Xbox One has implementation of hUMA memory system, just like PS4, say dev

[Cy-Fy]

Yes and this will snowball because consoles cant advance over time (no upgrading).

Look, back when Xbox and PS4 were released, they were a bit more powerful than PC (for few months until PC managed to catch up). Now, the consoles haven't even appeared on the market yet and they already are very slow compared to PCs. But wait, there's more!

Over time this will snowball! I expect 2014 to be the year of multimonitor/4k gaming (i mean the high-end GPUs). Maxwell will probably be suited towards this with lots of vram etc.

Back in old consoles a monitor was a monitor and it was you know sub-HD. nowadays... oh God not only will the consoles be outdated when they come out but in 1 year they will be rendered totally useless for hardcore gamers.

"Oh i know i will buy a 4k (4x1080p) monitor and then power it with a console" - nope. "Multi monitor?" - nope. No new tech will be able to work with such low-end stuff like consoles.

absolutely right but you also have to consider that consoles are engineered to play games, not to render videos etc but to only play games, this optimization is the same as that of apple apps generally being higher quality because they are designed to work in a specific device, same with ps4 games and xbone games,,, so I'm pretty sure that if you build a gaming pc the same price as the consoles, it wouldnt even come close and it wouldnt last as long either

[martinrox1568]

Please... STOP!

Read my threads, come back here, apologise. You're digging yourself into a hole, there's no such thing as a true core btw integer processors were not always part of a cpu core, ever heard of a math co-processor? You probably haven't if you're arguing that things that haven't always been part of a core being missing makes something not a core...

I'd be willing to listen to what ever you have to say. Explain to me have bulldozer is a true 8 core, and how almost every reviewer out there (including Linus) is wrong. I'm just saying bulldozer is not truly an 8 core because 2 cores share the same resources such as cache

[martinrox1568]

a cpu that doesn't have cores?

 

and what are they to you? threads, or modules? you have to be more specific. you see, i have a plethora of degree's in technology based fields. and you just seem to

 I'm just saying bulldozer is not truly an 8 core because 2 cores share the same resources such as cache. Oh, and I'm not the one who said that bulldozer doesn't have cores. That is a direct quote from the article which you sent me

[Kuzma]

I'd be willing to listen to what ever you have to say. Explain to me have bulldozer is a true 8 core, and how almost every reviewer out there (including Linus) is wrong. I'm just saying bulldozer is not truly an 8 core because 2 cores share the same resources such as cache

 

 I'm just saying bulldozer is not truly an 8 core because 2 cores share the same resources such as cache

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/43829-the-difference-between-amd-cores-and-intel-cores/ read.

Also Linus said to me specifically in the WAN show's afterparty that AMD's cores aren't cores in the traditional sense that we've come to know but are indeed still cores, want a link to that cause I will gladly dig it up for you.

[martinrox1568]

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/43829-the-difference-between-amd-cores-and-intel-cores/ read.

Also Linus said to me specifically in the WAN show's afterparty that AMD's cores aren't cores in the traditional sense that we've come to know but are indeed still cores, want a link to that cause I will gladly dig it up for you.

we're saying the same thing . I'm saying that they are modular and share cache, you're saying that the cores are different than what we've come to expect.

[ShiverMePenguins]

we're saying the same thing . I'm saying that they are modular and share cache, you're saying that the cores are different than what we've come to expect.

no, you've been changing your story and slowly acquiescing to what we've been saying. 

[martinrox1568]

no, you've been changing your story and slowly acquiescing to what we've been saying. 

noo. . . I merely said that intel and amd have 8 threads and you then changed the topic to amd having 8 cores, not just 8 threads. And does AMD have 8 threads? Yes it does

[ShiverMePenguins]

noo. . . I merely said that intel and amd have 8 threads and you then changed the topic to amd having 8 cores, not just 8 threads. And does AMD have 8 threads? Yes it does

From the CPU's perspective, a thread (short for "thread of execution") is merely an ordered sequence of instructions that tells the computer what to do. In most of my articles on Ars and in my book, I prefer to speak of "instruction streams" instead of "threads," because the thread is a more complicated and OS-centric concept. As far as most CPUs are concerned, they merely execute whatever instruction streams come into their front end, and they don't care if that instruction stream is from a process or a thread. There may be some special-purpose register values that differ between the two, but the basic functioning of the processor doesn't change.

 

The core count is the physical number of cores on the CPU die itself, whereas the thread count is the number of individual application threads which can be executing simultaneously on the CPU itself. Without any additional or special hardware, this is always equal to the core count.

Some Intel CPUs have a feature called hyperthreading, which allows an operating system to see double the amount of logical cores per physical core. This allows the operating system to schedule and run double the amount of threads simultaneously, so in the case of the CPU I linked to above, there are four physical cores, but eight logical ones (so you can run eight threads simultaneously).

 

A CPU Thread is basically an instruction that is to be processed. A program will send a thread to the CPU which is then processed and sent back to the program. Most legacy (older) programs are single threaded which means it only sends out one thread at a time. But with more modern Multi-core CPUs newer programs are becoming capable of sending out more than one thread. This means even faster processing.

 

 

the wonders of the internet. 3 different links with semi copy-paste of quotes describing what a thread is. So lets assume that these 3 people are correct (of which they are). that means that a thread is a series of instructions that will be processed by the cpu. that means there can be 8, 800, 8000 threads at a time. a cpu doesn't have a "thread". nope, not at all. no, negatory, pas, nicht, nyet.

 

a thread is again, an instruction, that is sent to the cpu, from the os, compiler, program, etc.

a "hyper-threaded cpu", is a cpu (only intel) that tricks the os/program/compiler/etc. to see double the physical logical cores. amd does not have hyper-threading, nor will they ever.

ergo, i'm right, and you're still wrong.

[martinrox1568]

From the CPU's perspective, a thread (short for "thread of execution") is merely an ordered sequence of instructions that tells the computer what to do. In most of my articles on Ars and in my book, I prefer to speak of "instruction streams" instead of "threads," because the thread is a more complicated and OS-centric concept. As far as most CPUs are concerned, they merely execute whatever instruction streams come into their front end, and they don't care if that instruction stream is from a process or a thread. There may be some special-purpose register values that differ between the two, but the basic functioning of the processor doesn't change.

 

The core count is the physical number of cores on the CPU die itself, whereas the thread count is the number of individual application threads which can be executing simultaneously on the CPU itself. Without any additional or special hardware, this is always equal to the core count.

Some Intel CPUs have a feature called hyperthreading, which allows an operating system to see double the amount of logical cores per physical core. This allows the operating system to schedule and run double the amount of threads simultaneously, so in the case of the CPU I linked to above, there are four physical cores, but eight logical ones (so you can run eight threads simultaneously).

 

A CPU Thread is basically an instruction that is to be processed. A program will send a thread to the CPU which is then processed and sent back to the program. Most legacy (older) programs are single threaded which means it only sends out one thread at a time. But with more modern Multi-core CPUs newer programs are becoming capable of sending out more than one thread. This means even faster processing.

 

 

the wonders of the internet. 3 different links with semi copy-paste of quotes describing what a thread is. So lets assume that these 3 people are correct (of which they are). that means that a thread is a series of instructions that will be processed by the cpu. that means there can be 8, 800, 8000 threads at a time. a cpu doesn't have a "thread". nope, not at all. no, negatory, pas, nicht, nyet.

 

a thread is again, an instruction, that is sent to the cpu, from the os, compiler, program, etc.

a "hyper-threaded cpu", is a cpu (only intel) that tricks the os/program/compiler/etc. to see double the physical logical cores. amd does not have hyper-threading, nor will they ever.

ergo, i'm right, and you're still wrong.

Yes I know this. Am I incorrect in saying that AMD has 8 threads? If I am, how many threads does AMD have? Because that was all I stated with my original arguement. I did not call them cores on my original arguement because I was talking about developers optimizing games. It would be pointless to call them cores in my original arguement because as you stated, with Intel's hyperthreading, a core can become 2 threads. I merely called them threads because it was an easier way to state my arguement