pc gamers is this true

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Bosskiller500 (334 posts) -

The new consoles are

backward

compatible with PC-class programs. Existing PC games and programs should port fairly easily to console, if one counts a new OS interface and perhaps a need to optimize for multiple cores as "easy."

And programs written for a console in the PC style should port similarly easily to a PC. BUT...

The consoles have a fundamentally different architecture: They use APU-style common memory. In contrast, a PC with a separate video card has separate main memory and video memory, and simply does not have common memory. No such PC can be bought or built.

While the APU approach has pluses and minuses, the minus for compatibility is that best APU efficiency involves data in common memory being worked on "simultaneously" by CPU cores and GPU cores. That option simply is not available on a PC with a separate video card. The only PC architecture similar to a console is an APU without a separate video card. And available APU's are not as strong as those in the consoles.

As console programs change design for maximum console efficiency (to appeal to the most-profitable market), they may become difficult to port to a normal PC. Possibly we could see releases with both a new "console" engine, and the old "PC engine." But only the console engine will continue to develop, and that will only work with common memory.

got it from a post from neogaf

#2 Posted by AMD655 (4495 posts) -

THE ONLY TRUTH

#3 Posted by Bosskiller500 (334 posts) -

pc gamers can't refute this

#4 Posted by MonsieurX (26888 posts) -

Can mods deal with this troll already?

#5 Posted by wis3boi (30258 posts) -

Can mods deal with this troll already?

like, melt his pc/tablet/phone while we're at it

#6 Posted by Bosskiller500 (334 posts) -

no one can actually give an answer this

#7 Posted by MonsieurX (26888 posts) -

no one can actually give an answer this

Then why do you bother asking?

#8 Edited by AMD655 (4495 posts) -

no one can actually give an answer this

This can answer no actually an one give.

#9 Posted by Fishsticklover (247 posts) -

#10 Posted by DirkXXVI (467 posts) -

Can mods deal with this troll already?

It's impossible. He's a boss killer. And Mods are like bosses for forums. If the mods go against him he'll kill them. It's all there in his user name. If it wasn't true he wouldn't be able to use it.

#11 Posted by ronvalencia (15065 posts) -

The new consoles are

backward

compatible with PC-class programs. Existing PC games and programs should port fairly easily to console, if one counts a new OS interface and perhaps a need to optimize for multiple cores as "easy."

And programs written for a console in the PC style should port similarly easily to a PC. BUT...

The consoles have a fundamentally different architecture: They use APU-style common memory. In contrast, a PC with a separate video card has separate main memory and video memory, and simply does not have common memory. No such PC can be bought or built.

While the APU approach has pluses and minuses, the minus for compatibility is that best APU efficiency involves data in common memory being worked on "simultaneously" by CPU cores and GPU cores. That option simply is not available on a PC with a separate video card. The only PC architecture similar to a console is an APU without a separate video card. And available APU's are not as strong as those in the consoles.

As console programs change design for maximum console efficiency (to appeal to the most-profitable market), they may become difficult to port to a normal PC. Possibly we could see releases with both a new "console" engine, and the old "PC engine." But only the console engine will continue to develop, and that will only work with common memory.

got it from a post from neogaf

PS4's CPU still has a peak 20 GB/s total memory bandwidth. Most of PS4's 176GB/s memory bandwidth is allocated towards the GPU.

AMD Mantle or HSA driver stack removes the software barrier between video memory and main system memory.

On the PC...

1. Dual channel DDR3-1600 memory has 24 GB/s peak bandwidth.

2. The total bandwidth for PCI-E version 3.0 16 lanes is 32 GB/s. Needs Intel Ivybridge or AMD Kaveri.

From http://fabricengine.com/2012/07/gpu_computation_technology_preview/

This 3rd party app running on beta HSA driver on discrete AMD Radeon HD 7800.

The AMD HSA technology platform has the goal of providing a heterogeneous computation platform in which both CPU and GPU cores access and manipulate memory identically. HSA will enable complex data structures with pointer indirection to be shared between the CPU and GPU. Not only will no copying of data between different memory spaces be necessary, but the pointers imbedded in a complex data structure will be usable without change on both CPU and GPU cores.

In collaboration with AMD, the Fabric Engine development team has extended the KL compiler and Fabric Engine Core execution environment to support GPU computation on high-end AMD GPUs. The primary means by which this preliminary work was possible was the availability of an LLVM back end for AMD GPU hardware.

The animated scene was run on a workstation with an AMD A10-5800K APU with both integrated graphics and a discrete Radeon HD 7800 card; however, only the discrete card was used for GPU computation and OpenGL rendering for these tests.

--------------

Notice HSA feature road map's "Extend to Discrete GPU". Fabriceengine's HSA example points to the on-going R&D for 2014 release.

#12 Posted by psymon100 (6138 posts) -

lol

So when developing for PC, you ignore a large customer base, customers like myself with dual core Pentiums, and those with i3's, i5's, i7's FX8320s and so on ... and instead make your version of the game so it only runs on sufficiently powerful APUs of which the audience is miniscule? Obviously not going to happen as it doesn't make good business sense.

Plus, what Ron says about the software barrier between sys ram and vram. The issue you raise is moot.

#13 Edited by adamosmaki (9280 posts) -

i think i lost a couple if IQ points.

#14 Edited by Rage010101 (5470 posts) -

Can mods deal with this troll already?

#15 Posted by BSC14 (3263 posts) -

I don't know if it's true or not because I didn't really read it with much thought.

Here is what I do know. PC is already more next gen than the new consoles...all you have to do is look at BF4 for proof of this. I also know that as time goes on PC will continue to pass these "next gen", and I use that term VERY loosely, just like they have every other "generation".

Optimization of static crappy console hardware can only go so far....sorry kids, you're not nearly as "next gen" as you thought.

#16 Edited by napo_sp (166 posts) -

no, the biggest problem with pc games are the serious lacking ability for CPU draw calls due to the necessity to use 'higher level programming' to compensate with the diversity in pc hardware configs.