By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RazorDragon on 01 July 2014
Edit Thread
Captain_Tom said:
RazorDragon said:
Captain_Tom said:

Pretty much everything your saying is wrong.  I don't have time to correct everything but I will say that the PS4's cpu is easily as strong as an i3, and modern games already use 8 cores or more.  Dual-threaded cpu's became obsolete in anything but mega low end gaming about 4 years ago, and whithin another 2 years the same will be true about quad-threaded cpu's (Besides the k-series i5's running above 4GHz.


What I said is true. The amount of cores is hardly relevant when talking about different architectures, base clock speeds and TDP requirements. It's also not about using more or less cores in applications that support them, even though this is helpful when talking about heavily multithreaded workloads. PS4 and XOne have 6 cores available to be used in games. While there are a lot of cores compared to this particular dual threaded Intel CPU, since Jaguar's IPC isn't even comparable with a 2007 Wolfdale(Pentium/Celeron/Core 2 Duo 45nm 2007 cores), actually, it's roughly 20% worse, it's hardly competitive with a current gen Haswell processor, even with that many cores(while, admittedly, drawing a lot less power than a Haswell processor, thanks to different architectures focused at different kinds of workloads). You just need to compare Passmark scores to see what i'm talking about: the Celeron G1610 does about 1400 points in the single threaded score, while an Athlon 5150(4 Jaguar cores at 1.6GHz, same CPU as PS3 with 2 less cores) does 635. The different architecture and higher clock speed alone are enough to make 1 Celeron core perform a lot better than 2 Jaguar cores, multithreading your software won't change anything if a CPU is slow as that.

Passmark is not gaming.  Here a 6-core FX-6300 beats a quad-core i5-2500K at nearly the same clocks:

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

Then keep in mind that the PS4 has way faster RAM to feed the CPU (This does matter since console devs will actually use it), and if the PS4 utilized even 5% of its GPU's proccessing power it would destroy anything out there....

Wait a second why am I wasting my time talking about the CPU?!  Either way it isn't going to bottleneck the GPU so that is all that matters at this point and it is as strong as an R9 270.  A PC that houses that is not $400, it's $600.


Not really sure I should answer you after that "if the PS4 utilized even 5% of its GPU's proccessing power it would destroy anything out there" since I believe nothing I can say here will change your mind, but, oh well. Unfortunately I couldn't find benchmarks for both the Celeron and the Athlon 5150 on Futuremark(which would be a better comparison since it's a gaming related test) and, while you're right that Passmark isn't gaming, it does indicate quite precisely a processors performance, when one Celeron core is performing better at it than 2 Jaguar cores you can expect absolutely the same in gaming scenarios, that's exactly why those Intel Atom dual-core smartphone processors beat Quad Core Snapdragons, more cores doesn't mean anything if single core performance isn't up to par. That's exactly why in Passmark the FX-6300 and the i5-2500K are pretty much on par, even if the i5-2500K has 2 less cores. Based on the benchmark you posted, 2 extra cores scored about 2 frames of difference. If going by your logic that more cores = better, ignoring single-core performance, then how it isn't doing much better than an i5 processor? As I said, performance isn't measured by only the amount of cores on the processor, architecture, clock speed and TDP requirements are just as important.

Anyway, I've got some Athlon 5350 benchmarks so you can just see how much bottlenecking these low-power processors are probably causing on the 7970M/7850-like card on PS4. This processor is clocked higher than the 5150(which matches PS4's processor in architecture and clock speed, only with 2 less cores), so it should deliver a better representation of how a PS4 APU would perform:

Any CPU heavy game and framerates go down by almost 50%. And that's with a GTX 750Ti, much slower than a 7970M/7850. That's actually the main problem with creating a similar PC hardware as these next-gen consoles. Their hardware is so unbalanced between CPU and GPU that you can't expect good performance running similar PC hardware, since PC games usually aren't that well optimized and using such a weak CPU can choke down the whole system.