-
We tested the Nvidia App performance problems — games can run up to 15 percent slower with the app
- Status
eklipz330
Distinguished
- Jul 7, 2008
- 3,034
- 19
- 20,795
[citation][nom]werfu[/nom]Why throttle it? Its been years since programmer last used the CPU frequency to time their game. Having it run full potential would simply let the CPU idle more often and reduce game lag under intense sequence.[/citation]
strange, it's been years since the 360 came out on the market! and nope, no technical innovation yet. i would say console gaming slows down technological improvements
strange, it's been years since the 360 came out on the market! and nope, no technical innovation yet. i would say console gaming slows down technological improvements
Euphoria_MK
Distinguished
- Mar 4, 2009
- 492
- 0
- 18,790
[citation][nom]warezme[/nom]If it were a PC it would get unlocked, overclocked and better cooling put on the thing to make it better.[/citation]
I would never buy a PC with CPU and GPU in one. You can't upgrade them separately.
And the part about throttling, couldn't they throttle it only on some games and on others, like MAFIA II, enable VSync?
I would never buy a PC with CPU and GPU in one. You can't upgrade them separately.
And the part about throttling, couldn't they throttle it only on some games and on others, like MAFIA II, enable VSync?
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]There is no reason for >512MB RAM on current consoles, and no reason for >1GB for the next line of consoles, as that much space isn't physically needed.
[/citation]
There is a good reason for this: textures and world maps!
By restricting the RAM in a console, the company force the delevoppers to restrict the number of textures and the size of the world. So this help the company to insure that "any" game will have great performance.
If the developper is authorized to process more elements, but the CPU/GPU is not good enough for this, this results in a slower game.
Take a look at the performance gain just between a 256Mb video card and a 1Gb video crad. just here there is a big change. And than do the same for a PC game, between a 1Gb computer and a 2Gb one....
The console has to have more memory available to be able to process more complex games, with higher resolutions and to match the new performance of a 3core system...
[/citation]
There is a good reason for this: textures and world maps!
By restricting the RAM in a console, the company force the delevoppers to restrict the number of textures and the size of the world. So this help the company to insure that "any" game will have great performance.
If the developper is authorized to process more elements, but the CPU/GPU is not good enough for this, this results in a slower game.
Take a look at the performance gain just between a 256Mb video card and a 1Gb video crad. just here there is a big change. And than do the same for a PC game, between a 1Gb computer and a 2Gb one....
The console has to have more memory available to be able to process more complex games, with higher resolutions and to match the new performance of a 3core system...
@willgart and not only textures suffer, shaders take up quite some memory. Also the size of the world is mostly down to the size of games on DVD/HDD for example the city in GTA IV could have been 10 times bigger and the FPS would have been the same.
[citation][nom]siman[/nom]"Microsoft and IBM beat Intel and AMD in designing a CPU and GPU combo chip."umm ATI is AMD....or DAAMIT...[/citation]
Also many ARM-based cores for handhelds and smartphones have integrated the CPU, GPU as well as RAM and other functions into the chip for a long time.
Also many ARM-based cores for handhelds and smartphones have integrated the CPU, GPU as well as RAM and other functions into the chip for a long time.
