Are next-gen consoles gonna be gimped by their weak cpu's?

[Aikouka]

The developers of Sim City for example had this developer blog post about the technicalities of trying to multithread the game engine. In the end they determined it was too interconnected and hence even though they were using individual agents (a technique for multithreading) in practice they actually couldn't use threads to do the work in the end.

Eh, if I had to guess, the issue was probably with their design. That isn't to say that it's a bad design, but rather that it's most likely a fairly complex system as most simulation-based games are. I don't exactly like painting in such broad strokes, but it's most likely true that as the system gets more complex, making a huge design paradigm switch like that becomes more and more futile. Also, sometimes when you try to hack something in, it just makes it even worse. I know that I've rewritten a the back-end of some programs in the past simply because new features, etc. required a paradigm shift that wasn't originally in the plan.

When I say its difficult to do I might actually mean its impossible.

I think that's a bit too much hyperbole....

 

[Rakehellion]

The developers of Sim City for example had this developer blog post about the technicalities of trying to multithread the game engine.

They also said it was impossible to run offline.

In the end they determined it was too interconnected and hence even though they were using individual agents (a technique for multithreading)

I guess we sniffed out that nonsense.

 

[zerocool84]

It's entirely different now that they have set hardware to work on and are going to HAVE to make multi-threaded games work. There's no way around it.

 

[Bman123]

It's entirely different now that they have set hardware to work on and are going to HAVE to make multi-threaded games work. There's no way around it.

Exactly. They don't have the cpu clock speed to rely on anymore, 1.6ghz is really weak, they do have the cores now and if anything pc gaming should benefit the most from the new consoles.

 

[blackened23]

It's entirely different now that they have set hardware to work on and are going to HAVE to make multi-threaded games work. There's no way around it.

This. Anyone thinking that developers won't go to great lengths to optimize completely for the next-gen consoles is, quite simply, an idiot. They're still finding programming tricks for the prior generation Xbox 360 and PS3, what we're seeing in those games should not be possible. Those games are optimized to the extreme, if you look at games like the Last of Us - that should not be possible on the PS3. It really is quite amazing how far optimization has taken these machines in the past 10 years, and they're still finding new tricks. These are machines that have GPUs on the level with the ATI 1900XT, but modified with unified shader support; GPUs from 10 years ago. These graphics chips used in the 360 and PS3 are far worse than the PC, but they play games very well for what they are. You ever tried running something as silly as Black Ops 2 on on a 1900XT? Good luck with that.

Console games provide, by far, the most revenue for the video game industry and they will go to insane lengths to ensure that the new architectures are completely optimized for. Anyone with an idea that Multi threading won't be used in the next generation is living in a fantasy land - console games are big money and while PC games are hardly ever optimized and are generally produced as an afterthought, that is not the case with console games.

But don't let this fact stop the PC snob trolls from trolling the console forum. Perhaps there are a few that enjoy both PC and consoles (I do), but there are just far too many PC supremacy trolls, it is rather annoying.

 

[smackababy]

But don't let this fact stop the PC snob trolls from trolling the console forum. Perhaps there are a few that enjoy both PC and consoles (I do), but there are just far too many PC supremacy trolls, it is rather annoying.

But... but... but what about PC master race? I need some way to validate the $1000 I spent on a GPU alone and looking at those benchmark scores haven't gotten me a semi in awhile! If I can't trash consoles because they can run a game at a lower resolution, what will I do? Paper launches of new GPUs don't happen enough to satisfy my urges.

 

[Arkaign]

This. Anyone thinking that developers won't go to great lengths to optimize completely for the next-gen consoles is, quite simply, an idiot. They're still finding programming tricks for the prior generation Xbox 360 and PS3, what we're seeing in those games should not be possible. Those games are optimized to the extreme, if you look at games like the Last of Us - that should not be possible on the PS3. It really is quite amazing how far optimization has taken these machines in the past 10 years, and they're still finding new tricks. These are machines that have GPUs on the level with the ATI 1900XT, but modified with unified shader support; GPUs from 10 years ago. These graphics chips used in the 360 and PS3 are far worse than the PC, but they play games very well for what they are. You ever tried running something as silly as Black Ops 2 on on a 1900XT? Good luck with that.

