[EG] AMD CPU's performance get "massive boost" as devs optimize next-gen game engines

[ZGR]

I hope everyone with an Intel or AMD chip gets some improvement. Its frustrating to be CPU limited on games that utilize 1 thread and the only way to improve FPS is to overclock.

I want to see the day where CPU cores scale just as well as GPU cores in games.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

But it only performs like a $120 processor in poorly threaded, single-core performance dependent scenarios. i.e. games.

In applications which use 6 threads, for instance, or if you just crazy multitask all day, every day, that $120 processor actually performs like a more expensive CPU.

Owners of AMD MoAR CoARS! stand to gain more if games really do get written to use more cores.

No it performs like a $120 processor overall, if it was priced based on it's gaming and single thread performance it would be below $100, much like the 8350 would be much lower as well.

It would gain slightly, agreed, but not a lot. Likewise probably $20, much like the 8350 which is $200, it's not worth a dime over the i5 even in multithreading. AMD is fairly strong in the sub $200 bracket because all they have are sub $200 performance chips.

AMD could make up enough ground to make the difference less, but it won't change the current makeup of the market. Which is basically a 2:1 ratio in required cores from AMD to make the performance of Intel.

This is again a stark reminder of the AMD single card and MGPU problems, they didn't exist until after a fix was created to address the issue that didn't exist.. Which was then used to push the product more.

 

[youshotwhointhe]

Problem is still Amdahls law. And we are barely starting to work on some of the basic issues with locking, that TSX helps on. So multitheading will be the same minimalistic benefit. We can already see games that support 4 threads, that is not much faster compared to using 2.

Well Amdahl's Law actually applies to single threaded performance per clock too. All IPC scaling comes from caching and parallelization of a single instruction stream. For IPC gains the situation is actually much worse because the parallelization has to be completely automatic, so it is quite limited how far you can go with this. At some point you need the programmer to break things up into individual instruction streams.

Alternatively you could boost clock speed, but that seems like a dead end with current fabrication technology.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Well, I do hope they push more multithreading for Planetside 2, regardless of whether you own AMD or Intel. That game runs pretty much like crap.

 

[StrangerGuy]

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".

Besides, games meant to run on a 8 core jaguar is gonna fly on a 8-core FX, negative the only advantage Intel has on the mainstream desktop market. And [forget] the PowerPC/Cell port [rubbish] that has being dragging down the PC gaming for so long.

No profanity in the tech forums, please
-ViRGE

 

[Plimogz]

No it performs like a $120 processor overall, if it was priced based on it's gaming and single thread performance it would be below $100, much like the 8350 would be much lower as well.

It would gain slightly, agreed, but not a lot. Likewise probably $20, much like the 8350 which is $200, it's not worth a dime over the i5 even in multithreading. AMD is fairly strong in the sub $200 bracket because all they have are sub $200 performance chips.

AMD could make up enough ground to make the difference less, but it won't change the current makeup of the market. Which is basically a 2:1 ratio in required cores from AMD to make the performance of Intel.

This is again a stark reminder of the AMD single card and MGPU problems, they didn't exist until after a fix was created to address the issue that didn't exist.. Which was then used to push the product more.

Let's see:
FX-6300, $110 @ NE (w/ $10 off which ends tonight. Thus regular price $120. Still, arguably $10 cheaper)
i3-3220 for $119 on Amazon
And those two head-to-head on AT Bench

With regards to gaming in particular, the AMD chips are fine to pair with a single GPU up to around the $250-$300 range, as evidenced by that one AT article where a bunch of CPUs were paired with the 7970 and everything ended up GPU limited at good looking settings with the resolutions most mainstream screens would be gaming at. So when planning out components for mainstream builds, there doesn't seem to be much reason not to take a good look at the AMD wares. One idea which seems to be often thrown around is that at some future point new games will take advantage of the Intel chips (e.g. person A says: "who cares if the i5 gets 195 FPS and the FX only gets 140" to which person B replies: "but a couple years from now, that could mean the difference between 60 FPS and 45..."), and I find it interesting to think that with the new consoles' influence, it might be the extra cores which end up gaining value first.

As you say, it would probably gain slightly -- and I'm not saying that it would be night and day either -- but it seems to me that the opposing SKUs under $200 are for the most part close enough as it stands now, that with a little lucky nudge from the console game programmers, AMD could find itself in a position like the one they were in when I bought my first chip from them years ago: Selling more bang-for-the-buck than the nearest priced Intel option.

Which I would find pretty cool: Going into 2014 with new next-gen console ports popping up and AMD maybe finally catching up and surpassing this good-ole 2500K with Steamroller or something else.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

That's cool but newegg just had $90 off the i5, so do we call it a $150 processor?

The games they chose were not known for cpu limited performance.

$120 isn't mainstream, it's budget.... It's beneath mainstream.

There a lots of reasons not to look at AMD wares, generally they start with RTS and end with cpu bottlenecks.

The problem for AMD is the worst offenders are not console ports, they're PC only titles. Which this likely won't address, though there seems to be some "counting of chickens" so to speak taking place. I'll believe this when I see it. I welcome it personally, more threaded and less dependency on a single thread would improve my performance in some titles but in most it wouldn't even matter since I already have a cpu capable of pushing min fps because it's not AMD.

 

[Shamrock]

Just throwing this out there.

Since they are talking about the consoles...just WHAT IF, they optimize for AMD cpus only, not all "multicore" cpus? Because AMD is the only cpu in the consoles. Why not maximize them.

No, I didn't read the article, just what the OP posted.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Let's see:
FX-6300, $110 @ NE (w/ $10 off which ends tonight. Thus regular price $120. Still, arguably $10 cheaper)
i3-3220 for $119 on Amazon
And those two head-to-head on AT Bench

With regards to gaming in particular, the AMD chips are fine to pair with a single GPU up to around the $250-$300 range, as evidenced by that one AT article where a bunch of CPUs were paired with the 7970 and everything ended up GPU limited at good looking settings with the resolutions most mainstream screens would be gaming at. So when planning out components for mainstream builds, there doesn't seem to be much reason not to take a good look at the AMD wares. One idea which seems to be often thrown around is that at some future point new games will take advantage of the Intel chips (e.g. person A says: "who cares if the i5 gets 195 FPS and the FX only gets 140" to which person B replies: "but a couple years from now, that could mean the difference between 60 FPS and 45..."), and I find it interesting to think that with the new consoles' influence, it might be the extra cores which end up gaining value first.

As you say, it would probably gain slightly -- and I'm not saying that it would be night and day either -- but it seems to me that the opposing SKUs under $200 are for the most part close enough as it stands now, that with a little lucky nudge from the console game programmers, AMD could find itself in a position like the one they were in when I bought my first chip from them years ago: Selling more bang-for-the-buck than the nearest priced Intel option.

Which I would find pretty cool: Going into 2014 with new next-gen console ports popping up and AMD maybe finally catching up and surpassing this good-ole 2500K with Steamroller or something else.

Yes, you are right, that was only one article, and probably one of the poorest tests I have ever seen on this website. They tested a very limited set of games at 1440p, which obviously will shift the load to the gpu. At a more mainstream resolution of 1080p, and with a wider variety of games, there are plenty of games that will show a cpu bottleneck and run faster on an i5 than any AMD cpu. In the 120.00 segment, it is neck and neck between the i3 and FX6300, depending on which games are being tested, but it is a fallacy to claim that an i5 is not faster, or that you will not run into cpu bottlenecks in a lot of games at mainstream gaming settings.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Just throwing this out there.

Since they are talking about the consoles...just WHAT IF, they optimize for AMD cpus only, not all "multicore" cpus? Because AMD is the only cpu in the consoles. Why not maximize them.

No, I didn't read the article, just what the OP posted.

There could, emphasize could, be an architectural advantage to amd's apus because they are very similar to the consoles. I still dont see apus being a viable solution for mid/high level gaming though because they are going to be thermally and bandwidth limited. As far as the FX, that architecture is so different that I dont see them specifically optimizing games for that.

Besides, the vast majority of PC gamers are currently using intel. Do you really think developers will deliberately design their games to not run optimally on those computers?

 

[AtenRa]

Besides, the vast majority of PC gamers are currently using intel. Do you really think developers will deliberately design their games to not run optimally on those computers?

And of those gamers, the majority has more than 2 core CPUs but then again the majority of games dosnt scale beyond 2 threads.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Most modern games scale with 3-6 threads, albeit not perfectly.

 

[Plimogz]

That's cool but newegg just had $90 off the i5, so do we call it a $150 processor?
[...]
$120 isn't mainstream, it's budget.... It's beneath mainstream.
There a lots of reasons not to look at AMD wares, generally they start with RTS and end with cpu bottlenecks.
[...]

Your $90 to my $10 doesn't seem quite even. And you say that deal is dead? So... I only mentioned the -$10 because it was there when I got the link. And frankly, it's way more likely to pop back up than the $90. -- But whatever, we were saying $120 CPUs, yes?

As to mainstream or budget semantics. You'll agree that we're not talking $60 celerons or A4s, I assume. Unless you slot an even cheaper category beyond "budget" (like essentials or basics, or whatever other BS the marketers'll come up with) -- so $120 seems like cheapish mainstream to me. Or rather, it's how much a person could spend on the CPU in order to splurge on the GPU -- in order to end up with a mainstream costing gaming system all together. But... meh: We were saying $120 CPUs, call them budget if you like; I'll call em mainstream. It matters not in the least.

In any case, with regards to the $120 CPUs which were mentioned, it seems like you would have to rely heavily on pretty niche cases to advocate choosing the i3 over the FX. Particularly if you take the OP's info at face value. Not that it matters too much that we agree or not: time will tell which was the smart purchase in the end.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Does that really matter? It's the idea of quoting deals, otherwise I'd just say well at MC you can get it for $160 or something with $40 off a board, so it's a $100 cpu. Deals always there! i5k is a budget cpu!

It's not semantics. We have a fundamental disagreement on the performance a $130 cpu will provide. I play games where that cpu won't even make 30 fps mins, and the idea of coupling it with a $300+ GPU as you suggest is mind boggling for me. It's a budget cpu you'd get more value buying a budget GPU for it.

I don't really advocate i3's, I used one, they're more comparable to the x4 from AMD. However if I was building a PC and had a limited budget that could include a $130 cpu and a $300 GPU I've already stated I'd get the i5k on a deal and take a weaker GPU knowing full well that GPU performance will nearly double on the next node - which means I'll quickly be able to double up my performance or more at that price point in a year or two.. Furthermore I know AMD is already lackluster with current GPUs, and adding even more performance from the GPU will do nothing for AMD except make them look even worse especially in the min FPS area.

GPU is by far the most important part of a gaming system, the second and equally important part is having a CPU that can actually feed the GPU. That's the problem for me anyways, why get a CPU that can't handle current PC games with modern GPUs if my next upgrade is going to be a GPU that is double or quadruple the performance of the $300 GPU you're look at now in a few years for the same price?

I wouldn't go with either the i3 or AMD at this point in time, the difference in overall system cost is just too low and the sacrifices don't add up over time.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Balla my nephew just got a FX 6350 and pushed it to 4.5ghz. That cpu drives his 7950 @ 1.1ghz. I don't believe a i3 can compare to his system period. I played on it and was surprised by the power that thing has in games.

Now, an Intel i5 is on another level, your cpu is the best when it comes to perf/price ratio IMO. Better than my FX at this point with the occasional super duper threaded game giving the nod to my cpu.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I'd like to see what he gets in games like Grim Dawn MP, or TESO in a large group event.

Games that don't actually need the 7950, but need a more stout per core CPU than FX.

Balance, a $130 cpu + $300 gpu doesn't have it for me. I play too many games, many of which aren't even console ports to make that kind of choice. But that's me, to each their own but in this case unlike some others I'm coming from my perspective.

 

[zlatan]

You don't get it. Until we see EOL on roadmaps for FX83xx and lower, it won't be replaced...

Sure it won't be replaced, but there is a reason why AMD deleted the Steamroller FX. They will speak about this in november, but I can tell you that three game engines (Ignite, Frostbite 3, and the new Unity) will support HSA at the end of the year. The PS4 will get finalized HSA tools in 2014H1.

 

[Broheim]

Well, I do hope they push more multithreading for Planetside 2, regardless of whether you own AMD or Intel. That game runs pretty much like crap.

it runs fine on higher-end hardware, the problem is that not everybody is running at least an OC'd 2500k.

this is probably a long way off though, Higby is too busy chasing those Smedley bucks and pushing MLG down the players throats.

 

[raghu78]

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.

People don't understand that Sony and Microsoft paid for the development costs of the custom silicon. AMD had to pull existing IP blocks like Jaguar, GCN , video decode/encode, GDDR5 memory controller (for PS4) and DDR3 memory controller (for Xbox One) and deliver 2 custom APUs. the IP blocks were already being developed for the PC APU and dGPU markets. only customization according to specific client needs. Also AMD is expected to have nett margins of 20% on the sale of the console APU chips.

the expected revenue to AMD on sales of 20 - 25 million (PS4 and XboxOne combined) consoles per year is in the range of USD 1.2 - 1.5 billion with profit around USD 200 - 250 million per year. thats much better than Nvidia's Tegra division sales and profit per year.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Besides, games meant to run on a 8 core jaguar is gonna fly on a 8-core FX, negative the only advantage Intel has on the mainstream desktop market. And fvck the PowerPC/Cell port shit that has being dragging down the PC gaming for so long.

There wont be any 8 thead consoles games. Its 6 max for the games.

And then there is the scaling issue. You wont get 50% more performance from 6 cores vs 4.

 

[JimmiG]

This is great news for anyone with a 4+ core CPU, as today, many games are still only taking advantage of 2-3 cores. I don't think AMD's 8-core CPUs will suddenly be twice as fast as Intel, but it should level the playing field somewhat.

 

[NostaSeronx]

There wont be any 8 thead consoles games. Its 6 max for the games.

That is a soft limit, once they optimize the operating system there won't be limitations like that.

For the PS4:
Depending on the update nomenclature it will be version 2.0. If it uses the same update nomenclature as PS3.

 

[NTMBK]

Just like your famous Nostradamus moment (there will be no APU in the PS4 or Xbox)?

No, he's quite likely right. Take a look at AMD roadmaps, and look for a single mention of a part with more than 4 cores after Piledriver. There isn't one.

 

[NTMBK]

Why would they keep selling desktop AM3+ PD FX CPUs, if they dont want to in the serverspace?

If they can get a few more sales of the same die they already made for Warsaw, why wouldn't they? The 9590 should show that they're desperate to sell a few more parts. *shrug*

 

[NTMBK]

Yet they dont make any for the single socket server segment. Its replaced with Berlin aka Kaveri.

The old school AM3+ platform is pretty power hungry, even ignoring the CPU- the separate NB/SB setup is just nasty. In something as power-conscious as the server market, with the kind of power consumption issues AMD has, moving to a single-piece chipset like FM2+ makes sense. (Also, they want to push GPGPU.)