are interested in more, you can watch this guy:

Spoiler: Youtube vids

ATM multicores GPUs aren't good thing if you aren't interested in VR, but for sure it's not dying trend.

To you guys with FX processors, well look at this

Spoiler: Screenshot

http://cdn.overclock.net/9/9f/500x1000px-LL-9f3712a4_cpuscaling.png

And forgive me my weak English I wrote that in hurry.

 

Source?

Most Intel processors also have CPU and GPU on the same die: http://cdn.wccftech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Intel-Core-i7-6700K-Block-Diagram.png

AMD doesn't produce wafers. For most of their APUs and GPUs they are using TSMC - just like Nvidia.

Just because you can use AMD together with a Nvidia card with DirectX 12 doesn't mean you should. Ideally you should always use the exact same card twice for Dual GPU set-ups.

That benchmark only compares a 6700k and a FX-8370 in ONE game. Maybe DirectX 12 just removes the CPU bottleneck and it would run with the same FPS on an i3?

I don't want to say that you're wrong with your analysis, just that the future doesn't look THAT bright for AMD. Intel and Nvidia won't sit there and do nothing.

 

#1

Do you really evidence for first quote? Remember I said for AAA games, not overall - cuz games like goat simulator etc you know have and will have a lot of sales. Btw. it have to be fair, I'm not talking about PC components sales, and software other than games. Overall in money it is way ahead of consoles, well China banned consoles (big part of the world) etc. etc. just pure game sales in PERCENTAGE. And what multiplatform developers would choose as main thing to start working with. But ok then it's easy to find:

Ubisoft:
http://www.dsogaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/capture30quf5.png
http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1551/15517906/2960600-2358533251-Activ.jpg

EA:
http://cdn4.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EA2.jpg
http://cdn4.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EA5.jpg

Witcher III (CD-Projekt RED)
http://gamerant.com/the-witcher-3-sales-pc-consoles-125/undefined

T2 (incl. Rockstar)
http://www.statista.com/statistics/194457/revenue-breakdown-of-take-two-interactive-by-platform/

Overall, just don't mind mobile:
http://klse.i3investor.com/files/my/blog/img/bl2070_msgames1024x576.jpg



#2

Of course they do, nVidia too (ex. Tegra), but it costs them to produce it more and Intel GPU chips aren't as good as AMD also AMD sells it cheaper.

#3

Producing wafers for own use isn't profitable, gives independence but AMD is too small right now. Don't forget about GlobalFoundries and 9% smaller chips.



#4

I didn't said anything about connecting 3 brands will give best result, Did I?
Well it may be true or it may be not, why? It's common knowledge that AMD cards have more shading processors while nVidia have more processors for geometry combining both could give best result, as some benchmarks shows. But what you say is probably more real, and combining same cars will give best results.
http://www.purepc.pl/files/Image/news/2015/10/geforce_vs_radeon_dx12_1.png
http://www.purepc.pl/files/Image/news/2015/10/geforce_vs_radeon_dx12_3.png

#5

Well I know what do you mean, and it's true - another game example ( in some cases still close to i7 )
http://www.techspot.com/review/1081-dx11-vs-dx12-ashes/page5.html
Just wanted to tell them that this CPU can stay with them for a bit longer

It's sure that they will not sit and watch how AMD grow and let them do this, for now AMD have the lead, and you have to agree with me. But we'll see what happen in next 2-4 years, will AMD keep it? No body know, but they have big chance for comeback.

Btw. you seems to be interested in this, so I suggest you to watch this vids, 1st one may be boring but still contain a lot of important info, while 2nd is just pure juice, also I'm not native English speaker (obviously) and I have troubles to say something in the way I'd like to + this guy explain everything way way better than me

 

Using a top mounted radiator on my 9590 is a great drink warmer.

 

Intel is laying off a large number of employees, the majority of whom work in the desktop CPU division. However, IMO desktop PCs will never truly die. They are cheaper than other computing platforms (laptops, cell phones, tablets) and provide vastly better performance.

Have you seen Iris Pro graphics? It roughly matches the performance of AMD's APUs while using vastly less power. (Source)

I have to agree with this. It makes sense that combining two different GPUs that have strengths that counterbalance the other's weaknesses would provide the greatest performance.

Well gee, compare an FX-series CPU to a mainstream desktop i7 in a game/benchmark that is CPU intensive. The i7 will dominate due to vastly better single threaded performance and identical number of logical (that's with hyperthreading) cores.

AMD has the lead in what? For GPU's, it's heavily debatable, but I will give you that one because of the 300-series's DX12 performance. They are currently lost in the CPU market, however Zen might save them. As far as APU's go, they're only really good for use in laptops and HTPCs.