How does PS4's Processor fair with FX-6300?

[kebbz]

Is the ps4 8-core jaguar better than 6 core vishera?

 

[Sakkura]

That's very unlikely. The Jaguar core is a low-power architecture. Like Intel Atom. They have much lower performance per core and per clock, and it also runs at much lower clocks. I would consider the FX-6300 quite a bit more powerful.

 

[trane20]

the amd 8 core jaguar apu. That’s the update to the existing Brazos 2.0 architecture, possibly on a smaller manufacturing process, and is suggested to be running at a positively pedestrian 1.6GHz clock speed.

The reason it’s such a low-speed part is because it’s one of AMD’s ultra-mobile parts running at just 18W in dual-core guise. That power draw will rise with this touted eight-core version however.

In our PC world though I couldn't possibly recommend that family of chips for a competing machine, and in a desktop rig, constantly plugged into the wall, you don’t need to bother jamming in a mobile chip. The silicon I’d put up against this is the AMD FX-6300. It may only be six-core, but it’s already running at twice the speed of the Jaguar cores, and with more effective cores too, so it’ll make sure your GPU is happily fed with data.

 

[Lessthannil]

It gets trounced by it.

 

[wh3resmycar]

doesn't matter, that ps4 won't run windows on a day to day basis so comparing them with a desktop cpu don't make any sense.

 

[kebbz]

the amd 8 core jaguar apu. That’s the update to the existing Brazos 2.0 architecture, possibly on a smaller manufacturing process, and is suggested to be running at a positively pedestrian 1.6GHz clock speed.

The reason it’s such a low-speed part is because it’s one of AMD’s ultra-mobile parts running at just 18W in dual-core guise. That power draw will rise with this touted eight-core version however.

In our PC world though I couldn't possibly recommend that family of chips for a competing machine, and in a desktop rig, constantly plugged into the wall, you don’t need to bother jamming in a mobile chip. The silicon I’d put up against this is the AMD FX-6300. It may only be six-core, but it’s already running at twice the speed of the Jaguar cores, and with more effective cores too, so it’ll make sure your GPU is happily fed with data.

Wouldn't that bottleneck the gpu in Bf4 during 64 man servers? I mean I can see some slight bottleneck on the 6300 in some situations. How is the ps4 able to maintain 60fps?

 

[CTurbo]

The Jaguar core actually has much MUCH better performance per clock when compared to current AMD offerings. It runs 1.6ghz x 8 for the PS4 and 1.75ghzx8 for the Xbox1, but yeah, the FX 6300 would easily outperform that.

 

[Master-flaw]

Devs can take time to optimize for specific CPU's pretty well, making any specs null.
I wouldn't even compare them.

 

[Sakkura]

The Jaguar core actually has much MUCH better performance per clock when compared to current AMD offerings. It runs 1.6ghz x 8 for the PS4 and 1.75ghzx8 for the Xbox1, but yeah, the FX 6300 would easily outperform that.

No it does not. It's far weaker than Piledriver.

 

[Sakkura]

Wouldn't that bottleneck the gpu in Bf4 during 64 man servers? I mean I can see some slight bottleneck on the 6300 in some situations. How is the ps4 able to maintain 60fps?

On the consoles, they know exactly what hardware they have to work with, so they can code specifically to utilize it optimally. They also just put more work into optimization in the first place. On the PC, many games leave CPU cores beyond the first 2, 3, or 4 effectively unused.

 

[CTurbo]

No it does not. It's far weaker than Piledriver.

The performance per clock speed is superior.
I'm not saying Jaguar's 1.6ghz will outperform Piledriver's 3.6ghz.
I''m saying that Jaguar's 1.6ghz will handily outperform Piledriver's 1.6ghz.
IPC has been improved with every generation except for Bulldozer.

 

[kebbz]

Wouldn't that bottleneck the gpu in Bf4 during 64 man servers? I mean I can see some slight bottleneck on the 6300 in some situations. How is the ps4 able to maintain 60fps?

On the consoles, they know exactly what hardware they have to work with, so they can code specifically to utilize it optimally. They also just put more work into optimization in the first place. On the PC, many games leave CPU cores beyond the first 2, 3, or 4 effectively unused.

Man that's disappointing. That explains why intel processors are better too 🙁 Looks like Dice don't really care much on the PC platform as much like before 🙁

 

[Master-flaw]

Wouldn't that bottleneck the gpu in Bf4 during 64 man servers? I mean I can see some slight bottleneck on the 6300 in some situations. How is the ps4 able to maintain 60fps?

On the consoles, they know exactly what hardware they have to work with, so they can code specifically to utilize it optimally. They also just put more work into optimization in the first place. On the PC, many games leave CPU cores beyond the first 2, 3, or 4 effectively unused.

Man that's disappointing. That explains why intel processors are better too 🙁 Looks like Dice don't really care much on the PC platform as much like before 🙁

TBF the PS 4 does drop in frames every now and again... and also the graphics are paired back a bit which my reduce objects...but yea getting battlefield up and running on that CPU just shows how there really isn't a comparison. But we really didn't get that bad of treatment from DICE either...I'd say they murdered us on the GPU side for ultra settings but the play-ability across CPU's is rather nice.

aside from the bugs and glitches of course...but I'm sure all three platforms suffered from that.

 

[Sakkura]

No it does not. It's far weaker than Piledriver.

The performance per clock speed is superior.
I'm not saying Jaguar's 1.6ghz will outperform Piledriver's 3.6ghz.
I''m saying that Jaguar's 1.6ghz will handily outperform Piledriver's 1.6ghz.
IPC has been improved with every generation except for Bulldozer.

No, the performance per clock cycle is significantly inferior. It's a low-power and low-performance architecture. IPC has been improved for every generation, but Jaguar is not a step up from Piledriver or Bulldozer, it's a step up from Bobcat. Which performed a lot worse than Bulldozer.

As an example, the A4-5000 is outperformed by the A6-3500. The former is four Jaguar cores at 1.5 GHz, the latter is three K10 cores at 2.1 GHz.