Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Why does the PS4 CPU have 8 cores?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
February 22, 2013 5:56:09 AM

The only possible reason I can come up with is that Sony expects developers to make use of all 8 of them in their games. Would this not be a huge boon to FPS?

More about : ps4 cpu cores

a b à CPUs
February 22, 2013 7:54:28 AM

Why would it not?

Having more threads allows for more tasks to be done simultaneously.

The clockspeed is worryingly low however since they have to last 5 years.
Score
0
February 22, 2013 8:57:04 AM

i dont see an issue with the clock speed since the OS is light weight and optimized for the hardware.

they have to make the system last for the next several years, the PS3 also had an 8 core CELL processor ( i believe).

im sure they will also utilize those cores for all the features that will be running at the same time, so you can suspend the game in the middle of gameplay, all the social features, the games themselves, etc.
Score
0
Related resources
a b à CPUs
February 22, 2013 9:10:17 AM

It will allow for more multitasking as well as things such as letting your mates jump into your game and control it.

The last gen consoles had much higher clocks. Adding more cores and a new arch can only do so much when your losing clock speed.
Score
0
a c 102 à CPUs
February 22, 2013 10:19:18 AM

This is speculation but I think 8 low speed cores will lower power consuption over 2 or 4 more powerful cores. Also I think 1 core may be dedicated to the OS and 1 to there version of Kinetic or something. Also Jaguar cores will be cheap even compared to Athlon cores.
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
February 22, 2013 12:36:01 PM

Because according to AMD....

MOAR is better!!!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 22, 2013 3:40:03 PM

They are really promising to much. I find it funny just how exited people got about Killzone 4, Crysis 3 is a lot better IMO.
Score
0
February 22, 2013 10:48:18 PM

kz looked a lot better than c3. also, the clock speed is not even confirmed; 1.6ghz is just speculation. Same with 1.84Tflops. the guys mentioned ~2Tflops.

This is all we know for sure about the specs: It's based off a next-gen AMD APU which combines eight x86 'jaguar' CPU cores, a 2 TFlops GCN GPU, and 8GB DDR5 Unified RAM. Thats all we know.

all the 18 CUs/800mhz/1.6GHz..... all that is speculation.

Also, why worry about the graphics so early? The OS is super light weight, and these are all first gen launch titles. if you forgot what first gen PS3 titles looked like, see Resistance:FOM and COD3. now, after optimizing, it can run stuff like last of us and crysis 3. Give the PS4 some time, and you will se the beauty that comes out of it.
Score
0
a c 102 à CPUs
February 22, 2013 11:48:04 PM

What sony confirmed is:
8-core x86-64 CPU using AMD Jaguar cores (built by AMD)
High-end PC GPU (also built by AMD), delivering 1.84TFLOPS of performance
Unified 8GB of GDDR5 memory for use by both the CPU and GPU with 176GB/s of memory bandwidth
Large local hard drive
Update: Sony has confirmed the actual performance of the PlayStation 4's GPU as 1.84 TFLOPS. Sony claims the GPU features 18 compute units, which if this is GCN based we'd be looking at 1152 SPs and 72 texture units.
From http://www.anandtech.com/show/6770/sony-announces-plays...

It is also known that jaguar is not capable of high clock speeds and non PS4 versions will run at 1.6GHz so its very likely but I don't think 1.6 is confirmed.
Score
0
February 23, 2013 9:08:48 PM

Hmm? I wonder if Sony will allow the user to overclock there consoles. lol!
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2013 3:37:04 AM

Sony must have had enough confidence that they could leverage 8 slow cores better than 4 faster ones. We'll just have to wait and see.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2013 3:42:41 AM

