Report: PlayStation 4 Rumored to Use AMD Fusion CPU/GPU

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]aggroboy[/nom]Gaming hardware doesn't work that way. Systems like Xbox360 used variations of older GPU architecture, yet blew away all gaming PC systems at the time of its launch. We can't use a 2005 PC to play today's games.[/citation]

You can't use an Xbox today to play a game at the quality level of a good $400 gaming PC either. Consoles don't play today's games, they play games that may have been made recently, but tend to look like and act like they were made over four to six years ago. PCs can't play new games years after they were made very well because PC games advance, but consoles can because they don't advance much at all between generational leaps. They get more and more optimized in the software, but you can only do so much there compared to getting hardware that is several times faster in the same several year time frame.
 
[citation][nom]traumadisaster[/nom]This is a better junp over pc's than the last junp in 2005. Obviously pc will take the lead quickly but what developer is going to risk the costs to create the equivalent to crysis 2007? For me in 2 years when gfx start to look the same i move to a 2k or 4k monitor and build another pc.[/citation]

The last jump was far better than this. The last jump had the 360 and PS3 around the high end for a while after their launch. This one will leave the consoles, at best, in the mid-ranged performance level when they launch, if not the lower mid-range to upper entry-level.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]The last jump was far better than this. The last jump had the 360 and PS3 around the high end for a while after their launch. This one will leave the consoles, at best, in the mid-ranged performance level when they launch, if not the lower mid-range to upper entry-level.[/citation]

Thing is though it took quite a bit of power to shift games at 1080p back in 2005 so they had to go with a highend GPU. Nowadays that isn't the case and mid-range options will do the job with power to spare.

Things move on. A high end 680/7970 level GPU just isn't needed this time. Sony and MS need to make these consoles as cheap as possible. Shareholders etc. wont tolerate huge losses this time around.



 
Because pc gaming is held back by developers of conoles there have been no pc games that looked like sw1313 because They think it makes no financial sense to create only for pc, plus MS doesnt want people not buying a 360 so they dont support pc gaming either, and in witcher piracy and dev say screw it. So the games produced will look better way better than what a $1200 system can do. it will be by choice not lack of cpu power.
 
[citation][nom]daglesj[/nom]Thing is though it took quite a bit of power to shift games at 1080p back in 2005 so they had to go with a highend GPU. Nowadays that isn't the case and mid-range options will do the job with power to spare.Things move on. A high end 680/7970 level GPU just isn't needed this time. Sony and MS need to make these consoles as cheap as possible. Shareholders etc. wont tolerate huge losses this time around.[/citation]

That's true. However, even for 1080p, these console will be lackluster compared to PCs when they come out if that's in two years or so, even if they are adequate. If they launched in a few weeks, then it'd be better. I'm not saying that they need a 7970 or 680... Only that they should either launch now or at least get bumped up to a 7870ish GPU instead of an apparently 7850ish GPU.

However, the post that I replied to was BS and I just wanted to point that out. These consoles will likely be adequate for a while, but they are not high-end and never will be again, from the looks of things.
 
oblivion on 360 in 2005 had no comparison on a $1200 build, much less a $399 build. Same will hold true on the next console but not b/c pc hardware wont be available, the developers wont put the resources into pc.
 
[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Actually Haswell would make a much better console than amd fusion just look at the stats it like comparing a p2 to a core2duo quad.[/citation]
Eh? What "stats"?

In any case, Intel are hardly going to undercut AMD here...
 
[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Actually Haswell would make a much better console than amd fusion just look at the stats it like comparing a p2 to a core2duo quad.[/citation]

A Phenom II versus a Core 2 is a very good match-up. Somewhat higher frequencies lets them hold out against somewhat the higher IPC of Core 2. Phenom II can go to 6 cores, so for a console, it could be better (technically, there were 6 core Core 2 Xeons, but that's not going to change anything because they're Xeons, not Core 2 Hexas or something like that) because the console would have devs actually needing to code properly for all of those cores to be well-utilized. However, you don't know anything about how well the supposed APUs for the consoles would perform, so you're not only inaccurately saying that Core 2 beats Phenom II, but also saying that you can tell us how well these chips perform without there even being benchmarks of them.

