Pemalite said:
atoMsons said:
This doesn't make sense for this argument. Strange blanket statement.
|
It makes perfect sense.
atoMsons said:
A CPU only provides a bottleneck in severe cases and there isn't one on the PS4, or the XBO.
|
Depends, I can point to a ton of games where the CPU is a bottleneck on the Xbox One and Playstation 4.
The CPU bottleneck will shift depending on the game itself and sometimes even the scene that is being displayed on the screen.
atoMsons said:
It's majority of the GPU to produce frames for a video game, 3D pipeline rendering.
|
The CPU assists in preparing those frames you know.
atoMsons said:
A CPU never provides 60 frames. A CPU is terrible at rendering 3D pipelines.
|
The CPU assists at rendering in many game engines... It was common especially in the 7th gen.
Shall I point out the rendering techniques the CPU was doing?
atoMsons said:
You clearly haven't any idea why a GPU bottleneck happens.
|
That is a bold assertion.
I was obviously "dumbing down" my rhetoric to make it more palatable for less technical persons that frequent this forum, if you would like me to stop, I would be more than okay to oblige and start being more technically on point?
atoMsons said:
The CPU is responsible for real-time actions, physics, audio, and a few other processes. If the bandwidth can't match that of the GPU, a bottleneck happens and you lose frames that you can actually use. Think of a partially closed dam. All of the sudden the data can't flow fast enough through the dam(CPU) because of a narrow channel.
|
Yawn.
The CPU is responsible for more than that... And you should probably list them, otherwise it is a little hypocritical if you are going to complain about my statement not being fully fleshed out and you go and do the same.
atoMsons said:
Now, 60 FPS is a GPU issue. That simple. This isn't a E8500 running a 1080 Ti.
|
It is a GPU and a CPU issue. - Sometimes even a RAM issue.
atoMsons said:
PS: Flops ARE everything. It gives a good baseline for performance, even outside of similar architecture in comparison. Just not on a 1:1 ratio in that case (per say NVIDIA/RADEON).
|
Bullshit it's not everything.
FLOPS or Single Precision Floating Point Operations... Is a Theoretical number.
By that admission alone, Flops is irrelevant... Not only are they irrelevant.. But Flops tells us absolutely nothing about the hardwares actual capability, it doesn't tell us the amount of bandwidth a chip has, it's geometry capabilities, it's texturing capabilities, whether it employs any culling to reduce processing load, whether it has various compression schemes like S3TC or Delta Colour Compression, it tells us nothing of it's quarter floating point/double floating point/integer capabilities... It tells us absolutely nothing.
It's just a theoretical number that is calculated by taking the number of pipelines * instructions per clock * clock.
********************
I will try and keep this as simple as possible... But lets take the Geforce 1030.
DDR4: 884.7Gflops.
GDDR5: 942.3Gflops.
That is a 6.5% difference in Gflops... And you said flops is everything.
And yet we get to the crux of the issue. Gflops doesn't tell us everything else about a GPU, only a theoretical component.
In short... The DDR4 version is often less than half the speed of the GDDR5 version.
But don't take my word for it: https://www.techspot.com/review/1658-geforce-gt-1030-abomination/
****************
Or hows about a different scenario? (There are so many examples I can do this all day.)
Hows about we grab the Terascale based Radeon 5870 that operates at 2.72 Teraflops? It should absolutely obliterate the Radeon 7850 that operates at 1.76 Teraflops, right? That's almost a Teraflops difference huh? Both AMD based.
And yet... Again... Flops is irrelevant as the Radeon 7850 often has a slight edge.
But don't take my word for it: https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/511?vs=549
Do you want some more examples of how unimportant flops are? I mean, I haven't even started to compare nVidia against AMD yet. Flops is everything right?
|
You don't read well. You try to be so defensive you miss the point and don't realize you're wrong. Only and last time responding to you.
1. You can't point out many cases on the PS4/XBO with CPU limitations to frames. Those "limitations" are on the AI and on other things you don't really see. You know nothing. Consoles are closed hardware, where the floating point is dead set for developers. You clearly don't understand my dam example, which is as simple as I can make for a noob. Bandwidth.
2. Why do you say dumb things like "The CPU assists in preparing those frames you know." Well obviously, if you read my post, you don't have to say anything like that. It's obvious I know this as I listed many processes the CPU handles in gaming. But when drawing 3D pipelines, a CPU hardly does any of it. How do you miss my point? I am baffled.
3. The CPU again, doesn't render very many frames. It's EXTREMELY poor at doing it, that is why it's the brain that sends information to the GPU. The CPU is also responsible for telling the GPU what to do. While the GPU job is rendering what we see on screen at any given time. Remember we are simplifying here. The CPU sees and describes the different objects on screen, their location and other things. That information is converted by said GPU. A GPU's cycle is far more demanding than a CPU's. This is where you see a "bottleneck". If a CPU can't tell what the GPU should do fast enough, workload is limited in a gaming production role.
4. Frames are NOT a RAM issue today. So many developers are lazy and don't want to load in textures, and other things properly. Poor optimization. Can't give you this point at all. This is painfully clear in console gaming. Moving on.
5. Ummm... "The CPU is responsible for more than that... And you should probably list them, otherwise it is a little hypocritical if you are going to complain about my statement not being fully fleshed out and you go and do the same." Mmm.. Yeah, I listed some areas. But again, you suck at reading and comprehension. Dropping this point. Yawn.
6. Again FLOP are a good indication of similar architecture. WHAT DO YOU NOT GET? And if they aren't the same arch, or close, it just isn't a 1:1 ratio. Again, WHAT DO YOU NOT GET? But it gives a very good estimate on the strength of a GPU. Different architectures work in a different way, that's why it can't be a 1:1 direct correlation, yet the Flops themselves aren't meaningless. Compare Flops of new arch to that of the older. Notice how Flops get higher all the time? So yeah, you can easily draw a hypothesis based on Flops, even a pretty damn accurate one once you take in a few other form factors. Moving on.
7. Not sure why you are talking about GPU memory. Memory works differently. Stop Googling arguments. Irrelevant.
8. I'm done. I gain nothing from this. You compared the 5870 and 7850. It's like nothing I said was even processed. I found it funny when you referenced that they are both from the same company. Oh boy... The same company doesn't use the same chips forever and put on turbo and stickers to make it go faster. LOL!
