Revenge of the 8 core CPU - Watch Dogs

[escrow4]

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/798775-System-Specs-Official?p=9304338#post9304338

"Ultra" Specification

GPU: Latest DirectX 11 graphics card with 2 GB Video RAM or more
CPU: Latest Eight core or more
RAM: 8GB or more
example 1

GPU: Nvidia GTX 670
CPU: Intel Core i7-3930K


example 2

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7970
CPU: AMD FX-9370 Eight-Core

It does indeed seem as multiple cores will be in come 2014, no more i3's. 6300 looks like the minimum el cheapo CPU now . . . . .

and

"Note that we only support 64 bit OSs."

 

[SPBHM]

it would be wise to wait for some real testing.

"readme.txt" is not normally the best reference for hardware performance.

Minimum Specification

GPU: DirectX 11 graphics card with 1 GB Video RAM
CPU: Quad core
RAM: 4GB
example 1

GPU: NVidia GTX 460
CPU: Intel Core2 Quad Q6600


example 2

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 5770
CPU: AMD Phenom X4 9750



Recommended Specification

GPU: DirectX 11 graphics card with 2 GB Video RAM
CPU: Eight core
RAM: 8GB
example 1

GPU: NVidia GTX 560 ti
CPU: Intel Core i7-3770


example 2

GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7850
CPU: AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core

their minimum VGAs from each side are not really equivalent, 460 is closer to 5850 than 5770.

 

[Kallogan]

Amd are no fool, they put 8 cores in consoles to give a future to their fx line. Smart move.
Thanks to them, we'll finally get heavily multithreaded games as a standard. Amd is da messiah.

 

[Shivansps]

multithreaded games tailored to a hell of a slow cpu... the FX8 are faster than console jaguar, by a huge margin.

Ill rather wait and see, i dont gona trust any BF4 numbers at all, im fully expenting that game to be highly biased on any possible way.

 

[Shivansps]

Yeah, the C2750 its likely to be around the same.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Amd are no fool, they put 8 cores in consoles to give a future to their fx line. Smart move.
Thanks to them, we'll finally get heavily multithreaded games as a standard. Amd is da messiah.

But consoles are limited to 6 cores for games.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I wouldnt say Watch Dogs is 8 cores from that spec list. But its certainly positive that its 64bit only. We really need to move forward from 32bit. Its way overdue.

 

[NTMBK]

C2750 plus a R7-260X would be pretty close to the XBone in terms of specs, and with Mantle it might actually get close to console efficiency too...

 

[Techhog]

Ugh. This is one of the games that I really want to play. :/ Maybe I should just get an FX 8350 and overclock the hell out of it.

 

[SPBHM]

Ugh. This is one of the games that I really want to play. :/ Maybe I should just get an FX 8350 and overclock the hell out of it.

or maybe you should wait until the game is released and you can check some tests comparing the 8350 with the 4670K you intended to buy.

supporting 8 cores doesn't necessarily mean a lower IPC CPU with 8 cores have a great advantage over a higher IPC CPU with 4 cores... that's what many games have showed.

 

[Techhog]

or maybe you should wait until the game is released and you can check some tests comparing the 8350 with the 4670K you intended to buy.

supporting 8 cores doesn't necessarily mean a lower IPC CPU with 8 cores have a great advantage over a higher IPC CPU with 4 cores... that's what many games have showed.

I can't really wait that long. :/

 

[ShintaiDK]

I can't really wait that long. :/

Then get the 4670K. BF4 also shows its the better CPU. Not to mention the 99.99% other games without 6-8 core support where its ~50% faster.

 

[krumme]

C2750 plus a R7-260X would be pretty close to the XBone in terms of specs, and with Mantle it might actually get close to console efficiency too...

Yes but not for gaming. The fpu of kabini is quite stronger than bt, but bt will be far more frugal. Jaguar is perfect for consoles.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Yes but not for gaming. The fpu of kabini is quite stronger than bt, but bt will be far more frugal. Jaguar is perfect for consoles.

Games are mainly INT based. Else AMDs FX line would run even slower. Not to mention Silvermont would run at a higher frequency for the same TDP.

But again, both Silvermont and Jaguar are horrible console CPUs.

 

[SPBHM]

Intel Silvermount’s FP units (FPU) were 64-bits wide. AMD Jaguar (like VIA Isaiah) moved FP units (FPU) to 128-bits wide.

In the same CPU clock is Silvermount FPU cca. 30% slower than Jaguar FPU.

But Xbox One have EightCore Jaguar on at 1.6GHz - 1.75GHz CPU clock.
8-Core Silvermount is at 2.4GHz (2.6GHz Turbo).

If I can normal play 1080p Multi-Threaded games with 1.2GHz VIA QuadCore L4700E (+Radeon HD6850 1GB GDDR5)
BF3 MP
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z70UgT80gd0
F1 2012 Demo
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G81bES7PonM
ME 3 Demo
source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzIgvNRg9MA
=> no problem for EightCore Jaguar at 1.6GHz - 1.75GHz or Intel 8-Core Silvermount at 2.4GHz (2.6GHz Turbo).

Silvermont and Jaguar (also Isaiah) are perfect console CPUs microarchitecture.

only watched the F1 one, that game scales really well with 4 cores but, why didn't you run the built in benchmark or used fraps? it looks under 20fps or so .. but it's hard to tell.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I'm confident the sheer horsepower of the i7 quad range along with HT will make the 4/8 core issue more or less irrelevant, HT removes most of the overhead of running 2 heavy threads on one physical core.

