Game Developers Choose AMD Over Intel For Gaming.

[Talsyrius]

I would still go with intel as they tend to be performing better when the games aren't very multi core optimized. Even if the trend is that we will move more towards that, I don't think we will be there very soon, and I would stick with what is best right now; betting on stronger but fewer cores for at least one more update cycle. 

[FireFox]

Intel better starts offering more cores in their mainstream CPUs soon...

 

That won't work, how much will the price increase over the current chips?

 

Also I like that game developers are optimising on AMD systems, AMD fanboys say that 'I get a higher framerate' bullshit but surely that is a hollow victory since the game is developed with AMD in mind, it has been given a helping hand.

 

Not sure if it is actually possible to do both but what if games were like Switzerland, completely neutral, who would score best in that scenario?

 

If I'm wrong then please point that out in a civilised manner

[GPUXPert]

That won't work, how much will the price increase over the current chips?

 

Also I like that game developers are optimising on AMD systems, AMD fanboys say that 'I get a higher framerate' bullshit but surely that is a hollow victory since the game is developed with AMD in mind, it has been given a helping hand.

 

Not sure if it is actually possible to do both but what if games were like Switzerland, completely neutral, who would score best in that scenario?

 

If I'm wrong then please point that out in a civilised manner

Actually the price won't increase at all, they can easily add two more cores in place of the IGP without increasing die size on Haswell.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested

[FireFox]

But the cost of redesigning it which will be required, adding two cores in place of the GPU isn't as easy as just adding two cores in place of the GPU.

 

It has to increase the price because you change the way the chip is working, research, development and so on needs paying for before that design is commercially avaiable.

[Immort]

But the cost of redesigning it which will be required, adding two cores in place of the GPU isn't as easy as just adding two cores in place of the GPU.

 

It has to increase the price because you change the way the chip is working, research, development and so on needs paying for before that design is commercially avaiable.

No, research and development is already paid for, you have the architecture ready and done.

Intel can easily make a 6 core on the current quad core die, without any additional cost, but doing so will cannibalize their extreme edition sales which is bad for business.

[FireFox]

I still don't think it's that easy, the architecture was designed from day one as a quad core, adding another two cores will change the way it works, the research isn't payed for because the R&D was tested on the quad core dies, more R&D will have to be carried out if they added more cores to it.

[martinrox1568]

Well that's an impotent way of thinking about it. It's like saying, why? the FX 8350 destroys the pentium G 620 ! well yeah but it's 130$ more expensive ! The 3770K is also 130$ more expensive than the FX 8350 ! & it's barely faster. However the FX 8350 vs i5 3570k is a more reasonable comparison, since they're closer in price (3570k is still more expensive + intel motherboards are also more expensive) yet still, the FX 8350 has so much more raw performance than the i5 which is unutilized due to poor software coding. The performance/clock argument is over & done for, all game developers agreed that gaming on more cores is clearly the way to go forward.

its not poor software coding. Do you realize how much effort it would take to use all 8 cores for gaming? its not as simple as writing: hyperthread=enabled in the code. Each core has to actually do something in the game engine. Whether it is rendering lighting effects, or the multiplayer map.

[martinrox1568]

No, not really, future proofing here applies very well for a number of reasons. 1- The fact that the FX 8350 has 8 cores & only 4 of them are sufficiently loaded in various games, this basically means that you're only using 50% of the CPU's potential, next gen games will support 8 cores thus giving you 50% more performance on your CPU. That's assuming that all current games support 4 cores, which isn't true, most MMORPGs like WoW & TERA only use 2 cores & games that utilize the bethesda engine also only use 2 cores (Skyrim, Fallout3). We also have games that support 6 cores but not very well, like Battlefield 3 & games that support up to 8 cores also not very well like Crysis 3. 2-The fact that the 3570K is on a dead platform (1155 socket) & no future CPUs are going to be compatible with that socket, unlike the FX 8350 which uses the AM3+ socket which AMD is committed to support for at least two more generations (Steamroller & Excavator) giving you much greater future upgradability.

but you realize that they will probably have a couple cores on the console dedicated to running the OS (especially the xbox one) and some other console crap. So idk if next gen games will use 8 cores

[kuddlesworth9419]

AMD CPU had more cores so Sony and Microsoft could have their low power state mode. They need loads of cores because XBox is running something stupid like 4 OS's at the same time.

[martinrox1568]

1156->1155: Integrated Graphics added to the CPU

1155->1150: Voltage Regulation added to the CPU

 

You can't really say Intel's socket changes aren't warranted.  By that logic, AMD should have made its APUs compatible with AM3+ instead of creating the FM sockets.

 

Anyway, back on topic, I'm glad "MOAR COREZ" might actually mean something in the near future.  AMD's looking better and better every day.

 

If the devs go all in on parallel processing, hopefully Intel steps up its game and gets more cores on a mainstream socket.  Hyperthreading can only go so far.

yeah but if APU's had the same socket, then you would see a bunch of idiots trying to run an 8350 on a $30 mobo

[Cyberpunk177]

It is my friends after all just marketing . 

