[EG] AMD CPU's performance get "massive boost" as devs optimize next-gen game engines

[krumme]

Count 3D rendering out of that list

Yeaa thats the ironic about it. I guess rendering runs best on multicore and hsa/gpu like arch.
So for the ½% of consumers that really needs some speed here, singlecore is of minor importance. That leaves 0.001%

My God thats us !!!!! lol

(then there is the 0.0001% that have this tri-sli 120Hz setup, and demand 120Hz minimum on big map 64 players BF3, looking from the tower to the other end of the map, trying the best they can to get the lowest minimum fps swiping their mouse agressively)

(then there is the 0.00001% - for reference look hardocp.com)

 

[krumme]

Don't forget AMD will also have ARM based APUs . Many small ARM cores+ Radeon GPU/compute power will be a compelling product.

Yes and Nvidia have - next round of consoles will be interesting. x86 or ARM.

Had it gone ARM this time, Intel would be in a bad situation. I think they were pretty satiesfied the way it went.

 

[Acanthus]

What this doesn't say, is that intel chips, at least those with over 4 threads should see a boost as well, though probably not as much as 6-8 core AMD chips just because they need that many threads to perform well. Really, this is good news all around, except for people on less than 4 threads (possibly even less than 4 physical cores).

This, more or less. Intel will benefit just as much as AMD in this case, unless they can thread things so well that you are limited by graphics card entirely.

It is good to see that the predicted threading changes are already starting to show up in games.

 

[blackened23]

This, more or less. Intel will benefit just as much as AMD in this case, unless they can thread things so well that you are limited by graphics card entirely.

It is good to see that the predicted threading changes are already starting to show up in games.

That's not a certain outcome. PC ports may not benefit, all of the optimization will go towards multi threading in the console versions which aren't using APIs whatsoever. They're using system specific tools to program directly to hardware; direct to hardware programming by definition removes all API usage - consoles will not be using DirectX, using DX / D3D lowers performance because they are API middleware. Middleware is required on the PC, and not required on console (and not preferable because APIs *always* lower potential performance). Therefore, a PC port will need to have substantial changes to benefit from MT/MC usage.

Therefore, PC ports may still be unoptimized for multi core use. PC ports will still be PC ports, consoles are the primary design consideration during development of multi platform games.

Honestly, I see not much changing at all. Console games will obviously be heavily optimized for MT/MC, but PC ports probably will not be. It will be the same as the current situation with PC ports.

 

[PPB]

What people seems to miss here is that we are not saying Intel wont benefit from this, it will but to a lesser extent and in the end it will level the playing field between both approaches. Just like what happens at 3D rendering, where multithreading pays off because you know all your resources will be put to use.

Even if you are a blind Intel fanboy and want to keep the denial, understand this: In the end, you will also get rewarded, as this thing of game devs optimizing for multithreading would be the shortest route for you to get a mainstream 6-core solution from your CPU vendor of choice.

So both camps should be happy, both platforms would get more performance and we would finally see intel 6 core Mainstream CPUs. Only competition made intel put his try-hard pants and do both increasing their IPC to really good levels and also bring their first dual core CPU. They didnt conform to this and in a short period of time they also released they 2 core Quads. From then on they have been coasting in that front and in the mainstream market.

I know Intel is comfortable in this position, even the smallest decisions they make tend to point this (even disabling TSX in their K series proccs, a feature pointing towards easier coding for multiple threads, is a signal that shouldnt go unnoticed).

 

[CTA4LC4PON3]

Ill stick with my 4670K. AMD has not shown me anything for along time so until AMD steps up there game Ill never buy an AMD CPU

 

[Carfax83]

Honestly, I see not much changing at all. Console games will obviously be heavily optimized for MT/MC, but PC ports probably will not be. It will be the same as the current situation with PC ports.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one blackened..

These new game engines (Frostbite 3, CryEngine 3, Disrupt, Unreal Engine 4 etcetera) are all inherently designed to be scalable across different platforms, ensuring the titles that use the engines run optimally on each platform whether it's the Xbox 360, PS4 or PC..

So whatever multithreading optimizations are present in the console versions, will also be present in the PC version and vice versa.. The Unreal Engine 4 is rumored to scale all the way up to 16 threads I believe.. I have no idea how many threads the Frostbite 3 engine can handle, but I'm sure it's at least 6, and more likely 8 or more..

Game development will change with the advent of the new consoles, since they are all x86-64 with the exception of the Wii U, which is irrelevant. The PC will become the lead platform on a regular basis, and then games will be downscaled for the consoles because not only is it easier to develop from the top down, but ensures that the PC does not get a sub optimal version.

