Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What does the PS4's 8 core CPU mean for PC gaming?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 21, 2013 2:45:05 PM

Hi,

I am pretty concerned about the PS4 announcement. I just got the 3570k and a new z77 1155 socket motherboard but I am wondering with if I should of gone with an 8 core (HT) CPU.

I assume if the PS4 has 8-cores then the games that come out in the future will be optimised to make use of those many cores. So does this mean the future PC ports will run better on a 6 or 8 core CPU. Did I make a bad decision in purchasing the 3570k?

Realistically how long until new games begin to use more than 4 cores? And will my CPU fall behind. I want it to last a good three years.

Thanks
Adam

More about : ps4 core cpu gaming

February 21, 2013 3:07:20 PM

It might have 8 cores, but it is 8 weak cores.

Games will mostly still look better on the PC, as long as you have a decent GPU.
a c 106 à CPUs
February 21, 2013 3:17:31 PM

Yep, you're going to be FINE.

Quad core CPUs are just now beginning to become the standard for gaming over the dual cores that have ruled during the era of the 3-core xbox 360 and the 8-core PS3.

Consoles work differently than PC games. Accept that and don't worry.
Related resources
February 21, 2013 3:41:07 PM

You will be fine

but i disagree with groomer

console's typically maximize their hardware to a level PCs cant
a c 480 à CPUs
February 21, 2013 6:10:10 PM

Generally speaking, that 8 core are supposedly running at 1.6GHz (unless it has been confirmed or denied at this point). So they are running slower than even the FX-8350. The IPC is somewhat weak compared to Intel CPUs and since console specs do not change over the years (excluding the release of a new generation console), the IPC gap vs. desktop PCs will increase every year. In other words, PC CPUs will get more powerful over time while the console PCs will remain the same.

I wouldn't worry too much about 8 cores. It is easier to insert an 8 core CPU into a console/PC... It is not so easy to design games that can actually make use of them. For single player games the 8 cores is not going to be a big deal. For MMOs it will still take some time before they will make use of 8 cores... and be optimized at the same time too.
February 21, 2013 6:30:41 PM

I see 8 cores and think they wanted room to have the thing do more at once rather than have games actually use all 8 cores.

I hope we can get some kind of tool that helps us measure performance from the two platforms where one can do more with less (PS3/4, Xbox). It seems like apple and oranges at some lvl.

If I had to guess, the PS4 would be about a a rig with a gtx660ti---7950 with an FX chip.
February 21, 2013 6:52:25 PM

Here is a link to follow:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6770/sony-announces-plays...

Sony just announced the PlayStation 4, along with some high level system specifications. The high level specs are what we've heard for quite some time:

8-core x86-64 CPU using AMD Jaguar cores (built by AMD)
High-end PC GPU (also built by AMD), delivering 1.84TFLOPS of performance
Unified 8GB of GDDR5 memory for use by both the CPU and GPU with 176GB/s of memory bandwidth
Large local hard drive
Details of the CPU aren't known at this point (8-cores could imply a Piledriver derived architecture, or 8 smaller Jaguar cores—the latter being more likely), but either way this will be a big step forward over the PowerPC based general purpose cores on Cell from the previous generation. I wouldn't be too put off by the lack of Intel silicon here, it's still a lot faster than what we had before and at this level price matters more than peak performance. The Intel performance advantage would have to be much larger to dramatically impact console performance. If we're talking about Jaguar cores, then there's a bigger concern long term from a single threaded performance standpoint.

Update: I've confirmed that there are 8 Jaguar based AMD CPU cores inside the PS4's APU. The CPU + GPU are on a single die. Jaguar will still likely have better performance than the PS3/Xbox 360's PowerPC cores, and it should be faster than anything ARM based out today, but there's not huge headroom going forward. While I'm happier with Sony's (and MS') CPU selection this time around, I always hoped someone would take CPU performance in a console a bit more seriously. Given the choice between spending transistors on the CPU vs. GPU, I understand that the GPU wins every time in a console—I'm just always an advocate for wanting more of both. I realize I never wrote up a piece on AMD's Jaguar architecture, so I'll likely be doing that in the not too distant future.

The choice of 8 cores is somewhat unique. Jaguar's default compute unit is a quad-core machine with a large shared L2 cache, it's likely that AMD placed two of these together for the PlayStation 4. The last generation of consoles saw a march towards heavily threaded machines, so it's no surprise that AMD/Sony want to continue the trend here. Clock speed is unknown, but Jaguar was good for a mild increase over its predecessor Bobcat. Given the large monolithic die, AMD and Sony may not have wanted to push frequency as high as possible in order to keep yields up and power down. While I still expect CPU performance to move forward in this generation of consoles, I was reminded of the fact that the PowerPC cores in the previous generation ran at very high frequencies. The IPC gains afforded by Jaguar have to be significant in order to make up for what will likely be a lower clock speed.

We don't know specifics of the GPU, but with it approaching 2 TFLOPS we're looking at a level of performance somewhere between a Radeon HD 7850 and 7870. Update: Sony has confirmed the actual performance of the PlayStation 4's GPU as 1.84 TFLOPS. Sony claims the GPU features 18 compute units, which if this is GCN based we'd be looking at 1152 SPs and 72 texture units. It's unclear how custom the GPU is however, so we'll have to wait for additional information to really know for sure. The highest end PC GPUs are already faster than this, but the PS4's GPU is a lot faster than the PS3's RSX which was derived from NVIDIA's G70 architecture (used in the GeForce 7800 GTX, for example). I'm quite pleased with the promised level of GPU performance with the PS4. There are obvious power and cost constraints that would keep AMD/Sony from going even higher here, but this should be a good leap forward from current gen consoles.

Outfitting the PS4 with 8GB of RAM will be great for developers, and using high-speed GDDR5 will help ensure the GPU isn't bandwidth starved. Sony promised around 176GB/s of memory bandwidth for the PS4. The lack of solid state storage isn't surprising. Hard drives still offer a dramatic advantage in cost per GB vs. an SSD. Now if it's user replaceable with an SSD that would be a nice compromise.

Leveraging Gaikai's cloud gaming technology, the PS4 will be able to act as a game server and stream the video output to a PS Vita, wirelessly. This sounds a lot like what NVIDIA is doing with Project Shield and your NVIDIA powered gaming PC. Sony referenced dedicated video encode/decode hardware that allows you to instantaneously record and share screenshots/video of gameplay. I suspect this same hardware is used in streaming your game to a PS Vita.

Backwards compatibility with PS3 games isn't guaranteed and instead will leverage cloud gaming to stream older content to the box. There's some sort of a dedicated background processor that handles uploads and downloads, and even handles updates in the background while the system is off. The PS4 also supports instant suspend/resume.

The new box heavily leverages PC hardware, which is something we're expecting from the next Xbox as well. It's interesting that this is effectively how Microsoft entered the console space back in 2001 with the original Xbox, and now both Sony and MS have returned to that philosophy with their next gen consoles in 2013. The PlayStation 4 will be available this holiday season.

I'm trying to get more details on the CPU and GPU architectures and will update as soon as I have more info.
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2013 7:09:47 PM

imho, 8 cores wont make it suddenly a lot more powerful than pc gaming.

first its an amd cpu, there not as efficent per clock as intel (not sure if this is still the case but ill go with it)

then you have the fact that nearly all intel and most amd cpu's run at 3ghz+ that means that with the same efficency per clock they will do the same workload in the same time.


the biggest limitation is going to be the built-in hdd. a lot of gamers have ssd's now that mean the os doesnt use any read/write performance from hdd


if any of you read custom pc then you will know that a lot of game engines are still made to use a single cpu core. they are starting to use 4 cores now which is a good thing.


the main area that pc's will excell is the gpu, if we really wanted to we could buy 6 core intel/8 core amd cpu's and have 3 high end graphics cards in sli/crossfire


the ps3 has 8 core and the apu. that's it, personally i think the reason there is 8 cores is a lot of the graphics is going to be offloaded to the cpu

a b à CPUs
February 21, 2013 9:26:14 PM

jaguar cores are a slight improvement on bobcat cores (AMD says 10-15% performance improvement which in real life would be 5%) that are designed for tablets/smartphones. it would be like comparing a modern tegra quad core found in a tablet to a modern desktop quad core like an i5 or even phenom II x4. I'm sure the the developers will do a great job of optimizing all eight cores (a good year or two after PS4/xboc 720 launch) but there is only so much information those cores can process and move.

