AMD and future gaming

[CataclysmZA]

There is one thing to remember here. The first is that the new consoles use 1.6GHz CPUs, 8 of them, and each CPU is not as efficient as an i5 or i7 and probably not as efficient as an FX CPU. So, how much desktop CPU power do you need to equal a console? Given the clockspeed advantage, I would say any i5 could do it. 4 cores running at DOUBLE the clockspeed and more efficient = moar power. No two ways about it.

You're not familiar with Jaguar's architecture, are you? Its almost twice as fast as an Intel Atom at a lower clock speed and with a lower TDP of around 15W (and that's being conservative). Compared to the Core i3-3217U, its almost that chip's equal. If you double the power (to 30W) and add in boost states, Jaguar then theoretically becomes four times as fast as Atom and matches or beats Core i5 ULV performance. Increase the clock speed to 2.5GHz for all cores with boost states to 3.0GHz and you have desktop i5-rivalling power at roughly 3/4 the power usage. And bear in mind, its still a quad-core.

If it were possible to clock Jaguar up and feed it even more power, at 4.0GHz on all cores with a 100W TDP it could be faster than an i5-3570K processor.

In this case, they dont need to run all 8 threads, so there definitely wont be 8 threads on a PC, because it is much more work for no gain. Again, because we know that the new console CPUs are less powerful than a current i5, pretty much any CPU would be fine here.

You're guessing here. If there are however many threads available on a console, developers will use that many threads. The PS3 had six cores available to developers as the seventh was used for the PS3 OS and for background processes. The Xbox 360 has three cores with hyper-threading. During the time that AMD sold triple-cores, those offered the best bang-for-buck because they were pretty much on par with what the consoles could offer.

Keep in mind that with eight threads available, the console ends up being much more efficient because of the low TDP Jaguar boasts and the fact that no other processes are hogging CPU cycles as is the case with Windows desktops. The ARM core in the PS4 will run the OS and do all the background processing.

2. The game is CPU bound on a console.
So the developers need to use some clever multithreading to get it working nicely. Okay. Now, bear in mind, a quad core i5 is as fast if not faster than an 8 core Jaguar. Why then would I need an 8 core CPU? I dont.

Again, perhaps you don't know the specifics of Jaguar, but I can assure you that if it was possible to scale up the power and clock speed, four Jaguar cores would be roughly equivalent to a quad-core Core i5 processor, possibly even faster. Jaguar is, like ARM, designed for efficiency and not raw power.

 

[wannabe]

Well what gpu is he buying? I would buy a quadcore intel now, i would not buy a slow amd 8 core. Check intels plans for an 8 core cpu, not sure what socket they will use though.

He's looking at a GTX 660Ti

 

[Ancalagon]

You're not familiar with Jaguar's architecture, are you? Its almost twice as fast as an Intel Atom at a lower clock speed and with a lower TDP of around 15W (and that's being conservative). Compared to the Core i3-3217U, its almost that chip's equal. If you double the power (to 30W) and add in boost states, Jaguar then theoretically becomes four times as fast as Atom and matches or beats Core i5 ULV performance. Increase the clock speed to 2.5GHz for all cores with boost states to 3.0GHz and you have desktop i5-rivalling power at roughly 3/4 the power usage. And bear in mind, its still a quad-core.

If it were possible to clock Jaguar up and feed it even more power, at 4.0GHz on all cores with a 100W TDP it could be faster than an i5-3570K processor.

Oh gee, how inconvenient for you!

First, Jaguar lacks any kind of turbo. Second, it may be twice as fast as Atom but it is less than half as fast as a Core i5, clock for clock.

You're guessing here. If there are however many threads available on a console, developers will use that many threads. The PS3 had six cores available to developers as the seventh was used for the PS3 OS and for background processes. The Xbox 360 has three cores with hyper-threading. During the time that AMD sold triple-cores, those offered the best bang-for-buck because they were pretty much on par with what the consoles could offer.

Keep in mind that with eight threads available, the console ends up being much more efficient because of the low TDP Jaguar boasts and the fact that no other processes are hogging CPU cycles as is the case with Windows desktops. The ARM core in the PS4 will run the OS and do all the background processing.

Efficiency is meaningless here. We arent talking efficiency, we are talking about how fast 8 core Jaguar is relative to a desktop Core i5 or Piledriver.

Second, developers might actually use more than 8 threads, since some threads will be idle or waiting some of the time. Do you do any threaded programming?

Third, developers will do the bare minimum possible. If they dont need to use 8 threads, they wont. Do you know of the pitfalls of cross thread synchronization? Developers will not use 1 thread more than they need to. If they need 1, they will use 1, because it is MUCH simpler!

Again, perhaps you don't know the specifics of Jaguar, but I can assure you that if it was possible to scale up the power and clock speed, four Jaguar cores would be roughly equivalent to a quad-core Core i5 processor, possibly even faster. Jaguar is, like ARM, designed for efficiency and not raw power.

No, it just isnt! Look at the benchmarks I posted - it scores well against Atom but it is far behind i5!

 

[killadoob]

He's looking at a GTX 660Ti

Yea you should be able to get the amd then, he isn't go huge with the 660ti so the cpu should be fine to cope with the gpu. I could be mistaken though.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Now, your assertion that an 8 core CPU will be inherently better at running 8 threaded applications is inherently false, because you ignore the possibility that the quad core might be faster even though it has less cores (as often happens with the i5 and FX CPUs).

You're forgetting that not all thread behaviours are the same. Multi-threaded apps that favour integer cores run faster on the FX Octo-cores because those are real, physical integer-based processors. Apps that favour floating-point math will make the oct-cores run at the same speed as the Core i5 quads, with Hyper-threading taking the lead because Intel's i7 processors can address two threads per CPU cycle.

Your assertion that all threads behave the same and require the same calculations and hardware is inherently false.

 

[Ancalagon]

You're forgetting that not all thread behaviours are the same. Multi-threaded apps that favour integer cores run faster on the FX Octo-cores because those are real, physical integer-based processors. Apps that favour floating-point math will make the oct-cores run at the same speed as the Core i5 quads, with Hyper-threading taking the lead because Intel's i7 processors can address two threads per CPU cycle.

Your assertion that all threads behave the same and require the same calculations and hardware is inherently false.

Yes, exactly - in some cases, an FX chip will be faster running 8 threads, and in some cases, a Core i5 will be faster running 8 threads. That is exactly what I am saying - an 8 core CPU is not always better than a quad core.

 

[killadoob]

Yes, exactly - in some cases, an FX chip will be faster running 8 threads, and in some cases, a Core i5 will be faster running 8 threads. That is exactly what I am saying - an 8 core CPU is not always better than a quad core.

You mean a quadcore with hyper threading though surely, do all quadcore from intel have hyper threading?

 

[Ancalagon]

You mean a quadcore with hyper threading though surely, do all quadcore from intel have hyper threading?

No, I mean a quad core - no all Intel chips do not have hyper threading.

Which is going to be faster - a 1.6Ghz dual core or a 4 Ghz single core, with each core having the same architecture? The single core, of course.

EDIT: in some cases, a 3.2GHz single core is faster than a 1.6 Ghz dual core, because of imperfect scaling.

 

[killadoob]

No, I mean a quad core - no all Intel chips do not have hyper threading.

Which is going to be faster - a 1.6Ghz dual core or a 4 Ghz single core, with each core having the same architecture? The single core, of course.

EDIT: in some cases, a 3.2GHz single core is faster than a 1.6 Ghz dual core, because of imperfect scaling.

Are we not talking about threading and cores though?

So what is faster with a game made to run with 8 threads? quadcore intel with hyperthreading or amd with 8 cores? So do people need a quadcore if they have a dual core cpu with hyper threading, assuming hyper threading comes with dual cores lol. I really don't know.

 

[CataclysmZA]

Yes, exactly - in some cases, an FX chip will be faster running 8 threads, and in some cases, a Core i5 will be faster running 8 threads. That is exactly what I am saying - an 8 core CPU is not always better than a quad core.

But in your theoretical example, a quad-core working through an eight-thread workload still only goes through four threads at a time. The quad's not inherently better, the application is just poorly coded

In addition, many benchmarks and applications out there do tend to have a little bias towards Intel because of the instruction set support and the way the application is compiled. Your point may stand now, but next year Intel's advantage will be much lower and they will have to go through the same period of crappy single-core performance as AMD when they eventually transition to a higher core count.

do all quadcore from intel have hyper threading?

All Pentium, Core i5 and Core i5 processors support Hyper-threading, Intel just disables it except in the case of the i3 family.

So what is faster with a game made to run with 8 threads? quadcore intel with hyperthreading or amd with 8 cores? So do people need a quadcore if they have a dual core cpu with hyper threading, assuming hyper threading comes with dual cores lol. I really don't know.

The octo/quad-core chip is preferable over the hyper-threaded ones. Even though Intel's HT tech works better now than it did in the Netburst era, its still a single core that can address two threads in a clock cycle. When the processor's overloaded and can't take on the extra threads, performance drops by half. That's why the minimum frame rates for a Core i3 are roughly 50% lower than the minimum frame rates achieved by a proper quad-core chip when things get tough in Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3.

Some games favour the use of HT and do support it properly, but a quad is still preferred to get through intensive battles and difficult-to-render scenes.

 

[killadoob]

So then in theory you would want an 8 core cpu running 8 core games and not hyper threading, i know a game like bf 3 hates hyper threading. very poor performance with it turned on.

Question though wesley is now the right time to buy the amd 8 core? Shame nobody has given the oke clarity.

 

[Ancalagon]

Are we not talking about threading and cores though?

So what is faster with a game made to run with 8 threads? quadcore intel with hyperthreading or amd with 8 cores? So do people need a quadcore if they have a dual core cpu with hyper threading, assuming hyper threading comes with dual cores lol. I really don't know.

Answer - it depends. The AMD Defense force would have you believe that it is always better to have more cores. Of course, its a little more complicated - would you rather have 4 fast cores or 8 slower cores?

But in your theoretical example, a quad-core working through an eight-thread workload still only goes through four threads at a time. The quad's not inherently better, the application is just poorly coded

In addition, many benchmarks and applications out there do tend to have a little bias towards Intel because of the instruction set support and the way the application is compiled. Your point may stand now, but next year Intel's advantage will be much lower and they will have to go through the same period of crappy single-core performance as AMD when they eventually transition to a higher core count.

Yes, future applications will be better optimized for AMD chips, that much is true.

But your assertion that an app that runs better on a quad core than an 8 core CPU, is poorly coded, is blatantly false. Why is it so difficult to understand that the relative performance of each CPU core matters when comparing them in a multi threaded environment? Sheesh!

Lets take a dual core Pentium 4 clocked at 3.4 Ghz, vs a single core Core i5 (you have disabled 3 cores) at 3.4 Ghz. Which is faster? In every single scenario, with no exceptions, the Core i5 is faster. That flies in the face of your "more cores is always better mantra." The answer is, it depends on the cores themselves, and not their number, as to whether they would be faster.

16 Cortex A7 cores vs one Core i7 core - which will be faster? my money will be on the Core i7.
800 Radeon cores in the 4870 vs 216 cores in the Geforce 260 Core 216 - the GeForce 260 is faster despite having less than 25% of the cores.

it is not poor coding! It is just how things work - threads are swapped onto and off a CPU as needed.

The quad core CPU only processes 4 threads at a time, but it can do so twice as fast as the 8 core!

It really, really is not that difficult to understand.

The octo/quad-core chip is preferable over the hyper-threaded ones. Even though Intel's HT tech works better now than it did in the Netburst era, its still a single core that can address two threads in a clock cycle. When the processor's overloaded and can't take on the extra threads, performance drops by half. That's why the minimum frame rates for a Core i3 are roughly 50% lower than the minimum frame rates achieved by a proper quad-core chip when things get tough in Crysis 3 and Far Cry 3.

Some games favour the use of HT and do support it properly, but a quad is still preferred to get through intensive battles and difficult-to-render scenes.

Silly example - dual core with HT vs a quad core, of course the quad core is faster. For a better comparison, compare a quad core to a quad core with hyper threading.

 

[killadoob]

You said a better quadcore is better than an 8 core cpu in theory, so a faster dual core would then possibly do things faster than a quadcore or have i mistaken what you have said?

You are contradicting yourself saying a dual core can't be as fast as a quad but a quad can be as fast as an octo or i missed something .

 

[Ancalagon]

You said a better quadcore is better than an 8 core cpu in theory, so a faster dual core would then possibly do things faster than a quadcore or have i mistaken what you have said?

You are contradicting yourself saying a dual core can't be as fast as a quad but a quad can be as fast as an octo or i missed something .

Who are you talking to?

No, thats not what I'm saying at all (groan!).

A quad core CAN be faster than an 8 core, but it ISNT ALWAYS.
An 8 core is NOT ALWAYS faster than a quad core.
A quad core is NOT ALWAYS faster than a dual core.

Imagine an 8 core 486 (FROM THE MID 90's) vs a single core Core i7 (FROM TODAY).

Which is faster?

EDIT:

As I said above:

Answer - it depends. The AMD Defense force would have you believe that it is always better to have more cores. Of course, its a little more complicated - would you rather have 4 fast cores or 8 slower cores?

 

[OMB]

maybe the question for the OP is really how fanatical is his friend about gaming performance?

In reality any decent CPU/GPU combination irrespective of whether Intel/AMD/Nvidia combination these days offers a level of performance in most games where, unless you are an extreme fanatic, it becomes difficult to discern gaming performance

not all of us feel the need to run at the ultimate resolution possible at 4XAA

My opinion

 

[Swa]

Just looking at benchmarks for the fx8350 and fx6350, the fx8350 isnt too much better, so would it be worth getting the fx6350 at a lower price (not sure how much it is, cant seem to find it locally, but it seems to be about R800 cheaper then the fx8350) and getting a better graphics card?

Benchmarks are not that accurate and won't give the real world performance value. My system currently gives 570 threads and 42 processes. Now if those threads were all from the same process it wouldn't have nearly the same performance on a slower 8 core than a faster 6 core. But with 42 processes you can be sure that each process is getting the maximum performance from the cpu it is running on. Really the performance boost that people report with more cores in the absence of benchmarks showing it is not so "placebo" as is usually claimed.

In console they will use every ounce of performance they can get. That means 8 threads. They will keep it 8threads when moving to pc as that will be less work.

Does anybody know what the state of console development is now? When the Saturn came out developers were really struggling to take full advantage of all 8 processors. Many of the engineers at the time felt a faster processor would have been better but with time constraints and Sony's Playstation Sega threw in a second ad-hoc CPU. Many have contemplated that this is where it all started going belly-up for Sega. I wish they were still in the console game. They really were ahead of their time.

 

[wannabe]

maybe the question for the OP is really how fanatical is his friend about gaming performance?

In reality any decent CPU/GPU combination irrespective of whether Intel/AMD/Nvidia combination these days offers a level of performance in most games where, unless you are an extreme fanatic, it becomes difficult to discern gaming performance

not all of us feel the need to run at the ultimate resolution possible at 4XAA

My opinion

he's not too concerned about gaming performance, but is more concerned with a system that will last him a couple of years, his current system is a core2duo E7400 with a 9800GT, so anything new will amazing him

 

[Swa]

he's not too concerned about gaming performance, but is more concerned with a system that will last him a couple of years, his current system is a core2duo E7400 with a 9800GT, so anything new will amazing him

Go with 8 core then.

 

[ponder]

When the Saturn came out developers were really struggling to take full advantage of all 8 processors.

The Saturn was notoriously hard to code for and I think the same can be said about the PS3. The greatest technological hardware does not always result in the best product, ie betamax vs vhs etc. If great hardware was the be all and end all we would all be using Amigas today.

 

[Swa]

The Saturn was notoriously hard to code for and I think the same can be said about the PS3. The greatest technological hardware does not always result in the best product, ie betamax vs vhs etc. If great hardware was the be all and end all we would all be using Amigas today.

The Saturn was hard to code for because of the dual core. I don't know if it was exactly the same as multithreading but it was the case that developers didn't have the skills to make use of it. Sure there were other differences as well but I often wonder how it would have fared if released today with comparable hardware.