| WagnerPaiva said: Could the Switch run GTA5, the PS3 version? That game was gorgeous, not the PS4 version, the PS3 game. |
Yes.
| sc94597 said: It is really hard to compare real-world performance for CPU's with such drastically different architectures without benchmarks (and even with benchmarks it is difficult.) |
Finally a poster that speaks my language and is accurate.
This is probably the most accurate way of guaging performance using a singular metric as it is based on Drhystone MIPS.
And the good part about using DMIPS is that you are pegging it against a reference machine, not using theoretical numbers plucked out of thin air that the chipset may never even remotely reach.
That's not to say it's going to be a perfect comparison though. But it gives a good guestimate.
F.Scofield said:
what's random? ps3 cpu is still above ps4 in raw numbers, that's why i said architecture aside. |
No.
Cell exceeds the Playstation 4 in THEORETICAL numbers. That's Flops my dear watson. And is not representative of any real world performance.
The Playstation 4's CPU is indeed superior to Cell.
The games speak for themselves anyway.
| RushJet1 said: It's like saying that a Pentium D @ 3.73ghz is "above" any Core i3 2xxx or above CPU. Even at half the mhz, it wrecks the older chip in every way. |
This. Megahertz and Core counts isn't everything.
| Miyamotoo said: He is right, PS3 CPU was beast and in some tasks its stronger than PS4 Jaguar CPU if comparing core per core. People dont realise but PS4/XB1 Jaguar CPU is not strong and it's actually bottleneck for PS4/XB1 hardware. |
Based on what metric?
Because the games say otherwise. In general, Playstation 4 and Xbox One games have significantly more A.I characters and Multiplayer matches with significantly more players.
Qwark said:
There are some benchmark in which the PS3 CPU actually does a better job than the PS4 CPU. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/PS4-Clobbers-Xbox-One-Ubisoft-GPU-Benchmark-67877.html |
Sadly they didn't elaborate on the testing conditions. It is likely single precision floating point heavy, leveraging iterative refinement on the Playstation 3. Games tend to be built using more than that.
Throw double precision, integer and the Playstation 4, Xbox One and Switch CPU's would obliterate the Cell.
What they are trying to sell you on in that article is that the GPU is well suited to things like Cloth Simulation, Physics etc'. Which is blatantly obvious.
sc94597 said:
What that benchmark tells us is that the Cell's architecture was designed to have certain special purpose features (similar to that of a GPU.) For general-purpose tasks (which is what CPU's are designed for) the Jaguar is very much the superior processor. The Cell (and to a lesser extent Xenon) were designed to maximize floating point operation performance (flops) at the cost of pretty much everything else, it makes sense that it would somewhat outperform the Jaguar when it comes to GPU Benchmarks. |
The Cell has a ton of architectural hindrance's that limit it's potential.
It favours bandwidth over latency for one, SPE's can only access it's own scratchpad memory and not the memory of other SPE's.
The SPE's are also only dual-issue, in-order designs, there is no branch predictors and will thus heavily rely on compilers.
In essence, the Cell falters compared to proper CPU designs in many tasks... And for Floating Point Heavy scenario's, a GPU is better anyway.
Sony advertised the Cell as some kind of powerhouse and made people believe it was some kind of super computer in a chip, the Cell was a transistor conservative design on an older fabrication process to offer good performance at a low price.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
