Intel Quadcore Vs. AMD Octacore - Gaming and future octacore-optimized development.

[prankstare]

Hey,

So we all know Intel's architecture is much better and energy/performance efficient per thread/core but how about multi-tasking performance? Also, do you think that, in the near future perhaps, not only games but also most computer programs will all benefit from using 8 actual cores like next-gen consoles are doing for games?

The reason I'm asking this is because I'm a bit torn between buying "faster" but expensive Intel's quadcore solution i5 3570k or "slower" but much cheaper AMD's octacore FX-8350. However, if the future say 8-12 months from now will be eight-core optimized sofware all the way (including games and overall multi-tasking), then I think such "slower" (for now) AMD solution is worth it.

So, any ideas?

Thanks!

 

[4745454b]

To my knowledge AMD doesn't have PCIe 3.0 support on any of their CPUs. Even if the board supports it the CPUs don't. Let's not ruin another thread, consider this a warning.

 

[space1]

What your telling me is that last generation's hardware, at launch, that was basically miles ahead of the PC's didn't drive AMD, Intel, and Nvidia to step their game up the be able to keep up with the consoles?
360 runs a tricore and PS3 runs a Cell processor which I think has 8 or 9 cores that are equal to a quad core CPU.
That means it was common place in 2006 to have PC's with tri or quad core processors?
Nope.
I am not saying consoles drive all PC advancements but when it consoles to gaming they are basically the law of the land.

Its like you don't know how to source things.
Please, i try to source as much as i can and it would be very nice of you to at least TRY to source at least one thing.

What do I need to source?

Here is the average gaming PC in 2006,
http://www.nairaland.com/24982/pc-specs-serious-gaming
No that isn't law but look at when those posts where made and it should give you a good idea of the gaming hardware then.

Here is the specs of the Xbox which was released in 2005,
http://xbox.about.com/od/xbox2/a/xbox360specs.htm

Here is the PS3's specs which was released in 2006,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

Those consoles weren't miles ahead of gaming PC's then and PC gaming didn't have to in a way catch up to the consoles?

If you still don't thinks so,
what is the standard for a gaming CPU now?
Quad core.
Why is that?
Well because the consoles run tri and quad core CPU's.
Why does that matter for PC gaming?
Well it just so happens that lets say, and this being conservative, 75% of games on PC were originally made for the consoles!
That means you should be using about the same hardware as the consoles to achieve the same type of performance?

What else do I have to spell out for you to understand?

Since these next gen console are running slow octo-core CPU's the next generation of gaming PC should try to match the consoles at the minimum because history just may repeat itself and the majority of the games for PC will be made for the consoles first.

If you need anymore reassurance that I am right we can just keep going back farther and the same thing trend will continue.

As for OP: A good, and fast quad should be able to carry you through this next generation just like the old Pentiums carried some through this generation.

But do you want to be using the same hardware 7 years from now?
Probably not.
But that is up to you to decide.

 

[Azn Cracker]

wow this has become a long debate lol. Still think the intel cpu is better option at the moment. More core will help when the xbox one and ps4 come out in Novemeber/December. But at that time only handful of games will use 8 cores. Give it a few more months after that, then i would think the FX would be worth it.

Btw is 12 months a long time in the tech world?

 

[4745454b]

Btw is 12 months a long time in the tech world?

Depends on how often you upgrade. I always thought I didn't upgrade a lot but I've been upgrading parts in my machine at least every 12mo, somethings 18mo for bigger things.

Consoles having 8 cores will change things. But coding well with multiple cores isn't going to happen over night. Even with consoles driving development of games. When did dual cores come out? 2005 or so? Quads been around since 2007 or 8? Here we are 5+ years later and STILL not using all 4 for games. You can count on a Muppet's hand how many games needs four cores. We don't need consoles with more cores, we need a coding "revolution". We'll make progress on this, but I'd guess we need another 5+ years at least before quad core gaming becomes even close to the norm.

