Captain_Tom said:
RazorDragon said:
Captain_Tom said:
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:
http://cdn.pcper.com/files/review/2014-04-18/results.png
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.
|
And you are proving nothing. Yes a 12-threaded i7 beats a 2 GHz AMD quad-core. Surprise! However the PS4 does not have a quadcore, and it can offload some of its processing to the GPU if it needs to; which will be much less of a drain on it than you would expect (I have done this before on my PC using different programs).
Also notice that in some games it isn't even bottlenecked lol! So yeah give it some more cores and optimize the code and it isn't an issue like I said. Thank you for the graphic that perfectly backs up my point!
P.S. I own a kabini CPU (The Athlon 5350 comes from this line), an i7, and quite a few other cpu's and gpu's. You are not teaching me anything. My opinions have been formed by actually knowing what I am talking about from first-hand experience.
|
I'm proving that a bottleneck exists when using such low-powered CPUs. One of your posts said there are no bottlenecks from using the AMD APU, and by the benchmarks shown you can clearly see a bottleneck happening, and that's running a GPU a lot weaker than the one on PS4. Of course, the i7 shown there was overkill, but you get the point. Adding two more cores won't magically make the CPU become a monster. In fact, since the CPU on PS4 is clocked lower than the 5350's 2GHz, you can expect little performance increase from this quad-core Kabini to one with six cores available running at 1.6GHz. In every CPU bound game on PS4/XOne, the console will suffer because of the low powered CPUs. Of course, you can use GPGPU, but then you're throwing away stream processors that could be dedicated to doing graphics tasks into doing calculations for the CPU, which will impact the graphical fidelity of the game.
Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that in your original post you said the CPU in the PS4 was as powerful as an i3, while clearly its nowhere near that kind of performance. You can build a PC with comparable CPU power(theoretically, of course) to the PS4, with a dual core Celeron G1610, like the $400 PC shown a few pages ago.
