Jump to content
Phishing Emails & YouTube Messages - Fake Giveaway Read more... ×
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Kuzma

Console optimisations and how they will effect you

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

*bump*

Added a Postscript to mention a few things


Console optimisations and how they will effect you | The difference between AMD cores and Intel cores | Memory Bus size and how it effects your VRAM usage |
How much vram do you actually need? | APUs and the future of processing | Projects: SO - here

Intel i7 5820l @ with Corsair H110 | 32GB DDR4 RAM @ 1600Mhz | XFX Radeon R9 290 @ 1.2Ghz | Corsair 600Q | Corsair TX650 | Probably too much corsair but meh should have had a Corsair SSD and RAM | 1.3TB HDD Space | Sennheiser HD598 | Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro | Blue Snowball

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true that the Phenom and Intel processors are going to see the same performance benefit but here's the thing; FX processors aren't very well optimise for loads on all cores at the same time which is why the MP ratio is about 2/3 of the core count; the Phenom x6s have a 6x MP ratio, the FX 8350 has a 6x MP ratio therefore the magnitude of the performance increase will be exactly the same for both of them; the x6 1100T is going to destroy the 6350 as the 6350 only has an MP ratio of 4x (the same as the i5s and i7s).

 

The 3930k is probably going to be the king price/performance cpu once the optimisations hit and I'm really hoping the 3910k is real so I can scoop one up and be prepared for the optimisations. With a 6x MP ratio it's pretty much gg.

Well that confuses me.

I believed that the reason the FX had a lower MP ratio was because of the way it's cores are set up to share resources and these optimizations would reverse that so that it would be better utilized and so would fix the problem with FX CPU's in regards to gaming. It only makes sense to me that the FX chips would come out ahead of all other CPUs (aside from APUs) when these optimizations hit because they have the most to benefit from since their cores are built to work in tandem with each other making multi-processing more efficient when used correctly but the CPU as a whole less efficient when not used at all (CPUs effectively fighting over cache memory when working on separate tasks).

Basically, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to me that FX chips wouldn't gain more than all other normal CPUs since they are effectively built to utilize Multi-processing more efficiently than the other CPUs and that is what these optimizations are all about. Utilizing multi-processing more effectively. 

Am I missing something?

 


† Christian Member †

For my pertinent links to guides, reviews, and anything similar, go here, and look under the spoiler labeled such. A brief history of Unix and it's relation to OS X by Builder.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'm really hoping the 3910k is real so I can scoop one up and be prepared for the optimisations. With a 6x MP ratio it's pretty much gg.

Oooh! The 3910k looks pretty nice. http://www.techpowerup.com/187696/curious-looking-core-i7-3910k-lga2011-processor-surfaces.html


I like the color scheme of Noctua fans. Deal with it. Forget about the bad memories of the past.


"wunder you really are as straight as a rainbow" - Lanoi "can I fisterino your nose" - WunderWuffle


Forget about the bad memories of the past, take the good ones along with you through the present, and look forwards to the good things that will come in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Well that confuses me.

I believed that the reason the FX had a lower MP ratio was because of the way it's cores are set up to share resources and these optimizations would reverse that so that it would be better utilized and so would fix the problem with FX CPU's in regards to gaming. It only makes sense to me that the FX chips would come out ahead of all other CPUs (aside from APUs) when these optimizations hit because they have the most to benefit from since their cores are built to work in tandem with each other making multi-processing more efficient when used correctly but the CPU as a whole less efficient when not used at all (CPUs effectively fighting over cache memory when working on separate tasks).

Basically, I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to me that FX chips wouldn't gain more than all other normal CPUs since they are effectively built to utilize Multi-processing more efficiently than the other CPUs and that is what these optimizations are all about. Utilizing multi-processing more effectively. 

Am I missing something?

