Middle-earth: Shadows of Mordor

Love_In_Rio said:
Well, consoles take full advantage of Jaguar vector units, is not like games code is full of "if elses". And in this (vector unit), Jaguar is quite a beast. This along the mentioned gpu API advantage, plus ( and this is the most important ) programmers hand tunning every bit running even in CPU registers memory ( see Naughty Dog notes about programming in PS4 ) is what gives these tiny cpus their advantage.
Click to expand...

The console Jaguars (6 cores) have much less than half the peak vector throughput of a fast Haswell based i3. Monsters is the opposite of how I'd describe them.
 
Since this is Shadows of Mordor thread and not a "PC v consoles" thread I will try to bring it back on track with this.
I know it's not fresh news but it's something.
 
Love_In_Rio said:
Well, consoles take full advantage of Jaguar vector units, is not like games code is full of "if elses". And in this (vector unit), Jaguar is quite a beast. This along the mentioned gpu API advantage, plus ( and this is the most important ) programmers hand tunning every bit running even in CPU registers memory ( see Naughty Dog notes about programming in PS4 ) is what gives these tiny cpus their advantage.
Click to expand...

Having run the numbers it turns out that the fastest (current) i3 - the 4360 actually has a full 3x the peak SIMD throughput performance of the 6 Jaguar cores available to games in the PS4.

So that should certainly have little to do with high system requirements of this game.

However the API overhead as you say could easily be the cause. In general performance, said i3 has only a little more potential than the Jaguar cores - 2 cores * twice the clock speed * roughly 1.5x IPC (probably a conservative estimate) vs 6 cores so the massive API overhead may drag it down below the consoles level - until DX12 that is.

Or it could simply be that the "recommended" PC experience for this game is 1080p/60 whereas the consoles may run at 1080p/30 and thus you need twice the power to achieve those results. That would better explain the GPU requirements which to date haven't really required any extra horsepower to match the console experience.
 
I know there was a bit about some Ubisoft developer claiming the developers of the game stole the running/traversal animations from AC2.

But the system about gathering enemy intelligence on weaknesses or social connections seems to be a more fleshed-out concept from the original Assassin's Creed. Future AC games pulled back on that initial free-form concept to create a more traditional open-world experience, so Shadows of Mordor is related to AC in my eyes (just not in a plagiarizing kind of way).
 
pjbliverpool said:
The graphics look a bit basic but the game looks fun.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this one looks like like my kind of game. Apparently it's deeper than just a hack 'n' slash, it has RPG elements, skill trees and whatnot.
 
Bigduo209 said:
But the system about gathering enemy intelligence on weaknesses or social connections seems to be a more fleshed-out concept from the original Assassin's Creed. Future AC games pulled back on that initial free-form concept to create a more traditional open-world experience
Click to expand...

I think AC was limited by the CPU capacity on previous gen a lot, especially as the city roaming already required a lot of processing for the crowds on the streets. We'll see if they can push for more complex interactions and systems on the next game...
 
Arwin said:
So one Haswell core equals one CU?
Click to expand...

1 CU is capable of 128 FLOPs per cycle while one Haswell core is capable of 32 but at 3.2 Ghz would obviously be running at 4x the clock speed of an 800Mhz CU making them equivalent from a peak flops perspective.
 
pjbliverpool said:
That's a peak theoretical figure.

6 Jaguar Cores x 1.6Ghz = 76.8 GFLOPs

2 Haswell Cores x 3.6Ghz = 230.4 GFLOPs
Click to expand...

This is a very enlightening stat. Coupled with price commensurate with performance, I can see why Intel is never in the running for console systems. Even though it seems like an i3 coupled with a discrete part and some gddr5 would mollywhop any of these consoles.
 
pjbliverpool said:
1 CU is capable of 128 FLOPs per cycle while one Haswell core is capable of 32 but at 3.2 Ghz would obviously be running at 4x the clock speed of an 800Mhz CU making them equivalent from a peak flops perspective.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I think it's quite enlighting as an illustration of the relevance of CPU Gflops performance. The Cell is rated at about the same number (for the combined 8 cores, that is).

But it also shows that the Haswell cores are getting quite powerful.

Incidentally, I also don't know if it is relevant to calculate with 6 cores instead of 8? 2 cores reserved for OS features doesn't mean that they're not doing anything useful that the PC doesn't also need to do? It's not like the PC doesn't have any OS overhead?
 
Someone more knowledgeable than me needs to give a proper answer but I didn't think there was an actual reserve on the PC and the app has full access to the CPU if it needs it (and nothing else is running of course). I thought the whole point of the console reserve was to allow predictable performance for both games and apps which the PC doesn't really have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top