By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
biglittlesps said:
fatslob-:O said:
Soleron said:
fatslob-:O said:
Soleron said:
That's one benchmark, and it's not even relevant to a normal mix of game workloads.

You'll need far more evidence than that.

Games are mostly GPU limited so there's almost no point in placing high importance on awful jaguar cores. 

I mean, if you want to decide which CPU is better.

Not saying that's a useful question.

The core configurations from the PS4 and X1 are identical for the most. It`s just that PS4 is likely clocked around 16% higher I presume. That makes the PS4`s CPU part clocked at around 2 Ghz while the X1 was reported to be about 1.75 from major nelson. 

In summary the CPU part in both consoles are identical, it`s just that one is clocked higher than the other so I assume that the PS4s CPU is better.

Note: I will interpret that this test was done using all 8 cores. 


According to the article the graph is only for 1 CPU.

A CPU is the total silicon which means it`s likely referncing all available cores for use. It could be 6 or 8 but I don`t care. If the test was truly using just one core then why didn`t the core i7 dominate (By "dominate" I mean getting like 3x or 4x performance compared to the PS4.) ? I thought so ...