Digital Foundry: all questioned AAA developers recommend AMD CPU's for gaming PC's

[blackened23]

Games began being more multithreaded on the PC as well back when the 360 was released.
And has been pointed out, we already have some games that benefit from more than four cores(Crysis 3, BF3)

The salient point in your post is completely incorrect, at least in terms of games that are ported to the PC. BF3 isn't multi threaded, by the way.

Here's the issue with prior generation consoles - any developer creating games has to create it for the lowest common denominator and then release it across multiple platforms. Developing for the LCD allows the developer to easily port the application across many platforms - Unfortunately, designing "wide" games using multi threaded architecture just does not jive across multiple platforms. They are far too different from each other and that made creating a "wide" design across multiple platforms nearly impossible. Thus nearly every multi platform AAA game you play on the PC is single threaded. Those that are multi threaded, are mostly hacks. WoW being a good example - despite being multi threaded, it is an old engine that just isn't suitable. Multi threaded/Ht processors offer little if any benefit over one with strong single threaded performance (eg, 3570k)

It's great that crysis 3 is multi threaded, but it is the exception and not the rule. Very, very few games are truly multi threaded or H"T aware and those that are - are horribly unsuited for it due to multi platform, lowest common denominator design. As far as the topic at hand, on one hand, I think the shift to x86 is great - that will benefit everyone that is a PC gamer. As far as AMD CPUs? I don't know. I'm extremely skeptical as i'd imagine many here are - I know that i'm certainly not getting an AMD CPU anytime soon. I guess, i'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Grooveriding]

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1888323/nextgen_will_push_things_the_pc_is_not_good_at_crytek.html

Talking more generally about the future of consoles and the industry in general, Yerli said: "I think the next generation of consoles are definitely going to be much more a mix of the top developers, they're going to be much more PC driven this time around.


"In fact, I believe - oh I can't talk more about that. Let's say this: PC developers will be much more comfortable than last-gen console developers."


So despite the lack of technological prowess, it's clear that PS4 and Xbox 720 will be providing something to pit it against the PC.

Comments like the above from people like Cevat Yerli, CEO of Crytek, leave me hopefully optimistic that we are going to see some good improvements and better utilization of what PCs are capable of once the new consoles release.


Developers have been sounding very positive about the shift to console's on x86. Consoles are the main focus for publishers when it comes to gaming these days, so anything that makes it easier and possible to get more out of what PC's can do when the games get ported sounds good to me.

 

[Spjut]

Also, as Toms pointed out, the minimum framerate for the 8350 is much lower than even a low end i5 without hyperthreading. And these are 1080p benchmarks at high detail settings. It is too bad though that they did not test the 3770 to see if hyperthreading improved performance.

Maldo tested the performance with and without hyperthreading on a i7 2700k. According to his tests, performance improved by 26-30% with HT enabled
http://maldotex.blogspot.se/2013/02/hyperthreading-and-real-custom-graphics.html

The salient point in your post is completely incorrect, at least in terms of games that are ported to the PC. BF3 isn't multi threaded, by the way.

Here's the issue with prior generation consoles - any developer creating games has to create it for the lowest common denominator and then release it across multiple platforms. Developing for the LCD allows the developer to easily port the application across many platforms - Unfortunately, designing "wide" games using multi threaded architecture just does not jive across multiple platforms. They are far too different from each other and that made creating a "wide" design across multiple platforms nearly impossible. Thus nearly every multi platform AAA game you play on the PC is single threaded. Those that are multi threaded, are mostly hacks. WoW being a good example - despite being multi threaded, it is an old engine that just isn't suitable. Multi threaded/Ht processors offer little if any benefit over one with strong single threaded performance (eg, 3570k)

It's great that crysis 3 is multi threaded, but it is the exception and not the rule. Very, very few games are truly multi threaded or H"T aware and those that are - are horribly unsuited for it due to multi platform, lowest common denominator design. As far as the topic at hand, on one hand, I think the shift to x86 is great - that will benefit everyone that is a PC gamer. As far as AMD CPUs? I don't know. I'm extremely skeptical as i'd imagine many here are - I know that i'm certainly not getting an AMD CPU anytime soon. I guess, i'll believe it when I see it.

