Slashdot Mirror
Sony Unlocks PlayStation 4's Previously Reserved Seventh CPU Core For Devs (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: Toward the beginning of the year, it was revealed that Microsoft was going to "unlock" the seventh core on the Xbox One's processor, enabling developers to eke just a bit more performance out of the console and offer more flexibility at resource utilization. It appears that Microsoft's move would inevitably be followed by Sony, as reports are now coming in that this will be made available on the PlayStation 4 as well. This subtle change was highlighted in the latest changelog for the FMOD sound engine which is labeled as a "LowLevel API." While the unlocked core could take on FMOD duties if developers want it to, it's now not going to be tied to any single purpose. Developers could make use of this core, for example, to boost AI performance, or any other process that has a heavy computation requirement. It could also be used to simply help ease overall system load.
Microsoft leads in innovation and others just follow suit.
Next you Linux folks will be unlocking secret CPUs on the Raspberry Pi.
Seriously, why was it ever locked?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
No, no and no.
The PS4 and Xbox One both have "8 core" AMD CPU's.
Previously only 6 cores for both systems were available to game developers.
Did you read the article? It plainly states it's the PS4.
They were reserved for system use.
The PS4 and Xbox One both have "8 core" AMD CPU's.
Previously only 6 cores for both systems were available to game developers.
I have one question about this...
WHIY?!
WHY in the HELL would these companies, that are fighting each other over which system is better, hobble their systems by disabling processor cores? Aren't the games multithreaded? Wouldn't two more cores, or approximately 25% of the processor power of the system, be useful to gamers that want better gameplay?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
They're not disabled. They were reserved exclusively for the OS. Now that's changing
I guess neither of these are that, but what if they were? Would the core have... special powers?
So, the system doesn't need them any more? Why doesn't anybody care about the poor system?
You are welcome on my lawn.
What, so suddenly the OS doesn't need them?
Maybe the OS just needs one, not two
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
So apparently there was some sort of software/firmware that restricted the hardware preventing it from utilizing everything available? Why develop for this shit in the first place?
I don't know, maybe the billions of dollars in revenue that comes along with developing AAA titles for consoles?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Won't somebody please think of the system!
How can anyone devoted to free markets make an informed decision when manufacturers fail to disclose information about their products?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
...for about half an hour.
GUI stutter so the system always felt responsive. The sheltered performance space needed so the brands own developers could always ensure a good feel to the device under any load.
The gradual performance and coding understanding of the system took time for the brand and its wider coding platform developers. Now that console developers better understand the hardware limits and core use, a bit more performance can be offered.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Yes, optimizations have been made to the operating system to make it less resource-hungry in game mode such that one CPU core will suffice leaving an extra one free for games.
A place to do serious DMCA computation and ad content generation without affecting game performance, great!
You are wonderful. Thank you; I've worked hard to become so. I admit it, you are better than I am. Then why are you smiling? Because I know something you don't know. And what is that? I... am not left-handed. You are amazing. I ought to be, after 20 years. Oh, there's something I ought to tell you. Tell me. I'm not left-handed either.
It's not the OS. The 7th core of the Xbox One was reserved for phone surveillance in partnership with the NSA. It's no longer needed.
Those greedy fucks cripple their own systems to extend the life of them. I expect the full value of my product the day I pay for it.
What, so suddenly the OS doesn't need them?
What about "reserved" confuses you?
It would be a good idea to practice sepeku. I realize an idiot of your caliber would mess it up a few times, but don't worry, someone else will clean up the mess when you're done.
But intel keeps telling us we only need 4 cores for games?!
So apparently there was some sort of software/firmware that restricted the hardware preventing it from utilizing everything available? Why develop for this shit in the first place?
Yah, it's called an operating system. That's pretty much been their job since what, the 90's at least?
