PS4's "Biggest Challenge" Is It's CPU

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="AMD655"] And this has nothing to do with what i was talking about. Ron, at least challenge me on topic, not some API. AMD655

PC games are built on API.

Don't you mean Machine language?

[QUOTE="AMD655"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

PC games are built on API.

ronvalencia

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="AMD655"] Yes, an parallel programs do not work on an API, they work on code language. AMD655

1. I posted two reasons for multi-thread issues with the PC e.g. DX9/DX10 multi-thread overheads and NVIDIA PhysX Wintel edition. The posted chess game benchmarks doesn't render to a DX device nor it's gimped by NVIDIA PhysX Wintel edition.

2. GpGPU enforces parallelism i.e. known as explicit parallelism. AMD GCN has a scalar processor for each CU and this is not directly expose on PC's DirectX.

3. One should treat GpGPU as "many core" very wide SIMD processors.

4. CPU simply has less ALUs compared to "fat" GpGPUs.

5. When programmed correctly, a game's CPU side processing scale with CPU count.

Read Borderlands-2's multi-thread issue i.e. a single PhysX thread gimps the entire game engine.

[QUOTE="AMD655"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] "Code language" doesn't make a game independent from the software infrastructure/middleware. Most PC games still runs via Direct3D,ronvalencia

1. I posted two reasons for multi-thread issues with the PC e.g. DX9/DX10 multi-thread overheads and NVIDIA PhysX Wintel edition. The posted chess game benchmarks doesn't render to a DX device nor it's gimped by NVIDIA PhysX Wintel edition.

2. GpGPU enforces parallelism i.e. known as explicit parallelism. AMD GCN has a scalar processor for each CU and this is not directly expose on PC's DirectX.

3. One should treat GpGPU as "many core" very wide SIMD processors.

4. CPU simply has less ALUs compared to "fat" GpGPUs.

5. When programmed correctly, a game's CPU side processing scale with CPU count.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="AMD655"] I do not think you understand what i am talking about, no offense. Let me swing this another way, look at how GPGPU works, a GPU is highly parallel(2) and can work through any task much faster than a CPU, but can also be less accurate(3). Why do you think engines are not parallel?(1)CPU's simply are not even remotely fast enough to do the work through a parallel method(4), not real time at least. This is why we have Quadro/Firepro for parallel compute tasks(4). This metod is not out of the question by a long shot, but for the most part, is entirely not viable any time soon with games(5).

AMD655

1. I posted two reasons for multi-thread issues with the PC e.g. DX9/DX10 multi-thread overheads and NVIDIA PhysX Wintel edition. The posted chess game benchmarks doesn't render to a DX device nor it's gimped by NVIDIA PhysX Wintel edition.

2. GpGPU enforces parallelism i.e. known as explicit parallelism. AMD GCN has a scalar processor for each CU and this is not directly expose on PC's DirectX.

3. One should treat GpGPU as "many core" very wide SIMD processors.

4. CPU simply has less ALUs compared to "fat" GpGPUs.

5. When programmed correctly, a game's CPU side processing scale with CPU count.

A single Intel Sandybridge core can allocate unto four X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates to 1 thread while a single AMD FX core can only can allocate upto two X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates to 1 thread.

Intel Core i7 qaud core/ 8 threads has 16 X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates.

AMD FX 8xxx 8 core/ 8 threads has 16 X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates.

Intel Core i7 can act like AMD FX 8xxx during 8 threads workloads.

System Wars needs to get better at not taking blatently obvious bait. 

Wasdie

[QUOTE="AMD655"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

1. I posted two reasons for multi-thread issues with the PC e.g. DX9/DX10 multi-thread overheads and NVIDIA PhysX Wintel edition. The posted chess game benchmarks doesn't render to a DX device nor it's gimped by NVIDIA PhysX Wintel edition.

2. GpGPU enforces parallelism i.e. known as explicit parallelism. AMD GCN has a scalar processor for each CU and this is not directly expose on PC's DirectX.

