AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[8350rocks]

8350rocks just stop, i usually agree with your comments but that last one, you can't compare supercomputers to a gaming machine if they went to play a game with those weak cores you'd get 3FPS. The 360 skips left and right in every game i play on it FPS drops are unbelievable and with a LOW clock CPU and a weak IPC design i bet its not going to change much until they get all 8 cores working for games.

The way content was designed for last gen consoles...you're right. They used serial threads on multicore CPUs that had capability to run 4-6 threads at max, and had a moderate GPU for the time.

Now, we have the ability to use the GPU whenever we want to process things that the CPUs are slower at running. That's why they went with a configuration of more cores and slower clocks.

I am not saying that the PS4 is a HPPC, but I am saying that the concepts are the same. You would not run SuperPi on a HPPC, it would be an enormous waste of resources.

By the same token, programming for serial operations, when that is a waste of resources, doesn't make sense on this generation of consoles. Programming will change to adapt to the hardware. Things will go much more parallel...running 14 threads on a console would likely see those threads split and run simultaneously between GPU and CPU. Why run 4 threads at a time and have many waiting to run, when you can do as many as you foreseeably need at once?

That's why it's better than many are saying...

(Note: I am not saying this is a be all end all machine, but it deserves more credit than many are willing to give at this time)

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

Food for thought. If I cut a FX-8350 in half (not literally, but on a core basis), and ran only 4 core, and under clocked it to 3.4 to compare it to an i5, how would it run. Well I can tell you now, it will do worse than probably a Pentium 4, and will have less than half of its original performance. Yes I think it would run much cooler, but it would be absolutely terrible. The main reason that Intel costs more is really that the cores are stronger (mostly from the material which happens to not be as heat resistant, but does conquer in the power of each core).

Now what if we did the vice versa and made the i5 an 8 core processor and overclocked to 4.0. I would say that it's easily and extreme series CPU and may be the best on the market for performance.

It all comes down to the price. The main argument is between the (no offence) inexpensive, less wealthy people, versus the more profited people. If you have the money, Intel is the better choice (unless your on a budget or video editing or doing things with more OpenCL or just want to make your computer run very hot). Really now for gaming these days, if you have a Core 2 Quad Q8300 @ 2.5 (my old CPU), as long as, for GPUs, you have something like a 680 or 7970 or more, then your fine. ^_^

you have no room to call anyone fanboy. P4 .. seriously ... put down the crack pipe. Lets look at a game that doesn't even prefer AMD cpus.

8350 is at 58.4fps
4300 (cut the 8350 in half right) 48.9
your q 8300 is down to 35.8
core 2 d E7200 (considerably faster than P4) is even farther at 28.8fps.

Lets look at one that isn't quite so hateful.

8350, 80.8
4300, 56.7
c2q 8300 31.2
c2d E7200 26.3

and this was with a 7970 ...

" Really now for gaming these days, if you have a Core 2 Quad Q8300 @ 2.5 (my old CPU), as long as, for GPUs, you have something like a 680 or 7970 or more, then your fine. ^_^



hows that q8300 looking now, or better yet, 4300 is equal to a p4 ... rofl. Then again, maybe that extra 400 hmz on the 4300 is the only thing keeping it over 2x as fast as a C2D E7200 wich is a lot faster than a P4 ... Had to dig this one up

Still it is playable is it not? I have this CPU with a AMD 5570. All in 1440x900 on a 19" screen, I can play Lol at 60 Frames, 18 Wheels of Steel at 80 Frames, BF3 on low settings at 40-50 Frames (which looks better than console). I did use that processor as an example, but I later corrected myself and said it to be an "exaggerated example".

 

[8350rocks]

You could not be playing 64 man multiplayer maps @ 40-50 fps on low settings...

If that was the case...your CPU would be performing on par with a much newer quad, and I doubt that seriously.

You might be getting that in single player...but that's really not impressive at all.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

8350rocks just stop, i usually agree with your comments but that last one, you can't compare supercomputers to a gaming machine if they went to play a game with those weak cores you'd get 3FPS. The 360 skips left and right in every game i play on it FPS drops are unbelievable and with a LOW clock CPU and a weak IPC design i bet its not going to change much until they get all 8 cores working for games.

The way content was designed for last gen consoles...you're right. They used serial threads on multicore CPUs that had capability to run 4-6 threads at max, and had a moderate GPU for the time.

Now, we have the ability to use the GPU whenever we want to process things that the CPUs are slower at running. That's why they went with a configuration of more cores and slower clocks.

I am not saying that the PS4 is a HPPC, but I am saying that the concepts are the same. You would not run SuperPi on a HPPC, it would be an enormous waste of resources.

By the same token, programming for serial operations, when that is a waste of resources, doesn't make sense on this generation of consoles. Programming will change to adapt to the hardware. Things will go much more parallel...running 14 threads on a console would likely see those threads split and run simultaneously between GPU and CPU. Why run 4 threads at a time and have many waiting to run, when you can do as many as you foreseeably need at once?

That's why it's better than many are saying...

(Note: I am not saying this is a be all end all machine, but it deserves more credit than many are willing to give at this time)

I totally give PS4 credit. The hardware is amazing. You still just fail to realize that the software is what is important. Sure the hardware is a huge step ahead of the previous gen, but the games will still be specially modified to fit the machine.

From all the comment on this that you have posted, you basically are saying that the PS4 is equivalent to a system with an i7 Extreme CPU and a 7990 overclocked. Threads are not all of what gives performance, Hell, its probably on a fraction, if not less than what it seems. Its all in what the game needs, and for console games these days, you really don't need something spectacular.

From what it appears, you are pointing out the obvious, and we agree with what your saying, however, you are using it to try to prove a point, when the point was already proven. By the way, the PS4 has so many threads because aside from the "high end architecture" which "needs a lot of threads" (which it doesn't really), it needs the threads to be able to sync to online, stream video and voice chat, run complex operations in the background.

I don't know if you read game informer, but there was an article on the PS4 and what it will do. They said, and these are words that SONY said themselves, that, "This system wont just play games, but much more." This includes watching video and talking through voice chat to other people that aren't playing the game through an alternate application while you are playing your game. There are many more features, but too many to name in this instance.

This also proves your point that, yes it does need a lot of threads, however, the game wont use any more than a PC game does. The rest are used, as I am saying for other things.

Honestly, I don't know someone who plays BF3, runs FurMark, uses Skype, and has 20 tabs open on their internet browser at one time. I did it once, and much more, but just to have fun and see how far the computer went, and I can tell you, it ran like total poo.

 

[montosaurous]

8350rocks just stop, i usually agree with your comments but that last one, you can't compare supercomputers to a gaming machine if they went to play a game with those weak cores you'd get 3FPS. The 360 skips left and right in every game i play on it FPS drops are unbelievable and with a LOW clock CPU and a weak IPC design i bet its not going to change much until they get all 8 cores working for games.

The way content was designed for last gen consoles...you're right. They used serial threads on multicore CPUs that had capability to run 4-6 threads at max, and had a moderate GPU for the time.

Now, we have the ability to use the GPU whenever we want to process things that the CPUs are slower at running. That's why they went with a configuration of more cores and slower clocks.

I am not saying that the PS4 is a HPPC, but I am saying that the concepts are the same. You would not run SuperPi on a HPPC, it would be an enormous waste of resources.

By the same token, programming for serial operations, when that is a waste of resources, doesn't make sense on this generation of consoles. Programming will change to adapt to the hardware. Things will go much more parallel...running 14 threads on a console would likely see those threads split and run simultaneously between GPU and CPU. Why run 4 threads at a time and have many waiting to run, when you can do as many as you foreseeably need at once?

That's why it's better than many are saying...

(Note: I am not saying this is a be all end all machine, but it deserves more credit than many are willing to give at this time)

I honestly have no idea where the hell you are getting your facts.

 

[8350rocks]

The developer I work for just got all the PS4 development tools, and some hardware to work with for developing an indie game

I am afraid I cannot discuss much more than that at this point though...

 

[montosaurous]

I'm talking about your claims of it having 72 threads. Sorry if I seem a little mean, but I'm confused and a bit frustrated here. The 7970 has 32 CU, and the PS4's GPU has 18 CU. Is that what you're trying to point out?

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

You could not be playing 64 man multiplayer maps @ 40-50 fps on low settings...

If that was the case...your CPU would be performing on par with a much newer quad, and I doubt that seriously.

You might be getting that in single player...but that's really not impressive at all.

Sorry forgot to mention that the GPU is OCed 100 on Core and MEM, also it does dip sometimes, but mostly it stays around 40 fps.

Obviously you will not believe me, but just accept it please. You will only accept things that will win your argument, and that is what I call stubborn, sir. ^_^

 

[8350rocks]

No, the 7970 has 32 Graphic CUs, but can run 2 General Compute functions at once to help the CPU (2 General Compute pipelines).

The PS4 GPU can run 64 General Compute functions at once (64 General Compute pipelines).

I am talking about doing work the CPU would normally do that is more efficiently done on a GPU with HSA. Modern GPUs, outside of GPGPUs, do not have a ton of compute functions for general computations. They can run Graphics computations like crazy though! However, I expect AMD is partly delaying the HD 8XXX series GPUs because they are making sure the General compute features work well. An improvement over HD 7XXX series wouldn't be much to do unless they were adapting their GPUs to take full advantage of the functions offered on the PS4.

Which, not coincidentally, would put them at an advantage running console games on their GPUs as well.

Clear as mud?

 

[montosaurous]

Yeah I think I understand. I really do hope they release the Radeon 8000 series soon though. I'm looking into getting a 8950 in the fall, though there are some things I do miss about having an Nvidia card, like better legacy support. Never really used CUDA or PhysX, but I sure do miss being able to play some of my older games on my computer.

 

[8350rocks]

You could not be playing 64 man multiplayer maps @ 40-50 fps on low settings...

If that was the case...your CPU would be performing on par with a much newer quad, and I doubt that seriously.

You might be getting that in single player...but that's really not impressive at all.

Sorry forgot to mention that the GPU is OCed 100 on Core and MEM, also it does dip sometimes, but mostly it stays around 40 fps.

Obviously you will not believe me, but just accept it please. You will only accept things that will win your argument, and that is what I call stubborn, sir. ^_^

I smell something fishy...

64 man multiplayer is extremely CPU bound, if your GPU will run it on low that's good enough, adding more won't help with multiplayer. Frankly OC'ing your GPU wouldn't make up the gap in performance, and those numbers were using a much newer GPU than the system you're talking about as well.

EDIT: IB Core i3's don't get framerates into the 40s with 64 man MP maps in BF3...are you saying your CPU from intel is better than a CPU that's 3-4 generations newer from the same company?

 

[8350rocks]

Yeah I think I understand. I really do hope they release the Radeon 8000 series soon though. I'm looking into getting a 8950 in the fall, though there are some things I do miss about having an Nvidia card, like better legacy support. Never really used CUDA or PhysX, but I sure do miss being able to play some of my older games on my computer.

Soon, it will be here soon!

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

No, the 7970 has 32 Graphic CUs, but can run 2 General Compute functions at once to help the CPU (2 General Compute pipelines).

The PS4 GPU can run 64 General Compute functions at once (64 General Compute pipelines).

