| CrazyGPU said: Im not sayint that is the best way , more accurate and definitive comparison between architectures, I just say that is the most common way to compare theoretical gpu computing power. |
That doesn't make it right.
For years people used "Mhz" to compare processors, I.E. Regardless if it was a Celeron, Pentium 3, Duron or Athlon, it was "Mhz" that people used to differentiate performance, which was ironically just as pointless as using the "flops" denominator.
| CrazyGPU said: The best way to compare gaming hardware is with games, not even benchmarks, and games show that being the cpus of this gen consoles almost equal, the PS4 is faster having lots of games running at 1080p and the XBOXone at 800-900p because of the GPU. |
Exactly, we agree on something.
Games have shown that these new consoles are significantly more powerfull in the CPU stakes. - You just need to look at the ballooning A.I characters on screen in some titles for such proof.
I won't point you to any recent titles (Like Dead Rising 3), I'm sure you can find them on your own.
| CrazyGPU said: That said, PS3 CPU has more theoretical flops than PS4 CPU, and some benchmarks like ubisoft show that is as powerfull. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_technical_specifications |
I am pretty sure that I've had people tell me of the Cells "1 Teraflop" of theoretical performance, like that could ever be possible.
The Cell was a cheap, low-end and slow CPU, no way is it out performing Intels latest and greatest 8 Core/16 thread, monolothic $1000 monster.
It's meant to be thrown into a low-cost box.
My Core i7 3930K (6 cores, 12 threads @ 4.8ghz) manages 100Gflop in benchmarks, that means it's slower than the Playstation 4's 8-Core Jaguar and Playstation 3's Cell. - You see the point I'm trying to make? And the irony yet?
| CrazyGPU said:
PS4 CPU is an atom like chip that can run two threads per core at 1.6 GHz, nothing great at all. |
Are you comparing Jaguar to Atom? REALLY?
For starters, Jaguar is more like Brazos than Atom and in turn, Brazos is more like a full featured Athlon/Phenom Core, that's to be expected, Atom and Jaguar is from two different companies.
Jaguar doesn't have Hyperthreading, it's not an in-order design which I assume is what you were insinuating. (Latest Atom's, are Out-of-order now and removed Hyper Threading in favour of real cores, becoming more like AMD's Jaguar, performance increase was dramatic.)
Jaguar is wider and fatter, it actually has allot of similarities with AMD's K6 design in some aspects. (Like being a 2-issue.)
But comparing it to Atom? Really? Brazos could beat Atom, Jaguar is faster than Brazos on a per-clock basis.
All 8 Jaguar cores would be roughly equivalent to a 3ghz Dual-Core Core i3 Haswell processor in terms of performance, which is certainly better than last generation, where those with 6-7 year old Core 2 processors could have enjoyed the entire generation without a CPU upgrade.
| CrazyGPU said: I dont care if the PS4 CPU is a little lower, a little faster or at the same level than PS3, its just clear that the PS4 design centered in a GPU 10 times as powerfull at least in Gflops than the PS3 RSX. Thats where the new gen gets its power. |
Again FLOPS is absolutely pointless.
What about Geometry performance? What about Fillrate? What about Integer?
Even if the PS4's GPU was EXACTLY the same as the PS3's GPU in terms of flops, it's still going to be faster.
It's simply a more efficient, more modern design, which is far less limiting. (I.E. More Programmable, far less fixed function baggage.)
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