Console games provide, by far, the most revenue for the video game industry and they will go to insane lengths to ensure that the new architectures are completely optimized for. Anyone with an idea that Multi threading won't be used in the next generation is living in a fantasy land - console games are big money and while PC games are hardly ever optimized and are generally produced as an afterthought, that is not the case with console games.

But don't let this fact stop the PC snob trolls from trolling the console forum. Perhaps there are a few that enjoy both PC and consoles (I do), but there are just far too many PC supremacy trolls, it is rather annoying.

So much truth.

Console-only people typically don't want to admit that PCs can run games better than consoles (when they're available, lol)

PC-only people typically don't want to admit the points above : that consoles squeeze way more performance over time than PC hardware utilization does, and further, that tons of games just never make it to the PC at all, and often late when they do come.

Best of both worlds is to do both and enjoy the games for what they are If you had to choose one, console is an easy choice for most people. If I had to choose one, I'd do PC, but I'm glad I don't have to make that choice. Racing games, platformers, sports, fighting games, those are all incredibly weak on PC. At the same time, I can't stand FPS on console, absolutely hate it. And there are relatively few RTS/strategy games of any note for console. For those reasons I choose to do both.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

They're gimped by corporate greed. You will end up paying more for the right to play your games online than the consoles themselves. It sounds like a plotline from Idiocracy.

 

[blackened23]

Best of both worlds is to do both and enjoy the games for what they are If you had to choose one, console is an easy choice for most people. If I had to choose one, I'd do PC, but I'm glad I don't have to make that choice. Racing games, platformers, sports, fighting games, those are all incredibly weak on PC. At the same time, I can't stand FPS on console, absolutely hate it. And there are relatively few RTS/strategy games of any note for console. For those reasons I choose to do both.

This is exactly the way I look at it; PCs and consoles both provide great game experiences, but in different ways. I love fighters and sports games on consoles. I also love the online connectivity through XBLG and PSN online, which adds a lot in terms of multiplayer fun.

On the other hand, PCs are great for single player only games - and other genres such as MOBAs, MMOs, strategy games.

They're both great for what they do. I don't see why either side has a tendency to mud fling towards the other. Anyway, with that said the point remains, Multi threading will definitely become the norm for console games in coming years, it will definitely happen. I don't know if this will translate with PC ports, but I hope it does - then everyone benefits equally.

 

[cmdrdredd]

They're gimped by corporate greed. You will end up paying more for the right to play your games online than the consoles themselves. It sounds like a plotline from Idiocracy.

nope

 

[Todd33]

I don't think modern games are CPU bound. We have current games that run on a single core PPU in the PS3 Cell which also run on i7s. They may not look as good, but that is due to the GPU differences. Now these PS360 devs are going to x86 8-core CPU, they probably think they are in Heaven. Sure they are not as fast as a good gaming PC, but it is a closed system with more cores. Most of the time your CPU is going jack shit during a game, you never see four cores maxed out, and you are running a bloated OS with tons of services and other apps.

So yes devs can't be lazy and depend on strong single threaded speed, they will have to distribute the load to more cores, but they have been learning to do this all last gen.

 

[Midwayman]

I don't think modern games are CPU bound. We have current games that run on a single core PPU in the PS3 Cell which also run on i7s. They may not look as good, but that is due to the GPU differences. Now these PS360 devs are going to x86 8-core CPU, they probably think they are in Heaven. Sure they are not as fast as a good gaming PC, but it is a closed system with more cores. Most of the time your CPU is going jack shit during a game, you never see four cores maxed out, and you are running a bloated OS with tons of services and other apps.

So yes devs can't be lazy and depend on strong single threaded speed, they will have to distribute the load to more cores, but they have been learning to do this all last gen.

Its not terribly hard to get a game cpu bound on some of the high core AMD CPUs. Granted 'balanaced' is typically a better way to put it with most games. However these are going to be far slower per thread than even those. Optimizing for multi-thread performance will no longer be optional for sure.

I wonder what the single threaded performance is like on the new ps4/xb1 cpu vs the older ps3/xb360 cpus?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

New consoles are making 1080p at 60fps as their target. Don't need too much power for that.

 

[Anarchist420]

consoles are gimped because they're consoles.

 

[DeathRayLoveMachine]

AI can be threaded and typically doesn't take much processing power. Only the most advanced games even use weighing mechanisms, most are simple logic flow charts, which any CPU can tear through. Pathfinding is an exercise in lookup tables, the navigation grid is pre-baked. It is actually surprising how little compute it takes to make a decent AI system.

You seem very technically informed which is why it surprises me so much that someone like you would say this. Pathfinding is an especially strange choice of an example, since most modern games are terrible at it. Fallout 3 used a very standard pathing system similar to what you describe; the AI was constantly getting stuck in the terrain (or just plummeting to its death), and the very coarse size of the pathing nodes caused it to choose ridiculously circuitous routes. In Fallout: New Vegas, they "solved" this problem not by improving the AI but by removing the sorts of terrain that were too confusing for it. Most other games deal with the issue by not only avoiding the kinds of terrain that are too hard for the AI to deal with, but by also designing the game so the AI never even needs decent pathfinding in the first place.

The result of this is a long succession of games that, despite having a wide variety of settings, characters and genres, all end up feeling exactly the same because developers have long accepted the same lame half-solutions they were using back in the PS2 days.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

New consoles are making 1080p at 60fps as their target. Don't need too much power for that.

I'm pretty sure the majority are actually aiming for only 720p. Which is still a huge step up from 640p from the xbox 360 and ps3.

 

[N-A-N-0]

It's interesting, Wind Waker HD on Wii U, an HD port (obviously) with quite bumped up graphics is 1080p 30 fps.

I could live with 30 fps if 1080p was the standard but some of the highest-end games would be pushing it at even 720p/30fps in a few years I think.

Most Wii U games are 720p, 60 fps and the system will probably stay in that 720p bubble though, it's obviously less powerful.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It's interesting, Wind Waker HD on Wii U, an HD port (obviously) with quite bumped up graphics is 1080p 30 fps.

I could live with 30 fps if 1080p was the standard but some of the highest-end games would be pushing it at even 720p/30fps in a few years I think.

Most Wii U games are 720p, 60 fps and the system will probably stay in that 720p bubble though, it's obviously less powerful.

The games will look very dated by comparison. You could play Doom at 1920x1080 but it will never look like Crysis at 1024x768.

 

[stockwiz]

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but this will translate well for PC gamers who will now have a reason to buy an Intel 6 core processor as the game might actually utilize all 6 cores.

The entire software industry has been multithreaded for the past 15 years. You can't even buy a single-core computer anymore.

1. The processor isn't that slow. It does what it's intended to do.
2. Most processing tasks, like AI and physics, run quite well on the GPU.
3. Consoles drive the market. Call of Duty, Tomb Raider, and even Crysis 3 are designed from the ground up to run on consoles first.

This is somewhat exaggerated. I can remember people arguing pros and cons of needing a Q6600 4-core chip vs the 2-core chips in the not too distant past... mostly from people who couldn't afford the 4-core chips trying to justify their purchases of the dual core... however.. games have not been running optimized for multithreading for 15 years... not even close.

It is true that increases in computing power have sort of stalled the last few years... actually since the Q6600 was released really.. yes a 2600K is faster but it's not light years faster... and the new haswell stuff isn't really any big jump.. and they've cheapened out on the chips by not soldering them to the IHS, a step in the wrong direction. Die shrinks are always a good thing though. The biggest gains the last few years have come in memory speed, memory capacity, solid state drives, things of that nature. That will be the big improvement from the new consoles... I remember thinking the PS3 was memory gimped before it even launched.

I built my 2600K rig in the week around launch and outfitted it with 16GB of ram some months later (still overkill) and expect to be using it prehaps with a different video card and faster solid state drive (I'm impressed with the speed improvements on newer models) for another 5 years.. no incentive to upgrade any of the other components, since Intel/AMD are focused on smaller, more power efficient chips for people more interest in playing solitare on their phones, or whatever.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

New consoles are making 1080p at 60fps as their target. Don't need too much power for that.

high end PCs struggle with 1080p60, even with modern titles that can properly utilize the higher end CPUs, there's no way consoles are going to be 1080p60 with vastly inferior hardware - there is only so much optimizing the devs can do

I'd wager most titles will be 720p60 or 1080p30 with only those utilizing creative art direction going full 1080p60

last I heard BF4 is 720p60 upscaled to 1080p

I'm pretty sure the majority are actually aiming for only 720p. Which is still a huge step up from 640p from the xbox 360 and ps3.

the bigger step up will be 60 fps, many if not most console games are still 30fps