[techradar] AMD on the PS4: We gave it the hardware Nvidia couldn't

[Cloudfire777]

In Borderlands, you can off-load the physX to the CPU. I am running a low end i5 and a HD7770 and the game runs fine at 1080p, high settings on the graphics and high physX on the cpu.

The physX looks cool, but it doesnt really change the enjoyment of the game for me though.

Thats what they are doing in the review. GPUs are far superior than CPU do to that kind of work

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...and-PhysX-Comparison-GTX-680-and-HD-7970/GPU-

 

[Lonbjerg]

In Borderlands, you can off-load the physX to the CPU. I am running a low end i5 and a HD7770 and the game runs fine at 1080p, high settings on the graphics and high physX on the cpu.

The physX looks cool, but it doesnt really change the enjoyment of the game for me though.

I call shens...you are NOT runnning MAX settings with CPU Physx and having NO slowdowns.

You are skating very close to a lie now.

*CRACK*

 

[NIGELG]

Ahh...the "No true Scotchman" fallacy.

Boring.

Are you such a tool in real life?I don't play those types of games.But apparently you love them because they are supported by your green company.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I call shens...you are NOT runnning MAX settings with CPU Physx and having NO slowdowns.

You are skating very close to a lie now.

*CRACK*

Well, I dont give a rats butt about nVidia vs AMD. Just telling you my experience. Maybe I am mistaken, but I dont think so. Perhaps cpu physX is gimped compared to GPU physX.

 

[3DVagabond]

give yourself a reality check...

the 7850 is easily faster then 60% of steam users

Also, people are ignoring the fact that the APU in the PS4 is going to be a lot faster than discrete cpu+gpu.

 

[notty22]

Microsoft announced that AMD is in the next Xbox
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/04/08/bloomberg-next-xbox-has-x86-amd-chip/
I wanted to like the new xbox more, but I can't find anything in the specs/news to like at this stage.
It's going to not function unless a live internet connection is running. The gpu is weaker and using ddr3, from what I've read. And it's expensive.
Xbox v.Next and Always On(line

 

[SirPauly]

EXACTLY....you play these turds of games simply because they have Nvidia's PhysX,don't you?

To some levels? Absolutely -- get really excited about advanced physics over-all and desire to see the effects first hand instead of extreme blanket views and words based on not trying at all.

Downloaded the Demos for both (Dark Void, Darkest of Days) but decided to buy Dark Void when it was priced at 9.99, based on the genre, rocket pack and flying around with the rocket pack was really neat with 3d stereo. Never did buy Darkest of Days.

Thankfully, there are choices to consider.

 

[Souv]

 

[Souv]

http://tech2.in.com/news/console/ub...eloping-for-ps4-is-a-pleasant-surprise/870100

 

[Cerb]

The physX looks cool, but it doesnt really change the enjoyment of the game for me though.

Which is basically the problem. Some games have used PhysX for physics, but most have it primarily for eye-candy only. In addition, it's been perfectly fast on console CPUs, using Altivec (note that Jaguar has AVX--not quite as good in general, but maybe good enough). Games with non-configurable use of PhysX, because they're doing gameplay-integral physics with it, are the minority, and not what helps give PhysX its bad rep.

Physics can be tightly coupled to other computational needs of the engine, so waiting some 10^5 to 10^7 cycles is just not acceptable. Both previous gen consoles had the same sort of latency issues as our video cards do, even though the XB360 had a unified RAM setup.

The solution to physics is better CPUs, and better usage of them. On PCs, AVX2 holds far more promise than anything over on the GPU. Eventually, the CPU will be a fully heterogeneous device, with SISD and MIMD side by side, sharing an ISA (AVX2 being the first practical step for x86). For now, with GPU and CPU as separate entities, better to improve things on the CPU side, so that the major limits are cache and RAM access only. LLC could be 50 cycles, RAM 100-200 cycles, the GPU 1000+ cycles (much longer to actually push to or pull from GPU RAM, which physics will need to do, and longer if going over PCI-e, though pinning down a particular value would be difficult), and so on, not even counting any software overhead.

If they can do it on the GPU this time around (quite possible, the since the latency for a direct implementation will only be a bit more than that of RAM accesses), and actually benefit from that in some given game (for some games, it will hurt FPS, and the CPU will get used, anyway--8 CMP cores with 128-bit AVX support should not be scoffed at), don't expect that to transfer back to your PC. If it even could, it would only do so for a limited number of AMD APUs. Amdahl's law only works trivially, as described, if all operations, including all data accesses, take the same amount of time, and if youdon't care how long it takes to complete a work unit (see Gunther's Law). If you end up waiting on the other device for longer than is reasonable to set up rendering for a given frame, no amount of GFLOPS is good enough--it could complete the work instantly, from your POV, and still be too slow.

 

[Souv]

Next-Gen Will 'Push Things The PC Is Not Good At' - Crytek



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

 

[Keysplayr]

Link please so that we may have details of the test.

 

[Tweak155]

Next-Gen Will 'Push Things The PC Is Not Good At' - Crytek



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

That guy sounds like a moron. How were the last releases much more powerful than the current PC hardware of the time? If anything they were near equal, with a slight favor towards PC's.

The only thing the last gen had was strong processors. The XBox 360 processor was a beast at the time, but the memory and video card not as much.

 

[2is]

That guy sounds like a moron. How were the last releases much more powerful than the current PC hardware of the time? If anything they were near equal, with a slight favor towards PC's.

The only thing the last gen had was strong processors. The XBox 360 processor was a beast at the time, but the memory and video card not as much.

The 360 GPU was a more powerful gaming device than anything PC at the time of release. He's not the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Tweak155]

The 360 GPU was a more powerful gaming device than anything PC at the time of release. He's not the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I suppose it depends on how much you narrow down the time frame. I'd only agree with this statement for a few months after release.

If it was "so much more powerful" I'd expect at least a year or 2. To me, the timespan was way too short. 512mb ram was already the "standard" (if not more) and the video card releases came shortly after. The CPU was the only thing that held its ground for a good period of time.

 

[2is]

Can you link me where you saw that "so much more powerful" quote?

360 was a more powerful gaming platform at the time of it's release. This is true regardless of how long that advantage was. A week, several months, or a couple years. Calling shenanigans on that statement makes you wrong, not Crytek.

 

[Arkadrel]

Link please so that we may have details of the test.

I googled Borderlands 2 CPU physx, and found where its from.

http://www.techspot.com/review/577-borderlands-2-performance/page5.html

They use a system like this:

• Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition (3.30GHz)
• x4 4GB G.Skill DDR3-1600 (CAS 8-8-8-20)
• Gigabyte G1.Assassin2 (Intel X79)
• OCZ ZX Series 1250w
• Crucial m4 512GB (SATA 6Gb/s)
• Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 64-bit
• Nvidia Forceware 306.23
• AMD Catalyst 12.8

With PhysX set to high, the GTX 680 became 19% slower at 1920x1200, averaging just 60fps instead of 74fps. Surprisingly, the HD 7970 did slightly better dropping 15% from 72fps to 61fps, and as far as we could tell, the PhysX effects looked identical on both brand of cards.

PhysX puts stress on the GPU.
IF the CPU is so powerfull it has resources left doing nothing, putting PhysX on CPU and leaveing the GPU to do its thing (without physX), it can sometimes be faster than doing physX on the GPU (thats already stressed).





Thus you get bench's like this:

You need alot of CPU muscle for it to work well though.

 

[Tweak155]

Can you link me where you saw that "so much more powerful" quote?

360 was a more powerful gaming platform at the time of it's release. This is true regardless of how long that advantage was. A week, several months, or a couple years. Calling shenanigans on that statement makes you wrong, not Crytek.

Perhaps technically I'm wrong, fine. But exaggerating it isn't useful. The console was out over 7 years, it isn't really saying a whole lot when the period of time was relatively small. What you can get out of the console is really what matters.

I think the level of detail they managed to get out of the thing is impressive more so than its release state. It's not mind blowing but when comparing console release titles to current titles, it is obvious the improvement gained.