[loepa]

Waiting for the new library yepp! or something to be very effective and widespread so that I can get AMD for Future build.

I love intel thought

[mr moose]

I haven't read all the posts so sorry if I am repeating anyone.

 

I am not really surprised by this news, we have been told all along that developers program for the consoles.  Not only that but if I was a developer I would choose the amd cpu too, it is cheaper and has enough cores that programmers can now spread their wings. The only thing that annoys me is the age of the chip, by next year we are going to have much better chips out by both companies why not go with one of those? 

[qwertywarrior]

makes sense

[TechFan@ic]

but you realize that they will probably have a couple cores on the console dedicated to running the OS (especially the xbox one) and some other console crap. So idk if next gen games will use 8 cores

The XBOX is confirmed to have 2 cores dedicated for the idle states and the OS leaving 6 cores for the "active" state during gaming, the PS4 is confirmed to use all 8 cores for games.

[Over]

The XBOX is confirmed to have 2 cores dedicated for the idle states and the OS leaving 6 cores for the "active" state during gaming, the PS4 is confirmed to use all 8 cores for games.

Source, please.

[TechFan@ic]

Source, please.

http://kotaku.com/the-five-possible-states-of-xbox-one-games-are-strangel-509597078

[Over]

http://kotaku.com/the-five-possible-states-of-xbox-one-games-are-strangel-509597078

Thanks, but I've meant the PS4 using all 8 cores for gaming.

[TechFan@ic]

Thanks, but I've meant the PS4 using all 8 cores for gaming.

I have read that a game developer did confirm that, I do not remember where I've read it however and currently there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[BookerDeWitt]

Thanks, but I've meant the PS4 using all 8 cores for gaming.

Sony was making fun of Microsoft in a tweet and mentioned that all PS4 resources are reserved for gaming right after that Kotaku article went live.

Which makes sense because the 2 reserved cores and the memory on the XBOXONE are allocated to the media consumption aspects of the device and Microsoft made it clear from the beginning that the xbox isn't a device focused on gaming, unlike the PS4.

[Skanic]

Wonder if the ps4 will utilize the cores better since its running linux.

[martinrox1568]

The XBOX is confirmed to have 2 cores dedicated for the idle states and the OS leaving 6 cores for the "active" state during gaming, the PS4 is confirmed to use all 8 cores for games.

yeah thats what I meant. couple cores=2cores

[Bluejay0]

Wonder if the ps4 will utilize the cores better since its running linux.

Linux? Oh my! Well probably i t could. But this also allows a door for Linux to be the Main gaming platform for the future

[TERAFLOP]

An 8350 is a solid chip, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[EmmaLong]

I was watching the after party archive today & a caller asked @LinusTech about i5s compared to 8 core AMD CPUs in future games, well I researched the question and guess what a, wild LinusTechTips forum appears, so here's your answer, from the game developers themselves.

I have to say I disagree with @Slick on this when he said he'd still go for fewer cores with higher IPC than more cores with higher parallelism (i5 vs AMD 8 core) and the game developers clearly side with me on this.

I have a few arguments to present.

 

#1 Being that indeed the 8 cores in the newer consoles are very weak, this means that the developers will be forced to optimize for all 8 cores to get any decent performance out of the CPU, they can't do lazy coding and rely on IPC like they used to, they will have to maximize usage on all cores because they can't afford not to.

#2 The Jaguar cores in the PS4 & XBOX One aren't Modular like the Bulldozer/Piledriver architecture so Linus made a mistake when he said they were.

They are traditional cores, with each individual unit containing all components of a traditional core ( Integer core + decoder + floating point unit) and nothing is shared between the cores except the cache, which is shared on intel CPUs as well.

So what does this mean ? does it mean that quad core intels will simply fail to play games, absolutely not, it does mean though that the 8 core AMD CPUs will definitely gain a huge performance boost because currently all of those cores in the 8350 are horribly under-utilized.

And this performance boost will most definitely allow them to regain ground against the quad core intels, perhaps even surpass the hyperthreaded quad cores (i7s) in game performance (we've already started seeing that in a few games like Far Cry 3 : Benchmark)

All of this is before we even start talking about the financial argument, an FX 8320 (underclocked 8350) as of right now costs $144.99 on Amazon.com that's $80 less than the 4670K, making it 55% more expensive, and this is before we start looking at motherboard prices where you'll be saving even more.

You'd save so much money by going with an AMD system that the efficiency argument becomes completely mute, because the time you'd need to run your intel system to make back the money on efficiency is absolutely impractical (we're talking upwards of 15 years if you game everyday for 4 hours a day and your power costs are $0.15/KW).

Another argument is graphics performance, you'll end up a much happier gamer by spending that $80 on a graphics card because unlike CPUs where an i3 and an i7 might produce the same performance in a game (Skyrim or Bioshock Infinite for example) a better graphics cards will always give you higher frame-rates, $80 would allow you to upgrade from a 7870 to a 7950, or from a 650 TI boost to a 760 yielding significantly higher performance gains compared to spending that 80$ to go from a 4670K to a 4770K, or from an FX 8320 to a 4670K.

O_O good read +1