By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Wii U vs PS4 vs Xbox One FULL SPECS (January 24, 2014)

zarx on 30 October 2012
superchunk said:

You know what... its late, I'm not thinking. I was really only thinking of the memory as 8GB would be dev kit and a lot more but 4-6GB would be retail. OP is also talking about IBM vs Intel or AMD CPUs and its the later rumors GPU that's close. Just ignore that entire part of my previous post sorry.

I do agree that there is becoming a trend where neXtBox does seem to have an x86 processor. However, it just doesn't seem logical that it will be the ultra-highend (2013 models) that this rumor would have you believe. Tomorrow I'll refresh the OP with parts of this info as they are now becoming more common on other sites and even GAF. This way I can also get the details needed for the 2nd post for real comparisons.

As for WiiU, I've seen arguments on GAF that the sizes prove one of those or other GPUs, so I'm leaving it until it launches and it is validated one way or the other.


well if the final console is going to use late 2013 custom tech which isn't final, using older high enf parts clocked low could be the closest thing they can get now. For example if the final hardware would be using an 8 core x86 core with custom Jaguar cores, an FX bulldozer at a very low clock is probably the closest thing available right now. Tho Jaguar cores will be in clusters of 4 rather than the pairs used on the bulldozer CPUs.

I don't see how someone could argue that this at 55nm 

256 mm² die  160W

or this 

 

166 mm² die 108W TDP at 40nm

Is meant to fit in

 

with an estimated die area of 168 mm² with a "large amount of eDRAM" (and likelt other components such as an ARM CPU and a DSP) at most likely 40nm and a max system TDP of 75w. It's just not physically possible as far as I can tell, the GPU in the Wii U looks to be less than half that size. Whoever said that the 6770 would fit probably forgot to factor in the eDRAM etc.

 

For an idea of how big 32MB of eDRAM is loot at this diagram of a Power 7 CPU

that is a 567mm2 die and 32MB of eDRAM bassed L3 cache takes up a decent amount of that even when you take out all the interconnect stuff. 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
Cobretti2 on 30 October 2012

in all honesty is there any point arguing this? It launches SOON. we will find out within the month.



 

 

ethomaz on 30 October 2012

RV740 40nm = 130mm^2
32MB eDRAM 40nm = 60mm^2

These sizes fit with Wii U board pictures.



HoloDust on 30 October 2012

To me that picture of WiiU's CPU/GPU package looks very similar to modification of this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4307/amd-launches-radeon-e6760



zarx on 30 October 2012
ethomaz said:
RV740 40nm = 130mm^2
32MB eDRAM 40nm = 60mm^2

These sizes fit with Wii U board pictures.


Oh that's a bit smaller than I thought for eDRAM, I guess it's been a while since I looked into it. I didn't think they had actually started making it at 40nm, http://am.renesas.com/products/soc/asic/cbic/ipcore/edram/ still lists 40nm as under development.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
zarx on 30 October 2012
HoloDust said:
To me that picture of WiiU's CPU/GPU package looks very similar to modification of this: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4307/amd-launches-radeon-e6760


looks like a standard MCM to me

Hell any modern processors will look a bit like that

and all AMD embedded GPUs look like prety similar 

for example the e4670 



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

JEMC on 30 October 2012
D-Joe said:
JEMC said:
HoloDust said:
JEMC said:

Aren't Sandy Bridge-E CPUs 6 core rather than 8 core?

And replacing it for an 8 core FX processor which uses more power, runs hotter and gives less performance even with 2 more cores... it is a bit odd. Sure, it's cheaper, but it's still odd.

About the GPU, a Nvidia GTX570 gives about the same performance of an AMD HD7870, which will be on par with an HD8770 Sea islands GPU?

I don't know what to think. Yes, it looks very powerful, but also quite expensive.

It's probably 4core/8thread SB CPU (though it might be EP variant with 8 physical cores). As for 8-core FX CPUs, there are versions with 95W TDP, so that seems plausible - guess we'll finally see well optimized 8-core code after all ;). And GPU performance does seem to be in line with for a long time rumoured 78xx performance...

As far as I know, the lowest 8 core FX chip is the FX-8120 and is rated at 125W.

Anyway, the difference in between those CPU is brutal, that's the strange thing. Going from a weak one to a stronger one is understable and doesn't affect the development of the games, but the other way around is strange. Also both CPUs use a different architecture, making this change more strange.

Just look at this comparison between the lowest spec'ed 4 core Sandy Bridge-E i7-3820 and the best of the FX chips, the 8 core FX-8350. The intel chip destroys the AMD one (sadly). And then add that the i7-3820 uses 160W at load while the FX-8350 uses 195W (the numbers are for the whole system).

As I said, it's a bit odd.

well,FX8300 is 95W

From AMD's site

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-model-number-comparison.aspx

There are only 2 FX 83xx models and both feature a TDP of 125W.

But I agree that I was wrong, the FX 8100 (that wasn't in Anandtech's chart that I took the numbers of) is an 8 core CPU with a TDP of 95W. My bad.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

JEMC on 30 October 2012
zarx said:

For the GPU it will be interesting to see what Sea Islands performs like, they focused heavily on GPGPU with GCN and at the expense of gaming performance per watt. I think that Sea Islands will focus on optimising power usage and gaming performance.

The rumors are pointing that the new cards from both AMD and Nvidia will focus on optimizing the existing ones and that the jump in performance will likely be around 15%.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

ethomaz on 30 October 2012
zarx said:
Oh that's a bit smaller than I thought for eDRAM, I guess it's been a while since I looked into it. I didn't think they had actually started making it at 40nm, http://am.renesas.com/products/soc/asic/cbic/ipcore/edram/ still lists 40nm as under development.

What? In 2009 NEC and TSMC already have eDRAM in 40nm.

The IBM POWER7 uses 45nm eDRAM and they already started to manufacture 32nm eDRAM (0.24mm2 per Mbit) in Feb, 2012.



D-Joe on 30 October 2012
JEMC said:
D-Joe said:
JEMC said:
HoloDust said:
JEMC said:

Aren't Sandy Bridge-E CPUs 6 core rather than 8 core?

And replacing it for an 8 core FX processor which uses more power, runs hotter and gives less performance even with 2 more cores... it is a bit odd. Sure, it's cheaper, but it's still odd.

About the GPU, a Nvidia GTX570 gives about the same performance of an AMD HD7870, which will be on par with an HD8770 Sea islands GPU?

I don't know what to think. Yes, it looks very powerful, but also quite expensive.

It's probably 4core/8thread SB CPU (though it might be EP variant with 8 physical cores). As for 8-core FX CPUs, there are versions with 95W TDP, so that seems plausible - guess we'll finally see well optimized 8-core code after all ;). And GPU performance does seem to be in line with for a long time rumoured 78xx performance...

As far as I know, the lowest 8 core FX chip is the FX-8120 and is rated at 125W.

Anyway, the difference in between those CPU is brutal, that's the strange thing. Going from a weak one to a stronger one is understable and doesn't affect the development of the games, but the other way around is strange. Also both CPUs use a different architecture, making this change more strange.

Just look at this comparison between the lowest spec'ed 4 core Sandy Bridge-E i7-3820 and the best of the FX chips, the 8 core FX-8350. The intel chip destroys the AMD one (sadly). And then add that the i7-3820 uses 160W at load while the FX-8350 uses 195W (the numbers are for the whole system).

As I said, it's a bit odd.

well,FX8300 is 95W

From AMD's site

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/processors/amdfx/Pages/amdfx-model-number-comparison.aspx

There are only 2 FX 83xx models and both feature a TDP of 125W.

But I agree that I was wrong, the FX 8100 (that wasn't in Anandtech's chart that I took the numbers of) is an 8 core CPU with a TDP of 95W. My bad.

Check "FX-8300"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_FX_microprocessors

is FX 8300 not released in US?



http://zh-tw.justin.tv/johndoe1899