Consoles are bad. Their so slow. Have you seen BF3 on consoles? Any trees 5 feet ahead of further, the trees are flat images facing at you. And if there is a bunch of trees in your ranges they all but a few do that no matter the distance. If you look at the ground, you can see only a few slanted polygons with like 200 x 200 textures that are the exact same badly printed on it over and over and over and over.........
Score
0
February 25, 2013 3:59:26 AM

i think Sony will use 6 cores effectively just for games and another core for processing the the move inbuilt dual-shock controller and 1 for OS.
i think 1 core is needed to process the real time pictures to calculate the exact location of the controller in 3d space...
six cores for games is it enough for future??? i wonder??
Score
0
February 25, 2013 8:25:40 AM

Consoles have very light OS compared to PC-s ,but 8-core 1.6ghz jaguar is comparable to Intel Atom mobile chips,its ultra low for gaming,but its low power and efficent.They cant risk one more RROD(xbox360).PS3 was lucky.
Not impressed with graphics at all,they can optimize it but after 1-2 year we can see much bigger graphics leap on pc-s just like crysis do 1 year after console release in 2006.Killzone 4 looks like pre-rendered sh**,like they did with killzone 2 back in 2006.They even didnt show in 1080p wtf.The best thing they did was put 8gb gddr5 and x86 architecture.Pc gaming is gonna shine this decade.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2013 8:29:34 AM

^+1

Yeah, take doom 3 for example :p .

They all seem to forget that 1080p doesn't exist when it comes to consoles. Which sucks since at 720p you need enough AA to match 1080p performance which at that point makes 720p not worth it.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 9:29:28 AM

melikepie said:
^+1

Yeah, take doom 3 for example :p .

They all seem to forget that 1080p doesn't exist when it comes to consoles. Which sucks since at 720p you need enough AA to match 1080p performance which at that point makes 720p not worth it.


Lol yeah i remember Doom 3 :non: 
In few years when games are gonna be asking for more power they would go to sub-hd 1080p. 30fps is gonna start from launch games because developers have already stated that its better to graphics have more "juice" then put lower graphics and 60fps.Also aiming with controller is much more forgivable at 30fps then is it with mouse.This is also one of a reason(including very inaccurate aiming with controller) why consoles have to have auto-aim.
Gpu is ps4 is comparable to 7850 which is really not even high gaming card.Granted,its gonna be optimized(lower graphics).When people talk about how developers optimize console graphics to be "at the best" and can play 6year old games is utter bullsh**.PC-s can too with old 2core and 8800gtx you can run battlefield 3.Hell even you can put 30$ 9800gtx and run in 1080p.And this is what i like about pc-s,upgrades,when you want.
i respect consoles and i believe if there was no current consoles pc gaming would suffer because developers are getting bored with selling for pc-s only(pirating) and not get profit back that they deserve.With consoles we get so MUCH more games if you compare decade ago.Indeed they are ports but still we get them and run better.With steam and 100% growth a year.x86 arch. of new consoles we should be looking at very bright future of pc gaming finally
Score
0
February 25, 2013 9:37:55 AM

They want low TDP components to make cooling manageable and therefore keep the enclosure small and quiet. Remember that this has to be a living-room friendly consumer device. Therefore to get the computational power they want they add more cores.

This PS4 is all about the cost. This includes trying to make a more reliable device to reduce returns. Every time they have to replace one of these under warranty because it overheats and fails, it costs them money.
Score
0
February 25, 2013 12:10:06 PM

In pc a average upgrade time would be 3 years but for consoles they would drag it 2 to 3 years more. By the time of release they would be slightly outdated. After 6 years useless! And many developer are also quite hungry for more! They wont wait for the cycle of a console! They go in their own cycle! So initially they would be aiming to max out consoles but after they do they try to max out technology i.e pc's! Pc rules always
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 25, 2013 3:23:38 PM