nforce4max
Splendid
- Sep 9, 2009
- 8,337
- 0
- 31,460
[citation][nom]gamerk316[/nom]I disagree on this one; you don't need that much physical RAM when running a single application. PC OS's have to deal with thousands of threads, just from teh OS, where consoles have a very lightweight OS, and teh rest of the RAM is guranteed to be free. There is no reason for >512MB RAM on current consoles, and no reason for >1GB for the next line of consoles, as that much space isn't physically needed.Maybe the 360 CPU lacks that functionallity? Remember, consoles are DESIGNED to be single-spec machines. As such, you can never assume developers coded in such a way that is correct for multiple CPU configurations, as the entire point of a console is to remove that from being a consideration.[/citation]
I guess you are like most who forget about things once they are obsoleate. I guess that you don't remember how they nearly screwed up the N64 and same for Sony. I still remember how devs had a lot of problems the N64's 4kb texture cache. Then the PS2 was help back by its meager 32mb of ram that left draw distances disappointingly low. The Xbox was the same way and people often modded the console for more system ram even though they fixed the size that the games could use but at least they loaded quicker which is much welcomed by any console gamer. Then the PS3 256mb system ram leaves much to be desired for those who still have linux support. The x360 has a unified approach and is dynamically shred between graphics and cpu. The only benefit to this is that it forces devs to make highly efficient games while reducing the cost of the console. However it cuts the overall life of the unit to ware they are no longer able to improve graphics of the game with out the loss of performance. Right now the only things that are holding back the PS3 is the RSX (pos on chip MCM) and the 256mb system ram however they did strip down the fat that was in the os and freed up 30mb. The X360's weaknesses is the cpu and it will benefit from more ram for quicker loading time like any other newt box while reducing work load on the hard and media drives. I have seen to many consoles with dead optical drives already.
I guess you are like most who forget about things once they are obsoleate. I guess that you don't remember how they nearly screwed up the N64 and same for Sony. I still remember how devs had a lot of problems the N64's 4kb texture cache. Then the PS2 was help back by its meager 32mb of ram that left draw distances disappointingly low. The Xbox was the same way and people often modded the console for more system ram even though they fixed the size that the games could use but at least they loaded quicker which is much welcomed by any console gamer. Then the PS3 256mb system ram leaves much to be desired for those who still have linux support. The x360 has a unified approach and is dynamically shred between graphics and cpu. The only benefit to this is that it forces devs to make highly efficient games while reducing the cost of the console. However it cuts the overall life of the unit to ware they are no longer able to improve graphics of the game with out the loss of performance. Right now the only things that are holding back the PS3 is the RSX (pos on chip MCM) and the 256mb system ram however they did strip down the fat that was in the os and freed up 30mb. The X360's weaknesses is the cpu and it will benefit from more ram for quicker loading time like any other newt box while reducing work load on the hard and media drives. I have seen to many consoles with dead optical drives already.
- Jul 1, 2008
- 4,491
- 0
- 22,780
[citation][nom]siman[/nom]"Microsoft and IBM beat Intel and AMD in designing a CPU and GPU combo chip."umm ATI is AMD....or DAAMIT...[/citation]
[citation][nom]MrFramerate[/nom]Isn't Globalfoundries AMD/owned by AMD?[/citation]
[citation][nom]kikireeki[/nom]"Microsoft and IBM beat Intel and AMD in designing a CPU and GPU combo chip"Since the GPU is ATI then AMD is involved in the project![/citation]
ATI designed the original Xenos GPU, but as far as I know, AMD was NOT involved in this new packaging. It was mostly the work of Microsoft engineers, with some help from IBM.
[citation][nom]MrFramerate[/nom]Isn't Globalfoundries AMD/owned by AMD?[/citation]
[citation][nom]kikireeki[/nom]"Microsoft and IBM beat Intel and AMD in designing a CPU and GPU combo chip"Since the GPU is ATI then AMD is involved in the project![/citation]
ATI designed the original Xenos GPU, but as far as I know, AMD was NOT involved in this new packaging. It was mostly the work of Microsoft engineers, with some help from IBM.
[citation][nom]madass[/nom]Then please explain why console ports like Call of Duty and Burnout take upwards of 700 mb of RAM.... GTA IV chews through 1.6.....[/citation]
Ummmm because its a port? I would imagine ports inevitably end up "heavier" than the console due to inefficient code conversions and simply the fact that you can set the minimum specs for the game to almost whatever you like (within market reason). That doesn't make it ok, but does help explain the phenomenon. Additionally, ports to PC typically get some nice upgrades, including higher resolution textures which chew through insane amounts of RAM.