 

[Master467]

What your telling me is that last generation's hardware, at launch, that was basically miles ahead of the PC's didn't drive AMD, Intel, and Nvidia to step their game up the be able to keep up with the consoles?
360 runs a tricore and PS3 runs a Cell processor which I think has 8 or 9 cores that are equal to a quad core CPU.
That means it was common place in 2006 to have PC's with tri or quad core processors?
Nope.
I am not saying consoles drive all PC advancements but when it consoles to gaming they are basically the law of the land.

Its like you don't know how to source things.
Please, i try to source as much as i can and it would be very nice of you to at least TRY to source at least one thing.

What do I need to source?

Here is the average gaming PC in 2006,
http://www.nairaland.com/24982/pc-specs-serious-gaming
No that isn't law but look at when those posts where made and it should give you a good idea of the gaming hardware then.

Here is the specs of the Xbox which was released in 2005,
http://xbox.about.com/od/xbox2/a/xbox360specs.htm

Here is the PS3's specs which was released in 2006,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

Those consoles weren't miles ahead of gaming PC's then and PC gaming didn't have to in a way catch up to the consoles?

If you still don't thinks so,
what is the standard for a gaming CPU now?
Quad core.
Why is that?
Well because the consoles run tri and quad core CPU's.
Why does that matter for PC gaming?
Well it just so happens that lets say, and this being conservative, 75% of games on PC were originally made for the consoles!
That means you should be using about the same hardware as the consoles to achieve the same type of performance?

What else do I have to spell out for you to understand?

Since these next gen console are running slow octo-core CPU's the next generation of gaming PC should try to match the consoles at the minimum because history just may repeat itself and the majority of the games for PC will be made for the consoles first.

If you need anymore reassurance that I am right we can just keep going back farther and the same thing trend will continue.

As for OP: A good, and fast quad should be able to carry you through this next generation just like the old Pentiums carried some through this generation.

But do you want to be using the same hardware 7 years from now?
Probably not.
But that is up to you to decide.

Nice, at least you quantified your clames. I got a kick out of the guy that said "Dual core CPU? What the hell are you going to do with TWO CORES? Plot the nanosecond movement of tornadoes?" xD

The diffrence is that a haswell i3 will kick the stuffing out of the APU in the new councles, even in 8 core optimised programs (Im adding 10% to llano FPS, because there are no jag. benches out. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Core-i3-3220-CPU-Review/1646/4). The computation score at the botom is the CPU only, not IGPU. Assume jag is 8 cores not 4 cores, and assume that exactly doubles the score. (IRL It will NOT) its still MUCH slower then an i3, on CPU alone. And this is an ivy bridge, not a haswell.

Edited by mod for swearing.

 

[4745454b]

The diffrence is that a haswell i3 will kick the stuffing out of the APU in the new councles

Maybe for CPU stuff, I thought Toms already did a review showing Haswell's IGP isn't good enough to catch AMD? At least the normal one. The better one that is only found on duals might. But we already know your opinion on dual core CPUs.

 

[space1]

Nice, at least you quantified your clames. I got a kick out of the guy that said "Dual core CPU? What the hell are you going to do with TWO CORES? Plot the nanosecond movement of tornadoes?" xD

The diffrence is that a haswell i3 will kick the living shit out of the APU in the new councles, even in 8 core optimised programs (Im adding 10% to llano FPS, because there are no jag. benches out. http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/A10-5800K-vs-Core-i3-3220-CPU-Review/1646/4). The computation score at the botom is the CPU only, not IGPU. Assume jag is 8 cores not 4 cores, and assume that exactly doubles the score. (IRL It will NOT) its still MUCH slower then an i3, on CPU alone. And this is an ivy bridge, not a haswell.

Glad I pleased your need for sauce and I also got a kick out of that! :lol:
Just think, someone someday will look back on a thread like this and laugh at us for arguing over needing more than 4 cores .

But as for the i3 vs. jag cpu thing,
There is no doubt the i3's hyperthreaded 4 "cores" at a higher frequency will beat the slower jag CPU.
But I have a feeling the CPU won't really need to be as fast for this generation because they added the extra cores to compensate for the low speed and most of the processing will be taking place on the much faster GPU.
Now this is just an assumption for now but it feels like a pretty logical one.

So in turn a fast quad and good GPU should be just fine do you agree?

 

[prankstare]

>Most likely it'll be an AMD system, with FX-6350/8350 on it cause both are very overclockable and cheap these days, until I get my hands on Steamroller or something (just have to make sure if that IGP can do any good for a dual-monitor setup first ->

Just stop this, please. AMD will not be competing with Intel anymore. They have officaly dropped out of the CPU race. Abandoning a market they know they cannot keep up in.

Also, what makes you think that CONSOLES will affect anything on PC at all? You think that games that can possably take advantage of 5 or more cores will run like crap on a 4 core that is much faster per-core? Look at the past before looking into the future. Can you point to any time in history that consoles affected the PC market at all?

What? Excuse me, kid, now I don't mean to kill the whole discussion here, Edited out swearing and personal attacks. When it comes to technology, I don't think you need to look in the past to see the upcoming future. If you were sane enough, you'd be able to visualize what's currently going on in the world of nanotechnology, which is mobile all the way. Now you may ask what the heck does that have to do with anything? And I'd say everything. Can't you see the drastic slump in PC sales nowadays? Don't you read the news boy? With mobile comes shrinking components, as well as heterogeneous architecture (or SoCs, APUs), fusion, and that's really the trend right now and you can't change that.

I am much aware Intel processors, as I said earlier do have more efficiency per core yes, but when it comes to APUs, I'm afraid to say they are far behind. Also, everyday I see how good these processors are, but their prices are going up like crazy, and some may not agree with me on this but it totally despises me to see people spending so much money only to build super fast gaming machines when in fact PCs are not meant primarily for gaming (hate to see the inneficiency in GPU performance compared to that of highly optimized gaming consoles - you could easily get 30-40% more out of the same specs if it weren't for the shitty-optimized Windows API). And that's where console gaming comes into play here: where do you think game devs get their money from? PC sales lol? Come on. There's a reason why games are not very well optimized for your meaty $3200 piece of equipment. And when it comes to multithreading support, it's shameful, games even worse. But we can see some progress in that department already. Take Battlefield, Metro 2033 they all seem to use those eight cores, although not fully implemented yet.

So all in all, take it or not these gaming consoles do have an edge compared to regular x86 PC builds, perhaps not quite in terms of raw performance numbers but more in terms of architecture and what maybe the future of personal computing could eventually become (don't forget PS4 will ship with unprecedent GDDR5 for both GPU and CPU, so even though each of the eight Jaguar cores may be considered slow it is very well optimized and communication with very fast memory, something we have not seen on any PC builds so far). We're talking very high end stuff here, APU's that may present as the more affordable solution for both performance and price. I can definitely see AMD "forcing us" (in a good way) to buy both their CPU and GPU products all in the same package in the future (in this case APU + optional very cheap discrete graphics card) because that'd offer quite reasonably good performance for the money, and that's a market in which Intel really can't compete at all, unless they decide to buy Nvidia or unite or suddenly decide to invest heavily in GPU manufacturing, which I personally don't think will be the case any time soon. Future is fusion, not the other way around anymore.

Mod edit! Watch the personal attacks and language!

 

[GotR1GHT]

Ok first of all, just because new consoles have 8 core cpu it doesn't mean that they will utilize all of them just for gaming purposes.Just like the 8GB ram won't be available only for gaming. 8 cores will be used for other tasks like multitasking,OS(especially xbone),sharing,socializing,kinect/ps eye etc.So from that 8core cpu it will be maybe 6 cores only for game development. Just like only 5 gb of ram will be used only for gaming and 3gb for OS and other tasks non related to gaming.
Apart from that, Intel Quadcore Vs. AMD Octacore my thought:
Intel 1 core has much better IPC than AMD counterpart.So basically Intel 1core can do work of almost amd 2 cores.
It's not like just because new consoles are coming,developers will forget how to port games to intel quad core.They are both x86 and developers will know how to use it and port. It is even EASIER to port on Intel quad core just because it can do MUCH MORE WORK on 1 core than amd can do.

 

[whyso]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/11/26/intel-core-i3-3220-review/5
i3 beats the fx8350 at multitasking.

Are you trying to troll?

8150 ahead of 8350.... yep, everything looks fine

Looks to be very heavily singlethreaded too.

 

[space1]

Why doesn't someone with a FX-8350 underclock it to 1.7ghz and tell us how it performs.
Maybe do a benchmark or 2.
That isn't the best way to see how the jag will do but it would but I am interested in seeing the results.

 

[prankstare]

Why doesn't someone with a FX-8350 underclock it to 1.7ghz and tell us how it performs.
Maybe do a benchmark or 2.
That isn't the best way to see how the jag will do but it would but I am interested in seeing the results.

Yeah! You know what let's just underclock our CPUs to where stock/turbo clocks don't really matter anymore - what's the point? Why going with the better piece of silicon quality, higher binned processors if all you're going to do is lower the voltage and clock speeds? All I'm saying is, a benchmark like this would do nothing but show what's already evident, Intel has got better instruction per cycle, but it tell us absolutely nothing about real-world use and performance, obviously because nobody with a FX-8350 would underclock it to 1.7GHz lol. Also you have to consider both CPU architectures are completely different - AMD Bulldozer/Piledriver was designed to work and attain very high clocks, whereas Intel Ivy Bridge works completely the opposite and you can't overclock it like Bulldozers can, though as a tradeoff you get much better IPC.

But anyways this isn't a AMD Vs. Intel battle anymore. Both companies have very different marketing strategies right now, and I think it was about time to people realize that. Don't get me wrong, I've had Intel most of my life and I still do and their processors do wonders, but I can't help the fact that it's all about multitasking and parallel processing power now (not single-threaded and serial performance anymore), even with or without the influence of the mobile tech market behind it.

 

[8350rocks]

Ok first of all, just because new consoles have 8 core cpu it doesn't mean that they will utilize all of them just for gaming purposes.Just like the 8GB ram won't be available only for gaming. 8 cores will be used for other tasks like multitasking,OS(especially xbone),sharing,socializing,kinect/ps eye etc.So from that 8core cpu it will be maybe 6 cores only for game development. Just like only 5 gb of ram will be used only for gaming and 3gb for OS and other tasks non related to gaming.
Apart from that, Intel Quadcore Vs. AMD Octacore my thought:
Intel 1 core has much better IPC than AMD counterpart.So basically Intel 1core can do work of almost amd 2 cores.
It's not like just because new consoles are coming,developers will forget how to port games to intel quad core.They are both x86 and developers will know how to use it and port. It is even EASIER to port on Intel quad core just because it can do MUCH MORE WORK on 1 core than amd can do.

Umm...game developers (I am one)...prefer developing for HSA.

AMD has HSA, Intel does not...

AMD will be better optimized in the next generation of console games...and frankly...if intel's work well in future games great...if they don't...that's great too...no developers are terribly worried about it. PC Games are generally an after thought, with the exception of MMOs. However, it is already AMD developer kits that people are using to tune their software...so don't be surprised if no one cares how intel performs in the next generation of PC Games...developers don't care as long as it runs good on a console.

Just saying...Intel is so drastically different from console architecture they will literally have to brute force their way along to keep up with the level of optimizations that will be aimed squarely at AMD hardware.

EDIT: LOL@ OS running on Cores...the OS on PS4 runs on the GPU...and takes up very little memory. Additionally, background processes are run on a Custom ARM CPU. Count on the availability of 7-8 cores full time for games. The GPU has 64 Compute pipelines...(A HD 7970, which is a good compute GPU, has 2 pipelines to give you an idea of the difference between console and PC hardware). Everything is going massively parallel now...the cores will do all the serial functions, and will literally pass a good portion of the workload to the GPU. Which was not feasible on PS3/XB360 because hUMA/HSA wasn't an option and the GPUs didn't have much compute capability.

 

[GotR1GHT]

Ok first of all, just because new consoles have 8 core cpu it doesn't mean that they will utilize all of them just for gaming purposes.Just like the 8GB ram won't be available only for gaming. 8 cores will be used for other tasks like multitasking,OS(especially xbone),sharing,socializing,kinect/ps eye etc.So from that 8core cpu it will be maybe 6 cores only for game development. Just like only 5 gb of ram will be used only for gaming and 3gb for OS and other tasks non related to gaming.
Apart from that, Intel Quadcore Vs. AMD Octacore my thought:
Intel 1 core has much better IPC than AMD counterpart.So basically Intel 1core can do work of almost amd 2 cores.
It's not like just because new consoles are coming,developers will forget how to port games to intel quad core.They are both x86 and developers will know how to use it and port. It is even EASIER to port on Intel quad core just because it can do MUCH MORE WORK on 1 core than amd can do.

Umm...game developers (I am one)...prefer developing for HSA.

AMD has HSA, Intel does not...

AMD will be better optimized in the next generation of console games...and frankly...if intel's work well in future games great...if they don't...that's great too...no developers are terribly worried about it. PC Games are generally an after thought, with the exception of MMOs. However, it is already AMD developer kits that people are using to tune their software...so don't be surprised if no one cares how intel performs in the next generation of PC Games...developers don't care as long as it runs good on a console.

Just saying...Intel is so drastically different from console architecture they will literally have to brute force their way along to keep up with the level of optimizations that will be aimed squarely at AMD hardware.

EDIT: LOL@ OS running on Cores...the OS on PS4 runs on the GPU...and takes up very little memory. Additionally, background processes are run on a Custom ARM CPU. Count on the availability of 7-8 cores full time for games. The GPU has 64 Compute pipelines...(A HD 7970, which is a good compute GPU, has 2 pipelines to give you an idea of the difference between console and PC hardware). Everything is going massively parallel now...the cores will do all the serial functions, and will literally pass a good portion of the workload to the GPU. Which was not feasible on PS3/XB360 because hUMA/HSA wasn't an option and the GPUs didn't have much compute capability.

I have always been a AMD fan( my first pc 15 years ago was athlon for unreal tournament 1999) but intel has been A BIT more powerful in recent years in terms of gaming.
What would your recommend - an fx 8350(even if its more than year old) or new i5 4670 for gaming? Or would be better to wait for the new steamroller?
Would like a non biased answer.(looking at your profile name😛)

 

[8350rocks]

Honestly...this is what I would do for "future gaming" as best as you can plan anyway:

1.) FX9590/9370
2.) i7-3930k
3.) FX8350/8320
4.) i7-3770k
5.) i7-4770k (due to lack of virtualization features that intel removed)
6.) i5-3570k/4670k/FX6350/FX6300

Honestly...I think 3 and 4 are basically interchangeable. I prefer AMD over the 3770k and you get a few more lanes of PCIe 3.0 bandwidth that direction which allows you better SLI/CF "future proofing". I think if you have any of those...you will be fine going forward...but I think as games get more threaded...you'll see the i5's start to lose performance comparatively to the others above them.

Now, caveat here is time frame. I think within the next 12-24 months you'll start to see the newest most technically advanced games taking advantage of more cores. This will even be evident in some of this fall's releases...like GTA 5 (which will be a title on PS4/XB1 btw, that's already all but done for launch on the next gen consoles). You won't have to have an 8 core or 6 core to game, but you will start to see the cream separating from the rest of the milk in the bottle...so to speak. Dual cores are done for gaming on next gen games within 12-18 months.

EDIT: Crysis 4 will be unplayable on a dual core, even with HTT...

 

[Master467]

So all in all, take it or not these gaming consoles do have an edge compared to regular x86 PC builds, perhaps not quite in terms of raw performance numbers but more in terms of architecture and what maybe the future of personal computing could eventually become (don't forget PS4 will ship with unprecedent GDDR5 for both GPU and CPU, so even though each of the eight Jaguar cores may be considered slow it is very well optimized and communication with very fast memory, something we have not seen on any PC builds so far).

Except exactly none of that is correct.

Lets start with easy stuff.
>PS4 will ship with unprecedent GDDR5 for both GPU and CPU, so even though each of the eight Jaguar cores may be considered slow it is very well optimized and communication with very fast memory
I seriously hope you are just ignorant of the diffrences in DDR3 and DDR5 memory. DDR5 is not just "2 more DDR's".
DDR5 is slower for the first instuction, but faster in the long run. This is great for GPU's, but not for CPU's. So lets call that a wash, as it will both slow down and speed up the CPU.

Also, you are attacking Microsoft's API for being slow, when it has to work with every possable set of hardware there is. And trust me, that slows it down alot. The xbox or PS4's operating system has to work with exactly one set of hardware, no crap its going to be slower.

Jag. is an 8 core A-10, it is not, in the PC world, anything super awesome.

 

[8350rocks]

Lets start with easy stuff.
>PS4 will ship with unprecedent GDDR5 for both GPU and CPU, so even though each of the eight Jaguar cores may be considered slow it is very well optimized and communication with very fast memory
I seriously hope you are just ignorant of the diffrences in DDR3 and DDR5 memory. DDR5 is not just "2 more DDR's".
DDR5 is slower for the first instuction, but faster in the long run. This is great for GPU's, but not for CPU's. So lets call that a wash, as it will both slow down and speed up the CPU.

They went with unified GDDR5 memory for the bandwidth, it was more cost effective than the solution Microsoft used in XB1 and also more developer friendly, because you don't have to now program for 2 separate kinds of memory and what you want to run where. Also, with hUMA and HSA integrated into the "Advanced APUs"...what you're going to see is something no one has seen before, and I think very few people actually grasp what this generation of consoles is capable of because it's outside the realm of any previous comparable x86 performance.

GDDR5 is a better solution for PS4 than the other options they could have used because of the massive compute functions on the GPU. For example...you know supercomputers use GPGPUs, right? The GPU inside the PS4 is basically like one small piece of the Supercomputers. Coding will become massively more parallel on consoles because you will benefit much more by using the ~1.7 TFLOPS of the GPU over the GFLOPS of raw compute power you have on the actual CPU. Now, granted, you have to have the 8 cores to run the game, because GPUs are very slow at some things, where it is an advantage to use CPU cores...however, anything that can be offloaded onto the GPU and it's massively parallel compute ability will be able to take advantage of being able to run as many as 50-60 threads concurrently. I don't know of any CPU that can do that yet...do you?

Also, you are attacking Microsoft's API for being slow, when it has to work with every possable set of hardware there is. And trust me, that slows it down alot. The xbox or PS4's operating system has to work with exactly one set of hardware, no crap its going to be slower.

MS only has to cater to x86, their APIs and OS in general are far slower than other OS's out there...like Linux, which is done primarily by volunteers in their spare time. If you look at MS Win7/Win8 benches and look at say...Ubuntu or Debian or ArchLinux benches...the Linux systems run a large percentage faster at everything...why? Because the Linux kernel and APIs are dramatically better than the windows system that MS pays people to design. The downfall of MS is their own fault...there are much better OS's out there. You also have systems like Solaris, OSX and others...while Solaris doesn't just run on x86 (it supports SPARC also)...it is still a better OS, though likely vastly more expensive since the Oracle acquisition of Sun Microsystems. Windows has really amazed me that they are still in the position they are in...I guess reluctance to change has really kept other systems that run far better from getting out into the open.

Jag. is an 8 core A-10, it is not, in the PC world, anything super awesome.

Actually...if you can understand the capability of being able to run as many as 65-70 threads concurrently...you would know how far off you are. A current gen PC with a 3930k and a HD 7990 can run 16 threads at once (the HD 7990 can run 4 compute functions at once).

Maybe now you see why EA and others have stated that PCs will not be able to match consoles for quite a while.

The issue is everyone looks at the system specs and says..."My 3770k and HD 7990 have 3 times more TFLOPS power!!!"...but it isn't just about the TFLOPS. It's about how much you can do at once, and as we see the evolution of this generation of consoles, people will start to understand how dramatically different this generation is because it is forecasting the direction of things...computing in massively parallel streams of data.

 

[8350rocks]

Also pc's will game far better then the new consoles if you have a faster gpu. So a 7870 with an i5 will easily beat the console. I can see the ps4 being obsolete in 5 years time as they can't get away with a poor cpu. Yes the cpu is designed with lots of features and sony have made it so they have separate acceleration for tasks without using the cpu but even then there is only so much physics calculations on a low end cpu you can do.

Physics are calculated on the GPU...stop trolling. CPUs will not be able to run 60 threads in the next 5 years...unless someone comes out with a 60 core monster...and I doubt it.

 

[prankstare]

Lets start with easy stuff.
>PS4 will ship with unprecedent GDDR5 for both GPU and CPU, so even though each of the eight Jaguar cores may be considered slow it is very well optimized and communication with very fast memory
I seriously hope you are just ignorant of the diffrences in DDR3 and DDR5 memory. DDR5 is not just "2 more DDR's".
DDR5 is slower for the first instuction, but faster in the long run. This is great for GPU's, but not for CPU's. So lets call that a wash, as it will both slow down and speed up the CPU.

They went with unified GDDR5 memory for the bandwidth, it was more cost effective than the solution Microsoft used in XB1 and also more developer friendly, because you don't have to now program for 2 separate kinds of memory and what you want to run where. Also, with hUMA and HSA integrated into the "Advanced APUs"...what you're going to see is something no one has seen before, and I think very few people actually grasp what this generation of consoles is capable of because it's outside the realm of any previous comparable x86 performance.

GDDR5 is a better solution for PS4 than the other options they could have used because of the massive compute functions on the GPU. For example...you know supercomputers use GPGPUs, right? The GPU inside the PS4 is basically like one small piece of the Supercomputers. Coding will become massively more parallel on consoles because you will benefit much more by using the ~1.7 TFLOPS of the GPU over the GFLOPS of raw compute power you have on the actual CPU. Now, granted, you have to have the 8 cores to run the game, because GPUs are very slow at some things, where it is an advantage to use CPU cores...however, anything that can be offloaded onto the GPU and it's massively parallel compute ability will be able to take advantage of being able to run as many as 50-60 threads concurrently. I don't know of any CPU that can do that yet...do you?

Also, you are attacking Microsoft's API for being slow, when it has to work with every possable set of hardware there is. And trust me, that slows it down alot. The xbox or PS4's operating system has to work with exactly one set of hardware, no crap its going to be slower.

MS only has to cater to x86, their APIs and OS in general are far slower than other OS's out there...like Linux, which is done primarily by volunteers in their spare time. If you look at MS Win7/Win8 benches and look at say...Ubuntu or Debian or ArchLinux benches...the Linux systems run a large percentage faster at everything...why? Because the Linux kernel and APIs are dramatically better than the windows system that MS pays people to design. The downfall of MS is their own fault...there are much better OS's out there. You also have systems like Solaris, OSX and others...while Solaris doesn't just run on x86 (it supports SPARC also)...it is still a better OS, though likely vastly more expensive since the Oracle acquisition of Sun Microsystems. Windows has really amazed me that they are still in the position they are in...I guess reluctance to change has really kept other systems that run far better from getting out into the open.

Jag. is an 8 core A-10, it is not, in the PC world, anything super awesome.

Actually...if you can understand the capability of being able to run as many as 65-70 threads concurrently...you would know how far off you are. A current gen PC with a 3930k and a HD 7990 can run 16 threads at once (the HD 7990 can run 4 compute functions at once).

Maybe now you see why EA and others have stated that PCs will not be able to match consoles for quite a while.

@master469 lol. Okay kid, do I really need to reply after this? :lol: You clearly show you don't know what you're saying, except for being arrogant and ironic in every single useless post of yours.

The issue is everyone looks at the system specs and says..."My 3770k and HD 7990 have 3 times more TFLOPS power!!!"...but it isn't just about the TFLOPS. It's about how much you can do at once, and as we see the evolution of this generation of consoles, people will start to understand how dramatically different this generation is because it is forecasting the direction of things...computing in massively parallel streams of data.

Yes. I'm not a developer myself, so I may not have the terms or the knowledge as you do, but this is pretty much exactly what I've been trying to say all along. Specs and number comparisons between different architectures/systems don't actually mean much performance wise. From what I understand about APIs, or let's just say Windows in general, is just pitiful! It handles your hardware like crap, especially in the graphics department - kinda pretty much like a bad race driver with a very expensive car, what's the use? So I think that (and might be wrong though - would like to hear opinions) we've come to a point where hardware is no longer the main issue in that our current generation of CPU's are "enough" (not considering mobile or small form-factor devices lol), where it's all about software development and finding new more creative, cost-effective ways to both manufacturing and better utilize that power. Now in terms of driver development, it's interesting to see how iOS can extract so much out of their system specs, much more than Windows or even Android interfaces can. In fact, I really do think Microsoft products only survive so well because of very very smart marketing strategies (well you know $$ Bill Gates $$) and that's how Windows became so popular in the first place, cause clearly it's not even nearly as good as the competition, even some of the opensource ones. Sometimes you can get more performance for the money, and that's what everybody wants, yes?

 

[Forte EXE]

Also pc's will game far better then the new consoles if you have a faster gpu. So a 7870 with an i5 will easily beat the console. I can see the ps4 being obsolete in 5 years time as they can't get away with a poor cpu. Yes the cpu is designed with lots of features and sony have made it so they have separate acceleration for tasks without using the cpu but even then there is only so much physics calculations on a low end cpu you can do.

Physics are calculated on the GPU...stop trolling. CPUs will not be able to run 60 threads in the next 5 years...unless someone comes out with a 60 core monster...and I doubt it.

As far as gameing concerned do you think that cosoles are beginning to become the better option? iv always been told pc gameing is far better

 

[iam2thecrowe]

some games out now use 8 threads, but games have such varying load that you will never see 8 cores loaded 100% on every core, so you will not see double the performance of a 4 core cpu. As the number of threads used in games continues to increase, you will see benefits, but they are not a fixed load like if you were encoding video, so you wont see double the performance from double the cores.

 

[rmpumper]

By the time new games start rolling out, AMD will release Steamroller. So my suggestion would be not to build a new system at the moment if you have a decent one now. Wait and see what happens as it pure waste of time trying to predict if games will be running better on more cores or on less more powerful cores.

 

[Master467]

As far as gameing concerned do you think that cosoles are beginning to become the better option? iv always been told pc gameing is far better

Yeah, because it is.
Counsels are locked, you cannot do anything other then what microsoft says you can.
PC's can be used for many other things, such as skype, email, and browsing 4chan.
A PC can push more pixels at higher detail, when was the last time you saw an XBox run 3 screens with skype chat in one 4chan in the other and running BF3 on max in the 3rd? Thats what i though.
PC's can be updated over and over, a 1500 dollar PC in 2006 could have a 400 dollar GPU replaced in 2010, a 400 dollar mobo/cpu/ram replacement in 2012, and another GPU in 2016, keeping it well ahead of counsels for not THAT much more money. Frankly if you cannot put 100 or 200 bucks a year aside, you could not pay for a year of PS Plus or XBox live anyways...
Also, steam has cheaper games...

 

[8350rocks]

Well, your price argument is a bit off...

PC Cost before upgrades - $1500
Cost of Upgrades - $800
Total PC Cost - $2300
XBOX360/PS3 cost - $399

Difference - $1901

That's a pretty staggering investment just to stay ahead of the consoles...

I am not saying PCs and PC Games aren't worth it...but the argument looks a lot better if you're talking about a $1000 system with no upgrades on 3 screens, etc. As opposed to spending 6 times more money to do what a console does on a HD TV as big as you want to buy.

Additionally, for what you spend on large HD PC monitors (30"+)...you could easily acquire a 42"+ LCD 1080p TV.

The argument becomes valid if you run 2-3 screens and multitask while gaming, or if you feel you need to run games @ 1440p, etc. If not, the consoles are a lot of value for the money spent. You have to consider, the consoles are typically sold at a loss to recoup profits on games produced in house.

 

[NappySlapper]

Im not sure if anybody said this above as i only skim read it, but as far as i am aware , Steamroller will be able to run on the same motherboard as current Amd chips. To be really honest the difference between 8350 and 3570k is maybe 10 fps in the games that favour Intel and in others the 8350 can even outperform the intel. When you factor in that you will not have to change your motherboard when steamroller comes out wheras the 3570k is on a dead board then it seems like a bit of a no brainer to me.

Why would you get the intel when it onlu offers marginal performance gains and costs over 100 quid more if you think of upgrading?