3. One should treat GpGPU as "many core" very wide SIMD processors.

4. CPU simply has less ALUs compared to "fat" GpGPUs.

5. When programmed correctly, a game's CPU side processing scale with CPU count.

ronvalencia

A single Intel Sandybridge core can allocate unto four X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates to 1 thread while a single AMD FX core can only can allocate upto two X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates to 1 thread.

Intel Core i7 qaud core/ 8 threads has 16 X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates.

AMD FX 8xxx 8 core/ 8 threads has 16 X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates.

Intel Core i7 can act like AMD FX 8xxx during 8 threads workloads.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="AMD655"] I already mentioned games that scale with core count, they however show nothing gained with more cores, yet can use up to 8+threads. 4 faster/efficient cores will be faster in gaming than high latency/low IPC cores. AMD655

A single Intel Sandybridge core can allocate unto four X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates to 1 thread while a single AMD FX core can only can allocate upto two X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates to 1 thread.

Intel Core i7 qaud core/ 8 threads has 16 X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates.

AMD FX 8xxx 8 core/ 8 threads has 16 X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates.

Intel Core i7 can act like AMD FX 8xxx during 8 threads workloads.

Its an iphone cpu crossed with a 7850, of course its 'challenging'silversix_

[QUOTE="AMD655"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

A single Intel Sandybridge core can allocate unto four X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates to 1 thread while a single AMD FX core can only can allocate upto two X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates to 1 thread.

 

Intel Core i7 qaud core/ 8 threads has 16 X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates.

AMD FX 8xxx 8 core/ 8 threads has 16 X86 instruction retirement per cycle rates.

 

Intel Core i7 can act like AMD FX 8xxx during 8 threads workloads.

 

 

 

 

ronvalencia

And still FX is behind. There is a reason they cost so much less than an i7, they barely keep up with the i5 4core.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="AMD655"]  And FX still falls behind.AMD655

And still FX is behind. There is a reason they cost so much less than an i7, they barely keep up with the i5 4core.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="AMD655"]And FX still falls behind.AMD655

And still FX is behind. There is a reason they cost so much less than an i7, they barely keep up with the i5 4core.

[QUOTE="AMD655"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] I'm not even factoring Intel Core's instruction fusion, data pre-fetch predication, larger TLBs per thread, better internal Northbridge bandwidth and 'etc'.btk2k2

And still FX is behind. There is a reason they cost so much less than an i7, they barely keep up with the i5 4core.

[QUOTE="btk2k2"][QUOTE="AMD655"]And still FX is behind. There is a reason they cost so much less than an i7, they barely keep up with the i5 4core.

AMD655

[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

[QUOTE="Davekeeh"]
Doubt it

Davekeeh

no, its confirmed

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/parallel-processing.htm

 

 

Not any time soon, it would not do any good for the industry, as it would kill off all other components. 

AMD655

Modern CGI animation is made on several render farms in parallel processing.

Multi-core/threaded CPUs and heavy multi-threading would be a step closer to real-time ray-tracing which would improve game detail dramatically and bring close to CGI stuff.

[QUOTE="AMD655"]

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/parallel-processing.htm

 

 

Not any time soon, it would not do any good for the industry, as it would kill off all other components. 

nameless12345

Modern CGI animation is made on several render farms in parallel processing.

Multi-core/threaded CPUs and heavy multi-threading would be a step closer to real-time ray-tracing which would improve game detail dramatically and bring close to CGI stuff.

if we could get an overclock of atleast 2.0 GHZ or up to 2.4 GHZ I would be a little more satisfied but as of now I feel we are in the Dreamcast days with the speed. Or atleast use the new 16 core CPU that AMD claims to have availableRimacBugatti

Dreamcast's CPU might have been clocked only at 200 Mhz but it's graphics rendering capabilities and floating point performance far outdid the best PC CPUs at the time. (the SH4 in DC had roughly three times the theoretical FPU performance of a Pentium II 450)

Consoles have always used there CPUs to help with graphics related tasks while on PC it was mostly the graphics card doing the graphics rendering. (APUs are relatively modern on PC while Sony's PlayStation consoles use a APU-like design since years)

16 core mobile/tablet CPU would make things even more complicated because it would have crappy single-core performance and require heavy multi-threading.

[QUOTE="silversix_"]Its an iphone cpu crossed with a 7850, of course its 'challenging'ronvalencia

So it's basically a mobile Athlon 64 with added AVX extensions?

How would 8 Jaguar cores compare to 4 PPE CELL cores from PS3?

Going from having 1-2 strong cores to 8 weak cores. Devs for both the PS4 and Xbox One are going to struggle at first to get their engines threaded up properly.

Wasdie

This is by far the most interesting thing about Next-Gen.

FORCING console developers to use real multi-threading for their CPU processing.

[QUOTE="RimacBugatti"]if we could get an overclock of atleast 2.0 GHZ or up to 2.4 GHZ I would be a little more satisfied but as of now I feel we are in the Dreamcast days with the speed. Or atleast use the new 16 core CPU that AMD claims to have availablenameless12345

Dreamcast's CPU might have been clocked only at 200 Mhz but it's graphics rendering capabilities and floating point performance far outdid the best PC CPUs at the time. (the SH4 in DC had roughly three times the theoretical FPU performance of a Pentium II 450)

Consoles have always used there CPUs to help with graphics related tasks while on PC it was mostly the graphics card doing the graphics rendering. (APUs are relatively modern on PC while Sony's PlayStation consoles use a APU-like design since years)

16 core mobile/tablet CPU would make things even more complicated because it would have crappy single-core performance and require heavy multi-threading.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="silversix_"]Its an iphone cpu crossed with a 7850, of course its 'challenging'nameless12345

So it's basically a mobile Athlon 64 with added AVX extensions?

How would 8 Jaguar cores compare to 4 PPE CELL cores from PS3?

[QUOTE="AMD655"]

[QUOTE="btk2k2"] The FX series is great in specific workloads. Generally though most stuff is not as threaded as those specific work loads so it does fall behind. If games are forced to become more threaded because the console CPUs are relatively weak (they are actually very good performers for the die size and power envelope they are in) then it will be a boost to the FX series. It will also be a boost to Intel CPU's but since the Intel CPU is not as much of a bottleneck the improvements will be more modest. That is not to say that the FX will match the i7 because I doubt that very much but it might mean the FX is more competitive with the i5's.btk2k2

Where it gets interesting is an X Core Intel CPU vs a 2X Core AMD CPU. In cases where there is still order dependency I expect the Intel CPU to be faster but in scenarios where it is truly parallel I expect the AMD CPU to be faster.

Intel Haswell quad core has 8 256bit FMA3 units

AMD Piledriver 8 core has 8 128 bit FMA3 units

Intel Haswell also has 4 integer ALUs for dual threads.

[QUOTE="Davekeeh"]

[QUOTE="Flubbbs"]

no, its confirmed

delta3074

Lol PC gamers are so bad that they cant even aim with the so called "superior KB/M" they have to use aim-bot and hacks to be able to win...:lol:

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="Davekeeh"]
The best console gamer would dance circles around the best pc gamer

aroxx_ab

Lol PC gamers are so bad that they cant even aim with the so called "superior KB/M" they have to use aim-bot and hacks to be able to win...:lol:

Console gamers are so bad they have to use lag switches to win

How does the wiiu cpu compare to the jaguar?TheKingIAm

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

Lol PC gamers are so bad that they cant even aim with the so called "superior KB/M" they have to use aim-bot and hacks to be able to win...:lol:

Ginosaji

Console gamers are so bad that developers have to include various forms of aiming assistance in every game.

That is only so PC gamers can try console games, console-gamers turn that OFF :P

[QUOTE="TheKingIAm"]How does the wiiu cpu compare to the jaguar?ronvalencia

yeah it still uses the 2x32bit paired singles as they like to call it.

[QUOTE="Ginosaji"]

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

Lol PC gamers are so bad that they cant even aim with the so called "superior KB/M" they have to use aim-bot and hacks to be able to win...:lol:

aroxx_ab

Console gamers are so bad that developers have to include various forms of aiming assistance in every game.

That is only so PC gamers can try console games, console-gamers turn that OFF :P

can it even be turned off in most games?