Ummmm because its a port? I would imagine ports inevitably end up "heavier" than the console due to inefficient code conversions and simply the fact that you can set the minimum specs for the game to almost whatever you like (within market reason). That doesn't make it ok, but does help explain the phenomenon. Additionally, ports to PC typically get some nice upgrades, including higher resolution textures which chew through insane amounts of RAM.
leemhenderson
Distinguished
- Aug 25, 2010
- 1
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]Darkerson[/nom]Thats pretty sad that game console tech more or less one upped pc tech, but good for them I guess.[/citation]
Well, to get technical about it. This tech was available on the PC over a decade ago. Cyrix MediaGX anyone? But of course custom chips on Consoles often integrated various CPU/GPU processing capabilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaGX
Well, to get technical about it. This tech was available on the PC over a decade ago. Cyrix MediaGX anyone? But of course custom chips on Consoles often integrated various CPU/GPU processing capabilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaGX
jgiron
Distinguished
- Nov 11, 2008
- 561
- 0
- 19,010
it makes more sense to put one of these into a console than a PC.
Look at how often Intel changes their socket.!?
Getting a new CPU/GPU everytime an new comes into play requires a new MB, new RAM and a new CPU/GPU.
(it would also work in a Mac, because in order to upgrade you just throw away the old one and buy a completely new Mac)
Look at how often Intel changes their socket.!?
Getting a new CPU/GPU everytime an new comes into play requires a new MB, new RAM and a new CPU/GPU.
(it would also work in a Mac, because in order to upgrade you just throw away the old one and buy a completely new Mac)
Whatever Xbox is next, it will still be outdated the day it comes out.
And of course it will continue to push "LIMITED" theme MS and companies like Apple have been pushing onto consumers for past xx years. "Once you buy into it, you are INTO their hands".
NO THANKS
And of course it will continue to push "LIMITED" theme MS and companies like Apple have been pushing onto consumers for past xx years. "Once you buy into it, you are INTO their hands".
NO THANKS
Please note that this is NOT an APU.
Intell already has CPU and GPU designs out that are on one chip.
The idea is to have the CPU and GPU share the processing burden.
And if you wanna get right down to it IBM already made something to do this in the Cell.
Intell already has CPU and GPU designs out that are on one chip.
The idea is to have the CPU and GPU share the processing burden.
And if you wanna get right down to it IBM already made something to do this in the Cell.
[citation][nom]werfu[/nom]Why throttle it? Its been years since programmer last used the CPU frequency to time their game. Having it run full potential would simply let the CPU idle more often and reduce game lag under intense sequence.[/citation]
The Info blurb in the article says:
Sadly, instead of the new Xbox 360s being able to take advantage of the improvements, the system must be throttled to maintain compatibility with the previous designs.
[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]For everyone ragging on it being a 5-year-old CPU, I don't remember there being triple-cores at all in 2005. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I built a rig from scratch in the summer of 2005 for $1000 and it had a single core CPU.[/citation]
Hence its a triple core design from IBM. Intel and AMD are not the only companies to make CPUs, and the desktop/Server market systems you're using now isn't the only market for CPUs. (Cell, ARM, MIPS, etc)
IBM has been doing big iron and other projects for decades. Sometimes a company will want something designed for them, Hence Cell from Sony and Toshiba. Just because they decide to be cheaper and use existing Intel/AMD doesn't mean that is the only way.
Maybe this was one design that didn't sell too well? Maybe this was something they had been playing with in the lab and finally found a use for?
The Info blurb in the article says:
Sadly, instead of the new Xbox 360s being able to take advantage of the improvements, the system must be throttled to maintain compatibility with the previous designs.
[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]For everyone ragging on it being a 5-year-old CPU, I don't remember there being triple-cores at all in 2005. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I built a rig from scratch in the summer of 2005 for $1000 and it had a single core CPU.[/citation]
Hence its a triple core design from IBM. Intel and AMD are not the only companies to make CPUs, and the desktop/Server market systems you're using now isn't the only market for CPUs. (Cell, ARM, MIPS, etc)
IBM has been doing big iron and other projects for decades. Sometimes a company will want something designed for them, Hence Cell from Sony and Toshiba. Just because they decide to be cheaper and use existing Intel/AMD doesn't mean that is the only way.
Maybe this was one design that didn't sell too well? Maybe this was something they had been playing with in the lab and finally found a use for?
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,598
- 599
- 59,140
[citation][nom]Darkerson[/nom]Thats pretty sad that game console tech more or less one upped pc tech, but good for them I guess.[/citation]
Not specifically upped them. The technology is still way behind. Its still using GDDR3 and a much older GPU tech.
I do wonder if this is out yet though because Sandy Bridge, which will have the same thing, is out in Q4. Is this for a future model of the 360 or in the current slim line?
Not specifically upped them. The technology is still way behind. Its still using GDDR3 and a much older GPU tech.
I do wonder if this is out yet though because Sandy Bridge, which will have the same thing, is out in Q4. Is this for a future model of the 360 or in the current slim line?
jimmysmitty
Champion
- Oct 5, 2007
- 21,598
- 599
- 59,140
[citation][nom]madass[/nom]Then please explain why console ports like Call of Duty and Burnout take upwards of 700 mb of RAM.... GTA IV chews through 1.6.....[/citation]
Well both Call of Duty and Burnout tend to load each level while GTA IV loads the entire city. You can travel from one island to the other without a loading screen. So it loads a lot of info into the memory to be able to move it to the GPU faster than loading it each time.
Well both Call of Duty and Burnout tend to load each level while GTA IV loads the entire city. You can travel from one island to the other without a loading screen. So it loads a lot of info into the memory to be able to move it to the GPU faster than loading it each time.
To the people bemoaning that this version is "crippled."
It's a console. Not a computer. The entire point of the thing is that it's specs don't change during its lifetime, that various revisions only effect heat, power consumption, form factor but other specifications remain the same.
I, for one, appreciate this. I don't want there to be a 360.5 which is a little bit better then the version I've got now. I like not having to pursue a constant upgrade path to squeeze a few more pixels onto the screen.
It's a console. Not a computer. The entire point of the thing is that it's specs don't change during its lifetime, that various revisions only effect heat, power consumption, form factor but other specifications remain the same.
I, for one, appreciate this. I don't want there to be a 360.5 which is a little bit better then the version I've got now. I like not having to pursue a constant upgrade path to squeeze a few more pixels onto the screen.
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]Nice work, it is a shame about the throttling. This is why consoles usually never live up to their true potential and they often cut corners by reducing costs and in this case the cooling system. They should have put much more memory in this console. The more memory the better the games that devs can make graphics wise as well content.[/citation]
Sony went ahead and built a cutting egde console that could last over time and is just now getting appreciated for it. So its a double edged sword. I thought $600 for the power the ps3 had was a steal but other people didn't and then because of that developers didnt do enough for it in the early days
Sony went ahead and built a cutting egde console that could last over time and is just now getting appreciated for it. So its a double edged sword. I thought $600 for the power the ps3 had was a steal but other people didn't and then because of that developers didnt do enough for it in the early days
[citation][nom]siman[/nom]"Microsoft and IBM beat Intel and AMD in designing a CPU and GPU combo chip."umm ATI is AMD....or DAAMIT...[/citation]
and AMD own most of global foundries anyway so every nvidia GPU and "this new cpu/gpu" money goes to AMD anyway lol
and AMD own most of global foundries anyway so every nvidia GPU and "this new cpu/gpu" money goes to AMD anyway lol
the_wolf88
Distinguished
- Jan 26, 2010
- 52
- 0
- 18,640
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
News Intel terminates x86S initiative — unilateral quest to de-bloat x86 instruction set comes to an end- Started by Admin
- Replies: 28
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram