By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
fatslob-:O on 25 June 2019
Edit Thread
Pemalite said:

How do you come to 5%? 
And yes, 8-cores is common knowledge at the moment.

25% of 8 cores is 2 cores, which is a good amount of CPU time for the OS, background duties and so on, especially as these devices tend to do more and more in the background as time goes on... And with 4k streaming becoming more prominent, they may need the additional CPU cycles.

Current consoles have 7 cores available which means that an OS takes at most 12.5% of total CPU compute capacity. Consoles are most likely going to come with a 3+GHz clock (likely 3.2) and that would translate to roughly 4x faster performance (~3%) and that's not even taking into account that it can potentially go to 0% if Sony or even Microsoft decide to offload to auxiliary ARM cores ... (this does not take into account the superior I/O performance of next generation systems as well)

4K will be pretty irrelevant for next generation as I imagine most devs will choose to design content around RT at 1080p with better AA rather than 4K since most people won't have access to a 4K display at the start of next generation. 4K is maybe something to target during the middle of next generation but even with 4K streaming there's no reason why we couldn't use fixed function dedicated units for that ... 

Pemalite said:

You have misconstrued my statements to be something it's not.
I am suggesting that 6-cores is uninspiring to me, not that AMD should stop selling them.

If AMD was to release a 6-core CPU for the mobile space I would actually be a little more excited, but their mobile efforts are pretty average at the moment.

AMD's 12 and 16-core parts however are extremely tantalizing for me... Remember, I have had 6 or more CPU cores for about a decade now, so anything less than 8-cores after all these years is pretty "meh" from my point of view.
AMD had 6-core mainstream parts (I.E. The Phenom 2 x6 1090T) as far back as 2010 remember, which was actually my first 6-core processor, I want things to move upwards a little faster for the entry and mid-range segments, especially on desktop.

I never once suggested they aren't compelling options for other users. - I am not one of those other users however.

So your point is that you're expressing your opinion even when I made it clear that AMD had other options in mind for you ? So what was this argument even about ?! 

As far as the portable space is concerned, I don't think AMD cares about it all that much so they're probably going to leave it to brand power to do all the impressing and I wouldn't think about doing parts with more cores until well AFTER the launch of next generation since a few high-end application developers are still struggling to scale more than beyond 4 cores ... (particularly MMOs, Far Cry, Civilization, and other guilty developers)