They want to be able to stream and have gimmicky input controls - like kinect. Thus they have to reserve processing power, otherwise would run into the risk that if the game reserve it all, the streaming experience is lowered or even so crappy as to be useless. The same way kinect for example you would need to reserve some processing power (although I think in the mean time they changed it so that if the game is not kinect enabled, that processing power is free to be used). And then again there might be system part for which they need even more processing power like DRM management.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I guess neither of these are that, but what if they were? Would the core have... special powers?
No, it would just have a stupidass attempt to refer to a book series that nobody with a life gives a fuck about. That way other Slashdot tards with no life can all fap together to it, coalescing into a great big circlejerk, each stroking the penis of the tard next to them, while pretending like the perfect stranger whose penis they are gripping is somehow their soul mate. Sort of like every single time a dumbass meme gets modded up or a movie reference gets made or a god damned XKDC comic gets linked that really has no meaningful connection to the subject "at hand". Somebody will see me mentioning the manual stroking of strange penises and see that I said "at hand" in quotes like that and say "hah I see what you did there" and another dumbass Slashdot meme will get modded up. Thus the cycle of penises repeats itself, with nary a vagina in sight.
Someone needs a hug
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
They're APU's not CPU's.
Om, nomnomnom...
Bond, James Bond. Sony owns MGM. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The PS3 had a hell of a lot of trouble over its lifespan because they allocated too little RAM and CPU power to the OS. They literally couldn't add major features they wanted to add because of it. This time around, they allocated a whole bunch of resources for potentially-unforeseen requirements for future OS upgrades - a few years in, now, they're happy to release some of them to devs because they figure they won't need them after all.
Management decision. The dumbest technological decisions always come from a management team.
I'm guessing that you will start to hear glitches on the audio if this feature is made use of, as without having a core reserved for it, the "FMOD sound engine" is going to have to start sharing resources with other demands on CPU processing power.
It all sounds like crap to me, reserved for the OS and now mysteriously it isn't needed. What next Kim Jong-Un was secretly holding the cores captive to thwart off American imperialism.
Will this pave the way for the underground community? There are no published docs (to my knowledge) describing security controls. Just a curiosity, plain and simple.
Exactly. The "PC Master Race" seems to forget that piracy has really killed games on PC, at least the AAA titles. Indies are huge on PC (as they are on mobile), so that's all left.
Most AAA gave development money is headed towards consoles where the DRM keeps piracy low (under 10% typically) and there's a good chance to make back the money. So consoles get the first release to make back the development money, then after everyone's made their money, they port it to PC with the hopes the PC port pays for the porting effort. To help with this, they reduce the price (out of necessity since the game has been out 6 months to a year already).
The few PC games that get same time releases generally are online games where the server can enforce DRM (your Call of Duty or Battlefield games). Very rarely do you get something like a Fallout 4 where there's a PC release at the same time as console with no online component.
Heck, while there are a few stubbornly PC only developers, many former PC only developers branched out to consoles - Activision-Blizzard,and Valve being notable ones.
It's called follow the money. Otherwise why else would developers subject themselves to content approvals and all sorts of other things when they can release on PC for free.
Yes, this is my question. It's stupid. Give the customer ALL the hardware. The customer OWNS the hardware.
And when a game is running, isn't the OS basically sitting around doing not much at all? Why keep them reserved? On my PC I can use all of my cores when I play a game even though the OS is much more bloated than on a console.
forbidden core.....
Screw it, were going to seven cores.
System gets a higher priority than applications.
Welcome to OS 101.
Break on through to the other side. Do-da-do-da-do-da-da-do. Break on through. Break on through. Break on through to the other side.
Or even the slightest chance of actually being in the presence of a vagina before he dies.
They have all the hardware. It was 6 for the game and 2 for the OS services. Seems as though it has been determined that the OS can get by fine with one thread, so, it's been re-juggled to 7 for game and 1 for OS. Point being the OS wants a hard resource to guarantee certain user interface / controller performance.
