Klimax (danklima.delete@this.gmail.com) on November 3, 2015 2:47 am wrote:
> 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?

The horror that is the FFXIII(-2) ports so far. Hopefully remake of 7 and also new one will come to PC bringing something more akin to older games.