Jukka Larja (roskakori2006.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 2, 2015 9:34 pm wrote:
> nobody (nobody.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 2, 2015 8:19 am wrote:
> > Symmetry (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on November 2, 2015 6:56 am wrote:
> > > juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com) on November 1, 2015 8:16 am wrote:
> > > > Games? Most people don't game on octo-cores, and many enthusiasts will prefer octo-core
> > > > Skylake. You also seems to omit the DX12 benchmark given to you. Even assuming that Zen
> > > > is 50--60% faster than Piledriver, octo-core Zen was behind quad-core Skylake on the game.
> > >
> > > I'd just like to point out that, baring causal gaming, most
> > > people play on an XBox or Playstation so actually
> > > do play games on octo-cores. Most modern AAA games are written for an octo-core system with PC support
> > > frequently tacked on as an afterthought and now that graphics drivers are moving to multi-threading I think
> > > that 8 cores or 4 SMTed cores will probably be the best gaming configuration going forward.
> >
> > Both consoles currently only have 6 cores used for games
>
> I think Xbox One has had "about seven" cores available since spring, unless
> you want to use Kinect. PS4 should have seven cores available in new SDK,
> but I'm not sure if any games have yet been released that support it.
>
> However, I'm somewhat skeptical about how well even AAA games are utilizing all the cores. Xbox 360 had
> six threads available and PS3 had SPUs. It didn't follow that all AAA games were multi-threaded well.
>
> As for comparisons to PC, even though Jaguar core is great leap forward from Cell and
> Xenon, it's still quite far from Haswell and Skylake. I wouldn't be surprised if a high-clocked,
> dual-core desktop i3 beat consoles even on well-threaded game code. I'd be very, very
> surprised if a quad-core i5 would lose with just about any game code.
>
> -JLarja
How about with Steam, Battle.net, messangers, browsers, etc. All open and more background stuff while running the game?

My i5 4570+750ti has trouble running a game that came out on the PS3 at 60fps. The game locks to 30 or 60. While 30 is still better then the PS3 (25-30) and blows the Xbox 360 out of the way (15-30) it takes having same AA, same resolution and lower shadow detail to run it at a mostly-stable 30fps with browser, etc open.

If I do parity with PS3 settings I get a solid 30fps in some areas and solid 60fps in others. With nothing else open.


It is not a great port, but, the GPU is a good 4x faster and the CPU is a lot faster, 5-10x?


Nice to see them freeing up another core on both systems!