 

It should be like that but it's not, higher MP Ratio is best and Intel cores and Phenom cores generally have an MP Ratio of 1 per core making them more efficient at using all cores or odd numbers (you should read my thread on the differences between AMD cores and Intel cores :P ) but in tasks that us 2,4 or 6 (in the case of the 832/50) cores they do better as the cores kind of share answers making them very efficient and fast but the moment you get all the cores dong different things the cores start to work against each other removing some of that efficiency and lowering the MP Ratio per core, however the 6x multiplier 8350 still outperforms the perfect scaling i5s and i7s so that's some food for thought. With Steamroller we've been told that the sharing of resources is going to be so little that the MP Ratio will most likely be near or perfectly scaled ^_^ if so Steamroller may be the second coming of athlon.

 

Although the AMD 8350 and x6 1100T will both receive benefits of the same magnitude the 8350 will have a much higher starting point meaning that the 8350 will outperform it regardless. For the 6350 though the performance increase will only be 4x and it looks like the x6 1100T will sit between the 6350 and the 8320.


Console optimisations and how they will effect you | The difference between AMD cores and Intel cores | Memory Bus size and how it effects your VRAM usage |
How much vram do you actually need? | APUs and the future of processing | Projects: SO - here

Intel i7 5820l @ with Corsair H110 | 32GB DDR4 RAM @ 1600Mhz | XFX Radeon R9 290 @ 1.2Ghz | Corsair 600Q | Corsair TX650 | Probably too much corsair but meh should have had a Corsair SSD and RAM | 1.3TB HDD Space | Sennheiser HD598 | Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro | Blue Snowball

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

@LinusTech in your overkill build guide you said that gaming are lightly threaded loads (true) but with the console optimisations don't you think people will start to benefit from those extra cores on LGA2011 some time in the near future?


Console optimisations and how they will effect you | The difference between AMD cores and Intel cores | Memory Bus size and how it effects your VRAM usage |
How much vram do you actually need? | APUs and the future of processing | Projects: SO - here

Intel i7 5820l @ with Corsair H110 | 32GB DDR4 RAM @ 1600Mhz | XFX Radeon R9 290 @ 1.2Ghz | Corsair 600Q | Corsair TX650 | Probably too much corsair but meh should have had a Corsair SSD and RAM | 1.3TB HDD Space | Sennheiser HD598 | Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro | Blue Snowball

Link to post
Share on other sites

The optimisation won't just help AMD processors it will also assist Intel processors; there will be optimisation for more cores in general not just bulldozer or piledriver cores ^_^ the actual code will probably have optimisations for bulldozer and piledriver cores but just having the games multi-threaded will help everyone :D

 

****ing finally someone says this. Last time I said it I had an angry mob with pitchforks at my door.


i75820K @ 4.6Ghz / X99 Deluxe / 32GB DDR4 / Titan X(Pascal) @ 2Ghz / Custom Loop / U3415W

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by how relatively weak the next-gen consoles are CPU wise. I think its safe to say my i5 2500k will be good awhile yet.

A few things:

  1. Consoles will likely have specialized CPU-side optimizations only for them that utilizes their special memory layout (not the RAM memory layout, but how it all communicates, as it is different from how PC's do it).
  2. The APUs are default at 1.6GHz but have a boost clock of 2.3GHz IIRC. 
  3. The APUs are 8 cores, and fully fledged 8 cores; not FX style 8 cores. 

So a simple question: Which do you personally think is more powerful? An 8 core running parallel at around 2.3GHz or a 4 core running at around 3.7-4.0GHz? My guess is the 8 core, personally.


† Christian Member †

For my pertinent links to guides, reviews, and anything similar, go here, and look under the spoiler labeled such. A brief history of Unix and it's relation to OS X by Builder.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe a 4 core 4.4 Ghz will be able to still play such optimized games?


Andres "Bluejay" Alejandro Montefusco - The Forums Favorite Bird!!!

Top Clock: 7.889 Ghz Cooled by: Liquid Helium   

#ChocolateRAM #OatmealFans #ScratchItHarder #WorstcardBestoverclocker #CrazySexStories #SchnitzelQuest TS3 SERVER

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think consoles are going to directly affect the way pc games run, sure this time around consoles are more like pc's than we've seen with the xbox 360 and ps3 but they are still very different from what most of us are running.  I think it will literally just push graphics and game engines even harder and with that game devs will have to provide more multithreaded optimizations (and any other optimizations they can) for people on pc.  But really we've already seen this happen with Farcry 3 and Crysis 3 and even BF3, an 8350 can beat a 3570k in games like that (sometimes) but with much weaker cores, imo, we've already seen what console optimizations are going to be like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe a 4 core 4.4 Ghz will be able to still play such optimized games?

 

Yes. There is no reason why they would not.

I really don't think consoles are going to directly affect the way pc games run, sure this time around consoles are more like pc's than we've seen with the xbox 360 and ps3 but they are still very different from what most of us are running.  I think it will literally just push graphics and game engines even harder and with that game devs will have to provide more multithreaded optimizations (and any other optimizations they can) for people on pc.  But really we've already seen this happen with Farcry 3 and Crysis 3 and even BF3, an 8350 can beat a 3570k in games like that (sometimes) but with much weaker cores, imo, we've already seen what console optimizations are going to be like.

I disagree completely about the boldened part. They are essentially exactly what we are running but in a slightly different configuration (and in the PS4's case) with slightly different System RAM. Otherwise, it is the same system as a PC. Just cheaper and specialized.


† Christian Member †

For my pertinent links to guides, reviews, and anything similar, go here, and look under the spoiler labeled such. A brief history of Unix and it's relation to OS X by Builder.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I disagree completely about the boldened part. They are essentially exactly what we are running but in a slightly different configuration (and in the PS4's case) with slightly different System RAM. Otherwise, it is the same system as a PC. Just cheaper and specialized.

I didn't know most of us are even close to having pc's with similar spec, 8 core apus with shared GDDR5 system/vram.  I get what your saying, the architecture is similar and the technology I guess, whereas the 360 and ps3 were like hats compared to pc's.  but the ps4 and one are different enough from the average gaming pc to cause issues with porting and optimizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know most of us are even close to having pc's with similar spec, 8 core apus with shared GDDR5 system/vram.  I get what your saying, the architecture is similar and the technology I guess, whereas the 360 and ps3 were like hats compared to pc's.  but the ps4 and one are different enough from the average gaming pc to cause issues with porting and optimizations.

Well, I am sorry, but I still disagree. Although we do not have 8 core CPU's, we have 4 core CPUs that run faster than the 8 core CPU. 

The only tangible difference (in this I mean physical layout or orientation of the system) is how the system is set up to exchange information between the APU, RAM, and secondary CPU (for streaming, video encoding, and update/game downloading in the background). And that is a given, but I completely doubt that would be much of an issue in porting or optimizations. 


† Christian Member †

For my pertinent links to guides, reviews, and anything similar, go here, and look under the spoiler labeled such. A brief history of Unix and it's relation to OS X by Builder.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i think both sides will benefit from this. sure the FX and APU series may get more benefits, but not that much. while it is true that more cores are being utilized and specifically those architectures will benefit the most because they have the same architecture as the consoles, raw power is still in play. and it also on the developer whether they want to optimize it or not. i mean, there isn't that much difference between intel and amd's price/performance. it comes down to what the developer prioritizes.


| i5 3570 | Palit GTX 680 jetsream | Gigabyte Z77x-ud3h | Corsair Vengeance 2x4 1600mhz | WD Caviar Black  1TB | Corsair TX 650m | Coolemaster Hyper212 X | NZXT Pantom 410 | Asus VS239 | Logitech G400s |


Click here to learn how to troll

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

A few things:

  1. Consoles will likely have specialized CPU-side optimizations only for them that utilizes their special memory layout (not the RAM memory layout, but how it all communicates, as it is different from how PC's do it).
  2. The APUs are default at 1.6GHz but have a boost clock of 2.3GHz IIRC. 
  3. The APUs are 8 cores, and fully fledged 8 cores; not FX style 8 cores. 

So a simple question: Which do you personally think is more powerful? An 8 core running parallel at around 2.3GHz or a 4 core running at around 3.7-4.0GHz? My guess is the 8 core, personally.

