PlayStation 4’s Seventh Core Now Unlocked For Developers

[heirdeux]

The changelog in the latest patch for a game audio company reveals that the PlayStation 4's CPU can now use seven of its eight cores, potentially providing more power for future games.

PlayStation 4’s Seventh Core Now Unlocked For Developers : Read more

 

[captaincharisma]

now maybe square will not have any more problems getting 60FPS out of the upcoming final fantasy game

 

[hst101rox]

5 cores for the developers, 7 cores available for everything for both PS4 and Xbox1? Why not all 8 cores?

Sony is just now allowing 5 cores to be used by developers? What is the point in not allowing it, if the rest of the system can run fine on the remaining cores?

 

[jimmysmitty]

[quotemsg=17041965,0,1748327]5 cores for the developers, 7 cores available for everything for both PS4 and Xbox1? Why not all 8 cores?

Sony is just now allowing 5 cores to be used by developers? What is the point in not allowing it, if the rest of the system can run fine on the remaining cores?[/quotemsg]

Sony probably was allocating cores to specific tasks to make sure there was no lag or issues going from game to "desktop" etc. It is much like a PC. Most games that can use more than one core allocate certain aspects to other cores, such as Crysis that needed a dual core since it used the second core to process audio.

I don;t think there is going to be a massive boost in games TBH. Even with the more direct coding that consoles get, CPU cores only allow for so much performance. More SPUs would benefit games vastly more.

 

[dstarr3]

Already maxing out the hardware two years into its lifespan? I suspect this generation of consoles will not be able to last the seven years the last one somehow did.

 

[lorfa]

now maybe square will not have any more problems getting 60FPS out of the upcoming final fantasy game

Not Square, Square Enix! My beloved Square is long gone, their last title was FFX :-/

 

[firefoxx04]

Saying that both systems have "the same cpu" is pretty misleading. While they are "the same" they do have some differences that gives one of them an advantage over the other (i cant remember what has what). They should hardly be considered "the same".

That being said, its pathetic that they require all these cores to run a game at mediocre settings. Developers cant simply start writing games to take advantage of more cores. They can offload things to new cores here or there but its not as simple as utilizing all cores right away.

 

[Johan Kryger Haglert]

Already maxing out the hardware two years into its lifespan? I suspect this generation of consoles will not be able to last the seven years the last one somehow did.

It doesn't have to.
It's more or less generic PC-hardware and can rather easily be upgraded.

 

[belardo]

With both consoles using very PC-type parts and a good "OS" installed. They should easily make new consoles in about 2 years (max) as the hardware today CANNOT handle 4K TVs. 4K TVs are quickly hitting the $600 price range and the PS4 isn't even close to handling it. The GPUs on the market are in the $200+ range to handle 4K as well.

So, they can come out with the PS5, use the exact SAME OS so it'll be PS4 compatible and play PS5 games in 4K mode. Then sell the PS4 for about $200 for the low-range market.

At this point, consoles cannot survive on a 6~8 year life-span. It should be 4 years now... and with using PC parts and standardized OS - WHY bother re-writing the OS and hardware from the ground up? It adds un-necessary costs and time that is not warrented. The developers would be happy to have the PS4 compatibility - especially for 1080 users. This would give the PS5 a huge library with a year or so for SONY to phase out the PS4.

 

[Bloob]

Already maxing out the hardware two years into its lifespan? I suspect this generation of consoles will not be able to last the seven years the last one somehow did.

It doesn't have to.
It's more or less generic PC-hardware and can rather easily be upgraded.

Last gen was an exception anyway, usual console cycle is 4-6 years (although I wouldn't be surprised to see that get extended as games get more complex to make).

 

[fuzzion]

As a member of the PC MASTER RACE i had a laugh hahha

 

[iam2thecrowe]

Already maxing out the hardware two years into its lifespan? I suspect this generation of consoles will not be able to last the seven years the last one somehow did.

It doesn't have to.
It's more or less generic PC-hardware and can rather easily be upgraded.

I agree. I think the way the hardware is, they will not have such long cycles now. If they were clever they could have even made an add on box for extra gpu power, call it a 4K box to render games at 4k.

 

[edmilsonbtu]

I think is now seven 7 cores for games, right? The new is wrong?!

 

[Tomas_5]

I think they made the right choice when they realesed the consoles only 1080 capable. I dont know where youre buying your Gpus, but u cant buy one that runs 4k for 200 in playable fps. Actually, you cant find a single card configuration that can run ir properly, and multiple Gpus bottlenecks when they get to the micro. So, its easier said than done doing 4k in Pc, so its stupid aiming that high in a console, and 1440p TVs dont exist, so 1080 is fine stop the nonesense.

 

[Johan Kryger Haglert]

[quotemsg=17046117,0,2132306]I think they made the right choice when they realesed the consoles only 1080 capable. I dont know where youre buying your Gpus, but u cant buy one that runs 4k for 200 in playable fps. Actually, you cant find a single card configuration that can run ir properly, and multiple Gpus bottlenecks when they get to the micro. So, its easier said than done doing 4k in Pc, so its stupid aiming that high in a console, and 1440p TVs dont exist, so 1080 is fine stop the nonesense.[/quotemsg]You don't need 200 FPS.

Dual GTX 980 would do 4K decently now.

Four TitanX on X99-motherboard with 5930K or better would do it better.

 

[eodeo]

<2ghz cores? What are they used for? How are consoles remotely competitive?

 

[spadam_2000]

[quotemsg=17046117,0,2132306]I think they made the right choice when they realesed the consoles only 1080 capable. I dont know where youre buying your Gpus, but u cant buy one that runs 4k for 200 in playable fps. Actually, you cant find a single card configuration that can run ir properly, and multiple Gpus bottlenecks when they get to the micro. So, its easier said than done doing 4k in Pc, so its stupid aiming that high in a console, and 1440p TVs dont exist, so 1080 is fine stop the nonesense.[/quotemsg]You don't need 200 FPS.

Dual GTX 980 would do 4K decently now.

Four TitanX on X99-motherboard with 5930K or better would do it better.

He meant $200.. No company is going to throw dual GTX 980s in a console and expect people to pay $1000 for it.. nor try and cool it all in a box the size of a toaster. Your final statement.. just nope.

 

[Lee-m]

Great news for console owners. 32fps instead of just 30 will really take things up a notch. BAM !

 

[hannibal]

No, They are not going to make faster Xbone just because They can. They will first release cheaper version that is smaller and eats less electricity, then one even more smaller (and cheaper). They just can not release games that are too heavy to original Xbox one and PS4. It is not economical. They make most Profit with those smaller and cheaper versions of original. So more profit in the end of consoles life cycle.
Most predictions says that these consoles has longer life cycle than previous did have. New 14 to 16 nm upgrades help to make these cheaper and eat less energy. Not to make them faster.
We most probably see completely new consoles at earliest 2020, most probably 2024 or something like that.

 

[George Phillips]

I also don't get it. Why lock some cores? Just make all cores available from the beginning.

 

[dstarr3]

[quotemsg=17046117,0,2132306]I think they made the right choice when they realesed the consoles only 1080 capable. I dont know where youre buying your Gpus, but u cant buy one that runs 4k for 200 in playable fps. Actually, you cant find a single card configuration that can run ir properly, and multiple Gpus bottlenecks when they get to the micro. So, its easier said than done doing 4k in Pc, so its stupid aiming that high in a console, and 1440p TVs dont exist, so 1080 is fine stop the nonesense.[/quotemsg]

Except the consoles still can't even do 1080p. So many games are still locked at 900-something-p and upscaled, and there are almost NO games that hold a steady 60fps, even at this reduced resolution.

Honestly, I agree, 1080p is good enough. I'm not buying 4K TV for a long, long time. But for god's sake, it's 2015, and consoles STILL can't do 1080p. It's really very sad.

 

[vider]

Most houses have an average of 32 to 40 inch tv's. Either running in 720p or 1080p. Most gamers are not tech savvy. For them it's about my console is better than yours or my games are cooler then yours. Having to run to console at 8 cores and not at 6 cores, means more power consumption, overheating and noise level increase. Hence it's a different approach then the pc market.

Different segments different approaches an needs.

There is a need for a better approach to the current issue of a consoles short life span. It is possible to have a full size pc in a small form factor. Just take a look at ZOTAC offerings.

They manage to pack quiet a lot into a small form factor.

 

[The LakesideView]

Half these comments aren't making sense.. The extra core isn't going to contribute to a fps increase. The CPU isn't the bottleneck on these current generation consoles. The GPU is.. The CPU tends to handle things like the physics and calculations for particles(background tasks). So.. what you'll be seeing is lightly +5-8% increase in accuracy of.. lets say.. water splashing in a game.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

[quotemsg=17049922,0,2132692]Half these comments aren't making sense.. The extra core isn't going to contribute to a fps increase. The CPU isn't the bottleneck on these current generation consoles. The GPU is.. The CPU tends to handle things like the physics and calculations for particles(background tasks). So.. what you'll be seeing is lightly +5-8% increase in accuracy of.. lets say.. water splashing in a game.[/quotemsg]

the cpu cores in these consoles are extremely weak. No it's not going to make a night and day difference, but it may help a stutter here or there in scenario's where the cpu is bogged down.

 

[Kahless01]

[quotemsg=17044844,0,200652] The GPUs on the market are in the $200+ range to handle 4K as well.
[/quotemsg]

there is no 200$ 3dcard or anything close to it that will run 4k smoothly even on current engines. let alone more advanced engines. the r9 390 and gtx970 can only average about 40 at 1440p on the witcher and theyre around 350$. 4k would bring them to their knees