Predict: The Next Generation Console Tech

Status
Not open for further replies.
Llano is actually around 10% faster then even Phenom 2 x6 when it comes to IPC.

What brings Llano down is lack of L3, that brings it back down to Phenom 2 level.

If Llano had L3 it would be the AMD processor to own, Bulldozer is just horrid in terms of IPC and considering how many PC games only use 1-2 cores that only makes the situation even worse for Bulldozer.
 
Hm... but "those" pc games that only use 1-2 cores don't need a 4Ghz CPU like BD... Actually, most games today don't need a high end CPU at all. My old ass 945 (Phenom 2) is enough for almost every game there is set to maximum. Some games (like the Assassin's Creed games or GTA4) need more, but from what I gather, it's not the CPU that's at fault here... it's the games.
 
Hm... but "those" pc games that only use 1-2 cores don't need a 4Ghz CPU like BD... Actually, most games today don't need a high end CPU at all. My old ass 945 (Phenom 2) is enough for almost every game there is set to maximum. Some games (like the Assassin's Creed games or GTA4) need more, but from what I gather, it's not the CPU that's at fault here... it's the games.

No they need a lot more then a 4Ghz BD to push the graphics cards, minimum frame rates on BD just flat out suck. Can I ask what graphics card you're using?

And that is not because of the game, it's because of BD.

I've had practically every modern CPU under my phase cooler and the AMD chips are so bad it's unreal.

You can only put so much blame on the software but when you have a 5.8Ghz BD struggling to compete with a 4Ghz Intel 2500k you know the problem is more then just software.

BD in a console just wouldn't make any sense, power consumption is a disgrace and performance just is not there. A lower clocked Sany Bridge powered CPU would consume half as much power at load and give higher performance.
 
This isn't about Intel vs. AMD (at least from my POV)... as I said, all the games I own don't need anything more than what my hardware offers. There's no need for ANYTHING more than 60Hz in any game... yes, most games don't even remotely tax my GPU (some do, like Metro 2033 or Crysis), but that's not because my CPU is too slow. It's because I already hit 60Hz either way. Any upgrade (be it CPU or GPU) would result in a net benefit of 0fps.

And in most cases, where performance is bad, it's not the CPU that is slow, but the games that aren't "optimized" at all. I can upgrade my CPU to counteract this and play GTA4 at 60Hz, but... this shouldn't be necessary if publishers let the developers actually do their job. There's more to it, I know (say using the Intel Compiler or bad compiler flags), but it usually boils down to "too little time fixing it". Using a BD RIGHT mostly results in very adequate performance, from what I saw (I usually use most of my CPU power for video encoding etc., but I am in dire need of an upgrade, too)

I didn't want to imply anything about BD in a console here... my post was merely talking of PC gaming in general.
 
Bulldozer is ~3.78 IPC and A15 is ~3.5 IPC.

WTF are you talking about? IPC is not a measure that can be used cross instruction set. A single x86 instruction is a lot more powerful than a single ARM instruction. (x86 can do a load and an alu op in a single instr. ARM can do a shift and an alu op, but that's generally less useful. Also, as I understand it, those get cracked to two ops on A15 and take two cycles.)

Also, you cannot even use IPC as a measure on a single instruction set without defining a specific program you are using. IPC depends massively on the code you run.

Also, no x86 cpu out there gets >3 IPC on generic code. BD is limited to <2 by the frontend when all threads are in use. This isn't that much of a limitation, because the very best cpus out there (SB,IB) can barely break 2 on typical code.
 
Having x86 cores and ARM cores running in the same system space along with a set of PPC cores strikes me as being a lot of effort to buy a whole slew of system-level headaches.
Aside from paying out for licensing and engineering for three ISAs, the possibility that all three could be running and interacting within the system presents a risk of low-level, and possibly system-crippling bugs.

That diagram posits a reality where three different memory models with three different low-level conventions for making low-level calls interacting with critical data structures simultaneously.

More detail on how this is expected to work safely would need to be provided to overcome my skepticism.
I wouldn't feel comfortable on a plane if the pilot spoke Mandarin, the copilot Navajo, and the navigator Swedish, and each had a flight manual for a different plane.
 
the Xenon CPU is separate and would be possibly turned on only for playing x360 games, that would leave you with two CPU architectures. that was already done in the past, Cell, or Amiga with both 68k and PPC running at the same time :).

doesn't mean this is not bullshit.
 
If those documents are real they look a lot like early pitch documents to me. In which case the final product could be very different.

The omission of vendors and code names for components suggests they were either very early documents or aimed at an audience not intended to know details.
 
At the very least I suppose we can see what they were considering back then. :p i.e. not an IBM chip for the main CPU.

I'm still bugged about the 6-8 core detail when they've clearly got four of those boxes in the image, so um... 24-32 cores (or threads)? (Just in case some folks missed that, and I'm being serious this time. >_>)

Actually, most games today don't need a high end CPU at all. My old ass 945 (Phenom 2) is enough for almost every game there is

Sure... games that were developed with 7-year old hardware architectures in mind. PC HW is clearly not static, so of course you'll run into a situation of having overpowered specs. The devs will do with what they have when they have them as targets.

Some games (like the Assassin's Creed games or GTA4) need more, but from what I gather, it's not the CPU that's at fault here... it's the games.
Erm... if you're referencing "optimization", unless you've gone through them with a performance analyzer/profiler, I'd refrain from making dubious comments as such.
 
Well... as I said "from what I gather" (not a native speaker here). "Heard it through the grapewine" or whatever you want to call it.

But with AC2 and Brotherhood, I've made extensive tests myself (at least as far as I could go), because the game didn't stay at 60Hz... although neither CPU nor GPU were under full load. And after playing around with the graphics settings, and seeing no change in fps, I concluded that it's the CPU. But neither core is ever under full load... not until I force the game down to less than 3 cores, then the framerate suffers.

In any case... nearly all games I played (not all the "new" ones, I am afraid, but a lot of them) my system is more than capable of running those games at 60Hz on full. And since most LCDs don't deliver a higher refresh rate anyways, there's no benefit in going higher (mine don't, although one is 3D (but it's passive)).

I know, that consoles have a VERY different "spec" and probably need a faster CPU than my old ass 945 next gen... I will need one too, by then, because PC games will be ported from those games in the future.
 
Well... as I said "from what I gather" (not a native speaker here). "Heard it through the grapewine" or whatever you want to call it.

But with AC2 and Brotherhood, I've made extensive tests myself (at least as far as I could go), because the game didn't stay at 60Hz... although neither CPU nor GPU were under full load. And after playing around with the graphics settings, and seeing no change in fps, I concluded that it's the CPU. But neither core is ever under full load... not until I force the game down to :love: cores, then the framerate suffers.

In any case... nearly all games I played (not all the "new" ones, I am afraid, but a lot of them) my system is more than capable of running those games at 60Hz on full. And since most LCDs don't deliver a higher refresh rate anyways, there's no benefit in going higher (mine don't, although one is 3D (but it's passive)).

I know, that consoles have a VERY different "spec" and probably need a faster CPU than my old ass 945 next gen... I will need one too, by then, because PC games will be ported from those games in the future.

You chuck an Intel CPU in your rig and your entire opinion will change, you'll see quite a big jump in pretty much everything despite your feeling that your 945 is enough.

Problem with most people that use AMD CPU's is that they're convinced that they have enough power when in reality they have not, you ask anyone that's moved from a Phenom 2/Bulldozer to an modern Intel CPU and they'll all tell you what a big difference it made despite them thinking they already had enough power.
 
You could not be more wrong.

Yes, if it's taken out of context.

He said he already hits constant 60fps (v-synched to a 60Hz monitor, looking at the rest of the post). If it's doing v-synched 60Hz, better hardware won't results in more FPS.
 
Yes, if it's taken out of context.

He said he already hits constant 60fps (v-synched to a 60Hz monitor, looking at the rest of the post). If it's doing v-synched 60Hz, better hardware won't results in more FPS.

Yup, of course... and what good would be more than 60Hz be, when most screens can't show it anyways... I know there are some that can do more, but the odds are that most people don't have them.

EDIT: Ah well... everything makes no sense anymore (post and quotes don't align properly). Thing is... I am happy with the system I own... 100€ CPU, 150€ GPU (6870) and all games I can buy run VERY well on it. need I say more?
 
Yup, of course... and what good would be more than 60Hz be, when most screens can't show it anyways... I know there are some that can do more, but the odds are that most people don't have them.

EDIT: Ah well... everything makes no sense anymore (post and quotes don't align properly). Thing is... I am happy with the system I own... 100€ CPU, 150€ GPU (6870) and all games I can buy run VERY well on it. need I say more?

Why do you keep talking about 60Hz like it's the only figure that matters? Minimum frame rate is the single most important number when it comes to gaming.

I know for a fact that your 945 takes a nose dive when the action heats up making your 60Hz argument completely irrelevant.

I had a 4.8Ghz Phenom 2 x6 with AMD 5850 Crossfire and also a 2500k at stock with a single AMD 5850 and in practically every game the 2500k system was so much more smoother and playable then the Phenom 2 system.

There's no doubt in my mind that your 945 will for the most part, be able to run vsync'd at 60fps but it'll dip quite a lot.

For your viewing pleasure
 
Because most games have 60Hz stable? I know there's some fluctuation in heated moments and some games don't reach that ever (as mentioned GTA4, Crysis (which is GPU limited) and AC). But most games do... so I ask you, why would I want to upgrade now?
 
Because most games have 60Hz stable? I know there's some fluctuation in heated moments and some games don't reach that ever (as mentioned GTA4, Crysis (which is GPU limited) and AC). But most games do... so I ask you, why would I want to upgrade now?

With a 6870 you'll find Crysis is more CPU limited then it is GPU limited..

And why upgrade? How about less power consumption? Getting back some money for the 945 while it's still worth something, more stable and consistent frame rate, getting the performance from your 6870 that you paid for..

There's quite a few reasons..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top