the real issue should be GPU, the PS4 looks like a console designed to play games at 30FPS at 1080p. So im guessing more console ports for PC gamers with tweaks like distance draw and shadow improvement so they can feel as if they are "taxing" their video card to help nvidia/AMD sell more hardware.
a c 480 à CPUs
February 21, 2013 10:27:37 PM

dirtyferret said:
jaguar cores are a slight improvement on bobcat cores (AMD says 10-15% performance improvement which in real life would be 5%) that are designed for tablets/smartphones. it would be like comparing a modern tegra quad core found in a tablet to a modern desktop quad core like an i5 or even phenom II x4. I'm sure the the developers will do a great job of optimizing all eight cores (a good year or two after PS4/xboc 720 launch) but there is only so much information those cores can process and move.



Really??? I thought it would be some derivative of the PileDriver FX core like a lower clocked version of the FX-8300 (which consumes 95w) that would have decent enough power consumption.

You mean the CPU used in the next gen Xbox and PS is more or less a glorified AMD E-350 with 8 cores?

Goes to show how much I pay attention to consoles. Much less care about them.
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2013 10:31:46 PM

The 8-core design is simultaneously great news for PC gaming in general and still NOT bad news for you. You're still likely to perform better on your 3570k than a 3770k.
a b à CPUs
February 21, 2013 11:26:58 PM

jaguarskx said:
Really??? I thought it would be some derivative of the PileDriver FX core like a lower clocked version of the FX-8300 (which consumes 95w) that would have decent enough power consumption.

You mean the CPU used in the next gen Xbox and PS is more or less a glorified AMD E-350 with 8 cores?

Goes to show how much I pay attention to consoles. Much less care about them.


http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20120904201534...
a c 480 à CPUs
February 22, 2013 1:26:33 AM

It would be interesting to see how well the dual core version will perform in a tablet. Would also be interesting to see a quad core design for a tablet. nVidia's quad core (with a lower clocked 5th core) Tegra 3 seems to perform decently enough.

Of course it would be best if AMD can shrink down the Jaguar cores from 28mm to 20mm ASAP!!! Then again, I suppose that depends on GloFo getting their act together.
a b à CPUs
February 22, 2013 2:04:03 AM

Good for AMD as console ports will play nicer with their architecture. This could be AMD's master plan! In all honesty, don't worry too much. Just worry about your GPU.
February 22, 2013 6:13:37 AM

DarkSable said:
Yep, you're going to be FINE.

Quad core CPUs are just now beginning to become the standard for gaming over the dual cores that have ruled during the era of the 3-core xbox 360 and the 8-core PS3.

Consoles work differently than PC games. Accept that and don't worry.



to help you with this question. I had a Phenom II 955 black edition. now I was runninga dodgey fan as the std one broke, and I had no cash. so I sat a 8cm fan on it connected with zip ties. so it wasnt very good. to keep temps down I had to underclock it to 2.5ghz! to stop it going above 65 degrees at full load. so I did. and it ran black ops 2 fine.

not long ago I upgraded to a FX 6300 6 core 3.5ghz with turbo to 4.1ghz black edition. and a 7850 o/c version. well I take much longer to load into Bloack ops 2, to the point 3 deaths occur before I can even select my class!! thats how slow it is. the new amd architecture IS CRAP and sony got ripped off or amd sold it to them on the cheap@
February 22, 2013 6:31:53 AM

well I take much longer to load into Bloack ops 2, to the point 3 deaths occur before I can even select my class!! thats how slow it is. the new amd architecture IS CRAP and sony got ripped off or amd sold it to them on the cheap@ said:
well I take much longer to load into Bloack ops 2, to the point 3 deaths occur before I can even select my class!! thats how slow it is. the new amd architecture IS CRAP and sony got ripped off or amd sold it to them on the cheap@


aren't you a spectator at the start of the game? how did you die?
February 22, 2013 6:39:55 AM

read my post. I didnt say I die. Rolls eyes
February 23, 2013 10:02:27 AM

nm
February 23, 2013 8:00:57 PM

I think it means more PC games will take advantage of more threads.
February 23, 2013 8:29:20 PM

thenick said:
Hi,

I am pretty concerned about the PS4 announcement. I just got the 3570k and a new z77 1155 socket motherboard but I am wondering with if I should of gone with an 8 core (HT) CPU.

I assume if the PS4 has 8-cores then the games that come out in the future will be optimised to make use of those many cores. So does this mean the future PC ports will run better on a 6 or 8 core CPU. Did I make a bad decision in purchasing the 3570k?

Realistically how long until new games begin to use more than 4 cores? And will my CPU fall behind. I want it to last a good three years.

Thanks
Adam



As most other posters have said I don't think you will have any problem gaming on your computer for many years to come. I am only running a Phenom II 965 BE and I'm confident that with the proper GPU I'll be able to game on it for the next two to three years (maybe not on Ultra setting like I am now, but still be able to run the games as well as the PS4). I don't see game developers taking full advantage of 8 cores for at least a year or two after the release, and I have a feeling that at least one or two the the 8 cores are going to be dedicated to "other" processes. By other processes I mean wireless technology (ie Kinect and PS4 version) and social networking. I have a feeling that games will be optimized for 4 cores (6 at most) leaving the rest of the processing power for hands free gaming and social networking.
February 24, 2013 4:52:59 PM

This will be GREAT for me! i have an overclocked FX-8320, and games being optimized for 8 pseudo-AMD cores would be great for me. we might see the module architecture shine in games.
February 24, 2013 6:26:27 PM

seinfeld said:
to help you with this question. I had a Phenom II 955 black edition. now I was runninga dodgey fan as the std one broke, and I had no cash. so I sat a 8cm fan on it connected with zip ties. so it wasnt very good. to keep temps down I had to underclock it to 2.5ghz! to stop it going above 65 degrees at full load. so I did. and it ran black ops 2 fine.

not long ago I upgraded to a FX 6300 6 core 3.5ghz with turbo to 4.1ghz black edition. and a 7850 o/c version. well I take much longer to load into Bloack ops 2, to the point 3 deaths occur before I can even select my class!! thats how slow it is. the new amd architecture IS CRAP and sony got ripped off or amd sold it to them on the cheap@


Thats got nothing to do with your cpu mate
February 24, 2013 9:51:43 PM

It won't really matter, your quad core has great single threaded performance. Even if they manage to spread out all the tasks evenly over those 8 cores of the PS4, your quad-core would beat it simply because it can do the work of 2 of those cores with 1
February 24, 2013 9:51:54 PM

Tman450 said:
This will be GREAT for me! i have an overclocked FX-8320, and games being optimized for 8 pseudo-AMD cores would be great for me. we might see the module architecture shine in games.


If you are right, and I'm hoping you are it will be GREAT for all AMD customers!! The one thing I HATE about Intel is their processors are OVERPRICED. Back when AMD processors were killing Intel processors in overclocking, benchmarks, and practical application, Intel processors were still more expensive than AMD yet not as good. Good processor or bad processor, if Intel has a logo on it then it will be overpriced. If games are indeed going to be optimized for the 8 core AMD processors then my next upgrade will be new motherboard and a shiny new Steamroller chip when they release. I'm sure Intel will still have an edge over AMD, but that edge is going to be more and more in benchmark tests only as far as gaming goes. It doesn't matter if your car can go 200+ mph if the road your on limits you to 65 mph, just like it doesn't matter how good your benchmark is if the program (game) can't take advantage of all that extra power. I figure my Phenom II 965 BE will keep me gaming at least until the release of Steamroller (of course I also have a very good GPU). Again though another thing to consider is that a couple cores in the new PS4 and Xbox might be dedicated to hands free control and social networking so the actual games may only use 4-6 cores.