I am talking about doing work the CPU would normally do that is more efficiently done on a GPU with HSA. Modern GPUs, outside of GPGPUs, do not have a ton of compute functions for general computations. They can run Graphics computations like crazy though! However, I expect AMD is partly delaying the HD 8XXX series GPUs because they are making sure the General compute features work well. An improvement over HD 7XXX series wouldn't be much to do unless they were adapting their GPUs to take full advantage of the functions offered on the PS4.

Which, not coincidentally, would put them at an advantage running console games on their GPUs as well.

Clear as mud?

You are true here, but as I said before, all of this power isn't just going to be used on the game. All of the other user friendly apps will need this GPU processing. That is what I'm trying to point out.

When games run on a PC, most of them don't use all of the power, don't you know? Unless you had very good hardware acceleration software, you probably wont ever use the whole shebang.

This is the same concept with PS4's in the aspect that they have PC like hardware. The hardware in that system can be the same thing if it is used in a PC.

 

[8350rocks]

No, it cannot be the same thing...you'd have windows and all kinds of other rubbish hogging resources that consoles don't have to divide up. It's apples and oranges.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

No, it cannot be the same thing...you'd have windows and all kinds of other rubbish hogging resources that consoles don't have to divide up. It's apples and oranges.

Well if that's the case, then you're saying the games will use most to all the threads and GCUs, and all the other apps like video chat during a game and the XMB will just magically work?

 

[8350rocks]

No, I said it has a theoretical maximum of 72 threads...then I said, we can safely assume that the maximum real limit will be something around 60-65 for a given game. Meaning I accommodated 7-12 threads for background processes and other things. That would be the equivalent of running up to 12 single threaded tasks at once and still having enough hardware to run 60-65 threads.

You might want to actually read what I am posting.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

No, I said it has a theoretical maximum of 72 threads...then I said, we can safely assume that the maximum real limit will be something around 60-65 for a given game. Meaning I accommodated 7-12 threads for background processes and other things. That would be the equivalent of running up to 12 single threaded tasks at once and still having enough hardware to run 60-65 threads.

You might want to actually read what I am posting.

You said no such thing, I read everything. It took you a little while to come up with that response.

UPDATE: Actually, I'll put it this way. You may have said 72 threads, but how could you expect us to extract all of this response from that?

 

[8350rocks]

How about trying this one on for size...

Your "good PC" with a 3570k can run 4 threads at once...if you went and bought the best compute GPU available to a hardcore gamer for gaming...the HD 7990...you would be able to run 8 threads.

You can run 8 threads...the CPU on the PS4 can run 8 threads by itself...now...that's not the key part though. The GPU on the PS4 can run 64 threads at once.

So lets do some math for a second so you understand what is being discussed about consoles:

PS4 = 72 threads at once (max, likely closer to 65-70 including middleware and OS)

Your "EXCELLENT GAMING PC" = 8 threads.

My question to you is: How do you propose to keep up with 60+ threads with your current hardware when maximum potential from the consoles is achieved?

The answer (whether you agree or not), is simple: You can't.

That's why consoles are generations ahead of current PC technology.

This post look familiar to you at all?

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

How about trying this one on for size...

Your "good PC" with a 3570k can run 4 threads at once...if you went and bought the best compute GPU available to a hardcore gamer for gaming...the HD 7990...you would be able to run 8 threads.

You can run 8 threads...the CPU on the PS4 can run 8 threads by itself...now...that's not the key part though. The GPU on the PS4 can run 64 threads at once.

So lets do some math for a second so you understand what is being discussed about consoles:

PS4 = 72 threads at once (max, likely closer to 65-70 including middleware and OS)

Your "EXCELLENT GAMING PC" = 8 threads.

My question to you is: How do you propose to keep up with 60+ threads with your current hardware when maximum potential from the consoles is achieved?

The answer (whether you agree or not), is simple: You can't.

That's why consoles are generations ahead of current PC technology.

This post look familiar to you at all?

Okay I see you there, however, still the problem is. The game will use no where more than 10 threads, so your point is null.

 

[juanrga]

From all the comment on this that you have posted, you basically are saying that the PS4 is equivalent to a system with an i7 Extreme CPU and a 7990 overclocked. Threads are not all of what gives performance, Hell, its probably on a fraction, if not less than what it seems. Its all in what the game needs, and for console games these days, you really don't need something spectacular.

Very probable, ignoring all the supercharged architecture in the PS4, the PS4 already performs like a i7 with a GTX-780 for games will 3GB VRAM or less. If all the supercharged architecture is used, then the PS4 will be ahead. Several developers already claimed that its performance is ahead of gaming PCs.

 

[8350rocks]

How about trying this one on for size...

Your "good PC" with a 3570k can run 4 threads at once...if you went and bought the best compute GPU available to a hardcore gamer for gaming...the HD 7990...you would be able to run 8 threads.

You can run 8 threads...the CPU on the PS4 can run 8 threads by itself...now...that's not the key part though. The GPU on the PS4 can run 64 threads at once.

So lets do some math for a second so you understand what is being discussed about consoles:

PS4 = 72 threads at once (max, likely closer to 65-70 including middleware and OS)

Your "EXCELLENT GAMING PC" = 8 threads.

My question to you is: How do you propose to keep up with 60+ threads with your current hardware when maximum potential from the consoles is achieved?

The answer (whether you agree or not), is simple: You can't.

That's why consoles are generations ahead of current PC technology.

This post look familiar to you at all?

Okay I see you there, however, still the problem is. The game will use no where more than 10 threads, so your point is null.

LOL...ok...because you say they won't that's all that matters!

On a completely different and unrelated note:
http://www.globalfoundries.com/newsroom/2013/20130530.aspx

GloFo has working flow samples of 20nm FD-SOI and 14nm XM FinFET

 

[montosaurous]

From all the comment on this that you have posted, you basically are saying that the PS4 is equivalent to a system with an i7 Extreme CPU and a 7990 overclocked. Threads are not all of what gives performance, Hell, its probably on a fraction, if not less than what it seems. Its all in what the game needs, and for console games these days, you really don't need something spectacular.

Very probable, ignoring all the supercharged architecture in the PS4, the PS4 already performs like a i7 with a GTX-780 for games will 3GB VRAM or less. If all the supercharged architecture is used, then the PS4 will be ahead. Several developers already claimed that its performance is ahead of gaming PCs.

Heh, no. I don't believe anyone for a second who says this thing will be more powerful than gaming PCs. It might be equivalent to mid range PCs (FX 6300, Radeon 7870 GHz, 8GB RAM) but it's a little bit of a stretch to say it can beat anything more than that. And of course EA and Activision will say shit like that. Consoles are where they make most of their money. I'm guessing the new gen will have medium-high PC graphics, 4X AA and 60 FPS at 1080p.

 

[GOM3RPLY3R]

I'm actually going to be getting an i7 with dual GTX 780 system soon, so i'll just emulate it, and well see.

 

[montosaurous]

Unless you have a shitty ass card you might as well wait for Maxwell.

 

[-Fran-]

I think there's been a little abuse on our part for the term "threads" when talking about games and OS'es...

What I understand from a person saying "this game uses 4 cores and spawns 32 threads" and the rest of the OS threads matter little (cept for a few ones, of course, when waken up) from a CPU utilization POV, is that those threads will enter a race for resources given by the OS scheduler.

My point is: OK, the OS can have 900 threads at any given time, but most of them are either asleep or running in low or IDLE priority. Games usually run in Normal (I put some in Above Normal manually) and specific processes have high priority (sound, for one). For this thread's sake, when we use the word "thread" keep in mind that the OS will schedule them to any core available (unless you manually core park them) and actually make good use of the CPUs resources. Until then, an OS running a bazillion threads means squat as long as they are not running against the games threads for CPU time in any given priority, cutting the time slice they have for the CPU resources.

/rant

Cheers!