Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Will a i5 4670k be better than the CPU in PS4 or XBox One?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 3, 2013 6:17:45 AM

I heard the consoles have 8 core CPU's. Does the CPU i mention only have 4 (i tried finding out and think its just 4)?

My question again is whether the i5 4670k can out perform what the consoles are supposedly going to have in them?

Ty


More about : 4670k cpu ps4 xbox

a c 93 à CPUs
September 3, 2013 6:20:58 AM

Stop comparing apples and oranges.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2013 6:29:42 AM

Completely different things I'm afraid.

The processor used in the Xbox One is built specifically FOR the Xbone, games and apps for the Xbone are going to be made specifically and optimised for use on the console and the hardware inside, which is never going to change.

I'm no expert, but from what I've seen and experienced, PC applications are not built with any specific hardware in mind, but faster processors will run applications faster (layman's terms here, people) - for instance, look at WinZip benchmarks.

Many PC programs do not use 8 cores at all, hell, it's only now just becoming the norm that games use all 4 cores on a quad-core. It'll be a while until we see "Recommended: 8-core CPU" on the case of games.
Score
0
Related resources
a c 98 à CPUs
September 3, 2013 6:36:09 AM

LikeGames said:
I heard the consoles have 8 core CPU's. Does the CPU i mention only have 4 (i tried finding out and think its just 4)?

My question again is whether the i5 4670k can out perform what the consoles are supposedly going to have in them?

Ty



The Core i5-4670K has 4 cores, but the clocks are twice as high or more, and they can perform far more calculations per clock cycle. The raw CPU performance is clearly superior to that of the consoles.
Score
0
September 3, 2013 6:40:21 AM

great few posts so far. Thank you for the info, been quite helpful. Much appreciated. Feel free to leave more posts 'forum readers' if u wish. Be happy to read them :) .
Score
0
September 3, 2013 7:05:43 AM

hafijur said:
The i5 4670k is about 3x faster then the console cpus.


i recall a friend asking me why dont i just get a console instead of thinking about getting a new PC. I knew i had good reasons for this ^^. Im gonna spend £1k approx on the system. I might get it round boxing day as i read a thread recently that suggested around this day. The prices are reduced which saved 1 guy $300 approx. Im all up for this lol.
Score
0
September 3, 2013 7:40:58 AM

hafijur said:
Consoles are great for exclusive games like gran turismo on the playstation and now killer instinct one of my favourite fighting game on snes is coming to xbox one. Imo its better to game on consoles and pc's but the games cost a ridiculous amount on colsoles compared to pc's so pc gaming is much cheaper but theres less people playing online but you get better graphics if you have a high end rig.


I like PC's for playing strategy games to which i think they excel on compared to console in this genre. Ive noticed some games switch from being exclusive to being a general release game which I hope happens really for the majority of exclusive games, i can hope. Titalfall, is that an exclusive? That better come out on PC lol. The PC audience oughta be happy anyway i think as there are so many games to cater for everyone. I cant remember an exclusive game that was then turned to a general release but im sure this happened at somepoint. Im starting to feel that the term exclusive may start to only mean now "on first release". Then after a number of months the game will roll out for other platforms. I do like the look of Titalfall. Looking forward to GTA5 to. My current PC just managed GTA4 or played it but not to a ultra setting standard.
Score
0
a b à CPUs
September 3, 2013 12:10:03 PM

You are basically comparing an 8-core jaguar to a 4-core HW at almost double the speed. Even assuming scaling to 8 cores, the HW is going to be faster.

That being said: Apples to Oranges. Highly integrated systems like consoles can be coded at a much lower level then you can with general purpose PC's, so you'll get much more highly optimized code for the consoles.

But in terms of pure horsepower? HW wins, easily.
Score
0
September 7, 2013 9:36:53 PM

8 Cores are not as powerful as 4 cores....Wait for it...

Because there are no applications on the PC designed to take specific advantage of 8 cores, with the exception of specialist software.

Theoretically If you have to say, the cpu's are similar to mid/ high end i5 processors but they will benchmark like high end i3 processors.
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
September 7, 2013 10:56:00 PM

The consoles are going to have custom AMD Jaguar cores. The dual core and quad core Jaguar targets are tablets and low cost laptops / netbooks. The consoles will have custom Jaguar cores because the integrated graphics will be much more powerful (at least that's what I'm assuming) compared to the graphic cores in the dual and quad core versions of Jaguar. I suppose the console Jaguars are true 8 core CPUs, however, I have read some articles that speculated it was in fact two quad cores "glued" together. But that was a few months ago and I haven't seen anything else about that issue. Then again, I not particularly interested...

Anywaste, in terms of AMD's CPU architecture the Jaguar core is the least powerful. Then comes the Richland core for the A series APUs. Finally, there is the Piledriver core in the FX CPUs. AMD's competitor to Intel's Core i3/i5/i7 family is the FX series.

Score
0
a c 98 à CPUs
September 8, 2013 2:55:43 AM

jaguarskx said:
The consoles are going to have custom AMD Jaguar cores. The dual core and quad core Jaguar targets are tablets and low cost laptops / netbooks. The consoles will have custom Jaguar cores because the integrated graphics will be much more powerful (at least that's what I'm assuming) compared to the graphic cores in the dual and quad core versions of Jaguar. I suppose the console Jaguars are true 8 core CPUs, however, I have read some articles that speculated it was in fact two quad cores "glued" together. But that was a few months ago and I haven't seen anything else about that issue. Then again, I not particularly interested...

Anywaste, in terms of AMD's CPU architecture the Jaguar core is the least powerful. Then comes the Richland core for the A series APUs. Finally, there is the Piledriver core in the FX CPUs. AMD's competitor to Intel's Core i3/i5/i7 family is the FX series.


Nothing custom about the cores AFAIK. It's the entire SoC that is custom, but made up of pretty regular Jaguar cores and GCN shaders (with some extra bits like the eSRAM in the Xbox One).

And the Piledriver cores in the APUs and FX CPUs are pretty much the same, the APUs just don't have the L3 cache.
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
September 9, 2013 8:58:45 AM

Sakkura said:

And the Piledriver cores in the APUs and FX CPUs are pretty much the same, the APUs just don't have the L3 cache.


Then I suppose it is the lack of the L3 cache that is causing a noticeable performance difference between the APU A series and the FX series.
Score
0
September 9, 2013 4:44:59 PM

jaguarskx said:

Then I suppose it is the lack of the L3 cache that is causing a noticeable performance difference between the APU A series and the FX series.


They probably targeted the production to have a low tdp, L3 is usually aggressive with heat.
Score
0
a c 471 à CPUs
September 9, 2013 6:19:24 PM

Whatever, I care more about the performance than the actual architecture itself.

If someone designs a CPU crammed with miniaturized gerbils, runs at only 1.5GHz and is as powerful as an i5-4570, then I wouldn't hesitate buying one.
Score
0
a c 98 à CPUs
September 9, 2013 6:20:29 PM

jaguarskx said:
Sakkura said:

And the Piledriver cores in the APUs and FX CPUs are pretty much the same, the APUs just don't have the L3 cache.


Then I suppose it is the lack of the L3 cache that is causing a noticeable performance difference between the APU A series and the FX series.

Yeah it's the same old thing we're used to seeing between the Athlons and Phenoms (and APUs with deactivated IGPs are appropriately marketed as Athlons).
Score
0
November 10, 2013 3:03:11 PM

Hand built personal computers always have been, and always will be, more powerful than consoles. Period.
Score
0
December 2, 2013 3:12:32 AM

Yes the i5 4670k is way better. Even though consoles are optimized, there's only so much the devs can do. It's not as miraculous like some people make it out to be.
Score
0
!