hardware encoding uses GPU, 'software' encoding means no hardware acceleration, meaning all the work is done by the CPU.Am I missing something ?
How do you use hardware without software ?
20 - 30 % which games are we talking about here ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
hardware encoding uses GPU, 'software' encoding means no hardware acceleration, meaning all the work is done by the CPU.Am I missing something ?
How do you use hardware without software ?
20 - 30 % which games are we talking about here ?
Come on everyone knows that people don't have high end PCs to do production work, they have them to play games which by games I mean one specific emulator of course. /sAnd? I'm getting the message, you don't have anything else to back up your claims. So far we have four reviews backing up my numbers, a single bench showing 3700x and up being tied with 8086k/8700k and that's it.
And? I'm getting the message, you don't have anything else to back up your claims. So far we have four reviews backing up my numbers, a single bench showing 3700x and up being tied with 8086k/8700k and that's it.
And? I'm getting the message, you don't have anything else to back up your claims. So far we have four reviews backing up my numbers, a single bench showing 3700x and up being tied with 8086k/8700k and that's it.
Using just one emulator to determine performance is kind of weird. Just putting it out there that you can compile dolphin with AMD flags that would boost performance tremendously. Compilation flags can make a pretty big difference from native.
I linked benchmarks that backed up that Intel is faster in games and blows away AMD in emulators, and of course the response is "BUT ISN'T THERE MORE?"
What more do you want? It's already been objectively proven.
Come on everyone knows that people don't have high end PCs to do production work, they have them to play games which by games I mean one specific emulator of course. /s
You linked benches that show what I said, up to 10% faster in every games except emulators. Nobody is refuting that intel is faster in emulation, and if thats your use case, buy intel.
You didn't link anything that shows 20-30% in games as well as emulation, which is what you claimed, and claimed it more than once.
You also linked to a Reddit thread about building a system for emulation, that said pretty much nothing.
I'm asking you for sources on your claim that intel is 20-30% faster in games. I concede that in dolphin vs a 10900 Zen 2 is down by 20%. Can you show me the rest of the games you're claiming?
Lol, it feels like a troll post. Some barely noticeable differences in a handful of game benchmarks (@ 1080p) and emulating (which is very niche).You linked benches that show what I said, up to 10% faster in every games except emulators. Nobody is refuting that intel is faster in emulation, and if thats your use case, buy intel.
You didn't link anything that shows 20-30% in games as well as emulation, which is what you claimed, and claimed it more than once.
You also linked to a Reddit thread about building a system for emulation, that said pretty much nothing.
I'm asking you for sources on your claim that intel is 20-30% faster in games. I concede that in dolphin vs a 10900 Zen 2 is down by 20%. Can you show me the rest of the games you're claiming?
Um I'm not denying Intel is better for gaming. However, not knowing what you're talking about and saying idiotic things like compilation flags introduce buggy behavior which you haven't even tested yourself is ridiculous.Compilation flags that introduce buggy behavior which is why they're not included in release builds.
It isn't just one emulator. Intel smokes AMD in RPCS3. Look, I understand that you're fact denying fanboys, but you can't just write this off. Intel is better for gaming.
I actually don't think this is true. I haven't seen sales/use analyses recently, but at least a few years ago, say 5 years ago, most upper-tier CPU sales were to businesses. Now there are usually top-tier CPUs that are marketed toward gamers and not always offered by OEMs, and sure, those SKUs are going to favor gamers, but high-end workstations get tons of volume.The high end CPU market is driven almost entirely by gaming.
They're very obviously trolling at this point, each post gets more and more ridiculous and outlandish.Lol, it feels like a troll post. Some barely noticeable differences in a handful of game benchmarks (@ 1080p) and emulating (which is very niche).
Followed up with "I'm right, you're wrong" and "deal with it". Good stuff .
And? I'm getting the message, you don't have anything else to back up your claims. So far we have four reviews backing up my numbers, a single bench showing 3700x and up being tied with 8086k/8700k and that's it.
Come on everyone knows that people don't have high end PCs to do production work, they have them to play games which by games I mean one specific emulator of course. /s
They're very obviously trolling at this point, each post gets more and more ridiculous and outlandish.
I actually don't think this is true. I haven't seen sales/use analyses recently, but at least a few years ago, say 5 years ago, most upper-tier CPU sales were to businesses. Now there are usually top-tier CPUs that are marketed toward gamers and not always offered by OEMs, and sure, those SKUs are going to favor gamers, but high-end workstations get tons of volume.
Also I don't think it's fair to compare Zen 2 to Zen 3 performance, especially in something so oddly specific like emulation. We don't know how it will do across the board but in general, it sounds like Zen 3 will best current-gen Intel counterparts, or at least, trade blows. Core count isn't where it's at for the most part, even today with the upcoming next-gen consoles. Cores are small and cheap and add a degree of future-proofing. Gaming, at least for now, is single-thread performance-bottlenecked.
Not that you really need high end components for emulation, unless you're doing weird upscaling/modding/tweaking. That's not mainstream gaming, either.
If only I was elite enough to play 1080p on a $500+ cpu.Emulators are good benchmarks in the sense in most emulators you can totally remove GPU performance impact in a way more than say PC 1080p gaming performance or 720p even. I did a CPU overclocking impact review a long time ago on PCSX2 which were at the times AMD was heavily beating Intel (AMD64 X2 / Opteron vs Pentium 4) and discovered the amount performance boost you get pretty much were in-line with the overclocked CPU amount, it's a difficult scenario to find such a benchmark that involves games outside emulators. Nowadays there's typically internal rendering resolution scaling built in and various graphical effects which can increase the GPU load so much the GPU again becomes the bottleneck.
Anyway the potential bad thing about comparing Intel vs AMD in emulators again is probably the compilation flags and various instructions can provide a big difference, sometimes it can be the case one or the other might get a benefit more so than the other part. Also they are typically not utilizing multiple cores very well, typically one or two cores maybe, seldom more than that mostly due the added complexity so they represent better the IPC differences.
In PC gaming at 1080p for example the 10900K seems to have roughly 10% lead over 3900X. I think this upcoming AMD launch we might potentially turn that advantage around in favor for AMD even if leaks are accurate.
We are leaving the era of single thread performance and have been for some time even for gaming. Multithreading is the only thing that is allowing performance to increase moving forward.I actually don't think this is true. I haven't seen sales/use analyses recently, but at least a few years ago, say 5 years ago, most upper-tier CPU sales were to businesses. Now there are usually top-tier CPUs that are marketed toward gamers and not always offered by OEMs, and sure, those SKUs are going to favor gamers, but high-end workstations get tons of volume.
Also I don't think it's fair to compare Zen 2 to Zen 3 performance, especially in something so oddly specific like emulation. We don't know how it will do across the board but in general, it sounds like Zen 3 will best current-gen Intel counterparts, or at least, trade blows. Core count isn't where it's at for the most part, even today with the upcoming next-gen consoles. Cores are small and cheap and add a degree of future-proofing. Gaming, at least for now, is single-thread performance-bottlenecked.
Not that you really need high end components for emulation, unless you're doing weird upscaling/modding/tweaking. That's not mainstream gaming, either.
Yeah, I mean, people have been saying that for more than a dozen years now. I'm still waiting for it.We are leaving the era of single thread performance and have been for some time even for gaming. Multithreading is the only thing that is allowing performance to increase moving forward.
I don't know if it's my new SSD or if MSFT fixed FS2020, but the load times are super fast compared to before.Yeah, I mean, people have been saying that for more than a dozen years now. I'm still waiting for it.
Actually, I think with NVME and caching we're going to see bandwidth play a bigger and bigger role going forward.
We've been past single core performance for while now. As an example a single core vs a 4 core at a lower clock speed. In 99.9% of the games we have out today would do better on the quad over the single or even a 2 core over a single will be faster.Yeah, I mean, people have been saying that for more than a dozen years now. I'm still waiting for it.
Actually, I think with NVME and caching we're going to see bandwidth play a bigger and bigger role going forward.
Since dual-core was introduced, technically we've been past single-threaded performance. But multi-threaded gaming performance doesn't benefit nearly as much over those initial gains compared to real multi-threaded applications. The first two-core CPUs let you offload background tasks and OS stuff, which upped performance by about 10 percent. It wasn't until Windows 7 that multi-core support really started to benefit some games, and I'm sure there are specific games that are built to scale better, but you're still mosly looking at one master core passing off minor operations to other cores.We've been past single core performance for while now.
Since dual-core was introduced, technically we've been past single-threaded performance. But multi-threaded gaming performance doesn't benefit nearly as much over those initial gains compared to real multi-threaded applications. The first two-core CPUs let you offload background tasks and OS stuff, which upped performance by about 10 percent. It wasn't until Windows 7 that multi-core support really started to benefit some games, and I'm sure there are specific games that are built to scale better, but you're still mosly looking at one master core passing off minor operations to other cores.
Who is really waiting for Zen 3 to outperform Intel? Most of us like hardware and for those of us who know the actual deficiency in the architecture are just waiting to see if AMD fixes it. Basically it's good PC Hardware drama. But right now AMD is killing Intel specifically in the area where you believe it isn't necessary and that's SMT workloads. Why? Because schedulers are more multi-core aware than ever before and that's because that's where the gains can be made. Gaming consoles went SMT years before PC ever did. Why? Because that's where the gains were.If multiple cores made such a huge difference, we wouldn't have had to wait for Zen 3 for AMD to shine against Intel.
And now with console architecture parity with PCs multi-threaded games are going to be more and more common, and it’s honestly about time.So now we're gonna change the goal posts? Is dual quicker then single, Yes or no? Yes it is. Is quad quicker than dual? Yes it is. Having a discussion on benefit of gain is a completely different topic.
Who is really waiting for Zen 3 to outperform Intel? Most of us like hardware and for those of us who know the actual deficiency in the architecture are just waiting to see if AMD fixes it. Basically it's good PC Hardware drama. But right now AMD is killing Intel specifically in the area where you believe it isn't necessary and that's SMT workloads. Why? Because schedulers are more multi-core aware than ever before and that's because that's where the gains can be made. Gaming consoles went SMT years before PC ever did. Why? Because that's where the gains were.
No, it's not, it's that you can offload the OS and other functions onto other cores. The core that's handling the main game is still just as fast as it ever was. The gains don't stack, it's not like 2 cores = 110 percent, 4 cores = 130 percent and so on.So now we're gonna change the goal posts? Is dual quicker then single, Yes or no? Yes it is. Is quad quicker than dual? Yes it is.
I hope so too but we've also had multi-core consoles for several generations. Xbox One and PS4 were both introduced in 2013, and they weren't the first.And now with console architecture parity with PCs multi-threaded games are going to being more and more common, and it’s honestly about time.
Aside from the fact that gaming engines became multithreaded years ago. I'm just gonna highlight what you said and leave it there.No, it's not, it's that you can offload the OS and other functions onto other cores. The core that's handling the main game is still just as fast as it ever was. The gains don't stack, it's not like 2 cores = 110 percent, 4 cores = 130 percent and so on.
If you think singly thread is king try disabling all by one core and running Windows that way for a while.Yeah, I mean, people have been saying that for more than a dozen years now. I'm still waiting for it.
I never said that. That's like saying if single-thread performance is irrelevant we should cap our CPUs at 1Ghz on all cores.If you think singly thread is king try disabling all by one core and running Windows that way for a while.
My last stab at this and then I'm done.I never said that. That's like saying if single-thread performance is irrelevant we should cap our CPUs at 1Ghz on all cores.
That is not at all how core count scales performance, even in a simple example. It doesn't just overflow into the next logical processor, a single game can use an entire core by itself and still be CPU limited, even if all the other processes are offloaded onto other cores, with other cores not under load.(2005 - NOW) Single Core IPC * # of cores * Clockspeed = Performance
As above, this is terribly limited thinking.(2005 - NOW) Single Core IPC * # of cores * Clockspeed = Performance
That is not at all how core count scales performance, even in a simple example. It doesn't just overflow into the next logical processor, a single game can use an entire core by itself and still be CPU limited, even if all the other processes are offloaded onto other cores, with other cores not under load.
Let's say you have 5 cores running at 10GHz and an application that runs three main sets of threads. You've got a main game thread that requires a whole core at 10GHz to run smoothly. Let's call them 10 compute units. The other two sets of threads only require 5 compute units each, and the OS requires 2 compute units, and you also have 3 other programs in the background using 1 compute each for 3.
With that CPU, one core is fully saturated at 10 with the main core, and the four other cores can split the remaining processes between themselves without maxing out.
Now let's assume the game needs 12 compute units in its main set of threads, and the other two sets of threads require 6 computes each. Because a single core can only produce 10 computes at full tilt, even though none of the other processes are able to saturate the other cores, the main thread is still bottlenecked.
You can see this in many current CPU reviews. Gaming in general is CPU-bound by a single-core, even if other cores are tasked and under-utilized.
Here's an example that compares CPUs with similar clock speeds and similar architectures with different core counts: https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/9529/amd-ryzen-3600xt-3800xt-and-3900xt-zen-2/index.html You can see that there are plenty of tests where they are within a few percentage points of each other because they're constrained by a single core's performance, not the multiple cores available.
In well-multi-threaded applications, the extra cores make a huge difference. But in many other cases, the processing power of a single core determines the overall performance for the test.
As above, this is terribly limited thinking.
Care to expand on it?
PEMDAS?the formula he is using
PEMDAS?
Quick, lets derail this thread we no one is looking!
(1971-2005) Single Core IPC * Clockspeed = Performance
(2005 - NOW) Single Core IPC * # of cores * Clockspeed = Performance
The formula he gave stands as stated.Yet, he stated IPC first before multicore or clockspeed and therefore, not sure where it is limiting nor constrained, at least based upon the formula he is using.