AMD - Piledriver chitchat

[Biscuit]

dont worry - according to the intel fanboys , its all fake and a patch will `restore` intel to where they should be

Well that's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility, but this is a damn fine show for AMD. Perhaps this is AMD reaping the benefit of working with the developers in the same way Nvidia have done in the past, they obviously pushed the CPU and GPU angle through on the partnership.

Does this new engine perhaps use one of the newer instruction sets that this AMD processors are supposed to be so good with?

Edit:
I wonder how well the final version runs a 5800K, some of the beta reviews look promising on low settings! I would certainly like to see how much is lost by the cache.
Main reason i ask is im about to build a mITX setup for a mate using one.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

dont worry - according to the intel fanboys , its all fake and a patch will `restore` intel to where they should be

It is simply purchase justifcation on their part,and see anything that diminishes their purchase in performance or price as an attack on themselves. However,they are a bunch of fools,considering how quickly the market changes.

Anyone,objectively would welcome better use of AMD CPUs in gaming,as it will help drive prices down.

Well that's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility, but this is a damn fine show for AMD. Perhaps this is AMD reaping the benefit of working with the developers in the same way Nvidia have done in the past, they obviously pushed the CPU and GPU angle through on the partnership.

Does this new engine perhaps use one of the newer instruction sets that this AMD processors are supposed to be so good with?

Edit:
I wonder how well the final version runs a 5800K, some of the beta reviews look promising on low settings! I would certainly like to see how much is lost by the cache.
Main reason i ask is im about to build a mITX setup for a mate using one.

Crysis2 did not do too badly on AMD CPUs and used the same engine. However,Crysis3 seems to be more taxing on the hardware.

[scaryjim]

... Crysis2 did not do too badly on AMD CPUs and used the same engine. ...

That implies a well threaded engine, that is either int-heavy or uses the latest FP instructions to leverage maximum performance from the CPU. AMD have put a lot of effort into supporting new instructions, to the detriment of their legacy instruction set performance...

[watercooled]

I know we keep saying stuff along the same lines, but the new consoles might help reduce heavy use of legacy instructions in games.

Also, I wonder what this means for PhysX? AFAIK it's used in some form on current consoles, but use on next consoles would likely mean either porting to GCN or using a code-path from this century on the CPU, either of which could carry over to desktop. Either that, or just not bother with it at all; the GPU bit only really adds some particle effects and there are plenty of other, more open, engines to choose from.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD Temash benchmark:

http://translate.google.com/translat...-och-prestanda

At 1.4GHZ it matches a 1.4GHZ SB Core i3 in CB 11.5!!!!!!!!!! It also uses a 128 shader GCN core too.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I know we keep saying stuff along the same lines, but the new consoles might help reduce heavy use of legacy instructions in games.

Also, I wonder what this means for PhysX? AFAIK it's used in some form on current consoles, but use on next consoles would likely mean either porting to GCN or using a code-path from this century on the CPU, either of which could carry over to desktop. Either that, or just not bother with it at all; the GPU bit only really adds some particle effects and there are plenty of other, more open, engines to choose from.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amd-te...-in-pc-gaming/

[watercooled]

Interesting, but I hope it's an open platform!

[Biscuit]

Interesting, but I hope it's an open platform!

I was wondering about this. Bad news for consumers if there is a proprietary standard going up against another one.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I was wondering about this. Bad news for consumers if there is a proprietary standard going up against another one.

AFAIK,the AMD developed standards were open,so anyone could implement them.

The poor performance of Nvidia GK104 based cards in Dirt Showdown with advanced lighting, was down to their relatively poor DX11 DirectCompute performance IIRC.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It looks like it uses DirectCompute:

http://www.techpowerup.com/180675/AM...-Detailed.html

It will run on any DX11 GPU:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...7&postcount=66

[Biscuit]

It looks like it uses DirectCompute:

http://www.techpowerup.com/180675/AM...-Detailed.html

It will run on any DX11 GPU:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...7&postcount=66

So based on the experience with Dirt:Showdown due to DirectCompute, does that suggest it will have poor performance on GK104 based graphics cards?

[kompukare]

Intel should really make it possible to run Havok on their IGPs. If only to stop all those 'I have the money to buy an i5/i7 and an expensive GPU, but I'm still forced to buy Intel's IPG' comments on forums all the time.

Of course, in mobile platforms that might backfire since mobile Sb/IB (and most like Haswell too) throttle like mad at high CPU & GPU loads. But for desktops, offloading physics to the IGP makes sense.

[kalniel]

Also, I wonder what this means for PhysX? AFAIK it's used in some form on current consoles, but use on next consoles would likely mean either porting to GCN or using a code-path from this century on the CPU, either of which could carry over to desktop. Either that, or just not bother with it at all; the GPU bit only really adds some particle effects and there are plenty of other, more open, engines to choose from.

PhysX runs fine in software on current consoles, so nothing stopping that from continuing. They only hobble the PC software version because they want to sell more GPUs.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So based on the experience with Dirt:Showdown due to DirectCompute, does that suggest it will have poor performance on GK104 based graphics cards?

Maybe. OTH,Geforce Titan probably will be fine.

[watercooled]

PhysX runs fine in software on current consoles, so nothing stopping that from continuing. They only hobble the PC software version because they want to sell more GPUs.

Yeah that's what I mean, but in this case it would be x86, and on cores smaller than those common in desktop computers, so they'd have less of a valid excuse for not updating it on PC.

[Terbinator]

DirectCompute performance is similar/where it should be on 3D Mark though.