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

[mrmt]

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.

Yes, I do. If developers optimize the PC ports to 8T processors they will suck big time on the majority of AMD hardware, as the bulk of AMD line up is composed of 4T processors. There are some 300 million new PCs *every year* out there, and of those some 500K-600K are 8T AMD processors, It would be an asinine decision to optimize your software to 0.2% of your TAM.

And as IDC pointed out, Jaguar isn't Derpdozer. I don't need to add anything more beyond what he already said here.

Meaning what exactly, clarify.

As Intel provides more than 80% of the PC market, form factor, prices, lead times, everything tends to follow Intel wishes. It is a competitive advantage, as much as the IPC, the power consumption, etc.

 

[erunion]

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?

The same argument is made about games being designed for AMD GPUs. But once the PS4 launches the hardware is locked down. Nvidia could easily targets those same features on all their future products for the rest of the PS4s life span.

But the whole argument is flawed, PC titles don't stand still just because console hardware does. In 5 years console and PC graphics will have diverged, just like they are today.

 

[sontin]

Metro: Last Light looks so much better than Killzone. And that game comes out 6 months before the next gen console.

And no company will ignore nVidia. nVidia has a development team which do all the testing for them. It saves them so much money and increase their TAM from 33 to 100% of the whole PC market.

Only companies like Crystal Dynamics which get paid by AMD will ignore nVidia.

 

[AnandThenMan]

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

I don't know these numbers, do you?

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?

In other words, people that already have an 8-core AMD processor will benefit with no more cash outlay. Others will have to go out and buy a new Intel processor, which also probably means a new motherboard. People with an AMD platform can upgrade by just swapping out the processor. I'm personally very happy with my 8350 and am glad I didn't listen to the overwhelmingly negative posts I've seen here (and elsewhere) and I suppose I made a pretty smart choice as well (or perhaps serendipitous) in retrospect. I plan on grabbing a second 8350 because I have an AM3 motherboard that is compatible with it, inexpensive upgrade, props to AMD for allowing this.

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.

Maybe I missed it, but who is saying that? I am personally saying that AMD is going to be able to leverage their architecture across platforms, which is a good thing. You want AMD to succeed, right? Everyone does that understands how important competition is. So is AMD allowed to succeed? Or is anything even remotely positive surrounding them going to be endlessly painted in a negative light?

 

[podspi]

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

But I never said that an FX-8350 would be better than an IB i7. My point, and perhaps I missed the point of your initial post, was that if something is optimized for an 8-core Jaguar, it will run fine on an FX-8350 because each thread of an FX-8350 is more powerful than each thread of an 8-core Jaguar.

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.

Competing CPUs with different architectural characteristics are not new (you mention many that are quite old now). How is this any different? It is an explanation for the differences in performance we see, but actual performance is still all we care about, or at least all I care about.

Furthermore (also see below), each Jaguar core has the same amount of FP resources as a Piledriver core (though the Piledriver core has greater peak FP resources). Additionally, Jaguar is 2-wide, while Piledriver is also (on average ) 2-wide, peak 4-wide rolleyes.


Now, given all this, the big question that I haven't attempted to address (and what people seem to be arguing around) is whether a 4-thread IB i5 will be superior to an 8-thread Piledriver. The answer to that is... who knows :biggrin:. My personal guess is "not any time soon", but I imagine most games will have 4~6 (at the extreme high end) heavy cores, so singlethread performance will probably still win the day. If games can really fully use 8 threads, we already know the results FX-8350 vs i5 when all 8 cores are fully utilized.

So your FX can simultaneously execute 8 floating point threads?

Yes, his FX (assuming it is one of the 8000 series) can.


Max theoretical FP throughput is much lower than 8 SB or IB cores, though.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes, his FX (assuming it is one of the 8000 series) can.


Max theoretical FP throughput is much lower than 8 SB or IB cores, though.

Nopes. And it was written by the same guy that said IPC increases among other things.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/amd-agrees-john-fruehe-is-a-liar/

 

[2is]

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

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

 

[podspi]

Nopes. And it was written by the same guy that said IPC increases among other things.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/amd-agrees-john-fruehe-is-a-liar/

We all know that AMD's projections/promises for Bulldozer fell short. Your link has a very misleading title, AND does not refute what I said. Two Bulldozer and Piledriver can execute 2 128-bit FP operations simultaneously.

 

[Fx1]

4.5ghz Quad Core with HT will easily be able to cope with anything that 8 jaguar cores can do at 2ghz.

I dont think AMD will make any difference to this fact.

Also i dont think that consoles will be able to work miracles with 8GB of DDR5. There isnt enough GPU or CPU power.

Also lets not forget that Xbox is REALLY letting next gen down with its crappy DDR3 and 7790 GPU. This is going to limit multiplatform games even further.

The PS4 will have nice looking games but it wont be close to todays high end PC's let alone future ones based on 14nm and 20nm tech.

 

[Fox5]

Meh, game developers (and software developers in general) don't know much about making hardware go fast. The people designing the underlying technology (ie, Unreal Engine, ID tech, Cryengine) are the ones who'd have an understanding of how to take advantage of hardware and what advantages it gives them.

I think the thought process goes like this:
Same brand = synergy = good
Differences between brand A and brand B = strength of brand A that will give rise to that syngery

Now then, we could see more optimization for AMD processors, in the same way that using the right compiler flags and working around threading issues in Linux causes AMD's processors to jump a price category or two. (ie, 8350 performs like a $300 intel) The problem with that though, is that Jaguar is considerably different than Piledriver, and wouldn't have the same compiler optimizations or quirks.

 

[Headfoot]

Yes, they can use all cores to the max. I cant think of any part of a game that cannot be parallelized. I only see lazy developers. AI, physics, particles, animations, etc. all can run faster with more cores.

You don't know a thing about programming if you think that. Stop spreading crap like this until you've tried hard core multi-threaded programming yourself

 

[Exophase]

The compatibility argument shouldn't have even been mentioned. Jaguar doesn't have FMA or XOP so there's very little coded for it that won't run on a current Ivy Bridge CPU (and mostly with superior implementation). The comment just smacks of ignorance.

I find the second argument dubious too, are any game engines really so latency critical that they must have > 4 multiple threads all running on separate cores or with shared or very fine grained MT, rather than being context switched between less hardware threads? Preemptive switching can give you ~1ms or better but the engines shouldn't even need that, when each thread is done with its task it'll yield to the next one immediately.

Throughput is key, and FX-8350 will have higher throughput for some loads.. but I wonder if that'll be true for FP/SIMD-heavy loads that tend to be represented on consoles. And ones with Jaguar's instruction set so probably not a lot of hand optimization for FMA and XOP.

The biggest problem I have with these articles is that they don't make it clear what the developers were actually asked. It's possible that the responses are technically competent but that the questions were presented in a misleading way.

 

[Headfoot]

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.

Sorry, but no. Almost all games in the last 4-5 years use at least 2 threads, which is by definition multi-threaded. Very few games use more than 3, which would have been the more accurate statement to make.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Sorry, but no. Almost all games in the last 4-5 years use at least 2 threads, which is by definition multi-threaded. Very few games use more than 3, which would have been the more accurate statement to make.

Thats incredible wrong. Try look away from the AAA titles for a starter.

 

[Exophase]

Anyone have any empirical data to back up claims about how much threading is or isn't in games?

I'll start with this 5 year old thread:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1285026

There's some low hanging thread that's relatively easy to put on a separate thread in a game, and some of it is actually easier to program on a separate thread to begin with. That doesn't mean those threads are going to be well balanced (a game could use several threads but still not scale much beyond two cores) but they'd still count.

