"those APU-processors which employ quite a lot less power than best of the desktop CPUs."
Not exactly sure exactly how much you know about semi-conductors and architectures as a whole, however you VASTLY over-estimate both the integer and floating-point compute performance of 'best of the desktop CPU' in comparison to the jaguar console APUs. The above is especially true in terms of real-time performance, since you don't have 8 gb ddr5 with a unified memory controller to reduce the time spent on consuming transfers and the desktop CPUs are hampered by poorly optimized APIs.
There's no magic 'utilize more instructions per clock' with games when you have no additional execution resources....
No, hyper-threading will never scale in a game over 20% absolute maximum and even then would be indicative of code that cannot utilize the pipeline as effectively as possible on a per thread basis. Stop using task manager percentages, they are meaningless.
Almost everyone (fantasy latest console build included) is GPU limited. Excellent work, LM, excellent work.
I assume FSX was highly reliant on CPU FPU, a really ridiculous but common occurrence with older engines. Hell, maybe it was even running fully depreciated x87 code like the engine used for the 'skyrim' game.
Anyways, they have done a great job.
Really, the image quality (plus pretty impressive shadows) and smoothness speaks for itself. 99.99% sure FSX will never be launched again.
I wonder how heavy the draw calls are....pretty heavy I would think....Possibly many of us are rather API limited.
