Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FX-8150 vs i7/i5, what games use all 8 cores and is there a benchmark?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 8, 2012 7:02:18 PM

I was looking at different benchmarks and i7 and even i5 seem better than this 8 core processor in gaming, despite the 8 cores, 8 MB cache in L3 and L2. But I also read that most games don't use many cores.

Is there any game that can use all 8 cores of the FX-8150? If not, if there will be a game that uses all 8 cores in the near future, could the FX be better than a hyperthreaded i7?
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 7:11:22 PM

The FX has the potential to beat a Core i7 but since most applications use up to 4 cores the FX CPU just cant compete.There is currently only one game that i know of that uses more than 4 cores efficiently and thats Battlefield 3.It uses 6 cores and in it, the FX processor is a bit faster than a Core i5.
But remember most games use 2-4 cores and so Intel's processors perform better.
Intel just uses a superior archetecture.That's why at most games you need a FX at 4.8 GHZ just to match a Core i5 at 3.3.
a c 93 à CPUs
September 8, 2012 7:14:04 PM

Games are not well multithreaded, and unlikely will be heavily multithreaded to the point of using 8 cores in the near future. The only major title out right now that can leverage more than 4 cores is Battlefield 3 in larger multiplayer maps, and even then you will still likely be GPU bound for the most part, so the extra cores won't provide a huge difference. The vast majority of games today use 1 or 2 cores, with some using 3 or 4.

The i5 is considered the best value gaming CPU out there, as it has 4 strong cores that can handle any game out there. The i7 also works well, though there is no appreciable difference between the i5 and i7, so it's not worth getting an i7 just for gaming. The FX 8150 is not the greatest gaming CPU. It has to be heavily overclocked to keep up with Intel's i5 in gaming scenarios. It is adequate for gaming if you don't have a really high end graphics card or multiple GPUs. However, I wouldn't recommend it for a gaming rig. If you are doing productivity work that uses lots of cores and you can't afford the i7, it might be a good choice, though you can save even more money by getting the 8120 and overclocking it.

Piledriver is supposed to come out in a month or so, and it should be better than the Bulldozer FX CPUs, so if you are set on AMD, you may want to wait before building.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 7:14:51 PM

I think there's no game that fully uses 8 core.
September 8, 2012 7:18:17 PM

Kamen_BG said:
The FX has the potential to beat a Core i7 but since most applications use up to 4 cores the FX CPU just cant compete.There is currently only one game that i know of that uses more than 4 cores efficiently and thats Battlefield 3.It uses 6 cores and in it, the FX processor is a bit faster than a Core i5.
But remember most games use 2-4 cores and so Intel's processors perform better.
Intel just uses a superior archetecture.That's why at most games you need a FX at 4.8 GHZ just to match a Core i5 at 3.3.


So after PS4 and XBox720 are on the market, and if they use a multicore system, and if games start using eight cores, the current FX-8150 has the potential to beat i7-3770? Could it be be a safer and cheaper investment if seen from this view?
a c 93 à CPUs
September 8, 2012 7:22:57 PM

By the time the next gen consoles hit, and we have games out that can leverage heavy multithreading that the next gen consoles may or may not have, the FX 8150 will be obsolete. Next gen consoles aren't hitting until late next year at the earliest. It will take at least another year after that before we start seeing some games that really start to leverage the new console's full power. The FX really isn't going to be all that future proof. You're better off with a quad core Intel CPU now, and maybe look at something new in a couple of years if the next gen consoles push the CPU requirements to the point that the quad core Intel CPUs can't keep up anymore.
September 8, 2012 7:23:55 PM

Supernova1138 said:
Games are not well multithreaded, and unlikely will be heavily multithreaded to the point of using 8 cores in the near future. The only major title out right now that can leverage more than 4 cores is Battlefield 3 in larger multiplayer maps, and even then you will still likely be GPU bound for the most part, so the extra cores won't provide a huge difference. The vast majority of games today use 1 or 2 cores, with some using 3 or 4.

The i5 is considered the best value gaming CPU out there, as it has 4 strong cores that can handle any game out there. The i7 also works well, though there is no appreciable difference between the i5 and i7, so it's not worth getting an i7 just for gaming. The FX 8150 is not the greatest gaming CPU. It has to be heavily overclocked to keep up with Intel's i5 in gaming scenarios. It is adequate for gaming if you don't have a really high end graphics card or multiple GPUs. However, I wouldn't recommend it for a gaming rig. If you are doing productivity work that uses lots of cores and you can't afford the i7, it might be a good choice, though you can save even more money by getting the 8120 and overclocking it.

Piledriver is supposed to come out in a month or so, and it should be better than the Bulldozer FX CPUs, so if you are set on AMD, you may want to wait before building.

______________
Thank you for the advise. I am actually trying to build a PC and I have already bought 8 GB Ram 1600 hz, a SSD, a HDD, a PC case, a simple cooler but that is better than the CPU box coolers (I don't overclock) and a 550w PSU. I am planning to use my HD 4850 video card a bit longer, until the more decent ones get cheaper. All is left for the moment is the MB and the CPU, because I am really undecided. I would like to go to Intel this time, being more reliable, but I might wait for the piledrive. I didn't know it was about to hit the markets in a month.
September 8, 2012 7:28:13 PM

Supernova1138 said:
By the time the next gen consoles hit, and we have games out that can leverage heavy multithreading that the next gen consoles may or may not have, the FX 8150 will be obsolete. Next gen consoles aren't hitting until late next year at the earliest. It will take at least another year after that before we start seeing some games that really start to leverage the new console's full power. The FX really isn't going to be all that future proof. You're better off with a quad core Intel CPU now, and maybe look at something new in a couple of years if the next gen consoles push the CPU requirements to the point that the quad core Intel CPUs can't keep up anymore.


Well, I read today that the consoles that are about to hit the market in December 2013 are being produced right now (IGN had an article saying that Xbox 720 might push its release date because of a production problem). So, if they are being produced right now, all they got to use are the CPU-s that we currently have in the market, and these might define the quality of games for the next generation.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 8:25:03 PM

And keep in mind: if you game uses all cores you can not play it any longer, because there is no core left for the mouse driver! :)  In fact the windows scheduler will never allow one application to use all cores. That's why I like my FX8150! Whatever I do in foreground, there always a core left to play the music, respond to the mouse and write files to disk.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 8:27:34 PM

Well 2013 will probably be the era of Quad Cores, with 2014 being the real push to better SMT implementation and higher core counts...that is of course if writers will stop being lazy and actually write something that can use 4+ cores simultaneously.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 8:28:54 PM

noidea_77 said:
And keep in mind: if you game uses all cores you can not play it any longer, because there is no core left for the mouse driver! :)  In fact the windows scheduler will never allow one application to use all cores. That's why I like my FX8150! Whatever I do in foreground, there always a core left to play the music, respond to the mouse and write files to disk.


This is not how multi-tasking works. Low priority applications like drivers and minor background things worked well when there was just SINGLE core systems. The threads are interleaved on a priority weighed time basis, so that things that work in real time like drivers are always given high priority, but since they need very tiny little if ANY at all processing time on a modern computer, there is never an issue.

You are describing multi-threading, but the way drivers and core windows components work were programmed with the ability to do time-shared multi-tasking well before they were then written to do multi-threading. And at any given time, your computer probably has hundreds to thousands of threads running, not all at the same priority at the same time. My computer right now has 466 threads concurrent, and I only have 4 cores.

EDIT: To clarify -> drivers like mouse and audio are higher priority than other background tasks like user programs. No matter how the scheduler handles threads, the higher priority routines (drivers, for example) always gets their share, because their intrinsic priority is higher than that of thread-level.
a c 283 à CPUs
September 8, 2012 8:34:48 PM

sarinaide said:
with 2014 being the real push to better SMT implementation and higher core counts...that is of course if writers will stop being lazy and actually write something that can use 4+ cores simultaneously.


When we've only recently gotten to the point that dual core CPU's are the minimum for most games, I wouldn't bet on that. 2015, maybe...

There will be more games like BF3 to come, but I don't see every game using 4 or more cores for quite some time.
September 8, 2012 8:41:38 PM

The number of cores is not as important as the core architecture. Ivy Bridge vs FX simply smashes it into little AMD pieces. Intel's CPU design is exceptional compared to FX. This results in excellent single threaded and IPC performance which is what games need. It all depends on useless consoles though. I can't think of more than half a dozen PC games that really push PC's.
a c 141 à CPUs
September 8, 2012 9:01:38 PM

Flight Simulator X will use all 8 cores (up to 256 if I remember right) but the i7's still out perform the fx's by quite a margin.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 9:10:35 PM

FX 81XX = 5~8% slower than a 1100T = 5~10% slower than a i5 (SB/IB) that. This is not old news most accept that a FX 81XX is around 15% slower than its direct comparison.
a b à CPUs
September 8, 2012 9:18:30 PM

Maxx_Power said:
This is not how multi-tasking works. Low priority applications like drivers and minor background things worked well when there was just SINGLE core systems. The threads are interleaved on a priority weighed time basis, so that things that work in real time like drivers are always given high priority, but since they need very tiny little if ANY at all processing time on a modern computer, there is never an issue.

You are describing multi-threading, but the way drivers and core windows components work were programmed with the ability to do time-shared multi-tasking well before they were then written to do multi-threading. And at any given time, your computer probably has hundreds to thousands of threads running, not all at the same priority at the same time. My computer right now has 466 threads concurrent, and I only have 4 cores.


Your explanation on multitasking is right, but you missed some improvements made to the scheduler for multicores.
a c 141 à CPUs
September 8, 2012 9:33:13 PM

noidea, you imply that a single core processor cant run your mouse and another program at the same time and thats just plain wrong. Improvements in the scheduler dont really matter because it still works the same; If all cores are in use it will still schedule other tasks to them. End of story.
a b à CPUs
September 9, 2012 12:55:25 AM

popatim said:
noidea, you imply that a single core processor cant run your mouse and another program at the same time and thats just plain wrong. Improvements in the scheduler dont really matter because it still works the same; If all cores are in use it will still schedule other tasks to them. End of story.


Yep, there are several levels of IRQs, and drivers being deferred procedure calls are two levels above user threads. No matter how many cores you have, the priorities of the levels do not change. So your higher level stuff always gets their time share on any processor they want to be on. To put it in another way, short of a poorly written driver, your programs will stop responding long before drivers have ran out of processor resources when you are short on physical core computational time.

A lot of drivers have (if I remember correctly), affinities for CPU cores (usually hard affinities set in the driver code) makes it almost impossible to bounce around driver routines from core to core. They get their dibs first and foremost on any core they want (usually Core-0), and this is decided independently of the windows thread scheduler/scheduler.
September 9, 2012 1:48:39 AM

disable half of the cores (1 core per module)

In bios Core 1,3,5,7 or 2,4,6,8.

end of the story :D 
September 9, 2012 2:07:41 AM

A FX-8150 isn't going to beat a i7-3770k ever, because despite the FX having 8 "cores" the 3770k's cores are all much more efficient, the decode block faster, the branch prediction more accurate, and can compute more instructions per cycle.

3770k/3570k/2600k/2500k etc > FX-8150.
a b à CPUs
September 9, 2012 2:14:36 AM

sabot00 said:
A FX-8150 isn't going to beat a i7-3770k ever, because despite the FX having 8 "cores" the 3770k's cores are all much more efficient, the decode block faster, the branch prediction more accurate, and can compute more instructions per cycle.

3770k/3570k/2600k/2500k etc > FX-8150.



Regor245 said:
disable half of the cores (1 core per module)

In bios Core 1,3,5,7 or 2,4,6,8.

end of the story :D 


This in combination with a significant CPU/NB frequency overclock (controls the L3 cache frequency) gives the 8120 and the 8150 near Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge integer performance per Hz per core and higher overclocking CPU frequency headroom than Sandy/Ivy Bridge (unless you replace the crap paste between Ivy's CPU die and IHS with some top-end paste, in which case Ivy could still best the FX8120 or 8150 used like this). However, using PS Check to modify the P states of individual cores and altering prioritization might be better than merely disabling the second core of each module. It would offer a more i7-like Hyper-Threading performance with eight threads while still letting the primary core benefit from the reduced sharing of the front end when running intensive single/lightly threaded work such as gaming.
a b à CPUs
September 9, 2012 11:27:14 AM

Maxx_Power said:
Yep, there are several levels of IRQs, and drivers being deferred procedure calls are two levels above user threads. No matter how many cores you have, the priorities of the levels do not change. So your higher level stuff always gets their time share on any processor they want to be on. To put it in another way, short of a poorly written driver, your programs will stop responding long before drivers have ran out of processor resources when you are short on physical core computational time.

A lot of drivers have (if I remember correctly), affinities for CPU cores (usually hard affinities set in the driver code) makes it almost impossible to bounce around driver routines from core to core. They get their dibs first and foremost on any core they want (usually Core-0), and this is decided independently of the windows thread scheduler/scheduler.


I never implied that a single core can not run my mouse and a do know about how time slicing works, but you may want to read a bit more why the scheduler has to be "multicore and architecture aware" here: http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2007/v11i4/9-proces.... That also explains why the scheduler needs an update to respond correctly to the accidentally different numbering of the FX cores. There is also this article about the fair scheduling implemented with Vista. The aim of it is basically that my program will NOT stop responding long before drivers have ran out of resources.
a b à CPUs
September 9, 2012 2:40:04 PM

noidea_77 said:
I never implied that a single core can not run my mouse and a do know about how time slicing works, but you may want to read a bit more why the scheduler has to be "multicore and architecture aware" here: http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2007/v11i4/9-proces.... That also explains why the scheduler needs an update to respond correctly to the accidentally different numbering of the FX cores. There is also this article about the fair scheduling implemented with Vista. The aim of it is basically that my program will NOT stop responding long before drivers have ran out of resources.


The scheduler improvements you talked about are real, and pretains to thread level parallism. But what I was saying is that threads are one type of a computational routine on a CPU, and as such, they are several levels (2, I think) below drivers (in terms of IRQ levels, which determine the priority of a given task), which are DPCs. Drivers may use helper threads for additional tasks. But fundamentally, the portion responsible for your crucial things like mouse, video and sound, etc all occur at a higher priority level than threads. They also get to take dibs on which core they want. The windows scheduler can THEN assign the unused processor time to juggling threads. This is why, when all else being typical on a modern win-OS, there is no possible way your drivers will run out of computational results before your programs. If your mouser driver is sending packets of data to be processed at say, 10khz (which is WAY below that of modern CPU clocks, and roughly on the order of USB polling intervals on most computers), then that 10khz of cycle is laid out to be used by the CPU first and foremost in a queue of DPCs, which is independent from the threads waiting to be executed. On the FX series, the scheduler still works the same way no matter which windows patch you run. It can only assign threads to different cores. Whether or not it does this efficiently is not the same as how DPCs are ran on computers, which as I said, occur at a different IRQ level all together.

Bottom of the line is, schedulers schedule threads, which pretains to multi-threading. Drivers and such occur at the DPC (deferred procedural calls) level. As such, the fundamental components of the drivers (not helper tasks/threads) are always given priority on the CPU, far before threads are. Threads are (if I remember correctly), level 0 IRQ wise, the least important of the IRQ levels. The recent improvements to threading are all made to this level, all the other fundamental levels (system clock, etc) are untouched by mere scheduler changes.

Straight from MS (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg4874...):

An interrupt request level (IRQL) defines the hardware priority at which a processor operates at any given time. In the Windows Driver Model, a thread running at a low IRQL can be interrupted to run code at a higher IRQL.

The number of IRQLs and their specific values are processor-dependent. The IA64 and AMD64 architectures have 16 IRQLs and the x86-based processors have 32. (The difference is due primarily to the types of interrupt controllers that are used with each architecture.) Table 1 is a list of the IRQLs for x86, IA64, and AMD64 processors.

Table 1. Interrupt Request Levels
IRQL IRQL value Description
x86 IA64 AMD64
PASSIVE_LEVEL 0 0 0 User threads and most kernel-mode operations
APC_LEVEL 1 1 1 Asynchronous procedure calls and page faults
DISPATCH_LEVEL 2 2 2 Thread scheduler and deferred procedure calls (DPCs)
CMC_LEVEL N/A 3 N/A Correctable machine-check level (IA64 platforms only)
Device interrupt levels (DIRQL) 3-26 4-11 3-11 Device interrupts
PC_LEVEL N/A 12 N/A Performance counter (IA64 platforms only)
PROFILE_LEVEL 27 15 15 Profiling timer for releases earlier than Windows 2000
SYNCH_LEVEL 27 13 13 Synchronization of code and instruction streams across processors
CLOCK_LEVEL N/A 13 13 Clock timer
CLOCK2_LEVEL 28 N/A N/A Clock timer for x86 hardware
IPI_LEVEL 29 14 14 Interprocessor interrupt for enforcing cache consistency
POWER_LEVEL 30 15 14 Power failure
HIGH_LEVEL 31 15 15 Machine checks and catastrophic errors; profiling timer for Windows XP and later releases



Threads occur at PASSIVE_LEVEL, while driver processes occur at DISPATCH_LEVEL.
September 12, 2012 4:34:35 AM

BTW

Race Driver GRID is an 8 core game........
oops! just went back and looked it is 8 THREAD game....sorry
a c 78 à CPUs
September 12, 2012 5:24:08 AM

njeriuxp said:
I was looking at different benchmarks and i7 and even i5 seem better than this 8 core processor in gaming, despite the 8 cores, 8 MB cache in L3 and L2. But I also read that most games don't use many cores.

Is there any game that can use all 8 cores of the FX-8150? If not, if there will be a game that uses all 8 cores in the near future, could the FX be better than a hyperthreaded i7?

BF3 in multiplayer is the only game known to use 8 cores, the upcoming Medal of Honor game likely will as well too since it uses the same game engine as BF3, however these games will be few and far between. There are a lot of games that still only use 2 cores. an i5 quad is more than adequate to handle any game you come across on the market and will continue to for some time. The video card has been and still is the heaviest deciding factor on your gaming performance.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2012 11:59:59 AM

nekulturny said:
BF3 in multiplayer is the only game known to use 8 cores, the upcoming Medal of Honor game likely will as well too since it uses the same game engine as BF3, however these games will be few and far between. There are a lot of games that still only use 2 cores. an i5 quad is more than adequate to handle any game you come across on the market and will continue to for some time. The video card has been and still is the heaviest deciding factor on your gaming performance.


BF3 only effectively uses six threads, not eight.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2012 1:30:54 PM

1: Cores != Threads

2: On Windows, the highest priority feasible thread always runs. Foreground applications get a priority boost as of Vista/7, and threads that are waiting have their priority boosted over time. But user threads are the lowest IRQ level, and just about any OS task will preempt them.

On a single core processor, if you move your mouse, guess what? Your game stops running, the thread that handles reading mouse input is run, processed, and then your game thread is continued from where it left off. This is done very, very fast, so you don't notice that your application stops every single time you move the mouse.

On a multiple-core processor, its more likely another core (one that isn't running your applications main thread) will handle reading the mouse input, but the same concept remains: The highest priority threads ALWAYS run.

3: Games don't tend to scale well because a lot of their processing is SERIAL, not parallel.

Example: in a FPS, an enemy is 10m in front of you, looking in your direction. Does he see you? Depends if there is a physical object blocking Line of Sight. So you can't process the AI engine until AFTER the geometry matrix has been created.

Another example: The AI engine responds to audio cues (gunshot, etc), so you can't process AI until AFTER you process the audio engine.

Another example: An audio engine that handles sound propagation will require both the Geometry matrix be created AND input from the physics engine in order to accurately handle processing audio. So audio must be processed AFTER the geometry is created and at some point during the physics engine.

And so on and so on.

Games are an example of Amdahl's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

If 20% of the program is parallel, your maximum speedup due to adding more processing resources (cores) is 20%, no matter how many cores you add. So new consoles won't magically cause programmers to start coding to use more cores (which they don't do anyway; core loading is the domain of the OS's scheduler). [Ironically, it appears the WiiU only has a tri-core ~730MHz PPC 7xx CPU. So much for that argument...]
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2012 2:23:02 PM

gamerk316 said:
1: Cores != Threads

2: On Windows, the highest priority feasible thread always runs. Foreground applications get a priority boost as of Vista/7, and threads that are waiting have their priority boosted over time. But user threads are the lowest IRQ level, and just about any OS task will preempt them.

On a single core processor, if you move your mouse, guess what? Your game stops running, the thread that handles reading mouse input is run, processed, and then your game thread is continued from where it left off. This is done very, very fast, so you don't notice that your application stops every single time you move the mouse.

On a multiple-core processor, its more likely another core (one that isn't running your applications main thread) will handle reading the mouse input, but the same concept remains: The highest priority threads ALWAYS run.

3: Games don't tend to scale well because a lot of their processing is SERIAL, not parallel.

Example: in a FPS, an enemy is 10m in front of you, looking in your direction. Does he see you? Depends if there is a physical object blocking Line of Sight. So you can't process the AI engine until AFTER the geometry matrix has been created.

Another example: The AI engine responds to audio cues (gunshot, etc), so you can't process AI until AFTER you process the audio engine.

Another example: An audio engine that handles sound propagation will require both the Geometry matrix be created AND input from the physics engine in order to accurately handle processing audio. So audio must be processed AFTER the geometry is created and at some point during the physics engine.

And so on and so on.

Games are an example of Amdahl's law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

If 20% of the program is parallel, your maximum speedup due to adding more processing resources (cores) is 20%, no matter how many cores you add. So new consoles won't magically cause programmers to start coding to use more cores (which they don't do anyway; core loading is the domain of the OS's scheduler). [Ironically, it appears the WiiU only has a tri-core ~730MHz PPC 7xx CPU. So much for that argument...]


BF3 MP scales very well over its six threads when you have at or near 64 players and maybe fewer will scale well too, granted that is with humans playing, not AIs.
a c 78 à CPUs
September 12, 2012 3:19:12 PM

blazorthon said:
BF3 only effectively uses six threads, not eight.

Its my understanding that the Frostbite 2 engine fully utilizes 8 cores, but whatever, I don't care enough to research it further to back it up, since the point is that Intel i5 quads are perfectly capable of handling the game at the highest possible settings.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2012 3:48:10 PM

nekulturny said:
Its my understanding that the Frostbite 2 engine fully utilizes 8 cores, but whatever, I don't care enough to research it further to back it up, since the point is that Intel i5 quads are perfectly capable of handling the game at the highest possible settings.


That they are. It'll probably be a long time before they can't handle modern games unless CPU requirements actually get serious any time soon.
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2012 4:17:59 PM

blazorthon said:
BF3 MP scales very well over its six threads when you have at or near 64 players and maybe fewer will scale well too, granted that is with humans playing, not AIs.