da3ndorphin3 said:
Lol yeah i remember Doom 3 :non: 
In few years when games are gonna be asking for more power they would go to sub-hd 1080p. 30fps is gonna start from launch games because developers have already stated that its better to graphics have more "juice" then put lower graphics and 60fps.Also aiming with controller is much more forgivable at 30fps then is it with mouse.This is also one of a reason(including very inaccurate aiming with controller) why consoles have to have auto-aim.
Gpu is ps4 is comparable to 7850 which is really not even high gaming card.Granted,its gonna be optimized(lower graphics).When people talk about how developers optimize console graphics to be "at the best" and can play 6year old games is utter bullsh**.PC-s can too with old 2core and 8800gtx you can run battlefield 3.Hell even you can put 30$ 9800gtx and run in 1080p.And this is what i like about pc-s,upgrades,when you want.
i respect consoles and i believe if there was no current consoles pc gaming would suffer because developers are getting bored with selling for pc-s only(pirating) and not get profit back that they deserve.With consoles we get so MUCH more games if you compare decade ago.Indeed they are ports but still we get them and run better.With steam and 100% growth a year.x86 arch. of new consoles we should be looking at very bright future of pc gaming finally

Yeah, I think Sony is getting off on the wrong toe (they haven't evolved to use feet yet). For my experience with programming, Bulldozer isn't that fast even at 3.1GHz. So I don't think 1.6GHz Piledriver is gonna make the cut. Swimming in 1.6GHz barley gives you any time to do things that are worth doing such as physics or collision, most of the GHz is being used up to properly communicate with the other threads.
Score
0
February 26, 2013 9:11:51 PM

i think be cause ps3 runs the games on 30 fps only so they will use 8 cores cpu to make it run on higher fps
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2013 9:36:47 PM

The CPU wouldn't be the bottleneck.

Bottlenecks of the current gen consoles:
1. RAM
2. GPU
3. CPU
4. They're made by dumb companies

Do you know what it's like to make a game with half 1GB of RAM? BF3 needs 2GB of RAM and 1GB of VRAM as a minimum. Do you realize just how much they cut down to put it on a station box thingy?
Score
0
February 27, 2013 7:17:39 AM

melikepie said:
The CPU wouldn't be the bottleneck.

Bottlenecks of the current gen consoles:
1. RAM
2. GPU
3. CPU
4. They're made by dumb companies

Do you know what it's like to make a game with half 1GB of RAM? BF3 needs 2GB of RAM and 1GB of VRAM as a minimum. Do you realize just how much they cut down to put it on a station box thingy?


Consoles have 512mb ram but most importantly 256mb is for games only(other half for OS).So basically they made game with 256 RAM:-).Ok pc needs for OS much more but still it needs minimum of 1gb for game. :D 
With 8gb gddr5 we could see bigger worlds,number of npc ,physics like never before.
But still they're smart because ps4 will have basically 4gb ram! 1-2gb goes for OS,2-3 for GPU,CPU, 4 for RAM.But still 4gb of fast high bandwith RAM vs 256 slow ddr2 ram -its a HUGE leap forward for consoles.
But before i really hoped for 8gb ram and discrete gpu with 2-3gb vram.That would be groundbreaking. :o 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2013 7:48:10 AM

Ground braking performance wise or ground breaking budget wise?
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2013 7:50:04 AM

To make a game look good, you need ray tracing, great shaders, DX11 and tessellation. Although these things aren't simple to program in. I could make a game like BF3 right now if I wanted to, it would be hard, and take nearly the rest of my life, but me and a c++ compiler is all I need.
Score
0
February 28, 2013 5:16:38 AM

The structure is that of an Apu so this adds more graphics processing power per core. This means that the cpu has some

source:
http://www.vg247.com/2013/02/28/ps4-apu-by-far-the-most...

"The PlayStation 4 has an x86 APU"

However, this does not directly mean that it will operate like a windows OS. A gaming os is usually very light in comparison to a workstation one and is programmed specifically for gaming. Everything can be written to take advantage of the architecture of the components of the ps4 and so the programs are much optimized for the same configuration. This can add huge advantages.

Also if the cpu is built like the 8 core desktop cpu's its not 8 cores in the way a intel would be. There is a difference in physical and logical cores.