We see this already with upcoming Ubisoft titles like Watch Dogs and Assassin's Creed IV, where the devs are on record stating that the PC is the lead platform. For Battlefield 4, the PC will also be the lead platform.

Any developer that cannot implement proper multithreading support in their game engines will find it extremely difficult to compete, because multithreading is not only necessary to tap the CPU power of the upcoming consoles, but is also necessary due to naturally increasing game complexity.

Games like Watch Dogs or the Witcher 3 that feature open World gameplay with increased detail and better A.I over last generation's game will naturally require more grunt from the CPU..

 

[frozentundra123456]

Dude, calm down. There is a spectrum of processor capability, even from Intel.

Unless you intend to claim that anything less than a 5GHz delidded OC'ed 4770K is necessary for gaming then you are already acquiescing the point that something less than the absolute best is still going to be adequate.

And in that vein you have to acknowledge that there is a range of processors, from both Intel and AMD, that span the cost spectrum providing compelling performance at any given pricepoint.

If you have something good to say about the performance of a $200 Intel i5 then you have something good to say of a <$200 FX chip.

If you have something good to say about the performance of a $100 Intel i3 then you have something good to say of a $100 APU chip.

AMD and Intel don't come up with these prices out of thin air, they are pretty much bang-on for price/performance.

Well, one could debate if intel and AMD come up with these price points, or if the market does. And I dont think this is debating semantics, but actually addressing the merits of each processor. I am sure AMD would love to sell the FX8350 at 300.00 like an i7 or 500.00 like the 3930k, but that is not what the market sets.

In any case, what is misleading and annoying is when AMD fans post gpu limited benchmarks to say the cpu doesnt matter, without qualifying that the same resullt would not apply in a lot of other scenarios. On top of that, they are not shy about posting any benchmark they can cherry pick that shows an AMD cpu to be faster.

 

[Exophase]

Everyone and his brother will have a quad or even octo core phone in 2 years time.

I very much doubt the octo-core possibility. Right now Apple is still strictly at dual core, Merrifield will be dual-core, and Qualcomm has said outright that octo-core in phones and tablets is stupid.

I think the situation for octo two years out will be more or less the same as it'll be at the end of this year - in big.LITTLE arrangements and with companies like MediaTek slapping a ton of A7s on an SoC to win badly written benchmarks.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It's REAL easy to test if going multi-threaded will help AMD CPU's...just run ARMA2...it can use 8 cores...no need to guess...the data is out there today.

 

[SlickR12345]

What this doesn't say, is that intel chips, at least those with over 4 threads should see a boost as well, though probably not as much as 6-8 core AMD chips just because they need that many threads to perform well. Really, this is good news all around, except for people on less than 4 threads (possibly even less than 4 physical cores).

No we won't. The coding is different for both processors and both require different optimizations. This will only benefit AMD processors, maybe if lucky a tiny bit Intel processors, though I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

 

[StrangerGuy]

No we won't. The coding is different for both processors and both require different optimizations. This will only benefit AMD processors, maybe if lucky a tiny bit Intel processors, though I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

Like I said before the question is not who in the end gets the most absolute FPS or gains the most in proportion but whether AMD PC APUs gains enough real performance (>60 fps) through optimization to nullify Intel's only true stranglehold left in PCs.

 

[Acanthus]

It's REAL easy to test if going multi-threaded will help AMD CPU's...just run ARMA2...it can use 8 cores...no need to guess...the data is out there today.

It is not even close to that simple.

You can have 8 threads on 8 CPUs and still have terrible load balancing.

CPU0 at 100% and CPUs 1-7 at 5%.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It is not even close to that simple.

You can have 8 threads on 8 CPUs and still have terrible load balancing.

CPU0 at 100% and CPUs 1-7 at 5%.

Do you suffer from the delusion that multicore = 100% load on all cores?

 

[Lonbjerg]

Look what I found, a fully multithreaded game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vFfrYoqeviA&t=25

I gues there is no real "advantage" to AMD.

Better luck next time

 

[SPBHM]

It's REAL easy to test if going multi-threaded will help AMD CPU's...just run ARMA2...it can use 8 cores...no need to guess...the data is out there today.

Arma 2 is old, and looks poorly optimized compared to some other bigger budget titles,
also Arma 2 shows almost no gains with more than 3 cores.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Arma 2 is old, and looks poorly optimized compared to some other bigger budget titles,
also Arma 2 shows almost no gains with more than 3 cores.

I just posted ARMA 3 benches, try again.
And you get thi one too:

Do you suffer from the delusion that multicore = 100% load on all cores?

Lon, knock off the inflammatory posting unless you want to go back on vacation.
-ViRGE

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well, utilizing 8 cores does not necessarily make an FX faster than an intel quad, or even a hyperthreaded i3:

Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon.

Scrolling down to cpu benchmarks shows this clearly. Even though all eight cores of the FX are used, it is slower than a 2 generation old i5.

So I think it will be safe to assume that using more cores will help AMD, but I think per core speed will still matter as well, or at least we cant assume AMD will be faster just because a game uses all its cores.

 

[Broheim]

No we won't. The coding is different for both processors and both require different optimizations. This will only benefit AMD processors, maybe if lucky a tiny bit Intel processors, though I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

wrong, the vast majority of optimizations specificly for the APU in the ps4 are going to be done at the compiler level, they most likely aren't going to carry over to the PC because that would make no sense from a cost/benefit perspective.

what we are going to see on the PC side of things is the codebase being optimized for multithreading which will then be carried over from the ps4. this should benefit both AMD and Intel cpus equally (more or less, Intel having bigger and stronger cores means they'll probably see a smaller percentage of gains compared to AMD).

 

[Exophase]

Do you suffer from the delusion that multicore = 100% load on all cores?

The point is, if you have a 100% load on one core and a 10% load on 7 other cores then having 8 cores doesn't help you vs having 4 cores. Because the aggregate load on the other cores doesn't exceed what the lower core count could provide.

 

[PPB]

The point is, if you have a 100% load on one core and a 10% load on 7 other cores then having 8 cores doesn't help you vs having 4 cores. Because the aggregate load on the other cores doesn't exceed what the lower core count could provide.

As you say, the bottleneck happens when any of the individual cores start hitting 100% utilization, regardless of the load in the rest. Arma is a perfect example of a multi - core engine that still runs like crapbecauseof relying on 1 main thread

 

[Exophase]

My example was poor though, I should have said 5% load on 7 other cores ;p Math fail!

 

[frozentundra123456]

Again, in the end this is just another of those speculation threads. I am sure if you load 8 cores at 100 percent vs four of the same cores at 100 percent you should see an improvement. But even though games will be more multhreaded, we dont really know if they will fully utilize 8 piledriver cores, and how they will be ported to 4 faster intel cores or how they will use hyperthreading. So just as in so many other threads, no one really knows, despite projections which obviously cannot be proven because the games dont exist, what will happen. Who even knows what "massive" means? 20%, 50%. 200% ????

 

[0___________0]

That's not a certain outcome. PC ports may not benefit, all of the optimization will go towards multi threading in the console versions which aren't using APIs whatsoever. They're using system specific tools to program directly to hardware; direct to hardware programming by definition removes all API usage - consoles will not be using DirectX, using DX / D3D lowers performance because they are API middleware. Middleware is required on the PC, and not required on console (and not preferable because APIs *always* lower potential performance). Therefore, a PC port will need to have substantial changes to benefit from MT/MC usage.

Therefore, PC ports may still be unoptimized for multi core use. PC ports will still be PC ports, consoles are the primary design consideration during development of multi platform games.

Honestly, I see not much changing at all. Console games will obviously be heavily optimized for MT/MC, but PC ports probably will not be. It will be the same as the current situation with PC ports.

This is completely false. All modern consoles are using an API, the Xbox 360 has D3D and the PS3 has OpenGL ES and the lower level libgcm. They're modified to provide more functionality and you don't have such a costly HAL and drivers to go through. The API's themselves don't impose a massive reduction in performance; and you're going to implement a wrapper anyways. "Coding to the metal" is mostly a hype phrase that gets tossed around now.

The API's really have no bearing on threading. If you design a game around maximizing 6 cores on a console then the PC is going to be running the game with the same level of multi-threading. This is a question of design, not functionality; and developers are certainly going to design for multicore systems now.

There's not going to be any magic happening on AMD CPU's either. Everyone is going to see improvements in performance, it might help hide the weaknesses of Bulldozer, but they won't become the sole choice for gaming. Intel will still have the performance crown, but they're probably still going to charge you a premium for it. AMD makes a good budget gaming CPU with the 6300 and greater CPU's though.

 

[SPBHM]

I just posted ARMA 3 benches, try again.
And you get thi one too:

Do you suffer from the delusion that multicore = 100% load on all cores?

Lon, knock off the inflammatory posting unless you want to go back on vacation.
-ViRGE

I don't care about task manager load graphics,

I have seen plenty of benchmarks and played plenty of Arma 2 to say, the game is mostly using 2 cores, and does not show clear performance improvements with more cores (more than 3), it shows with IPC, clock, cache... whatever.