They are not going to launch ps2 on the ps4 unless they get it to a playable level. thats usally defined at 30fps on consoles, and due to the nature of ps2 will require it to behave as such in 'load' situations, with several platoons fecking about. Now, that is probably possible. As has been noted a bunch of times now in mutliple threads, given certain assumptions. a greater mutlithreading of certain key processes in tracking players, theres no reason why any 4+ core CPU should not manage that at about 30fps. The reason it has not been done, as I've noted comes down to the fact its normally not econoically to heavily mutlithread games. It simply takes too much time and effort, as any mutlithreaded solution tends to have a much longer bughunting component of the development cycle due to several esoteric issues with mutlicore software performance. Now they have an economic reason to do so. So either they get it to work fairly well on a relatively weak (that is weaker than most FX chips, but likely slighty better than a phenom II) APU systems, or they make massive fools of themselves. The improvements i'm expecting would be in the 5-10fps+ under load range. Around 30% performance boost. My basis for comparison there being current A-1000 APU performance vs. reaching that 30fps target.
If we knew how the PS2 servers detects cheats, there would be a problem, wouldn't you think? Even if the servers didn't look for cheats through the netcode, that doesn't mean that the servers aren't doing anything that doesn't impact performance. The servers also needs to be fast enough to chew through the net code then send the netcode back to the hundreds of clients that are in a specific region. That can usually attribute to latency, or low CPU usage (since our computers are then waiting on the server). That said, I'm not sure anyone knows if the servers have anything to do with the CPU bottleneck in large battles, and there isn't any word confirming the thought either which way...but to me, it would make sense.
Ok then, I just go out and buy a $350 processor that is slightly better than my $130 one. That makes total sense.
Well, Im not sure about anyone else but I dont want to spend $350 to get 40 more frames out of a free to play game. You save about $200 for something that gets 40 frames less on a MAJOR cpu intensive game. PS2 could also be the first game to introduce 4-6 core multithreading.
I've got a HD 7870 XT and a Phenom II at 3,8 Ghz and the performance is just terrible. It's not a high end system, but enough to run all games at a decent framerate. But with Planetside ... it doesn't matter much if I play at low or high settings, the difference is just a few fps. As soon as there are major battles in e.g. amp stations or a biolab, the framerate goes down to 22-24 frames per second, which is hardly playable and not enjoyable. While my GPU has only between 30-60% load. That's a shame, because I really like Planetside and I think it's a great game. But the bad performance makes me doubt that it will last long.
Following that mindset, then we should also start throwing tantrums at developers when we can't run games like Crysis 3 at max settings with video cards like the GTX650 or HD7750... Sorry, but your $130 CPU is simply not cut out for CPU intensive games. AMD has been years behind Intel ever since the Phenom vs C2D era. That is a simple fact that people just need to accept.
Years behind meaning cpus from AMD being a couple of frames lower than intels in most games? The horror! PS2 is a rarity. People with i5s and i7s complain on here all the time about the game being unplayable its a bloody lottery.
Really? Sounds like they don't know how to configure their hardware. Even my 4 year old C2Q 9450 has little difficulty playing PS2, and it rarely drops below 35 fps. But enough about me, and let's be honest. If you sincerely think that the difference in performance between equally priced AMD and Intel CPUs are "just a few frames in most games", then you are delusional. Its time you start doing your homework and read reviews that compare CPUs in gaming environments.
Yeah... As much as I'm an AMD fanboy their CPU's aren't even close right now. They are doing the same thing intel was doing back in the Phenom days. Artificially inflating the ghz rating by making the pipe longer and slapping more cores in when 80% of applications don't even use those. I LOVE amd, but for $230 the new haswell's run cooler, preform, better, have better bus management, and are really just superior. Still use AMD GPU's though. My 2g 6870 runs this at 40 frames on ultra. I really hope AMD gets back in the game..... Consumers need the completion because Intel prices are REALLY high right now. They are spinning out a much better product though.
Go and look at the majority of benchmarks, there are a few games that have a big difference, but for the most part there is not much. But again your totall dismissive and derisive tone just screams fanboy so not much point in having an actual discussion.
There's VERY few games out there that perform differently on Intel and AMD, but PS2 unfortunately is one of them and Guild Wars 2 is another, Farcry2 too, SWTOR did at first but they improved the client.
the key here is at the same price point, followed by "Few games". To be honest, amd is fine for most games cause most games the cpu isnt really stressed. Its all GPU. The games that do stress the gpu that are also not multithreaded well, intel will destroy amd. The number of games not multithreaded well is actually very high though. Not just planetside 2. Anyways, amd desktop CPUs are fine in my honest opinion. I think they can actually compete ok. Laptop CPUs on the other hand....... When amd's most powerful laptop CPU, a quad core clocked at 3.2 Ghz, can't perform aswell as an intel second gen mobile i3 at 2.1Ghz, they have serious issues. So if you think their desktop linup is bad, check out their laptops. GPUs are great though
I know the statistics for overall PC ownership may be differnet, but it would seem that from the area of game PCs AMD CPUs are much more common. They are cheaper and atleast to many people appear to be better for the price. If Intels do get better performance many PC builders either dont know or dont care as it doesnt affect game performance. Looking at Newegg probably the most popular site for people who build game PCs, looking at the number of reviews AMD CPUs appear to be twice as popular as Intel. So it just makes things more surprising to me that they still haven't done a whole lot to help performance. http://www.newegg.com/Processors-Desktops/SubCategory/ID-343?Order=REVIEWS
I've lost almost all hope at this point. I just cancelled my membership, I can't give them money for this kind of quality of service. I just sent a support e-mail about my issues, days later, no response. Thanks for the great customer service SOE! You're the best! Ah well, my last hope is that optimization will come with the PS4. But, I hope they'll do it before that. It's still over 4 months away.
Yep, and it appealed to people like me. I use Adobe products constantly, so having the multiple cores help a lot. And this CPU runs games beautifully, most of the time.
