AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[esrever]

If cpu is so important, xbone should get more fps than ps4. The cpu in the xbone is clocked higher.

 

[jdwii]

I think its already established that the CPU is to weak for 1080P gaming in a gaming environment since everything else can be ruled out for the PS4 over the GPU being capable of 1080P.

No, CPU has nothing to do with resolution. It can limit FPS, but resolution depends only on GPU and/or memory.

Then please explain how a 7870 can't provide 1080P gameplay when it can on the PC?

 

[jdwii]

Wow. Are we gonna spend pages talking about how generic x86 binaries on a software platform designed to run on a lot of different types of hardware is proof that Jaguar is slow in an environment tailored to the hardware?

You might as well let me throw out optimized Gentoo benchmarks where I beat 3930k and then start saying FX 8350 is faster than 3930k.

Also, some of you are way out of touch. When someone has to lower resolution and graphics settings, like in Watch Dogs, it's not because of CPU. In fact, you'd see consoles hitting 1080p/60fps no problems if the GPU wasn't the bottleneck, because scaling resolution upwards shifts the bottleneck further from CPU and more toward GPU.

If CPU was the problem, we'd be looking at big empty games with no AI and stuff going on but they'd be 1080p/60fps games.

Unless someone wants to show me a situation where CPU was the bottleneck and it ended up with resolution being dropped.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/assassins_creed_unity/news/assassins_creed_unity_is_900p_30fps_on_both_ps4_and_xbox_one.html

Technically we're CPU-bound," he said. "The GPUs are really powerful, obviously the graphics look pretty good, but it's the CPU [that] has to process the AI, the number of NPCs we have on screen, all these systems running in parallel.

"We were quickly bottlenecked by that and it was a bit frustrating, because we thought that this was going to be a tenfold improvement over everything AI-wise, and we realised it was going to be pretty hard. It's not the number of polygons that affect the framerate. We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."

Now on the statement about a CPU has nothing to do with high res gaming then why don't we all just get Intel Atom CPU's in are gaming rigs and game at 1080P with a 980?

 

[jdwii]

If cpu is so important, xbone should get more fps than ps4. The cpu in the xbone is clocked higher.

When a GPU is so much more powerful then the Xbox one that won't happen, however there is times where the xbox one comes out ahead if you watch FPS videos comparing both.

 

[blackkstar]

Wow. Are we gonna spend pages talking about how generic x86 binaries on a software platform designed to run on a lot of different types of hardware is proof that Jaguar is slow in an environment tailored to the hardware?

You might as well let me throw out optimized Gentoo benchmarks where I beat 3930k and then start saying FX 8350 is faster than 3930k.

Also, some of you are way out of touch. When someone has to lower resolution and graphics settings, like in Watch Dogs, it's not because of CPU. In fact, you'd see consoles hitting 1080p/60fps no problems if the GPU wasn't the bottleneck, because scaling resolution upwards shifts the bottleneck further from CPU and more toward GPU.

If CPU was the problem, we'd be looking at big empty games with no AI and stuff going on but they'd be 1080p/60fps games.

Unless someone wants to show me a situation where CPU was the bottleneck and it ended up with resolution being dropped.

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/assassins_creed_unity/news/assassins_creed_unity_is_900p_30fps_on_both_ps4_and_xbox_one.html

Technically we're CPU-bound," he said. "The GPUs are really powerful, obviously the graphics look pretty good, but it's the CPU [that] has to process the AI, the number of NPCs we have on screen, all these systems running in parallel.

"We were quickly bottlenecked by that and it was a bit frustrating, because we thought that this was going to be a tenfold improvement over everything AI-wise, and we realised it was going to be pretty hard. It's not the number of polygons that affect the framerate. We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."

Now on the statement about a CPU has nothing to do with high res gaming then why don't we all just get Intel Atom CPU's in are gaming rigs and game at 1080P with a 980?

I'm aware of that and I'm not buying it.

Have you ever used a CPU bottlenecked system before? You can just keep raising graphics settings and the frame rate stays the same. It happens, ironically enough, on my A4-5000 system when running LoL. I get the same FPS at lowest settings as I do on medium. It's strictly CPU bottleneck.

My point is that it's not happening. Yes, I do realize a CPU can bottleneck you and that's why we don't have AM1 and Atom gaming rigs. But even if that's the case, you can generally increase GPU usage by increasing resolution.

You know, when we do CPU benchmarks at 420p and we see CPU bottleneck between something like FX 6300 and 4770k? And then we go to 4k and it goes away?