[citation][nom]traumadisaster[/nom]oblivion on 360 in 2005 had no comparison on a $1200 build, much less a $399 build. Same will hold true on the next console but not b/c pc hardware wont be available, the developers wont put the resources into pc.[/citation]

The next consoles, according to all of this, won't have graphics that can beat even a 7870, which can fit into a $650 to $700 budget comfortably. You could just take this quarter's $500 SBM, switch out the Celeron and H61 motherboard for a highly overclocked FM1 Athlon on Llano quad (after disabling the IGP) and a decent motherboard and put in a 7870 without going over a $700 or maybe 650 budget. Heck, if you really wanted to, you could probably go lower to the 7850 and overclock or if we were going strictly by budget, the GTX 480, which could fit into a $550-$650 budget and still play the latest games better than the GTX 560 TI that was used in that SBM and hold out against the new consoles, especially if you overclock it (although that would need a $20-30 after-market cooler for the GTX 480 and possibly a higher wattage PSU). It wouldn't be as power efficient, but it would be faster.

Furthermore, I never said that a $400 build could beat the consoles when they first came out. I said that a $400 build now could beat the 360 and PS3.
 
[citation][nom]DRosencraft[/nom]I think the console makers should consider a Thunderbolt port for their systems. Hear me out; a common complaint some tend to have considering consoles is the lack of upgradability between generations. Adding a Thunderbolt port should allow for the later addition of an external gpu as a sort of mid-season upgrade. Just throwing that idea out there.[/citation]

Somebody doesn't remember the days of the Sega CD/32X/Saturn RAM carts/Nintendo 64DD, or even more recent, XBox 360's HD-DVD drive. :)

Consoles != PCs. Geeks like us want to upgrade. Average Joe wants it to just work.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]However, the post that I replied to was BS and I just wanted to point that out. These consoles will likely be adequate for a while, but they are not high-end and never will be again, from the looks of things.[/citation]

No I think you are right consoles going forward will be more budget orientated rather than expensive high end boxes that become in effect obsolete (to a degree) within a year or release. The days of crazy deluxe consoles are over. However it could mean 3-4 year console cycles rather than the current 8 year+.
 
[citation][nom]daglesj[/nom]No I think you are right consoles going forward will be more budget orientated rather than expensive high end boxes that become in effect obsolete (to a degree) within a year or release. The days of crazy deluxe consoles are over. However it could mean 3-4 year console cycles rather than the current 8 year+.[/citation]

Oh, I hope that the next refresh comes much sooner than this one. Waiting this long is getting ridiculous, especially with how it leaves the PC ports as games that are made to run on ancient hardware, yet are so inefficiently coded that they can stress modern hardware while having graphics similar in quality to games from several years ago unless we mod them. It's been getting better, thankfully, but it's still a poor situation for PC gaming.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]A Phenom II versus a Core 2 is a very good match-up. Somewhat higher frequencies lets them hold out against somewhat the higher IPC of Core 2. Phenom II can go to 6 cores, so for a console, it could be better (technically, there were 6 core Core 2 Xeons, but that's not going to change anything because they're Xeons, not Core 2 Hexas or something like that) because the console would have devs actually needing to code properly for all of those cores to be well-utilized. However, you don't know anything about how well the supposed APUs for the consoles would perform, so you're not only inaccurately saying that Core 2 beats Phenom II, but also saying that you can tell us how well these chips perform without there even being benchmarks of them.The next consoles, according to all of this, won't have graphics that can beat even a 7870, which can fit into a $650 to $700 budget comfortably. You could just take this quarter's $500 SBM, switch out the Celeron and H61 motherboard for a highly overclocked FM1 Athlon on Llano quad (after disabling the IGP) and a decent motherboard and put in a 7870 without going over a $700 or maybe 650 budget. Heck, if you really wanted to, you could probably go lower to the 7850 and overclock or if we were going strictly by budget, the GTX 480, which could fit into a $550-$650 budget and still play the latest games better than the GTX 560 TI that was used in that SBM and hold out against the new consoles, especially if you overclock it (although that would need a $20-30 after-market cooler for the GTX 480 and possibly a higher wattage PSU). It wouldn't be as power efficient, but it would be faster.Furthermore, I never said that a $400 build could beat the consoles when they first came out. I said that a $400 build now could beat the 360 and PS3.[/citation]


 
[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom][/citation]

That's quite the response you have there, but I don't think that a blank response speaks louder than a well-worded and thought-out response does (I'll assume that there was some sort of accident during posting. Such things have probably happened to most Tom's members who comment on these articles and i'm no exception). I've thought about it and by p2, you might have meant the Pentium 2, not the Phenom II... However, if that is the case, you'd still be making statements about an APU and a CPU, both of which we've never seen benchmarks for and might not even have finalized versions yet. In that case, the Pentium 2 would definitely not be a match for Core 2 (not even the Core 2 Solos of the Core 2 mobile platform), but it doesn't change how misguided what you said about Haswell was. We don't know how Haswell will perform and we don't know how the rumored APU would perform either.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]That's quite the response you have there, but I don't think that a blank response speaks louder than a well-worded and thought-out response does (I'll assume that there was some sort of accident during posting. Such things have probably happened to most Tom's members who comment on these articles and i'm no exception). I've thought about it and by p2, you might have meant the Pentium 2, not the Phenom II... However, if that is the case, you'd still be making statements about an APU and a CPU, both of which we've never seen benchmarks for and might not even have finalized versions yet. In that case, the Pentium 2 would definitely not be a match for Core 2 (not even the Core 2 Solos of the Core 2 mobile platform), but it doesn't change how misguided what you said about Haswell was. We don't know how Haswell will perform and we don't know how the rumored APU would perform either.[/citation]


Haswell will support 4k video also will be 5x faster than anything that is out atm sure it won't be cheap but the ps3's cpu/gpu was not cheap either.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/next-ge...covering-all-the-standards-in-2013/14648.html
 
[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Haswell will support 4k video also will be 5x faster than anything that is out atm sure it won't be cheap but the ps3's cpu/gpu was not cheap either.[/citation]

[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]seems if you try to submit a url it blocks the msghttp://vr-zone.com/articles/next-g [...] 14648.html[/citation]

... Haswell is not 5 times faster than Phenom II, let alone Piledriver and its successors in CPU performance. Faswell's top IGP is also not five times faster than the supposed ~7850 performing APU in GPU performance. Supporting 4K video also doesn't matter because no console will support going beyond 1080p until resolutions greater than 1080p are far more prevalent on TVs. In fact, Haswell won't even be twice as fast as modern CPUs, let alone close to twice as fast. Where are you getting this?
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... Haswell is not 5 times faster than Phenom II, let alone Piledriver and its successors in CPU performance. Faswell's top IGP is also not five times faster than the supposed ~7850 performing APU in GPU performance. Supporting 4K video also doesn't matter because no console will support going beyond 1080p until resolutions greater than 1080p are far more prevalent on TVs.[/citation]

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/08/haswell-is-a-graphics-monster/
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]... Haswell is not 5 times faster than Phenom II, let alone Piledriver and its successors in CPU performance. Faswell's top IGP is also not five times faster than the supposed ~7850 performing APU in GPU performance. Supporting 4K video also doesn't matter because no console will support going beyond 1080p until resolutions greater than 1080p are far more prevalent on TVs.[/citation]

Im not talking cpu speed its gpu speed haswell gpu will blow away anything that AMD has if you go by benchmarks of ivy bridge , haswell has MANY more cores than ivy bridge and built in frame buffer with large amount of very high speed ram.

http://semiaccurate.com/2012/02/08/haswell-is-a-graphics-monster/

 
4k monitors do exist although its beyond most peoples budget they go for the price of a new mid range car but prices should drop in a few years there are 6 companies that have them for sale atm.
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/04/02/haswells-gpu-prowess-is-due-to-crystalwell/


 
[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Haswell will support 4k video also will be 5x faster than anything that is out atm sure it won't be cheap but the ps3's cpu/gpu was not cheap either.[/citation]


LOL, the anemic Intel graphics will beat a Tahiti with unified addressing!!!!!?????,

LMFAO....LOL... Keep daydreaming fanboy.
 
[citation][nom]mamailo[/nom]LOL, the anemic Intel graphics will beat a Tahiti with unified addressing!!!!!?????,LMFAO....LOL... Keep daydreaming fanboy.[/citation]

Im not talking about beating any good pci-e card im taking igp it will be the fastest gpu on a cpu die for at least 3 years.


 
HD 7970 alone is $500 i would doubt sony would go with this it's all speculation at current prices a ps4 would go for $700 i doubt anyone would pay that much for a console.
The article claims that igp are too slow for consoles not true the desktop version of haswell would be 5x that of current ivy bridge which is a huge increase that is what im talking about.
 
[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]Im not talking about beating any good pci-e card im taking igp it will be the fastest gpu on a cpu die for at least 3 years.[/citation]

You forget that AMD is going to make a huge leap in IGP performance once they integrate GCN into the next gen APU with Steamroller or its successor.

[citation][nom]techguy911[/nom]HD 7970 alone is $500 i would doubt sony would go with this it's all speculation at current prices a ps4 would go for $700 i doubt anyone would pay that much for a console.The article claims that igp are too slow for consoles not true the desktop version of haswell would be 5x that of current ivy bridge which is a huge increase that is what im talking about.[/citation]

parts are cheaper when they are bought in bulck for such purposed and Sony would go for a lower end model than the 7970. Also, the desktop version of Trinity is still several times faster than Ivy Bridge, so the next APU generation could easily pass Haswell by even if it's a 5 times increase over HD 4000.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom