Originally Posted by Alatar
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.
BF3 is not a good example, because, as this article says, the games that are multi-threaded now still rely on a heavy thread which wants a lot of single core performance. What they're getting at is that they need to do away with a single, heavy thread for games because it's not going to work on Jaguar.
Meaning that the AMDs should be further up the list on BF3 as their poor single thread performance is more than likely holding them back.
Originally Posted by lacrossewacker
Originally Posted by Buris
AMD CPUs see a performance boost, Intel fanboys' tears can be licked from my miles away.
if AMDs bet can be pulled off, it's going to be in massive favor of their CPUs regardless.
considering these consoles only allot 6 cores to games, and those cores are equivalent to 2-3 intel cores (at stock), Intel CPU's have NOTHING to worry about.
games have whooped AMD recently because they've only taken advantage of like 2 threads. Sure that helps Intel a bit since their IPC is pretty high, but it still hasn't taken advantage of the other 2 high IPC cores that Intel quad cores have.
a 2 threaded game gives Intel a huge advantage over AMD.
a 4 threaded game only takes MORE advantage of Intel, utilizing all of it's cores, vs AMD which will still be limited to 4 slower cores.
Push it up to 8 threads though (more than the consoles can use) then it gets finicky as the line starts to blur between what the 8350 is capable of, the i5, and the i7.
If the Jaguar cores are using AVX and a ton of SSE, and the PC version is just getting SSE2 and lower, the Intel cores have a lot to worry about. As was addressed earlier in this thread, AVX increases the amount of work a CPU can do massively.
I'm just guessing based on what I've seen on my Gentoo rig comparing Windows and Gentoo, but I wouldn't be surprised if code running all of Jaguar's instructions ended up making it 50% to 125% faster than how Jaguar would be running generic Windows code with instructions that would run on a wide range of CPUs.
Regardless to compare Jaguar performance in Windows to Intel performance in Windows and to assume that the gap will remain the same when Jaguar is running on a custom OS with highly optimized software while Windows will get generic code designed to run on ancient machines is rather short sighted and foolish in my opinion. I
Originally Posted by Snowmen
Originally Posted by HanSomPa
Because Intel has 8 threads with HT.
Then explain why AMD CPUs are so much better in multi-threaded tasks compared to single-threaded tasks while Intel CPUs don't see such a big jump in performance? Those 4 extra threads are not a game changer. That's why a 3770K isn't that much faster than a 3570K.
Hyperthreading does not always scale well and in some cases it can actually hurt performance. You're assuming that Hyperthreading will always scale and increase performance.
Originally Posted by maarten12100
Originally Posted by ghostrider85
proof of 8350 beating the crap out of 3770k/4770k?
Sure optimized code under Linux shows that.
Intel has the fab advantage so they can always put in more cores
What is needed is a thread layer that gives proc time to all threads while looking like a single one.
Gpu like paralelism is what I mean
The problem with this is that there is no way Intel can compete in price. The thing that is being forgotten in this thread is that an FX 8320 is literally half the price of a 4770k.
Basically you'll be able to get an FX 8320 and a nice motherboard for the price of only a 4770k without a motherboard.
For the cost of Haswsell-E 8 core, you'd more than likely be able to throw together a system with an FX 8320 and two 7970s with motherboard for the cost of the Intel CPU.
If AMD keeps their prices low it's going to be very hard to justify an Intel quad with HT over an FX CPU when it's going to literally cost you twice as much when the Intel HT is basically the same speed (assuming abolishing the big, heavy thread that's holding back piledriver and letting Intel get ahead thanks to their single core performance).
$159 is a lot of money to put towards a GPU instead of an Intel CPU.
For reference, the cheapest 7970 right now on newegg is $335 after MIR. The cheapest 7870 is $169. So that's a $165 difference.
So, if you would want to go Intel quad with HT for a gaming rig your choices in the same budget and assuming the other components are the same price and quality ends up being
4470k with 7870
FX 8320 with 7970
At that point CPU performance in BF3 wouldn't even matter, the FX 8320 with 7970 would be so far ahead of the 7870 that it'd be completely foolish to go with the Intel rig.