There was nothing secret about the resource allocation. I doubt anyone is really excited about the 1 core being reassigned from OS to Application. How many games are using 6 threads and need a seventh?
the ps4 has a streaming/remote play feature - maybe that's what the reserved cpu-cores are needed for.
It happened for the PS3 and the PSP (which had higher clock rates unlocked) so it's not unprecedented.
a) because it doesn't matter, if it's 6, 7 or 500 cores, as long as everybody else has the same number of cores at their disposal. b) money
I just want to be able to make informed decisions. Hiding secret cores does not make that possible.
It's not called hiding when it's publicly known just because you have your head up your ass.
Please, cut the AI bullshit. No game development company will ever use this for AI. AI in console games has not evolved significantly for something like 20 years, since 3D pathfinding became good enough. IA is always dumb and will always be because marketers think most people want shiny graphics, explosions and big guns.
Stupidity is the root of all evil.
Why the "scare quotes"? It's an actual 8-core CPU, with no hyperthreading.
"Wouldn't two more cores, or approximately 25% of the processor power of the system, be useful to gamers that want better gameplay?"
Yeah but it'd also mean no free resources to support things like a common interface for inviting friends to your game, or still chatting to friends playing different games and so forth.
It'd mean no resources to just hop out of the game to check a video on YouTube if you're stuck, or resources to record your gameplay and stream it without each and every game having to support these things themselves.
Fact is modern consoles have a baseline of functionality that is common between games - friends lists, chat, recording/streaming gameplay and so on and that needs dedicated resources.
All that's happened here is that they've realised they don't need quite as many resources as they originally thought they might to support this baseline functionality.
It benefits game developers and users too - developers don't have to implement this stuff themselves, and users don't have to put up with completely different implementations between every game they're in, so it's a good thing.
Lots of games use more than 6 threads, I think you mean how many games are fully utilizing 6 cores and need a 7th. And the answer is not many. FMOD is a laugh since the APU contains a dedicated sound processor already so if you're using FMOD you're already saying "I have a spare core to waste".
Yes, the FMOD sound engine would like to have its own core. Or if you don't drive it hard, half a core. Or if you drive it really hard, two cores. You know audio processing scales, right? But let's say you want to be dumb and give FMOD an entire core. Now you have a *new* core you can put FMOD onto, leaving 6 remaining, so you can use FMOD "for free" now compared to a month ago. (Of course only an idiot would actually use FMOD on PS4 since the APU already contains a dedicated sound processing unit which offloads the processing from the x64 cores already, that FMOD doesn't use.)
So no you won't start to hear "glitches" on the audio if this feature is made use of. FMOD isn't a system process. Why would you think it was? Do you even know what FMOD is?
Seriously, this article has the most uninformed comments I've ever seen on Slashdot. I mean, I get that not everyone here is a PS4 developer, but why the hell are the informed comments from PS4 developers mixed in with such presumptive uninformed bullshit?
This generation seems to have a lot of network social media functionality and the like. For example, XBone has a "snap" feature that allows you to split screen the game and one of the other apps. I guess it's useful to be sure the app gets all the resources it wants without it and the game interfering with each other.
I'm assuming PS4 has something similar.
Americans...
Surely you mean "more flexibility FOR resource utilization"?
approximately 25% of the processor power of the system
Um, they reserved like 12.8 GFLOPS. The system has over 1TFLOPS at its disposal. I make that about 1%.
You want to see hobbled? Put a modern GPU into a PC. Let it talk to system memory over a PCIe bus. Drive it with DirectX 11 or OpenGL 4, on a multi-tasking operating system with installable kernel-mode drivers and a shitty filesystem.
Reserving cores means the worst case system load and the best case system load are equal. A huge amount of work has gone into making this the case. If your game runs without lag, it ALWAYS runs without lag. That's why resource reservation is used in general on real-time systems. Your question is better phrased as "why do real-time systems have different design philosophies than non-real-time systems" although when phrased that way it kind of answers itself.
Oh please, that strawman was debunked ages ago, its no different than the *.A.A claiming that piracy cost them more than the GDP of the planet! All one has to do is look at the incredible mountains of cash valve is generating without putting out new AAA titles in years to see PC gaming is a HUGE money maker and that users do not mind DRM if its not intrusive always online horseshit like UbiSuck.
No lets cut through the bullshit, shall we? The REAL reason that you see so many developing for consoles is that console users are easy to fuck and fuck hard, end of story. They can keep the prices jacked for FAR longer on consoles because they do not have to deal with a free market, with consoles they have a captive monopoly so they are the only game in town. With PC you have Steam and GOG and the Humble Bundles and Origin and UbiPlay and Greeman Gaming and Amazon, with PCs the users have a huge market to shop from and endless titles going back 30+ years so they don't have to put up with the "take it and like it" bullshit. Check a new title 3 weeks after release, where is it cheaper? PC. 3 months? PC, 6 months, a year, 2 years? PC, PC, and PC, simply because if you don't compete? You ain't getting that money.
So don't give us the party line bullshit, its because of money alright, its because they can royally fuck console users and they have no choice but to bend over and take it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So it's like running for years with an anvil under each arm. If you drop them at last, you can run faster.
But why binding one hand on the back on purpose in the first place is beyond me.
Actually one core was originally reserved from the always-on Kinect telescreen device, that would constantly monitor the room and listen to conversations. I'd be amazed if the NSA wasn't looking for ways to tap into that, assuming it hadn't just forced MS to install a backdoor already.
The other reserved core was for DRM. It runs some OS stuff as well, but it will never be fully available to developers because it MS are going for security through obscurity by running the DRM code on a protected, reserved core where nothing else can interfere with or debug it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
From what I have seen in reviews of new games like Fall out 4 and COD. I think its clear the gaming developers are already pushing the limits of the new consoles.
Makes me wonder how long before these new consoles will have to have a hardware upgrade design? I think for one thing the increasing size of the home television and resolutions has also increased the need for better gaming hardware. PC's have kind of excelled in this area as we now see $600 video cards. This opens up a lot of potential for developers. I certainly do not see the longevity the PS/4 or XB1 having compared to past consoles.
With 256 megabytes of RAM, both the PS3 and X360 had nothing more give to the OS anyway. They couldn't add major features because they released devices that had laughably little memory when they were new, and it didn't get any better with age.
It's built into the OS for the PS4 and XBox consoles They are designed around having network connectivity built-in. Taking snapshots of game play and add it to your photo album, share it with others, stream it live, visit "the store" where you can buy and download games.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
A valuable CPUcore for DRM?! Fail! They should have just implemented a custom ASIC for that task.
Life is not for the lazy.
A CPU core is a cheap way to do it, and most games are GPU bound anyway... But the other issue is that it's not a real core either. It's an AMD "half core", a bit like Intel's Hyperthreading but with fewer shared resources. So not having it isn't like losing 1/8th of the available processing power, it's more like 1/16th or less because the DRM tends not to saturate the core at all.
They made quite a few compromises on performance this generation. Both consoles constantly record gameplay by encoding the video on the GPU, costing around 5% of the available processing power, plus some CPU, memory and disk.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Exactly. The "PC Master Race" seems to forget that piracy has really killed games on PC, at least the AAA titles. Indies are huge on PC (as they are on mobile), so that's all left.
Sorry, what did you say? I can't hear you over the sound of The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, Just Cause 3, Starcraft 2, Diablo 3... (some of which got console ports, but none of which were developed before the PC version)
Otherwise why else would developers subject themselves to content approvals and all sorts of other things when they can release on PC for free.
Because:
1) Releasing on PC isn't free if you're distributing through a major platform like Steam or GOG, which you'd be a fool not to do.
