Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Home and Garden
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-22-2013, 04:10 AM   #801
itsmydamnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelUser2000 View Post
No, I mean Jaguar. Bobcat were decent amount behind Athlon 64, let alone Core 2.

http://www.planet3dnow.de/cgi-bin/ne...?id=1361486916

Based on the performance and power figures, I think if we can normalize things it'd have similar perf/watt to the Samsung Exynos "Octa".
i dont read German but if those are true then jaguar has the same IPC as piledriver in Cine 11.5 single thread and higher in multi-thread. Which from what i can see is just a touch under core2(Q6600 scores around 4 @3.8ghz) IPC for cine 11.5.
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 04:17 AM   #802
NTMBK
Diamond Member
 
NTMBK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BallaTheFeared View Post
PC gaming is pretty much integer depended, that's why AVX2 is much more important to our segment than AVX could ever be (which was worthless).

I wonder if the cores in these consoles will support it, that would really help drive code implementation and design for PCs.
Doubtful- standard Jaguar only supports as high as AVX. (And it's a 128 bit vector pipeline, so it won't get any real benefit from using AVX, like SSE on an Athlon 64.)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
I like my VRMs how I like my hookers, hot and Taiwanese.
NTMBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 04:20 AM   #803
itsmydamnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 619
Default

two things, 1. games are FP heavy as well. how do you expect any physics with just int code. 2 who said you cant use a float for int code .

Quote:
Doubtful- standard Jaguar only supports as high as AVX. (And it's a 128 bit vector pipeline, so it won't get any real benefit from using AVX, like SSE on an Athlon 64.)
says who, if you have an instruction that isn't in SSE but is in AVX then there is a direct benifit.

Last edited by itsmydamnation; 02-22-2013 at 04:30 AM.
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 04:44 AM   #804
NTMBK
Diamond Member
 
NTMBK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itsmydamnation View Post
says who, if you have an instruction that isn't in SSE but is in AVX then there is a direct benifit.
That's true, yes, but the number of instructions which aren't just widened versions of existing SSE ones is fairly small. It'll be a fairly narrow use case, it's not like it has AVX2's gather operations or anything.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
I like my VRMs how I like my hookers, hot and Taiwanese.
NTMBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 04:45 AM   #805
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,077
Default

Nice catch on the p3dnow news . Jaguar is a whooping 32% faster than Bobcat in ST C11.5 subtest. When we went from K8 to K10(128bit fp pipes) we only saw ~15% performance jump in cinebench. PD has same ST performance but due to module sharing penalty it has 20% lower MT score,which ain't that bad considering it has only one FP unit which is shared between two cores(making its 1 fp pipeline 62% more efficient than Jaguar's 1 fp pipeline- PD 2 128bit SSE pipelines scoring 1.14pts Vs JG's 4 128bit SSE pipelines scoring 1.39 ).
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."

Last edited by inf64; 02-22-2013 at 04:59 AM.
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 04:48 AM   #806
itsmydamnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NTMBK View Post
That's true, yes, but the number of instructions which aren't just widened versions of existing SSE ones is fairly small. It'll be a fairly narrow use case, it's not like it has AVX2's gather operations or anything.
yes but there is also the ability for a+b=c where as in SSE (correct me if im wrong) it has to be a+b=a|b. Also GPU's have been doing gather since like forever so with a single coherent memory space and fast interconnect you could just do them on the GPU.

Quote:
Nice catch on the p3dnow news . Jaguar is a whooping 32% faster than Bobcat in ST C11.5 subtest. When we went from K8 to K10(128bit fp pipes) we only saw ~15% performance jump in cinebench. PD has same ST performance but due to module sharing penalty it has 20% lower MT score,which ain't that bad considering it has only one FP unit which is shared between two cores(making it's 1 fp pipeline 62% more efficient than Jaguar's 1 fp pipeline- PD 2 128bit SSE pipelines scoring 1.14pts Vs JG's 4 128bit SSE pipelines scoring 1.39 ).
you will find thats all from the OOOE side of things, jaguar has like 16 entry deep FP scheduler bulldozer has 60. bulldozer likely has a better ( more power hungry) L/S system as well.


edit: remember from a power perspective executing operations is cheap, moving data is expensive.

Last edited by itsmydamnation; 02-22-2013 at 04:55 AM.
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 05:33 AM   #807
NTMBK
Diamond Member
 
NTMBK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itsmydamnation View Post
yes but there is also the ability for a+b=c where as in SSE (correct me if im wrong) it has to be a+b=a|b. Also GPU's have been doing gather since like forever so with a single coherent memory space and fast interconnect you could just do them on the GPU.
Ahh, of course, I had forgotten that AVX-128 has 3 operand operations. That should help a bit, although it has to be balanced with register usage.

As for doing gather on the GPU- yes, GPUs can do gather, but it doesn't really help the CPU. The point of gather is letting you perform vector ops on chunks of memory that aren't arranged nicely - feasibly the GPU could gather memory, write it back as a coherent lump and then let the CPU work on it, but the latencies involved would render it worthless.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
I like my VRMs how I like my hookers, hot and Taiwanese.
NTMBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 06:34 AM   #808
beginner99
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olikan View Post
i still think that 1 piledriver module + 4 jaguar cores is the best...

2 big fat cores, for game and rendering
4 jaguar for OS, audio and etc...

similar to the ARM approach
exactly. I agree. a jaguar "Module" is 4 cores. Maybe the 2 modules used have different clocks, eg 1 fast for games, one slower for background stuff. but I highly doubt that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lopri View Post
And I think it was pretty obvious I meant that RTS games are not suited for multi-threading.

Importance of single-thread performance has diminished on PCs, too
Only for niche segments like "real" gaming (eg. not farmville and such) and encoding (the most common ones). I would say at max. 10% of computers (laptop and desktop) are used for that regularly. The rest is better of with high single-threaded IPC + fast IO (=ssd).

Why should a FPS multi-player be better suited for multi-threading than a RTS?
beginner99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 06:34 AM   #809
krumme
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
Nice catch on the p3dnow news . Jaguar is a whooping 32% faster than Bobcat in ST C11.5 subtest. When we went from K8 to K10(128bit fp pipes) we only saw ~15% performance jump in cinebench. PD has same ST performance but due to module sharing penalty it has 20% lower MT score,which ain't that bad considering it has only one FP unit which is shared between two cores(making its 1 fp pipeline 62% more efficient than Jaguar's 1 fp pipeline- PD 2 128bit SSE pipelines scoring 1.14pts Vs JG's 4 128bit SSE pipelines scoring 1.39 ).
I think its incredible that AMD have a 3.1mm2 core with same ST cinebench as PD with its beefed up frontend - if true. Both product are made from the same company, where BD/PD probably took at least 10-20 times the ressources as bobcat/jaguar to develop. I know there is frequency also and more to it, but still !

But hey probably our own daily work is about the same; a few task values far more than the rest of the work we do.
krumme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 07:00 AM   #810
Olikan
Golden Member
 
Olikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beginner99 View Post
exactly. I agree. a jaguar "Module" is 4 cores. Maybe the 2 modules used have different clocks, eg 1 fast for games, one slower for background stuff. but I highly doubt that.
hehe...i was thinking about 1 module of piledriver, aka is 2 cores + 1fpu + shared stuffs

but your idea seems better, if possible ....jaguar is not designed for fast clocks
__________________
Quote:
I must be dyslexic, because every time I look at your name I see OilKan!
Olikan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 07:28 AM   #811
itsmydamnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NTMBK View Post
As for doing gather on the GPU- yes, GPUs can do gather, but it doesn't really help the CPU. The point of gather is letting you perform vector ops on chunks of memory that aren't arranged nicely - feasibly the GPU could gather memory, write it back as a coherent lump and then let the CPU work on it, but the latencies involved would render it worthless.
i meant just do the whole operation, given that the GPU will still have its own LDS/L1 and L2 i dont really see the point of trying to get the GPU to accelerate the CPU. On the other hand CPU accelerating complex parts GPU shader code could allow some really cool stuff we just wont see on high end PC's.
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:02 AM   #812
Fox5
Diamond Member
 
Fox5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,769
Default

For those people saying PS4 should have used piledriver:
Jaguar is synthesizable, piledriver is not. That means Jaguar can be easily adapted to custom or semi custom designs, while getting anything other than a standard piledriver chip would be a massive design effort. Jaguar is the core that AMD was always intending to sell in this type of situation, Piledriver is a performance focused core intended for a different audience.
__________________
ebay
Look up bluefox451

heatware
http://www.heatware.com/eval.php?id=35565
Fox5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:30 AM   #813
Olikan
Golden Member
 
Olikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox5 View Post
For those people saying PS4 should have used piledriver:
Jaguar is synthesizable, piledriver is not. That means Jaguar can be easily adapted to custom or semi custom designs, while getting anything other than a standard piledriver chip would be a massive design effort. Jaguar is the core that AMD was always intending to sell in this type of situation, Piledriver is a performance focused core intended for a different audience.
yeah... i really forgot that

at the end of the day, PS4 is looking like a really cheap console (if we look at PS3)
__________________
Quote:
I must be dyslexic, because every time I look at your name I see OilKan!
Olikan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:39 AM   #814
Ancalagon44
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olikan View Post
yeah... i really forgot that

at the end of the day, PS4 is looking like a really cheap console (if we look at PS3)
The only expensive part is that 8GB of GDDR5, which is quite expensive indeed.
__________________
Paul Atreides, Rand al'Thor and Luke Skywalker walk into a bar...

...and proceed to beat up Shinji Ikari for being a whiny little bitch.
Ancalagon44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:55 AM   #815
NTMBK
Diamond Member
 
NTMBK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox5 View Post
For those people saying PS4 should have used piledriver:
Jaguar is synthesizable, piledriver is not. That means Jaguar can be easily adapted to custom or semi custom designs, while getting anything other than a standard piledriver chip would be a massive design effort. Jaguar is the core that AMD was always intending to sell in this type of situation, Piledriver is a performance focused core intended for a different audience.
Not to mention, Jaguar should be easier to port to new process nodes (i.e. shrink the die), which is always a priority for consoles.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
I like my VRMs how I like my hookers, hot and Taiwanese.
NTMBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 08:58 AM   #816
itsmydamnation
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olikan View Post
yeah... i really forgot that

at the end of the day, PS4 is looking like a really cheap console (if we look at PS3)

limits have changed that is all, when the PS3 launched we hadn't hit the power wall. But at the same time memory was very expensive thus we only got 512mb. We also got a CPU that was incredibly anaemic, your talking 5-6 times the IPC with a jaguar core and because they are CISC not RISC instructions they are far more complex. it also doesn't have any of the insane register read/write/copy limitations etc.

I really dont get the gloom of some people. PS3 outputed around 200watts at launch looks like the PS4 will do about the same.
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 09:57 AM   #817
slayernine
Senior Member
 
slayernine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 865
Default

I definitely look forward to increased memory and processors with more modern extensions in the new consoles.

My only concern right now is that PC games with horrible memory leaks will just become more prevalent with the rise of 8GB consoles.
__________________
minecraft server address: mc.undead.ca (PM for whitelist)

BitFenix Prodigy - i7 4771 - ROG mitx - AMD 7970 - RAID 0 240GB Intel 530 SSD - 3 TB WD Black

Slay3rNin3
slayernine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 10:05 AM   #818
Olikan
Golden Member
 
Olikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by itsmydamnation View Post
limits have changed that is all, when the PS3 launched we hadn't hit the power wall. But at the same time memory was very expensive thus we only got 512mb. We also got a CPU that was incredibly anaemic, your talking 5-6 times the IPC with a jaguar core and because they are CISC not RISC instructions they are far more complex. it also doesn't have any of the insane register read/write/copy limitations etc.

I really dont get the gloom of some people. PS3 outputed around 200watts at launch looks like the PS4 will do about the same.
cheap to produce, i meant

the only expensive part here is the 8gb@5.5ghz gddr5... but i suspect that it is not THAT much costly than XDR + ddr3....
sony just have to deal with one company, instead of 2...and a lesser complexity
__________________
Quote:
I must be dyslexic, because every time I look at your name I see OilKan!
Olikan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:46 AM   #819
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by poohbear View Post
if a PS3 that's 8 years old can play Crysis 3 and look that good, yes a 7970. In 8 years (2020) can a 7970 play a state of the art game? Probably just barely if at all, hence why i'd say a PS4 is as powerful as a 7950/7970. Think about it, a Geforce 7900GTX or a Radeon X1900 XTX were state of the art in 2006, but no way can they play Crysis 3 @ the same level of detail as a PS3.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Obviously an 8 year old PC can't play crysis 3 because on PC you have to have a DX11 card. I think comparing an APU to a 7970 is more laughable then the quote in my sig personally. Your comparisons are flawed, one reason I just mentioned, the other I mentioned previously, they aren't being rendered at the same resolutions. The other is viewing distance. Sit as close as you do when you're gaming in a PC and you a whole lot more LACK of detail. Another reason is PS4 is x86 based, meaning games ported to PC will be far more efficient than the ones ported to PC currently.

But hey, if you want to think optimization will make an APU just as powerful as a GPU that's on order of magnitude more powerful, go for it.
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 11:58 AM   #820
NTMBK
Diamond Member
 
NTMBK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2is View Post
But hey, if you want to think optimization will make an APU just as powerful as a GPU that's on order of magnitude more powerful, go for it.
It's not an order of magnitude. In raw horsepower, the PS4 graphics is somewhere between the 7850 and 7870- clearly not an order of magnitude http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/549?vs=618
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
I like my VRMs how I like my hookers, hot and Taiwanese.
NTMBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 12:22 PM   #821
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,715
Default

Poor choice of words. So only twice as fast? Point stands, its no where near a 7970
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 12:42 PM   #822
Olikan
Golden Member
 
Olikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2is View Post
Poor choice of words. So only twice as fast? Point stands, its no where near a 7970
the funny part is that, an 7850 is faster than many popular cards today
it's actually faster than 70% of all steam users
__________________
Quote:
I must be dyslexic, because every time I look at your name I see OilKan!
Olikan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 01:01 PM   #823
blackfallen
Junior Member
 
blackfallen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 13
Default

Alright I can see that its faster then a 7970.. we all new the power draw was too much but think about this. The GPU in the PS4 is slightly faster then the 7850 BUT the 7850 is faster then the HD 5870, HD6970... I don't understand why people are complaining here we thought we were getting nothing faster then a HD7670.

Let alone the HD5870, HD6970 are leaps and bounds faster then the ps3, so be happy we are getting something faster!
blackfallen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 01:30 PM   #824
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackfallen View Post
Alright I can see that its faster then a 7970.. we all new the power draw was too much but think about this. The GPU in the PS4 is slightly faster then the 7850 BUT the 7850 is faster then the HD 5870, HD6970... I don't understand why people are complaining here we thought we were getting nothing faster then a HD7670.

Let alone the HD5870, HD6970 are leaps and bounds faster then the ps3, so be happy we are getting something faster!
I'm not complaining at all. I'm actually impressed by the power they were able to pack into that APU. And while I agree that consoles are able to do more with less compared to PC's due to lower overhead and optimizations, I still think some people are OVER-estimating it's potential.
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2013, 01:41 PM   #825
dguy6789
Diamond Member
 
dguy6789's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 8,520
Default

I don't think they are over estimating. 5 years from now the best looking PS4 game will look better than anything a 7970GE equipped PC from today is capable of running on a Windows pc. Of this I am almost certain.
dguy6789 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.