New
#2321
I've seen all those videos for a very long time. But, I went from a 4 core CPU to a 6 Core CPU and did not notice any difference in gaming at all. No, it didn't help gaming but it didn't hurt at all as far as I could tell. Just my observation.
Not what I'm saying. Least cost PC options in game dev, I mean devs are concerned about console working (where the money is) and want to spend the least amount of time and money getting the PC version to work. If Intel tells them they have to do different things to optimize 6+ cores, ya right, we will spend that extra money and delay the PC release. Sure they will.
There was a time (I know I'm old) when the PC hardware guys (ie Nvidia) were paying game devs huge $$$ to implement their features in games. What was it? Remember those high res texture packs long after game release. Was it the Crysis games?
Don't know if that's done anymore. When ie Ubisoft works closely with Nvidia on Game Works features doubt if Ubisoft is compensated. Somehow I can't see Intel paying game devs to optimize that new cache hierarchy and 6+ cores.
And a PS: essenbe, you and Brink should get someone who counts (meaning not me) like Microsoft Studios over here to talk about this and the effects of all these CPU changes and choices on game development. While they are here, I'd also like to ask them how DX 12 is going. Why did, for example, Ubisoft (and Nvidia) completely ignore DX 12 in Ubisoft's biggest game map (GRW)? Holding onto DX 11 are they?
OK I'm kidding, essenbe, well half kidding.