Personal computing discussed
synthtel2 wrote:Being CPU-bound gets you less consistent frametimes, as you're seeing, but being GPU-bound often increases latency.
DeadOfKnight wrote:This trend has only become more apparent as games have started utilizing 8+ threads. This can easily be observed in benchmarks that seem to love the new AMD chips even though they are 20% slower in clock speed.
Kretschmer wrote:Which benchmarks are these? As far as I can see, my 7700K with DDR4 3200 is faster than any AMD CPU yet released in most games.
DeadOfKnight wrote:My point is that it really seems to me that the #1 priority should be to minimize the CPU bottleneck, and then get the fastest GPU you can afford with the rest.
DeadOfKnight wrote:It was only a matter of time, since the consoles use 8-core AMD Jaguar CPUs.
DeadOfKnight wrote:I would expect the next generation of gaming consoles to usher in a new CPU-bound revolution.
End User wrote:DeadOfKnight wrote:I would expect the next generation of gaming consoles to usher in a new CPU-bound revolution.
That sounds like a terribly ill-conceived product. Are you visualizing crappy CPUs paired with crazy bonkers GPUs?
synthtel2 wrote:The new consoles will probably be 8C Zen2, meaning game devs will feel free to use a lot more CPU power, meaning PC gaming will get more CPU-bound.
synthtel2 wrote:End User wrote:DeadOfKnight wrote:I would expect the next generation of gaming consoles to usher in a new CPU-bound revolution.
That sounds like a terribly ill-conceived product. Are you visualizing crappy CPUs paired with crazy bonkers GPUs?
The new consoles will probably be 8C Zen2, meaning game devs will feel free to use a lot more CPU power, meaning PC gaming will get more CPU-bound.
DancinJack wrote:synthtel2 wrote:The new consoles will probably be 8C Zen2, meaning game devs will feel free to use a lot more CPU power, meaning PC gaming will get more CPU-bound.
What, at 850MHz?
dragontamer5788 wrote:I think his point is that game devs will start to use the CPU (maybe more animations, for example) in standard AAA games, which will cause more games of the future to rely on CPU when they're ported to the PC. Currently, there are 8x Jaguar cores on the PS4 / Xbox, which are so slow that most video games today have a variety of tricks to drop CPU power down significantly.
That is: Synthtel2 seems to think that MS Windows games will be more CPU bound, as CPUs on consoles get stronger.
DancinJack wrote:dragontamer5788 wrote:I think his point is that game devs will start to use the CPU (maybe more animations, for example) in standard AAA games, which will cause more games of the future to rely on CPU when they're ported to the PC. Currently, there are 8x Jaguar cores on the PS4 / Xbox, which are so slow that most video games today have a variety of tricks to drop CPU power down significantly.
That is: Synthtel2 seems to think that MS Windows games will be more CPU bound, as CPUs on consoles get stronger.
Aye, I understood, I just think Synthtel may have been overly optimistic about what kind of CPU they can fit into required TDP range for a next gen console. Which also leads to the performance impact. And so on.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11992/th ... x-review/6
The Xbox One X, which features 8 Jaguar (yeah, that old) cores @ about 2.3GHz at load, draws as much as ~170W, but generally a lot lower than that. I'd love for them to fit full-fat 8 core Zen/whatever cores into a next gen console and actually move them closer to PCs, but I just don't see that happening quite yet.
End User wrote:DeadOfKnight wrote:My point is that it really seems to me that the #1 priority should be to minimize the CPU bottleneck, and then get the fastest GPU you can afford with the rest.
And you believe the i7-5775c is the best way to "minimize the CPU bottleneck" for a 2080 Ti FE driving a 3440x1440 120Hz G-SYNC display?
JustAnEngineer wrote:Once Intel finally gets out of its 14++++++++++++++++++ nm funk, we'll see a long-delayed manufacturing process upgrade for another tangible CPU improvement.
DeadOfKnight wrote:Point is, instead of the GPU being king for gaming, maybe it's the CPU. Maybe some recommendations we make are wrong.
Ifalna wrote:Well it is true for MMOs. Boh Final Fantasy XIV and World of Warcraft gobble up CPU power w/o any problem, esp when there are many people around.
Topinio wrote:It has about 30 threads, but only 1 or 2 serious ones, and those are on the same core/HWthread -- which is why I replied to Ifalna's '[w]ell it is true for MMOs [...] World of Warcraft gobble[s] up CPU power w/o any problem', because it doesn't.
Topinio wrote:It has about 30 threads, but only 1 or 2 serious ones, and those are on the same core/HWthread -- which is why I replied to Ifalna's '[w]ell it is true for MMOs [...] World of Warcraft gobble[s] up CPU power w/o any problem', because it doesn't.
dragontamer5788 wrote:More often than not, when games are CPU-bound, they're single-threaded bound.
synthtel2 wrote:For TR readers, probably. The split is above 4C8T for a lot of games now, though, and CPUs down to 2C4T are still very common.
DeadOfKnight wrote:Yeah, most older CPU-bound games are bound up on one core (WoW being a prime example), but there are a handful of new games that are now being bound by the number of cores/threads.