Actually Vitalius you're right ^_^ the 8 core would be faster by about 15%; I'm not going to quote my post about the singe core running at 8 ghz vs the 8 core running at 1.1ghz again but I think you get it ^_^


Console optimisations and how they will effect you | The difference between AMD cores and Intel cores | Memory Bus size and how it effects your VRAM usage |
How much vram do you actually need? | APUs and the future of processing | Projects: SO - here

Intel i7 5820l @ with Corsair H110 | 32GB DDR4 RAM @ 1600Mhz | XFX Radeon R9 290 @ 1.2Ghz | Corsair 600Q | Corsair TX650 | Probably too much corsair but meh should have had a Corsair SSD and RAM | 1.3TB HDD Space | Sennheiser HD598 | Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro | Blue Snowball

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooo, so in a nutshell, multi threading(software side) is the use of multiple cores (both physical and virtual) while hyper threading(hardware side) is the process of creating a virtual core from a physical core. And am i right to say that my i5-3570k has 4 physical cores, while the i7-3770k which is hyper threaded has 4 physical AND 4 virtual cores?

I finally know the difference between multi threaded & hyper threaded, confused me for ages. thank you so much!  :D

 

So if we have hyper-threaded APUs then it is effectively 16 cores being utilised on a multi-threaded application? Holy shit!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Oooo, so in a nutshell, multi threading(software side) is the use of multiple cores (both physical and virtual) while hyper threading(hardware side) is the process of creating a virtual core from a physical core. And am i right to say that my i5-3570k has 4 physical cores, while the i7-3770k which is hyper threaded has 4 physical AND 4 virtual cores?

I finally know the difference between multi threaded & hyper threaded, confused me for ages. thank you so much!  :D

 

So if we have hyper-threaded APUs then it is effectively 16 cores being utilised on a multi-threaded application? Holy shit!

Yes that is it in a nutshell :P but they thing to always remember is that the 4 virtual cores are weaker than standard ones & when the 4 physical cores are being pushed 100% the virtual cores can't do anything :D

 

Glad to have helped


Console optimisations and how they will effect you | The difference between AMD cores and Intel cores | Memory Bus size and how it effects your VRAM usage |
How much vram do you actually need? | APUs and the future of processing | Projects: SO - here

Intel i7 5820l @ with Corsair H110 | 32GB DDR4 RAM @ 1600Mhz | XFX Radeon R9 290 @ 1.2Ghz | Corsair 600Q | Corsair TX650 | Probably too much corsair but meh should have had a Corsair SSD and RAM | 1.3TB HDD Space | Sennheiser HD598 | Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro | Blue Snowball

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Vitalius you're right ^_^ the 8 core would be faster by about 15%; I'm not going to quote my post about the singe core running at 8 ghz vs the 8 core running at 1.1ghz again but I think you get it ^_^

Indeed, there are a couple of reasons why AMD went with an 8 core Jaguar CPU instead of a 4 core Piledriver CPU

One being that 8 Jaguar cores @ 2.0Ghz perform just as well as 4 Piledriver cores @ 4.0Ghz but consume less power, output less heat & take up less space on the APU die.

4 Jaguar cores @ 2.0Ghz vs 2 Piledriver cores @ 3.9Ghz.

The other reason being that the Jaguar architecture is 28nm based, which allows seamless integration with the GCN architecture of the 7000/8000 series graphics (Southern Islands/Sea Islands).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Indeed, there are a couple of reasons why AMD went with an 8 core Jaguar CPU instead of a 4 core Piledriver CPU

One being that 8 Jaguar cores @ 2.0Ghz perform just as well as 4 Piledriver cores @ 4.0Ghz but consume less power, output less heat & take up less space on the APU die.

4 Jaguar cores @ 2.0Ghz vs 2 Piledriver cores @ 3.9Ghz.

The other reason being that the Jaguar architecture is 28nm based, which allows seamless integration with the GCN architecture of the 7000/8000 series graphics (Southern Islands/Sea Islands).

Great addition to the thread ^_^ and some interesting information.


Console optimisations and how they will effect you | The difference between AMD cores and Intel cores | Memory Bus size and how it effects your VRAM usage |
How much vram do you actually need? | APUs and the future of processing | Projects: SO - here

Intel i7 5820l @ with Corsair H110 | 32GB DDR4 RAM @ 1600Mhz | XFX Radeon R9 290 @ 1.2Ghz | Corsair 600Q | Corsair TX650 | Probably too much corsair but meh should have had a Corsair SSD and RAM | 1.3TB HDD Space | Sennheiser HD598 | Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro | Blue Snowball

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP

Lol, all I saw in the first post was "hyper threading is amazing"!

xD it is amazing and is a really good idea but it's useless in certain situations :p


Console optimisations and how they will effect you | The difference between AMD cores and Intel cores | Memory Bus size and how it effects your VRAM usage |
How much vram do you actually need? | APUs and the future of processing | Projects: SO - here

Intel i7 5820l @ with Corsair H110 | 32GB DDR4 RAM @ 1600Mhz | XFX Radeon R9 290 @ 1.2Ghz | Corsair 600Q | Corsair TX650 | Probably too much corsair but meh should have had a Corsair SSD and RAM | 1.3TB HDD Space | Sennheiser HD598 | Beyerdynamic Custom One Pro | Blue Snowball

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused by your comment on HyperThreading and games. Though I may have misread something somewhere here.

 

You state that a game puts a very heavy load on a single core and that because of this, HT is useless.

 

Yes. But that's where the optimisations fix things.

 

The optimisations will be to split that single thread up into multiple "smaller" (less demanding) threads, with that happening, that would mean that HyperThreading would make a difference since it's more smaller threads.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong there, but that's logical to me.

 

 

 

 

Note: I have proof of this too, though it may be an exception due to the fact the game runs on Java. If you play Minecraft, (specifically FTB Ultimate or something just as demanding), you can get a number of issues with severe lag. If you install on your client, the mod known as 'Optifine' which has multicore optimisations where it edits the way the game runs to use more threads, it improves performance remarkable. Moreso on the server-side where if you use a mod called "TickThreading", your server will run up to a couple of hundred times faster and makes gameplay on said server ridiculously smooth! Even with some of the crazy setups from FTB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused by your comment on HyperThreading and games. Though I may have misread something somewhere here.

 

You state that a game puts a very heavy load on a single core and that because of this, HT is useless.

 

Yes. But that's where the optimisations fix things.

 

The optimisations will be to split that single thread up into multiple "smaller" (less demanding) threads, with that happening, that would mean that HyperThreading would make a difference since it's more smaller threads.

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong there, but that's logical to me.

 

Note: I have proof of this too, though it may be an exception due to the fact the game runs on Java. If you play Minecraft, (specifically FTB Ultimate or something just as demanding), you can get a number of issues with severe lag. If you install on your client, the mod known as 'Optifine' which has multicore optimisations where it edits the way the game runs to use more threads, it improves performance remarkable. Moreso on the server-side where if you use a mod called "TickThreading", your server will run up to a couple of hundred times faster and makes gameplay on said server ridiculously smooth! Even with some of the crazy setups from FTB.

I do not think you can apply the results of something on a server to every other game. 

Though what you say makes sense about HT helping since there are more, smaller threads. Assuming that my understanding of HT is correct.


† Christian Member †

For my pertinent links to guides, reviews, and anything similar, go here, and look under the spoiler labeled such. A brief history of Unix and it's relation to OS X by Builder.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Hyper-Threading could be utilized in games more often and how is the difference between FX style cores and standard cores?


Andres "Bluejay" Alejandro Montefusco - The Forums Favorite Bird!!!

Top Clock: 7.889 Ghz Cooled by: Liquid Helium   

#ChocolateRAM #OatmealFans #ScratchItHarder #WorstcardBestoverclocker #CrazySexStories #SchnitzelQuest TS3 SERVER

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×