By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - PS4 Neo: The wait for More information is almost over.

 

Will Sony reveal the Neo on the 7th?

Yes 71 73.20%
 
No 3 3.09%
 
I Don't care 15 15.46%
 
Shut up about the Neo already, Jeeze! 8 8.25%
 
Total:97
Intrinsic on 09 August 2016
Raistline said:

This assumes that the game is CPU limited and not GPU limited. You can take a 5 year old CPU and GPU then upgrade  only the GPU to the most modern verison and get more than double the performance in game. So yes, if the game is CPUlimited  then it may not be possible for it double the FPS, however, from all my years of experience with PC's though this is rarely the case. Most games do not depend on the CPU much and rarely utilize more than 50% of the CPU. When you have a huge came with a lot of AI, massive maps and 64 players like MAG  ( PS3) or any of the Battlefield games, they do become partially CPU limited but still see a massive increase in performance by only upgrading the GPU. 

For examply, my current system has a now 5 year old CPU. When I had my GTX 870 I averaged between 45-70FPS on Battlefield 4. When I upgraded to a GTX980 I now get between 70-120 FPS and I never drop below 60. I did not change my CPU, RAM, or Motherboad, just the GPU.

It is very possible to acheive a massive FPS increase with a slight CPU overlcock and a new GPU.

If and only if the game isnt alrewdy CPU limited or on the verge of maxing out the CPU. 



Around the Network
Raistline on 09 August 2016
Intrinsic said:
Raistline said:

This assumes that the game is CPU limited and not GPU limited. You can take a 5 year old CPU and GPU then upgrade  only the GPU to the most modern verison and get more than double the performance in game. So yes, if the game is CPUlimited  then it may not be possible for it double the FPS, however, from all my years of experience with PC's though this is rarely the case. Most games do not depend on the CPU much and rarely utilize more than 50% of the CPU. When you have a huge came with a lot of AI, massive maps and 64 players like MAG  ( PS3) or any of the Battlefield games, they do become partially CPU limited but still see a massive increase in performance by only upgrading the GPU. 

For examply, my current system has a now 5 year old CPU. When I had my GTX 870 I averaged between 45-70FPS on Battlefield 4. When I upgraded to a GTX980 I now get between 70-120 FPS and I never drop below 60. I did not change my CPU, RAM, or Motherboad, just the GPU.

It is very possible to acheive a massive FPS increase with a slight CPU overlcock and a new GPU.

If and only if the game isnt alrewdy CPU limited or on the verge of maxing out the CPU. 

Sounds like we pretty much agree except for when it comes to the quantity of games that are CPU bound.



Ganoncrotch on 09 August 2016

How many gflops or teraflops more would it take to make TellTale Batman run at 720p and 30fps, the real next gen can start then :>



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

drkohler on 09 August 2016
Intrinsic said:

If at 1.65ghz a game is already struggling to hit 30fps on the cpu side you basically need twice the clock is using the exact same cpu architecture or a more powerful CPU architecture entirely if you want to double the fps. 

It isn't as simple as that. You basically have a critical loop on one core that determines the frame rate. What blocks are inside this loop is up to how the game is designed, but an increase of 30% in clock frequency could easily mean that there could be a tenfold in drawcalls, or a doubling of  complexity of the ai routine(s), or whatever. You have 6 cores that are 30% faster, you won't find out what happens until you try it out, and then start to reoptimise for your new clock rate.



Intrinsic on 09 August 2016
drkohler said:
Intrinsic said:

If at 1.65ghz a game is already struggling to hit 30fps on the cpu side you basically need twice the clock is using the exact same cpu architecture or a more powerful CPU architecture entirely if you want to double the fps. 

It isn't as simple as that. You basically have a critical loop on one core that determines the frame rate. What blocks are inside this loop is up to how the game is designed, but an increase of 30% in clock frequency could easily mean that there could be a tenfold in drawcalls, or a doubling of  complexity of the ai routine(s), or whatever. You have 6 cores that are 30% faster, you won't find out what happens until you try it out, and then start to reoptimise for your new clock rate.

you're kinda saying the ssme thing we all are saying.

Yes. You have a critical loop that determimes the frame rate. And what makes uo that loop is comprised of a number of differemt things. This is all just a more conolex way of saying what I have said. IF THST "lopp" is already making the engine struggle to hit 30fps, then as long as the CPU remains the same, or gets a 10-20% boost, the CPU isn't going to suddenly be able to handle the tasks that made up that loop 100% faster.



Around the Network
Mbolibombo on 10 August 2016

Well done Sony, a date! Not going to upgrade since I am pleased with the performances of the games I play, but happy for those who are waiting for it. Still, gonna be exciting to see what shows!

You are up Nintendo! We have waited long enough hehe



HokageTenshi on 10 August 2016

hopefully they will show lots of games improvement demo compare to original PS4 instead of just announcing its specs...



drkohler on 10 August 2016
Intrinsic said:

you're kinda saying the ssme thing we all are saying.

No I'm not and I don't think you see the big scope. You are still pretending that an x% clock increse in the main loop increases framerate by x%. That is NOT true for an optimised system.

Let's make an extreme example. Our software has 2 tasks that run at around 60% of a core at 1.6GHz. This requres 2 cores that may either be idle for the remaining 40% or at best we can squeeze in some low% task. With 30% more clock, we can squeeze both 60% tasks into one core, and so we have freed an entire core. Again the point is that a 30% clock increase with reoptimisation of the whole tasking system that results in much more than a 30% framerate increase. Whether any developer actually does this remains to be seen.

A completely different optimisation in the Neo would be a hardware revision of the generic dual cpu design of the PS4. In this case, they should have gone with 8 Jaguar cores on a common 4M L2 cache instead of he silly dual 4 core on 2M L2 cache Jaguar design. I cannot fathom which idiot went for that design choice.



Intrinsic on 10 August 2016
drkohler said:
Intrinsic said:

you're kinda saying the ssme thing we all are saying.

No I'm not and I don't think you see the big scope. You are still pretending that an x% clock increse in the main loop increases framerate by x%. That is NOT true for an optimised system.

Let's make an extreme example. Our software has 2 tasks that run at around 60% of a core at 1.6GHz. This requres 2 cores that may either be idle for the remaining 40% or at best we can squeeze in some low% task. With 30% more clock, we can squeeze both 60% tasks into one core, and so we have freed an entire core. Again the point is that a 30% clock increase with reoptimisation of the whole tasking system that results in much more than a 30% framerate increase. Whether any developer actually does this remains to be seen.

A completely different optimisation in the Neo would be a hardware revision of the generic dual cpu design of the PS4. In this case, they should have gone with 8 Jaguar cores on a common 4M L2 cache instead of he silly dual 4 core on 2M L2 cache Jaguar design. I cannot fathom which idiot went for that design choice.

Sheesh..... no one is sayomg x% cpu increase = x% framerate boost. You are arguing with yourself.

what has been said and has been agreed on is pretty simple.

there are gsmes that are CPU heavy(A). Today these are games that struggle to even maintain a 30fps framerate. Then there are games that are locked to 30fps (B) not out of necessity but due to stability. What you are saying applies to case B. Where with a slightly more powerful CPU on the easy side of things, or with a little more elbow grease in engine optimization you can have gains of going from a locked 30fps to 60fps. 

In the case of A, even with the more powerful CPU what they end up with is just the case B. Basically an all round better performing engine on the CPU side, but not one that hits 60fps but rather averages 35-45fps internally and this gets locked down to 30fps.