gamerk316 :
juanrga :
Lessthannil :
From same site
http://gamingbolt.com/havok-explains-how-they-are-utilizing-multi-core-cpus-on-the-ps4-and-xbox-one
Physics scales. Hence why both AMD and NVIDIA are trying to move processing of physics onto the GPU, since this opens up a LOT you can't do on the CPU, due to the extra power available.
Did you read at least the title of the article? They are referring to multi-core CPUs. A GPU needs to be feed by a CPU. Nobody builds a heterogeneous supercomputer with i3s. At contrary 8/10/12/16 core CPUs are used to feed the GPUs.
jacobian :
juggernautxtr :
I love the we don't need more cores Intel mantra garbage, if it were up to intel we'd still be using single core processing waiting an hour for a game to boot.
people just don't give credit where it's it is due. AMD was the one that pushed core advancement, it was amd who gave us 64 bit processing, amd is first to heterogeneous computing.
but OMG AMD is so far behind intel.... they are? please explain.
sounds like intel fanboisms spazzing in there sleep over intels so much more advanced architectures......yeah okay.
people just don't give credit where it's it is due. AMD was the one that pushed core advancement, it was amd who gave us 64 bit processing, amd is first to heterogeneous computing.
but OMG AMD is so far behind intel.... they are? please explain.
sounds like intel fanboisms spazzing in there sleep over intels so much more advanced architectures......yeah okay.
Why AMD behind?
Bad power efficiency and lower per-core performance. AMD likes to give everyone many cores, but two cores in each module share too much stuff together reducing their efficiency. The greatest thing about AMD is that you get 8-integer cores for very affordable price. But what do you need them for? This would work out pretty well on a server, but on the desktop you run into decreasing returns pretty fast. For floating point, you get only one execution unit for every two cores. This sounds awfully like Intel's "hyperthreading".
Hum, main bottleneck in Bulldozer modules was the shared decoder. This has been eliminated in Steamroller. The 20% penalty is now gone. Reviews of Kaveri show that its performance per watt (CPU alone) is at the Ivy Bridge level. And its performance per watt for the whole APU is clearly beyond.
Integer per core performance is at Sandy Bridge level. In some tests the A10-7850k scores 10--15% behind i5-2500k and in others outperforms the i5-2500k.
The floating point performance is much poor, but the problem is not the shared FPU per module, but the wide of the FMAC units. Steamroller is a 8FLOP/core architecture. Excavator fill fix that with 265-bit FMAC units, offering 16FLOP/core as Sandy/Ivy Bridge.
I agree on that 8-cores is overkill for mainstream use today. Why do you believe that Kaveri is dual/quad-core. It was explained in this thread during months that AMD was targeting the mainstream user (95% of users) with Kaveri. Therein the lack of evolution on the FX line.
At the end, like it or not, AMD and Intel are doing the same. Only the 'tempos' are different. Intel started with strong CPU evolution and is now stagnant, migrating to GPU evolution and moar cores (already mentioned that Haswell increase cores from 6 to 8 and Broadwell xeons will increase cores from 12 up to 18). AMD started with a strong evolution of GPU (GCN) and moar cores and is now evolving CPUs to caught Intel.