News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more cores?. Parent comment

Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by BatFastard on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @08:52AM (#12304229)
Game engines really benefit from more processors if designed appropriately. And I think a lot of people play games. This will be even more true when VR/AR spreads to the masses.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by valarauca1 on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @08:58AM (#12304278)
Yes/No.

Only game engines made in DX12, and Vulkan. And still there is the major road block that Nvidia (>70% market share) only offers 1 compute thread in async-compute mode, and no parallel rendering/compute work so using DX12/Vulkan means your game will work WORSE for 70% of your consumers.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by ccrngd1 on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @09:10AM (#12304368)
Except that graphics rendering is the last step of the game engine.

Computing world changes, updating model locations, handling network traffic, sampling user input, saving game state for autosaves, preloading resources from the disk for transitions, all need cpu time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by valarauca1 on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @09:16AM (#12304403)
Most of these compute heavy tasks boil down to that game engines are very fast C++ programs, but the game itself is an embedded LUA script.

If you are using C++ all the way down event based IO is way more efficient for this. Having compute threads is useful depending how much physics/calculations you are doing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Ask HN: Why are modern Intel CPUs not getting a lot more ... by lucian1900 on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @10:16AM (#12304833)
All of those other things are significantly cheaper than graphics.
[ Parent | on HN ]