Originally Posted by Seid Dark
Several people on OCN have claimed that next gen consoles won't increase multi-threading for PC ports. I don't know where they get their "facts", especially when both PS4 and XBONE have x86 support.
I don't think I've seen anyone argue this.
The arguments between people come from disagreements on the effects of the increased multithreading in games. For example the classic 8350 vs. i5 argument. Maybe the most common post you see is "8 cores is better than 4 cores, just look at 2 cores vs. 4 cores in the i3s and i5s and how i3s are useless now". The problem with this of course is that when all cores are used to the max, the amount of them you have doesn't matter in the slightest. Only the overall processing power. And while there's a 100% jump going from the i3 to the i5s you get somewhere around a 15% jump going from the i5 to the 8350. And that's in situations that can 100% utilize all the resources of our current CPUs. Games will not reach this point.
What will happen is that games where intel absolutely obliterates AMD (like PS2, SC2, skyrim, some other RTSs etc.) will become less common, especially if they're console ports (PC exclusives, blizzard games etc. will most likely still continue as before), but there isn't going to be some huge jump for AMD in modern graphically intensive titles. The best coded games will be like the upcoming BF4:
the game is obviously multithreaded very well but as you can see since it's a game it can't utilize all cores to the max and still needs strong individual threads. And as such the FX 8350 isn't climbing above the 2500K just like the 2500K isn't getting more than a ~35% boost from the i3 even though the i5 has twice the processing power.
The FX6300 is well below the 8350 so the game is obviously taking advantage of the extra cores. But why isn't the 8350 beating the i5? Because again, every game will still need those strong individual threads and the overall processing power just isn't there in the 8350. Core count is irrelevant.
I think John Carmack put it best:
And that will give AMD a little bit of a boost, relative to intel, clock for clock, probably. I mean you'll optimize the code for one microarchitecture and that will probably become somewhat prevalent on the PC... Intel still has significant enough performance lead that I don't think they'll outstrip them in raw performance but it'll help close the gap and makes it useful when you're comparing price/performance and some of the other things there...
Do the 8-core jaguar chips in the consoles help AMD on the PC gaming side of things? Yes. Will they make the world turn upside down with AMD beating intel? No.Edited by Alatar - 8/6/13 at 6:05am