The point people are trying to make to you is that a single threaded app won't show 100% on one core and 0 on others, it will show it spread over all cores.
This is my task manager:
It shows the individual usage for every single one of my 12 threads.
That's because the vast majority of games don't need more than one rendering thread. Only large, complex games with lots of detail and objects on screen benefit from multithreaded rendering.
You're simply wrong on this. The big AAA games like Crysis 3, AC IV, BF4 are all native DX11 titles that use immediate context multithreaded rendering. AC IV may possibly use deferred context as well, like it's predecessor AC III.
If DX11 wasn't truly multithreaded, then there would be no gain from multicore CPUs, which obviously isn't the case as some of these games will scale all the way to 8 threads..
Classic case of CPU bottleneck. Luckily that doesn't happen (as bad) in multiplayer, because it would be unplayable.
The point people are trying to make to you is that a single threaded app won't show 100% on one core and 0 on others, it will show it spread over all cores.
If it was a single threaded app, then how would it be able to spread over all cores? That makes no sense.
If the graph is showing it spread over all cores, it's because you have it configured to show overall utilization of the entire CPU, and not each thread like I do.
Can you point to a statement from AMD or Dice where they have contradicted themselves or each other, or are you just referringThere is just too much unreleased information, and as time goes on, releases and statements directly contravene previous statements (and assumptions).
The thread gets moved across the cores by the OS. This is a single threaded CB R15 run:
OK I see what you're saying. But still, if the OS is moving the workload across each core, that's different from saying that the workload is spread across each core.
For the latter to be true, the workload would have to be multithreaded.
BTW jj109, that graph in the bottom left of the screenshot you took, is that part of the inbuilt FPS counter, or is that something else?
Classic case of AMD drivers or just an fanboy trying to hype up mantle is much more probable.
GTX 780 GPU-bound
0x MSAA CPU-bound
lol, +1
Really i am laughing so much and no words to describe it either.lol, +1
Something must be up with that guy's machine to get such low performance compared to jj109's.
I know AMD's drivers aren't as extensively multithreaded as NVidia's, but that's just far too large a deficit.
OK that slide looks a bit fishy to me. They claim DX doesn't scale beyond 2-3 cores, yet in their Frostbite 3 presentation, they claimed the engine could use up to 8 threads
Frostbite is not DX .... Frostbite uses DX.
DX may be limited to a number of cores, but the engines are not ....
It's possible to prepare a lot of stuff in multiple cores before sending it to DX.
I knew that performance seemed fishy :thumbsup:
I would test if it's AMD drivers, but I just woke up and found my PC won't boot. Have to troubleshoot now, sorry-- pretty sure the motherboard is dead. It's like a month old. :|
Frostbite is not DX .... Frostbite uses DX.
DX may be limited to a number of cores, but the engines are not ....
It's possible to prepare a lot of stuff in multiple cores before sending it to DX.
DX using deferred contexts and command lists can scale to as many threads as the engine developer deems efficient.
I found this slide from GDC 2013 where Nvidia talks about using command lists and deferred context to remove CPU bottlenecks without manual threading.
On consoles, you can draw maybe 10,000 or 20,000 chunks of geometry in a frame, and you can do that at 30-60fps. On a PC, you can't typically draw more than 2-3,000 without getting into trouble with performance, and that's quite surprising - the PC can actually show you only a tenth of the performance if you need a separate batch for each draw call.
Now the PC software architecture DirectX has been kind of bent into shape to try to accommodate more and more of the batch calls in a sneaky kind of way. There are the multi-threaded display lists, which come up in DirectX 11 that helps, but unsurprisingly it only gives you a factor of two at the very best, from what we've seen. And we also support instancing, which means that if you're going to draw a crate, you can actually draw ten crates just as fast as far as DirectX is concerned.
That's actually impressive off a laptop. Could anybody translate what he's saying?
We had a discussion about this some pages ago. DR allows you to prepare commands on multiple cores and queue them, but your main renderer is still a single process.
I remember Repi said he really wanted to implement driver command lists in BF3, but the drivers weren't available from neither NVidia or AMD so he couldn't test it out and in the end decided against it.Modern engines (ex Frostbite) already do this without event using DX DR with better results (that's what they say).
Still, if BF4 had been an NVidia sponsored title, deferred context could have been properly implemented imo as the drivers are now available.