It's the other way around. Games that were ported to consoles from PC were badly multithreaded. Look up the "console ports" and you'll see most of them benefited from having more than two cores.

And in a few years, the PS4 and its eight core CPU will be the LCD. That we already see games that benefit from more than quad cores is a good sign for the future.

 

[grimpr]

I believe this 100%. The PS4 and 720 are both going to be x86 based and we know the PS4 is using an eight core CPU. If game developers plan to go fully multi threaded with the new console games going forward, more coars will indeed be better for gaming. So the FX8350 will out perform a 3570K in new multithreaded games. This is no surprise as there are already games out there coded to use many cores and threads where the 8350 beats out the 3570k.

All that said an i7 will perform better, but the i5 will lag behind. If this comes to fruition maybe it will force Intel's hand to offer HT enabled CPUs at a better price point or more than four cores in their mainstream desktop CPUs.

You know? Its so sad that history repeats itself and people just cant get it, this thread reminds me of the angry moaning responses of Dual Core users when the Q6600 hit the sweet spot price wise, same thing again and again.

 

[Idontcare]

He states his reason is that the FX-8 series has eight hardware threads. While there are material differences in how Jaguar, Piledriver, and Ivy Bridge get you those 8 hardware threads, your post implies to me that you think each Jaguar thread will have a higher level of performance than each FX-8 thread, which I find unlikely despite the CMP/CMT difference.

The point being he ignores all that and basically says "this thingy has 8, and that thingy has 8, so those two thingys are functionally the same thingy" which is absurd. Its a logical fallacy of association, a comical one at that.

"My prius car has four tires, and my brother's H2 has four tires, so we can safely assume the engine, suspension, frame, undercarriage clearance, etc, must all be the same such that I can drive both vehicles across the same type of offroad terrain equally and with reckless abandon, as everybody knows 4 = 4 :hmm:"

Another analogy would be houses. I live in a 4 bedroom house. Since I live in a 4 bedroom house that must mean I can live just as comfortably and well off in any 4 bedroom house, what other differences could there be between houses that might impact the quality of my life if the houses all have 4 bedrooms?

If CMT were intangibly and insignificantly different from CMP then no one would ever have bothered to make sure we all understand that the FX-8350 is a CMT design while Jaguar is a CMP design.

There is a reason the distinction between microarchitecture designs exists, and a reason we are all made aware of whether any given processor is one or the other. This guy kinda just ignores all that, which is silly.

 

[2is]

You know? Its so sad that history repeats itself and people just cant get it, this thread reminds me of the angry moaning responses of Dual Core users when the Q6600 hit the sweet spot price wise, same thing again and again.

It is sad, the history thing, like AMD fans thinking there's a breakthrough coming every year for the last decade.

I don't believe anyone needs any commentary on either side's fans.
-ViRGE

 

[podspi]

"My prius car has four tires, and my brother's H2 has four tires

Which CPU is which again? This is actually the best car analogy for those two cpus I can think of...

My only point though was that even taking into account the differences between the two designs - I still predict that the FX-8 series CPU will have a higher level of performance per-thread. If that isn't the case, the continued development of Bulldozer-derived cores makes no sense.

When can we get past this 'definition of a core' debate? It is a waste of time, what matters is threads and the performance each thread is capable of providing.

And I'm not even trying to argue for the article's contents, don't misunderstand me. 9/10 people will recommend whatever and whoever will throw the most money at them.

 

[2is]

It is sad, the history thing, like AMD fans thinking there's a breakthrough coming every year for the last decade.

I don't believe anyone needs any commentary on either side's fans.
-ViRGE

One of these days, I'm gonna buy you a beer Virge.

