Submitted by skirtskirtouttie t3_zzbk03 in gaming
Xerazal t1_j2bhuub wrote
Reply to comment by skirtskirtouttie in How exactly was crysis not able to run on consoles? by skirtskirtouttie
Clock speed doesn't equal IPC. That's why a Pentium for processor clocked at 4ghz it's outperformed by a modern day i3 processor like 2.8 gigahertz.
The Xbox 360 is definitely more of a single threaded CPU. It's got three physical cores, each handling one thread. The PS3's so architecture is a bit different, having a single very fast core, but seven smaller synergistic processing units that are meant to run threat asymmetrically. Issue is, it's a pain in the ass to develop for.
I do genuinely think that the PS3 and the 360 could have run crysis better than they did, But it probably would required an entire engine rewrite from the ground up to better utilize multithreaded processing. It's pretty evident even today that crysis remastered shows that despite all the optimization they've done, they still haven't changed up the way that their engine handles CPU utilization. It's not a very multi-threaded engine, still hammering only a few select cores at a time rather than spreading the workload across as many cores as it possibly can.
I don't blame them for that either, it would take a lot of work to do.
skirtskirtouttie OP t1_j2bmrz9 wrote
> Issue is, it's a pain in the ass to develop for
Agreed,that definetely does sound like a pain in the ass. I've never heard of anything like the ps3's cpu setup. Also as you've said trying to reprogram a game engine to run on such core setups sounds like hell.
> Clock speed doesn't equal IPC
I knew that part. I just recalled a simplistic theoretical equation for calculating cpu time where IPC*Clock speed*Instruction count=cpu time, So i made a crude estimate that ipc must be low. I didn't take into account any software optimizations or how the crytek engine was designed.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments