How will games run on Nvidia Gpu's and Intel Cpu's when PS4 and Xbox3 are released

T

TroyX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
1,461
they are saying that every next-gen console game will be build from ground up on AMD hardware, and this is cpu and gpu.

now if you have a gaming rig with an Intel cpu and nvdia gpu what are we going to expect?

will devs put money and effort to make console games run smooth on PC on non AMD hardware?
 
Who knows and it will be interesting. AMD GPU + CPU could be the recommended config for gaming rigs in a year or two from now.
 
Well, CPU-wise I think there are almost no issues. They both support the same instructions, except from very specific ones. I believe it wouldn't be wise to have software optimized for a specific processor model. GPU-wise, it's a totally different story.
 
TroyX said:
they are saying that every next-gen console game will be build from ground up on AMD hardware, and this is cpu and gpu.

now if you have a gaming rig with an Intel cpu and nvdia gpu what are we going to expect?

will devs put money and effort to make console games run smooth on PC on non AMD hardware?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about too much about the AMD CPU vs Intel CPU. Intel and AMD share their x86 and x64.

But the part that makes me slightly uncomfortable is the AMD GPU playing a major role in future game development. It's not uncommon for developers to focus on console first then PC. Looking at my recent games from 2011-2013 most of them are still DX9C and very much a direct console port in some cases. I just have a handful of DX10+ games. If I want to get a Titan 2 in the future, would I be screwed by performance due to optimization for AMD hardware? Just something in the back of my mind :)
 
There's no reason nVidia hardware won't run fine. Nothing AMD does is proprietary. Nor do they engage in vendor lock outs. The only difference I think we'll see on the CPU side is scaling for more threads. This shouldn't hurt Intel performance as much as it should help AMD performance.
 
Relayer said:
There's no reason nVidia hardware won't run fine. Nothing AMD does is proprietary. Nor do they engage in vendor lock outs. The only difference I think we'll see on the CPU side is scaling for more threads. This shouldn't hurt Intel performance as much as it should help AMD performance.
Click to expand...

End thread.
 
singe_101 said:
Can they now start from PC and port to consoles more often?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think console games are put together on consoles using gamepads and console GUIs?

To the OP: a game that only worked on AMD GPUs and CPUs would limit itself to less than 26% of gaming PCs. Oh yeah, that game would be a smashing success.
 
Relayer said:
There's no reason nVidia hardware won't run fine. Nothing AMD does is proprietary. Nor do they engage in vendor lock outs. The only difference I think we'll see on the CPU side is scaling for more threads. This shouldn't hurt Intel performance as much as it should help AMD performance.
Click to expand...

You also have to consider the fact that some developers might use DirectCompute which if that's the case than AMD will have the advantage.

As far as CPU goes who knows. PS4 is said to have a 8-core 2ghz CPU...16ghz total. My i5 quad core is 4.5ghz a core...18ghz total. Now granted there's more to it that than total ghz, but even just going on this I'm positive that even a quad core Intel will be faster than AMD's octa-core...plus remember to that it IS an AMD CPU...so that 16ghz total would be like a 12ghz Intel.
 
Why will AMD have the advantage? Nv can run direct compute perfectly fine and have the fastest GPU available for direct compute.
 
JoeUser said:
You also have to consider the fact that some developers might use DirectCompute which if that's the case than AMD will have the advantage.
Click to expand...

If there's some advantage because of GCN's strengths compared to Kepler, then nVidia will have to pick their game up there. Like AMD had to do with tessellation. There won't be shifting off work to the CPU though that the GPU performs better just because it's not an AMD GPU. :cool:

JoeUser said:
As far as CPU goes who knows. PS4 is said to have a 8-core 2ghz CPU...16ghz total. My i5 quad core is 4.5ghz a core...18ghz total. Now granted there's more to it that than total ghz, but even just going on this I'm positive that even a quad core Intel will be faster than AMD's octa-core...plus remember to that it IS an AMD CPU...so that 16ghz total would be like a 12ghz Intel.
Click to expand...

That's sig worthy. :D

I never said it would hurt Intel's performance. Or meant to say that. All I meant was if the games took advantage of more cores it should help performance on AMD 6 and 8 core CPU's compared to what's typical with current games.
 
JoeUser said:
You also have to consider the fact that some developers might use DirectCompute which if that's the case than AMD will have the advantage.

As far as CPU goes who knows. PS4 is said to have a 8-core 2ghz CPU...16ghz total. My i5 quad core is 4.5ghz a core...18ghz total. Now granted there's more to it that than total ghz, but even just going on this I'm positive that even a quad core Intel will be faster than AMD's octa-core...plus remember to that it IS an AMD CPU...so that 16ghz total would be like a 12ghz Intel.
Click to expand...

It depends though. The PS4 won't won't have a CPU and GPU, it'll have an APU that does both on one die. The really cool thing about this is that both the graphics and system itself will be accessing the same pool of super fast GDDR5 memory, while our desktops still putz around on comparatively turtle-speed DDR3 RAM. This removes a huge bottleneck and creates some interesting potential for it that in some aspects will be years ahead of regular desktops (when DDR4 eventually comes out it will no doubt still only be a fraction as fast as GDDR5).
 
ghm3 said:
It depends though. The PS4 won't won't have a CPU and GPU, it'll have an APU that does both on one die. The really cool thing about this is that both the graphics and system itself will be accessing the same pool of super fast GDDR5 memory, while our desktops still putz around on comparatively turtle-speed DDR3 RAM. This removes a huge bottleneck and creates some interesting potential for it that in some aspects will be years ahead of regular desktops (when DDR4 eventually comes out it will no doubt still only be a fraction as fast as GDDR5).
Click to expand...

That's really nothing special, shared memory is how consoles are suppose to be designed. The XBOX 360 was a separate CPU and GPU with shared access to 512MB of DDR3. It was release back when our PC's were still "putzin" around on DDR2. It eventually became a CPU and GPU in one (Valhalla) as they pushed to reduce manufacturing cost.

The reality the CPU doesn't need DDR5 speed, the GPU does. It really doesn't matter that Intel is currently using DDR3, their CPU technology is far superior to AMD's right now.
 
Last edited:
JoeUser said:
As far as CPU goes who knows. PS4 is said to have a 8-core 2ghz CPU...16ghz total. My i5 quad core is 4.5ghz a core...18ghz total. Now granted there's more to it that than total ghz, but even just going on this I'm positive that even a quad core Intel will be faster than AMD's octa-core...plus remember to that it IS an AMD CPU...so that 16ghz total would be like a 12ghz Intel.
Click to expand...

I think I might have actually got dumber from reading that. You should have only typed the bolded statement, because everything else there needs serious revision.
 
demowhc said:
Why will AMD have the advantage? Nv can run direct compute perfectly fine and have the fastest GPU available for direct compute.
Click to expand...

Does anyone still take you seriously? Kepler was a relative flop in directcompute performance. It's actually lower than the previous generation. Directcompute performance is one of the advantages that AMD's HD7000 series has over Kepler.

The Titan, at best, is on par with the 7970 (in this area).
 
I hope we would not be forced to buy AMD hardware for gaming purposes, that would suck for PC gaming. The way it is right now is fine, you are free to buy whatever hardware you want to spend your money on.
 
Thanks for all the input..........................good to hear that it shouldn't be an issue.

I just want to note that all console ports that came to PC this current gen were from IBM cpu's, and x360 used AMD gpu and PS3 used Nvidia gpu.

The way I look at that, devs had no choice but to optimize all the PC games for intel, amd, and nVidia.

something just tells me that AMD has full control how games will run next-gen, I hope there wont be any problems on non-amd hardware.
 
evilsofa said:
Do you honestly think console games are put together on consoles using gamepads and console GUIs?
Click to expand...

I mean have a full PC game with dedicated servers, optimized, etc. and then also enable it for consoles, aiming, etc. Like Crysis 3 for the PS4.

Instead of the ports that come over and tell PC players "Press R2!!!" or crap like that.

Didn't the PC versions of Halo totally flop? Even if it was first developed on PC.
 
Obviously in the directcompute benchmark SLi isn't used.. not that difficult to work out.

It accurately shows the operations per second capable from each GPU.

What you fail to realise is performance of directcompute depends on the apps specific coding.

For example
45165.png



As you can see, Nvidia can handle that directcompute task no problem, and as has already been shown they have sufficient operations per second to do the job well enough given the coding. They wont have an issue with directcompute.
 
TroyX said:
they are saying that every next-gen console game will be build from ground up on AMD hardware, and this is cpu and gpu.

now if you have a gaming rig with an Intel cpu and nvdia gpu what are we going to expect?

will devs put money and effort to make console games run smooth on PC on non AMD hardware?
Click to expand...

remeber that CONSOLE games are CODED for that ONLY HARDWARE so they are very optimized for the console

PC games need to run on millions of models of CPU/GPU/MEM/MOBO etc...
 
JoeUser said:
As far as CPU goes who knows. PS4 is said to have a 8-core 2ghz CPU...16ghz total. My i5 quad core is 4.5ghz a core...18ghz total. Now granted there's more to it that than total ghz, but even just going on this I'm positive that even a quad core Intel will be faster than AMD's octa-core...plus remember to that it IS an AMD CPU...so that 16ghz total would be like a 12ghz Intel.
Click to expand...

You don't add up the GHz guy, it doesn't work that way.
 
demowhc said:
Obviously in the directcompute benchmark SLi isn't used.. not that difficult to work out.
Click to expand...

The link that I gave you was D3D performance, not Directcompute. Again, not a legitimate benchmark if It says that a 670 is faster than a 690 in D3D. Reading comprehension fail on your part.

demowhc said:
It accurately shows the operations per second capable from each GPU.
Click to expand...

Just not in real world usage.

demowhc said:
pic snipped
Click to expand...

Nice job cherry picking. However, if you don't cherry pick, but instead look at a suite of benchmarks, you get:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6774/nvidias-geforce-gtx-titan-part-2-titans-performance-unveiled/4

Like I said, the $900 GTX Titan is, at best, on par with AMD's sub-$400 card. If you want a card that's good on Directcompute AND your wallet, you get AMD. If you want the best Directcompute card you get...AMD (for now).

Try using facts instead of cherry picked results and faulty logic. You're smart enough to realize that you're not going to convince anyone that you're choice is correct when you yourself know that your choice is wrong.
 
I didnt cherry pick anything, I showed you an example of good performance in directcompute when coding allows. I even stated that.

Passmark is not ilegitmiate. It clearly shows the operations per second which are capable in directcompute from each GPU.

What can you gather from that? A/ the capability is there in terms of operations per second, and B/ with "friendly" coding the GPU's can handle directcompute no problem. It's only when using "unfriendly" coding performance is lower, but the same goes for AMD or any other vendor.

The rest of your post is pure flamebait with no substance.
 
JoeUser said:
You also have to consider the fact that some developers might use DirectCompute which if that's the case than AMD will have the advantage.

As far as CPU goes who knows. PS4 is said to have a 8-core 2ghz CPU...16ghz total. My i5 quad core is 4.5ghz a core...18ghz total. Now granted there's more to it that than total ghz, but even just going on this I'm positive that even a quad core Intel will be faster than AMD's octa-core...plus remember to that it IS an AMD CPU...so that 16ghz total would be like a 12ghz Intel.
Click to expand...

I really hope that you are joking. Jesus.
 
demowhc said:
The rest of your post is pure flamebait with no substance.
Click to expand...

My entire post was factual. You're trying, desperately, to find away for a $900 card to outperform a $400 card in one area. Face it, that's where AMD currently holds the lead. The Titan is a far superior card, no one doubts that. But in Directcompute, AMD currently has the lead.

But I'm done, because you already know this. You're just trying to justify your purchase and/or fanboyism.
 
Lol, no I'm pointing out Nvidia wont have issues with directcompute when it becomes widely used in gaming. I gave you examples along with each GPU's capability. I dont own Titan, nor do I think its worth the money.
 
Nvidia/AMD's "branded" games often run better on the other teams cards after the other team optimize things. Unless the games use something other than DX11 or use some weird additional coding it's probably not going to make much difference after the usual adjustments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top