The PS4 | Xbox One Benchmarks Thread

[AnthonyW86]

Nate4Drake said:

AnthonyW86 said:
The most interesting thing of these benchmarks is that it shows that PS3's Cell cpu is in some cases more powerfull than PS4's cpu. No real surprise there, but i still think the should have gone for at least one or two faster core's in the PS4.

A six core with two faster cores is much more usable than eight slower cores.

Again, most of the power of PS3 Cell(SPEs) must be used to help the weak and Raw GPU(RSX) of PS3...

On the other hand, the very very powerful CUs of PS4 GPU can help sooo much the PS4 CPU, so what you are saying does not make much sense.

Let people with more understanding work for the Hardware. No offence.

Yeah i'm no expert and i know about Liverpool's ACE units and yes those will show there worth in the future. But what i meant was the limited per core performance of the PS4/X1 cpu's. Atleast PS3 hade one fast PPE, giving some proper performance in single threated applications, PS4 doesn't have that. Development of games like AC Unity already shows the cpu limitations, and having even just one or two faster core's makes development so much easier. It simply gives you higher maximum performance when needed.

I'm talking about a ''big/little'' concept. So for example one or two 3.2 ghz bulldozer cores with say for jaguar 1.6 ghz cores(jaguar cores can't be clocked that high), or any similair feasible combination. Maybe even two or four jaguar cores at say 2.4 ghz and the other at 1.2 ghz would have been more usable. Especially since some of these cores are used for OS and other system applications anyway. Even if the theoratical total performance of those eight jaguar cores at 1.6ghz is higher, having one or two faster cores is much more usable.

But again i'm no expert and i don't know if it was feasible combined with the gpu on one chip.