• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

escrow4 said:
http://techreport.com/news/27168/assassin-creed-unity-is-too-much-for-console-cpus

Great idea to pack 8 atom equivalent cores for "next-gen"!

"According to Pontbriand, Unity is more bottlenecked by the CPU, which "has to process the AI, the number of NPCs we have on screen, all these systems running in parallel."
Click to expand...

these cores, even though they are clocked low, still outperform their predecessors. The cpu performance was a scapegoat to hide the fact that they are designing or made a deal for parity. CPU bottleneck doesn't affect resolution that much, maybe the framerate.
 
monstercameron said:
these cores, even though they are clocked low, still outperform their predecessors. The cpu performance was a scapegoat to hide the fact that they are designing or made a deal for parity. CPU bottleneck doesn't affect resolution that much, maybe the framerate.
Click to expand...

Outperform yes, except it isn't enough. Think of the all the CPU calculations you could make a PC only AC do, all the NPCs, all the options, all the trimmings, now even though its next gen and PC only 8 slow cores simply can't cut it.
 
escrow4 said:
Outperform yes, except it isn't enough. Think of the all the CPU calculations you could make a PC only AC do, all the NPCs, all the options, all the trimmings, now even though its next gen and PC only 8 slow cores simply can't cut it.
Click to expand...

We've all seen dev do alot with so few resources. What makes you think the cores can't cut it? what is enough? where does it end?

I don't believe the cpus are too slow, I believe they can't optimize their designs to the specifics of the consoles. This is just clever marketing and a way to shift the blame from their lack of innovation to a lack of performance.

Ai especially can be shifted to compute on the gpu, I am just to ignorant on how ai would affect the resolution to the point where they couldnt hit 1080p30 instead of 900p30.
 
They better upgrade their GameEngine first, if the new AC Unity has the same low CPU utilization/scalability as AC Freedom Cry, it is no wonder they cry for more CPU performance.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-freedom-cry-test-gpu.htm

http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Freedom_Cry_-test-ac_fc_intel.jpg


http--www.gamegpu.ru-images-stories-Test_GPU-Action-Assassins_Creed_Freedom_Cry_-test-ac_fc_amd.jpg
 
^and that explains why Xbone runs everything slower than ps4 despite 10% increased CPU speed, not.
SoM doesn't need that much CPU horsepower. Remember that with the CPU utilization you posted, the game runs around 150-200fps

While AC runs sub 60 fps on anything.
You know something is wrong when 6C 12T i7 is slower than 4C4T i5
I don't see any reason why this game would need more CPU than any other game.
 
ShintaiDK said:
You make it sound like other console ports just run better.
Click to expand...

Havent seen others complaining about the CPU performance. Not to mention Middle-earth : Shadow of Mordor runs at 1080p 30fps on both PS4 and XBone.

ShintaiDK said:
The weak console CPUs is a massive problem. Now we know why MS worked so hard to get a speedbump atleast before release.
Click to expand...

Then why SONY's PS4 CPU is at 1.6GHz ??? 🙄
 
ShintaiDK said:
Sony added more focus on the GPU.
Click to expand...

So then, it is not CPU performance after all 🙄

ShintaiDK said:
And more devs have complained. Like the Project Cars devs.
http://gamingbolt.com/project-cars-...splitting-renderer-across-threads-challenging
Click to expand...

The only thing he said was about single thread performance, but in the same interview he said they managed to split the work load to 4 cores. So again, CPU performance is not the problem, developers need to optimize their games to work with more cores in parallel.

“The bottlenecks are mainly in command list building – we now have this split-up of up to four cores in parallel. There are still some bottlenecks to work out with memory flushing to garlic, even after changing to LCUE, the memory copying is still significant.”
Click to expand...
So they spend some time to optimize their engine so it could use 4 cores instead of one, no CPU bottleneck after that optimization 😉
 
Why dont you link all the devs that celebrate the 6-8 weak cores? We have examples of devs complaining about they are too slow. So it would be nice if you can list those that think its the opposite.

And spending time to optimize for slow=more money, more time and more work. I am sure everyone loves that as well.
 
Last edited:
monstercameron said:
why dont you cite other sources of devs downplaying the cpus?
Click to expand...

There are already 2 examples now. 0 the other way. Cant be that hard to find devs cheering about the great CPU power can it? I mean obviously its more than enough when reading this thread.

Games surely isnt limited to 30fps and lowered/removed physics and AI due to low CPU power...
 
ShintaiDK said:
There are already 2 examples now. 0 the other way. Cant be that hard to find devs cheering about the great CPU power can it? I mean obviously its more than enough when reading this thread.

Games surely isnt limited to 30fps and lowered/removed physics and AI due to low CPU power...
Click to expand...

fair enough, i'll spare the 1st party dev sources and link to a eurogamer metro redux interview
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...its-really-like-to-make-a-multi-platform-game
this is what devs do, they optimize for the hardware given.

also why would physics be limited when gpu physics have been around for so long. also gpgpu ai is also a thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKOElcRtIvU
 
ShintaiDK said:
And spending time to optimize for slow=more money, more time and more work. I am sure everyone loves that as well.
Click to expand...

Spending time to optimize for multi-core enables you to add more to your game making it even better. It is a win win for the developer, hardware is going forward so have the devs as well.
 
AtenRa said:
Spending time to optimize for multi-core enables you to add more to your game making it even better. It is a win win for the developer, hardware is going forward so have the devs as well.
Click to expand...

Well, if the CPUs are so weak that game developers just bypass trying to get anything running on them and just prioritize GPU, no one including PC users won't get much CPU benefit out of this generation.
 
CakeMonster said:
Well, if the CPUs are so weak that game developers just bypass trying to get anything running on them and just prioritize GPU, no one including PC users won't get much CPU benefit out of this generation.
Click to expand...

You cannot bypass the CPU completely, there are things the GPU alone cannot do. And it was already illustrated a few post above, Devs are forced to optimize their Game Engines for Multi-Core rather than Single thread performance. That way PC gamers are benefited as well not only in performance but newer games will have better and more content (better AI, more units on the screen, higher level of physics etc)
 
AtenRa said:
You cannot bypass the CPU completely, there are things the GPU alone cannot do. And it was already illustrated a few post above, Devs are forced to optimize their Game Engines for Multi-Core rather than Single thread performance. That way PC gamers are benefited as well not only in performance but newer games will have better and more content (better AI, more units on the screen, higher level of physics etc)
Click to expand...

You cant just optimzie for more cores without a penalty. Also the cores are so weak we talk something compareable to a dualcore in PC terms.

Better AI? More Units? Higher level fo physics?

You do know thats exactly what the devs are cutting on the consoles now because the CPU is too weak.
 
monstercameron said:
fair enough, i'll spare the 1st party dev sources and link to a eurogamer metro redux interview
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...its-really-like-to-make-a-multi-platform-game
this is what devs do, they optimize for the hardware given.
Click to expand...

Ubisoft is doing the exact same thing. That doesnt mean they are happy about it.

Well, CPU performance has essentially stalled due to various factors - economics being one of them. I'd say that PC game-makers should target console CPUs.
Click to expand...

So what he says it, lower the CPU demand in games so it can run on weak consoles.
 
ShintaiDK said:
You cant just optimzie for more cores without a penalty.
Click to expand...

And what penalty is that ??

ShintaiDK said:
Also the cores are so weak we talk something compareable to a dualcore in PC terms.
Click to expand...

CPU performance with 8x 1.6GHz cores is way higher in MT loads than any dual core. When the software can leverage the performance of those 8x cores the performance is way higher than dual core CPUs even at high frequencies.
Not to mention you have way lower power usage with 8x 1.6GHz cores than High performance Dual Core at 4-5GHz. 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+.

Example, C2750 (20W TDP) vs Core i3 4330 (55W TDP)

63000.png


Or Cinebench, it takes a 4.8GHz G3258 to overcome the 8x C2750 ATOM.

index.php


cb166dkr.jpg


ShintaiDK said:
Better AI? More Units? Higher level fo physics?

You do know thats exactly what the devs are cutting on the consoles now because the CPU is too weak.
Click to expand...

Links ???
 
AtenRa said:
Or Cinebench, it takes a 4.8GHz G3258 to overcome the 8x C2750 ATOM.
Click to expand...

Sadly not every job is as parallel (and almost free of inter dependencies) as rendering or ray tracing. Those always have been super parallel.

Running real stuff, even with nominally paralellizable algorithms is going to incur overhead and sadly the less powerful the cores, the bigger overhead fraction becomes ( cause some stuff like getting data into caches, synchronization, extra copies etc have fixed cost).

One can't have too much CPU power and it is really disappointing that consoles are rather weak in this department.
 
The days of engines made for single cores is just over. With Mantle, DX12 and the new consoles the demands for programming have changed. There is ways to do it, its proven each day on the market, and we have been over it. Those companies that adapt and learn will survive - the rest will die.

Besides that; comparing the Jaguar core to the Atom for consoles is pathetic crying. Apart from the 15% advantage of IPC the FPU is simply another league. Use that if eg. using the GPU is to difficult.

Its about time the PS3 single core is gone - keeping development of all games stagnating and giving us bad ports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top