Here is a nice article on it...
Thoose saying just wait for SSE2... doesnt look like game developers give a damned about it.
Good read tho thats for sure.
http://www.voodooextreme.com/articles/intelvsamddeveloperbattle.html
<< Chris Rhinehart, Humanhead Studios -- Here's my take on the whole AMD vs Intel war with regards to specific low-level instruction sets. Personally, I don't take too much stock into either one. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and I'm sure plenty of optimization can be gained in certain areas by focusing the code in playing up those strengths. The biggest weakness each instruction set has is that it's specific to that particular chip. In developing games, we want to make the games as widely accessable to as many game players as possible, while still staying on the leading edge of technology. So, the base game should be developed WITHOUT any of these special instructions in mind and if time permits -- and the game warrents it -- special code can be added to optimized the game specifically for those chipsets. It's somewhat similar to the video card wars where some cards have features that are totally unique to that card. If those features aren't implemented in other card as well, then typically those features end up dying as fewer developers support
them.
Which do I prefer over AMD or Intel? Well, my primary development box is Intel-based, but my game machine is an AMD. However, my dev box is pretty old, so it's definitely time to upgrade. Right now, I have my sights set on the new dual-Athlon systems. >>
<< Nathan d'Obrenan, Firetoads Software -- AMD seems to be taking all the right roads in processor design, and by keeping in mind backwards compatibilty with 32 bit processors specifically before making the leap to 64. Intel to my knowledge isn't doing that, they'll just be making 64 bit processors, rendering older apps obsolete (every app currently out), until the developers can recompile their code, and re-release their new builds.
The thing that's really annoyed me about Intel is that they actually charge developers to add support for their processors. Intel is selling VTune, (a SEE optimization tool) to developers for around $200. I just see this as pure ludicrous, as they are in the _hardware_ business, NOT the software business. If they are smart at all they will realize this mistake they're
making and put every effort they have into making it easy on giving support to developers.
AMD has done the _smart_ thing and has also developed a similar program to VTune (excepts helps add's optimize code for 3dnow), and has released it for free on their webpage. The decision is braindead for what CPU extensions developers are likely going to support, and it shows in todays games.
As for actual comparisons between 3dnow and SSE, I can't answer that because I haven't done any definitive tests between the two. I will tell you however that we won't bother implementing SSE if Intel doesn't give us (or any) developer support. >>
Thoose saying just wait for SSE2... doesnt look like game developers give a damned about it.
Good read tho thats for sure.
http://www.voodooextreme.com/articles/intelvsamddeveloperbattle.html
<< Chris Rhinehart, Humanhead Studios -- Here's my take on the whole AMD vs Intel war with regards to specific low-level instruction sets. Personally, I don't take too much stock into either one. Each has strengths and weaknesses, and I'm sure plenty of optimization can be gained in certain areas by focusing the code in playing up those strengths. The biggest weakness each instruction set has is that it's specific to that particular chip. In developing games, we want to make the games as widely accessable to as many game players as possible, while still staying on the leading edge of technology. So, the base game should be developed WITHOUT any of these special instructions in mind and if time permits -- and the game warrents it -- special code can be added to optimized the game specifically for those chipsets. It's somewhat similar to the video card wars where some cards have features that are totally unique to that card. If those features aren't implemented in other card as well, then typically those features end up dying as fewer developers support
them.
Which do I prefer over AMD or Intel? Well, my primary development box is Intel-based, but my game machine is an AMD. However, my dev box is pretty old, so it's definitely time to upgrade. Right now, I have my sights set on the new dual-Athlon systems. >>
<< Nathan d'Obrenan, Firetoads Software -- AMD seems to be taking all the right roads in processor design, and by keeping in mind backwards compatibilty with 32 bit processors specifically before making the leap to 64. Intel to my knowledge isn't doing that, they'll just be making 64 bit processors, rendering older apps obsolete (every app currently out), until the developers can recompile their code, and re-release their new builds.
The thing that's really annoyed me about Intel is that they actually charge developers to add support for their processors. Intel is selling VTune, (a SEE optimization tool) to developers for around $200. I just see this as pure ludicrous, as they are in the _hardware_ business, NOT the software business. If they are smart at all they will realize this mistake they're
making and put every effort they have into making it easy on giving support to developers.
AMD has done the _smart_ thing and has also developed a similar program to VTune (excepts helps add's optimize code for 3dnow), and has released it for free on their webpage. The decision is braindead for what CPU extensions developers are likely going to support, and it shows in todays games.
As for actual comparisons between 3dnow and SSE, I can't answer that because I haven't done any definitive tests between the two. I will tell you however that we won't bother implementing SSE if Intel doesn't give us (or any) developer support. >>