Destiny 2 will be able to take advantage of high core/thread counts on PC
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
They went from games only utilising 4 threads this time last year in the majority of titles to utilising 32 threads? Yeah, I don't buy that either.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Supporting and taking advantage of are two different things
Exactly, spot on. But that being said, games are getting better at core utilization, if Prey can be used as a "good" example. It seems to use all 8 cores on my Ryzen rig fairly well. It's not pinning all 8 cores / 16 threads at 100% or anything, but it does seem to spread the load out fairly well. It's a good sign IMO. Progress is good.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
Agreed. Unloading more off any core and spreading it out even if it's barely anything is good. Just makes your cpu more efficient in the sense that it's consuming all this power but half the cores are doing nothing but running full speed. Mine as well get some use out of them. I still don't think it'll spread it out more than 8 cores.
Supporting a cpu is the business of the OS. If a game doesn't take advantage of the extra threads at least to some degree there's no point in pointing out that it supports the CPU.
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
You just contradicted yourself.
Where? Any game running on an OS which supports the i9 cpus "supports" i9 cpus. It's irrelevant information.
AlienALX
Well-known member
I think people need to learn more about threading and how it works. Loading a game over more cores means only that those cores get less work to do. The true beauty of multithreading is freeing up cores to work on other things. So for example multitasking.
You do not, and never will not, need 32 cores for gaming. In fact right now you only "need" four. Some games are starting to use more but you will notice the performance hardly changes.
If I understood those charts yesterday then the top end Epyc will cost $4000. The cheapest 32 core, IIRC, was about $1700 or so. The price scales as I thought it would do.
Thus, those CPUs for the foreseeable at least will not be used in any sort of gaming environment. They will also likely be seen as more than one CPU. AMD said they have done everything they can to bring down latency but yeah, not only will something need code for many cores it will also need code for more than one CPU.
Most of this is just AMD's reinvention of their enterprise line, that basically died when Bulldozer came out. It is not for us.
You do not, and never will not, need 32 cores for gaming. In fact right now you only "need" four. Some games are starting to use more but you will notice the performance hardly changes.
If I understood those charts yesterday then the top end Epyc will cost $4000. The cheapest 32 core, IIRC, was about $1700 or so. The price scales as I thought it would do.
Thus, those CPUs for the foreseeable at least will not be used in any sort of gaming environment. They will also likely be seen as more than one CPU. AMD said they have done everything they can to bring down latency but yeah, not only will something need code for many cores it will also need code for more than one CPU.
Most of this is just AMD's reinvention of their enterprise line, that basically died when Bulldozer came out. It is not for us.
SPS
Moderator
This isn't true, CPUs with lower clock speeds need all the cores they can get. Also some engines like Destiny's rendering engine has really good multithreaded throughput going of their GDC presentation.
Also I agree with Seeka, support must mean take advantage in this context otherwise it's irrelevant information. Any game that supports x86 can run on high core CPUs.
