Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Future CPU technology?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 5, 2010 12:55:38 AM

I wish software developers would program games and whatnot be multi-threaded based on dynamic allocation of threads, and on availability of hardware resources, not limited to a fixed number of threads.

Crysis, for example, only uses Two CPU cores. Which is why a quad or hexa-core doesn't make Crysis run faster. But if it were programmed to be able to use whatever CPU resources it needs, whenever it needs, such as during intense-physics and action, it wouldn't slow down nearly as much.

Programs like HD video encoding and Prime95 are programmed to use as much CPU power as physically available. If you have an 8-core CPU with 16 logical threads, it uses that CPU to it's absolute 100% capacity, and then some.

The more CPU resources, the merrier.

More about : future cpu technology

October 5, 2010 1:12:00 AM

Hey, I wish you would do all your work in a much more difficult and often unnecessary way.

(The point is the programming isn't easy, multi-threading relatively serial code definitely isn't easy, and you have no idea what you're asking companies/programmers to do.)
m
0
l
a c 89 à CPUs
October 5, 2010 2:34:33 AM

Crysis is an older game and is much more GPU reliant than CPU, and when it was released, not that many people had acecss to more than 2 cores. A dual core CPU will run it fine. If it did used 4 cpus, it would not increase the frame rate past what is limited by the GPU anyway. But believe it or not, programmers are taking advantage of more threads, but all this work will take a while to filter down to the latest games (games don't get made overnight). And even then, programmers might not find it necessary to do this in order to make their game run properly. And it is definitely not expected that they re-do and old game just to please someone with a quad core cpu that is whining about it.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2010 3:21:33 AM

Quote:
Crysis, for example, only uses Two CPU cores. Which is why a quad or hexa-core doesn't make Crysis run faster. But if it were programmed to be able to use whatever CPU resources it needs, whenever it needs, such as during intense-physics and action, it wouldn't slow down nearly as much.


Not exactly. One, GPU's are the primary bottleneck. Regardless of how fast the CPU is capable of going, the GPU is the slowest component in Crysis.

Now, Crysis is actually very heavily threaded, it just doesn't make use of more CPU/Cores. And I note: Unless the threads in question are 100% parrallel, offloading to different CPU's can and will cause SIGNIFICANT performance hits (Syncronization is the great evil).

Farther, nedless offloading of threads to different CPU/Cores could potentally cause more problems down the road, as every extra core you use increases the chance of a single thread getting locked up due to increases load on a single core. In short: You can offload to 16 cores, but the minute your AV goes off on Core 16, your performance falls off a cliff. If there is no performance reason to use more CPU's, there is no reason to use them. Its really that simple.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 8:53:18 AM

Quote:
Crysis is a BS game.People should allow that game to R.I.P now.


It is the most commonly used benchmark for a PC game. Even a Core i7 980X @ 4.6 GHz with 12 GB of RAM with Four superclocked HD 5870's in crossfire or Quad-SLI GTX 480 struggle to run Crysis and Crysis Warhead on their absolute maximum settings.

Very high/enthusiast, 2560x1600, 8X AA. There are also many third-party graphical and texture mods for those games which bring the framerate down even lower.

Even with the fastest hardware possible, maxing Crysis is still a challenge. I doubt we'll be able to run it at those settings easily for at least another Two or Three GPU generations.

Crysis is the most GPU-torturous application next to Furmark, and will be for many years. It also has the best graphics of any video game, ever.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 9:38:48 AM

Quote:
^Thats becoz the game is badly optimised and coded by some ediots working for crytex.


IMHO Far Cry 2 looks graphically better than Crysis and can be maxed out with a single (powerful) GPU.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 10:09:33 AM

May be in future, CPU manufacturers will be taking tips from nvidia and dats the "Future CPU Technology" lol
yes Crysis do have gr8 graphics but I didn't like the vehicles-it might be the only portion they have forgotten to work with.
Agreed FarCry2 beats Crysis in graphics utilization
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 10:41:08 AM

Quote:
Dunia engine rocks.Graphics of farcry2 and Avatar are just great.Ubisoft should finetune it and use it more often in games and ditch that dated unreal engine.


^+1
The Dunia engine has more realistic graphics environments.The cry2 engine in crysis is demands too much resources.
What about the cry3 engine?anyone has any info on that?
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 12:14:10 PM

They should come up with a standardized API.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 12:22:39 PM

Quote:
But if my goal is to make a game that could be maxed out, I would have to select the CPU, GPU combination to optimized but it would limit my profit.


If "Nvidia to Hit the x86 CPUs With CUDA Capability" , then the tide is about to turn.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 12:52:50 PM

Quote:
^^+1, agreed. I think the only reason AMD has it was because both companies were once partners. :D 

Nvidia has CUDA, AMD has firestream, but almost no software I know of has yet utilize firestream, other than ATi's avivo.



AMD can have firestream and find better ways to utilize it but who will teach Intel, parallel processing? :( 
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 1:13:10 PM

Till date no onboard GPUs support parallel processing so this is out of the concerns.

Quote:
^Cpus were never designed for parallel processing


they can always put next generation features in CPUs
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 1:31:33 PM

^ then it looks bright from AMD and ATI side with amd doing all the processing part and ati fully on gaming.But just opposite for both Intel and Nvidia --> doomsday lol

GPUs should never do parallel processing to boast with CPUs while CPUs must do parallel processing for PCs to run faster.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 1:43:27 PM

Read the page that greghome suggested
It indicates that
in the future

1)We will get a complete blend from AMD and ATI
2)NVIDIA turning their cards into a second processor,it'll strike a big clash with Intel
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2010 1:56:05 PM

Quote:
^^+1, agreed. I think the only reason AMD has it was because both companies were once partners. :D 


No, it's because Intel isn't allowed by US regulators to become a monopoly in the x86 market. They need to give out AMD an x86 license or they're going to take their fight against the government.

Quote:

Nvidia has CUDA, AMD has firestream, but almost no software I know of has yet utilize firestream, other than ATi's avivo.


I think you're talking about ATI Stream rather than their products FireStream. FireStream/Quadro are graphics cards with tweaked drivers intended for CAD and other professional applications. CUDA/Stream are the api's that allow C++ applications to access the graphics card.

At this point in the game, Stream would have trouble gaining traction. They started with the Brook api (which some have said is too slow), then <insert name here that i forgot>, then it was converted to Stream. CUDA had a head start, it was CUDA from the start and it's still CUDA up to now. They gained traction with compatibility, requiring any 8000 series gpu, unlike ati wherein the latest sdk doesn't support the 2xxx, and 3xxx cards.

Though up until now, few free applications use the gpu because it's either "too hard/would take too long" or it really isn't needed.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2010 2:00:43 PM

Quote:
^Thats becoz the game is badly optimised and coded by some ediots working for crytex.

What, Crysis is badly optimized? :lol: 
It sure is GPU dependent but its not badly optimized at all.Search youtube and you'll find it running on GeForce 6200s :ouch: 
Of course it will run at 10 FPS, but it still runs.People have even got it working on macs and linux as well.

Dunia does some things very well like fire.And it should be featuring in most games.But provided you have the right hardware, Cryengine 2 is FAR better than Dunia in most of the things.But I like Dunia engine as well. :) 
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 2:05:23 PM

They should choose a standard so everyone can optimize on it.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 2:11:08 PM

Sorry for the double post. I though i was posting on another thread.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 2:23:09 PM

lol I once used to run crysis on my inbuild geforce 7050
but seriously I didn't like those vehicles in crysis,they just wern't attractive w.r.t. graphics detail
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2010 2:26:28 PM

I heard that Crysis 2 can use upto to eight cores.
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 2:54:13 PM

yes low setting but that was before
then after buying gt 240 ddr5 I played it at mid-high settings.
The overall environment and explosive particles are all damn good but those armoured vehiclws did'nt impress me once again man... I mean for such a good background detail those vehicle lacked serious enhancements
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 3:06:31 PM

wow you don't even know a ddr5 version of gt 240 exists?
you must be kidding me anyways this is not the place for checking whether gt 240 uses ddr5 memory either

And I have played on very high settings but later on switched becoz of lags neways the scenery and lighting effects were cool but nothing changed on the vehicle part thx
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 3:19:46 PM

its ok many buy the ddr3 without knowing.This card is available in both ddr5 and ddr3 versions the ddr5 one offers more than twice the bandwidth than ddr3
m
0
l
October 5, 2010 10:56:12 PM

Most of today's mid-range and enthusiast GPU's will run Crysis on high and very high spec with a playable framerate. It's extremely high resolutions combined with anti-aliasing which brings even the fastest hardware to it's knees.
m
0
l
!