AMD Elaborates on PS4's Custom ''Jaguar'' APU

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]No, I am not calling features bloat. I am saying that the code is sloppy.It's not too difficult to get the same functionality and ease of use from a far lighter operating system. For example, some smart hackers skewed Windows 7 down to using less memory than XP without losing any functionality except for the windows hardware rating, a flawed tool anyway. That Windows 8, despite having more features and more parts to its UI, is still significantly more efficient than 7 and the same is true about 7, so we don't even need hackers to see how bloated these systems are in RAM hogging.Even with everything other than the core operating system running, it's still wasting a lot of memory. I am not personally running out of memory. I simply said that it uses much more than it should and that is correct. That is MS's fault and no one else's.Prices of RAM should not dictate how bloated an operating system is just because you can afford to buy enough RAM to counteract the bloat.[/citation]
What you're saying about the smart hackers makes it sound like what Microsoft also did. They took a good product, and made it more efficient with the same resources. We really need a frame of reference when talking about things like bloat, however. 7 was a great improvement over Vista. Having not researched your small memory version of Windows 7, I'm very skeptical how you can run it in a smaller RAM footprint than XP and yet retain full functionality (minus "windows hardware rating." Did you mean "Windows Experience Index?").
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Most gamers do not[/i buy 20 titles a year, at least not 20 full-priced titles, regardless of their platform. That is extremely abnormal.Furthermore, Titan is not a whole gaming system. You'd need to spend almost as much as you don on Titan also on other hardware and software/operating system to get a full system, at a minimum likely for such a card. It's also very unlikely that you won't upgrade the PC within the console's life span, incurring significantly further cost. Again, Titan is too expensive for your example.[/citation]
Made me laugh, and have to agree with both of your points! In it's current predicament, Titan seems out of place and reminds me of the boat, Titanic. Can't wait to hear people bragging about their Titan SLI rigs. 🙂
 
[citation][nom]bigpinkdragon286[/nom]What you're saying about the smart hackers makes it sound like what Microsoft also did. They took a good product, and made it more efficient with the same resources. We really need a frame of reference when talking about things like bloat, however. 7 was a great improvement over Vista. Having not researched your small memory version of Windows 7, I'm very skeptical how you can run it in a smaller RAM footprint than XP and yet retain full functionality (minus "windows hardware rating." Did you mean "Windows Experience Index?").[/citation]

The difference between what the hackers did and what MS did is scale. The hackers basically did what MS did, but on steroids and then brought to a further extreme. Running perfectly on under 256MB of RAM instead of running perfectly on 1GB-2GB is a huge difference in bloat.

Also, yes, you were right about me referring to WEI.

It's been a while since I messed arond with that hacked version of Windows 7. It's also cracked, so it's technically illegal, hence I didn't keep it around except for testing purposed. IIRC, it was called eXperience Windows 7 Lite or something like that, but I might be confusing it with a different hacked version of 7.

IDK what say for frame of reference. A lot of MS code is sloppy. For example, there's a lot of wasted code on stuff that isn't even fully supported anymore, especially by the 64 bit versions. Since Vista, MS has made significant improvements with both 7 and again with 8, but they've got a long way to go in cleaning up the mess that Vista made.
 
I think Vista only seems like a mess if you try and compare it to something like XP, almost as you would a movie sequel. In it's own right, Vista brought some impressive features. I am grateful Microsoft kept going with and optimized their codebase into what we have now.

Almost sounds as if SuperFetch was turned off in that version of Windows 7. I'm curious enough to look for it, to read what they had done to it. 🙂

I know it's hearsay, but one of the commenters on the article I mentioned did the equivalent of an infinite memalloc loop, to see what Windows 7 would do, and in the end, he claims Windows 7 reduced it's memory footprint to approximately 200 MB. If that's true (I don't want to try it myself), I would choose to disagree about the amount of slop being present in Windows 7.
 


I used a copy of XP that was hacked to run great on 64MB of RAM 😉 Still, yes, XP didn't have much lower memory usage than 7 and 8 out of being less bloated, but less feature-filled. XP was bloated on its on too for what it had. It seems to be a common predicament for a Windows OS that pioneers a new kernel. However, I think that XP simply had some resource management issues. For example, it never did seem to handle well-threaded tasks as well as 7 even when 7 was using a helluva lot more memory.
 


Maybe slop is an exaggeration, but simply memory that is being used that doesn't need to be used. Still, that 7 and 8 can greatly reduce their memory foot print from their predecessor (Vista for 7 and 7 for 8, of course) shows that they really were very bloated systems.
 
[citation][nom]itchyisvegeta[/nom]Imagine now if the PS4 would have the "OTHER OS" feature, like the PS3 did at launch.[/citation]
If the PS4 is running x86 hardware, how can it not be able to boot any x86 compatible OS, unless specifically prevented by BIOS. That would just be rude. BIOS locks may be circumnavigable.
 
Well this is great for AMD. Three companies using their graphics cards. However, I hope this translates into better advancements for PC because Consoles are a one and done purchase. The company cant keep selling upgrades to the console unless this is some new type of game console we have never seen before. PC users are where AMD makes their money so I hope this all comes back to benefit the Tom's Hardware readers.
 
Make you a deal, blazorthon. Change your wording and I think I will agree with you, more or less.

I don't like the word bloat, as it conveys too much negativity. So if you stop calling it bloat... 🙂 Instead of saying Windows 7 is full of bloat, I would say it is less optimized than is possible. You, I, and Microsoft can refactor code until we're blue in the face, but you have to start somewhere, and every jot and tittle of an OS has to have a version 1.0, which while not the best, does work, and eventually you have to release a product, or else...
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Most gamers do not[/i buy 20 titles a year, at least not 20 full-priced titles, regardless of their platform. That is extremely abnormal.Furthermore, Titan is not a whole gaming system. You'd need to spend almost as much as you don on Titan also on other hardware and software/operating system to get a full system, at a minimum likely for such a card. It's also very unlikely that you won't upgrade the PC within the console's life span, incurring significantly further cost. Again, Titan is too expensive for your example.[/citation]

I haven't got around to the real point yet, started with the extreme gamer who love games to the extreme. Like a Ferrari driver who don't care about the cost/hp, the gamer want the best game experience no matter the cost (not mentioning the super extremes who just have to get 4x titian's just for the e-peen or the Ferrari driver who is not happy with the factory tuned car!). The PC gamer could have a whole darn good gaming rig with the latest (one titan, 8gb+ mem, ssd with matching cpu ect) at the time of the console release and in the end spent as much as the extreme console gamer. Its just that the PC gamer got a over two-tree times as powerful machine for free while doing it! (You mentioned upgrades - Upgrades are optional to PC, if your not happy with a 2-3x power you can choose to upgrade later - While on consoles your stuck on one already weaker spec for what was it last six years?).

The next small point - Say a gamer buy 1 game a month (or to make it simpler 10 games a year). That would add up to 1500 sek a year, that would mean almost 3x7970ghz edition for free during the consoles lifespan or say one 7970hgz with a good system with ssd ect that would end up with at least 2x the gfx performance. And again the PC gets his system for free and that's only counting the console "tax" on the titles not the console itself! Here again the PC gamer have the choose to spend extra to for instance double the gfx throughput, beefier cpu, add an ssd for load speeds, get a new sound card for clearer/improved sound or more memory while the console gamer is stuck with the same hardware year after year.

The next segment, 6 games a year, here it starts to become tie and here the real point - If you love gaming and buy 0,5+ game a month the consoles will loose at every turn - They lack updatability, becomes more expensive with each title bought without getting anything for it and when the new hardware upgrade finally arrives the chances are big you have to start collecting the expensive console title library all over again - All that while the PC gamer gladly play away with the latest and greatest along with the old ones but in new glory due to the new hardware!.

Like i mentioned before, its all about choice - If you love the exclusives (that I predict will be less and less frequent in the future as both the new consoles are PC's - built with the same components just different os's) then why not go for console, same if you don't buy many titles (kid families that buy the console and 1-2 titles to it for instance) the consoles are perfect.

As for the rest it would seem PC have the strong points, more and more economical with each bough title, upgradable, backwards compatibility and not least a fully fledged computer that is way more usable in practical computing.

Today the above holds true in most markets due to the extra price paid for each console title vs the pc price and if the new consoles will have a higher "tax" it will only make the additional benefits of the PC even stronger, if they get lower it will weakens those points - Time will tell when the new consoles and the game prices for them are known!

Until then - Happy gaming!
 
[citation][nom]bigpinkdragon286[/nom]If the PS4 is running x86 hardware, how can it not be able to boot any x86 compatible OS, unless specifically prevented by BIOS. That would just be rude. BIOS locks may be circumnavigable.[/citation]

Doubt they want to take a loss/console that they expect to regain several times over from the titles sold later and gamble with it. They removed Linux from the PS3 due to peeps were staring to use them as computing clusters and Sony took the monetary hit for since no "console taxed games" were sold to them. If their business model is like the old consoles they will most likely not allow it, sadly!
 
[citation][nom]bigpinkdragon286[/nom]If the PS4 is running x86 hardware, how can it not be able to boot any x86 compatible OS, unless specifically prevented by BIOS. That would just be rude. BIOS locks may be circumnavigable.[/citation]

Because Windows probably does not have any of the proper drivers for any of the controllers that manage the PS4 system.

I am not saying it won't run, but without someone buildings a specific Windows release for the PS4, I doubt it would have any idea what to actually do with the hardware if you made it to an installation screen.

The first hurdle would be getting the PS4 to run the installation of Windows, something it probably wont be able to do because the disc itself would would not have the correct coding stamped on it.

The system would probably have to be hacked before any installation of Windows could occur. Considering it took people 4-5 years to jailbreak the PS3 I doubt we will see the PS4 being jailbroken any time soon.


 
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]I haven't got around to the real point yet, started with the extreme gamer who love games to the extreme. Like a Ferrari driver who don't care about the cost/hp, the gamer want the best game experience no matter the cost (not mentioning the super extremes who just have to get 4x titian's just for the e-peen or the Ferrari driver who is not happy with the factory tuned car!). The PC gamer could have a whole darn good gaming rig with the latest (one titan, 8gb+ mem, ssd with matching cpu ect) at the time of the console release and in the end spent as much as the extreme console gamer. Its just that the PC gamer got a over two-tree times as powerful machine for free while doing it! (You mentioned upgrades - Upgrades are optional to PC, if your not happy with a 2-3x power you can choose to upgrade later - While on consoles your stuck on one already weaker spec for what was it last six years?).The next small point - Say a gamer buy 1 game a month (or to make it simpler 10 games a year). That would add up to 1500 sek a year, that would mean almost 3x7970ghz edition for free during the consoles lifespan or say one 7970hgz with a good system with ssd ect that would end up with at least 2x the gfx performance. And again the PC gets his system for free and that's only counting the console "tax" on the titles not the console itself! Here again the PC gamer have the choose to spend extra to for instance double the gfx throughput, beefier cpu, add an ssd for load speeds, get a new sound card for clearer/improved sound or more memory while the console gamer is stuck with the same hardware year after year.The next segment, 6 games a year, here it starts to become tie and here the real point - If you love gaming and buy 0,5+ game a month the consoles will loose at every turn - They lack updatability, becomes more expensive with each title bought without getting anything for it and when the new hardware upgrade finally arrives the chances are big you have to start collecting the expensive console title library all over again - All that while the PC gamer gladly play away with the latest and greatest along with the old ones but in new glory due to the new hardware!.Like i mentioned before, its all about choice - If you love the exclusives (that I predict will be less and less frequent in the future as both the new consoles are PC's - built with the same components just different os's) then why not go for console, same if you don't buy many titles (kid families that buy the console and 1-2 titles to it for instance) the consoles are perfect.As for the rest it would seem PC have the strong points, more and more economical with each bough title, upgradable, backwards compatibility and not least a fully fledged computer that is way more usable in practical computing.Today this holds true in many markets due to the extra price paid for each console title and if the new consoles will have a higher "tax" it will only make the additional benefits of the PC even stronger, if they get lower it will weakens those points - Time will tell when the new consoles and the game prices are known!Until then - Happy gaming![/citation]

Most of the AAA games on the PC are about the same price as the main consoles games, at least they are in the USA, unless you wait for them to get on Steam. At least with pricing in most parts of the world, buying a gaming system with a single Titan will cost about as much more as buying a PS4 and a new game for it every month for three years. Around the three year mark, you'll probably throw in another Titan for say $600 to $700, further extending the console's advantage by another year. At that point, the console has about 50 games and that's just breaking even with the PC without including cost for PC games.

Including game costs for the PC and equalizing the pay across the console is going to extend the break-end point another two to three years. At that point, it's roughly a full refresh cycle and at the end of it, you've got almost 100 games on the console and probably dozen or so regular games and a few dozen on Steam along with any other extras, so still, about breaking even. The console would have used a helluva lot less electricity, especially after adding a second Titan, so you can't even say that the PC's extra performance was free. Then there's also the fact that you get stuff such as Kinect and much more with the console that you don't get with the PC, so the inferior hardware can be said to be counteracted by the more diverse gameplay.

Furthermore, the PCs are far less more "fully-fledged" than they used to be. Consoles can now do most of what most people do with their PCs and most people these days would rather use a laptop for PC work than a desktop.

At the end of it all, there is no clear winner no matter how you want to look at it unless you ignore clear advantages of one side. So, if you want to compare the advantages of PC over console, a system with Titan is obviously not going to do the job. Oh, and that was counting only buying new games for the consoles. PS4 supports used game sales, so you can get them cheaper than full price.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I used a copy of XP that was hacked to run great on 64MB of RAM Still, yes, XP didn't have much lower memory usage than 7 and 8 out of being less bloated, but less feature-filled. XP was bloated on its on too for what it had. It seems to be a common predicament for a Windows OS that pioneers a new kernel. However, I think that XP simply had some resource management issues. For example, it never did seem to handle well-threaded tasks as well as 7 even when 7 was using a helluva lot more memory.[/citation]

I ran a XPLite install in the days and even had the OS on a 512mb Usb stick for portability and it was optimized for minimum mem/space footprint. Today's "bloat" in win7 and 8 are mostly originating from functionality and some of that isn't used as much but loaded so the developers have a uniformed system no matter what machine it is run on. Much of this can be shut down via the services alone and even more can be tweaked on lower levels in the system so i agree the win7 and win8 base installs eat quite the bit of mem after boot - However mem isn't that expensive nowadays and i don't mind if it eats a chunk rather than load all the extra dll's/services/components later.

Whats important to me is how much other resources the system uses - Cpu, gpu, i/o ect and Win7/8 tweaked don't eat much at all for being fully fledged OS's.
 
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]Doubt they want to take a loss / console that they expect to regain several times over from the titles sold later and gamble with it. Just as they removed Linux from the PS3 due to peeps were staring to use them as computing clusters and Sony took the monetary hit for it.[/citation]
I agree that they may tamper with the ability to boot just any old OS, but I don't see the monetary cost as being as great this time. The hi-definition format war is clearly over and Blu-ray diode costs have dropped to a more realistic level. APUs have thus far not been overly expensive, even though we don't know what Sony will be paying for these, it won't be the retail prices we would be paying. From the sounds of things, Sony might just be turning a cute little profit per console this time.
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom][/citation]... Upgrades are optional to PC, if your not happy with a 2-3x power you can choose to upgrade later - While on consoles your stuck on one already weaker spec for what was it last six years?). ...[/citation]
From a practical standpoint, this is a boutique PC, not a console comprised of proprietary technologies. Does anybody outside of the developer channel and Sony know what OS it's running? Maybe it has a custom version of Linux or Windows 8 to go with it's custom APU? I would find that pretty hysterical, but also very practical, as Windows drivers for AMD products seem reasonably mature. Also, does anybody know if the APU is socketed? Imagine what Sony could do with that!
 
[citation][nom]Jprobes[/nom]Because Windows probably does not have any of the proper drivers for any of the controllers that manage the PS4 system.I am not saying it won't run, but without someone buildings a specific Windows release for the PS4, I doubt it would have any idea what to actually do with the hardware if you made it to an installation screen.The first hurdle would be getting the PS4 to run the installation of Windows, something it probably wont be able to do because the disc itself would would not have the correct coding stamped on it.The system would probably have to be hacked before any installation of Windows could occur. Considering it took people 4-5 years to jailbreak the PS3 I doubt we will see the PS4 being jailbroken any time soon.[/citation]
Since when did Windows or Linux not ship with a HAL for an x64 APU? I'll bet somebody somewhere already has the HAL for the rest of the hardware as well. How do you think these things make it from the design stages to production without prototyping and simulation?

I have a sneaking suspicion the jail breaking of the PS3 was hampered by it's absurdly stiff learning curve for developers.

Since Sony has chosen to go with something more standard for the CPU, who says the rest of the bits won't be off the shelf as well? 🙂
 
[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]I ran a XPLite install in the days and even had the OS on a 512mb Usb stick for portability and it was optimized for minimum mem/space footprint. Today's "bloat" in win7 and 8 are mostly originating from functionality and some of that isn't used as much but loaded so the developers have a uniformed system no matter what machine it is run on. Much of this can be shut down via the services alone and even more can be tweaked on lower levels in the system so i agree the win7 and win8 base installs eat quite the bit of mem after boot - However mem isn't that expensive nowadays and i don't mind if it eats a chunk rather than load all the extra dll's/services/components later.Whats important to me is how much other resources the system uses - Cpu, gpu, i/o ect and Win7/8 tweaked don't eat much at all for being fully fledged OS's.[/citation]

Like I said earlier, Windows 7 and 8 don't hog much processing resources considering the amount of memory they hog :)
 
I wonder if this low voltage Jaguar CPU will have as much performance as the Cell processor it replaces? No doubt the PS4 has lots of GPU power but not much x86 power (relatively speaking).
 
Great choice going for AMD, I hope they have AMD GPU also 😀. Best bang for the buck, although I'm an NVIDIA fan, this is my first time using an electronic device with something from AMD. Earn my trust and I might consider trying out the 7970 😀
 
Am I the only person that remembers Sony advertising 2 Teraflops for PS3? I did a little research, and, oddly enough, the cell chip in the PS3 is supposed to have 1.8 teraflops of processing power. This was 2005/2006. Granted, the GPU had nowhere near that, according to wikipedia the RSX chip could pull 400.4 gflops. But, while the PS4's touts 1.8 teraflops, today's x86_64 chips don't do anywhere near that. I'm having a really hard time pinning down the numbers, but the absolute fastest CPU's I can find numbers on are in the 160 gigaflop range, and from intel.

All this lines up with this article above, which says the APU's total computing power is less than 2 teraflops.

I know it's all apples to oranges, but the marketing leaves a bad taste in my mouth, when they're pushing the 'amazing' 2 teraflop processing power, when, technically the PS3 has 2.2 teraflop processing power at it's disposal, and it had that when it came out... Which, by the time the ps4 comes out at the end of the year, will have been 7 years ago!

I just don't see this as some colossal leap in console computing. Certainly not what we saw going from PS1 to PS2, or PS2 to PS3. All it looks like is, processor wise, the numbers have been shuffled around a bit, the architecture has changed (*cough* you do realize, Sony, that moving to x86 means we're likely to see a PS4 emulator before a PS3 emulator, right? *cough*), and there's a lot more bandwidth available to move information around (why isn't marketing pushing THIS as a huge point?).

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

 
Dude, Cell was 230 Gflops single precission. Don't know where you got those 2tflops from
 
And thats considering an 8 SPE setup. PS3 only has 7 SPES, of which one is locked by the OS so, the real theoretical figure would be well below 200gflops
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom