4 core/4 thread CPU's are finished they are going the way of the dual core dodo
The "more cores" posts in this thread are true...for like 2012 lol some of you guys are WAY outta the loop
I heard that almost 2 years ago with Ryzen release, guess what? Nothing has changed, absolutely nothing. The developers won't learn how to utilize more than 4 threads overnight, the sooner AMD fanboys (not meaning you here) realise that the better for them. Let me put it that way - I can lock a Bugatti into a closed room, without and door, and while having in fact 1000hp it will still do 0mph. Hardware is not the issue, 8-threadded i7s exist for a looong time on the market, it's the software that cannot keep up. It took the devs a decade to go from 2 threads to 4, and you really expect that to change all of a sudden? Firstly the market has to be well saturated with 8+ threadded CPUs, and secondly, even then the games will still be written for extremely weak Jaguar CPU, so we go back to the first point - people won't see any reason to buy expennsive, multicore CPUs when a simple 2C/4T CPU can run all the games in 60FPS perfectly. It's a closed loop, and it won't end untill next-gen consoles show up, because the software will be finally utilizing all those threads. Until then it's just a show and no go.
It is not really about learning how to utilize more than 4 threads.I heard that almost 2 years ago with Ryzen release, guess what? Nothing has changed, absolutely nothing. The developers won't learn how to utilize more than 4 threads overnight, the sooner AMD fanboys (not meaning you here) realise that the better for them. Let me put it that way - I can lock a Bugatti into a closed room, without and door, and while having in fact 1000hp it will still do 0mph. Hardware is not the issue, 8-threadded i7s exist for a looong time on the market, it's the software that cannot keep up. It took the devs a decade to go from 2 threads to 4, and you really expect that to change all of a sudden? Firstly the market has to be well saturated with 8+ threadded CPUs, and secondly, even then the games will still be written for extremely weak Jaguar CPU, so we go back to the first point - people won't see any reason to buy expennsive, multicore CPUs when a simple 2C/4T CPU can run all the games in 60FPS perfectly. It's a closed loop, and it won't end untill next-gen consoles show up, because the software will be finally utilizing all those threads. Until then it's just a show and no go.
I heard that almost 2 years ago with Ryzen release, guess what? Nothing has changed, absolutely nothing. The developers won't learn how to utilize more than 4 threads overnight, the sooner AMD fanboys (not meaning you here) realise that the better for them. Let me put it that way - I can lock a Bugatti into a closed room, without and door, and while having in fact 1000hp it will still do 0mph. Hardware is not the issue, 8-threadded i7s exist for a looong time on the market, it's the software that cannot keep up. It took the devs a decade to go from 2 threads to 4, and you really expect that to change all of a sudden? Firstly the market has to be well saturated with 8+ threadded CPUs, and secondly, even then the games will still be written for extremely weak Jaguar CPU, so we go back to the first point - people won't see any reason to buy expennsive, multicore CPUs when a simple 2C/4T CPU can run all the games in 60FPS perfectly. It's a closed loop, and it won't end untill next-gen consoles show up, because the software will be finally utilizing all those threads. Until then it's just a show and no go.
the way progress has slowed down, you'll be able to get ten+ years out of your next enthusiast cpu, So if you need to build a pc and want to keep the base (cpu/mobo/mem) for a decade, why'd you go 2C/4T.
It is not really about learning how to utilize more than 4 threads.
The fact is that paralelize code is hard... a way hard task to do and even so some tasks can't be parallelized at all.
We are just this year getting games that benefit from 6c/12t but it's mostly constrained by what console cpu are capable of and right now the work loads in games can mostly be done on a 4c/8t processor due to the weakness in console cpu (edit: 4c/4t ARE suffering performance problems in some recent games). There are games that benefit from 8 threads as expected when console are many cores - it's just the load is so low it doesn't matter much for more powerful pc processors.
It will likely be used in apple computers, which I heard potentially inspired the tachibana computers used in that series.i know its not but i really wish NAVI was a Serial Experiments Lain reference
I fucking love you. Lain is my favorite anime of all time.i know its not but i really wish NAVI was a Serial Experiments Lain reference
I am not saying they aren't being competitive right now, I know what the meme used to represent, but they are still doing "more cores". this time hyperthreaded and more efficient cores, but it is still applicable literally and not what it used to be in essence.How is it any close to true when the roles completely reversed? to refresh your memory: This meme represented a incompetent amd whos only answer to intel was adding more cores while neglecting other aspects
Since then AMD made major strides with Zen arch if anything the meme applies to Intel who has been stagnant lately
I fucking love you. Lain is my favorite anime of all time.
Fun fact: The computer voice in Lain is actually a old Apple like text to speech voice.
Edit: Fucking auto correct...
Do you see the incompetent clown in the pic no? you claim the meme is still applicable to AMD because of more cores, going by that logic intel should be in the pic because all they are doing is adding more cores lately. Hell it could be used for every CPU manufacturer in the world: x86, powerpc and arm since they are all adding MORE CORES as you put it, so whats the purpose of singling amd out for?I am not saying they aren't being competitive right now, I know what the meme used to represent, but they are still doing "more cores". this time hyperthreaded and more efficient cores, but it is still applicable literally and not what it used to be in essence.
Lol... I think you're a few years behind. Not even a 4c/4t is enough anymore for modern games, let alone 2c/4t... Look at the i5 7600k. It gets beat by a lower clocked Ryzen 2600X in the example below... Right now, the minimum is 6 threads for optimal performance.even then the games will still be written for extremely weak Jaguar CPU, so we go back to the first point - people won't see any reason to buy expennsive, multicore CPUs when a simple 2C/4T CPU can run all the games in 60FPS perfectly.
Lol... I think you're a few years behind. Not even a 4c/4t is enough anymore for modern games, let alone 2c/4t... Look at the i5 7600k. It gets beat by a lower clocked Ryzen 2600X in the example below... Right now, the minimum is 6 threads for optimal performance.
4c/4t is incapable of minimums above 60 fps.You say that 4C/4T isn't enough anymore only to post benchmark results where almost every single CPU reaches well above 60FPS (and that's even with irrelevant Ultra settings)... I will repeat once again - average Joe doesn't care as long as he plays at 60FPS, anything above it - may it be 80, 100, 120 and so on - nobody with common sense cares, and won't throw few hundread bucks on a new CPU/GPU/mobo when the games are already running perfectly fine.
4c/4t is incapable of minimums above 60 fps.
Minimums are an indication of smoothness. And there's a reason they picked 1% lows, rather than the absolute minimum. That is to account for that exact scenario you mention.Nobody cares about minimums either, especially that in most case scenarios those minimums are reached right after the loading screens, while the scene isn't yet generated and you have a black screen for a split second, and are never seen again during the actuall gameplay.
Minimums are an indication of smoothness. And there's a reason they picked 1% lows, rather than the absolute minimum. That is to account for that exact scenario you mention.
Those people indeed buy consoles, and most likely wouldn't game on PC.And yet again - average consumer couldn't care less. I understand it might be very hard/impossible for you to acknowledge that not everyone is a gaming enthusiast and can't does't want to spend a fortune on his PC, but that's just the way things go. Ordinary people don't even go to the settings menu at all, they just launch the game and hit play immediately, play on default settings with whatever the fremarate is, and - wait for it - enjoy it! Average Joe is not a typical gaming forum nerd that cares about numbers first and foremost, all he cares in pure entertainment, and resoluton, framerate, etc. has nothing to do with it. I mean - people play on 200-250$ consoles in 900p 30FPS and fully enjoy the games, so people with pretty much ANY PC at this point have even less concerns regarding the performacne.
But... Let's assume you're right. Even if we say you're right, the 6 cores that Zen 2/Ryzen 3000 offers, is the optimum for performance, compared to any CPU that can handle only 4T,. If the leak is accurate, of course.
So, your argument is that lowest common denominator doesn't care even if they get 1% lows below 60FPS... so everything else doesn't matter?And yet again - average consumer couldn't care less. I understand it might be very hard/impossible for you to acknowledge that not everyone is a gaming enthusiast and can't does't want to spend a fortune on his PC, but that's just the way things go. Ordinary people don't even go to the settings menu at all, they just launch the game and hit play immediately, play on default settings with whatever the fremarate is, and - wait for it - enjoy it! Average Joe is not a typical gaming forum nerd that cares about numbers first and foremost, all he cares in pure entertainment, and resoluton, framerate, etc. has nothing to do with it. I mean - people play on 200-250$ consoles in 900p 30FPS and fully enjoy the games, so people with pretty much ANY PC at this point have even less concerns regarding the performacne.
The upgrade cycle exists. Not everyone is going to want to upgrade immediately. Some are due for upgrades, and sometimes parts die. You seem to be arguing that a lack of a massive sudden flood to upgrade means the whole thing is only worthy of our apathy. With all due respect, this is a ridiculous notion.But even if, going all the way back to my initial post - how many people will really feel the need to upgrade their current CPU (or GPU)? Especially with the rumored Zen2 + Navi based, 4K60 consoles sitting around the corner? Ironically I think AMD will cannibalize their offer if the consoles specs turned out to be true.
So, your argument is that lowest common denominator doesn't care even if they get 1% lows below 60FPS... so everything else doesn't matter?Having lower standards means low end parts are acceptable to them. More thrilling news at 10pm? You're also forgetting the generally higher API overhead on PCs that consoles don't suffer from.
I tend to consider an average pc gamer to generally go for mid range parts i.e. the sweet spot for value and performance. I feel like those people would care if they knew their 1060 they paid good money for is being held back by a meh CPU.
The upgrade cycle exists. Not everyone is going to want to upgrade immediately. Some are due for upgrades, and sometimes parts die. You seem to be arguing that a lack of a massive sudden flood to upgrade means the whole thing is only worthy of our apathy. With all due respect, this is a ridiculous notion.
AMD won't give a damn if you forgo buying a Zen2 PC part to get one of the new consoles, they still win in either case.
If the consoles are a massive jump in power they're going to have the pricetag to match. Far more likely to see lower end parts with lower clockspeeds so they can hit palatable market prices, power budgets and fab yields.
I'm well aware of the niche status and assume no such thing. I haven't clubbed you in with "the unwashed masses" or anything similarly asinine (I don't think like that) so avoiding the hyperbole would be nice. I do not think FPS in the 50s is "literally the end of the world". I surely prefer 60+ but smoothness is key.That's actually correct. Again, you, Ascend etc. forget/reject the fact that whole majority of gaming community doesn't visit gaming forums/sites AT ALL, we all here (and other forums combined) represent MAYBE 5% of the entire gaming popultation, you guys assume that all of the BILLIONS of PC users all over the world visit gaming sites on a daily basis, with such a belief we can't have and constructive conversation. Typical gamer doesn't know about such thing as 1% lows, because, well, it's only 1%, to put it into perspective, within every 1h (3600s) of gameplay you get 36s of lowest measured framerate, and that's not even continuous 36s, rather half a second here, half a second there, so who with a common sense cares (or even notices it)? Where the rest 99% runs at 80-100FPS? 99% vs 1%, if you ask anyone on the street what's more important you'll get a total zero answers for the latter, guaranteed. The 1% (or even 0.1%) lows, frametimes, etc. started to be measured just recently, in the past 30 years or so every site used nothing else than a simple average framerate to measure performance, and yet, nobody had a problem with it, nobody even noticed or cared what's the lowest FPS is of the played games, people actually always cared what's max FPS to be fair. And then again, you act like 5xFPS for half a second is literally end of the world, no mentally healthy person will ever think "holy cow my PC is so outdated! Time to upgrade!". Hell, you would be shocked (as I am myself), for how many people 40FPS is perfectly smooth... Most people don't use FPS counter, to begin with. They simply play games, not numbers.
Looking at the Steam hardware survey a 1060 is still the most popular card by a few solid % followed, yes, by a 1050Ti a 1050 then a 1070.So again you're living a false belief - i5/R5 + 1060/580 is (in the eyes of average person) an expensive gaming PC, that's the enthusiasts go-to setup (when the money doesn't allow them for more of course), while average Joe sits on a i3/R3 + 1050Ti/570 or below, and if you browse YT you would be surprised how well such rigs can handle 60FPS on Medium to High settings. And that's more what majority of people ever need, I mean - it's already twice of what consoles offer, and costs barely more.
Enough revenue to keep them alive even if it isn't a king's ransom. If lower binned/non-perfect zen PC silicon ends up in consoles they are going to be enjoying gravy there. Having a good use for "bad" silicon is a big efficiency improvement over pumping out custom Jaguars specifically for the consoles.Sort of, AMD will be a winner anyway, I cant' disagree, but bare in mind that margins on consoles are much much lower compared to PC, where AMD already sits on just 3x%, so from consoles they will barely have any profits (like they already do from PS4/XB1).
I make no assumptions nor guarantees on whether AMD will make real headways into the market. They've had the best parts in the past and not received the share it should command. It is what it is.I could go on and on with the discussion, but I will end it right here, the time will eventually tell who was right, but seeing as both Ryzen and Polaris, as well as their refreshes, didn't storm the market at all, I see absolutely no reasonable reason to believe thing's will change with the upcoming hardware, as I said - they won't offer anything that's already on the market for quite a some time.
PS5 and Scarlett could really be intriguing...
95W Zen2 8 core chiplet
75W Navi chiplet
The big power use items are only 170W!
Also, since they aren't limited to the AM4 socket size due to it being custom, thee things could really be beasts.
they won't waste 95w on the CPU. it will be a 8core/16thread CPU but it will be underclocked and undervolted enough, that they can use the bulk of available power for the GPU. more like 120W+ to the GPU and 50W at most for the CPU.
Zen for APU won’t be like Zen for desktop so any TDP comparison is useless.
APU Chips are more in line with mobile and have features cut off... I will be very surprise if SMT is implemented in APUs for consoles.
The Zen2 used in APUs is called Renoir or Dali... not Ryzen or Matisse like the Desktop version.
Zen for APU won’t be like Zen for desktop so any TDP comparison is useless.
APU Chips are more in line with mobile and have features cut off... I will be very surprise if SMT is implemented in APUs for consoles.
The Zen2 used in APUs is called Renoir or Dali... not Ryzen or Matisse like the Desktop version.
The original PS4, while playing a game at 1080p, drew approximately 148W per Digital Foundry's testing, but the refined PS4 Pro/PS4 Slim drew 155W (4K) and 80W (1080p) respectively. I probably wouldn't expect anymore than 150-160W @ 4K on 7nm.Even this is crazy talk. 170W is the higher end of what I expect the whole console to use at the wall. The CPU+GPU using that alone is just silly and isn't happening IMO.
Whether a chiplet design or a monolithic APU, the combined CPU/GPU won't use much more than 100W. Add in all the other bits like RAM/UHD/WiFi/BT/HDD/FAN and secondary chips/RAM and the total will soon head toward 170W....
PS5 will definitely have more than 8 cores.
PS5 will definitely have more than 8 cores.
Smt takes up quite a bit of tdp, at least on my oc 5960x. When you look at 9900k situation, it is still sucking up loads of tdp. I do not expect ps5 to use smt, is a good thing.
Yes people here are mistaken because it's not Navi in PS5 it's called Arcturus, basically Navi customised from the ground up.
I think they'll be needing to find a happy medium because VR requires a high framerate and it requires two different images for each eye. I'd personally be concerned about both.If PS5 is going fully into VR as the rumors say, then it's the GPU that's going to be the biggest concern, not the CPU.
I think they'll be needing to find a happy medium because VR requires a high framerate and it requires two different images for each eye. I'd personally be concerned about both.
Definitely. Digital Foundry made a good argument about checkerboard rendering. I think it'll be common along with dynamic resolutions next generation.It just popped up in my head - checkerboard rendering for the rescue? They can render two images at a mere 720-900p at 90-120FPS, and then upscale the whole thing to 1440-1800p. They can also run it at just 60FPS and interpolate to 120, like PSVR already does. Those both techniques combined would make VR not so demanding as a "brute force" rendering does.
I think many people have no idea how HT/SMT actually works. Long story short - it's not a fully functional thread, that can do whatever the developer needs at any given moment. And that's the reason I am 99,99% sure we won't see it in any gaming console, ever. The optimization would be practically impossible, or the games would need to be developed 2-4x longer than they already are to use the multi-threadding to at least some extent. Given the IPC and clock speeds Ryzen has compared to Jaguar, we are talking about 4-5x processing power withi the same core count, think about it like the PS5/XB2 would have 32-40 core Jaguar. Really, those 12 threads (or even 12 cores as some suggest) are completely unnecessary, especially that they wouldn't come for free.
It most decrease performace in games than help... it is a console for games after all.Maybe, but SMT is about 5-6% die area cost and when the software is designed around it the efficiency gains more than pay for it.