text stringlengths 14 502 |
|---|
[2347.64 --> 2348.92] Which is sort of terrible. |
[2349.08 --> 2349.72] At least 10 years. |
[2349.96 --> 2350.52] More than that. |
[2350.84 --> 2351.26] Yeah, I mean... |
[2351.26 --> 2352.70] They were in laptops 10 years ago. |
[2352.72 --> 2353.90] Q-6600. |
[2353.98 --> 2355.72] I remember buying our... |
[2356.72 --> 2359.22] Q-6600 engineering sample, |
[2359.70 --> 2362.56] which technically you're neither supposed to buy nor sell, |
[2362.56 --> 2367.62] from my old boss at NCIX back in 2007. |
[2368.38 --> 2372.96] So yes, quad core, and that was a like $600, $700 CPU, |
[2373.18 --> 2377.74] so that was like the first non-extreme edition quad core, |
[2378.34 --> 2380.26] but certainly not mainstream yet. |
[2380.42 --> 2381.72] Dennis just walked by with an eggplant. |
[2381.72 --> 2383.72] So we've got... |
[2383.72 --> 2384.72] What are you... |
[2384.72 --> 2386.46] Get out of here with that. |
[2388.14 --> 2392.26] So we've had quad cores on the desktop for 10 years, |
[2392.42 --> 2394.76] and that chip later dropped in price, |
[2394.82 --> 2398.98] I think probably about 8 months to 8 to 12 months later, |
[2399.06 --> 2400.30] and became far more accessible. |
[2400.30 --> 2403.74] So ever since then, |
[2404.06 --> 2407.72] we have seen an onward march towards supporting more cores. |
[2407.82 --> 2408.90] Now, in the early days, |
[2409.06 --> 2410.48] the support was fairly rudimentary. |
[2410.94 --> 2414.22] Like, you would have one core dedicated to, like, |
[2414.76 --> 2416.38] mostly the entire game, |
[2416.56 --> 2419.42] and then you'd have another one that handled, like, |
[2419.52 --> 2420.88] maybe enemy AI. |
[2421.20 --> 2423.56] Like, one thing would be offloaded. |
[2423.56 --> 2425.42] But over time, |
[2425.58 --> 2429.08] they got to supporting more and more and more threads natively, |
[2429.26 --> 2433.02] and I believe Crysis 3 supports something like 4? |
[2433.72 --> 2436.52] Well, why is it then when Ryzen came out, |
[2436.70 --> 2438.10] and it had all these cores, |
[2438.68 --> 2439.96] everyone was stoked on it, |
[2440.18 --> 2440.90] and in theory, |
[2440.98 --> 2444.10] the performance should beat a lot of these Intel SKUs, |
[2444.70 --> 2445.30] it didn't, |
[2445.38 --> 2447.24] and it was because we had to wait for the game developers |
[2447.24 --> 2451.20] to optimize their games and the APIs for quality core. |
[2451.38 --> 2453.20] Okay, so there were a couple of things that happened. |
[2453.20 --> 2454.26] First of all, |
[2454.82 --> 2457.54] a lot of the things that people were excited about with Ryzen, |
[2457.62 --> 2459.08] and about multi-core on Ryzen, |
[2459.34 --> 2460.98] well, actually, I think it's mainly two things. |
[2461.36 --> 2462.96] One is that AMD, |
[2464.34 --> 2466.38] depending on how you look at it, |
[2466.94 --> 2467.96] and it's complicated, |
[2468.20 --> 2472.08] but AMD wasn't that far behind Intel for gaming |
[2472.08 --> 2475.06] from a certain point of view, |
[2475.20 --> 2476.82] as Obi-Wan might put it, |
[2477.26 --> 2479.60] because at the resolutions |
[2479.60 --> 2481.76] that you would be likely to run games at, |
[2481.76 --> 2483.56] so higher resolution with higher details, |
[2483.98 --> 2486.22] you'd be more likely to hit a GPU bottleneck |
[2486.22 --> 2487.10] than a CPU one. |
[2487.90 --> 2488.86] So in that sense, |
[2489.02 --> 2491.68] AMD CPUs weren't that far off, |
[2492.42 --> 2494.86] unless you did want to turn down your details |
[2494.86 --> 2495.98] to get higher frame rates |
[2495.98 --> 2497.46] because you were a competitive player, |
[2497.46 --> 2503.56] or unless you cared about your power consumption |
[2503.56 --> 2506.36] because they did consume a lot more power before Zen, |
[2507.00 --> 2510.82] or if you wanted more up-to-date features on the platform |
[2510.82 --> 2512.06] because by the end of it, |
[2512.18 --> 2514.70] those boards were looking pretty dated |
[2514.70 --> 2515.76] in terms of their feature sets, |
[2515.80 --> 2517.00] so there were lots of other things. |
[2517.10 --> 2519.38] Let me fully actually finish the question. |
[2519.38 --> 2521.14] The final clause of the question is, |
[2521.74 --> 2523.70] given that in the PC side, |
[2524.52 --> 2528.16] it's so weird that in the console side, |
[2528.26 --> 2531.38] you've got these multi-core AMD chips |
[2531.94 --> 2534.40] ruling the roost on all the consoles. |
[2534.76 --> 2537.10] So are game developers |
[2537.10 --> 2540.10] taking different approaches on console and PC? |
[2540.96 --> 2541.44] So, okay. |
[2542.02 --> 2546.18] So, back to your question. |
[2546.36 --> 2547.60] The things people were excited about. |
[2548.20 --> 2550.66] AMD having better single-threaded performance for gaming, |
[2551.04 --> 2553.76] and AMD having multi-threaded performance |
[2553.76 --> 2555.52] for other workloads, |
[2555.78 --> 2557.62] and also to put pressure on Intel. |
[2558.26 --> 2559.34] Because that's what Intel did. |
[2559.74 --> 2560.00] Right. |
[2560.10 --> 2561.84] They launched quad-core on the desktop |
[2561.84 --> 2563.60] back in like 2006, |
[2564.14 --> 2566.30] and it was quad-core on the desktop |
[2566.30 --> 2569.54] up until 2006. |
[2571.06 --> 2572.06] That was pretty much it, |
[2572.12 --> 2574.04] unless you wanted to spring from the high-end desktop platform. |
[2574.04 --> 2577.24] Well, there were six core AMD CPUs in like 2010. |
[2577.24 --> 2578.48] No, but I mean on the Intel side. |
[2578.56 --> 2578.92] Yeah, yeah, okay. |
[2578.96 --> 2581.20] The thing about those six core AMD processors, though, |
[2581.22 --> 2582.22] is that they didn't threaten Intel. |
[2582.60 --> 2583.60] Even with six cores, |
[2583.98 --> 2586.06] they weren't competitive with Intel's own quad cores |
[2586.06 --> 2587.10] that they could turn out. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.