[Techspot]- AC:Unity "too much" for console CPUs

[ShintaiDK]

Take a look at Intel Haswell Pentium G3258 vs Intel 8x Core ATOM C2750. C2750 is always faster in MT loads even when you OC the G3258 to 4GHz+.

Hold on there. The C2750 is quite faster than the console CPUs in those tests. 2.4Ghz base, 2.6Ghz turbo.

And Z3770 for example already runaway from a 1.5Ghz Kabini.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7314/intel-baytrail-preview-intel-atom-z3770-tested/2

And again, you use examples with more or less perfect scaling. And remember, only 6 cores are avalible for games, not 8.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Please, someone remember this thread when AC5 is announced and the devs talk about the AI improvements, how much more is going on on-screen compared to AC4, etc.

 

[witeken]

@krumme
PS3 isn't single core. And I don't think anyone is saying games should be single core. You can't even buy a single core CPU. However, 4 faster cores a simply preferable to 8 slower ones for a lot of things, certainly if those 8 ones have not only a low IPC but also a low clock speed.

 

[Enigmoid]

Hold on there. The C2750 is quite faster than the console CPUs in those tests. 2.4Ghz base, 2.6Ghz turbo.

And Z3770 for example already runaway from a 1.5Ghz Kabini.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7314/intel-baytrail-preview-intel-atom-z3770-tested/2

And again, you use examples with more or less perfect scaling. And remember, only 6 cores are avalible for games, not 8.

This.

For people saying that this is only a matter of reprograming lets look at the problem again.

Consoles have 6 cores available running at (PS4) 1.6 ghz = 9.6 jaguar units of power.

Compare that to the 5350 with 4 cores at 2.05 = 8.2 jaguar units. The console's CPU in terms of max throughput is about 17% faster for the PS4 and 28% faster for the XBone.

How does the 5350 do in well threaded games? Pretty terribly, so much so that 30- 40 fps is all that can be achieved in even well threaded games.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1223

Its not inconceivable that even with well threaded games the CPU is a tremendous limitation. While Mantle and the low level access can help with draw calls, they do nothing for AI calculations. For games heavy on the AI the CPU will hold things back on the consoles.

I'm not saying that their coding isn't terrible but don't expect much from AI in games for the next few years.

 

[NTMBK]

PS3 isn't single core.

I would certainly view it as single core. It has one general purpose PowerPC core, and multiple accelerators/coprocessors which do not have direct access to main memory, and which run a severely restricted instruction set.

In terms of engine design, you would view it as a single CPU (with SMT) running the engine, with certain tasks offloaded to the SPUs much in the same way you would offload tasks to the GPGPU on the PS4.

 

[krumme]

@krumme
PS3 isn't single core. And I don't think anyone is saying games should be single core. You can't even buy a single core CPU. However, 4 faster cores a simply preferable to 8 slower ones for a lot of things, certainly if those 8 ones have not only a low IPC but also a low clock speed.

PS3 have a mother core responsible for managing the host of small coprocessors. That main processor is handling the story line. In this context - programming - its better viewed as a single core.

The story from Ubisoft is pathetic. That company is just reciewing money from NV among others and have not been able to earn their own money in the last years. Now they just get used by others.

This is just PR spin all the way. MS and Sony is not idiots and we get great games each day. They have chosen a solution. The multicore is here to stay. For some reason some people is adverse to it (AMD obsession sickness or what?).

What do people think is advancing gameplay? - more ipc? - its the most expensive solution to get the performance. And it have stopped. We needed a change to move forward, and thankfully we got it. Now we get mantle and dx12. Great. Until we hit 16 cores or so, and its impossible to sqeeze more out of it, we should all just be happy because we all get better gaming from that development. Then something new is needed.

 

[krumme]

Its not inconceivable that even with well threaded games the CPU is a tremendous limitation. While Mantle and the low level access can help with draw calls, they do nothing for AI calculations. For games heavy on the AI the CPU will hold things back on the consoles.

I'm not saying that their coding isn't terrible but don't expect much from AI in games for the next few years.

Nonsense. Then GPU power is a limitation also. Its a low cost solution all over and meant to be so from day 1 contrary to prior console generations where eg. Sony lost money. Its not a gpu monster either. Its a one chip solution from day one. Impressive. Its profit from the go.

And the use of 6 cores for game reserving the rest for Facebook whatever, just shows the need for several cores - in those multimedia types of machines.

The gpu in the consoles is capable of doing so much more than before. So for eg. AI we can se lots of development. It demands some new programming. And it takes time and cost, but the change needs to happen. The decision is made, and from carefull analysis.

 

[Enigmoid]

Nonsense. Then GPU power is a limitation also. Its a low cost solution all over and meant to be so from day 1 contrary to prior console generations where eg. Sony lost money. Its not a gpu monster either. Its a one chip solution from day one. Impressive. Its profit from the go.

And the use of 6 cores for game reserving the rest for Facebook whatever, just shows the need for several cores - in those multimedia types of machines.

The gpu in the consoles is capable of doing so much more than before. So for eg. AI we can se lots of development. It demands some new programming. And it takes time and cost, but the change needs to happen. The decision is made, and from carefull analysis.

AI code tends to be complex and branchy, not too nice for a GPU architecture. Furthermore you lose GPU resources when you start running code on the GPU. Furthermore, AI code cannot be ported entirely to the GPU, some part will remain with the program threads on the CPU.

Sure its a low cost solution and its the best they could do under the constraints but that doesn't mean that it is ideal.

What you are saying can be done but it will take time and money. But still the fact remains that the console CPU is about 20% faster than a 5350 and is one slow CPU.

 

[AtenRa]

This.

For people saying that this is only a matter of reprograming lets look at the problem again.

Consoles have 6 cores available running at (PS4) 1.6 ghz = 9.6 jaguar units of power.

Compare that to the 5350 with 4 cores at 2.05 = 8.2 jaguar units. The console's CPU in terms of max throughput is about 17% faster for the PS4 and 28% faster for the XBone.

How does the 5350 do in well threaded games? Pretty terribly, so much so that 30- 40 fps is all that can be achieved in even well threaded games.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1223

Its not inconceivable that even with well threaded games the CPU is a tremendous limitation. While Mantle and the low level access can help with draw calls, they do nothing for AI calculations. For games heavy on the AI the CPU will hold things back on the consoles.

I'm not saying that their coding isn't terrible but don't expect much from AI in games for the next few years.

Comparing the Athlon 5350 + dGPU to Console SoC is apples to oranges. Kabini is severely bottlenecked from memory bandwidth and all the way from CPU to dGPU communication Bandwidth (only 4x PCIe lanes).
PS4/XBone have more memory bandwidth and direct high bandwidth CPU to iGPU communication. The comparison is not possible and anyone making it will draw wrong conclusions.

ps: not to mention you need higher CPU resources to run Windows with driver/api overhead something missing or extremely lower in Consoles.

 

[mrmt]

The gpu in the consoles is capable of doing so much more than before. So for eg. AI we can se lots of development. It demands some new programming. And it takes time and cost, but the change needs to happen. The decision is made, and from carefull analysis.

Using a more powerful core doesn't exclude using many cores on a given chip. I think that the real problem, as you stated in the first place, is that the console chips of current generation are designed to be very low cost solutions. Time, Costs, Scope, pick two and send the other to the sacrificial chamber, and this time it was Scope.

 

[Sweepr]

And again, you use examples with more or less perfect scaling. And remember, only 6 cores are avalible for games, not 8.

Yup. They basically have 60-75% more CPU performance than the old quad-core 1.5GHz A4 5000 chips powering netbooks/cheap notebooks available for games. No wonder why some devs are already complaining.

 

[NTMBK]

I think that the real problem, as you stated in the first place, is that the console chips of current generation are designed to be very low cost solutions.

It's not just cost, it's power consumption. Sure, AMD could have slapped in a pair of Piledriver modules instead of the Jaguar cores, or clocked those Jaguar cores at >2GHz- but either of those options would have eaten into the power consumption budget, resulting in a less powerful GPU. After the disaster of the Xbox 360's Red Ring of Death both console vendors are taking heat very seriously. Just check out how big the XBox One heatsink is. Both consoles had a strict thermal budget to stick to, which had to be divided appropriately between CPU and GPU. Evidently both MS and Sony felt that they should devote the majority of that thermal budget to the GPU.

By the way, it's not just consoles who have to make this tradeoff- mini PCs do the same, too. In the same chassis with the same cooling Zotac will offer you either a 2.5GHz quad core with tiny integrated graphics, or a 1.6GHz dual core paired with a powerful NVidia GPU. If you are building a machine meant to play games, which would you choose?

 

[krumme]

Using a more powerful core doesn't exclude using many cores on a given chip. I think that the real problem, as you stated in the first place, is that the console chips of current generation are designed to be very low cost solutions. Time, Costs, Scope, pick two and send the other to the sacrificial chamber, and this time it was Scope.

So what?
The alternative was no console at all, or a beefed up ps3 solution. As PC gamers the current solution is ideal as with Mantle and DX12 plus an x86 console we will get far better game development. There is tons of synergy here. Its a far superior solution that prior consoles. We all benefit.

As for this weak cpu talk, we have seen nothing proving the cpu should be a bigger limitation than the GPU. I might be. It might not be. Who cares - the bashing on the cores is old style pc nerd approach - like an 3770 type of solution could even be used. Jaguar and CGN 7850 was developed, and ready to use. That translate into lower cost.

And as for the CPU, if anything the beefed up FPU of jaguar compared to bobcat is probably because this cpu was meant from day one to compete for the consoles, as the need for the strong fpu is far less on the pc side. People tend to forget the fpu is actually pretty potent but the bm we have seen eg. here on Anandtech does not show that part very much.

 

[krumme]

Who remember the "Amd only get the console win because its low profit" ?

Here we get the same bs pr. I dont think anyone here thinks AMD big core/APU is what keeps AMD afloat. Its a big los all over. If anything the consoles have proven to be the single one, most important factor in earning any sizable profit to AMD. That stand as a fact today. Anyone saying different, needs to explain to me where AMD gets their money and profit otherwise.

All the usual NV PR - or NV financed, as this clearly is - need to be put to rest. The console solution have proven itself big time. Through Mantle, we are even going to se DX12.

 

[mrmt]

The alternative was no console at all, or a beefed up ps3 solution. As PC gamers the current solution is ideal as with Mantle and DX12 plus an x86 console we will get far better game development. There is tons of synergy here. Its a far superior solution that prior consoles. We all benefit.

The alternative would be a far more PC-like solution, an Intel processor coupled with AMD or Nvidia GPU. That solution wouldn't have more thermal issues than current solutions, but would probably cost far more than current solutions. As I said before, I really doubt that any other player would have agreed with the commercial conditions AMD agreed. AMD was cash strapped, needing high volumes for the WSA and had the right IP. It was the perfect moment for both console players to pursue a deal with AMD.

 

[Gikaseixas]

I thought AMD haters butt hurt was long healed but it just takes one troll thread to get them going hahahahahaha. You guys can't forget that game devs always complain and try to blame the hardware so they can justify delays and poor performance of their products.
It's easy to say it's the CPU's fault but they got a great jump from PS3/Xbox 360 to where they're today. A jump that in my book will serve them well for the next couple of years.

 

[NTMBK]

The alternative would be a far more PC-like solution, an Intel processor coupled with AMD or Nvidia GPU. That solution wouldn't have more thermal issues than current solutions, but would probably cost far more than current solutions. As I said before, I really doubt that any other player would have agreed with the commercial conditions AMD agreed.

A discrete GPU and CPU means going back to a split memory model with higher costs for communication between GPU and CPU. An integrated design offers a lot of theoretical performance benefits, which console games will no doubt exploit in the years to come.

The real alternative would have been an APU from either NVidia or Intel- but 64 bit ARM cores weren't ready in time for this generation, which knocked Nvidia out of the running, and Intel GPU tech isn't that competitive compared to NVidia or Intel.

 

[krumme]

The alternative would be a far more PC-like solution, an Intel processor coupled with AMD or Nvidia GPU. That solution wouldn't have more thermal issues than current solutions, but would probably cost far more than current solutions. As I said before, I really doubt that any other player would have agreed with the commercial conditions AMD agreed.

More pc like? - we now have a solution that is basically a PC, unlike before? - what do you mean? - should it run windows instead of some far out iteration of Linux?

And an Intel processor - as a 150usd 22nm fin fet 3770 or what? And the console should be 200 usd more expensive. Why do you propose such nonsense? - As you wrote yourself it would be far more expensive. Thats the same as no console. So what is the meaning of writing it? - it just unrealistic. And its not happening. Perhaps a future Atom, who knows.

All this just sounds as a pain in the ass because the solution caries the wrong label.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Nonsense. Then GPU power is a limitation also. Its a low cost solution all over and meant to be so from day 1 contrary to prior console generations where eg. Sony lost money. Its not a gpu monster either. Its a one chip solution from day one. Impressive. Its profit from the go.

Yet Sony already lost big money on PS4. Remember, the BOM cost doesnt include everything.

 

[krumme]

A discrete GPU and CPU means going back to a split memory model with higher costs for communication between GPU and CPU. An integrated design offers a lot of theoretical performance benefits, which console games will no doubt exploit in the years to come.

The real alternative would have been an APU from either NVidia or Intel- but 64 bit ARM cores weren't ready in time for this generation, which knocked Nvidia out of the running, and Intel GPU tech isn't that competitive compared to NVidia or Intel.

As a PC gamer, i am happy the way it went. The alternative is as you said an ARM core, and that would not bring consoles and PC so close as they are now.

As for the future - from a perspective as a pc gamer - i hope it stays on x86 - but it guess its going to be a tough fight with the ARM solution.

 

[mrmt]

More pc like? - we now have a solution that is basically a PC, unlike before? - what do you mean? - should it run windows instead of some far out iteration of Linux?

Gaming PCs are usually two chip solutions, that's why I said PC-like. A more expensive solutions would not necessarily yield a more expensive consoles to consumers, as the PS3 and XB360 showed us, but it could force Sony and MSFT to swallow a bigger BoM on the market.

I don't think the problem is with the wrong label, AMD itself had IP to generate a much better solution than the current solutions.

 

[krumme]

Gaming PCs are usually two chip solutions, that's why I said PC-like. A more expensive solutions would not necessarily yield a more expensive consoles to consumers, as the PS3 and XB360 showed us, but it could force Sony and MSFT to swallow a bigger BoM on the market.

The pc solutions - as two separate devices - we have on the market, as shown prior in this thread, is far more expensive.

But why should it be two chip. Its a huge waste of ressources? and for that reason its not comming back. Next solution is surely the same one chip as this one.

And no, more expensive to build - will not mean Sony will swallow more BoM. I think thats perfectly clear from their prior loss. Its absolutely not an option, its this or Sony would go down the drain. Its pretty obvious from the financial loses.

Secondly, i will have to question wether for the future of gaming this - Swallowing of Bom - is actually a viable path if it was even possible. It doesnt sound as a sound principle in my book for having long term business with a success - and i think you have the same opinion

 

[geoxile]

We're talking about Ubisoft... They had a hard time getting a piece of crap like Watch Dogs running on high end PCs and maliciously gimped the PC version

 

[krumme]

We are also talking a company that
"will also receive a $9.9 million investment from the Quebec government to bolster its operations, on top of adjustments to its tax credits."
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...on_Quebec_operations_with_370M_investment.php

What a great company.

Tax payers money is funding shitty engines.

 

[krumme]

Someone should tell Quebec government they are using Tax payers money to monopolize the market.
That is going to count as the most idiotic use of Tax payers money ever. Hardly the intention - but thats what often comes from programs like that.
So in normal situation a half broken company like Ubisoft, that cant write competitive engines, would go bankrupt. Instead tax payers money now supplied with incentive program from NV marketing, is used to monopolize the market.
Well you can say this exercise gives some jobs, buts its hardly a long term solution for development.