About the bickering

A games graphics are highly subjective. I think the future of a lot of pc purists is that they do not realize presentation has a big effect on graphics. We notice certain color palettes and dimensions and if a game provides a wide variety of those in clarity then that effects the presentation almost as much as seeing a hi res texture and amazing effects. Instead of stating the power of your rig or showing dominance, think of this. For the longest time I had a good workstation with integrated graphics and a ps2 for experience. Thats the bottom line. Its why people still love Commedore 64's and arcade games.

Leave PS4 alone :pt1cable: 
Score
0
February 28, 2013 5:20:43 AM

melikepie said:
To make a game look good, you need ray tracing, great shaders, DX11 and tessellation. Although these things aren't simple to program in. I could make a game like BF3 right now if I wanted to, it would be hard, and take nearly the rest of my life, but me and a c++ compiler is all I need.


some people think these looks great:

WARNING GRAPHIC VILOLENCE IN THESE LINKS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rhvLebx1iA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_BinoS1Ug

It's not some technology that determines graphics its aesthetics. If you paint a room alternating shades of brown its more "technical" then a white wall but it still looks like s**t.
Score
0
February 28, 2013 6:12:52 AM

To make a game look good, you need ray tracing, great shaders, DX11 and tessellation.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2013 7:31:06 AM

Ohh no you didn't!
Score
0
February 28, 2013 11:57:36 AM

aefety said:
To make a game look good, you need ray tracing, great shaders, DX11 and tessellation.


You forgot to wrote this too ==== Although these things aren't simple to program in. I could make a game like BF3 right now if I wanted to, it would be hard, and take nearly the rest of my life, but me and a c++ compiler is all I need. ==== :pt1cable:  :kaola: 
Score
0
a b à CPUs
February 28, 2013 11:58:40 AM

omg
Score
0
March 1, 2013 5:35:26 AM

You guys are forgetting there is a secondary processor ARM chip that will run the OS and all background processes, leaving all 8 cores on the primary CPU for games. Also, 1.6 ghz is not confirmed, it was just a rumor. Recent rumors say that Sony is considering bumping up the speeds to 2.0ghz for a 25 percent performance boost..so we will see.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2013 5:38:48 AM

Last time consoles chose moar cores, there was moar console deaths.
Score
0
March 1, 2013 6:29:09 AM

and there was also poor choice in solder to save on cost and also poor venting of heat
Score
0
a b à CPUs
March 1, 2013 11:51:06 AM

They should make a console with every feature that computers are capable of. Where people can learn how to make they're own games without a $10,000 dev console, a license, and a company. And be able to upgrade the specs of the consoles to the graphics your willing to pay for. Ohh wait, it's called a PC.
Score
0
May 29, 2013 12:49:08 AM

Because Sony never learns. They made the same mistake with the PS3. It takes way too much time for devs to thread the processes 6 different ways (surely one or two cores will be dedicated to running the OS, social media stuff, whatever). Every non-exclusive game I played on the PS3 looked and ran much worse (choppy framerate, dull textures) than the 360 version. Exclusive titles were good though. That being said, the Xbox One is going to have an 8-core processor as well, as opposed to the triple core of the 360. So I'm not a big fan of either console at this point. Too many cores, not enough raw clock speed. It's getting to the point where it's not so much about the hardware, but more about the time and effort the developers are willing to spend optimizing the threading. So you never really know what you're going to get.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 29, 2013 1:02:05 AM

I thought the PS4 was a huge mistake, then the Xbox One made the PS4 look like gold (and the Xbox One look like sewage).

Anyway, threads should be made as an optional tool for a game developer. Threads don't always help anyway. So why did they stick 8 slow cores in the consoles? No one knows but them.

