nobody (nobody.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 3, 2015 1:35 am wrote:
> 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!

Don't think so.

First, those services don't take up even few percent of CPU. You'll get bigger utilization from monitoring software then all those other programs and services together.

Second, tight optimization to target platform versus more general code. (One of good examples can be x264 or some synthetic benchmarks like AIDA64) From bigger use of various instructions extensions through CPU specific optimizations to removed abstractions for GPU and thus higher dependency on HW specifics.

Threading differences won't likely be cause. More likely bad coding or not really using PC HW to full extent. (PC Gamer has nice series analyzing ports - like http://www.pcgamer.com/tales-of-zestiria-port-analysis-durantes-verdict/)

What game are you talking about in this case?