Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
flip-mode wrote:Cool. Then you should have no problem at all with the statement that the masses don't need more than 4 cores!
Deanjo wrote:Tablets and smartphones that mostly have dual- and quad-core processors! Hooray! ψ(`∇´)ψConsidering how the masses are making do with tablets and smartphones now for their computing needs I stand by my statement.
sschaem wrote:And it as already began...
As times goes on people that bought AMD processor/GPU will see software efficiency go up in gaming dramatically.
Crysis 3 is a taste of whats to come, where a 32nm 180$ AMD CPU beats Intel desktop 22nm 340$ flagship CPU.
An AMD 8 core 28nm steamroller could easily crush the best haswell APU for gaming.
The same thing will happen with GPU, where shader code will highly favor AMD GNC.
Also as the web gets more GPU accelerated, even old APU like llano will deliver a better user experience then sandy bridge based APU.
ronch wrote:@schaem:
I hope this is really the start of much better things to come for AMD. It's just too bad the industry clobbered them for mainly one reason: low single thread performance. It's a little silly, looking back, how many folks at AMD were fired and how far their stock price has fallen due to this, a reason that is turning out to be not so serious after all once the industry leans more toward highly threaded applications.
ronch wrote:@schaem:
I hope this is really the start of much better things to come for AMD. It's just too bad the industry clobbered them for mainly one reason: low single thread performance. It's a little silly, looking back, how many folks at AMD were fired and how far their stock price has fallen due to this, a reason that is turning out to be not so serious after all once the industry leans more toward highly threaded applications.
Airmantharp wrote:They're "Stars", not "STARS" -- this isn't Resident Evil. (*≧艸≦) Also, Stars isn't really the best choice, honestly; its floating-point performance is better than that of Bulldozer and Piledriver, but still not "good". I'm more curious to see what AMD does with Steamroller.One wonders if a pair of STARS cores sufficiently shrunk and optimized for the latest process alongside two or three Piledriver modules might make an effective hybrid solution? Just a crazy random thought...
auxy wrote:Airmantharp wrote:They're "Stars", not "STARS" -- this isn't Resident Evil. (*≧艸≦) Also, Stars isn't really the best choice, honestly; its floating-point performance is better than that of Bulldozer and Piledriver, but still not "good". I'm more curious to see what AMD does with Steamroller.One wonders if a pair of STARS cores sufficiently shrunk and optimized for the latest process alongside two or three Piledriver modules might make an effective hybrid solution? Just a crazy random thought...
auxy wrote:I like how nobody is considering the hypothesis that the game might simply be poorly optimized for Intel processors. (」゚ペ)」Isn't it an AMD "Gaming Evolved" title?
Ryu Connor wrote:The fact that SB-E stomps face in the game weakens the viewpoint that it is an optimization issue and lends more credence to a threading difference. These result also potentially imply that Crysis 3 is leveraging more integer math than FPU math. Bulldozer and its kin have two integer units per module as I recall.
Ryu Connor wrote:SB-E has more threads than the 8350, though -- certainly the number of threads and/or cores helps a lot, and I also agree with your assessment wrt integer vs. FP math; still, I wonder if they aren't doing some kind of brute-force integer math algorithm (which the Bulldozer et al. arch would obviously be very good at) and avoiding a more elegant solution that would shine on the Intel CPUs. (。ヘ°)The fact that SB-E stomps face in the game weakens the viewpoint that it is an optimization issue and lends more credence to a threading difference. These result also potentially imply that Crysis 3 is leveraging more integer math than FPU math. Bulldozer and its kin have two integer units per module as I recall.
Ryu Connor wrote:The fact that SB-E stomps face in the game weakens the viewpoint that it is an optimization issue and lends more credence to a threading difference. These result also potentially imply that Crysis 3 is leveraging more integer math than FPU math. Bulldozer and its kin have two integer units per module as I recall.
thecoldanddarkone wrote:Technically, if the SB-E is showing 51% utilization, then it's showing 6 of 12 logical cores being loaded, which means Crytek is avoiding the logical cores.Except in the usage chart that sandy bridge e is only being half utilized. So you only have an average of 51 percent utilization. That's 3 of 6 cores (without hyperthreading). I'd like to see some more test's before coming to any real conclusions.
auxy wrote:thecoldanddarkone wrote:Technically, if the SB-E is showing 51% utilization, then it's showing 6 of 12 logical cores being loaded, which means Crytek is avoiding the logical cores.Except in the usage chart that sandy bridge e is only being half utilized. So you only have an average of 51 percent utilization. That's 3 of 6 cores (without hyperthreading). I'd like to see some more test's before coming to any real conclusions.
thecoldanddarkone wrote:Do you have a source for that?No 51 percent core usage, I'm not even including hyperthreading.
auxy wrote:thecoldanddarkone wrote:Do you have a source for that?No 51 percent core usage, I'm not even including hyperthreading.
thecoldanddarkone wrote:auxy wrote:thecoldanddarkone wrote:Do you have a source for that?No 51 percent core usage, I'm not even including hyperthreading.
Umm, it's like on the 6th post? :D
auxy wrote:I like how nobody is considering the hypothesis that the game might simply be poorly optimized for Intel processors. (」゚ペ)」Isn't it an AMD "Gaming Evolved" title?
Ryu Connor wrote:Isn't it still strange that the physical cores are only being loaded halfway?「(°ヘ°)Looks like 8 of the 12 cores are in use. Six of physical at roughly half and two of the logical as quarter or less. The listed 2600 has 6 of 8 cores in use. All four physical and again very little of the logical.
Ryu Connor wrote:I think you're probably right, but I still don't see why the Intel cores only get loaded partway. Seems strange... 「(°ヘ°)Hopefully someone will get Crytek to explain more fully, but I'd bet on plenty of threads and integer math.