Does DirectX 12 Make Xeon the new i7?

[Ryoutarou97]

DirectX 12 will be better for multithreaded systems. My question is, will this be very scalable? If so, then wouldn't a 12 core Xeon (24 threads) just crush a 4 core chip like the 4790k? Will dual 18 core Xeons on a workstation or server grade board become the new high end like the 5960X is now for gaming?

[C0LL0SS0S]

You are comparing way different CPUs,  5960X isn't the highest CPU available atm ?

[Timopomer]

just because the api allows it,doesnt mean games will utilize it.

[blu4]

Xeons are designed for server and high workloads 24/7, not for gaming.

[Tagiau]

You are comparing way different CPUs,  5960X isn't the highest CPU available atm ?

For consumer use yes. But over on prosumer/server side xeon has 18 cores.

[Samfisher]

DirectX 12 will be better for multithreaded systems. My question is, will this be very scalable? If so, then wouldn't a 12 core Xeon (24 threads) just crush a 4 core chip like the 4790k? Will dual 18 core Xeons on a workstation or server grade board become the new high end like the 5960X is now for gaming?

 

DX12 only help if the game is SOLELY bottlenecked by draw calls and nothing else.

[Sauron]

The 5960x currently makes 0 sense for gaming.

 

And xeons with 18 cores tend to cost like a motorcycle... I doubt anyone would buy one just to get that 10% boost... because bare in mind that the gpu is still what will make or break a gaming system, if the cpu doesn't bottleneck it that's all you can do on the cpu side. And a 4790k is already not bottlenecking any card.

[Ryoutarou97]

just because the api allows it, doesnt mean games will utilize it.

 

I was under the impression that DX12 would essentially take a workload and split across threads automatically. If not, then why has everyone been talking about the benefits of DX12? BF4 can already use 4 threads, so the functionality already exists, I think.

 

Xeons are designed for server and high workloads 24/7, not for gaming.

 

I know, but it doesn't mean that they won't work for gaming. And I don't think that the per-core performance is 4.5x worse than the 5960X.

[Tech_Dreamer]

i think for that game devs have to support the multithreading as well, untill then it'll be the same old story,

[ICantThinkOfAnyGoodName]

Xeons are designed for server and high workloads 24/7, not for gaming.

Actually there are some Xeons which are fairly good for gaming. For example the E3-1231v3 which is basically just a i7 4790 without integrated graphics.

[blu4]

Actually there are some Xeons which are fairly good for gaming. For example the E3-1231v3 which is basically just a i7 4790 without integrated graphics.

Are you willing to pay few hundred more for that?

[SteveGrabowski]

Are you willing to pay few hundred more for that?

 

The Xeon E3-1231v3 is actually about $60 less than the extremely similar i7-4771, which is why I bought it.

[Briggsy]

This recent article from PCP is a great read about the draw call difference, and core scaling.  http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/3DMark-API-Overhead-Feature-Test-Early-DX12-Performance

 

[Ryoutarou97]

 

 

And xeons with 18 cores tend to cost like a motorcycle... I doubt anyone would buy one just to get that 10% boost... because bare in mind that the gpu is still what will make or break a gaming system, if the cpu doesn't bottleneck it that's all you can do on the cpu side. And a 4790k is already not bottlenecking any card.

Thanks for the answer! Followup question, with the new titan x in quad SLI with the improved scaling, do you think surround 4k is possible?

[SteveGrabowski]

DirectX 12 will be better for multithreaded systems. My question is, will this be very scalable? If so, then wouldn't a 12 core Xeon (24 threads) just crush a 4 core chip like the 4790k? Will dual 18 core Xeons on a workstation or server grade board become the new high end like the 5960X is now for gaming?

 

You'll see a few games written to use more than 8 threads, but for the most part games really utilize 4-8 threads now, since the consoles are octacores. There is no reason to write games to utilize 12 or 18 core Xeon E5 processors, and it's harder to write games to support more threads.

[Analog]

The 5960x currently makes 0 sense for gaming.

 

^ This! 

 

I have the 5960X and also Windows 10, which has support for the new DX12 with the 347.91 drivers from nVidia and believe me there is no difference in performance. The fact that DX12 allows for better multi-core workload processing doesn't mean that developers will adopt it right away, nor that games will utilize all 16 threads of a 5960X, for example. Even still some developers use DX9 instead of DX11...

[InTechsicated]

By all means put a xeon in your gaming rig, I am absolutely sure it wont be a waste of money or time......or maybe it will.

[Griffscavern]

Xeons are designed for server and high workloads 24/7, not for gaming.

Not true. If you get an e3 1230, 1231, or 1246. As well as others they perform just as well as an i7 4770. They are great for gaming. Just not overclockable. Plus they are a lot cheaper.

[Opcode]

So far out of the testing done we are seeing DirectX 12 only supporting up to six threads (unclear if API or software limitation).

 

Long story short a 20 core Xeon will likely perform worse due to having lower clock frequencies.

[ArulinTheKirin]

^ This! 

 

I have the 5960X and also Windows 10, which has support for the new DX12 with the 347.91 drivers from nVidia and believe me there is no difference in performance. The fact that DX12 allows for better multi-core workload processing doesn't mean that developers will adopt it right away, nor that games will utilize all 16 threads of a 5960X, for example. Even still some developers use DX9 instead of DX11...

If M$ will cut the support for DX9 and 11 like they did IE 10 and back. Developers will have no choice but to use DX12, I hope they do.

[Analog]

If M$ will cut the support for DX9 and 11 like they did IE 10 and back. Developers will have no choice but to use DX12, I hope they do.

 

True, but a lot of people will be upset, because not everyone is able to afford a graphics card that supports DX12. 

[FruitBasketSilex]

 

 

DX12 spreads the graphics stack across all cores. That's it. Plain and simple. It doesn't magically multithreaded things, and its still up to the developers of games to actually use more than X amount of cores for their logic processing, physics, AI, etc. Benchmarks showing magical improvements with DX12 are bs. It's meant to relieve drawcall bottlenecks, not make 2012 hardware come magically back to life (although that wouldn't be a bad thing, kickass low cost builds? Hell yes.) The whole "ZURMOGAWD, DX12 MAEKS MY FX GREAT AGAIN, 80+ CORES USAGES FOR ALL, HOORAY!" Fallacy needs to die.

Just going to copy pasta my post from the other DX12 thread.

 

Not to mention, FPS is STILL going to mostly be up to GPU. 

[Ryoutarou97]

Just going to copy pasta my post from the other DX12 thread.

 

Not to mention, FPS is STILL going to mostly be up to GPU. 

It's a pretty old thread from when I first heard about DX 12, but I said nothing about FPS. It would affect minimum FPS and frame timing, wouldn't it? I was just wondering if having 18+ cores would be better than 4 running hyperspeed, but I'll add to the question. Would it work if developers support it? People said it seems to only use up to 6 cores, is that controlled by the dev? I saw it as a layer below the game so it would use multiple cores automatically for anything using DX12. Is it not?

[FruitBasketSilex]

It's a pretty old thread from when I first heard about DX 12, but I said nothing about FPS. It would affect minimum FPS and frame timing, wouldn't it? I was just wondering if having 18+ cores would be better than 4 running hyperspeed, but I'll add to the question. Would it work if developers support it? People said it seems to only use up to 6 cores, is that controlled by the dev? I saw it as a layer below the game so it would use multiple cores automatically for anything using DX12. Is it not?

It would really only have the effect of making weaker CPUs better able to handle higher end GPUs, which is where you'd see the better minimums and frame timing. The paradigm of gaming CPUs will stay the same. Developers still have to run all of their game logic, etc across multiple cores themselves. DirectX is only graphics, that's the only thing DirectX controls, it's not a game engine, just a graphics front-end.

 

Edit: Oh, and sorry, I didn't notice this was a necro'd thread.

[Ryoutarou97]

It would really only have the effect of making weaker CPUs better able to handle higher end GPUs, which is where you'd see the better minimums and frame timing. The paradigm of gaming CPUs will stay the same. Developers still have to run all of their game logic, etc across multiple cores themselves. DirectX is only graphics, that's the only thing DirectX controls, it's not a game engine, just a graphics front-end.

 

Edit: Oh, and sorry, I didn't notice this was a necro'd thread.

Good point, the engine is still up to the dev. Thanks and it's not really a problem with the necro since I was still confused, I suppose.