It's too bad consoles turned out this way. They should've known better to not stick 8 1.6GHz PD cores in it, yes, 8 1.6GHz PD cores. Are the games going to be fun? Maybe. Are they games going to turn into more CODs that use the same slow tech every year? A better question is why they wouldn't.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 30, 2013 11:20:56 PM

I think y'all are forgetting things where comparing raw clock speeds Ill use an example. an lintel pen 4 EE at 4 GHz pails in comparison to an Core 2 duo at 2.0 GHz and like whys an AMD 6400+ Be at 3.2 GHz fails to get more then 3 fps in planet side 2 where a AMD Phenom2 x4 900 series is capable of well over 60 fps in planet side 2 and theses CPU's are only 1 to 2 years from the former's release.

clock speed is not a good indicator of actual performance, still done understand look at gpu clock speeds there all over the place a gtx 660 ti boasts a clock speed of 1019MHz and a GTX Titan has a clock speed of 837 MHz and as you may know the titan is the best out there currently.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2013 12:35:05 AM

thequn said:
I think y'all are forgetting things where comparing raw clock speeds Ill use an example. an lintel pen 4 EE at 4 GHz pails in comparison to an Core 2 duo at 2.0 GHz and like whys an AMD 6400+ Be at 3.2 GHz fails to get more then 3 fps in planet side 2 where a AMD Phenom2 x4 900 series is capable of well over 60 fps in planet side 2 and theses CPU's are only 1 to 2 years from the former's release.

clock speed is not a good indicator of actual performance, still done understand look at gpu clock speeds there all over the place a gtx 660 ti boasts a clock speed of 1019MHz and a GTX Titan has a clock speed of 837 MHz and as you may know the titan is the best out there currently.


Most people here already know that clock speed isn't what the performance is. As I stated it's 8 1.6GHz PD cores. Also, the 6400+ has 2 cores in oppose the the 9xx Phenom 2's 4 cores, and the GTX titan also has a lot more cores then the GTX 660 ti.
Score
0
May 31, 2013 3:01:46 AM

PS4 and Xbone cpu is quite weak. I was surprised when I seen the specs. Essentially, it may not be much better than the Wii U 1.6ghz power pc. Its true that it has a extra 5 threads compared to the Wii U. But what is also true is no games will uses the extra 5 threads at once.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 31, 2013 3:08:26 AM

I think it may be able to use all the threads. The trouble is how well that's going to turn out to the game developers.
Score
0
June 4, 2013 6:19:40 AM

if you buy AMD bulldozer FX 8120 and down-clock from 3.2 GHZ to 2.0 GHZ the temperature of CPU doesn't goes above 45 C with 100% stress . we are talking about CPU need 125 W power and what are you think about mobile version what the highest temperature can goes??? if you ask about performance it will be better than dual core process . That's a mine reason from keep CPU clock low and many cores up to eight.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2013 6:38:36 AM

sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
if you buy AMD bulldozer FX 8120 and down-clock from 3.2 GHZ to 2.0 GHZ the temperature of CPU doesn't goes above 45 C with 100% stress . we are talking about CPU need 125 W power and what are you think about mobile version what the highest temperature can goes??? if you ask about performance it will be better than dual core process . That's a mine reason from keep CPU clock low and many cores up to eight.


Try single threaded applications.
Score
0
June 4, 2013 6:52:25 AM

sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
if you buy AMD bulldozer FX 8120 and down-clock from 3.2 GHZ to 2.0 GHZ the temperature of CPU doesn't goes above 45 C with 100% stress . we are talking about CPU need 125 W power and what are you think about mobile version what the highest temperature can goes??? if you ask about performance it will be better than dual core process . That's a mine reason from keep CPU clock low and many cores up to eight.


melikepie said:
sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
if you buy AMD bulldozer FX 8120 and down-clock from 3.2 GHZ to 2.0 GHZ the temperature of CPU doesn't goes above 45 C with 100% stress . we are talking about CPU need 125 W power and what are you think about mobile version what the highest temperature can goes??? if you ask about performance it will be better than dual core process . That's a mine reason from keep CPU clock low and many cores up to eight.


Try single threaded applications.


you can do every thing in small application with out felling the cpu is slow but when you do compress with winrar you will see huge difference. but don't forget something - AMD faster than INTEL in linux operating system.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2013 6:56:08 AM

sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
if you buy AMD bulldozer FX 8120 and down-clock from 3.2 GHZ to 2.0 GHZ the temperature of CPU doesn't goes above 45 C with 100% stress . we are talking about CPU need 125 W power and what are you think about mobile version what the highest temperature can goes??? if you ask about performance it will be better than dual core process . That's a mine reason from keep CPU clock low and many cores up to eight.


melikepie said:
sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
if you buy AMD bulldozer FX 8120 and down-clock from 3.2 GHZ to 2.0 GHZ the temperature of CPU doesn't goes above 45 C with 100% stress . we are talking about CPU need 125 W power and what are you think about mobile version what the highest temperature can goes??? if you ask about performance it will be better than dual core process . That's a mine reason from keep CPU clock low and many cores up to eight.


Try single threaded applications.


you can do every thing in small application with out felling the cpu is slow but when you do compress with winrar you will see huge difference. but don't forget something - AMD faster than INTEL in linux operating system.


Sometimes it is faster, but generally Intel is still faster. There is just a decrease in performance with AMD and Windows.
Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
June 10, 2013 4:41:48 AM

smokeybravo said:
The only possible reason I can come up with is that Sony expects developers to make use of all 8 of them in their games. Would this not be a huge boon to FPS?



most likely for game designers wanting more resources for making better games without updated hardware it can be very limited also now we see 8 cores going into consoles we should see more quad games released due to fact a 8 core is really 4 modules which acts to me like a quad with hypertheading

Score
0
a c 88 à CPUs
June 10, 2013 4:45:38 AM

melikepie said:
sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
if you buy AMD bulldozer FX 8120 and down-clock from 3.2 GHZ to 2.0 GHZ the temperature of CPU doesn't goes above 45 C with 100% stress . we are talking about CPU need 125 W power and what are you think about mobile version what the highest temperature can goes??? if you ask about performance it will be better than dual core process . That's a mine reason from keep CPU clock low and many cores up to eight.


melikepie said:
sayed mohd sayed jawad said:
if you buy AMD bulldozer FX 8120 and down-clock from 3.2 GHZ to 2.0 GHZ the temperature of CPU doesn't goes above 45 C with 100% stress . we are talking about CPU need 125 W power and what are you think about mobile version what the highest temperature can goes??? if you ask about performance it will be better than dual core process . That's a mine reason from keep CPU clock low and many cores up to eight.


Try single threaded applications.


you can do every thing in small application with out felling the cpu is slow but when you do compress with winrar you will see huge difference. but don't forget something - AMD faster than INTEL in linux operating system.


Sometimes it is faster, but generally Intel is still faster. There is just a decrease in performance with AMD and Windows.



Its really more to do with the way the 8 cores were designed and because windows 7 at the time didnt use new codes etc most new software isnt used in most games or applications only a few programs take advantage of it once programmers catch up we should see improvements amd just went to far ahead .

It should also be noted the ps4 will most likely will run these cores more effectively since ill bet amd and sony have worked together to make sure it runs well unlike the U disaster.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2013 6:29:23 AM

beyondlogic said:
smokeybravo said:
The only possible reason I can come up with is that Sony expects developers to make use of all 8 of them in their games. Would this not be a huge boon to FPS?



most likely for game designers wanting more resources for making better games without updated hardware it can be very limited also now we see 8 cores going into consoles we should see more quad games released due to fact a 8 core is really 4 modules which acts to me like a quad with hypertheading



Not really, for reasons I've explained in the PD thread, for months now.

Games simply do not scale well by design. The stuff that is easy to make parallel (graphics, physics) have already been offloaded to the GPU, leaving very little left that can be made parallel. Audio is trivial. So is UI. AI is a little harder, but not much, especially since there's typically only a dozen or so objects to update. There simply isn't much left for the CPU to actually do. Hence why you see two threads out of ~40 doing any real work: The first is the main program thread, which handles the overall processing. The second is the Render thread, which sets up the processing for the GPU. In a few cases, you may have a secondary render thread (DX11 only) or a dedicated AI thread. Thats about it.

So then we have people complaining "Well, change the algorithm to make it more parallel.". Problem is, in most cases, we can't, because either you reduce performance if you run into a software lock, or because of lower absolute performance.

So games aren't going to magically get more parallel on the PC, just like they didn't when the 6-core CPU's of the PS3/360 came out.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
June 10, 2013 7:21:36 PM

[/quotemsg]

Not really, for reasons I've explained in the PD thread, for months now.

Games simply do not scale well by design. The stuff that is easy to make parallel (graphics, physics) have already been offloaded to the GPU, leaving very little left that can be made parallel. Audio is trivial. So is UI. AI is a little harder, but not much, especially since there's typically only a dozen or so objects to update. There simply isn't much left for the CPU to actually do. Hence why you see two threads out of ~40 doing any real work: The first is the main program thread, which handles the overall processing. The second is the Render thread, which sets up the processing for the GPU. In a few cases, you may have a secondary render thread (DX11 only) or a dedicated AI thread. Thats about it.

So then we have people complaining "Well, change the algorithm to make it more parallel.". Problem is, in most cases, we can't, because either you reduce performance if you run into a software lock, or because of lower absolute performance.

So games aren't going to magically get more parallel on the PC, just like they didn't when the 6-core CPU's of the PS3/360 came out.[/quotemsg]

Most games have a lot more then "a dozen objects or so" objects to update. And not to mention multithreadign can be impossible in some cases.

Here is an example of running a single thread:

  1. void update() //Update Code
  2. {
  3. //Put Update Code Here
  4. }
  5.  
  6. void render() //Render Code
  7. {
  8. //Put Render Code Here
  9. }
  10.  
  11. int main()
  12. {
  13. //put initialization stuff here
  14.  
  15. while (true) //This repeats until "break" is called
  16. {
  17. update();
  18. render();
  19. }
  20. }


So how would a developer multithread? Well, it's not simple, not anything done with a simple line of code.

Here is a multithreading example:

  1. bool isUpdateDone = false;
  2. bool isRenderDone = false;
  3.  
  4. void update(void* func) //Update Code
  5. {
  6. //Put Update Code Here
  7. isUpdateDone = true;
  8. }
  9.  
  10. void render(void* func) //Render Code
  11. {
  12. //Put render code here
  13. isRenderDone = true;
  14. }
  15.  
  16. int main()
  17. {
  18. //put initialization stuff here
  19.  
  20. while (true) //This repeats until "break" is called
  21. {
  22. _beginthread(update, 0, NULL);
  23. _beginthread(render, 0, NULL);
  24.  
  25. while (!isUpdateDone && !isRenderDone)
  26. {
  27. isUpdateDone = false;
  28. isRenderDone = false;
  29. }
  30. }
  31. }


Now you may be thinking it's not that much harder. Well, if there was the player and world object, the threads can't be accessing them at the same time, which is a huge setback. So would the code be possible? Well, it's a lot more complicated due to certain issues. But with x3 the lines of code, it'd work, if they had x3 the developers.
Score
0
June 12, 2013 6:42:03 AM

I think, they learned a lot from games like Call of Duty Black Opps2 , which forces my PS3 to freeze because of LACK OF POWER IN THE CORES, which cause them to overwork and my ps3 to burn almost in an nero heat thats coming out of my ps3!
So i have it working now by adding 3 externall coolers and setup vertical position!
i think they have found the solution:
8 Cores/ lower clocking speed = equals quality and less Heating.
also read :
http://www.gamespot.com/news/ps4-designer-knew-in-2007-...
Score
0
!