AMD Bulldozer is here, oops!

[Katana1000S]

Adding to this, some time back I read an article from a programmer about how difficult it was to make a program truly multi threaded, without going into detail you can make a one threaded program quite (in their skill levels) easily, going to two core was double the difficulty and dual threaded, but doable, after that it became extremely hard work in a sort of Universe expanding size to keep up.

I think there is a reason Intel have stayed at 4 cores for now (apart from the 6 core XEONS for a select small market) They know the market and knew AMD could not pull this off, even their projected market of Ivy Bridge will stretch to 6 cores as a max for 2012 as well.

AMD going for the first 8 core joe smuchk CPU dirt cheap seems like a bad idea in the long run ... IMHO.

Small steps AMD, not big lunges.

[adonys]

Originally Posted by Katana1000S

Adding to this, some time back I read an article from a programmer about how difficult it was to make a program truly multi threaded, without going into detail you can make a one threaded program quite (in their skill levels) easily, going to two core was double the difficulty and dual threaded, but doable, after that it became extremely hard work in a sort of Universe expanding size to keep up.

I think there is a reason Intel have stayed at 4 cores for now (apart from the 6 core XEONS for a select small market) They know the market and knew AMD could not pull this off, even their projected market of Ivy Bridge will stretch to 6 cores as a max for 2012 as well.

AMD going for the first 8 core joe smuchk CPU dirt cheap seems like a bad idea in the long run ... IMHO.

Small steps AMD, not big lunges.

it greatly depends on the kind of game and graphics needed.

For a game like IL2, a multithreaded/multicore approach is easily doable, as it is mainly about computing CEM, Physics and AI for a multitude of objects from game's world.

Have 4 cores? just divide the number of AI planes on three (to leave a core dedicated to main game's thread, and player's plane CEM/Pshysics computations needed), and compute each bunch on it's own core (with each airplane having it's own thread on the core doing its bunch of airplanes). And divide all render threads on all 4 cores.

[Katana1000S]

Originally Posted by adonys

it greatly depends on the kind of game and graphics needed.

For a game like IL2, a multithreaded/multicore approach is easily doable, as it is mainly about computing CEM, Physics and AI for a multitude of objects from game's world.

Have 4 cores? just divide the number of AI planes on three (to leave a core dedicated to main game's thread, and player's plane CEM/Pshysics computations needed), and compute each bunch on it's own core (with each airplane having it's own thread on the core doing its bunch of airplanes). And divide all render threads on all 4 cores.

Easy as that eh? please submit your CV to AMD ASAP.

[adonys]

That was about game development, not processor design..

thing is, atm graphics can't use 4 cores at 100%. yet, no developer is interested in using the remaining power on improving other parts of the gameplay experience, as long as today the difference between games regarding sales is only given by the graphics..

hopefully, all of them will achieve photorealistic graphic soon enough.. and then they'll have finally to look for other ways to make the difference between games when it come to sell them

Remember the old spectrum days? fitting up all the graphics and coding into only 48/64/128k of memory was a time which guaranteed similar graphics to most of the games.. and the result was that game developers were focused on making interesting gameplay in order to make their games stick out of the on-market mob..

[Katana1000S]

Originally Posted by adonys

That was about game development, not processor design..

thing is, atm graphics can't use 4 cores at 100%. yet, no developer is interested in using the remaining power on improving other parts of the gameplay experience, as long as today the difference between games regarding sales is only given by the graphics..

hopefully, all of them will achieve photorealistic graphic soon enough.. and then they'll have finally to look for other ways to make the difference between games when it come to sell them

Remember the old spectrum days? fitting up all the graphics and coding into only 48/64/128k of memory was a time which guaranteed similar graphics to most of the games.. and the result was that game developers were focused on making interesting gameplay in order to make their games stick out of the on-market mob..

Photo realism?

You still make it sound easy, get your resume/CV sent off to AMD/Intel, not to mention the game studios, you will be an instant billionaire.

PSnce you have made it shortly (and i recommended you and all) will you pay off my mortgage and pay for a once in a life time holiday for me and the wife in the Caribbean, two weeks would be fine.

Cheers.

[adonys]

sure, you troll! and now go away

btw, I am working in game developing industry as lead designer and senior producer.. so I am supposed to know what I'm talking about.. at least marginally

[Katana1000S]

Originally Posted by adonys

sure, you troll! and now go away

btw, I am working in game developing industry as lead designer and senior producer.. so I am supposed to know what I'm talking about.. at least marginally

You seem to have all the answers, all you have to do now is fix it.

[BaronBonBaron]

From the tomshardware.com review of the FX-8150.

"In the very best-case scenario, when you can throw a ton of work at the FX and fully utilize its eight integer cores, it generally falls in between Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K—which is where it should appear all of the time given a price tag between those two most relevant competitors."

"Sometimes FX manages to outperform the higher-end -2600K, but other times it’s embarrassingly bested by its predecessor in threaded workloads."


And that's the biggest problem for BD, it falls on it's face when the workload isn't well-threaded.
Hopefully AMD gets this fixed for next years "Piledriver".

But until then, for gaming:
Intel i5/i7 = Intense/High-End level gaming.
AMD Phenom II = Medium/high level gaming.
AMD Athlon II = Budget/Medium level gaming.
AMD Llano = Entry-level gaming.


Post Edited to clarify that in my little chart, I'm only talking about how the CPU's gaming performance; if I was talking about multitasking or something else, then the Phenom II would be higher up.

[TonyD]

Originally Posted by BaronBonBaron

...

Intel Sandy Bridge = High-End gaming.
AMD Phenom II = Medium level gaming.
AMD Athlon II = Budget level gaming.
AMD Llano = Entry-level budget desktop.

I wouldn’t agree with this, purely because ‘game stations’ due not require bleeding-edge processors to function correctly, merely adequate ones. The cpu forms only one part of a good gaming rig, and should be balanced with the other components – if your desire is quad graphics, you’ll require an overclocked 990x to get the full benefit of the all those cards; for a single or even dual cards, a Phenom-II is way fast enough. My current system is a bit quicker than my son’s i5 2500k machine because my 6970 is a bit quicker than his 5870, although the difference is hardly noticeable. There are a few games that need fast processors, but these are the exception, and even then the difference is largely academic. Most modern games don’t even require a quad-core cpu to work correctly, although more are starting to take advantage of them. (hopefully CloD in the not too distant future )

Edit: Having recently built a Llano –based system, I can confirm that you can game on one – hardly an ‘Entry-level budget desktop’.

[He111]

Glad i didn't wait and bought a sand bridge, i bet Intel's share price jumped on this news.

.