2) The cost of content approvals and other such things is more than worth the amount of money the console ports will bring in.
You're not wrong about developers doing multi-platform releases to make as much money as they can, but in the end piracy hasn't made a dent in PC games. Steam's DRM is effective enough that it stops casual pirates; the only people who pirate PC games are those who were never going to buy them in the first place. Then you've also got publishers are GOG, who are completely DRM-free, and somehow they still seem to be doing quite well for themselves.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
It's being able to do these things without impacting the game. the OS could share cores with the games, but when the OS has to do something non-trivial, that could affect the game, which is something the console manufacturers will fight tooth and nail against, as it's the worst thing for consumer experience - an interruption (however brief) to their game. Having the OS stuck on its own core(s) means it can go absolutely nuts on said core(s) without messing with the game.
You also have to remember that these consoles are incredibly powerful for what they are, and that power is directed at a staggeringly small subset of tasks one would expect a normal PC to perform. Your PC cost more and can do more, as it is a general purpose computer, not a console.
So no, it has absolutely nothing to do with the OS being primitive, and everything to do with maintaining a consistent experience across games and console activities.
GP is so far off its unreal, you hit on most the marks. An additional one is that many games simply can't be played with controllers. I mean, Dota 2 and LoL combine for ~20m unique players a month by themselves? Top-down RTS/MOBA style games are hot garbage with a controller, as are most strategy games, most simulation/city builder games, and most MMO games.
I'm sorry that popular culture touched you in your no-no spot, but the seventh-son "meme" is quite a bit older than you apparently think.
'geekprime' apparently mystified by the ever-elusive vagina. Forget that it's attached to an actual person.
"You also have to remember that these consoles are incredibly powerful for what they are, and that power is directed at a staggeringly small subset of tasks one would expect a normal PC to perform. Your PC cost more and can do more, as it is a general purpose computer, not a console."
Sorry, this is a fucking retarded thing to say.
Run Prime95 on a PC, watch the CPU, now pause it, wow, amazing isn't it, the CPU usage drops to almost zero and the PC can do other things. Now start it again, and try doing other things. What's that? You still can? Amazing isn't it, as though there was some magical being in the background allocating CPU resources to tasks. But hang on, how does such a magical power know which tasks are more important? Or which ones should have higher priority, well each task can be tagged for priority, as well as the OS utilising *decades* of CS research into task optimisation.
For fuck's sake, anyone with half a clue knows that this locked-out core business is total fishy bullshit.
What exactly are/were they up to?
Mentally challenged dave420 tells how a game ought to be written and yet he can't write code himself.
1. It was not secret. The number of cores in the PS4 and how they are used has been known for ages
2. It was activated already, but reserved for the OS
3. The last thing a console manufacturer wants is a 12.5% difference in CPU performance among its consoles, as that means game performance would vary, providing an unreliable experience
4. Your words are evidently not mark-worthy. They seem based on your gut instincts about a concept you don't understand, infused with some bizarre cynicism
Christ, whilst it looks like you're trolling because you're one of Slashdot's premier PC master race guys and displaying a certain arrogance towards the guys who designed these consoles assuming they must just be less competent for only producing a primitive OS (when the reality is they're undoubtedly smart guys, making smart choices), I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer.
It's got nothing to do with one being more primitive than the other. On the contrary, because consoles can do away with all the legacy and general processing cruft that PCs have to be able to cater, coupled with the fact you're looking at dedicated hardware fulfilling a specific goal if anything the opposite is true - console OS are less primitive, because they don't have to cater to decades of previous software like Windows has to. It doesn't matter though because primitive is an entirely subjective term anyway. A lightweight cutting edge OS written yesterday might be primitive because it's lightweight and it lacks features, or it might be cutting edge because it was written yesterday.
The reason is simply that the two systems are different, neither is superior to the other, both have different purposes and goals and that inevitably results in different design decisions being made.
