ps4 and ps3 processor doubt

[thomas123321]

why is the ps3 processor at 4ghz and ps4 processor at 1.6ghz

 

[Warukyure]

The PS3 is actually 3.2 GHz. The PS4's CPU on paper is slower yes, it is as 1.6 GHz yes, but overall the system is better because a) the CPU in the PS3 was needed to pick up the slack from the relatively weak GPU in it back then (I think it was equivalent to like a nvidia 7600 GT) b) was designed in away so that the GPU could/would help with tasks in a GPGPU sense.

Sony (more like just Mark Cerny) chose that strong GPU in the PS4 because they wanted Game Devs to learn how to do GPGPU, which means having your GPU help do general computing when its not rendering scenes.

 

[gamerk316]

More or less correct. The PS3 Cell was a POWER derived CPU, which was essentially a server class CPU. It ran at 3.2 GHz, and had 7 usable cores (the 8th was disabled to improve yields). Peak processing caps out at 240 GFLOPS, though typically, ~160 GFLOPS was more common due to difficulties with the Cell architecture.

By contast, the PS4 uses a low-power X86 derived APU, which has a much lower clockspeed. Peak CPU processing caps out at about ~105 GFLOPS.

The PS4 has a much more powerful GPU and much more RAM, but the CPU is a significant downgrade over the Cell. It is something to watch going forward if the CPU is going to become a major bottleneck, but maybe this is why AMD invested in Mantle?

 

[Warukyure]

Mantle is more of a set of tools to allow a developer to interact better with the video card on machines. Before people would rely on tools like OpenGL and Direct X to help with managing and assigning tasks to be done on the GPU but while it makes it easier it was slightly more inefficient so wasted GPU power. (As we know when games are written for PC they are written in a more broader sense so as many different specifications can handle it, but since the PS3/PS4 has a set specifications it allows some game Devs to really get down to the machine and even assign specific tasks to the cores which makes it much more efficient since no cycles are wasted. Which is why the PS3 with is odd Cell architecture and relatively weak GPU can still play games today when machines of equal or comparable specs to the PS3 can't even run a game on Medium.)

Some of the choices in going towards the PS4 and X1's APU design is ultimately to deliver a relatively inexpensive and complete package, with the GPU the PS4 has , if you use a better CPU what could possibly happen is that it would end up drawing more power, requiring more cooling, make the machine bigger which ultimately makes it cost more.

When it comes down to it, it depends on how the game dev uses the PS4. We all remember the early days of the PS3/Xbox360 the games when it first came out were a huge graphical leap compared to the PS2/Xbox1 days. But as time went on people learned how to use the consoles better, thats why games near the end of a generation look vastly superior compared to the games that we had when it first came out. (Look at Resistance: Fall of Man for the PS3 when it came out it was visually impressive few years later we have things like The Last of Us which is amazing how much difference there is on the same machine.)

 

[gamerk316]

Yes, but where is the huge graphical leap this gen? Look at GTA:SA (late era PS2) versus GTAIV (early era 360/ps3). Obvious graphical jump. This generation? Not so much.

Remember how overpowered consoles used to be. The 360 CPU was over 100 GLOPS back when the P4 was getting 10. The PS3 CPU was over 200 GFLOPS when C2D's were pulling ~35. Now? We have a console generation that started with CPUs that are WEAKER then chips already in PCs. These will not age well.