By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude on 22 February 2013
Edit Thread
Shinobi-san said:
disolitude said:
Shinobi-san said:

The fact that you make a direct comparison with normal desktop/ laptop PC's is an oversimplification of the PS4 hardware spec. You really can't do comparisons like that. This is misleading especially for people who are not clued up about PC hardware or hardware in general.

Also your rating is out of context. If the PS4 is ultimately a 10/20 PC then I would love to know what a 1/20 PC is? and what a 20/20 PC is? As a PC enthusiast myself i can guess what your implying but other poeple wont be able to. Its misleading.

In one of your other posts you also mention that this reveals what AMD is doing with low power notebooks...now im not sure if you refering to low end notebooks or literally low power notebooks but either the way...AMD will not release low power, and especially not low end notebooks with this kind of power. I thought that post was also a bit misleading as most people wont read that post in isolation of the PS4 spec.

Edit: Their will be notebooks more powerfull than the PS4 though but these will probably cost exorbitant amounts. And again wont really be comparable.


But that's the thing... Nothing I am saying is ambiguous and It's very easy to calculate CPU performance for PS4. It all comes down to performance per core.

They are using a custom 8 core Jaguar APU. Lets see what that means - 

 Jaguar is a replacement for Bobcat which was a dualcore, which are very low power AMD's Intel Atom equivalent. On the CPU side, they were downright terrible but they had an embedded GPU which helped. 

Looking at the expected Jaguar performance - http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-s-Jaguar-Runs-at-2-GHz-and-Brings-250-More-Performance-290001.shtml

So a 2.0 Ghz quadcore Jaguar = 260% improvement over Bobcat

This is an 8 core running at 1.6 should be about 400% better than Bobcat.

If we take Bobcat performance and give it the 4X the boost we get around Ivy Bridge i3 level performance.

To me that equals a 4 in terms of CPU power.

 

Same goes for GPU. To me Radeon 7850 would be a 6 with 7870, 7950, 7970 and 7990 being the 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Others would score it differently obviously hence why I said "my score" but there is logic behind my maddness.

Thats the thing though, even if this CPU is as good as an i3 ivy bridge mobile CPU, in a normal PC setup that will still bottleneck a 7850 gpu. Right? Not really asking here i know it will. But then lets think about this, if AMD designed the entire APU for Sony, considering that this is a machine built to play games...im gonna assume that they tried there best to remove bottlenecks from the system. Otherwise whats the point ? Its not like the PS3 where Sony clearly had an agenda with cell...that architecture made no sense and had bottlenecks all over the place. Badly built system. This is entirely designed by AMD (atleast i assume that) i really think they would have done their best to remove bottlenecks. If we compare that directly with a desktop PC...with that level of CPU power it will totally bottleneck the GPU to really bad levels. Even desktop i3's bottleneck GPU's. Its really hard to compare.

and about the ratings...i guess i just completely disagree with your ratings. In gaming terms it means nothing to rate them like that. i prefer the way tomshardware approaches this. They pretty much havnt recommended buying higher than a 7870 in over a year and a half. Serious diminished returns when you buy higher. And on that basis theres no way id give a 7850 that low of a score in realistic gaming terms. In overall power and theoretically flops then yeah by all means give the 7850 something like 0/10 against a quad sli titan setup...in fact you can keep going the gulf in power will be even more come a few generations in PC's but it just doesnt relate to real life.

I know you didnt mention titan gpu's but im just trying to prove a point. People get really caught up with the fact that a 7850 is deemed a mid ranged GPU without realising how much power mid ranged gpus actually have when it comes to real life gaming performance. Most gamers dont even have a 7850. id bet that most PC gamers are more inline with gtx460 levels nowadays. Which theoretically would get something like a 2/10 on your scale.

How realistic is that for the average person here? Most people dont even have gaming PC's...their 6/10 is your 2/10.


My rating wasn't given on the basis of game performance as this is really impossible to determine. 

I was strictly tying the parts in the PS4 to current PC marts in terms of raw processing power. 

In terms of raw processing power all evidence points that CPU would be around a desktop i3 (not mobile) and GPU would be around 7850.

What ratings would you give these pieces of PC hardware in terms of power hirearchy?