Consoles perform a lot of background services, and whilst talk of console cost-performance ratios inevitably involves some smartass pricing up some PC components that they claim are superior for the same price the reality is that they never are as they typically exclude everything in the box from the game controllers, through to the very bespoke hardware that achieves certain types of processing more efficiently than an equivalently priced PC ever good. The Xbox One for example constantly handles background processing of gesture recognition, voice recognition, multi-user voice chat, friends list, constant recording of games with the ability to save off the last 5 minutes of that record to disk, streaming of said video across the internet, as well as background apps including things like live TV display and so on. The reality is that you cannot build for £250 a PC that can do all that whilst still pulling off 1080p, 60fps or equivalent with other areas of high graphical fidelity.
Which isn't to say that you can't pay more and build a PC that does all that and then some - that's not my point, I'm not saying one is better than the other, merely making the point that there is nothing inherently deficient about console hardware for the price. It's good at what it does, it gives you the best gaming processing for that amount of money, but certainly if you have money to spare then yes, absolutely, a PC can do you all that and then more without a doubt.
So with that out the way, to answer why they reserved cores, the answer is that it's about user experience, yes, I know that's a wishy-washy term, but bare with me. On a PC you're in charge of the system, you're in control and that means you've both in control in terms of having flexibility of what you want to do, but also have to take responsibility when you fuck things up - if you decide to farm bitcoins whilst trying to play a game and either or end up crawling to a halt and being useless then that becomes your problem, you have to make a concious choice to do one or the other, or to restrict one or the other to do both. Consoles don't give you that choice nor are they meant to, they're meant to be easy to use and for you to not have to have any hassle with that, and as such the Xbox team has to make different design choices to the Windows team - whilst the Windows team gives you full control of your system, the Xbox team needs to make sure the system can always perform it's minimum baseline without fail and that anything the developers do or don't do doesn't break that.
And this is where it comes to a head, essentially if you fuck something up that impacts performance of a game or a background task on a PC then that's your problem, but if on a console a game stutter
Thanks, APK. It's clearly you. Just to let you know, I've been a professional developer for 20 years, in 3 countries. At the moment I'm working for a rather large game company (which shall remain nameless due to our media policy), so please continue making stuff up to make yourself feel better...
False. The Jaguar architecture does not use clustered multi-threaf cores like Bulldozer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_(microarchitecture)
By software magic, it turned out that they only needed 1 core to do the magic. System still get core 8.
What, so suddenly the OS doesn't need them?
Previous console generations did similar things - they are allocating a certain amount of hardware for the OS and future features.
Later, when plans change, or features are implemented more optimally than expected, the allocated resources are reviewed and released to games where possible.
Example from the PS3 is RAM (the locked cores there weren't possible to release, partly due to defects), and now Sony has concluded that they can make-do without the previously-allocated core.
So in a manner of speaking, yeah, the OS and planned features no longer require the core.
That'd be fine if there were viable PC counterparts to certain console exclusives. Does PC have a flagship fighting game with terrain and platforms (like Smash Bros. or PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, not like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, which are flat plane fighters)? Does PC have a flagship kid-friendly third-person shooter (like Splatoon)?
Indies are huge on PC (as they are on mobile), so that's all left. [...] Heck, while there are a few stubbornly PC only developers, many former PC only developers branched out to consoles
So in your opinion, at what point does a PC game developer stop being "indie" and start being "stubborn"?
Because people don't like glitches in their games when ever a background system process needs CPU resources.
I can't tell if I offended the AMD shill mods or the Intel shill mods with that one...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And when a game is running, isn't the OS basically sitting around doing not much at all? Why keep them reserved? Well this is the point, they are no longer reserved, just one of them. That one is reserved for operating system tasks like the audio chat features, notifications and other features built in features like PSN.
On my PC I can use all of my cores when I play a game even though the OS is much more bloated than on a console.
That's because the operating system doesn't provide game features to your application, it must implement them itself therefore it gets the resources as well.
