Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
I'm curious
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Are there any 360 launch titles using more than 1 core?
- Thread starter Agent Icebeezy
- Start date
Blackie{BA}
Banned
DOA4 will make full use of the 3 cores, this is what the developers says
I don't know if this is the truth
and there's an engine that use the 3 cores for
graphics, game code, physics, ai, hair simulation (yes, you read right, 'hair simulation)
I don't know if this is the truth
and there's an engine that use the 3 cores for
graphics, game code, physics, ai, hair simulation (yes, you read right, 'hair simulation)
Blackie{BA}
Banned
LakeEarth said:
right
we'll see heavy improvements with second and third software generation
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
I bet some games are not using all 3 cores (EA, Take Two I'm looking at you) and some games are making mild to good use of the cores (Kameo, COD2, NBA 2K6, etc.) but I doubt that any are pushing all three to anywhere close to their limits in an efficient manner.
Lunar Aura
Banned
the thought that games like condemned, kameo and PGR3 are barely scratching the surface of the 360s power is absolutely insane.
Blackie{BA}
Banned
each core is like a CPU, all the cores stays in a "die" (a little bit of silicon)
so in the x360 we have 3 core dual threaded
so is like 3 cpu, and each cpu can process two things at same time (so, with 3 core we have 6 total threads)
Joe said:excuse my ignorance but technically what is a core? MS says "3 cores running at 3.2ghz each". is that 3 processors? i hope im not the only one with that question
Xbox 360 CPU has:
1 chip
3 cores (CPUs) on that 1 chip
each core can process 2 "things" (threads) at once, so 6 things total
TekunoRobby
Tag of Excellence
I am mainly curious about Oblivion and PGR3 and how efficiently they use the core(s).
open_mouth_
insert_foot_
GhaleonEB said:
Instead of using 3 cores, Tony Hawk is making full use of 1/3 of a single core, baby!
Chittagong
Gold Member
pgr3 uses three, one for sounds and one for physics, iirc.
edit: could be AI, as well. Check the London GDC notes from the guys, they spoke about it there.
edit: could be AI, as well. Check the London GDC notes from the guys, they spoke about it there.
Lunar Aura
Banned
GhaleonEB said:
tony hawk is using the ethernet port and power supply. Fn' activision man.
TerryLee81
Member
Is the XBox 360 the first piece of hardware that has a 3 core cpu?
I mean, Apple uses the same processors in their G5, right? Why don't they have 3 cores?
Intel and AMD only have 2 cores atm, correct?
I mean, Apple uses the same processors in their G5, right? Why don't they have 3 cores?
Intel and AMD only have 2 cores atm, correct?
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
It should be pointed out that multi-threading on an XeCPU core will not give double the performance of a single thread on that same core.....so 2 threads are not at all twice as fast as a single thread......
robertsan21
Member
Cerrius said:
well using all 3 cores for a game means that the game should be very impressive to look at and should run smooth and have amazing graphics right?
but why isnt it impressive and why does it have ugly graphics and bad character design? well the last one might just be bad art from the designers but you cant tell me that the grapichs in PDZ is awsome compared to other next-gen games that doesnt even use all 3 cores...
Gears of war how many cores does that use?
Optimistic
Member
robertsan21 said:
E3 build was only using 1 core iirc.
Chittagong
Gold Member
robertsan21 said:
Because Rare sucks and Microsoft sucks because they bought them and...
wait a minute, I'm drunk in Heathrow again.
Nevermind.
robertsan21
Member
Optimistic said:
ok thats awsome.
they must be really good devs if its only using 1 core!
and chittachong live your avatar man " you will say WOW" :lol :lol
Optimistic
Member
Phoenix
Member
Spreading discreet tasks like AI, sound, and graphics across multiple cores if its anything like programming a standard multi-core system isn't rocket science. The thread scheduler is doing most of the heavy lifting. However once it comes to handling rendering across multiple cores, its not just a matter of having lots of cores - its a matter of being able to break up your workload across the multiple cores. In addition, a lot of the rendering work is done on the GPU itself so it will be an interesting road to exploiting all of the various cores of the new architectures for additional graphical features. But man you can do a crapload of physics work distributed across multiple threads.
Optimistic
Member
Oh yeah you're right. 1UP's article refers to the TGS build. 
Most games will be multithreaded and multicore. I'm talking about launch here. They just won't be as efficient. This goes for every piece of launch hardware throughout history. And as KLee said, two threads on the same core doesn't double the power. They don't run at the same time. One sits idle until the one that's running stalls, then it starts up until the stalled thread gets the data is needs. There aren't enough hw resources available to keep the threads running at the same time. PEACE.
xexex said:
Uh, that is utterly incorrct. It's a single CMP with 3 computational cores that can process 3 things at once out of a possible 6 threads in flight.
Saying it can process 6 things at once, on the XCPUs cores, is incorrect; very incorrect. It only has the actual logic structures per core to process 1 "thing" - N - per time t (unlike Cell's PPE AFAIK). But it does mask latency and increases effective thoughput via it's SMT of two threads, so that over a t span of several ms or beyond, you can mask a stall\bubble by switching between or intertwine processing of N1 or N2.
SMT doesn't double your throughput, regardless of what that douchgebag Allard alludes to. What it does do is increase your computational effeciency per logic (eg. utilization) over a non-SMT design; but it in no way, shape, or form allows for you to pass the 100% mark per construct -- which in XCPUs case is 1 per core, 3 in total. Hell, even coming close that that 100% mark is impressive, nevermind your proposed 200% increase.
Hurricane_Chris
DDK
Microsoft's game related and non-game related system code consumes processor time on Core1 and Core2 so all games in some way should be using Core 0-2.
Hurricane_Chris
DDK
xexex said:
This is not correct.
Error Macro
Member
Lunar Aura said:
LOL
Sqrt_minus_one
Member
Vince, (or any one in particular) has there been any info disclosed about the PPE on cell ?
Just wondering about the structure (number of execution units etc) and changes from DD1 to DD2.
Just wondering about the structure (number of execution units etc) and changes from DD1 to DD2.
Vince said:
You have to consider the system as a whole in the real world when discussing throughput, not some mythical scenario where the system is magically running at 100%. (IE the whole peak number vs real world thing that some people love to ignore when comparing hardware specs generated by marketing.)
What Allard is saying is perfectly valid in the scope that he's referring to. For example, if your single thread is doing something which is dominated by memory latency (not completely unlikely), you can easily construct cases in which having two threads in SMT could in fact double throughput over a non-SMT core. You haven't exceeded 100% "per construct" but you have doubled throughput, which is in fact the only thing that a developer in the real world cares about.