 

[Fx1]

It is sad, the history thing, like AMD fans thinking there's a breakthrough coming every year for the last decade.

I don't believe anyone needs any commentary on either side's fans.
-ViRGE

This sounds like intel.

There is always a new CPU around the corner which will offer super improved performance and a killer IGP.

We are still waiting for the IGP and nothing has dropped on the CPU side since Sandybridge.

Haswell was meant to be some killer CPU. Been waiting for it 4 years and it looks to be a total bust.

 

[2is]

This sounds like intel.

There is always a new CPU around the corner which will offer super improved performance and a killer IGP.

We are still waiting for the IGP and nothing has dropped on the CPU side since Sandybridge.

Haswell was meant to be some killer CPU. Been waiting for it 4 years and it looks to be a total bust.

SB IGP was MUCH better than anything before it (from Intel), IB is some 30% faster than SB. They have a ways to go but to suggest they arent delivering is an ignorant statement. CPU wise its not even close, Intel hasn't had competition outside its own products for nearly a decade. AMD on the other hand has delivered empty promises with few glimmers of hope here and there that never materialize. Like Barcelona, Bulldozer, and now this thread.

What's your definition of bust? It's going to be the fastest consumer CPU in the word, likely followed by IB i7's then SB i7's.

Please enlighten me as to what AMD CPU is going to give Haswell a run for its money? You clearly know something I don't.

And this is why I asked you to stop. Now this thread is nowhere on topic. You and FX1 need to take it to PM or another thread.
-ViRGE

 

[Grooveriding]

SB IGP was MUCH better than anything before it (from Intel), IB is some 30% faster than SB. They have a ways to go but to suggest they arent delivering is an ignorant statement. CPU wise its not even close, Intel hasn't had competition outside its own products for nearly a decade. AMD on the other hand has delivered empty promises with few glimmers of hope here and there that never materialize. Like Barcelona, Bulldozer, and now this thread.

What's your definition of bust? It's going to be the fastest consumer CPU in the word, likely followed by IB i7's then SB i7's.

Please enlighten me as to what AMD CPU is going to give Haswell a run for its money? You clearly know something I don't.

The bold is outright nonsense. IB is in the area of less than 10% faster than SB...

 

[boxleitnerb]

He meant the IGP obviously, it says so in the same sentence.

 

[Idontcare]

My only point though was that even taking into account the differences between the two designs - I still predict that the FX-8 series CPU will have a higher level of performance per-thread. If that isn't the case, the continued development of Bulldozer-derived cores makes no sense.

In that case, IB has even higher "performance per-thread" so the favoritism towards the FX-8350 is still questionable.

When can we get past this 'definition of a core' debate? It is a waste of time, what matters is threads and the performance each thread is capable of providing.

We won't get past it until it stops making a difference in how various workloads perform on varying compute topologies.

Your "per thread performance" is going to vary in significant ways on an FX-8350 if you use more FPU than APU, which isn't true if you run the same workload on a Jaguar or IB w/HT.

So it does matter, if it didn't matter then microarchitecture would not matter either, nor cache size or IMC latency.

But it does matter, it all matters, if you are concerning yourself with per thread performance.

For now, the designers themselves aren't about to let us get past it. They bring it up and hammer home the fact their microarchitecture implements cores in radically different ways compared to each other.

Its not like we invented the discussion materials of our own volition. We were told there were differences, we observed those differences, we discuss those differences.

Ignoring them, or intentionally electing to not discuss them, doesn't get us any closer to understanding how or why per-thread performance varies across the differing compute topologies.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The point being he ignores all that and basically says "this thingy has 8, and that thingy has 8, so those two thingys are functionally the same thingy" which is absurd. Its a logical fallacy of association, a comical one at that.

That was my observation as well.

 

[galego]

From the developer's perspective in the product-chain, whether their games are running on an FX-8350 or an i5 3570K is irrelevant. Its all x86, same ISA, etc.

No exactly. The FX is eight-threads the i5 is not. Current games are more optimized for Intel but this is going to change. Future games will be more optimized for AMD chips.

Perhaps it's not entirely surprising - Crytek's Crysis 3 is a forward-looking game in many ways, and as these CPU tests by respected German site PC Games Hardware demonstrate, not only does the FX-8350 outperform the i5, it also offers up an additional, minor margin of extra performance over the much more expensive Core i7 3770K - a processor that's around £100 more expensive than the AMD chip. Only the six-core Intel Core i7 3930K - a £480 processor - beats it comprehensively.

Notice that game developers required to both Sony and Microsoft to use eight-core chips in their next consoles. They know why.

Moreover, earlier Microsoft prototypes for Xbox Dev kit used an eight-core chip from Intel but current dev. kits use an FX chip from AMD. This is compatible with the above link recommending AMD chips for gaming.

 

[Sweepr]

I wonder what will happen when future AMD cores (SR and EX) further bridge the "ipc" gap with intel counterparts? We have good indications (from AMD tech docs) that AMD will launch mainstream 6T SR based APU with 512SP supporting DDR4/GDDR5 memory standard. This core, if AMD's claims come true, should easily be on par with FX83xx in MT workloads and outclass it in ST ones. This is mainstream APU mind you. The "FX" counterpart, if AMD ever opts for such a model, should offer >8T, more IPC and probably better thermal spec. We know what intel will have in store too( not too exciting from what we could see so far). What happens when you have 3570/3700K class AMD chip (SR 6T/512SP APU) that costs a lot less than any Haswell part and offers more or less similar CPU performance and outclasses it in GPU part? Also is unlocked and can OC decently? Will then we have a "wait for broadwell, it will destroy AMD" answer?

I wonder what will happen if they dont provide the substancial IPC jump needed to match a FX8350 in MT taks (with 6C/3M) and I wonder where AMD mentions in their ''docs'' that these new cores will bring xx% better performance per core than their predecessors. Are these the same kind of docs that you used to predict BD would have ~14% better IPC than K10.5?
I loved the ''wait for Broadwell thing''.. kinda ironic cause you have been waiting since the K8L days for something that outclasses the competition. Intel has both TDP and die size headroom to release something better if they ever feel threatened. Unfortunately for us they are not bringing ''too exciting'' stuff cause they dont fell threatened.

 

[Idontcare]

No exactly. The FX is eight-threads the i5 is not. Current games are more optimized for Intel but this is going to change. Future games will be more optimized for AMD chips.

Notice that game developers required to both Sony and Microsoft to use eight-core chips in their next consoles. They know why.

Moreover, earlier Microsoft prototypes for Xbox Dev kit used an eight-core chip from Intel but current dev. kits use an FX chip from AMD. This is compatible with the above link recommending AMD chips for gaming.

Great, and how many FX-8350's have been sold to date? Versus how many 8-thread (or greater) Intel CPU's?

And if what you propose does come to pass, that the "bare minimum" processor for gaming becomes an 8-thread capable processor that can deliver comparable "per thread performance" to that of an 8-core Jaguar, do you really think Intel is going to stand still and do nothing in the course of the next 2 yrs when it comes to releasing 8-thread capable processors?

It is just patently silly to propose that AMD is about to corner the market, or even benefit in an outsized way, in PC gaming just because console games are going to be "optimized" for 8-thread capable processors.

 

[MisterMac]

Great, and how many FX-8350's have been sold to date? Versus how many 8-thread (or greater) Intel CPU's?

And if what you propose does come to pass, that the "bare minimum" processor for gaming becomes an 8-thread capable processor that can deliver comparable "per thread performance" to that of an 8-core Jaguar, do you really think Intel is going to stand still and do nothing in the course of the next 2 yrs when it comes to releasing 8-thread capable processors?

It is just patently silly to propose that AMD is about to corner the market, or even benefit in an outsized way, in PC gaming just because console games are going to be "optimized" for 8-thread capable processors.