Well, it would make sense to have all communication over the Internet as its own separate thread, so that more or less explains why BF3 (and most MP games) tends to scale better then SP. (Especially notable given how bad EA's netcode tends to be).
April 6, 2013 12:27:11 AM

Kamen_BG said:
The FX has the potential to beat a Core i7 but since most applications use up to 4 cores the FX CPU just cant compete.There is currently only one game that i know of that uses more than 4 cores efficiently and thats Battlefield 3.It uses 6 cores and in it, the FX processor is a bit faster than a Core i5.
But remember most games use 2-4 cores and so Intel's processors perform better.
Intel just uses a superior archetecture.That's why at most games you need a FX at 4.8 GHZ just to match a Core i5 at 3.3.


Guys, Battlefield 3 doesn't use 6 cores at all. 2 cores is already enough to play Battlefield 3. The performance of the game would not be as good as it will normally be. But for good performance in Battlefield 3 then 3-4 cores is enough.
PS: Ofcourse you must also look at other stuff of the computer. Like: Graphics Card, GB Ram, Storage(Most computer would have more then enough)

a b à CPUs
April 6, 2013 8:52:34 AM

noidea_77 said:
because there is no core left for the mouse driver! ... there always a core left to play the music, respond to the mouse and write files to disk.


A single operation will rarely occupy an entire core as you make it out to be. Unless you're joking -- I'm terrible for detecting sarcasm.
April 11, 2013 11:12:24 AM

since next gen consoles are using 8 core processor of x86 architecture, i can see that from 2014 games will start using 8 cores. both sony and Microsoft are using AMD 8 core. they both chose cores over ipc. IDK why, maybe cheaper or smth. but since it is the same architecture, Devs will design games on 8 cores from then i think and just port it to consoles or PCs, obv they will support 6 or 4 or 2 cores for PC aswell. The Cores vs IPC battle will then heat up. whos gunna win? god knows!! lol.

But its all good news for PC. there will be no console exclusive games. (i am talking about red dead redemption which was avaialble on xbox 360 an ps3 but not on PC). since its the same architecture, it just requires less work for getting tons of extra money from the pc gaming community! Maybe cross platform gaming will happen some day.

Playing BF4 64 players against pc xbox 720 and ps4. would be nice.
May 6, 2013 12:26:30 PM

k9shell said:
since next gen consoles are using 8 core processor of x86 architecture, i can see that from 2014 games will start using 8 cores. both sony and Microsoft are using AMD 8 core. they both chose cores over ipc. IDK why, maybe cheaper or smth. but since it is the same architecture, Devs will design games on 8 cores from then i think and just port it to consoles or PCs, obv they will support 6 or 4 or 2 cores for PC aswell. The Cores vs IPC battle will then heat up. whos gunna win? god knows!! lol.

But its all good news for PC. there will be no console exclusive games. (i am talking about red dead redemption which was avaialble on xbox 360 an ps3 but not on PC). since its the same architecture, it just requires less work for getting tons of extra money from the pc gaming community! Maybe cross platform gaming will happen some day.

Playing BF4 64 players against pc xbox 720 and ps4. would be nice.


"In a perfect world" :) ) where I can show theis console twits how to play for real
June 16, 2013 10:31:12 AM

Moh Kash said:
k9shell said:
since next gen consoles are using 8 core processor of x86 architecture, i can see that from 2014 games will start using 8 cores. both sony and Microsoft are using AMD 8 core. they both chose cores over ipc. IDK why, maybe cheaper or smth. but since it is the same architecture, Devs will design games on 8 cores from then i think and just port it to consoles or PCs, obv they will support 6 or 4 or 2 cores for PC aswell. The Cores vs IPC battle will then heat up. whos gunna win? god knows!! lol.

But its all good news for PC. there will be no console exclusive games. (i am talking about red dead redemption which was avaialble on xbox 360 an ps3 but not on PC). since its the same architecture, it just requires less work for getting tons of extra money from the pc gaming community! Maybe cross platform gaming will happen some day.

Playing BF4 64 players against pc xbox 720 and ps4. would be nice.


"In a perfect world" :) ) where I can show theis console twits how to play for real


only six cores would be utilized for gaming while the other two would be used only for the system and background apps

!