Intel: Use our CPU (not their GPU) for games
Intel is back, pitching its processors for gaming graphics.
The chipmaker will attempt to promote its silicon for sophisticated game effects at the upcoming Game Developers Conference in March, as it strives to make a case for quad-core processors in lieu of graphics chips from Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices.
The pitch goes like this: "Learn how to easily add real-time 3D smoke, fog and other fluid simulations to your game without using up the GPU." That's according to an Intel Web page entitled Intel at Game Developers Conference. (The CPU is the central processing unit, or main brains of a computer; GPU stands for graphics processing unit.)
The session abstract goes on to say that the "source code to a fluid simulator optimized for multi-core CPUs...can easily be integrated by game developers into their engines to produce unique 3D effects."
Intel's argument raises the question, how should the CPU and GPU divvy up their tasks? In games, the CPU can handle things like physics and AI (artificial intelligence), and certain older games actually run some graphics on the CPU. Generally, however, the GPU is much more efficient (that is, faster) at handling most of the high-end effects that the gamer sees on the screen.
But there are exceptions. "Not all algorithms and processes map well to a GPU," said Jon Peddie, president of Jon Peddie Research. "You have to have a problem that is naturally parallel, and except for the rendering of, say, a water surface and subsurface and reflections, the wave motion equations will run just fine on a CPU," Peddie said.
Intel may also be seeking ways to make better use of its quad-core processors, according to Tom R. Halfhill, an analyst at the Microprocessor Report. But, he added: "I need to be convinced that a CPU can do those 3D effects better than a GPU can."
Then, there's also the Larrabee factor. Larrabee is an upcoming high-end graphics processor due late this year. "I'm sure some of it may also relate to Larrabee, which will include x86 cores, if or when it comes to market," said Jim McGregor, an analyst at In-Stat.
(This Mythbusters demonstration at an Nvidia conference is oversimplified and self-serving but it crystallizes the difference between CPUs and GPUs.)
In another GDC session, Intel is also pushing the CPU for physics and AI: "How can your game have more accurate physics, smarter AI, more particles, and/or a faster frame-rate? By threading your game's engine to take advantage of multi-core processors. Intel has built a threaded game engine and demo called 'Smoke' that shows one way of achieving this goal," the abstract states.
It continues: "This presentation examines the Smoke architecture and how it is designed to take advantage of all CPU cores available within a system. It does this by executing different functional and data blocks in parallel to utilize all available cores."
Intel won't stop there. It will also focus on the bane of many PC game developers: gaming on Intel integrated graphics silicon--a relatively low-performance platform that prohibits game titles from being displayed in all their glory at higher resolutions. The session will focus on "programming for scalable graphics applications" and cover "performance considerations when programming for integrated graphics in general with specific tips for Intel Integrated graphics."
Brooke Crothers has been an editor at large at CNET News, an analyst at IDC Japan, and an editor at The Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, among other endeavors, including co-manager of an after-school math-and-reading center. He writes for the CNET Blog Network and is not a current employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
%20for%20games%20%7C%20Nanotech%20-%20The%20Circuits%20Blog%20-%20CNET%20News&srcUrl=http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-10153373-64.html){kind=small}
I still see dedicated graphics cards as being for hardcore gamers.
Putting everything on the CPU might as well make video settings on low rez.
I bet the first generation of games that support CPU processing will be very vey slow.
But like all techno meetings the techie giving speeches will always say the following:
Technology in the field needs time to mature....... I'm tired of the maturing just be a smart game programmers and stop jamming so much data into the video cards that we see video lag!
For example, when I watch HD movies (720p), my CPU usage is about 50% (I have a Core 2 Duo T7100), if I watch it using GPU (via VDPAU/Mplayer), the CPU usage is about 5%, and the GPU barely heat up (it still keep it lowest power setting 170Mhz)
Oh, and by the way, for a Core 2 Duo to run at 50% watching 720p content, I'm willing to bet that you're not using player software that is multi-core aware. For it to be at 50% means that the player process is running full blast on one core, and if not for being a dual-core chip, it would be using 100% of your CPU. This is just another example of how little you know about multi-core processing. I have a quad core chip, and had problems playing HD content until I installed CoreAVC, which provides codecs that are multi-core aware. Now I can play back full 1080p content and skip all over the place in the clip without barely any lag and without loss of audio synchronization, and watching by a CPU usage meter, you can tell it's not really even breaking a sweat.
And for the player part, I used Mplayer, which is multi core aware, It isn't as fast as coreAVC though.
most video cards transcode better than the top of the line i7
Quit talking about the CPU being the most important component in the gaming computer Intel, quit the graphics market or bring us a good GPU
People have been looking for ways to get as far from CPUs and integrated graphics since I was using a 386sx pondering more memory for higher end VGA settings. If anything, the future is in greater division of tasks between the CPU and GPU/PPUs. Most games are not capped by the CPU, this is true. But game designs are only now starting to figure out how to use more than one core for core game play, why change direction and render that moot by lagging up a machines CPU with graphics?
Intel can't and won't be able to turn PCs into X-box style gaming platforms, nor should they try. Give me my 4870x2 crossfired and my MMO.
so I don't see your point in saying intel's cpu is overrated
but yea Intel's GPUs sux they need to stop being arrogant
and buy nvidia now !
A general purpose CPU cannot and never will be as efficient as hardware designed for a specific task. So, assuming you had sufficient CPU cores to equal the performance of (for example) a dedicated GPU, you would probably find that the combined power consumption of the CPU cores was an order of magnitude higher (per unit of performance) than that of the GPU.
As an electrical engineer, I have yet to be convinced by Intel's argument. In my opinion, electronics manufacturers should be seeking ways to reduce power consumption and hence environmental impact. I can't see how Intel's initiative will do anything but make PCs even more power-hungry than they are today. It's a bad sign for the environment when a high end gaming rig needs a 1000W PSU, and models of that type are already on the market.
However, gamers and many computer engineers know that most gaming code is best done on and rendered by the GPU.
Until Intel introduces something like the Cell, the CPU should just stick to running the game engine and let the real number crunching to the GPU.
That is very true. A generic CPU will never able to beat specialized hardware. CPU doing graphics = 90% heat vs 10% work.
intel should not pushing game developers to put more work on not so efficient CPU cores, they should put dedicated hardware to cpu so it can handle graphics better. But before that they should make their graphics chips better.
I always get a kick when people actually buy them and
say check this out I can overclock my cpu to 7 GHZ
in the end that will increase frame rate by 5 fps
- by Akiba February 5, 2009 12:47 PM PST
- I don't think that is really the point. I think it's more of a marketing strategy. There isn't much focus on improving game play, it's more like we can do it too. Also I wouldn't assume you have unused cores during game play. For gaming you are involving a crowd that is already putting their resources to work. This is not a console. It is very common for gamers to conduct other activities on their machine while they play. You can minimize a full screen game, run it in windowed mode, or on a second monitor. An example would be World of Warcraft where players are constantly on thottbot or wowhead looking up quests and coordinates while chatting on vent, throttling uTorrent etc. That's just a practicaly example but other people will do a lot of unrelated activities while they play. This is only going to make that situation worse.
- Reply to this comment
-
(24 Comments)