Regardless of how game design is going to change with the new PS4 and Xbox its nice to see that AMD is going to be around for a long, long time :sol: 
March 1, 2013 6:16:17 AM

Consoles and PCs are very different systems. Your graphics card is way more important for gaming than your CPU, so asking if the 3570K is better than the PS4 for gaming is a flawed question for 2 reasons: 1) How good your PC is for gaming depends on what GPU you are putting in your rig. Once that's known we make a more direct comparison. 2) Yes the 3570K is better than the CPU they put in the PS4 for general computing, but they didn't design the CPU in the PS4 for general computing, they designed it for console gaming, which is why they underclocked the CPU in the PS4 down to 1.9GHz (from what I heard) by cutting the multiplier in half in order to cut down on heat and power consumption. It just doesn't need that much CPU power- it needs GPU power and parallel processing power.

Based on everything I've read, this is the best way to imagine what they're putting in the PS4:
The Radeon 7850 has 16 compute units while the 7870 has 20 compute units. The PS4 chip will have 18 compute units (1152 stream processors), putting it somewhere in between, so let's call it a 7860. However, they hinted strongly that it's going to be the next generation graphics, so it could be Radeon 8000 hardware on the chip, making it something like a Radeon 8860.
Now, look at this CPU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Take that CPU, but change the cores from Trinity to Jaguar, cut the multiplier in half so it's running at 1.9GHz instead of 3.8GHz, double the number of cores from 4 to 8, shrink the die size from 32nm to 28nm, double the L2 cache from 4MB to 8MB, increase the FPU datapath from 64-bit to 128-bit, and replace the the 7660D on that chip with the 8860D that I described above, increasing the stream processors on the chip from 384 to 1152, and upping the core clock from 800MHz to 1000MHz. Finally, instead of hooking this hypothetical CPU up to 8GB of DDR3 running at 1866MHz, imagine hooking it up to to 8GB of GDDR5 running at 4800MHz. Boom. You have yourself the PS4.

How this hypothetical setup would compare to your setup would depend entirely on what sort of challenge you stack each up against. For gaming, the PS4 is going to be better unless you put at least a Radeon 7870 or better card in your PC, and even then in situations that utilize the 8GB of GDDR5 they put in the PS4, the PS4 might win. For anything other than gaming, your 3570K computer wins.
March 1, 2013 11:07:27 PM

timil said:
Thats got nothing to do with your cpu mate



yeah it does. nothing else changed! except the new video card and a new CPU (both much faster then the previous ones in there! )
a c 91 à CPUs
March 2, 2013 12:41:20 AM

i dont think the fact it has 8 cores will make a difference for PC gaming, but the fact that they are x86 cores means ported games should run a lot better. I wonder what OS it will use though? a version of linux perhaps?
a c 186 à CPUs
March 2, 2013 1:09:31 AM

dirtyferret said:
jaguar cores are a slight improvement on bobcat cores (AMD says 10-15% performance improvement which in real life would be 5%) that are designed for tablets/smartphones. it would be like comparing a modern tegra quad core found in a tablet to a modern desktop quad core like an i5 or even phenom II x4. I'm sure the the developers will do a great job of optimizing all eight cores (a good year or two after PS4/xboc 720 launch) but there is only so much information those cores can process and move.

the real issue should be GPU, the PS4 looks like a console designed to play games at 30FPS at 1080p. So im guessing more console ports for PC gamers with tweaks like distance draw and shadow improvement so they can feel as if they are "taxing" their video card to help nvidia/AMD sell more hardware.

SERIOUS!?

LOLLLLLLLLLL [:rayner428] [:rayner428] [:rayner428] [:rayner428] [:rayner428] [:rayner428]
a c 186 à CPUs
March 2, 2013 1:10:16 AM

jaguarskx said:
Really??? I thought it would be some derivative of the PileDriver FX core like a lower clocked version of the FX-8300 (which consumes 95w) that would have decent enough power consumption.

You mean the CPU used in the next gen Xbox and PS is more or less a glorified AMD E-350 with 8 cores?


Goes to show how much I pay attention to consoles. Much less care about them.



Guess so! :sol: 
March 2, 2013 3:29:24 AM

It sounds to me like you're all way too focused on the CPU aspect. You shouldn't even think of it as a CPU at all. It's more like a high-end Radeon graphics card with 1152 stream processors, 8GB of GDDR5, and 8 Jaguar cores just there to back it up. They didn't do it like this because they couldn't afford Intel Ivy Bridge technology- they did it this way because this is better for what they want it to do. Remember, AMD and Sony collaborated to create a custom chip just for the PS4.

I'm also hearing concerns that the games will not utilize all 8 cores effectively. For PC games ported directly to the PS4 without much consideration, this might be an issue, but for those designed for the PS4 and those more carefully ported, all 8 cores will be used. The main reason for their move from the cell processor to this AMD chipset is that too many developers were complaining that the cell processor was too hard to work with. While cell had great potential for those programmers who took time to figure it out, they ultimately decided to go with something more open to expand the selection of games. The developers are going to design games for the PS4 with those 8 cores in mind.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2013 4:18:56 AM

Why do you think Planetside 2 hasn't been on consoles yet?
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2013 4:22:47 AM

jlan86 said:
It sounds to me like you're all way too focused on the CPU aspect. You shouldn't even think of it as a CPU at all. It's more like a high-end Radeon graphics card with 1152 stream processors, 8GB of GDDR5, and 8 Jaguar cores just there to back it up. They didn't do it like this because they couldn't afford Intel Ivy Bridge technology- they did it this way because this is better for what they want it to do. Remember, AMD and Sony collaborated to create a custom chip just for the PS4.

I'm also hearing concerns that the games will not utilize all 8 cores effectively. For PC games ported directly to the PS4 without much consideration, this might be an issue, but for those designed for the PS4 and those more carefully ported, all 8 cores will be used. The main reason for their move from the cell processor to this AMD chipset is that too many developers were complaining that the cell processor was too hard to work with. While cell had great potential for those programmers who took time to figure it out, they ultimately decided to go with something more open to expand the selection of games. The developers are going to design games for the PS4 with those 8 cores in mind.

Yeah, keep in mind the developers are stuck with those specs for years to come.
March 2, 2013 4:41:15 AM

This how to technology going on:
* PC, The first machine will get it.
* Laptop, After ~1.5 year.
* Game Console, after ~3.5 years.
* Smart Phones/Tablets, after 5 years

:) 
a c 79 à CPUs
March 2, 2013 4:41:26 AM

It is important to first know with credibility what that 8 core cpu is actually manufactured to work as. Is it like the previous Cell design? Cell had one PPE and eight SPE's. The PPE controlled SPE's. Does the jaguar package doe the same have one master and other slave cpu's. That it is x86 gives no idea if they are all complete fully functional cores, it just shows a migration from the Power architecture to x86.

Utilizing 8 cores in a console and in a desktop cpu's are two very different things. Consoles actually pursue the ideal situation where the cpu is engaged 100% all the time. there should be no time wasted in idling. That is because they run just one application/program=game all the time. A desktop cpu, with all "equal" cores is better utilized when there is as little cpu locking from one application as possible.

The focus on cpu is important because of the different ways in which gpu and cpu works. A gpu executes many parallel threads at a low clock speed while the cpu executes single thread/per core at very high clock.

The cpu is tasked with feeding the compute data to the gpu as the games do not directly communicate with it. And it is this interfacing of the cpu and gpu that manifests as bottlenecks we all talk about.

Thread execution by a cpu is dependent on the IPC and speed which in 3570K vs 8 Jaguar cores, favours the 3570K. Which means that assuming that this amd cpu is an 8 core just like a regular desktop cpu, over a given length of time, say 10 seconds, the 3570K will have processed more threads and fed those into the gpu than the 8 core.

March 2, 2013 5:01:03 AM

melikepie said:
Yeah, keep in mind the developers are stuck with those specs for years to come.


I don't think that will be a problem. Even on PC, most games do not fully utilize the hardware available. Developing games to the level of photo-realism to which current hardware is capable is extremely costly. You only get it with top-notch games. On consoles it's a little easier to max out, but even on the PS3 most games do not fully utilize the hardware available. The power increase in the PS4 is nothing developers will complain about. If anything it will be years before we even see PS4 games that really show its full potential. (Full potential also implies Ultra-HD games, which means you'll need a UHDTV just to enjoy them.)

I'm way more concerned about what else the PS4 is going to offer other than updated hardware. Consoles these days have to have something special to set them apart from PC gaming and other consoles. With Wii it was motion control remotes, and then with the XBox360 it was the Kinect. Sony tried motion wands for the PS3 and they were a dismal failure. I'm hoping that Sony has some sort of secret deal with Leap Motion that they haven't told anyone about yet that will integrate Leap Motion controls into the PS3. If not, and the PS4 really is just a hardware increase that most games won't even utilize, Sony is going to have a hard time keeping up with Microsoft and PC gaming.
a c 91 à CPUs
March 2, 2013 5:21:48 AM

im sure they will use the gpu for a lot of the physics and such anyway, offloading the cpu.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2013 7:06:35 AM

It's not a good idea to use a GPU for physics. It ruins the FPS, there is a reason there is a CPU.
March 2, 2013 7:21:07 AM

melikepie said:
It's not a good idea to use a GPU for physics. It ruins the FPS, there is a reason there is a CPU.


lowers the FPS for extra eye candy. what's the problem with that? i'd rather have a dynamic scene that's pushing technology than stale, bland and tedious.

it is a good idea.
March 2, 2013 7:21:14 AM

and besides, it doesn't matter what hardware next-gen consoles will have.

console-optimized means games that are uglier than their PC counterparts.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2013 2:12:27 PM

jlan86 said:
It sounds to me like you're all way too focused on the CPU aspect. You shouldn't even think of it as a CPU at all. It's more like a high-end Radeon graphics card with 1152 stream processors, 8GB of GDDR5, and 8 Jaguar cores just there to back it up.

They didn't do it like this because they couldn't afford Intel Ivy Bridge technology- they did it this way because this is better for what they want it to do. Remember, AMD and Sony collaborated to create a custom chip just for the PS4.

I'm also hearing concerns that the games will not utilize all 8 cores effectively. For PC games ported directly to the PS4 without much consideration, this might be an issue, but for those designed for the PS4 and those more carefully ported, all 8 cores will be used. The main reason for their move from the cell processor to this AMD chipset is that too many developers were complaining that the cell processor was too hard to work with. While cell had great potential for those programmers who took time to figure it out, they ultimately decided to go with something more open to expand the selection of games. The developers are going to design games for the PS4 with those 8 cores in mind.


I broke your quote up into three sections because I do agree with the former and latter, just not the middle.

Cost is a HUGE consideration when building any gaming console be it a hand held Nintendo unit or the latest and greatest PS9. The previous generation went with IBM because of cost (i've actually visited the plant). I believe we all can agree AMD/Intel could have designed a better chip then IBM but at what cost? Last generation a $400 console at launch costs about $100-125 in losses to make mainly due to ramping up proprietary part manufacturing.
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/23/microsoft-losing-126-...

Both Sony/MS took a bath last generation at launch and were forced to stretch out the console life span to help cover cost. They have already stated they won't repeat the same cost issue with the new consoles and the release (leak) of hardware specs helps to confirm those statements.

off reply topic
if you really look at the PS4 specs it looks like a cheap server with a GPU and there is a good reason for that. The PS4 is designed to download HD movies, games, and allow you to play a friend's game (at the same time) even if you don't own that game. Unlike a PC, the PS4 will do most (if not all) of that automatically for you to help make it consumer friendly so it will need to hold back resources. It is doubtful (IMO) that Sony (or MS) will allow developers access to all that hardware so that people can play a game and download a new game, console updates, movies, etc., in the background without interruption.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2013 2:20:28 PM

wh3resmycar said:
lowers the FPS for extra eye candy. what's the problem with that? i'd rather have a dynamic scene that's pushing technology than stale, bland and tedious.

it is a good idea.


you might but sony/ms don't. they want games running at 1080p as smooth as possible.

FYI, more info on PS4's CPU

In Sony’s own words, the PS4 contains a “supercharged PC architecture,” which is a little hyperbolic and condescending if you’re a PC gamer, but for a game console to use the x86 architecture is really quite extraordinary. Other than the original Xbox, no major console has used the x86 architecture, instead opting for RISC chips made by the likes of IBM, NEC, and Toshiba. Sony’s sudden shift to x86 will take many gamers and developers by surprise, but it makes a lot of sense if we look at the bigger picture.

.....

