What does the PS4's 8 core CPU mean for PC gaming?

[amuffin]

jaguar cores are a slight improvement on bobcat cores (AMD says 10-15% performance improvement which in real life would be 5%) that are designed for tablets/smartphones. it would be like comparing a modern tegra quad core found in a tablet to a modern desktop quad core like an i5 or even phenom II x4. I'm sure the the developers will do a great job of optimizing all eight cores (a good year or two after PS4/xboc 720 launch) but there is only so much information those cores can process and move.

the real issue should be GPU, the PS4 looks like a console designed to play games at 30FPS at 1080p. So im guessing more console ports for PC gamers with tweaks like distance draw and shadow improvement so they can feel as if they are "taxing" their video card to help nvidia/AMD sell more hardware.

SERIOUS!?

LOLLLLLLLLLL [:rayner428] [:rayner428] [:rayner428] [:rayner428] [:rayner428] [:rayner428]

 

[amuffin]

Really??? I thought it would be some derivative of the PileDriver FX core like a lower clocked version of the FX-8300 (which consumes 95w) that would have decent enough power consumption.

You mean the CPU used in the next gen Xbox and PS is more or less a glorified AMD E-350 with 8 cores?

Goes to show how much I pay attention to consoles. Much less care about them.

Guess so!

 

[jlan86]

It sounds to me like you're all way too focused on the CPU aspect. You shouldn't even think of it as a CPU at all. It's more like a high-end Radeon graphics card with 1152 stream processors, 8GB of GDDR5, and 8 Jaguar cores just there to back it up. They didn't do it like this because they couldn't afford Intel Ivy Bridge technology- they did it this way because this is better for what they want it to do. Remember, AMD and Sony collaborated to create a custom chip just for the PS4.

I'm also hearing concerns that the games will not utilize all 8 cores effectively. For PC games ported directly to the PS4 without much consideration, this might be an issue, but for those designed for the PS4 and those more carefully ported, all 8 cores will be used. The main reason for their move from the cell processor to this AMD chipset is that too many developers were complaining that the cell processor was too hard to work with. While cell had great potential for those programmers who took time to figure it out, they ultimately decided to go with something more open to expand the selection of games. The developers are going to design games for the PS4 with those 8 cores in mind.

 

[melikepie]

Why do you think Planetside 2 hasn't been on consoles yet?

 

[melikepie]

It sounds to me like you're all way too focused on the CPU aspect. You shouldn't even think of it as a CPU at all. It's more like a high-end Radeon graphics card with 1152 stream processors, 8GB of GDDR5, and 8 Jaguar cores just there to back it up. They didn't do it like this because they couldn't afford Intel Ivy Bridge technology- they did it this way because this is better for what they want it to do. Remember, AMD and Sony collaborated to create a custom chip just for the PS4.

I'm also hearing concerns that the games will not utilize all 8 cores effectively. For PC games ported directly to the PS4 without much consideration, this might be an issue, but for those designed for the PS4 and those more carefully ported, all 8 cores will be used. The main reason for their move from the cell processor to this AMD chipset is that too many developers were complaining that the cell processor was too hard to work with. While cell had great potential for those programmers who took time to figure it out, they ultimately decided to go with something more open to expand the selection of games. The developers are going to design games for the PS4 with those 8 cores in mind.

Yeah, keep in mind the developers are stuck with those specs for years to come.

 

[qewee]

This how to technology going on:
* PC, The first machine will get it.
* Laptop, After ~1.5 year.
* Game Console, after ~3.5 years.
* Smart Phones/Tablets, after 5 years

 

[satyamdubey]

It is important to first know with credibility what that 8 core cpu is actually manufactured to work as. Is it like the previous Cell design? Cell had one PPE and eight SPE's. The PPE controlled SPE's. Does the jaguar package doe the same have one master and other slave cpu's. That it is x86 gives no idea if they are all complete fully functional cores, it just shows a migration from the Power architecture to x86.

Utilizing 8 cores in a console and in a desktop cpu's are two very different things. Consoles actually pursue the ideal situation where the cpu is engaged 100% all the time. there should be no time wasted in idling. That is because they run just one application/program=game all the time. A desktop cpu, with all "equal" cores is better utilized when there is as little cpu locking from one application as possible.

The focus on cpu is important because of the different ways in which gpu and cpu works. A gpu executes many parallel threads at a low clock speed while the cpu executes single thread/per core at very high clock.

The cpu is tasked with feeding the compute data to the gpu as the games do not directly communicate with it. And it is this interfacing of the cpu and gpu that manifests as bottlenecks we all talk about.

Thread execution by a cpu is dependent on the IPC and speed which in 3570K vs 8 Jaguar cores, favours the 3570K. Which means that assuming that this amd cpu is an 8 core just like a regular desktop cpu, over a given length of time, say 10 seconds, the 3570K will have processed more threads and fed those into the gpu than the 8 core.

 

[jlan86]

Yeah, keep in mind the developers are stuck with those specs for years to come.

I don't think that will be a problem. Even on PC, most games do not fully utilize the hardware available. Developing games to the level of photo-realism to which current hardware is capable is extremely costly. You only get it with top-notch games. On consoles it's a little easier to max out, but even on the PS3 most games do not fully utilize the hardware available. The power increase in the PS4 is nothing developers will complain about. If anything it will be years before we even see PS4 games that really show its full potential. (Full potential also implies Ultra-HD games, which means you'll need a UHDTV just to enjoy them.)

I'm way more concerned about what else the PS4 is going to offer other than updated hardware. Consoles these days have to have something special to set them apart from PC gaming and other consoles. With Wii it was motion control remotes, and then with the XBox360 it was the Kinect. Sony tried motion wands for the PS3 and they were a dismal failure. I'm hoping that Sony has some sort of secret deal with Leap Motion that they haven't told anyone about yet that will integrate Leap Motion controls into the PS3. If not, and the PS4 really is just a hardware increase that most games won't even utilize, Sony is going to have a hard time keeping up with Microsoft and PC gaming.

 

[iam2thecrowe]

im sure they will use the gpu for a lot of the physics and such anyway, offloading the cpu.

 

[melikepie]

It's not a good idea to use a GPU for physics. It ruins the FPS, there is a reason there is a CPU.

 

[wh3resmycar]

It's not a good idea to use a GPU for physics. It ruins the FPS, there is a reason there is a CPU.

lowers the FPS for extra eye candy. what's the problem with that? i'd rather have a dynamic scene that's pushing technology than stale, bland and tedious.

it is a good idea.

 

[wh3resmycar]

and besides, it doesn't matter what hardware next-gen consoles will have.

console-optimized means games that are uglier than their PC counterparts.

 

[wh3resmycar]

there's no programming magic in it. when a dev says their games are console optimized, it's code for uglier, bland-textures, almost-no AA, 30 fps target video game. that's comparable to a mixed of low/mid settings on the PC.

reason why there's not a single console game at present (and quite possibly the future given next-gen hardware) that out-guns a PC game visually. always have been, always will be.

you might but sony/ms don't. they want games running at 1080p as smooth as possible.

yep, but keep in mind the 30 FPS target. physics acceleration is quite reachable. tressFX would be a good addition to games of the future.

it's been a year now since i quit PC gaming, i mainly use my PC for dota1 purposes. and the only way i can stomach triple A titles with my xbox360 is when i'm a good 5-6 ft away. and the insatiable comfort of playing games with awkward sitting position.

the problem with AMD is that they're good at making tech demos, it took them half a decade to finally come up with a consumer level physics acceleration solution.


what's irritating is the amount of social BS that'll come with these next gen consoles. i can understand that the Multiplayer games but single-player campaigns are my private-intimate times.

 

[melikepie]

The PS4 isn't gaming friendly. Have you tried to use 8 cores in C++ for games? Especially considering that those are very weak cores? They're not getting anywhere anytime soon. The amount of speed a 3.1GHz Bulldozer is capable of is quite low. Just enough for 2D physics, which uses considerably less resources then 3D physics. I think Sony is headed towards GPU based games. Which is very powerful. Definitely not future proof. I hope Microsoft doesn't make the same mistake.

 

[seinfeld]

this is just as powerful as a 7850. my O/c 7850 2gb is capable of 1.7 Gflops. thats the same !! pretty impressive for a on die GPU

 

[melikepie]

How did you test your GPU?

 

[seinfeld]

sorry it was 1.76 TFLOPS Single Precision compute power
from power color website

 

[melikepie]

So, a 7970 GHz edition has 3.788 TFlops, and mine goes just a bit faster, and it still costs less then the PS4 (those pesky "gaming" consoles cost a lot at launch) then my GPU wins! I will upgrade it maybe in 2-3 years, then lets see the performance !

 

[jlan86]

So, a 7970 GHz edition has 3.788 TFlops, and mine goes just a bit faster, and it still costs less then the PS4 (those pesky "gaming" consoles cost a lot at launch) then my GPU wins! I will upgrade it maybe in 2-3 years, then lets see the performance !

You can't just look at the cost of the graphics card, you have to look at the cost of the while computer. Yes, a computer can do a lot more, and yes, for someone who already has a good computer who just needs a graphics card, just investing in a new graphics card will make more sense, but for someone who doesn't have anything close to a gaming computer it makes sense to buy a PS4. Also, isn't the 7970 over $400? I'm will to bet that the PS4 will be $400 at launch and they're saying that it's going to be 2 Gflops.

 

[ugod987]

You will be fine

but i disagree with groomer

console's typically maximize their hardware to a level PCs cant