Is there a CPU that's equivalent to the PS4 or Xbox one?"
- Thread starter gizmo j
- Start date
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,265
- 108,890
The PS4's CPU is roughly equivalent to an FX8120 underclocked to ~1.8GHz... so it is not anything really worth talking about performance-wise.
smorizio
Titan
- Jan 22, 2010
- 30,984
- 9
- 125,315
the newer game systems are going to be using amd apu that a hybread of a cpu and gpu in one. the apu that going to be closest to the gaming system is amd new cpu here.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20131105234000_First_Photo_and_Launch_Date_of_AMD_Kaveri_APU_Revealed.html
depending on your build funds there are a few cpu and some pitfalls you have to look out for. with some cpu/gpu combos you can stop the gpu from hitting it max frame rate in games. you see this with the low end g cpu from intel.if you were buying soon look at intel 4570/4670 cpu and combo deals. the asus -a mb and 4670k on parts picker are combo deal. if your close to a micro center there cpu prices cant be beat. on amd side there the 6300fx that right at 100.00 on parts picker they been combo asrock mb for 99.00 with amd fx cpus.
the 8320 or higher amd cpu is also game worthy.
for cases there the nxzt 210 windows and the r300 that on sale and combo deals. 8g of ram 1600-2100 run you 70-80.
a 1tb hard drive run you 60.00
a 650-750w power supply run you 60-100.
a normal dvd rom burner run you 18.00
the 7950 gpu are on sale now with combo around 250.00 there the best deal on parts picker.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20131105234000_First_Photo_and_Launch_Date_of_AMD_Kaveri_APU_Revealed.html
depending on your build funds there are a few cpu and some pitfalls you have to look out for. with some cpu/gpu combos you can stop the gpu from hitting it max frame rate in games. you see this with the low end g cpu from intel.if you were buying soon look at intel 4570/4670 cpu and combo deals. the asus -a mb and 4670k on parts picker are combo deal. if your close to a micro center there cpu prices cant be beat. on amd side there the 6300fx that right at 100.00 on parts picker they been combo asrock mb for 99.00 with amd fx cpus.
the 8320 or higher amd cpu is also game worthy.
for cases there the nxzt 210 windows and the r300 that on sale and combo deals. 8g of ram 1600-2100 run you 70-80.
a 1tb hard drive run you 60.00
a 650-750w power supply run you 60-100.
a normal dvd rom burner run you 18.00
the 7950 gpu are on sale now with combo around 250.00 there the best deal on parts picker.
Sangeet Khatri
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 2,640
- 1
- 13,460
There is no CPU on the market which can compare to the CPU's of the PSU and Xbox one.
But talking about the whole build, you can actually build a build which is as powerful as the PS4 and Xbox one. Here is the Kill Your Console $400 Build
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 760K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($77.00 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI FM2-A75MA-E35 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($59.91 @ Amazon)
Memory: Team Vulcan 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($59.98 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 650 Ti 1GB Video Card ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design Core 1000 USB 3.0 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ Microcenter)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($19.99 @ Microcenter)
Total: $396.85
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-07 02:08 EST-0500)
There is no real reason to buy the console when you can have similarly powerful system for similar price.
But talking about the whole build, you can actually build a build which is as powerful as the PS4 and Xbox one. Here is the Kill Your Console $400 Build
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
CPU: AMD Athlon II X4 760K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($77.00 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI FM2-A75MA-E35 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($59.91 @ Amazon)
Memory: Team Vulcan 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($59.98 @ Amazon)
Storage: Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($59.99 @ NCIX US)
Video Card: MSI GeForce GTX 650 Ti 1GB Video Card ($89.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design Core 1000 USB 3.0 MicroATX Mid Tower Case ($29.99 @ Microcenter)
Power Supply: Corsair Builder 430W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply ($19.99 @ Microcenter)
Total: $396.85
(Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.)
(Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-07 02:08 EST-0500)
There is no real reason to buy the console when you can have similarly powerful system for similar price.
guraldunix
Distinguished
- Nov 7, 2013
- 8
- 1
- 18,520
Building a PC more powerful than PS4 is probably a bit easier than building one that's about equal.
The reason it's easier to build a more powerful machine is because there are a lot of potential complications in a PC running games vs. a PS4.
The PC potentially has a bit of additional overhead using DirectX compared to the PS4's specialized API. The PC may have additional background services running which impact performance, etc... These kinds of complications make it difficult when trying to target something that's equivalent to a console. So, when in doubt, just shoot for the next level up.
Luckily, the PS4 isn't some monster in terms of hardware. You should easily be able to match and exceed it with anything above an AMD 6350 processor, 8 gigs of decent DDR3 and a 7870 GHz edition graphics card.
Sangeet Khatri
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 2,640
- 1
- 13,460
Dude, look at my signature just below my answer. There is a 450 dollar build which has the 7870 XT edition card in 450 dollar budget.
And the 650 Ti is just a little less powerful than the 7850 which.
The 650 TI is as powerful as the GPU of the Xbox one.
Also the PS4 GPU is nowhere neaar the 7870. It is more towards the 7850 than the 7870. It is basically as powerful as 7850 if you are measuring performance in teraflops. So, the build is good enough.
And the 650 Ti is just a little less powerful than the 7850 which.
The 650 TI is as powerful as the GPU of the Xbox one.
Also the PS4 GPU is nowhere neaar the 7870. It is more towards the 7850 than the 7870. It is basically as powerful as 7850 if you are measuring performance in teraflops. So, the build is good enough.
guraldunix
Distinguished
- Nov 7, 2013
- 8
- 1
- 18,520
Just get an FX-8350 paired with a 7870 GHz Edition. A PS4 won't be anywhere close to that level of power.
Or are you still looking for something exactly the same as a PS4 rather than more powerful?
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
Funny as they both use x86 processors from PCs
This is wrong. To get the same level of performance out of a game on PC you need a superior system. Consoles are embedded devices that do not have to suffer your antivirus, word processor, and Windows' 2GB of RAM and constant CPU interrupting to function. This was played out long ago, and to this day there are no gaming systems out there that can run 512MB of RAM including GPU despite that being the Xbox 360 and as a result mainstream games' normal amount for the last 8 years.
Sangeet Khatri
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 2,640
- 1
- 13,460
And BF3 looks like crap on older hardware of the xbox 360.
Not to mention that buying a PC you can upgrade your CPU to the current needs if you want to play at high resolutions. But same cannot be done with the Console.
And the Athlon II X4 750k when paired with a 7870 can play BF3 at 1080p at Ultra settings while still being 30+ on FPS.
It can play BF4 at very high settings at similar settings. Just for 400 dollars.
Not to mention that buying a PC you can upgrade your CPU to the current needs if you want to play at high resolutions. But same cannot be done with the Console.
And the Athlon II X4 750k when paired with a 7870 can play BF3 at 1080p at Ultra settings while still being 30+ on FPS.
It can play BF4 at very high settings at similar settings. Just for 400 dollars.
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
The thing is, and you saw this on the last gen as well. Third party launch games are always a lot less demanding than mid cycle games as the devs go into designing the game before they fully know the specs of the console. Look at Perfect Dark and compare it to Halo 3. Then put that next to Halo 4 and Crysis 3 and it's obvious it looks shoddy and isn't really making the most out of the hardware.
I put money on that being the case with BF4, and I wouldn't want people taking my advice to have to replace/upgrade a system in only 6 months when they don't have to do that on console. For many people, getting $450 is hard enough the first time.
Sangeet Khatri
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 2,640
- 1
- 13,460
One thing I can assure you that you would not need to upgrade anything in the 750K + 7870 combination till like 3 years. It would still play games without any problems. I can assure you that.
Even after 3 years you would be able to play games at 720p without problem at that resolution. This is similar to what consoles do. They switch the output to 720p when the games start becoming more demanding.
FYI, the BF4 is rumoured to be running at just 900p on the PS4 and 720p on the Xbox One. Let them launch. We will see that what is really happening.
Because to me anything that cannot run games at 1080p for now is a waste for buying.
Then there is the freedom and the deals on PC which are not at all with the consoles.
Wait for the Steambox, build your own and have fun. You are no longer restricted to what music player, web browser, Video Player and other content Sony and Microsoft wants to restrict you. It is linux you can install anything you want. This is what is the power of Open Source.
Think of Steambox like Android and PS4 and Xbox like Windows Phone. You cannot change things much in the Windows Phone but you can change everything in the PS4.
And for those who say that there are no games on Linux, I would like to put this into account:
--> When PS4 and Xbox launch, they have zero games at launch
--> Linux already has 200 games at the time of Announcement of Steam and more games are coming. Metro Last Light just arrived on Linux.
Even after 3 years you would be able to play games at 720p without problem at that resolution. This is similar to what consoles do. They switch the output to 720p when the games start becoming more demanding.
FYI, the BF4 is rumoured to be running at just 900p on the PS4 and 720p on the Xbox One. Let them launch. We will see that what is really happening.
Because to me anything that cannot run games at 1080p for now is a waste for buying.
Then there is the freedom and the deals on PC which are not at all with the consoles.
Wait for the Steambox, build your own and have fun. You are no longer restricted to what music player, web browser, Video Player and other content Sony and Microsoft wants to restrict you. It is linux you can install anything you want. This is what is the power of Open Source.
Think of Steambox like Android and PS4 and Xbox like Windows Phone. You cannot change things much in the Windows Phone but you can change everything in the PS4.
And for those who say that there are no games on Linux, I would like to put this into account:
--> When PS4 and Xbox launch, they have zero games at launch
--> Linux already has 200 games at the time of Announcement of Steam and more games are coming. Metro Last Light just arrived on Linux.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,265
- 108,890
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,265
- 108,890
You will rarely get further advice once there are a few replies that already cover pretty much all there is to say on the topic unless there is something more you want to ask about... so, bumping for the sake of bumping is generally frowned upon as unnecessary/spam.
Sangeet Khatri
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 2,640
- 1
- 13,460
Go for the 750k or the 760k. Those two CPU's are powerful than the consoles. They just cost 70-80 dollars.
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,265
- 108,890
Neither are "close" to those CPUs since the PS4/XB1 have an 8-core CPU running at 1.6-2GHz while most mainstream desktop CPUs run at 3-4GHz and both chips you are interested in are quad-cores - half as many as what those consoles will have. If you are trying to match the consoles detail-for-detail as close as technically possible with desktop parts, you would need to underclock an FX-8120/8320.
If all you want is to roughly match or exceed the consoles' performance then either of those CPUs should be fine.
Sangeet Khatri
Honorable
- May 26, 2013
- 2,640
- 1
- 13,460
But consoles are going to be totally dependent on the Multi Threaded performance, wheras PC's would still be dependent on the combination of Single Threaded and Multi Threaded performance (mostly upto 4 cores).
So what I really meant was that this AMD quad core for PC offers performance similar to what 8 core would do with the Console.
Consoles need 8 cores, but PC's really do not, at least not for gaming. So they are about the same.
So, just simply talking about the gaming performance, then the 750k on the desktop front is equivalent to the Console's 8 core.
Though they both rely on different type of performance (Single Threaded v/s Multi Threaded Performance) but when compared, they would perform about the same. This is what I meant.
I hope you get what I am trying to say.
So what I really meant was that this AMD quad core for PC offers performance similar to what 8 core would do with the Console.
Consoles need 8 cores, but PC's really do not, at least not for gaming. So they are about the same.
So, just simply talking about the gaming performance, then the 750k on the desktop front is equivalent to the Console's 8 core.
Though they both rely on different type of performance (Single Threaded v/s Multi Threaded Performance) but when compared, they would perform about the same. This is what I meant.
I hope you get what I am trying to say.
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
That actually makes no sense whatsoever. If a console game is forced to be more threaded due to slower CPU's and more cores, why would they remove that from the PC version? Obviously BF4 is one of the first games to use 8 cores for a reason... It has to to fully take advantage of the games consoles.
You may of course be talking about PC only games, or maybe even older games. But no older game has ever had problems running on an 8 core, so without dipping below the power needed for the future generations of consoles, that problem doesn't really exist.
Also to add an addendum to the point about BF3... regardless of it looking like crap on that tricore, with 512MB RAM and an ATi X1800 sharing 256MB of that, it still looks at least as good as the PC version at minimum settings. That's a technical description of the Xbox 360 if you were wondering. Consider the fact that the PC minimum spec for that game is 2GB RAM, 512MB GPU, and a Radeon 3870 or higher.
So to run the game at minimum spec on a PC, that's a total of 5 times the required RAM, at least twice the CPU power* and a GPU that came out with the same price as the whole 360... 3 generations and two years after.
Building a system that has the same hardware as the PS4 is one thing. Suggesting that games will run just as well on a general purpose OS is bulls**t.
*Updated IBM G5 tri-core vs Core 2 Quad, and lets not forget that speed difference was so big it's why Apple switched to Intel
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,265
- 108,890
They do not need to "remove" anything on the software side. What he meant is that software that absolutely requires all eight cores on consoles should be able to run about just as well on desktop CPUs with half as many cores since individual desktop cores are so much faster than the consoles'.
But to reduce performance losses on interprocess communications, scheduling and other overheads, it is quite possible that part of the port job will include replacing some threads with direct function calls.
genz
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2012
- 630
- 1
- 19,165
You're ignoring the rest of the post.
Let me quote myself:
quote
So to run the game at minimum spec on a PC, that's a total of 5 times the required RAM, at least twice the CPU power and a GPU that came out with the same price as the whole 360... 3 generations and two years after.
unquote
- May 18, 2007
- 23,815
- 5,265
- 108,890
Many things are getting "ignored" if you ask me.
For example: consoles run either 720p30, 720p60, 1080p30 or 1080i60 while PCs run 1080p60. This is between twice and four times as many pixels to render per second on PCs right there, not counting all the details that usually get bumped up a notch or two on PCs due to having a lot more system and video RAM to spare than the PS3/X360. The gap should get considerably narrower with the PS4/XB1... apart from consoles still being capped at 1080p30.
So, the PC version would naturally use at least twice the compute resources even if we ignore all the background tasks and API overheads from running a full-blown desktop OS.
The purpose you want a PC that most closely matches the performance of a modern console is ?
It is completely fashionable to build a console-killer, it's very easy to do but i fail to see the logic in building a machine that only (matches) its level of performance but PC's and Consoles are 2 totally different animals even though they use the same pieces and parts..
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Help in troubleshooting possible graphics card issue?
- Started by nort99
- Replies: 3
-
Question RX 6600 visual glitches right after upgrading to it- Started by Wamek
- Replies: 4
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram