- Feb 18, 2013
- 30
- 0
- 0
With the new consoles using 8 core AMD CPUs, do you think games will be better optimized for AMD FX 8xxx than the i5?
Doubt it, even with 8 cores, Jaguar doesn't have more throughput than an i3. Any CPU workload that trouble an i5 would basically make the game unplayable on a console.With the new consoles using 8 core AMD CPUs, do you think games will be better optimized for AMD FX 8xxx than the i5?
Doubt it, even with 8 cores, Jaguar doesn't have more throughput than an i3.
There's notebookcheck's review a quad-core 1GHz (1.4 GHz single-thread) Temash, based on Jaguar:Don't mean to be an ass, but is there a source for this?
But due to per core weakness of Jaguar, compared to desktop x86, each thread can only do so much work. If developers don't change the CPU load for the PC port, then a desktop i5 can finish the same CPU work in half the time of Jaguar.Well, I guess the logic is since console games will be threaded for 8 cores, so will PC games because of porting and all that good stuff.
Doubt it, even with 8 cores, Jaguar doesn't have more throughput than an i3.
More importantly, maybe games will be optimised for AMD GPUs (more games are GPU restriced than CPU restricted)With the new consoles using 8 core AMD CPUs, do you think games will be better optimized for AMD FX 8xxx than the i5?
But the point is the console CPUs are, and even with 8 cores they are weak compared to desktop x86 and the amount of work they can do pales in comparison to an i5.FX chips, like the one the OP specifically stated as an example, are not Jaguar based.
"Utilizing 8" is highly questionable considering how the weaker cores on the consoles actually have to run the OS/system tasks too. Tasks that the i5/i7's can easily do with much lower utilization on the same cores that the game use considering the higher IPC. If the consoles had used a full speed FX 8xxx then Intel might have had some worries, but I don't foresee the SB/IB i7's being outperformed by Jaguar cores in games in the lifetime of these consoles. The IPC difference is just too great.
Missing the point he is asking if the development of games in an X86 enviroment for this 8 core cpu make it easier for game developers to utilize more cores when shifting to PC development or porting.Doubt it, even with 8 cores, Jaguar doesn't have more throughput than an i3. Any CPU workload that trouble an i5 would basically make the game unplayable on a console.
That's a good point. But then again if it was straight port that way, wouldn't it still run better on a system that had 8 active threads? But I think the key is getting a game to more dynamically grab CPU resources.But due to per core weakness of Jaguar, compared to desktop x86, each thread can only do so much work. If developers don't change the CPU load for the PC port, then a desktop i5 can finish the same CPU work in half the time of Jaguar.
Again missing the point it isn't the workload that he is wondering about. An i3 might be able to more in less time than Jaguar (haven't looked at the numbers). I think the point is that by using a high core count but slow CPU as the every day game development system would it help AMD with developers actually utilizing their 8 core CPU's in modern eye candy games.But the point is the console CPUs are, and even with 8 cores they are weak compared to desktop x86 and the amount of work they can do pales in comparison to an i5.
But the point is the console CPUs are, and even with 8 cores they are weak compared to desktop x86 and the amount of work they can do pales in comparison to an i5.
The assumption here would be that each thread is continuously working and never stops, so that a faster processor would not finish faster, but rather do more work.This is actually an argument in favor of what the OP is suggesting. Because the 8 core Jaguar is weaker per-thread, developers will have to do the work to parallelize their code to get good performance on the console.