I think the PS4 is a much better release configuration in comparison.

 

[2is]

I don't disagree with you there, I'm just saying the statement that was made in the article was not an inaccurate one. The article also agrees with the rest of what you're saying, in that even though they aren't as powerful compared to PC's, that they'll bring other features to the table worthy of being "next gen" it's hard to call the guy a moron when the statements he made were accurate and his assessment of next gen consoles are similar to your own.

 

[Tweak155]

I don't disagree with you there, I'm just saying the statement that was made in the article was not an inaccurate one. The article also agrees with the rest of what you're saying, in that even though they aren't as powerful compared to PC's, that they'll bring other features to the table worthy of being "next gen" it's hard to call the guy a moron when the statements he made were accurate and his assessment of next gen consoles are similar to your own.

I just don't like people who exaggerate things I guess. It's what my wife does

 

[blackened23]

I just don't like people who exaggerate things I guess. It's what my wife does

The statement was this, which wasn't an exaggeration:

The 360 GPU was a more powerful gaming device than anything PC at the time of release.

That's actually factual because the 360 GPU was more powerful and had a unified shader architecture prior to any PC GPU, and this remained the case for nearly a year. Nobody added longevity to the equation which is what you're doing. The other point to consider is that consoles do not deal with a directX layer which adds all kinds of latency on the PC - but in late 2006 the PC did catch up and exceed the 360 with it's own unified shader GPUs. So eventually the PC brute forced it's way past the 360, which generally happens in a console's lifespan.

With the upcoming generation, the PC has more brute force power if you have a high end GPU but I don't think the PS4 will be a slouch. At roughly 1900Gflops, that is between 660ti/670 level - and has the benefits of API-less programming. We'll see how it plays out, I suppose. I think it'll be a cool piece of tech, I enjoy both consoles and PCs.

 

[Tweak155]

The statement was this, which wasn't an exaggeration:



That's actually factual because the 360 GPU was more powerful and had a unified shader architecture prior to any PC GPU, and this remained the case for nearly a year. Nobody added longevity to the equation which is what you're doing. The other point to consider is that consoles do not deal with a directX layer which adds all kinds of latency on the PC - but in late 2006 the PC did catch up and exceed the 360 with it's own unified shader GPUs. So eventually the PC brute forced it's way past the 360, which generally happens in a console's lifespan.

With the upcoming generation, the PC has more brute force power if you have a high end GPU but I don't think the PS4 will be a slouch. At roughly 1900Gflops, that is between 660ti/670 level - and has the benefits of API-less programming. We'll see how it plays out, I suppose. I think it'll be a cool piece of tech, I enjoy both consoles and PCs.

I already conceded it was factual. I just don't see why it even needs to be mentioned. Is this guy promoting ms? It doesn't appear so. Just talk up the ps4 IMO.

 

[2is]

I already conceded it was factual. I just don't see why it even needs to be mentioned. Is this guy promoting ms? It doesn't appear so. Just talk up the ps4 IMO.

First you claimed BS in the statement. Wrong
2nd you claimed exaggeration. Wrong

Now you are wondering why it was mentioned... Did you even read the article? It was pretty clear that the point he was making is that in spite of these consoles shipping with less power compared to PCs than last gen, they will have other features that will seperate them from PCs even though they don't have the comparative power.

You really have no bases for any of your arguments in this thread.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

BL2 is still 2.x, 3.x could be a different story.

 

[Tweak155]

First you claimed BS in the statement. Wrong
2nd you claimed exaggeration. Wrong

Now you are wondering why it was mentioned... Did you even read the article? It was pretty clear that the point he was making is that in spite of these consoles shipping with less power compared to PCs than last gen, they will have other features that will seperate them from PCs even though they don't have the comparative power.

You really have no bases for any of your arguments in this thread.

I'm not really arguing I guess. I can't logically explain what I'm thinking in this case lol. It's more wonder than anything.

I'm generally a very logical guy, I just don't like the approach I guess.

I'm turning into a female.