I Honestly think consoles are a dying breed, just like handhelds

[Captain_Tom]

RazorDragon said:

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.

It doesn't need to be a monster to aleviate a bottleneck.  You keep ignoring the fact that half of the games had little to no perfomance loss.

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.

I am just gonna half to disagree with you on how big a deal doubling the cpu's cores is.  Yes, 2 cores are locked away to be able to quickly switch between apps, but you are also ignoring that the  4-core in your benchmark was running litterally dozens of background apps.  Not to mention that DX11 is terribly bad at multithreading compared to the PS4's OS.

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.

Responses in bold but here's what it comes down to:

1) The Athlon 5150 is litterally half of the PS4's CPU.  It gets a score of ~2000, and the i3's get a score of ~4000.  Not hard to do the math.

http://www.passmark.com/cpubenchmark/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+5150+APU+with+Radeon+R3&id=2208

http://www.passmark.com/cpubenchmark/high_end_cpus.html

 

2) Yes the PS4 uses 6-cores for games, but it also has the benifit of having to run ZERO background tasks with those cores.  This not only reduces the work they need to do, but allows them to be more efficient in their work.  In addition to this, these cores are being programmed with an immensly more optimized OS.  The bottom line of this secon point is that two cores have not been sacrificed and as such their performance benifit is not lost.  They are simply doing what they would be doing anyways in a more streamlined manor.

3) That entire video was a joke.  4GB of ram is not enough, the GPU was far weaker, and the OS was not included.  These drawbacks to the $400 build are not minor oversights, they are the proof it cannot be done.

 

I am so bored of this conversation already, so don't expect a response if you continue to ignore ^these^ major things I am pointing out.