393
Single threaded performance was the only reason to go Intel.
Maybe this will push more game developers to develop games that use multiple cores? I know nothing about game development.
That has been happening for the last decade, but it’s really hard.
Most AAA game studios target consoles first. Their in-house or external porting teams will then adapt it for Windows, but by then major engine decisions will likely have already been made in service of supporting the Ryzen/RDNA based Xbox Series and PS5 consoles. Smaller studios might try to target all systems at once but aiming for the least common denominator (Vulkan, low hardware requirements). Switch is a bit of its own best when trying to get high performance graphics.
Multi threading is mostly used for graphics, sound, and animation tasks while game logic and scripting is almost always single threaded.
I bought Ryzen 3950x 16 cores 32 threads.
The first thing I noticed is some AAA games only utilize 8 cores. When you go multi threaded, it’s a matter of adding more threads which can dynamically selected based on the host hardware. AAA game studios are going the bad practice route.
I understand if they port an algorithm optimized to run on specific hardware as it’s. But, a thread count?
There is only so much that can be multi-threaded, beyond that the overhead just slows things down (and can cause bugs)
More simulation type games (city skylines etc) can multithread more (generally) while your standard shooter has much less that it can do (unless you have AI bots etc)
Plus it only takes one unthreadable task to bottleneck the whole thing anyway.
My point here is the developer managed to split the load evenly between 8 threads. How come they cannot do it for 16?
The keyword, evenly, means all 8 threads are at 100% while other 8 threads are at 1-2%.
You'd need to look at the actual implementation, it's hard to speculate from a tiny amount of data. What game are you referencing?
And as someone who has done multi threaded programming I can tell you that for games it is unlikely that they can just add more cores. You need work that truly can be split up, meaning that each core doesn't needs work to do that doesn't rely on the results from another core
Graphics rendering is easy for this and it's why gpus have a crazy number of cores. But you aren't going to do graphics compute on the cpu
For that number to be 8 though suggests that there's just a "number of workers" variable hard-coded somewhere.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
it’s a matter of adding more threads
You can't ask 300 people to build a chair, and expect the chair to be finished 300x faster than if a single person would build it.
Also, to make it more accurate to what multi-threading does, none of those 300 people can see what the others are doing. And the most reliable ways of sending messages to each other involve taking a nap (though it might be brief, you might wake up in an entirely different body and need to fetch your working memory from your old body or worse, from RAM).
Or you can repeatedly write your message until you can be sure that no one else wrote over it since you started writing it. And the more threads you have, the more likely another one wrote over your message to the point where all threads are spending all of their time trying to coordinate and no time working.
So 8 cores is doable but 16 no?
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wish all the computer parts companies would only release new products when they are definitively better rather than making them on a schedule no matter what. I don't want to buy this year's 1080p gaming CPU and GPU combo for more than I spent for the last one with the same capabilities, I want the next series of the same part to be capable of more damn it.
Inflation has entered the chat
Every *flation seems to exist solely to make me sad and miserable...
Lifeboat/Life jacket inflation is pretty much always good. Airbags cause harm going off early.
Then for deflation, a person’s ego can be deflated for good reasons, maybe.
Unless you inflated it while still onboard the sinking aircraft.
That's what happens when some in society are able to "print" as much money as they damn well please and the rest of us have to work for it ...
Think of the quarterly profits, won't someone please think of the shareholders?!?
/s
load more comments
(1 replies)
The article mentions the results are probably because of Intel's focus on AI, but it's more likely that this was because of Intel's focus on making their chips use less power. Laptops with the new generation have a significantly better battery life.
wasn't Intel the one which raised the bar of TDP on laptop CPUs in the first place? so they could win in CPU benchmarks
How's the performance per watt?
Oh wait. Nevermind, Intel sucks anyway. If it's not performance issues, it's hardware exploits. Not to mention Intel's support for genocide in Gaza.
load more comments
(10 replies)
On a technical level, it's hard to say why Meteor Lake has regressed in this test, but the CPU's performance characteristics elsewhere imply that Intel simply might not have cared as much about IPC. Meteor Lake is primarily designed to excel in AI applications and comes with the company's most powerful integrated graphics yet. It also features Foveros technology and multiple tiles manufactured on different processes. So while Intel doesn't beat AMD or Apple with Meteor Lake in IPC measurements, there's a lot more going on under the hood.
comes with the company's most powerful integrated graphics yet.
Not a particularly high bar there...
I wonder if these have increased ram latency due to the chiplet design. These are the first mobile chiplet I've seen, aside from desktop-replacements using am4/am5 ryzens.
Hopefully Anandtech will have more detailed look whenever they ever get their hands on a sample.
Intel is making the transition to ARM -and eventually RISC-V- inevitable.
Legacy compatibility always has had a cost, i guess its finally meaningfully showing up.
That's silly. But I'm pretty sure AMD is pretty happy with the situation.
At how many watts?
Only a TJ’s worth.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-Ultra-7-155H-Processor-Benchmarks-and-Specs.783323.0.html
Has various tests and results. Looks like TDP is 23 watts and the range during tests is 30-77 watts with one at 90 but given that it was tested at idle, I don't know what to make of it.
Say it with me: For the shareholders!
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2024
393 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59710 readers
1827 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS