PS4/XBOX720 and Parallelism in PC Gaming Discussion

8350rocks · Apr 20, 2013

So, the discussion has been running a few places, I thought I would form a thread to discuss the possibility of PS4 and XBOX720 pushing for more parallelism from developers in PC gaming, since the consoles will have 8 cores under the hood.

PS4 Specs:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/a-look-inside-the-playstation-4/

XBOX720 specs/rumors:
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1856177/xbox_720_specs_alwayson_internet_bluray_kinect_detailed.html

As we all know by now, the hardware is all AMD. Jaguar based with 8 cores and ps4 uses 8GB GDDR5 unified memory, where XBOX720 (per speculation) will use 4GB shared GDDR5 memory plus 32GB ESRAM.

My thoughts tend to run toward this moving gaming massively away from 2 core CPUs and single threaded apps, and more toward utilizing the hardware available out there.

popatim · Apr 20, 2013

8 cores because the console will be able to have two apps/games running at the same time so think of it as more of a dual 4 core. At least thats how I'm taking it.

whyso · Apr 20, 2013

8350rocks :

I thought xbox720 was 8GB ddr3?

Yes, there will be a significant push towards properly threaded games. However, pc ports are likely to only be 4 cores simpy because a 1.6 ghz jaguar is a weak chip (and very few pcs have that many cores--devs tend to the LCD, which is why so many games are fine with two cores). I expect console ports in the next few years (off next gen consoles) to use only 4 cores for this reason, gradually increasing as the pc moves ahead and features are added to the pc release.

GDDR5 is going to help in the ps4 but remember that amd is also going to release a TABLET chip with 4 jaguar cores at 2 ghz. Its not a very powerful CPU. Its using (I think) about 40 watts.

8350rocks · Apr 21, 2013

I think there is a misconception here, in that, the Jaguar cores are "underpowered". You have to understand, the version of Jaguar they are using draws 35W @ peak. Getting 2 GHz out of a 35W TDP 8 core APU is impressive, you cannot fit a 350W PSU inside one of these consoles, it would make it massive. If you could, it would look like a Micro ATX case, and that would negate alot of the svelt lines and low profile appeal.

Consider: if you could effectively double the TDP and power availability...I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be every bit as powerful as a standard x86-64 architecture CPU in a desktop. Just because clock speed is low, doesn't mean it's not powerful, it could mean that the TDP and power availability is not there. There aren't any notebook solutions currently that run @ 3.0 GHz stock clock...they operate in a similar TDP to this Jaguar, if not higher in some cases (as much as ~65W TDP in some cases). So, perf/watt efficiency is fairly equivalent if not better. 1.9 GHz/35W = 54 MHz/Watt, on the FX8350 it's 35 MHz/Watt and on the i5-3570k it's 40 MHz/Watt. Based on perf/Watt...I would think this is actually a superior solution.

whyso · Apr 21, 2013

8350rocks :

Assuming equal IPC between jaguar and piledriver.

Take a 8350 and downclock it to ~1.6 ghz. That is approximately the performance you will be getting.

mhz/watt is a worthless metric (because the products have different IPC).

I don't know how good jaguar will be. But regardless, 1.6 ghz is very low for any modern cpu. 8 cores though, can hopefully make up for it somewhat.

8350rocks · Apr 21, 2013

Well, with Jaguar, the IPC of a 4 core is about ~60% maximum theoretical capability as opposed to what the FX8350 can do as far as ALUs and integer calculations go. FPU is really where it's weak, but the GPUs will make up for that as app acceleration will pass off a lot of the FPU calculations to the GPU cores anyway on the APU.

So, theoretically speaking, you should have a slight IPC improvement over the FX8350 in terms of total IPC the hardware can do. Now, the primary difference being the 8350 is going to be double the clock speed of the Jaguar...which will make up the gains from having 8 cores on the Jaguar APU.

Of course, you'll make up some of the gap with the massive gains in memory bandwidth and the huge level of parallelism that typically comes in a console game because you can code down to the metal almost, where as in a PC, everything is buffered through the slow, giant, triple redundancy that is the windows OS.

I think, we'll see console performance come out to be very close to what a high end PC can do because of the efficiency in the system design, and lack of a bloated OS complicating things.

whyso · Apr 21, 2013

8350rocks :

I have no doubt that the next gen consoles will be capable of great things. Bandwidth is great but even using a 3770k or 8350 faster RAM rarely sees improvements in gaming and most tasks (and they get only 20 GB/sec). It remains to be seen what can be done with 180 GB/sec bandwidth on the cpu (though this will help massively with things that are bandwidth bottlenecked and too large to fit on the cache as that is so fast it can basically be used almost as l4 cache [latency aside]--there are relatively few things that are in this place though, outside of scientific or mathematical calculations such as matrix solving).

I fully expect only 7 cores (possibly 6) to be available for games. One will definitely be dedicated to the OS (didn't sony say you can pause the game and go surf the internet or something).

As for windows bloat, I'm not sure but its probably not more than 50% maximum (how much faster are programs in linux vs windows?).

I have no doubt that the ps4 will be an awesome machine for gaming, especially at its price point. But compared to a high end gaming pc its not going to require a major rehaul to play console ports. Last gen used very high end components, this gen is solid mid range for the gpu and low field for the cpu. They can optimize and code close to the metal but the first round of games will likely not really do this for a couple reasons such as compatibility with the xbox360 and ps3, the fact that it takes time to learn how to code to the metal, and the fact that the jump will be so large it may be a year or so before they feel a need to start coding to the metal.

cmi86 · Apr 21, 2013

Just ask your self "How in the world could 75% of all video games on the planet being designed on an 8 core X86 chip for an 8 core X86 chip**NOT** have a revolutionary gaming impact on other 8 core X 86 chips being used in pc's around the world ??" It's the same platform just faster hardware on the PC end. You could take a straight port off the PS3 and it would run just like it does on the PS3. Your insane if you don't think game devs will thoroughly optimize major game titles for full blown FX chips in PC's when porting would be so much less expensive and there in so much more profitable. This is barely even speculation at this point and more about common sense and basic business mechanics.

8350rocks · Apr 21, 2013

whyso :

8350rocks :

I have no doubt that the next gen consoles will be capable of great things. Bandwidth is great but even using a 3770k or 8350 faster RAM rarely sees improvements in gaming and most tasks (and they get only 20 GB/sec). It remains to be seen what can be done with 180 GB/sec bandwidth on the cpu (though this will help massively with things that are bandwidth bottlenecked and too large to fit on the cache as that is so fast it can basically be used almost as l4 cache [latency aside]--there are relatively few things that are in this place though, outside of scientific or mathematical calculations such as matrix solving).

I fully expect only 7 cores (possibly 6) to be available for games. One will definitely be dedicated to the OS (didn't sony say you can pause the game and go surf the internet or something).

As for windows bloat, I'm not sure but its probably not more than 50% maximum (how much faster are programs in linux vs windows?).

I have no doubt that the ps4 will be an awesome machine for gaming, especially at its price point. But compared to a high end gaming pc its not going to require a major rehaul to play console ports. Last gen used very high end components, this gen is solid mid range for the gpu and low field for the cpu. They can optimize and code close to the metal but the first round of games will likely not really do this for a couple reasons such as compatibility with the xbox360 and ps3, the fact that it takes time to learn how to code to the metal, and the fact that the jump will be so large it may be a year or so before they feel a need to start coding to the metal.

Sony has put a small additional single core CPU in the console specifically and exclusively for the OS on the system, so all 8 cores are available for game use.

XBOX720, however, is not putting an additional CPU in the console for this purpose so far as I know...that may not be released yet though. The details on that system are still somewhat hazy being as Microsoft has been so tight lipped about everything.

8350rocks · Apr 21, 2013

dirtyferret :

Look who's trolling who...

You don't provide any information about anything...you speculate wildly, and act like intel can do no wrong. I don't attack anyone, I make recommendations based on the information in hand, and do what I can to provide the best solution.

Go find another thread to troll in...*looking for a button to put dirtyferret the intel fanboy on ignore*

cmi86 · Apr 21, 2013

dirtyferret :

I have seen you on this forum for many years and you have always conducted yourself with the same brand partial blatant fanboi-ism you accuse him of. You are just simply the other side of the coin, the blue team to his red. So how about the pot stops calling the kettle black and you stick to the topic in the forum ?

I'm really getting tired of all this intel/amd leg humping, is toms not capable of facilitating a logical conversation anymore because of people like you ?

8350rocks · Apr 21, 2013

cmi86 :

Ultimately, that's the conclusion I arrive at...but I was trying to downplay the enthusiasm...lol

whyso · Apr 21, 2013

cmi86 :

I don't think devs will even try to optimize their ports for 8 core chips (well at release, in a couple of years? Who knows?)

1) the console core is going to be *much* weaker than any modern cpu core (1.6 ghz vs 3.5+ in typical pcs). The cpu part should perform like a fx 4300 (despite being 8 core vs 4 core).

2) There are NO 8 core 1.6 ghz chips on the consumer market, nor are amd/intel planning on releasing any.

3) Running more threads than cores can sometimes reduce performance (most of the market is not using an 8 core cpu and probably won't be for a good time into the future--given how popular dual cores still are).

4) Devs aren't stupid enough to try to spend time and money optimizing games for the 2% of the market using an 8 core FX chip.

5) the fact that on a console multithreading is easier because of fixed hardware and heavy optimization. On a pc there are more factors and things that can affect performance so you don't want your game split into a million dependent threads (causing performance issues if one messes up). Look at games that make heavy use of multiple cores (such as crysis 3). Between the 3770k and the 3930x there is not a 50% increase in speed despite a cpu bottleneck because it gets harder and harder to get performance increases (amdahl's law) from increasing core count vs IPC.

Given the tremendous IPC and clockspeed advantage of desktop chips and the fact that few are 8 core (most are dual or quad) devs will probably (for straight console ports) just stick two of the console threads into one thread for the pc port.

chrisafp07 · Apr 21, 2013

cmi86 :

AHAHAHAH. Purely awesome thank you for that.

As for the post. I remember a few years back, before BF3, FC3, or any highly threaded game. All ports were optimized for 2 cores, and running them on more not only didn't always benefit the gamer, but could even hinder your performance. Like an above poster stated, its simply common sense, these console games will be multi-threaded making ports an easy transition. The ports will run on overpowered hardware compared to the console versions and we will all see very large benefits from multi-threaded cpus on all fronts, Intel and AMD.

chrisafp07 · Apr 21, 2013

whyso :

cmi86 :

I don't think devs will even try to optimize their ports for 8 core chips (well at release, in a couple of years? Who knows?)

1) the console core is going to be *much* weaker than any modern cpu core (1.6 ghz vs 3.5+ in typical pcs). The cpu part should perform like a fx 4300 (despite being 8 core vs 4 core).

2) There are NO 8 core 1.6 ghz chips on the consumer market, nor are amd/intel planning on releasing any.

3) Running more threads than cores can sometimes reduce performance (most of the market is not using an 8 core cpu and probably won't be for a good time into the future--given how popular dual cores still are).

4) Devs aren't stupid enough to try to spend time and money optimizing games for the 2% of the market using an 8 core FX chip.

5) the fact that on a console multithreading is easier because of fixed hardware and heavy optimization. On a pc there are more factors and things that can affect performance so you don't want your game split into a million dependent threads (causing performance issues if one messes up). Look at games that make heavy use of multiple cores (such as crysis 3). Between the 3770k and the 3930x there is not a 50% increase in speed despite a cpu bottleneck because it gets harder and harder to get performance increases (amdahl's law) from increasing core count vs IPC.

Given the tremendous IPC and clockspeed advantage of desktop chips and the fact that few are 8 core (most are dual or quad) devs will probably (for straight console ports) just stick two of the console threads into one thread for the pc port.

I think you are missing the point... the devs won't have to optimize anything to run on an FX chip. It is already running on a similarly configured multi-threaded platform. Just like in the past, devs will not invest much in most pc ports, those annoying companies like Rockstar who could care less about their ports, well the already optimized for 8 core GTA5 will run much better on say an FX 8 core than a dual or quad core. You miss the point that they won't be trying to optimize for the FX chips, and also they won't be optimizing for anyone lol they hardly ever do, so the 8 core similar to the console hardware will by all common sense perform better.

cmi86 · Apr 21, 2013

whyso :

dirtyferret :

You know the truth just as well as I do so you can play it off however you want all I'm saying is you and all the other leg humpers need to cut it out because it's making this site look like a middle school playground.

cmi86 · Apr 21, 2013

whyso :

cmi86 :

I don't think devs will even try to optimize their ports for 8 core chips (well at release, in a couple of years? Who knows?)

1) the console core is going to be *much* weaker than any modern cpu core (1.6 ghz vs 3.5+ in typical pcs). The cpu part should perform like a fx 4300 (despite being 8 core vs 4 core).

2) There are NO 8 core 1.6 ghz chips on the consumer market, nor are amd/intel planning on releasing any.

3) Running more threads than cores can sometimes reduce performance (most of the market is not using an 8 core cpu and probably won't be for a good time into the future--given how popular dual cores still are).

4) Devs aren't stupid enough to try to spend time and money optimizing games for the 2% of the market using an 8 core FX chip.

5) the fact that on a console multithreading is easier because of fixed hardware and heavy optimization. On a pc there are more factors and things that can affect performance so you don't want your game split into a million dependent threads (causing performance issues if one messes up). Look at games that make heavy use of multiple cores (such as crysis 3). Between the 3770k and the 3930x there is not a 50% increase in speed despite a cpu bottleneck because it gets harder and harder to get performance increases (amdahl's law) from increasing core count vs IPC.

Given the tremendous IPC and clockspeed advantage of desktop chips and the fact that few are 8 core (most are dual or quad) devs will probably (for straight console ports) just stick two of the console threads into one thread for the pc port.

Pretty much exactly what chrisafp07 said. It's already running on a less powerful multi thread system using the same architecture, heck even the same manufacturer. There really is no optimization necessary because even in a ports most basic non optimized form its still meant to run a 8 core X86 chip. unless you feel that running the title on a cpu that is twice as fast will incur a performance hit but that's obviously not going to happen. The ports will be extremely easy and cost effective allowing devs that actually care to use the PC's additional power to enable more eye candies. (in my humble opinion of course)

whyso · Apr 22, 2013

cmi86 :

whyso :

Pretty much exactly what chrisafp07 said. It's already running on a less powerful multi thread system using the same architecture, heck even the same manufacturer. There really is no optimization necessary because even in a ports most basic non optimized form its still meant to run a 8 core X86 chip. unless you feel that running the title on a cpu that is twice as fast will incur a performance hit but that's obviously not going to happen. The ports will be extremely easy and cost effective allowing devs that actually care to use the PC's additional power to enable more eye candies. (in my humble opinion of course)

Possibly, possibly, but I doubt devs will release a game that anything but an 8 core FX chip won't suck at. I'm simply saying expect similar performance between intel and amd. Pretty much any modern chip (mid range+) can beat a 8 core jaguar at peak throughput and straight console ports shoudn't be limited by the cpu.

I'm simply saying that 8 core chips won't perform like a miracle; they are going to perform very comparably to intel's higher IPC lower core count chips.

8350rocks · Apr 22, 2013

dirtyferret :

If you honestly think what you have said about AMD portrays anything in a positive light...then your version of negativity comes from a truly dark place. So dark in fact, that I would wager light itself has not even dared to venture near the tightly sealed door.

8350rocks · Apr 22, 2013

whyso :

I wouldn't be willing to bet that intel's 4 core chips wouldn't be disadvantaged. With the optimizations coming for Steamroller, I would bet that you are going to see the gap in multithreaded performance increase...as it clearly already exists.

No one ever said they'd perform like a miracle, but they should even the gap with this generation, and likely pull ahead with the next when the fruits of these consoles come about in full force next year. They're already developing for the FX chip in the dev kits, I am sure they are tuning the clock speed down to get realistic performance, but the first generation of the new console games are already going to be optimized for AMD hardware.

Also, things will only improve as the developers of new titles learn to better harness the full potential of the consoles, and ports over to PC on similar hardware.

whyso · Apr 22, 2013

8350rocks :

Yes but don't forget that jaguar and piledriver are not that similar. Piledriver is a module CMT design while jaguar is not. You will have to make optimizations to get the most out of the chip.

I expect to eventually see gaming performance similar to multithreaded benchmarks (though less because games are harder to parallelize compared to rendering or editing). 8350 should have a leg up over 3570k and will be comparable to the i7-3770k (though on average still a little less as IPC is king and multithreading games is hard).

Steamroller is a different story as its going to have higher max throughput than piledriver.

8350rocks · Apr 22, 2013

whyso :

Agreed, I tend to think that the first generation of these games, being as the dev kits were 8350s will likely be adaptations to the emerging hardware. Otherwise you wouldn't see any launch titles, where PS4 is supposedly bragging about 20-40+ titles at launch. So, there are a ton of developers getting cozy with what they have now.

I agree the designs are fundamentally different, but not drastically. I think if anything, the one advantage of Jaguar in this entire scenario is 8 FPUs vs 4 stronger FPUs in PD. each Jaguar FPU can perform 1 DP MAD, where as in PD each FPU can perform 2. So, the total IPC is the same, but Jaguar has more separate resources to use. It will be interesting to watch it play out.

cmi86 · Apr 22, 2013

whyso :

cmi86 :

Possibly, possibly, but I doubt devs will release a game that anything but an 8 core FX chip won't suck at. I'm simply saying expect similar performance between intel and amd. Pretty much any modern chip (mid range+) can beat a 8 core jaguar at peak throughput and straight console ports shoudn't be limited by the cpu.

I'm simply saying that 8 core chips won't perform like a miracle; they are going to perform very comparably to intel's higher IPC lower core count chips.

Oh I definitely agree with you on that. There not gonna make games ONLY playable on a certain type of cpu. That would def be a bad idea. It's really hard to say i guess it's all going to be dependent on how heavily threaded these titles actually are. I have a feeling it might kind of be like some of todays games that are built on an intel compiler and so surrounded by and configured for intel that there really is a large performance difference using an AMD chip. Maybe the tides will turn in the next gen of games and more things will be optimized and coded around amd chips, who knows lol.

8350rocks · Apr 22, 2013

I think we will definately see more games geared toward AMD protocols and architecture. I also think, we will begin to see AMD GPU support increase greatly with their rehiring of Kudori. Their catalyst drivers should be top notch going forward, and since he is in charge of all things graphics...their hardware should begin supporting even more bleeding edge of performance features that will expand AMD into the market even more in that arena.

I am also curious to see how the GPGPUs develop since they seem headed in that direction now...

whyso · Apr 22, 2013

8350rocks :

Piledriver is twice the frequency also.

8350rocks :

AMD has always had (on the gpu side) great hardware. The problem is drivers and marketing. Crossfire problems affect both desktop and mobile (hybrid crossfire is a joke sometimes because of driver issues). Enduro needs to be fixed (not a problem for anyone who knows how to manually assign the executable to the gpu but for an average joe).

In mobile AMD is getting slaughtered. Its hard to find gcn in laptops (really only 7730m and 7970m) when they could really have something there. Hopefully these consoles will help them in this.

PS4/XBOX720 and Parallelism in PC Gaming Discussion

Distinguished

Titan

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Share this page