Will Skyrim make more effective use of multi-core CPUs? : V - Skyrim

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:46 pm

It has to fit into 512MB of RAM, so don't go expecting it to need to be a 64bit executable, unfortunately ;(

I take it you're refering to VRAM? No, it doesn't work that way. VRAM holds only the visual data that is used to render the current frames (plural because of double and triple-buffering). There's a LOT more to keep in memory for a major game. Especially Skyrim, since the world in it exists and works even when you don't see it.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:06 am

I think he was talking about the RAM amount of the consoles. IIRC the ram on the consoles have high speeds though.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:06 pm

It is releasing 1 1/2 months away from 2012. It had better freaking have multithreading support. Especially because every single platform it is released on has multiple cores. PC, PS3, 360.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:36 am

I take it you're refering to VRAM? No, it doesn't work that way. VRAM holds only the visual data that is used to render the current frames (plural because of double and triple-buffering). There's a LOT more to keep in memory for a major game. Especially Skyrim, since the world in it exists and works even when you don't see it.

No, of course I wasn't, I was referring to the highly limited memory available to the consoles, as well as have to be workable loading entirely from that slow, slow DVD (because I don't believe MS allow developers to force installation?)

It's not much to work with, and it all has to fit in, and while there'll almost certainly be performance increases from having more RAM to cache with, it does put an upper limit on level of detail.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:12 am

No, of course I wasn't, I was referring to the highly limited memory available to the consoles, as well as have to be workable loading entirely from that slow, slow DVD (because I don't believe MS allow developers to force installation?)

It's not much to work with, and it all has to fit in, and while there'll almost certainly be performance increases from having more RAM to cache with, it does put an upper limit on level of detail.

Oh. Then of course your right. Unless the devs figure out a way to compensate for the low space with the high speed. Or they'll have variable RAM requirements depending on the settings, and the consoles will simply have the lower settings hard-wired?

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:41 pm

It is releasing 1 1/2 months away from 2012. It had better freaking have multithreading support. Especially because every single platform it is released on has multiple cores. PC, PS3, 360.

If the info I found was correct, then the PS3 has 8 cores, with 6 of them being usable by game developers (1 is reserved for the OS, the other for something else). 6 cores...How many could Oblivion take advantage of? 1? 2 at the most I'd say.

My laptop has 4, support for multiple cores is seriously required at this point in time.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:47 pm

I think he was talking about the RAM amount of the consoles. IIRC the ram on the consoles have high speeds though.

They better have it, in order to compensate for the ridiculous amount they have.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:09 pm

Hopefully. PS3 has seven of these bad boys. Cell processor can do some serious shredding of whatever you throw at it.

My i7 recognizes 8 cores... You just got one upped. Haha anyways multicore support and 64bit systems are a must for gods sake the ps3 is running a 128bit architecture

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:21 pm

My i7 recognizes 8 cores... You just got one upped. Haha anyways multicore support and 64bit systems are a must for gods sake the ps3 is running a 128bit architecture

My work computer is a Mac Pro with 12 cores and 24 threads :yawn:

I usually game on my windows laptop, but I might have to check out how Skyrim works with bootcamp.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:18 am

Listen honey, the PS3 could do some serious shredding of whatever you could throw at a mid range gaming pc in 2006 - but times have changed. It's 2011 now, and Skyrim on consoles will be destroyed by the PC performance (unless it's badly optimized by Bethesda).

Two words. Cell processor. Nuff said.

Cpu core PLUS six spe's. The cpu core just sits back,relaxes and enjoys watching while it directs its spe's to shred threw everything it sends it.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:47 am

Two words. Cell processor. Nuff said.

Cpu core PLUS six spe's. The cpu core just sits back,relaxes and enjoys watching while it directs its spe's to shred threw everything it sends it.

The PS3's CPU would truly be something to behold had Sony not chosen to bottle neck it with 512mb of RAM. What the hell were they thinking?

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:47 pm

Two words. Cell processor. Nuff said.

Cpu core PLUS six spe's. The cpu core just sits back,relaxes and enjoys watching while it directs its spe's to shred threw everything it sends it.

This was true 6 years ago.
It's not 6 years ago any more. It hasn't been 6 years ago for quite some time.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:03 am

well i have the i7-970 hexacore. So yes i hope they do but i somewhat doubt they will.

Guys the cell processor isnt anything to impressive trust me there are WAAAAYY better processors out at the time it came out and out now.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:59 am

well i have the i7-970 hexacore. So yes i hope they do but i somewhat doubt they will.

Guys the cell processor isnt anything to impressive trust me there are WAAAAYY better processors out at the time it came out and out now.

Sony says its the most advanced processor on earth.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:00 pm

Sony says its the most advanced processor on earth.

it might of been if Sony didn't shelve it and actively developed it but they didn't so it 6 year old tech.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:06 pm

Sony says its the most advanced processor on earth.

It was. When it was developed. Funny thing about technology, is it improves at a rather fast rate. Who would have thought? :banghead:

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:43 pm

So the consensus is that most likely there will not be an x64 version available, but they might release an x86 version that makes slightly more effective use of multi-threading?

Is that correct?

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:38 am

... like cloth simulations, better physics and more objects / particles

That's what DX11 is for. Oh wait... :sadvaultboy:

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:53 pm

The PS3 is NOT like a seven core processor. Its SPEs are not general purpose cores. They have to be specifically programmed for and they can't just be used to do general processing. A modern quad core is FAR more powerful than the Cell. Don't fall for Sony's marketing hype. I own a PS3 too so I'm not console bashing. Sony's hype was just too good and confused too many people. In reality the PS3 is only a little bit more powerful than the Xbox 360.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:49 am

also doesn't the ps3 and 360 use in order execution?
want to save chip space so sacrifices are required.
Which makes each 3.2GHz core not as fast as modern 3.2GHz core.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:12 pm

The PS3 is NOT like a seven core processor. Its SPEs are not general purpose cores. They have to be specifically programmed for and they can't just be used to do general processing. A modern quad core is FAR more powerful than the Cell. Don't fall for Sony's marketing hype. I own a PS3 too so I'm not console bashing. Sony's hype was just too good and confused too many people. In reality the PS3 is only a little bit more powerful than the Xbox 360.

The spe's can handle graphics processing too though which is impressive in of itself.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:32 am

It appears evident from today's podcast that Todd's previous comment that "the game will look just as good on PC, Xbox and PS3" was not any indication of whether hi-res textures, DX11 support, etc. will be available for PC users or not.

Rather Bethesda will make these decisions at later point in the development process.

» Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:29 pm

The spe's can handle graphics processing too though which is impressive in of itself.

So can any processor, a GPU is just a specialised processor.