Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
Firestarter wrote:note thate pcgaminghardware.de used a Titan (GK110) for the benchmarks
JohnC wrote:Eh... Hyperthreading was always giving a very negligible performance increases... Anyawy, it would be interesting to see the actual core utilization screenshots, not just fps numbers.
flip-mode wrote:Oh my God it's another "wait, FX really isn't so bad" thread. Can we merge with the other one?
JohnC wrote:Very impressive core utilization. I wish more games would take similar advantage of multithreading... As for AMD's performance in particular - it's not very surprising, AMD worked very closely with Crytek to optimize this game better for their hardware (both CPU and GPU)
Airmantharp wrote:JohnC wrote:Very impressive core utilization. I wish more games would take similar advantage of multithreading... As for AMD's performance in particular - it's not very surprising, AMD worked very closely with Crytek to optimize this game better for their hardware (both CPU and GPU)
Which is a good thing- from a high level perspective, the Piledriver core should actually be faster in fully threaded, homogeneous scenarios that do not allow for efficient hyper-threading, given that hyper-threading generally relies on running two heterogeneous workloads on one physical core. So while we see some use of hyper-threading on the Intel CPUs, what we're probably observing with Crysis 3 is that only a small portion of the total workload is of mixed execution types, and what Crytek has been able to thread out is largely the same type of work.
BoilerGamer wrote:Imo If more game follow this route(could happen with AMD 8 core Jaguar units in next gen consoles), Intel might have to add more physical cores to their mainstream platforms as HT Quads might not be losing in multithreaded games against AMD octas.
Chrispy_ wrote:It's nice to see, regardless of an Intel vs AMD discussion, that games are finally taking advantage of more than two or three threads.
I am pleased for AMD too, since Intel has become complacent about increasing thread count, banking on its superior IPC for what feels like far too long
Chrispy_ wrote:I am pleased for AMD too, since Intel has become complacent about increasing thread count, banking on its superior IPC for what feels like far too long
flip-mode wrote:I'm glad Intel isn't focusing on adding additional thread width that's going to be essentially useless.
DPete27 wrote:flip-mode wrote:I'm glad Intel isn't focusing on adding additional thread width that's going to be essentially useless.
In fact Intel is trying to make multi-threading more efficient using TSX. If that all pans out, an i7 Haswell CPU for a new build might not be as much of a waste as it is now.
flip-mode wrote:Oh my God it's another "wait, FX really isn't so bad" thread. Can we merge with the other one?
flip-mode wrote:Chrispy_ wrote:I am pleased for AMD too, since Intel has become complacent about increasing thread count, banking on its superior IPC for what feels like far too long
Someone will likely strongly disagree with this, but increasing thread count has sharply diminishing returns for desktop users once you hit 4 threads. Beyond 8 thread, it's a near vertical drop. I'm glad Intel (and hopefully AMD has reached this point too) isn't focusing on adding additional thread width that's going to be essentially useless.
flip-mode wrote:Someone will likely strongly disagree with this, but increasing thread count has sharply diminishing returns for desktop users once you hit 4 threads. Beyond 8 thread, it's a near vertical drop. I'm glad Intel (and hopefully AMD has reached this point too) isn't focusing on adding additional thread width that's going to be essentially useless.
flip-mode wrote:Someone will likely strongly disagree with this, but increasing thread count has sharply diminishing returns for desktop users once you hit 4 threads. Beyond 8 thread, it's a near vertical drop. I'm glad Intel (and hopefully AMD has reached this point too) isn't focusing on adding additional thread width that's going to be essentially useless.
Deanjo wrote:To the hotmail, pintrest, facebag crowd sure, but for a true power user (no, being a gamer does not automatically classify you as a "power-user") those threads are constantly hammered. My financial analysis code makes 32 core systems cry "Mommy!"
Captain Ned wrote:Deanjo wrote:To the hotmail, pintrest, facebag crowd sure, but for a true power user (no, being a gamer does not automatically classify you as a "power-user") those threads are constantly hammered. My financial analysis code makes 32 core systems cry "Mommy!"
There is always the exception that proves the rule. Financial analysis, weather forecasting, Big Bang simulations (or development), etc will always want more CPU. Limit flip-mode's statement to the 99.99% of users and he's far more right than wrong.
Oh my God it's another "wait, FX really isn't so bad" thread. Can we merge with the other one?
Deanjo wrote:99.9% of users could make do with a single core Athlon XP.
flip-mode wrote:Deanjo wrote:99.9% of users could make do with a single core Athlon XP.
Wow, I disagree completely. All desktop users can benefit from at least two cores. We're not talking about "making do" either. Why are you being difficult? I feel like you either lost the context of the conversation or you're intentionally being difficult.