dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
8182

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

1 edit

sk1939 to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker

Re: ps4 specs

said by DataRiker:

One could try to make an argument for particle debris and such. But honestly I don't thing anybody can tell the difference between a physically accurate model and an estimated model. Seems like a big waste of resources for a very subjective improvement. Furthermore I'm not certain the CPU in question would have any problem doing it anyway.

Perhaps not, but the models still require CPU power, and that's still ignoring the significant amount of CPU power that any AI system would use. Remember that a Dual-Core Atom is roughly equivalent to the CPU power of a Prescott P4 3.2 with HT (a little better actually). The CPU Sony wants to use is less powerful than an Atom, which means it's probably on par with the CPU I had in 2006. I would estimate a CPUMark score of no more than 5000, which still puts it well below AMD's own AMD FX-6300. The design and indications given by Sony and AMD (including the statement "allow the designers to effectively parallel process") means they expect programmers to code specifically for this chip, which for a multi-platform release can adversely affect performance.

Here's the architecture of the "Jaguar" core:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/picture/?src=/images/news/2012-09/amd_jaguar_2.jpg

Versus the 2 year old Cedarview Atom


DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

said by sk1939:

The design and indications given by Sony and AMD (including the statement "allow the designers to effectively parallel process") means they expect programmers to code specifically for this chip, which for a multi-platform release can adversely affect performance.

This is entirely incorrect. This chip was chosen because it obviously does not have a novel architecture, making it incredibly standard (much like the x-box)

This is ease cross platform development, which was a complaint of the previous generation. Problem was, the bobcat core generally needed more power.

Also, saying that the Jaguar core is inferior to the atom core is completely incorrect. The Bobcat core handily beat the atom, and the Jaguar is a very nice upgrade to Bobcat.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

said by DataRiker:

said by sk1939:

The design and indications given by Sony and AMD (including the statement "allow the designers to effectively parallel process") means they expect programmers to code specifically for this chip, which for a multi-platform release can adversely affect performance.

This is entirely incorrect. This chip was chosen because it obviously does not have a novel architecture, making it incredibly standard (much like the x-box)

This is ease cross platform development, which was a complaint of the previous generation.

I'd dispute that, because there is quite a bit of difference between the chips, even between other AMD solutions, just because of the custom design. Yes it's a standard architecture, however utilization is key. This is a complaint among PC gamers as well (games only utilize so many cores). If the game is only set to utilize 4 cores (to allow easy porting to say, the WiiU) then having 8 would be meaningless, and cuts down significantly on available CPU power.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

3 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

This is where you misunderstand the significance of standard.

It can easily be configured to 8 cores with minimal revision and recompilation to go from PC to PS4 and most likely X-box. Which was not possible before.

And given that I would guess the new X-box to have 8 cores minimum, the issue is even more irrelevant.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

said by DataRiker:

This is where you misunderstand the significance of standard.

It can easily be configured to 8 cores with minimal revision and recompilation to go from PC to PS4 and most likely X-box. Which was not possible before.

And given that I would guess the new X-box to have 8 cores minimum, the issue is even more irrelevant.

Certainly easier now than it used to be, but the question is will they, or will they be lazy (like developers sometimes are) and just code for 4, and that remains to be seen. Trivial perhaps, but irrelevant if they don't.

Perhaps, I think Microsoft is waiting to see the performance of the PS4 before announcing anything though.

Woody79_00
I run Linux am I still a PC?
Premium Member
join:2004-07-08
united state

Woody79_00 to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker
Its still not enough...that processor is weak beyond weak and it matters....

Lets take the upcoming The Elder Scrolls Online...console gamers will be complaining when Bethesda either can't port the game to console (due to crappy CPU), or ports the game and it has serious issues (because of the CPU)

Early reports indicate TESO is heavily CPU bound, much like WOW....this puny 1.6 Atom type of CPU is not going to be fast enough for the challenge....thats just one of many examples..

if Zenimax is smart..they just skip the consoles all together with TESO just like blizard has WOW...the CPU just isn't enough to run that game...and the console players will whine because this will be the 1st TES since Daggerfall that wasn't on the console (Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim were)

blame Sony for putting a weak CPU in the system why it is doubtful TESO will show up on PS4...but many Sony defenders here will blame Bethesda...

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008 to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

said by sk1939:

The design and indications given by Sony and AMD (including the statement "allow the designers to effectively parallel process") means they expect programmers to code specifically for this chip, which for a multi-platform release can adversely affect performance.

This is entirely incorrect. This chip was chosen because it obviously does not have a novel architecture, making it incredibly standard (much like the x-box)

This is ease cross platform development, which was a complaint of the previous generation. Problem was, the bobcat core generally needed more power.

Also, saying that the Jaguar core is inferior to the atom core is completely incorrect. The Bobcat core handily beat the atom, and the Jaguar is a very nice upgrade to Bobcat.

The chip was chosen because AMD is hurting for money and sells their chips for cheap.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

4 edits

DataRiker to Woody79_00

Premium Member

to Woody79_00
Jaguar core is nothing like the atom core. ( nor was the bobcat )

Tom's Hardware compared a bobcat with a similar atom/Ion core and the bobcat scored 326.5% better in game performance.

Jaguar will be including a fully modern instruction set up to SSE4.2 (which was first available on i7's).

Particular emphasis was placed on FPU and ALU performance gains, which conventional wisdom would suggest is very good news for gaming. ( it will be 128 bits wide as well )

And given this will be a custom 8 core version, I don't see the need for panic. It will beat the PS3 cell engine by a considerable margin.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

said by DataRiker:

Jaguar core is nothing like the atom core. ( nor was the bobcat )

Tom's Hardware compared a bobcat with a similar atom/Ion core and the bobcat scored 326.5% better in game performance.

Jaguar will be including a fully modern instruction set up to SSE4.2 (which was first available on i7's).

Particular emphasis was placed on FPU and ALU performance gains, which conventional wisdom would suggest is very good news for gaming. ( it will be 128 bits wide as well )

And given this will be a custom 8 core version, I don't see the need for panic. It will beat the PS3 cell engine by a considerable margin.

Only because of the APU graphics, not in sheer number-crunching ability. Additionally, this is ignoring the issues of heat mentioned in the other thread.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008 to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

Jaguar core is nothing like the atom core. ( nor was the bobcat )

Tom's Hardware compared a bobcat with a similar atom/Ion core and the bobcat scored 326.5% better in game performance.

Jaguar will be including a fully modern instruction set up to SSE4.2 (which was first available on i7's).

Particular emphasis was placed on FPU and ALU performance gains, which conventional wisdom would suggest is very good news for gaming. ( it will be 128 bits wide as well )

And given this will be a custom 8 core version, I don't see the need for panic. It will beat the PS3 cell engine by a considerable margin.

Amd said the same things about bulldozer and pile driver. You really believe amd anymore?

At this point, you must take the past performance numbers and hope amd doesn't make them WORSE.

monchis
Premium Member
join:2002-12-09
00000

1 recommendation

monchis to me1212

Premium Member

to me1212
I am almost darn sure if you have a ps3 now and are contributing to this post, you will buy a ps4 eventually when it's out. Whatever your thoughts are on it.
comp
Premium Member
join:2001-08-16
Evans City, PA

comp

Premium Member

+1

monchis
Premium Member
join:2002-12-09
00000

monchis to me1212

Premium Member

to me1212
If HALO came out on playstation, I would never buy an xbox but that is not the case

Same for zelda series

If all console games were to be ported to pc's I would totally never buy a console lolz.

danawhitaker
Space...The Final Frontier
Premium Member
join:2002-03-02
Thorndale, ON

danawhitaker to monchis

Premium Member

to monchis
said by monchis:

I am almost darn sure if you have a ps3 now and are contributing to this post, you will buy a ps4 eventually when it's out. Whatever your thoughts are on it.

I'm curious what the logic is behind that statement. I owned a PS2. I never ended up buying a PS3 for a combination of reasons. I'll probably end up with a PS4, but I don't see why owning the previous generation is a guarantee.

I owned a Gameboy Advance, I never bought a DS. I skipped a generation and waited until the 3DS came out and bought one (well, for my daughter, but I play it too). I had never owned any Sega console, but bought a Dreamcast.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker to Metatron2008

Premium Member

to Metatron2008
said by Metatron2008:

Amd said the same things about bulldozer and pile driver. You really believe amd anymore?

Its not a conspiracy theory, its the specifications a CPU upgrade.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

The original specs for bulldozer and pilldriver were more cores and better ipc..

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

So you feel Sony and AMD are in a conspiracy about having 8 cores and a much improved bobcat core.

We get it.

CylonRed
MVM
join:2000-07-06
Bloom County
·Metronet

CylonRed to DataRiker

MVM

to DataRiker
said by DataRiker:

You guys are saying an 8 core cpu is not capable of running physics in a game? That seems a little ridiculous.

It is rediculous - they are stuck on a name and nothing more....

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

said by CylonRed:

said by DataRiker:

You guys are saying an 8 core cpu is not capable of running physics in a game? That seems a little ridiculous.

It is ridiculous - they are stuck on AMD being a lackluster microprocessor manufacture and nothing else....

Fixed.

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008 to DataRiker

Premium Member

to DataRiker
Keep defending AMD's crap, esp. when Bulldozer had fake results before it was released and ended up worse then Phenom.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

DataRiker to sk1939

Premium Member

to sk1939
said by sk1939:

said by CylonRed:

said by DataRiker:

You guys are saying an 8 core cpu is not capable of running physics in a game? That seems a little ridiculous.

It is ridiculous - they are stuck on AMD being a lackluster microprocessor manufacture and nothing else....

Fixed.

You are on record here saying that the Jaguar is less powerful than an atom core.

Yet Bobcat is more powerful by a very very large margin. And Jaguar an extremely significant upgrade to Bobcat.

This concerns me given how incorrect that statement is.

Obviously, people are entitled to their opinion of AMD.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

2 edits

sk1939

Premium Member

said by DataRiker:

You are on record here saying that the Jaguar is less powerful than an atom core.

Yet Bobcat is more powerful by a very very large margin. And Jaguar an extremely significant upgrade to Bobcat.

This concerns me given how incorrect that statement is.

All of the other opinions on AMD do not concern me obviously, as everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Your numbers on Bobcat factor in graphics performance, not number crunching ability. Yes game performance would be higher with the APU, and it would likely be higher than a i5-2400 too (given the use of Intels HD Graphics 3000), but the point is straight CPU performance, not CPU and GPU performance. AMD's Bobcat-based E-350 clocks in at 803, while the Atom D510 clocks in at 651. Both of those score are PATHETIC considering Intel's Core 2 Duo clocks in at 2,181 a chip released nearly 5 years ago. Even AMD's own Piledriver architecture smokes the Bobcat line; the A8-4500M comes in at 2718.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

DataRiker

Premium Member

Bobcat's CPU was largely responsible for the upper hand, given the similar performance of the integrated Nvidia graphics.

But if you really don't believe me, please by all means do research yourself.

Head to Head, bobcat beats the atom core by a large margin.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

said by DataRiker:

Bobcat's CPU was largely responsible for the upper hand, given the similar performance of the integrated Nvidia graphics.

But if you really don't believe me, please by all means do research yourself.

Read my update. I questions Sony's choice of chips given their performance, granted a comparison with an Atom may have been slightly far-fetched, but given the relatively minor difference in scores, not much of one.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

DataRiker

Premium Member

Pathetic is relative, but at least you can admit to posting erroneous info.

Different benchmarks give each chip different numbers. I've seen some benchmarks place bobcat 2x times the performance in given the right routine (thanks to intel's in-order processing requirement of Atom ) then in others is was a virtual tie.

And where did you get your benchmark for Jaguar? Can you post it please.

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

said by DataRiker:

Where did you see a benchmark of Jaguar?

Or are you posting wrong info again?

Hardly wrong, the numbers are for Bobcat, but unless you expect Jaguar to be revolutionary, the numbers are going to be close. I also fixed it for sticklers.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

2 edits

DataRiker

Premium Member

Good you have removed your erroneous reference to Jaguar

And yes, posting a random number for Bobcat as if it was Jaguar is wrong.

Why would the numbers be close given the magnitude of the upgrade and given 8 cores?

sk1939
Premium Member
join:2010-10-23
Frederick, MD
ARRIS SB8200
Ubiquiti UDM-Pro
Juniper SRX320

sk1939

Premium Member

said by DataRiker:

Good you have removed your erroneous reference to Jaguar

And yes, posting a random number for Bobcat as if it was Jaguar is wrong.

Why would the numbers be close given the magnitude of the upgrade and given 8 cores?

The magnitude of the upgrade is not assured with AMD; Bulldozer was clearly a step backward (the 8 "cores" performed worse than a Phenom II with 4), and Piledriver was just a generational architecture shift (like Sandy to Ivy Bridge). More cores =/= better automatically.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

DataRiker

Premium Member

Perhaps you should read the upgrades planned for Jaguar. They are aggressive to say the least for a low voltage chip.

My performance expectations are on par with an i3. Given the low voltage nature of the chip that is not bad. More than adequate for a console.

Given the expanded power of GPU's in the past 4 to 5 years did anyone expect different?

Metatron2008
You're it
Premium Member
join:2008-09-02
united state

Metatron2008

Premium Member

So are you the new AMD defense force? Or a paid shill? Esp. for accusing people of saying their are conspiracies??

Since you were apparantly born yesterday, there were a couple leaks in 2011 for bulldozer:

»www.techpowerup.com/1383 ··· -II.html

»community.futuremark.com ··· -Vantage

These results were seen all over the place. AMD specifically said bulldozer would beat an i7 2600k as well.

Bulldozer was to have:

Better IPC
Lower power use
more cores
more power
beat i7 and phenom 2

The real results:

Lower IPC then phenom 2
higher power use
more cores
less power
lose to i7 and phenom 2 (In single threaded tests)

We got promised the world by amd and the chip we got was pretty much the opposite of what was promised.

So continue defending AMD, keep acting like people with real concerns are crazy and thinking of conspiracies, but the only person who you are making a fool of is yourself datariker.