-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
intel 8 core?
- Thread starter caithomas44
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,162
- Location
- South Wales
who cares about crysis? why would anyone want to play a game thats out of date, but can play smoothly 1 year after its been out?. Much better games will be around then and easily support 4+ cores imo.
It'll be 32nm and not draw a lot of heat i'd guess, hopefully they'll be able to shrink even more though, it's getting more and more crazy each time they do it. Just looking at Penryn the effectivity gained from that is crazy.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
why do you say that, in general farcry was considering very good, in terms of gameplay, and very much in terms of looking as good/better than games out over a year later.
general gameplay doesn't often change massively, i mean, have gun, in first person, shoot people. game have gimmicks, but the power suit that lets you do certain things, like superspeed isn't in reality all that different to having slo-mo ability, every game has its idea's, theres nothing that makes crysis "better" in terms of gameplay than even farcry from 4 years ago, its just different. some people prefer it some people prefer MOHAA from years ago.
but games are highly unlikely to go from current barely using dual cores to suddenly requiring 4 cores, let alone 8, within a year.
we are at a point where software really hasn't moved on massively. but thats largely down to, more than anything, coding complexity. crysis could be more realistic with better physics, better AI, but coding better physics/ai thats workable is very difficult. we're at the point where doing something vastly more complex would take a LOT more time and people, and its not really realistic to have games take more than 3-4 years. people don't really want to themselves work on the same game for 8 years, 3-4 years is a long time. longer is not gonna work, and more complexity without without extra time spent isn't going to happen just yet.
Yes I think the first 8-core Intel cpu's will actually appear as 16-core to the operating system due to (improved) HT making a comeback.What about Intel hyper threading?
Isnt that making a come back. With 8 core cpu being 16.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
By this time next year, X38, X48 and everything before it will be starting to look obsolete. I wonder about Nehalem though. Does anyone else think that Intel will use its new chipset to launch their GPU (Click on link: Larrabee) offering as well? I think they will definitely go with this.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
i think nehalem, even more than most, is being overhyped. people seem to think onboard mem controller will suddenly give it massively more power/faster. i've said it before.
ath xp/p4 were both pretty high latency chips, prescott very high latency, so the Ath 64 with onboard mem controller bought a large drop in latency, which seemed to make a big difference over the ath xp especially in games. but the c2d has a large chunk of logic dedicated to bringing latency down, half of which is obsolete and will be replaced when you move the mem controller on die, we aren't going to see p4 vs ath 64 latency differences when you drop a mem controller into nehalem, because c2d is freaking brilliant in that sense and already almost completely matches the ath 64 as it is. theres just a certain amount of latency you have to live with as, mispreditching, requesting info, request to get there, info to come back, pipeline to be flushed and new info to get pushed through just takes a certain amount of time as it is.
on board mem control is in the future probably going to lead to basic gpu's on die having a lot better performance, and pci-e direct access to the cpu has been talked about for a couple of years and that can all help, but only so much. if the c2d sucked with high latency, on die mem controller might make a big difference, because the c2d is so good already, expect small improvements from that alone. theres been long term talk about that being restricted to xeon and xeons marked up as $1000 QX editions, aswell because, its cheaper to keep mem controller off die, easier to upgrade if problems arise with a new chipset rather than new cpu, and intels cache heavier architechture means die size is pretty hefty already.
ath xp/p4 were both pretty high latency chips, prescott very high latency, so the Ath 64 with onboard mem controller bought a large drop in latency, which seemed to make a big difference over the ath xp especially in games. but the c2d has a large chunk of logic dedicated to bringing latency down, half of which is obsolete and will be replaced when you move the mem controller on die, we aren't going to see p4 vs ath 64 latency differences when you drop a mem controller into nehalem, because c2d is freaking brilliant in that sense and already almost completely matches the ath 64 as it is. theres just a certain amount of latency you have to live with as, mispreditching, requesting info, request to get there, info to come back, pipeline to be flushed and new info to get pushed through just takes a certain amount of time as it is.
on board mem control is in the future probably going to lead to basic gpu's on die having a lot better performance, and pci-e direct access to the cpu has been talked about for a couple of years and that can all help, but only so much. if the c2d sucked with high latency, on die mem controller might make a big difference, because the c2d is so good already, expect small improvements from that alone. theres been long term talk about that being restricted to xeon and xeons marked up as $1000 QX editions, aswell because, its cheaper to keep mem controller off die, easier to upgrade if problems arise with a new chipset rather than new cpu, and intels cache heavier architechture means die size is pretty hefty already.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 37
Where does it end? 16 cores? 32 cores?
Are they just going to increase the cores now?
It's a little worrying imo
Are they just going to increase the cores now?
It's a little worrying imo
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,697
Why is it worrying? More cores + sub-core specialization are likely to be the future. IMO this gives better total performance than the cranked up memory speed that we got with single core, although you will need programs written for it, which is common for massively CPU dependent tasks currently and will become more prominent.
Why is it worrying? As soon as programmers start writing more dynamically scalable code for multi-core systems, it'll work a treat. Exponentially increasing amounts of computational power = good.
Seems like CPUs are becoming more GPU like.
Seems like CPUs are becoming more GPU like.
The problem with core specilisation though is the cpu isnt very efficient for things like physics and AI. But I am eagerly awaiting the days when other uses like those will be added to the cpu. One core for the enemies AI, one for *** Physics, one for smoothing out the load time between zones to be non-existant, etc. It would be sweet.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
Does anyone else think that programming-wise, the core logic is just not there to use even 4 cores efficiently? I think specialised tasks like GPU computation is very well suited to multi-cores, but I think we will have to wait a bit before the "middle-ware" as it were, can actually cope with the task of mulit-core computation.
Are there any games at the moment which can use 4 cores at the same time? I heard the marketing blurb from Crytek about how essential a [Intel] Quad Core processor is for the game, but I have yet to see any benches that confirm this.
Are there any games at the moment which can use 4 cores at the same time? I heard the marketing blurb from Crytek about how essential a [Intel] Quad Core processor is for the game, but I have yet to see any benches that confirm this.
from the general chit chat on here I gather that crysis uses one core to maximum and barely uses the other one. I know that hellgate london is dual core optimized but only uses the second core for srtupid weather effects and to ease loading times. So as for quad core... I'd say dual core still needs proper saturation in the market first.
Damn Damn and double damn! I fell into this last time I bought and ended upt with an AGP board just as PCIe came out, I'm trying not to do similar but....
Makes the Spider sound more appealing tbh, at least the 2008/2009 chips are rumoured to be AM2 compatible.
Makes the Spider sound more appealing tbh, at least the 2008/2009 chips are rumoured to be AM2 compatible.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
Definitely will not be compatible with X38 or 48 as far as I know, as they are doing awawy with FSB and going for an Integrated Memory Controller. This implies a completely new chipset will be required. Which is why I think it sucks if you buy an X38 board for future-proofability. Although that is how it normally is these days in the hardware world. Tech refreshes are taking place annually (look at the GTX for example).