4 Core as a minimum is great though, it forces those who want good games to upgrade creating a bigger pool of better compters that encourages yet more high end development, this hardware stagnation in many places is dragging down PC gaming.

 

[Skott]

So everyone run out and buy a amd fx9590. LOL A shame that cpu is a power hog and bested by a intel 4770k.

 

[Ventanni]

Jaguar is perfect for consoles, and indirectly, perfect for PC gamers too. It's significantly more powerful than the previous generation offerings in consoles, no doubt. It's also about the best price-to-performance you can get at this time, and AMD has proven to be fairly easy to work with in the past for coming up with solutions.

It is not FX/i5/i7 class, and it's not meant to be.

How does it indirectly benefit PC gamers? It forces game developers to design their games with better multi-thread distribution in mind. So what if it suddenly makes FX CPUs faster than Core i5/7 processors in select PC gaming scenarios; that's good for all of us! Secondly, since Intel CPUs enjoy significantly higher IPC than AMD CPUs, it hasn't yet shown that an 8-core FX CPU is suddenly making minced meat out of Intel CPUs. It's just making them more competitive. It's actually making 6-core Intel CPUs worthwhile to purchase!

So let's take a step back and look at this a little bit more practically. The Jaguar cores in the next generation consoles are about the best thing to happen to PC gamers. We're actually seeing innovation again in a stagnant coding market.

 

[AnandThenMan]

So let's take a step back and look at this a little bit more practically. The Jaguar cores in the next generation consoles are about the best thing to happen to PC gamers. We're actually seeing innovation again in a stagnant coding market.

AMD64/8core/GCN in consoles is the best thing to happen for PC gaming ever IMO. The PS4/Xbone is a mini PC essentially. Pushing console games over to the PC side will be a no-brainer compared to what devs had to deal with previously.

 

[Fjodor2001]

So if AMD intentionally are pushing 8-core CPUs via the PS4/XBONE consoles in order to pave the way for 8-core desktop CPUs, can we also expect them to release any Steamroller or Excavator based 8-core CPUs going forward?

Otherwise what's the point of pushing 8-core CPUs, if they do not intend to "reap the benefits" of that in the desktop space anyway?

 

[ShintaiDK]

So if AMD intentionally are pushing 8-core CPUs via the PS4/XBONE consoles in order to pave the way for 8-core desktop CPUs, can we also expect them to release any Steamroller or Excavator based 8-core CPUs going forward?

Otherwise what's the point of pushing 8-core CPUs, if they do not intend to "reap the benefits" of that in the desktop space anyway?

You seem to have forgotten AMDs roadmap. 2M/4T as top, FX line is dead.

Also only 6 cores are avaliable for gaming on the consoles. So to make 8 cores on the desktop due to consoles is a silly thought.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Also only 6 cores are avaliable for gaming on the consoles. So to make 8 cores on the desktop due to consoles is a silly thought.

6 cores for the game, but the other (2) cores for the system OS, and maybe other functionality. Making 8 core chips still relevant, because a windows gaming machine wants to run the game (6 cores), and still run the OS (ideally at least 1 or 2 cores), to avoid OS activities messing with the highly active 6 core gaming functionality.

I'm hoping that sooner or later, AMD will release future x86 6+ core chips, again.
The current 6 core (or 3M/6C)) FX6300 is quite a sweet spot, giving a very good price point AND respectable performance, at that price point.

 

[Fjodor2001]

You seem to have forgotten AMDs roadmap. 2M/4T as top, FX line is dead.

Things can change you know. Products move in and out of scope, time plans shift, etc.

Also only 6 cores are avaliable for gaming on the consoles. So to make 8 cores on the desktop due to consoles is a silly thought.

You've yet to produce any official source from Sony/AMD for that. So far I've only seen you link to rumor sites.

 

[ShintaiDK]

6 cores for the game, but the other (2) cores for the system OS, and maybe other functionality. Making 8 core chips still relevant, because a windows gaming machine wants to run the game (6 cores), and still run the OS (ideally at least 1 or 2 cores), to avoid OS activities messing with the highly active 6 core gaming functionality.

I'm hoping that sooner or later, AMD will release future x86 6+ core chips, again.
The current 6 core (or 3M/6C)) FX6300 is quite a sweet spot, giving a very good price point AND respectable performance, at that price point.

Unless you did something terrible wrong. The OS hardly uses anything and could run on a Pentium while you game.

The cores and in Xbox case the 10% of the GPU is mainly devoted to apps, kinect and streaming while you game.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Things can change you know. Products move in and out of scope, time plans shift, etc.

But its unlikely to change. Excavator will be 45W and 65W desktop SKUs as well.

You've yet to produce any official source from Sony/AMD for that. So far I've only seen you link to rumor sites.

Plenty of official material there. You can keep rejecting it for your endless hopes of more cores, I dont care, doesnt change the fact.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Unless you did something terrible wrong. The OS hardly uses anything and could run on a Pentium while you game.

I have to admit, I'm not sure how much cpu power a gaming console really needs for the system OS and other non-gaming functionality, running in the background while you play.

But at least one processor core, dedicated to the non-gaming system OS and other functionality, will allow things (in theory) in run much smoother, as the gaming cores can be 100% left alone, while gaming, and the system OS can compute to its heart content.

Also there may be other reasons why more cores are needed, such as complicated, very difficult to break security schemes. Which utilise the fact that because the other non gaming core(s) are separate, they are much harder to access/hack into from the 6 gaming cores.