And when a game is running, isn't the OS basically sitting around doing not much at all?
On consoles the operating system provides a lot of the features a game uses. For example the multiplayer components, audio chat, gameplay video recording, etc... So resources are reserved for the operating system to be able to handle these tasks.
On my PC I can use all of my cores when I play a game even though the OS is much more bloated than on a console.
I'm not sure what you mean by "bloated" in this context but when you're running an application on your desktop generally any operating system tasks are run as low priority backround threads and only when resources aren't needed by priority tasks. The OS also doesn't generally provide you much game-specific functionality that is required as a high priority when the game is running.
Also a fool to believe piracy is a bad thing, someone has been drinking the kool aid and failed to do their own research! As a fellow indie game dev, I did long ago and came to the conclusion many have, piracy is a marketing stream and fighting it is a lost cause that only harms you and your game(s).
So asking about an OS architecture and its capabilities is trolling now? Well wtf is the point of asking questions here, lets all just wave our little flags like a bunch of fanbois, shall we?
And how does it not have to do with the OS being primitive when it comes to multitasking when PCs have been able to do this for years and do so with ease? I get that for the majority of its life consoles have been single tasking systems but surely they could hire some OS developers to get them up to speed, yes? Because even my netbook APU (which is the chip they based the Jaguar on) can easily switch from a game like Grimlock to a howto page within a couple seconds, faster if I could be arsed to swap out the 5400RPM HDD to an SSD.
So are these OSes simply incapable of FIFO round robin processing? Or have the companies that made them simply decided this was not something worth pursuing? Because dedicating an entire X86 APU to the UI, let alone two? I'm sorry but you can scream and whine all you want, that is wasteful and inefficient as hell which is why PCs,be they Apple,Linux, or Windows do not do this, in fact the last personal computers that did such a thing was IIRC the first edition of BeOS.
I've not done an in depth study of their cores but since the Jaguar is the chip in the Athlon 5350 which is a chip I've built several systems with? Well if that chip, which has half the cores and only DDR-3 memory, can game and multitask quite easily with only a couple seconds delay? Then I see no reason why the PS4 and XB1 cannot do the same unless its a software issue.
And it isn't flag waving to point out when an OS has capabilities another apparently does not, or would you consider it being a fanboi to point out that Linux is better at HPC tasks due to the design of its kernel while Windows has a UI better designed for desktops? Its a part of the OS design, a company can choose to make an OS better or faster at specific tasks, its all a trade-off. But I seriously doubt even you are gonna seriously set here and argue that when you are dealing with a netbook APU (read the AMD whitepapers or press releases on Jaguar, they make it quite clear in the first paragraph that they designed the chip for netbooks and tablets) which already has limited processing power due to its ULV nature that locking away 25% of its power strictly for the OS is a good design choice, or are you gonna really argue that OSes are better if they lock away resources from the programs and user?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"So asking about an OS architecture and its capabilities is trolling now? Well wtf is the point of asking questions here, lets all just wave our little flags like a bunch of fanbois, shall we?"
No, jumping to conclusions that a platform you prefer less must be more primitive is trolling, but you knew that.
"And how does it not have to do with the OS being primitive when it comes to multitasking when PCs have been able to do this for years and do so with ease?"
Okay I'm beginning to wonder if you're right and you're not trolling, and in fact, you really just don't understand operating systems, though I always thought based on past posts that you did.
Please explain how a single core handling voice chat, friends lists, streaming, recording, general OS duties, achievement services, background applications and so on is not multi-tasking before you continue. It's pretty clear the reserved core is doing a lot of multi-tasking alone.
"I get that for the majority of its life consoles have been single tasking systems but surely they could hire some OS developers to get them up to speed, yes? "
This statement would be less painfully stupid if it weren't for the fact that consoles like the Xbox typically use the same core Kernel as Windows or a slight modification of. They have OS developers, there's no need to get upto speed because unlike you they already know exactly what they're talking about and exactly what they're doing.
