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.
Unfortunately, it appears they've also unlocked the seventh troll.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Next the secret 8th CPU core will be DLC, or a game easter egg, the way things are going. Sheesh
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.
I don't own either system, but from what I understand they both run some kind of operating system that's always running in the background and gets summoned if a user pauses the game to bring it up. I don't know if it's massively useful, but I understand that both consoles are supposed to be able to stream a player's game play out to the internet, so I assume that's one of the reasons they have reserved CPU cores and memory.
Also, I'm not sure that the extra core will be terribly useful. I'm still seeing a lot of modern games that mostly just peg 1/2 cores on my CPU while the others are mostly idle. I did hope that the move for consoles to have that many cores would push the developers to start making games that aren't confined to a single, powerful core, but I think that most of the older, seasoned veterans that excel at game programming cut their teeth in an environment where multi-threading or multiple cores weren't useful or available and have shied away from fully utilizing the modern high-end CPUs that we have.
This is beginning to look a lot like Dante's Inferno.
Have gnu, will travel.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
Bond, James Bond. Sony owns MGM. :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Because people don't like glitches in their games when ever a background system process needs CPU resources.