This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Have any next gen games been confirmed to use more than 4 cores?

#11SinisterSlayPosted 8/7/2014 5:54:50 PM(edited)
ChromaticAngel posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
Doesn't using hyper-threading essentially slow down the real core so it can process two threads at the same time?
If true, then 4 maxed cores on an i5 should roughly equal 8 maxed cores on an i7 when a game is being considered.


Cores and hyperthreading are not really that simple. Multithreading was around before multicore CPUs were. Actually, that's how multi-core CPUs were invented, engineers looked for a way to make hardware optimized for multithreading. it's not like if you have a 4-core 8-thread processor that you can only run 8 threads at once. Your computer already runs more than 8 threads at once when idle.


You are confusing multi tasking with task switching. You CPU can only run 1 thread per core. The system kernel does time sharing (task switching) based on thread priority. Two threads can't run on 1 core, the kernel just alternates threads to try and give equal priority threads equal CPU time.
Hyper threading tries to get around that problem by letting a core run two threads at the same time.
A big change from windows 7 to 8 was to adjust core parking so windows prefers to use your other cores for lessor tasks, instead of trying to stack them all on a single core.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#12RoboXgp89Posted 8/7/2014 6:01:03 PM
I would argue next gen gaming has shown it can't use multiple cores.... at all.

The games will probably be less broken on the 3rd or 4th try, so developers can keep people buying their yearly games a little while longer.
#13rainedownPosted 8/7/2014 6:06:13 PM(edited)
SinisterSlay posted...
rainedown posted...
From what I've heard on the consoles the games don't actually have access to all of those cores, some are reserved for the ancillary things (OS, video recording, etc.). I'll have to see if I can find the information, though it's less relevant and just kind of interesting to see since it does usually have an impact on gaming development as a whole.

People have already said it--some games do already use more than 4, but none require it, and I doubt they will for a long, long, long, long time. I don't think anyone has even ever showed evidence of a similarly priced 8 core beating a 4 core (as in Intel vs AMD, an i7 will obviously beat an i5 but the cost difference is pretty big), some games just have a smaller gap between them.

The real kicker is the installation base for 4 cores is so huge, it wouldn't make sense for anyone to put out a game that uses more as a requirement (it's along the same reason developers didn't put out many high end games for kinect or move last gen, the installation base was like 5%). The return on profit would be a fraction of the possible return if it worked on 4 cores.

I do think we'll see more used in the future, as IIRC 6 cores are open on the consoles, so developers will get used to being able to utilize more, but they won't require it--and since those Console cores clock in below 2ghz I doubt it will even be worth putting money into more cores unless you're constantly doing other things while gaming (streaming, etc.).


If the engines are coded correctly, the game should run on any number of cores, 1 to infinity.
I thought DX11 and 12 added the ability to have multiple threads access to the same framebuffer and issue draw commands together? So as long as the video card can respond to the draw commands as fast as the CPU can provide them it should keep scaling.
In this situation hyper threading would give the exact same performance.


I'm not entirely following what you're saying there, as half of it seems to go with the gains of an i7 would have in a properly coded game, but then you say it should have the same performance as an i5?

:::edit::: It's sad but I just want to be clear that I'm really not following it, not trying to troll or anything lol.
#14SinisterSlayPosted 8/7/2014 8:21:01 PM(edited)
rainedown posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
rainedown posted...
From what I've heard on the consoles the games don't actually have access to all of those cores, some are reserved for the ancillary things (OS, video recording, etc.). I'll have to see if I can find the information, though it's less relevant and just kind of interesting to see since it does usually have an impact on gaming development as a whole.

People have already said it--some games do already use more than 4, but none require it, and I doubt they will for a long, long, long, long time. I don't think anyone has even ever showed evidence of a similarly priced 8 core beating a 4 core (as in Intel vs AMD, an i7 will obviously beat an i5 but the cost difference is pretty big), some games just have a smaller gap between them.

The real kicker is the installation base for 4 cores is so huge, it wouldn't make sense for anyone to put out a game that uses more as a requirement (it's along the same reason developers didn't put out many high end games for kinect or move last gen, the installation base was like 5%). The return on profit would be a fraction of the possible return if it worked on 4 cores.

I do think we'll see more used in the future, as IIRC 6 cores are open on the consoles, so developers will get used to being able to utilize more, but they won't require it--and since those Console cores clock in below 2ghz I doubt it will even be worth putting money into more cores unless you're constantly doing other things while gaming (streaming, etc.).


If the engines are coded correctly, the game should run on any number of cores, 1 to infinity.
I thought DX11 and 12 added the ability to have multiple threads access to the same framebuffer and issue draw commands together? So as long as the video card can respond to the draw commands as fast as the CPU can provide them it should keep scaling.
In this situation hyper threading would give the exact same performance.


I'm not entirely following what you're saying there, as half of it seems to go with the gains of an i7 would have in a properly coded game, but then you say it should have the same performance as an i5?

:::edit::: It's sad but I just want to be clear that I'm really not following it, not trying to troll or anything lol.


An i7 is just hardware level task switching.
-Edit
I guess I am not being very clear.
You should probably google how hyper threading works, that might explain it better.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#15RoboXgp89Posted 8/7/2014 8:42:18 PM
hyper threading has nothing to do with gaming lol it's for people who design stuff on their computer and have multiple programs left open, the i7 is essentially better for video media buffs

putting an i7 in a gaming rig is just showing off
#16PraetorXynPosted 8/7/2014 10:14:21 PM
RoboXgp89 posted...
hyper threading has nothing to do with gaming lol it's for people who design stuff on their computer and have multiple programs left open, the i7 is essentially better for video media buffs

putting an i7 in a gaming rig is just showing off


Or, you know, people might do other things besides game on their rig that the i7 helps with.
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9.png
#17BowsaaPosted 8/7/2014 10:15:25 PM
SinisterSlay posted...
Doesn't using hyper-threading essentially slow down the real core so it can process two threads at the same time?


No, it just uses resources that each real core has that would be left unused, sort of like letting it do 2 calculations (of different types) at the same time when that's possible. Since this isn't always possible, a HT'd single core isn't as good as a dual core of the same type, but you can get decent scaling.

At least that's my understanding of how it works.
---
RENAMON!! *weeping* YOU HAVEN'T BENT ANYONE OVER THE SINK AND SHOVED A "CHECK THE STICKY* UP THEIR ASS IN MONTHS!! *curls into ball crying*- Cither3000
#18darkus_f(Topic Creator)Posted 8/8/2014 3:13:24 AM
Thanks for all the replies guys. I'm going to build two rigs soon and I was wondering if i7s are worth it over i5s. I'll just spend the extra money on better GPUs.
---
2DS: 0447-5073-6549 | Rig: i7-3770, 12GB, GTX750, 700W
NP: Pokemon Y, Pokemon MD: GOI, TES: Skyrim, Dissidia Duodecim.
#19godplaysSNESPosted 8/8/2014 3:36:51 AM
RoboXgp89 posted...
hyper threading has nothing to do with gaming lol it's for people who design stuff on their computer and have multiple programs left open, the i7 is essentially better for video media buffs

putting an i7 in a gaming rig is just showing off


An i7 is already performing better in a few games. It'll continue to do so the more multithreaded games become.

If you want to see a good example of how good hyperthreading can be for games, look at Core i3 with hyperthreading on vs off.

For long term, an i7 is a much better choice than an i5.
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
#20rainedownPosted 8/8/2014 4:20:36 AM
SinisterSlay posted...
rainedown posted...
SinisterSlay posted...
rainedown posted...
From what I've heard on the consoles the games don't actually have access to all of those cores, some are reserved for the ancillary things (OS, video recording, etc.). I'll have to see if I can find the information, though it's less relevant and just kind of interesting to see since it does usually have an impact on gaming development as a whole.

People have already said it--some games do already use more than 4, but none require it, and I doubt they will for a long, long, long, long time. I don't think anyone has even ever showed evidence of a similarly priced 8 core beating a 4 core (as in Intel vs AMD, an i7 will obviously beat an i5 but the cost difference is pretty big), some games just have a smaller gap between them.

The real kicker is the installation base for 4 cores is so huge, it wouldn't make sense for anyone to put out a game that uses more as a requirement (it's along the same reason developers didn't put out many high end games for kinect or move last gen, the installation base was like 5%). The return on profit would be a fraction of the possible return if it worked on 4 cores.

I do think we'll see more used in the future, as IIRC 6 cores are open on the consoles, so developers will get used to being able to utilize more, but they won't require it--and since those Console cores clock in below 2ghz I doubt it will even be worth putting money into more cores unless you're constantly doing other things while gaming (streaming, etc.).


If the engines are coded correctly, the game should run on any number of cores, 1 to infinity.
I thought DX11 and 12 added the ability to have multiple threads access to the same framebuffer and issue draw commands together? So as long as the video card can respond to the draw commands as fast as the CPU can provide them it should keep scaling.
In this situation hyper threading would give the exact same performance.


I'm not entirely following what you're saying there, as half of it seems to go with the gains of an i7 would have in a properly coded game, but then you say it should have the same performance as an i5?

:::edit::: It's sad but I just want to be clear that I'm really not following it, not trying to troll or anything lol.


An i7 is just hardware level task switching.
-Edit
I guess I am not being very clear.
You should probably google how hyper threading works, that might explain it better.


I know ht, I just meant how you were applying it to what I said, I didn't know what you meant.