The Xbox 360 was ahead of its time with a tri-core processor already. I'm not sure the specifics of how well it balanced the load.
I would imagine, seeing that cpu speed vs power consumed is not linear and that,I don't think they would have asked for something that would make programming harder like heavily multithreading. Sony and MS losses with hardware in the last round of consoles should have spoke louder than any developer. AMD's razor thin margins too.
I am looking at today. What I see are tons of titles optimized for consoles, which run okay on PC simply because the PC has brute force power even if the game is very poorly optimized (from the point of view of the PC).
Why do you assume that in the future, games won't be optimized for consoles?
It seems like an absurd point of view based on a long history of console games being optimized for consoles.
I think people here are over-estimating how hard multi-threading is. Been doing it in my job for many years. It's really not that difficult - you just need the low level libraries to allow you to access data and pass messages around in a thread safe way, then you pick the correct things to thread (renderer, physics, collision) and do it.
These next gen consoles with their standard x86 architectures and in Sony's case even simpler with a unified memory architecture should be easy to code for.
I think people here are over-estimating how hard multi-threading is. Been doing it in my job for many years. It's really not that difficult - you just need the low level libraries to allow you to access data and pass messages around in a thread safe way, then you pick the correct things to thread (renderer, physics, collision) and do it.
Some people just don't get it though. As much as graphically revolutionary Crysis was back in 2007 it only sold 1M copies. Current development costs are already so high on current gen that to maximise today's PC hardware just to sell PC games is next to impossible.
I remember writing a small multiplayer p2p arcade shooter in school, multithreading the core code of the game probably complicated things tenfold. I never got it to work properly, 1-3 players were fine but after that things started getting weird. that was a pretty simple little game and I can only imagine how much more complicated things get with big impressive games like ps2. Features exponentially add complexity and complexity adds cost.
Don't collisions normally require physics calculations and all of those are prerequisites for rendering? I guess I'm trying to see how you are necessarily breaking off parallel tasks when they still appear to have a dependency-based ordering.
Well you would probably be rendering the last frame while working out what's happening in the next one. Even if you *had* to do them one after another most of those sort of tasks (rendering, collision, physics) would parallelise to 8 threads easily. Most of them are just working though a bunch of data that doesn't change (so no write locks) repeatedly doing a lot of the same maths.
I think people here are over-estimating how hard multi-threading is. Been doing it in my job for many years. It's really not that difficult - you just need the low level libraries to allow you to access data and pass messages around in a thread safe way, then you pick the correct things to thread (renderer, physics, collision) and do it.
These next gen consoles with their standard x86 architectures and in Sony's case even simpler with a unified memory architecture should be easy to code for.
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.
^ This. It force multithreading that is ideal for PCs that have similarly designed AMD CPUs (with enough distributed thread loading it may fully negate Intel's additional performance-per-core advantage).
Many anti-AMD fanboys are poo pooing on AMD's grand slam, yet an admitted (and extremely knowledgeable) Intel+Nvidia fanboy with a long history buddying up to Nvidia- John Carmack is honest enough to say similar comment in his keynote this year that this is excellent for AMD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNWAcEu1jpU#t=16m30s
My advice, next time you're buying, buy your AMD APU, CPU, GPU. Take your pick but I'd make it AMD. If you disagree, I'm not taking complaints at this time- talk to Carmack.
It might take a while to pay off dividends, but the recent console design wins by AMD sealed the deal for my next rig (whenever that time comes), which will be all AMD.
Stop with this bullshit. Even if a game is optimized for multi-threading, Intel cpu's will the the SAME benefit as amd cpu's, this whole thread is pointless..
Because 8 integer cores are just going to kill it for game engine computations. :hmm:
When AMD gets framerates well above silky smooth gameplay Intel can get a billion FPS and it still won't matter.
because games will never get more demanding in resource consumption...?
what are you talking about man
Stop with this bullshit. Even if a game is optimized for multi-threading, Intel cpu's will the the SAME benefit as amd cpu's, this whole thread is pointless..
Notice the bit about outsourcing. They can hire some kid in India or China to write the code for pennies an hour. It might be expensive to hire spoiled American programmers, but it's not that expensive if you go with the lowest bidder
You don't comprehend what you read. I said negate, and it was in bold to prevent daft responses like yours- hopefully.
Negate : to cause to be ineffective or invalid
Intel won't get any benefit unless the AMD optimizations (which will be there) overload the PS4/XB1 APU.
And I'll answer that question you have right now: it will not overload your i7 cores nor grant Intel a continued advantage.
They will likely end up performing the same. While that's a really good estimation from all available evidence. It is still possible AMD might not just negate Intel's lead but could come out with a performance advantage. Only AMD really knows the answer to that today, until we get our hands on an engine optimized for AMD's architecture.
So wait, now intel has +50% advantage in gaming ?? Lmao
Unless you game at 480x240 it's safe to say that in single GPU scenarios an FX is nowhere near 50% slower than any intel chip (even in those notorious intel loving games like SC2).
So wait, now intel has +50% advantage in gaming ?? Lmao
Unless you game at 480x240 it's safe to say that in single GPU scenarios an FX is nowhere near 50% slower than any intel chip (even in those notorious intel loving games like SC2).