By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

JEMC 18 hours ago
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

If you haven't already, I'd update the chipset driver. Seems to fix wierd min issues from time to time. And run ddu if you haven't already when switching gpus.

Realistically if you are only gaming, you shouldn't need more than 7600 with a 9060 xt.

Good call on the chipset. I'll do it when I come back.

And I did things by the book, unplugging the internet cable and using DDU (in safe mode!) to try to avoid as many problems as I could.

Zkuq said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

If you haven't already, I'd update the chipset driver. Seems to fix wierd min issues from time to time. And run ddu if you haven't already when switching gpus.

I don't remember if I've written about it here, but for a while, I had an issue where after booting up from sleep mode, my PC would not wake up. When I shut it down from the power button and powered it up again, it would take a while and then resume from hibernation, as if it had been sleep mode all along. I felt kinda gaslit from that initially. Anyway, the issue was getting worse, so I very recently updated my chipset drivers, and... so far so good.

Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Realistically if you are only gaming, you shouldn't need more than 7600 with a 9060 xt.

Unless you're playing Cities: Skylines II, like I am, in which case it'll take all the CPU computing power it can and maybe even more (depending on the city size, of course). Besides a slightly borked update, I haven't had real issues with my 7700 yet, but I think speeding up the simulation doesn't work to its full extent anymore in my larger cities. But yeah, Cities: Skylines II is probably more of an outlier.

Linus did a video a couple days ago or so with a 96-core threadripper pro and one of Nvidia's professional cards that could run 4 instances of Cyperpunk 2077 at 60fps at the same time. But when they tried Cities Skylines 2, it couldn't reach that level of performance even running only one game.

So yeah, Skylines 2 is, essentially, broken at its core level and nothing will fix it, barring a full engine swap.



Please excuse my bad English.

Former gaming PC: i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Current gaming PC: R5-7600, 32GB RAM 6000MT/s (CL30) and a RX 9060XT 16GB

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Around the Network
HoloDust 18 hours ago
JEMC said:

Linus did a video a couple days ago or so with a 96-core threadripper pro and one of Nvidia's professional cards that could run 4 instances of Cyperpunk 2077 at 60fps at the same time. But when they tried Cities Skylines 2, it couldn't reach that level of performance even running only one game.

So yeah, Skylines 2 is, essentially, broken at its core level and nothing will fix it, barring a full engine swap.

Is Skylines 2 broken, or simply immensely demanding due to underlying simulation? Kerbal Space Program was "broken", so to speak, since it used very few cores available, so you could really push it to limits even on highest end rigs very quickly. But, IIRC, Skylines 2 uses pretty much all cores available (I think it used to be 64 limit, not sure as of right now).



Zkuq 10 hours ago
JEMC said:
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

If you haven't already, I'd update the chipset driver. Seems to fix wierd min issues from time to time. And run ddu if you haven't already when switching gpus.

Realistically if you are only gaming, you shouldn't need more than 7600 with a 9060 xt.

Good call on the chipset. I'll do it when I come back.

And I did things by the book, unplugging the internet cable and using DDU (in safe mode!) to try to avoid as many problems as I could.

Zkuq said:

I don't remember if I've written about it here, but for a while, I had an issue where after booting up from sleep mode, my PC would not wake up. When I shut it down from the power button and powered it up again, it would take a while and then resume from hibernation, as if it had been sleep mode all along. I felt kinda gaslit from that initially. Anyway, the issue was getting worse, so I very recently updated my chipset drivers, and... so far so good.

Jizz_Beard_thePirate said:

Realistically if you are only gaming, you shouldn't need more than 7600 with a 9060 xt.

Unless you're playing Cities: Skylines II, like I am, in which case it'll take all the CPU computing power it can and maybe even more (depending on the city size, of course). Besides a slightly borked update, I haven't had real issues with my 7700 yet, but I think speeding up the simulation doesn't work to its full extent anymore in my larger cities. But yeah, Cities: Skylines II is probably more of an outlier.

Linus did a video a couple days ago or so with a 96-core threadripper pro and one of Nvidia's professional cards that could run 4 instances of Cyperpunk 2077 at 60fps at the same time. But when they tried Cities Skylines 2, it couldn't reach that level of performance even running only one game.

So yeah, Skylines 2 is, essentially, broken at its core level and nothing will fix it, barring a full engine swap.

HoloDust said:
JEMC said:

Linus did a video a couple days ago or so with a 96-core threadripper pro and one of Nvidia's professional cards that could run 4 instances of Cyperpunk 2077 at 60fps at the same time. But when they tried Cities Skylines 2, it couldn't reach that level of performance even running only one game.

So yeah, Skylines 2 is, essentially, broken at its core level and nothing will fix it, barring a full engine swap.

Is Skylines 2 broken, or simply immensely demanding due to underlying simulation? Kerbal Space Program was "broken", so to speak, since it used very few cores available, so you could really push it to limits even on highest end rigs very quickly. But, IIRC, Skylines 2 uses pretty much all cores available (I think it used to be 64 limit, not sure as of right now).

As far as I know, it's not really broken, it's just that it needs to simulate hundreds of thousands if not million of people and a bunch of other stuff too, although most of it probably comes from the population. The devs have optimized it a bunch, so I imagine there aren't all that many low-hanging fruits remaining for the simulation, but it could sure use some more optimization too. Still, it's perfectly playable in typically-sized cities, but if you want something larger, expect simulation slowdown unless you have enough cores. It's a fundamental challenge with the agent-driven simulation model and something other games have struggled with too. I've mentioned Farthest Frontier here in the past, and for the longest time, I think the game had challenges with larger populations - and in that game, larger populations mean hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of thousands (my understanding is that they got the situation under control after significant optimization efforts).

Older SimCity games, on the other hand, didn't use agent-driven simulation, so they weren't as demanding, but I suppose that approach has its limits too. I guess it might be one of the reasons SimCity 2013 was limited to such small cities - my understanding is that it switched to agent-based simulation, so it just couldn't handle as large cities. I don't know how much that really contributed to the smaller city size, but at least superficially, it seems to make sense.