"Because dedicating an entire X86 APU to the UI, let alone two? I'm sorry but you can scream and whine all you want, that is wasteful and inefficient as hell which is why PCs,be they Apple,Linux, or Windows do not do this, in fact the last personal computers that did such a thing was IIRC the first edition of BeOS. "
So again, did you intentionally miss the point? are you really that dumb? It's pretty clear from my last post that I pointed out that they're doing an awful lot more than merely running the UI on those reserved cores.
"And it isn't flag waving to point out when an OS has capabilities another apparently does not"
No it's being a fanboy when you're being wilfully dumb and missing half the explanation because it cuts your pre-defined master race PC stance to pieces on this particular issue and you find being wrong uncomfortable.
Like I said, these OS are perfectly capable of multi-tasking and they do that perfectly fine. They just reserve cores to guarantee a minimum amount of processing will be available for all those common services that the console provides and performs so that those process can never be interrupted or disturbed by a game developer chewing up too many resources and making those core services fail. Users are going to be pissed if they have an epic moment in the game, record it, and realise half the video was skipped because an over zealous game developer left no resources for that recording because he could use all cores leaving none for that core functionality all because someone on Slashdot without the slightest clue in OS and console design said that's the way it should be.
So stop pretending it's about an inability to multi-task, obviously that's false based on the fact these console provide way more ongoing services than there are reserved cores. As has been explained to you, it's about guaranteeing that the OS will always have one core free for OS and common functionality. It's about guaranteed resource allocation and absolutely nothing more than that.
If you still have a problem with that you instead need to change your argument to why console users should have to accept that common background functionality should fail when a badly written game is running. Good luck with that though.
Exactly. The "PC Master Race" seems to forget that piracy has really killed games on PC, at least the AAA titles.
I wouldn't say that. Platforms like Steam have curbed quite a lot of the casual piracy in PC Gaming. Most of the stuff left over is from people who were never going to pay for the game anyway. PC sales revenue has been steadily rising year over year for the past decade. Almost all AAA titles are also released on PC. There are exceptions but of all the major franchises, most come out on PC and they come out day-and-date with consoles. Also keep in mind that there are no used games for PC like there are in the console market, and those are a much bigger concern for the publishers than PC piracy these days.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Now who is jumping to conclusions? I don't prefer ANY platform, in fact I still have a Dreamcast and an original Xbox because those units had capabilities beyond playing games in their genre, Emulation for the Dreamcast and usage as an HTPC for the Xbox.
But if unit A can do X and has been doing X, despite much less resources, and unit Y cannot wtf are you supposed to say about unit Y, that its lack of capability makes it better?
But its obvious that you are a fantard with exactly fuck and all knowledge about this subject so please go back to waving your little flag nobody gives a fuck about, you are not worth wasting my time.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Once again Slashdot's resident PC Repair Man oversteps his level of knowledge, makes a fool of himself, and throws a hissy shit fit.
Please just stop, it's embarassing. PC repair man is right at the bottom of the ladder, know your place and accept it when your betters explain why you're wrong.
Maybe one day you'll go from PC repair man (which is basically something even absolute amateurs typically do for themselves nowadays) to professional support guy, to system administrator, to network engineer, to architect or go a different route like development or EE and you'll have something useful to contribute, but until then you're still just PC repair man and that will still always be bottom of the ladder - which isn't a problem, if you accept that, but you pretend you're some kind of elite hardware engineer and developer all in one whilst still being PC repair man.
We'll come to you when we want to know which graphics cards are selling best for you, but when we want to know about how software is written, about network security, or about console design decisions, then give please, just give up, you're not even remotely qualified for those types of discussion so stop pretending you are.
I'm not worth wasting your time, and yet here you are again wasting your time being wrong and crying at me. Okay then.
It goes to 11...