I'm wondering why people don't realize the minute it's worth it for a quad to become a hexa\octo-core for Intel - geuss what will happen?

As i see it - AMD are mostly on the wrong-end because if mass thread adoption becomes a standard - we're going to a see re-hash of the SB\BD releases. With a BD vs aSB where BD is a 2 module\4 thread chip - and there's 4 full SB cores.

The embedded specialist route seems the only longterm viable option.

 

[Cloudfire777]

You are MUCH better off with a i7-3570K than a FX-8350. In some few games the 8350 is within 2-3FPS from 3570K, other than that the Intel processors is way ahead.

There is only $20 difference between them.

I have a feeling the developers they asked was part of AMDs "Gaming evolved" program and therefor are sort of obligated to spread lies. Or the author of the article misquoted them or took what they say out of context. AMD make inefficient CPUs with high power consumption, so the developers they asked must be on crack.

 

[Ayah]

No exactly. The FX is eight-threads the i5 is not. Current games are more optimized for Intel but this is going to change. Future games will be more optimized for AMD chips.



Notice that game developers required to both Sony and Microsoft to use eight-core chips in their next consoles. They know why.

Moreover, earlier Microsoft prototypes for Xbox Dev kit used an eight-core chip from Intel but current dev. kits use an FX chip from AMD. This is compatible with the above link recommending AMD chips for gaming.

So your FX can simultaneously execute 8 floating point threads?

Your definition of "thread" is limited, you're only considering integer operations while traditionally, we consider a thread to be a "general purpose" operation of either floating point or integer arithmetic. It basically comes down to (as Idontcare said) FPU vs ALU.

If game developers figure out how to optimize their games for excellent parallelism over low count, high clockspeeds: enthusiast gamers will drop the crappy single sockets and move to duals, quads and for those with huge budgets, octos.

As to the 8 "core" recommendation, they could be requiring 8 integer pipelines. If they're so into integer operations, I don't know why they don't go more 3:1, 4:1 or higher while shunting FP operations to a GPU or some sort of FP APU. Like a... coprocessor! (way before my time, but I'm familiar with the idea)

 

[ShintaiDK]

Great, and how many FX-8350's have been sold to date? Versus how many 8-thread (or greater) Intel CPU's?

I dont even think a million FX8xxx CPUs have shipped yet. And thats all of them in all the product life.

I wonder what sells most, Intels 999$ CPUs or the entire FX8xxx series.

 

[Sweepr]

I dont even think a million FX8xxx CPUs have shipped yet. And thats all of them in all the product life.

I wonder what sells most, Intels 999$ CPUs or the entire FX8xxx series.

Not to mention they havent announced any SR-based FX processor, they're probably going APU-only (desktops/mobile) as soon as they introduce socket FM3 (topping out at 4C/2M-6C/3M).

 

[mrmt]

Great, and how many FX-8350's have been sold to date? Versus how many 8-thread (or greater) Intel CPU's?

AMD sells close to 100x 4T or less processors than 8T processors.

The number of 8T AMD processors out there shouldn't be above a million, and yet people still think that any developer will optimize for AMD. How can we rate these opinions? Silly? Idiotic? Ignorant?

 

[mrmt]

I wonder what will happen when future AMD cores (SR and EX) further bridge the "ipc" gap with intel counterparts?

The power consumption gap too? What about the die size gap? Oh, and there's Intel relationship with OEMs... but they will bridge this gap too, right? It's the Keller effect.

 

[AnandThenMan]

...and yet people still think that any developer will optimize for AMD. How can we rate these opinions? Silly? Idiotic? Ignorant?

So you're saying game devs on the consoles will not optimize for AMD hardware? You do realize that the same architecture is also on the PC side. And let's go back to the thread title, I'm going to defer to he opinion of actual game devs.

Oh, and there's Intel relationship with OEMs...

Meaning what exactly, clarify.