 

[blackened23]

Sorry, but no. Almost all games in the last 4-5 years use at least 2 threads, which is by definition multi-threaded. Very few games use more than 3, which would have been the more accurate statement to make.

Those that are multi threaded, are mostly hacks.

While I disagree with your main point, just take a look at your usage in any multi threaded game. It's terrible. That isn't proper multi threading, it's a hack due the problems with current multi platform design (namely, lack of inter-operability between various platforms). Proper wide design would treat each thread with nearly equal priority, not 3% in one and 99% in another.

How long have quad cores been around? And how many games make use of 4 cores, or hexa cores? Those that do make questionable use of additional threads without a corresponding performance increase. Additionally, while there are some games using 2 threads, very few are using 4. Again, how long have quad cores been around? And we're still not programming for them in games? Note, I am saying nothing about AMDs role in all of this, i'm frankly very skeptical that the FX8350 would ever be worth it over an intel hexa core for next generation multi platform gaming. I personally don't believe that, i'll have to see it to ever believe it. But, if next generation consoles can improve the situation in terms of gaming on hexa and quad core CPUs - that will certainly be a good thing.

 

[Exophase]

Multi-threading is multi-threading. If you have a different thread per subsystem (say, AI, physics, rendering, audio), as is kind of the straightforward approach to game threading, then it's multi-threaded. And if you use a middleware engine, as many are, that has this kind of threading, as most do, then you're multi-threaded. It doesn't have to be heavily balanced to qualify, and it's not fair to call something a hack just because it's not getting the most possible use out of available hardware resources.

I'm pretty sure lots of games use > 2 threads, again let's not confuse ability to load more than 2 cores with using more than 2 threads. And when I say use I mean that many active rather than sleeping.

Most games made in the last several years were developed for XBox 360 and PS3 in mind, some serious attempt at a threaded load is a requirement there, I don't know how a large number of games made during this time period could be strictly single threaded.

 

[galego]

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

I don't know exactly, but I know that the number of quad-cores i5-3570K and i7-3770K sold by Intel outperformed the number of FX-8350 and similar AMD eight-core chips.

This is the point; game developers have focused on the more popular chips from Intel instead focusing on the better AMD chips. Current games are optimized for Intel chips and, however, AMD does very well (except in a pair of games).

However, the situation has radically changed with consoles. Before starting the development of the PS4, Sony asked to game developers what hardware they would want. Particularly Sony offered them the option of four or eight cores and developers chose eight cores. Unsurprisingly the final PS4 is an eight core design. The same about the next Xbox.

Moreover, the development kits for both consoles use eight-core FX chips. And as shown, the FX-8350 beats both the i5-3570K and i7-3770K under a modern multi-awarded game such as Crysis 3.

If you join all the pieces togheter, it is understandable why all the game developers who were asked by eurogamer selected the AMD FX-8350 chip as better gaming chip.

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?

Intel can do that. Who said the contrary? But maintain in mind that consoles will continue to use AMD hardware during more years. Of course, if Intel manages to obtain a competitive CPU then future recommendations will include them. Today all game developers recommended AMD.

 

[Exophase]

Please elaborate on how games are being optimized for Intel CPUs over AMD ones. And don't say that they're compiled with ICC unless you're willing to show that to actually be the case.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I don't know exactly, but I know that the number of quad-cores i5-3570K and i7-3770K sold by Intel outperformed the number of FX-8350 and similar AMD eight-core chips.

This is the point; game developers have focused on the more popular chips from Intel instead focusing on the better AMD chips. Current games are optimized for Intel chips and, however, AMD does very well (except in a pair of games).

However, the situation has radically changed with consoles. Before starting the development of the PS4, Sony asked to game developers what hardware they would want. Particularly Sony offered them the option of four or eight cores and developers chose eight cores. Unsurprisingly the final PS4 is an eight core design. The same about the next Xbox.

Moreover, the development kits for both consoles use eight-core FX chips. And as shown, the FX-8350 beats both the i5-3570K and i7-3770K under a modern multi-awarded game such as Crysis 3.

If you join all the pieces togheter, it is understandable why all the game developers who were asked by eurogamer selected the AMD FX-8350 chip as better gaming chip.



Intel can do that. Who said the contrary? But maintain in mind that consoles will continue to use AMD hardware during more years. Of course, if Intel manages to obtain a competitive CPU then future recommendations will include them. Today all game developers recommended AMD.

Even in Crysis 3, FX8350 just ties a low end i5 in ave FPS and trails in minimum FPS, and this is at high detail, 1080p. See post 12 in this thread. It is far from proven the FX will be superior to 3750k in heavily multithreaded new games, and it for sure is slower in older games, and even new games that are not heavily multithreaded, and despite what AMD supporters would like to believe, there will be plenty of games that wont utilize all the cores of the 8350.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Snip

Intel can do that. Who said the contrary? But maintain in mind that consoles will continue to use AMD hardware during more years. Of course, if Intel manages to obtain a competitive CPU then future recommendations will include them. Today all game developers recommended AMD.[/QUOTE]

Overgeneralize much?? The article only says "a number". They dont even say what that number is, much less it being "all" developers. You correctly quoted the article in the earlier part of your post, but managed to extended it to fit your own agenda in this final sentence.

 

[galego]

Now, given all this, the big question that I haven't attempted to address (and what people seem to be arguing around) is whether a 4-thread IB i5 will be superior to an 8-thread Piledriver. The answer to that is... who knows :biggrin:. My personal guess is "not any time soon", but I imagine most games will have 4~6 (at the extreme high end) heavy cores, so singlethread performance will probably still win the day. If games can really fully use 8 threads, we already know the results FX-8350 vs i5 when all 8 cores are fully utilized.

Guys at PC Games Hardware have benchmarked the new Crysis 3 demonstrating that the FX-8350 outperforms the i5-3570K and even offers up an additional minor margin of extra performance over the i7-3770K

I wait similar scores with future games ported from PS4/NewXbox.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Now, given all this, the big question that I haven't attempted to address (and what people seem to be arguing around) is whether a 4-thread IB i5 will be superior to an 8-thread Piledriver. The answer to that is... who knows :biggrin:. My personal guess is "not any time soon", but I imagine most games will have 4~6 (at the extreme high end) heavy cores, so singlethread performance will probably still win the day. If games can really fully use 8 threads, we already know the results FX-8350 vs i5 when all 8 cores are fully utilized.

Guys at PC Games Hardware have benchmarked the new Crysis 3 demonstrating that the FX-8350 outperforms the i5-3570K and even offers up an additional minor margin of extra performance over the i7-3770K

I wait similar scores with future games ported from PS4/NewXbox.

Not sure why you gave the link to the anand bench. The 3570k destroys the 8350 in those older games. If you are suddenly switching topics to the productivity benchmarks, they yes, I dont think anyone will dispute that the FX8350 is faster than the 3570k in several heavily multi-threaded productivity benchmarks.

 

[galego]

Please elaborate on how games are being optimized for Intel CPUs over AMD ones. And don't say that they're compiled with ICC unless you're willing to show that to actually be the case.

Some developers hide that they optimize for intel, others do not:

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/overclocking/games-optimized-for-intel.html

Yes skyrim is one of them. Someone doubt it?

 

[galego]

Even in Crysis 3, FX8350 just ties a low end i5 in ave FPS and trails in minimum FPS, and this is at high detail, 1080p. See post 12 in this thread. It is far from proven the FX will be superior to 3750k in heavily multithreaded new games, and it for sure is slower in older games, and even new games that are not heavily multithreaded, and despite what AMD supporters would like to believe, there will be plenty of games that wont utilize all the cores of the 8350.

To compare CPUs look at lower resolutions. Check the Crysis 3 benchmark on my post above. The FX is only beaten by a 12-thread Intel chip.