And you are obviously privy to the information on what "everyone else" (who exactly?) offered?
Oh, I don't think they really care about margins now. It's more about survival. That's why they are offering margins far lower than everyone else.
And you are obviously privy to the information on what "everyone else" (who exactly?) offered?
Just like your famous Nostradamus moment (there will be no APU in the PS4 or Xbox)?
IMO if this will enable AMD to compete with Intel, it will only be a fight with i5 CPUs since i7 ones will also benefit, making things stay the almost same...
You expect AMD to drop FX line in 2014 completely? So no more PD based FX43xx/63xx/83xx/9xxx? You are dreaming I'm afraid. They will use the same PD core in Warsaw SKUs which are basically the same thing as current Opteron 6300 series (MCM of 2 8T PD dice). So they will keep producing these cores for server SKUs and yet somehow you believe they will drop FX line completely in 2014. No logic in that whatsoever.
sourceMatt Higby, creative director of Planetside 2, tells us how game engine optimization on PS4 will ultimately benefit PC gamers using AMD processors:"The big challenge with the PS4 is its AMD chip, and it really, heavily relies on multi-threading. We have the exact same kind of Achilles heel on the PC too. People who have AMD chips have a disadvantage, because a single core on an AMD chip doesn't really have as much horsepower and they really require you to kind of spread the load out across multiple cores to be able to take full advantage of the AMD processors.""Our engine sucks at that right now. We are multi-threaded, but the primary gameplay thread is very expensive. The biggest piece of engineering work that they're doing right now, and it's an enormous effort, is to go back through the engine and re-optimise it to be really, truly multi-threaded and break the gameplay thread up. That's a very challenging thing to do because we're doing a lot of stuff - tracking all these different players, all of their movements, all the projectiles, all the physics they're doing."
"It's very challenging to split those really closely connected pieces of functionality across in multiple threads. So it's a big engineering task for them to do, but thankfully once they do it, AMD players who've been having sub-par performance on the PC will suddenly get a massive boost - just because of being able to take the engine and re-implement it as multi-threaded."
"I'm very excited about that because I have a lot of friends, lots of people who are more budget minded, going for AMD processors because nine times out of ten they give a lot of bang for the buck. Where it really breaks down is on games with one really big thread. Planetside's probably a prime example of that."
Thankfully the guys at AMD can see beyond their margins and realise that with both console wins with near-identical hardware, they have completely sewn up the gaming market for the foreseeable future. While having to do next to nothing. Every game developed on AMD hardware, optimized to run on GCN and as many CPU cores as possible over the next 5-8 years. Every game Nvidia needs to optimize.
Nvidia has been completely outmanoeuvred. It's total genius and would be worth giving the silicon away for free, but they actually got MS and Sony to pay dev costs on top. The cost to Nvidia will be immeasurable, far more than anything they can get from their "margins".
Oh, it's easy to see by looking at the margins and forecasts of everyone else. There is no one expecting margins to plunge more than 10% because of new projects, quite the opposite, everyone is investing in projects that can sustain gross margins or just leaving segments (like TI did with mobile chips).
Yes indeed, why didn't we?Why didnt we see all those magic optimizations on the GPU side for the previous consoles? :whiste:
Oh, I don't think they really care about margins now. It's more about survival. That's why they are offering margins far lower than everyone else.
Why not? Platform is tried and true, very solid. There is zero validation effort for either CPUs or chipsets. They will produce 8T dice for Warsaw product so it's only packaging for AM3 socket that is left(and cost for MCM is much higher than the cost for single socket SKUs). We can only see higher clock or lower TDP with higher yield, a win for both AMD, potential buyers and GF.I dont get your personal anger with this. Its no secret how AMDs roadmap looks like.
Why would they keep selling desktop AM3+ PD FX CPUs, if they dont want to in the serverspace?
I dont get your personal anger with this. Its no secret how AMDs roadmap looks like
It very plausible that AMD might enjoy some boost given that they have some work cut out for them. I also believe it might separate even further HT enabled chips from the nom HT on the intel side.
Why not? Platform is tried and true, very solid. There is zero validation effort for either CPUs or chipsets. They will produce 8T dice for Warsaw product so it's only packaging for AM3 socket that is left(and cost for MCM is much higher than the cost for single socket SKUs). We can only see higher clock or lower TDP with higher yield, a win for both AMD, potential buyers and GF.
It's not a PR move, it's a business move. If Sony wants to bring Planetside 2 to the next generation consoles, they're going to have to redesign their game engine to more equally distribute the workload across the 6 usable Jaguar cores. PS2 is already a heavily threaded game, but like the developer said, it's primary gameplay thread (the one that causes all the performance issues) is largely just a single thread. They may also be looking into tapping the compute potential of the GPU here as well....
Note, it should also bring noticeable performance improvements for Intel chips as well.
It is a PR move because it's a pat my back I'll pat your's move. Sony probly got quite some lucrative chip deals from AMD for PS4, in kind Sony's software company is saying nice things about AMD's chips. However IT'S NOT NEWS. All they're saying is that 'gosh willy when we code to use more coars we can use more coars.' Well no shit sherlock. As you yourself noted this will bost intel as well.
Sorry for being grumpy but it's just that I'm sick and tired of consoles holding back the PC biz (esp games). I do have a little more hope this go around, however in the end it will likely be the same as it always is -- console has much less power than pc so we will be stuck with shitty console ports and crippled features.
You don't get it. Until we see EOL on roadmaps for FX83xx and lower , it won't be replaced. There is no logic to do so as these parts command higher price ranges than the APUs.Yet they dont make any for the single socket server segment. Its replaced with Berlin aka Kaveri.
Isn't this logical? Next gen consoles have APU's based on multiple cores that individually are pretty poor, optimising for multi threading alleviates that. Same on the desktop with current FX. For $120 the 6300 is unbeatable value for a basic gaming box.
When I read that games are largely single threaded, I always assumed that this was because it's easier to keep all of the elements in a game synchronized within the same thread. If they break up the main gameplay thread into separate threads, how will they keep the multiple gameplay threads synchronized? I'm not a game programmer, but I have done multithreaded programming in Windows and Linux, and synchronizing threads is a pretty "expensive" operation in terms of performance.
Can anyone with game programming experience enlighten me as to how they can break up the main game thread and keep the multiple threads synchronized without losing performance?
You can't have your cake and eat it too, "massive boost" doesn't come from an already great product, FX is lackluster for gaming and the "massive boost" might actually make it less so.
At least that's how I read it, it's unlikely Intel won't benefit from this, even my quad core benefits somewhat from eight threads down 4 cores, and if it's spreading it across six why would we assume the x6 from AMD would be any better than the x4 from Intel which is already faster in threaded applications?
You can get a 4 core Intel CPU for $120?
You can get a 4 core Intel CPU for $120?
But it only performs like a $120 processor in poorly threaded, single-core performance dependent scenarios. i.e. games.No, but if a $120 processor didn't perform like the $120 processor it wouldn't be a $120 processor.