Quantcast
View Post
taus90 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Well, there's no 8-core Jaguar, but what you can do is take a Bulldozer chip like the FX-8100 and clock it down a bit. An FX-8100@2.5Ghz plus a 7950 would roughly be able to do the same numbers as a PS4 with the same settings despite not being that much more powerful


Jaguar was AMDs old low power CPU architecture and were one of the first APUs to come with integrated GCN graphics. Even a down clocked FX 8100 is too powerful in comparison to Jaguar based mobile CPU, Jaguar 8 core is no where near to a Bulldozer 8 cores designed for high performance desktop @1.6.  At best a laptop with 7850m specs is a far better comparison and its no where near what PS4 does with same specd APU. 

That's because the 7850M ain't a lower clocked 7850, but a much lower clocked 7770 (by over 200Mhz lower), thus only having half the CU and much less clock speed. So no wonder this chip can't even come near what a PS4 can do. It also only consumes 40W, while the GPU part in the PS4 APU should easily consume 3 times as much.

Oh, and Bulldozer is clock for clock actually really just faster than the Jaguar in Integer operations, as the FPU has to be shared between 2 cores. And games make massive use of the FPU, thus relativising the advantage in gaming for the Bulldozer. This is also the reason why it's performance was so bad compared to Intel in every single gaming bench. AMD banked upon GPU getting more GPGPU usage and thus take over most need for an FPU in the CPU and upon further parallelisation of threads (later FX were also expected to increase the core count, but AMD scrapped those plans when this didn't happen and concentrated on the APUs). I could have given a lower clock speed, though, something between 2 and 2.5Ghz for instance - but that wouldn't have changed much.

With all that said, both Perm and I came with about 50% more powerful hardware, as consoles can take more out of given hardware - but that was much more true in the past than it is nowadays

DonFerrari said: 
Random_Matt said: 

Oh I know, I discussed this with someone, and who ever thinks the grunt will be better than around that level has their heads in the clouds. We already know it's Navi 10 Lite, a 150W TDP chip, consoles will be lucky to have Vega 56 performance. Navi = Vega with 20-30% lower TDP with higher frequencies, I would say 8TF at best in PS5. Next gen will not be a giant leap, expect more mid gen upgrades.

Next gen with power near X1X is kinda pointless.

Visually, the games will not look much better on next gen hardware compared to the mid-gen upgrades. That's not just due to the small gap in performance, but also diminishing returns; the more performance you have, the more performance you need to spend for a discernible difference. However, bigger RAM will go a quite some way here, as it allows for much better textures.

On the other hand, a Ryzen based CPU part will run circles around the old Jaguar CPU part, which means less code needs to be taken over by the GPU to run at an acceptable speed (which is why early this gen everything was just 30FPS; the CPU just couldn't give more), thus having more ressources for itself.

But I agree with the sentiment, and I'm sure you're not gonna be alone with that. I already predicted about 2 years ago that the next gen will have a slow start due to this, as there's simply not enough time to get enough visual distance between themselves and the Pro/X mid-gen upgrade consoles. As a result, I fear both Sony and Microsoft possibly shot themselves in the foot with the upgrades, as they are leeching sales from their still unreleased successors. Or do you think anybody who bought a Pro/X now will buy a PS5/Xbox next anytime soon? Probably not too many, even moreso with Gamestop faltering, making trade-in potentially much more difficult by that time.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 08 February 2019