• 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.

Will new consoles benefit AMD?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Accord99 said:
Doubt it, even with 8 cores, Jaguar doesn't have more throughput than an i3. Any CPU workload that trouble an i5 would basically make the game unplayable on a console.
Click to expand...

You better not mention these lame comparison, Sony and Microsoft have chosen 8 Core Jaguar CPU with very good prise/performanse or performanse per watt reason.:biggrin:

Jaguar CPU has approximately the same IPC as the old Phenom II, but today most importantly is this comparison Buldozer vs Jaguar CPU power consumption.

- Jaguar CPU 2ghz Quad Core

vs

- Bulldozer 2ghz two Modules or 4 Cores

Jaguar CPU has roughly the same CPU performance as Bulldozer, but 50% less power consumption and that is most important.😎
 
Setting aside Jaguar --> FX, don't you think that will all of AMD's new Gaming Evolved pickups they will not be working with developers to make FX preform better? I think that with 8 threads to work with on the console and all the money AMD is suddenly spending on developers that would be stupid to only be providing graphical optimizations.
 
Interesting views about how long it would take for games to be optimized for 8 cores. If that is true PD may not be a good investment for the short term.
 
It will probably perform "better" on AMD systems because even tho both use X86, AMD still does things different in some way or another than an Intel core. And developers will surely optimize for that.

Some developers will optimize as much as they can on a given hardware.

Which is pretty much the point when working on "static" hardware.
 
MightyMalus said:
It will probably perform "better" on AMD systems because even tho both use X86, AMD still does things different in some way or another than an Intel core. And developers will surely optimize for that.

Some developers will optimize as much as they can on a given hardware.

Which is pretty much the point when working on "static" hardware.
Click to expand...

But they will optimize for Jaguar cores, which are very different from Piledriver cores.
 
NTMBK said:
But they will optimize for Jaguar cores, which are very different from Piledriver cores.
Click to expand...

True.

Which makes me wonder if future APU's on the desktop will keep using non-cat cores.

Personally I think AMD should focus on the catcores for APU's. More so now with the console wins. Think about it, even if the PS3 and 360 market were cut in half. Almost 80 million people will be using a Jaguar based system. And that's if the market "crashes" by 50%.
 
Is it known were the console APUs are manufactured? Meaning GF or TSMC?

So IMHO they must make these Console APUs at GF and hence since console have large volume AMD can fulfill the WSA and hence the biggest thing for AMD is not having to pay GF for getting nothing in return. So AMD could actually sell these APUs at 0 margin and still make money...
 
Montosaurous said:
With the new consoles using 8 core AMD CPUs, do you think games will be better optimized for AMD FX 8xxx than the i5?
Click to expand...

Yes as others have noted in this thread.

You must like to read this article where this issue is discussed, below I add some relevant quotes.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

We approached a number of developers on and off the record - each of whom has helped to ship multi-million-selling, triple-A titles - asking them whether an Intel or AMD processor offers the best way to future-proof a games PC built in the here and now. Bearing in mind the historical dominance Intel has enjoyed, the results are intriguing - all of them opted for the FX-8350 over the current default enthusiast's choice, the Core i5 3570K.
Click to expand...

I'd go for the FX-8350, for two reasons. Firstly, it's the same hardware vendor as PS4 and there are always some compatibility issues that devs will have to work around (particularly in SIMD coding), potentially leading to an inferior implementation on other systems - not very likely a big problem in practice though
Click to expand...

This (Sony) approach of more cores, lower clock, but out-of-order execution will alter the game engine design to be more parallel. If games want to get the most from the chips then they have to go 'wide'... they cannot rely on a powerful single-threaded CPU to run the game as first-gen PS3 and Xbox 360 games did
Click to expand...
 
Sleepingforest said:
Straight-to-metal is pretty difficult and expensive (it's part of the reason why recent EOL console games have ballooning budgets), so probably special drivers.
Click to expand...

Yes, but its something to think about. Especially since MS is running the kernels as VMs. I wonder if that will help extract more performance.
 
Accord99 said:
Doubt it, even with 8 cores, Jaguar doesn't have more throughput than an i3. Any CPU workload that trouble an i5 would basically make the game unplayable on a console.
Click to expand...
That's why the developers will use the iGPU for general computing. 😉
 
Developers may optimize for AMD, especially if they dump enough money their way. OTOH, it is not as if an xbox or ps4 game will run directly on a pc.

When the game is ported to pc, developers will also have to consider the vast majority of the market is running intel cpus, so I would expect they would also include some adaptations to running on faster but fewer cores.
 
Phynaz said:
Jaguar isn't an FX chip. Optimizing for Jaguar doesn't mean you have optimized for anything other than Jaguar.
Click to expand...

But I think your being to strict on what is being asked.

The major point is that there is a difference between how games are developed for multiprocessors now and how a game will be developed for the new systems. Now with them using X86 cores, the ports should translate better to a Windows PC. Considering how "slow" each jag core is going to be, developers are going to have to work harder on splitting the work between the 8 cores. For the consoles that means a lot of optimization which you are correct it will only help other jag CPU's (really only the PS4 meaning they can share a lot of development work). But once they port the game over to PC, right of the bat the code will be extremely parallel. You would think that it would benefit CPU's with lots of cores IE BD/PD.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
Developers may optimize for AMD, especially if they dump enough money their way. OTOH, it is not as if an xbox or ps4 game will run directly on a pc.

When the game is ported to pc, developers will also have to consider the vast majority of the market is running intel cpus, so I would expect they would also include some adaptations to running on faster but fewer cores.
Click to expand...
Yep. You're right.
But, if a game will use one or more unigue function on the new consoles, than the PC port will limited in some way. I heard that the new EA Sports engine works great on the new consoles, but not on PC. Luckily the developers will create PC ports, but with limited functionality.
 
MightyMalus said:
True.

Which makes me wonder if future APU's on the desktop will keep using non-cat cores.

Personally I think AMD should focus on the catcores for APU's. More so now with the console wins. Think about it, even if the PS3 and 360 market were cut in half. Almost 80 million people will be using a Jaguar based system. And that's if the market "crashes" by 50%.
Click to expand...

The catcores as you call them don't really have enough CPU performance for desktop applications though. They are suited for low power mobile use. They can get away with them in consoles because it is a very specialized device that doesn't have to run windows or do any CPU heavy apps.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
The catcores as you call them don't really have enough CPU performance for desktop applications though. They are suited for low power mobile use. They can get away with them in consoles because it is a very specialized device that doesn't have to run windows or do any CPU heavy apps.
Click to expand...
isnt that why they are also betting on OCL, if their cat cores and the graphics cores can work together, isn't that the best case scenario?
 
Phynaz said:
Jaguar isn't an FX chip. Optimizing for Jaguar doesn't mean you have optimized for anything other than Jaguar.
Click to expand...

In terms of low level instruction ordering, cache utilisation etc, yes. But the high level architectural (in the software sense) decisions needed to make an engine run well on 8 threads will carry over to other 8 thread chips.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
The catcores as you call them don't really have enough CPU performance for desktop applications though. They are suited for low power mobile use. They can get away with them in consoles because it is a very specialized device that doesn't have to run windows or do any CPU heavy apps.
Click to expand...

Meh, I'm using a C60 netbook (1GHz Bobcat) as my personal laptop right now, and you know what? It's perfectly usable. I surf the web, write emails, listen to music, watch videos, and I don't have any issues with it. It's enough CPU performance for day to day use, though not for playing modern games or hardcore productivity. The main limitation for me is the godawful 1024x600 screen.
 
NTMBK said:
Meh, I'm using a C60 netbook (1GHz Bobcat) as my personal laptop right now, and you know what? It's perfectly usable. I surf the web, write emails, listen to music, watch videos, and I don't have any issues with it. It's enough CPU performance for day to day use, though not for playing modern games or hardcore productivity. The main limitation for me is the godawful 1024x600 screen.
Click to expand...
my model has the c-50 with a 720p screen(windows 8 is a bust without some hax) and a few games run quite well...

max payne 2 maxed out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMjopTSVjXs

resident evil revelations(low, vga res)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq8eS59BkM8
 
Last edited:
Jaguar might be "slow", yet both systems have much more total power than the ones being replaced. And that's what matters.

frozentundra123456 said:
The catcores as you call them don't really have enough CPU performance for desktop applications though.
Click to expand...

There are quad cores @ 1.0Ghz running Windows 8.
They won't rock the world, but they are more than enough for everything else and the great majority of people. And we only seen the slowest Jaguar reviewed...

Its just slower than a bigcore, it will do fine. I bet its much faster than my 5 year old laptop tho.

APU's are for consumers anyways. That's why I bought Trinity. I don't need top notch desktop performance, but I'd like to play too. AMD hits the spot just right in that area. That's why I say that the APU's should follow the console chip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top