Also, 2.5ghz FX 8350 does not bottleneck BF4. http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

Here's a review that tests 4790k vs Pentium G at everything from 1680 x1050 to 4k.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6526/intel-pentium-g3258-haswell-20th-anniversary-cpu-gaming-performance/index9.html

Please take a look at Metro Last Light http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/6526/intel-pentium-g3258-haswell-20th-anniversary-cpu-gaming-performance/index5.html

This is a CPU bottlneck. Notice how frame rate stays nearly the same between 2560x1600 and 1680x1050 yet the other CPUs show massive changes? My point is that this is what CPU bottleneck looks like. You can just keep raising resolution and frame rate does not change.

And I am asking, if Ubisoft is right about CPU bottleneck, why is the game not 1080p/30fps? It wouldn't matter in CPU bottleneck because the CPU will push the same amount of FPS. If you were CPU bottlenecked, you could just raise resolution and not have any problems.

CPU bottleneck is not a reason to lower resolution from 1080p to 900p. In fact, CPU bottleneck has never been a reason to lower resolution. Usually it is a reason to raise resolution to improve GPU utilization. It is why I have FX 8350 + 7970 with 1440p instead of FX 8350 + 7970 + 1280x1024 screen. CPU would probably bottleneck at 1280x1024 but at 1440p it doesn't.

 

[jdwii]

If you are CPU bottlenecked at 720P putting the game at 1080P won't make it perform any better, i guess this is really coming down to people not believing Ubisoft when they claim they are CPU bottlenecked. Which is fine their not an honest company anyways. It might be a cop out excuse then for why they are limiting the game to 900P.

So i ask this again if the 7870 can provide playable frame rates at 1080P why is the PS4 being limited to lower resolutions so often?

 

[szatkus]

Then please explain how a 7870 can't provide 1080P gameplay when it can on the PC?

Sacrificing resolution for better graphics effects. If game looks better with more advanced GFX at 900p than 1080p with less effects then the first is better option. On PC you can do the same thing by yourself, but console games usually won't let you change graphics options.

 

[jdwii]

7870 can even provide high graphic settings in crysis 3 at 1080P so i really don't see this game coming any where close to that or many others that are running on 900P. So i guess we can put the blame on horrible engines. Why not pick the unreal engine or cryengine for all the games doesn't make since when the engines work so well to pick their own engine. I noticed this with dead island the engine they used sucked and they could of used something different and maybe even save development time.

 

[jdwii]

If you are CPU bottlenecked at 720P putting the game at 1080P won't make it perform any better, i guess this is really coming down to people not believing Ubisoft when they claim they are CPU bottlenecked. Which is fine their not an honest company anyways. It might be a cop out excuse then for why they are limiting the game to 900P.

So i ask this again if the 7870 can provide playable frame rates at 1080P why is the PS4 being limited to lower resolutions so often?

your comparing a custom gpu to a desktop gpu. but to your question, it was already mentioned power. The new consoles have been designed around a lower total power envelope 150 vs 190 for the old ps4. under clock and undervolt a 7870 and you can accomplish the same thing. Now is there a cpu bottleneck ? lowering the resolution traditionally puts more load on the cpu but this is a console and dice stated last year that bf4 was using 95% of the cpu power available. so it could be but i think it could also be the new AI or a dozen other reasons.

http://bf4central.com/2013/11/battlefield-4-uses-95-cpu-power-found-ps4-xbox-one/

Yeah you know i forgot about that article when they stated that. I bet the 7870 has a lot more left when it comes to graphics but the CPU i'm not sure. Might hit are limit already when it comes to AI or lots of things going on at once. If we go by the total amount of power the PS4 has in terms of 1.84 TFLOPS which is equivalent to 7850, the GPU isn't the bottleneck.

 

[esrever]

If you are CPU bottlenecked at 720P putting the game at 1080P won't make it perform any better, i guess this is really coming down to people not believing Ubisoft when they claim they are CPU bottlenecked. Which is fine their not an honest company anyways. It might be a cop out excuse then for why they are limiting the game to 900P.

So i ask this again if the 7870 can provide playable frame rates at 1080P why is the PS4 being limited to lower resolutions so often?

your comparing a custom gpu to a desktop gpu. but to your question, it was already mentioned power. The new consoles have been designed around a lower total power envelope 150 vs 190 for the old ps4. under clock and undervolt a 7870 and you can accomplish the same thing. Now is there a cpu bottleneck ? lowering the resolution traditionally puts more load on the cpu but this is a console and dice stated last year that bf4 was using 95% of the cpu power available. so it could be but i think it could also be the new AI or a dozen other reasons.

http://bf4central.com/2013/11/battlefield-4-uses-95-cpu-power-found-ps4-xbox-one/

Yeah you know i forgot about that article when they stated that. I bet the 7870 has a lot more left when it comes to graphics but the CPU i'm not sure. Might hit are limit already when it comes to AI or lots of things going on at once. If we go by the total amount of power the PS4 has in terms of 1.84 TFLOPS which is equivalent to 7850, the GPU isn't the bottleneck.

You can keep saying that but its not true in the least. The games will all run at 1080p if there wasn't a gpu resource constraint. It is very obvious that the developers aren't getting the gpu performance they want. CPU has next to no effect on resolution but it is hard for game developers to even hit 1080p in some games. The other thing is, the consoles are still stuck with low end AA and medium ambient occlusion with lots and lots of graphics effects turned down. The GPU is a huge constraint. Also a 7850 isn't that powerful at all, it will not play new games at high settings at 1080p, I don't know what you are on about.

 

[jdwii]

I think it could play new games at High settings but at 30FPS 1080P. My 6950 could do that with BF4 and Farcry 3 and crysis 3.

 

[-Fran-]

The 7850 is rated for 130-ish Watts all by itself. I'm guessing the speed inside the PS4 has to be like 2/3rds or even half to let the rest of the components use the remaining power left.

Cheers!

 

[wh3resmycar]

I think its already established that the CPU is to weak for 1080P gaming in a gaming environment since everything else can be ruled out for the PS4 over the GPU being capable of 1080P.

No, CPU has nothing to do with resolution. It can limit FPS, but resolution depends only on GPU and/or memory.

Then please explain how a 7870 can't provide 1080P gameplay when it can on the PC?

the 7870 aint doing 60fps @ 1080p on the pc.

 

[genz]

If cpu is so important, xbone should get more fps than ps4. The cpu in the xbone is clocked higher.

When a GPU is so much more powerful then the Xbox one that won't happen, however there is times where the xbox one comes out ahead if you watch FPS videos comparing both.

Xbox one is not identical to PS4 in all other aspects. It's not a fair comparison. ES-RAM and DDR make the two very different machines, with the Xbox still having superior memory performance as well.

 

[jdwii]

I think its already established that the CPU is to weak for 1080P gaming in a gaming environment since everything else can be ruled out for the PS4 over the GPU being capable of 1080P.

No, CPU has nothing to do with resolution. It can limit FPS, but resolution depends only on GPU and/or memory.

Then please explain how a 7870 can't provide 1080P gameplay when it can on the PC?

the 7870 aint doing 60fps @ 1080p on the pc.

Well the issue is even 1080P 30FPS seems to be impossible most of the time i know it can't do 60FPS but i know for a fact it can play most games at even Ultra settings at 30FPS. But 900P?

 

[jdwii]

If cpu is so important, xbone should get more fps than ps4. The cpu in the xbone is clocked higher.

When a GPU is so much more powerful then the Xbox one that won't happen, however there is times where the xbox one comes out ahead if you watch FPS videos comparing both.

Xbox one is not identical to PS4 in all other aspects. It's not a fair comparison. ES-RAM and DDR make the two very different machines, with the Xbox still having superior memory performance as well.

In CPU tasks, it also has a higher clock speed to but not enough to brag about.

 

[palladin9479]

I do believe I've discussed this before. You simply can not lump everything into "CPU" or "GPU" tasks, there is entirely too much interdependencys involved. When you look at the "graphics options", some of those are purely inside the GPU while others require CPU work before it can feed the GPU. AA and AF is a prime example of something that is 100% GPU, all the operations take place inside the GPU and the CPU has no additional work required. Move on to shadows, particle effects, texture and model complexity and suddenly the CPU now has to do more work for setup and geometry. It has to track more "stuff" and do more work to manage the GPU's state. This is why benchmarks are useless without context and people would be surprised at how far a little tweaking can go.

On the whole 30/60 FPS thing, it has to do with traditional AV setups. NTSC video signal is 29.9 fps measured at 60hz and PAL is 25 fps at 50hz. So pretty much every video system in the world will want it's signal to be in some evenly divisible value of those otherwise inconsistencies and artifacts can start to appear. It's what we know as screen tearing / stuttering on the PC world but for home video systems, it can be quite uncomfortable to look at from across the room. Trying to play a video game on a big screen HDTV with a variable frame rate has a good chance of making the player feel sick.

 

[jdwii]

^^^^ agree Palladin your to smart for this forum go, no lol but i agree i'm just saying a 7870 should provide 1080P 30FPS at least

 

[gamerk316]

It's in laptops where Maxwell will shine. The 970m is way better than the 870m for example in both performance and power consumption. AMD has nothing comparible right now.

AMD hasn't had proper discrete GPU design wins in laptops since they made APUs a thing. Nvidia has like 90% of the discrete laptop gpu sales. I don't think AMD even cares any more.

They shouldn't; that's the place where they should be pushing the APU like mad. If the APU can't win there, it can't win anywhere.

 

[gamerk316]

I must admit I'm with con635 on the 980 / 970. Great cards with excellent perf / w, but *not* the 'ball out the park' performance jump everyone are heralding them as.

I remember when we went from HD 4870 - HD 5870, *litterally 2x the performance*, or if you prefer team green, the release of the 8800 ultra (which then became the 9800, which then became the GTX 250 or something?)...

From what I've seen, the 980 is what, 10% faster than a 290X or 780ti (and this number goes *down* as resolution goes up due to the much wider memory bandwidth on the previous gen cards). Granted, it does this at much lower power consumption, and as others have said the true *big chip* version of maxwell will likely by very impressive. However there is little chance of that seeing the light of day any time soon, as it will come out in pro cards first and they're nowhere to be seen.

It's an excellent bit of engineering but if I already owned either previous gen card I really don't see the appeal?

I'm not sure it was supposed to do that, its not the 980TI either and it was made on the same 28nm process that's what makes it extremely amazing, i'm 70% sure Nvidia isn't done yet when it comes to making a high-end GPU i see a 980Ti coming but then again Amd on 20nm plus their new architecture should put Nvidia in the dust.

Remember, this is the first time NVIDIA based the Desktop chip off the mobile chip, rather then the other way around. So I find the reduced power requirements not shocking in the least. I'm more surprised at the performance, honestly.

 

[gamerk316]

I think its already established that the CPU is to weak for 1080P gaming in a gaming environment since everything else can be ruled out for the PS4 over the GPU being capable of 1080P.

No, CPU has nothing to do with resolution. It can limit FPS, but resolution depends only on GPU and/or memory.

It absolutely can. While the GPU does comparatively more work as resolution increases, CPU load does go up as well.

 

[gamerk316]

On the whole 30/60 FPS thing, it has to do with traditional AV setups. NTSC video signal is 29.9 fps measured at 60hz and PAL is 25 fps at 50hz. So pretty much every video system in the world will want it's signal to be in some evenly divisible value of those otherwise inconsistencies and artifacts can start to appear. It's what we know as screen tearing / stuttering on the PC world but for home video systems, it can be quite uncomfortable to look at from across the room. Trying to play a video game on a big screen HDTV with a variable frame rate has a good chance of making the player feel sick.

Which is why Variable Frame Rates are such a big huge thing in my mind.

Look, back in ye olden days, devs did a lot of things to keep console CPUs from stalling out. Take Sonic on the Genesis. Every Sonic game ran at 60 FPS, but the physics were only calculated every other frame (30 FPS). Which works 99% of the time, except at max speed when all those wonderful odd physics bugs started to show up (dropping through floors and the like). Devs have ALWAYS had to contend with CPUs that simply can't do what they want them to do, and come up with various workarounds to deal with it.

I'm more alarmed by the fact they expected such a big jump in performance.

((I'm done now; next time, I'll try and compress into one post when I check in post-weekends, promise! ))

 

[8350rocks]

Had a great conversation with Richard Huddy last week.

Many good things coming. Freesync monitors are expected to be announced by 1 vendor as available Q4, some current models from that vendor will be capable of receiving firmware updates to gain freesync as I understand it.

Also, nextgen gpus are on the horizon. No hard dates but keep your eyes open.

Tonga is a "relatively weak version" of the new gpu uarch, and just tip of the iceberg.

Last tidbit, AMD is helping khronos design oglnext. They will be working hand in hand to help optimize for the new API. AMD will continue to support mantle as well, but they are glad to see widespread adoption of their ideas for lower level APIs.

 

[colinp]

That last "titbit" isn't exactly news.

Nor is the fact that AMD are going to release a new gen gpu at some point sooner or later. I mean, no s--t, Sherlock.

What would be news on that front would be whether they expect to be competitive on performance instead of just price. But he'd hardly admit it if he knew it wouldn't be, would he?

Good to see freesync being adopted though. Hope it's a reputable brand.

 

[Embra]

GlobalFoundries will Acquire IBM Chip Business
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/globalfoundries-will-acquire-ibm-chip-business.html