Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Ideal (Hypothetical) Gaming Processor

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pyre Vulpimorph
    started a topic The Ideal (Hypothetical) Gaming Processor

    The Ideal (Hypothetical) Gaming Processor

    Hi everyone. I've been wondering what the "best" types of gaming CPUs would be, and I would like to know what it takes to make an idealized gaming-oriented processor.

    Suppose I had a fabless semiconductor company, and I was contracted to design the CPU for a new game console. The GPU was already determined to be something relatively powerful, like a die-shrunk Radeon HD 6870. The goal is to make the chip as small and cheap as possible, but will never bottleneck the graphics processor.

    What sort of difference does a processor's ISA make? Suppose I had licenses for MIPS, ARM, SPARC, and other risc-based architectures. Is the ISA really that important, or just the micro-architectural "plumbing" underneath?

    What types of instructions do modern video games make the most use of? Do games find integer performance most important, floating point performance, or both? If floating-point calculations can be offloaded to the GPU, can the CPU's floating-point units be excised to make the chip smaller and cheaper, or would that harm system performance? If FP power is still important, would adding complex 256- or even 512-bit units be beneficial to total system performance, or just a waste of space?

    How important is cache size? Intel's SNB i5, i7, and SNB-E i7 processors have 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 MiB of L3 cache per core, but looking at benchmarks from Anandtech and other places, there doesn't seem to be too much difference. At least, not enough difference to justify the added space and expense. How much cache per core is "enough"?

    As for the core count itself, would it be best to make a quad-core chip and call it a day? I know most game engines today simply do not scale past four cores, and simultaneous multithreading is pretty much useless for games. But, since consoles are expected to last around 5 years, would making a 6- or 8-core CPU prove beneficial in the future, so long as the chip stayed within the client's budget?

    I know this is just a lot of speculation, but I'm just curious what makes games tick.

  • Toasty
    replied
    In response to the OP's question:

    In general, video games benefit and take advantage of high-bandwidth low-cache systems. If you take a look at the PS2 for example (and old console, yes, but relevant to this example) you'll find that it had a very small amount of onboard RAM and cache compared to other computing devices of it's day. Even today, if you look at the current consoles, they too had small amounts of RAM and cache even on the day of their initial release. I can't say much in regards to the benefits of increased FP performance on the CPU, but I do know that large amounts of cache are often times unnecessary in a gaming console.

    This is a very old article, but worth a read if you're interested in console architectures: http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2000/04/ps2vspc.ars

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by fackamato View Post
    Go away, stop trolling.
    defence yourself = trolling ?

    your claim about "trolling" is trolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • fackamato
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    again FUD i use the english wikipedia to show you there is a difference between Logic and Rationality!
    because of this you can not use rational for logic!
    because its not the same!

    also FUD... in german a noun is a noun like in english is a noun a noun you can't speak a noun like a adjectiv just because you are to stupid to know the noun version of the word!
    Go away, stop trolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Wildfire View Post
    Natural languages need not be symmetrical. This means not every word in one language must have an exact representation in another language. This is what I meant when I said it may be possible to express something with a single word in English while you need several words in German (and vice versa).

    In other words: There are two nouns in German, "Logik" and "Unlogik", but this does not mean there need to be two nouns in English as well. There either is logic or there is an absence of logic. There is no real opposite, hence no "unlogic". Something can be illogical if it doesn't follow a certain logic (which means there is an absence of logic), but that doesn't make it "unlogic". The word does exist in German because it makes certain things easier to express, but if you think about it logically, the word Unlogik actually makes no sense.
    again FUD i use the english wikipedia to show you there is a difference between Logic and Rationality!
    because of this you can not use rational for logic!
    because its not the same!

    also FUD... in german a noun is a noun like in english is a noun a noun you can't speak a noun like a adjectiv just because you are to stupid to know the noun version of the word!

    Leave a comment:


  • Wildfire
    replied
    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    [...] but then after a long fight i called here dump and stupid and other bad names she get the point noun vs adjective.
    this means illogical is wrong and unlogic is right because i translate a german noun to a english noun and not to a adjective.
    Natural languages need not be symmetrical. This means not every word in one language must have an exact representation in another language. This is what I meant when I said it may be possible to express something with a single word in English while you need several words in German (and vice versa).

    In other words: There are two nouns in German, "Logik" and "Unlogik", but this does not mean there need to be two nouns in English as well. There either is logic or there is an absence of logic. There is no real opposite, hence no "unlogic". Something can be illogical if it doesn't follow a certain logic (which means there is an absence of logic), but that doesn't make it "unlogic". The word does exist in German because it makes certain things easier to express, but if you think about it logically, the word Unlogik actually makes no sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Qaridarium
    replied
    Originally posted by Wildfire View Post
    Your Star Trek wiki cites a fan made movie. They used "unlogic" as a noun to define something that is the opposite of logic (also a noun), which is not necessarily the same as illogical (an adjective). Simply put: They made that word up because it makes sense in their context.
    i write the same with a friend hours ago and she make the same mistake as you do.
    she also think the adjective illogical is right in the first time.
    but then after a long fight i called here dump and stupid and other bad names she get the point noun vs adjective.
    this means illogical is wrong and unlogic is right because i translate a german noun to a english noun and not to a adjective.

    and you also do this mistake "Unlogik" is a noun not a adjectiv
    but there is another way to prove it wrong.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
    vs
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

    the words Logic and Rationality are incompatible words
    this means irrational and unlogical are not the SAME!
    Rational is not the same as Logical!
    it can be Rational to be unlogical!
    and Rationality can be unlogical!

    Originally posted by Wildfire View Post
    Yes, great, Unlogik being a German word totally proves that it absolutely must exist in the English dictionary, my fault
    this link was only to make sure you unterstand what kind of german word i try to write.

    and the german word was a "Noun" not "adjectiv" and the german word was a word based on the word "Logic" not based on the word "Rationality"

    Originally posted by Wildfire View Post
    If you want to discuss the English language try using a dictionary like http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/unlogic.asp, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlogic or http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spel...ish/?q=unlogic. None of these know "unlogic" as a word.
    this only prove these sources are bad ! because the Logic and the Rationality prove it within my links.

    you just acting unlogicaly and irrationaly if you don't accept my prove.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wildfire
    replied
    Originally posted by Pickle View Post
    ok there we have it, you are constructing a final image to put into the buffer to be displayed. Petteri then the Q's raytracer doesnt support "unlimited fps"
    The "big idea" behind Q's hypothetical raytracer is that it stops constructing the image once a predefined timelimit elapses. If you set the timelimit to 0 it stops constructing the image immediately (hence a blank screen), but your framerate is theoretically "unlimited". The "murmuring rate" simply expresses how many rays the raytracer manages trace before the timelimit elapses. You can't do both vsync and unlimited, because vsync equals a timelimit > 0.

    I can't believe I'm actually discussing language and grammar on Phoronix...

    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
    Unlogik is a german word: http://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Unlogik its a combination of 2 fragmentation of un-logik
    and in english logic is writen with C and "undo" is the same in english its a combination of 2 fragmentations un-do
    Yes, great, Unlogik being a German word totally proves that it absolutely must exist in the English dictionary, my fault

    If you want to discuss the English language try using a dictionary like http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/unlogic.asp, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlogic or http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spel...ish/?q=unlogic. None of these know "unlogic" as a word.

    The link to "http://www.beatportal.com/artists/unlogic/" on the other hand doesn't prove anything. This is an artist's username for crying out loud. Yes you can also find examples of people using "unlogic" because they're just as confused by different prefixes as you are. That doesn't make its usage correct (Maybe it will be in the future, because natural languages evolve). Your Star Trek wiki cites a fan made movie. They used "unlogic" as a noun to define something that is the opposite of logic (also a noun), which is not necessarily the same as illogical (an adjective). Simply put: They made that word up because it makes sense in their context.

    http://translate.google.de/#en|de|illogic, woops, it translates to Unlogik. At also translates unlogic because it’s a common spelling mistake.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic (Try searching the article for examples of illogic).

    Btw, go ahead and translate my first sentence to German using Google. Doesn’t that translation look unnatural to you? You can make out what it says, but it sounds weird. And on some occasions machine translations can be either wrong or even possibly insulting.
    Last edited by Wildfire; 03-14-2012, 01:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Petteri
    replied
    Originally posted by Pickle View Post
    Petteri then the Q's raytracer doesnt support "unlimited fps"
    I know. I just ignore the first 6-7 pages to avoid headache.

    The point seems to be that it is easy to guarantee fixed rendering times (fps) with raytracer (especially if random mess is considered to be correct output )
    If we are not going to extremes, it does make some sense because slight noise in image (murmuring) isn't as annoying as judder and stutter caused by changing rendering times.

    But it isn't a magical solution because after making fps synced to display, you have to adjust rendering resolution, refresh rate or raytracing parameters to get the amount of murmuring down.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pickle
    replied
    real time means the rendering is finished in time to push the data to the output buffer.
    ok there we have it, you are constructing a final image to put into the buffer to be displayed.

    Your frames per second would be how often you do this complete transfer per second.
    You would have tearing because your transfer is not in sync with the screen refresh rate. (meaning your updating the frame buffer as the hardware reads it to display on the screen)
    You use murmuring to decrease the time to render, thus maintaining a frame rate or higher framerate than without murmuring.

    Ray tracing is no different than rasterization in that it does computational work in order to produce a 2d image for display. Both can use different techniques to shorten the time it takes to produce the final image. In fact your murmuring is basically the same idea as level of detail or reducing screen resolution.

    Both can have "unlimited fps" based on how they are written, ray tracing is limited by the CPU and rasterization is limited by the GPU. I have a simple game engine that uses rasterization and it can produce as many images as the GPU can calculate. Of course I can also limit it to vysnc.

    This Q's raytracer isn't "hard real-time" raytracer. The renderer is synchronized to display and every frame is rendered as long as it has time before next display refresh.
    Petteri then the Q's raytracer doesnt support "unlimited fps"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X