The x86 CPU, incidentally, is a 64-bit, 8-core Jaguar CPU made by AMD, probably clocked at around 2GHz. Jaguar is the next step up after Bobcat, and is targeted at low-power (and low-cost) laptops. Jaguar is expected to be around 10% faster than Bobcat — and the core count is quite impressive, if developers can make use of them all — but overall, the PS4′s CPU isn’t spectacular. (See: Our full Jaguar explainer.)

It isn’t merely a CPU inside the PS4, though — it’s an APU! Bundled with the CPU, on the same die, is what Sony is calling “a next-generation Radeon” GPU. Beyond that, all we know is that the GPU has 18 compute units and is capable of 1.84 teraflops — i.e. somewhere between the Radeon 7850 and 7870.


March 2, 2013 8:47:50 PM


there's no programming magic in it. when a dev says their games are console optimized, it's code for uglier, bland-textures, almost-no AA, 30 fps target video game. that's comparable to a mixed of low/mid settings on the PC.

reason why there's not a single console game at present (and quite possibly the future given next-gen hardware) that out-guns a PC game visually. always have been, always will be.

you might but sony/ms don't. they want games running at 1080p as smooth as possible. said:
you might but sony/ms don't. they want games running at 1080p as smooth as possible.


yep, but keep in mind the 30 FPS target. physics acceleration is quite reachable. tressFX would be a good addition to games of the future.

it's been a year now since i quit PC gaming, i mainly use my PC for dota1 purposes. and the only way i can stomach triple A titles with my xbox360 is when i'm a good 5-6 ft away. and the insatiable comfort of playing games with awkward sitting position.

the problem with AMD is that they're good at making tech demos, it took them half a decade to finally come up with a consumer level physics acceleration solution.


what's irritating is the amount of social BS that'll come with these next gen consoles. i can understand that the Multiplayer games but single-player campaigns are my private-intimate times.
a b à CPUs
March 2, 2013 11:51:18 PM

wh3resmycar said:
t


yep, but keep in mind the 30 FPS target. physics acceleration is quite reachable. tressFX would be a good addition to games of the future.



my first post in this thread "the PS4 looks like a console designed to play games at 30FPS at 1080p"
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2013 1:39:55 AM

The PS4 isn't gaming friendly. Have you tried to use 8 cores in C++ for games? Especially considering that those are very weak cores? They're not getting anywhere anytime soon. The amount of speed a 3.1GHz Bulldozer is capable of is quite low. Just enough for 2D physics, which uses considerably less resources then 3D physics. I think Sony is headed towards GPU based games. Which is very powerful. Definitely not future proof. I hope Microsoft doesn't make the same mistake.
March 3, 2013 5:41:27 AM

this is just as powerful as a 7850. my O/c 7850 2gb is capable of 1.7 Gflops. thats the same !! pretty impressive for a on die GPU
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2013 6:39:14 AM

How did you test your GPU?
March 3, 2013 8:00:52 AM

sorry it was 1.76 TFLOPS Single Precision compute power
from power color website
a b à CPUs
March 3, 2013 10:52:47 AM

So, a 7970 GHz edition has 3.788 TFlops, and mine goes just a bit faster, and it still costs less then the PS4 (those pesky "gaming" consoles cost a lot at launch) then my GPU wins! I will upgrade it maybe in 2-3 years, then lets see the performance :pt1cable: !
March 3, 2013 2:23:58 PM

melikepie said:
So, a 7970 GHz edition has 3.788 TFlops, and mine goes just a bit faster, and it still costs less then the PS4 (those pesky "gaming" consoles cost a lot at launch) then my GPU wins! I will upgrade it maybe in 2-3 years, then lets see the performance :pt1cable: !


You can't just look at the cost of the graphics card, you have to look at the cost of the while computer. Yes, a computer can do a lot more, and yes, for someone who already has a good computer who just needs a graphics card, just investing in a new graphics card will make more sense, but for someone who doesn't have anything close to a gaming computer it makes sense to buy a PS4. Also, isn't the 7970 over $400? I'm will to bet that the PS4 will be $400 at launch and they're saying that it's going to be 2 Gflops.
December 9, 2013 10:21:22 AM

mobrocket said:
You will be fine

but i disagree with groomer

console's typically maximize their hardware to a level PCs cant


!