PS4 CPU clock frequence confirmed

Sony have just confirmed that the Jaguar CPU within the PS4 runs at 8 x 1.6 GHz.

[GribbleGrunger]

What the hell is this?

[Majin-vegeta]

I don;t know if you can read it but it has this.

The PS4, with a clock speed of 8 x 1.6 GHz (or 43X the PS2).

2 + 2 doesn't always = 4 ;)

https://lh5.googleuserconte...

[pedrof93]

Actually I don't believe this works as a confirmation, more like an advertising campaign. Old reports indicated that Ps4's would be higher.

[kickerz]

I wander how many ps1s it is ..

[Elzer]

I love how all the sony supporters are straight up in defensive mode trying to explain how the slow CPU clock speed isn't a bad thing Hahahaha! Direct x 12 FTW!

Reason why it is is compared to the ps2 is so non educated people will believe that the ps4 is so powerful. That's what sony has been doing to brainwash their average consumer.

[Cha0tik]

@Elzer want to know why? Because it still performs better and has more power than the xbone at the end of the day. If the clock speed was higher it would just make it louder due to the fan trying to keep it cool.

[Prime157]

@ elzer,

Says the brainwashed Microsoft fanboy.

[sergons]

@Prime157

You mean brainless, right?

[Sevir]

This was always what it was announced as... Both the PS4 and XBO have the same jaguar cores, MS up clocked there's for better performance yields, then they up clocked the GPU when the benchmarks proved games weren't running well... This news is nothing new, and still doesn't change that the PS4 is the stronger platform... Confirmed or not, 1.6 ghz was the clock speed rumored for both the console CPUs Only Sony didn't need to upclock there's since their Console was already singing along fine.

Next article.

[morganfell]

In addition the PS4 has more cores free due to a lower OS overhead.

[mp1289]

Its the exact same cpu, one is just being pushed more than the other

[SaturdayNightBeaver]

It doesn't really matter , if there is no one to make good quality games like on ps1/ps2.. It can be 143 times PS2 in power.

[StrangerX]

@mp1289
Wrong! The jaguar cores that the Xbox have are very much customized and are in fact more advance than the PS4 cores. The PS4 can only do 16ops per 8 cores and the Xbox can do 48ops per 8 cores and I'm not making it up it was already mention in the complete interview by digital foundry and the video by major Nelson talking to the Xbox one architects. So NO! Once modified it's considered a different type of processors, so it's not the same.

[cozomel]

@StrangerX

Hm, Stranger "X", Mister "X" maybe? but stop making stuff up. Where's the proof of this. Prove it, links please! Cuz we all know its bs. And why does the PS4 CPU performs better in the Substance Engine benchmark and also on Brink 2. Xbox fanboys are ignorant.

@MorePowerOfGreen
You're just another great example of the Xbox fanboys ignorance. No Sony fanboy was trying to hide anything, only in your fanboy mind do you believe that. Many fanboys were trying to figure out what it really was, yet here you are claiming otherwise. And fake tests? Prove it, more fanboy lies and deceit and ignorance. Also, Azure? really, you still believe that s**t? Says alot about you.

[nirwanda]

Compairing the xbone CPU to the ps4 CPU can't be assessed completely yet dx11 struggles with CPU processing that's why and made mantle, but that will change with dx12.
Also sonys devs have just recently improved CPU tiling by a factor of between 10-100 so CPUs will be determined by better software uses rather than just flat out speed.

[GUTZnPAPERCUTZ]

Really... So this article just proved that PS4's CPU is indeed slower than X1's 1.75ghz clock speed and you all still think the PS4's CPU is more powerful!? lol we all know the PS4 will always have a leg up on Xbox One in the Graphics Department, But Lets not be immature about this... The X1 has a Faster CPU, the PS4 has a more powerful GPU and Faster RAM, thats that, give me all the downvotes you want, does not change the facts lol

[StrangerX]

@ cozomel
http://m.youtube.com/watch?...

This video at 25:19 the architech says it 6ops per cores per cycle =48ops per 8cores. I don't like commenting much here because of the stupidity that goes around here. But I guess that's what brings the money with the clicks and most idiots that believe everything they don't understand. Plus 2 cores are to be used for the other OS features and 6 for gaming and No! Kinnect doesn't really take for the cores since it has it's own prospecting core to function, it only depends on other cores for parallelism, not to really take juice from it, just to follow.
It's all about optimization kid!
Sooner or later it'll catch up!
And NO I'm not this mister x guy.

[badz149]

seriously...LOL at those celebrating a slightly higher clocked Xbone CPU. it matters because CPU is the most important part to run games, right? /s

have your CoDG, ACIV, Titanfall, Watch Dog etc. run at 1080p yet?

it's simple analogy, actually. it's like on pc, you can have an i7 CPU but paired it with low end GPU and no GDDR5, and a pc with an i5 that paired with a high end GPU with GDDR5 will run circles over it!

[games_FTW]

@StrangerX

you video have nothing to porove the Xbox One cpu are more powerful than PS4 video just PR abut Xbox one hardware.

and sony and AMD didn't talked abut ps4 cup very Clearly and in detail.

and before you call me ps4 fanboy. I am not fan ethar console I may like ps4 more, but I don,t attack xbox fan or the hardware and there is xbox game that I am fan of.

[Theantidote619]

You can look at numbers on paper all you want, I'll go with the developers making the games. They say the PS4 is the more powerful system then I'll agree with them. Oh and the fact that any genius who has both systems side by side can see how fucking slow the xbox is at EVERYTHING! They have the better games at the moment but there's nothing IMO that it does better.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Apparently Sony UK showing off a bit of the power of the PS4 compared to the PS2 for consumers and followers.

[devwan]

A really random way for Sony to confirm the ps4's CPU clock speed though, especially when they've been reluctant to do that so far.

Not complaining, just wish it was in a better way, comparing the ps2's emotion engine clock speed to the cum total of the ps4's Jaguar cores is... weird.

[Yui_Suzumiya]

devwan said cum .. ::Butthead style laugh::

[Qrphe]

There is no point in comparing PS2 cycles to the PS4's, architecture is different. It's like saying the PS3's Cell is overall more powerful than high end CPUs just because it can do over 1 single digit Tflop

[lolCHILLbro]

So its lower than Xbox One's? Xbox One has a more powerful CPU?

[DoesUs]

XB1 is clocked slightly higher. And slightly as in...slightly higherr.

[RandomDude655]

not necessarily

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

[shogunknight]

Xbox ones base clock speed is higher at 1.75 but they both reach the same overclock speed at 2.75ghz. So the end result still lies on the GPU in them.

[slivery]

Slightly higher clock speed does not equate more power in this day and age, even significantly higher clock speeds don't either.

Many CPU's of lower clock speeds can run circles around some with far higher. Intel vs. AMD is a perfect example of that. Most the time AMD's processors will have more cores and higher clock speeds but are still beating by Intel's processors with less cores and lower clock speeds.

Given the fact the PS4 and Xbox One both are using AMD's APU, I don't think the processors are that different, in this case I think it is the GPU capabilities that will make a noticeable difference which has already been showing.

[Sonysexual]

Theoretically, yeah, the Xbone CPU is stronger. However, the Xbone APU is a bottlenecked design and its real-world performance is far lower than its theoretical maximum.

The substance engine, for example, runs faster on the PS4 CPU than it does on the Xbone CPU.

[Eonjay]

According to a some benchmark test CPU performance the PS4 actually has a more powerful CPU. I am not sure if this is because the Xbox One uses that slight higher frequency to process OS related stuff or not. This would make sense because the Xbox One is managing three operating systems concurrently. Either way, assuming that the CPU's are identical, yes the Xbox One's would be slightly more powerful.

[cozomel]

@chillbro

Even if this is true it doesnt matter cuz the PS4 CPU still performs better than the X1's and thats what really matters. There's more to a CPU than just clockspeed, but i wouldnt expect a dumb fanboy to understand that

[johndoe11211]

Here's something to keep your mind busy, if it is lower than the xbox one's cpu and the xbox one cpu was over clocked pre launch and it STILL can't perform as well on multiplats as the ps4, what does that say about the power of the xbox one?

[G20WLY]

The XBone is physically bigger than the PS4... do you wanna chalk up a win there as well?

Cool, so that's 2 in total.

You might wanna get others to help you count the ways in which PS4 bests XBone, since you WILL be running out of fingers and toes... ;P

[MysticStrummer]

"So its lower than Xbox One's? Xbox One has a more powerful CPU?"

It's funny, the numbers people choose to ignore and the numbers they seize on to try and prove a point.

[GUTZnPAPERCUTZ]

Yes... X1 CPU is a Custom AMD Jaguar 8 Core @1.75ghz
PS4 CPU is a AMD Jaguar 8 Core @ 1.6ghz

Lets see who are the sensitive fanboys ;)

[frostypants]

The One *may* have a faster CPU but the PS4 is still the far more powerful console due to its memory and GPU (which is far more important for games). All this actually proves is how much more efficiently designed the PS4 is than the One. The One is a giant box of bottlenecks...and those inefficiencies in hardware specs probably contribute to its inflated price.

[bigfish]

wow 8 * 1.6 = 12.8 GHz

amazing - not even Nasa space station has this sort of power, just amazing

[dantesparda]

Come on man, it doesnt work that way, dont be as dumb as them (the MS fanboys)

[jerethdagryphon]

thats effective clock speed not actuall usable closckspeed

[okmrman]

idiot

[Irishguy95]

The same crappy comparisons as Microsoft comparing cloud to 1991's Computing power or whatever. Stupid numbers than mean **** all in terms of todays processing power.

The CPU's in the Consoles are weak. They don't need to be powerful and that's all we need to know. Sony shouldn't use them in advertising as anyone who knows anything about tech knows it's a dumb comparison to try and boast

Edit - Eonjay, Ps4's CPU is weaker flatout than the X1's. Ps4 architecturally is superior to the X1. Sony got faster processing out of a weaker device.

[dantesparda]

"Ps4 architecturally is superior to the X1. Sony got faster processing out of a weaker device."

What drugs are you smoking. The substance engine runs faster on the PS4's CPU then on the X1's and Bink 2 also runs faster on PS4's CPU. These are CPU bound processes running faster on PS4, just because the clockspeed is higher doesnt mean that it actually performs higher. The fact is thus far it seems the PS4 CPU is faster. Now stop with you stupid a$$ simple minded assumptions and dont talk about something you obviously know nothing about!

You drunk again?

[scott182]

Yeah, X1's CPU is technically slightly faster but isn't able to show it. And the PS4's GPU is much, much faster with more features and is able to show it in multiplats.

[Ulf]

Dante, both those benchmarks were done on XB1 devkits, when the clock was still 1.6 GHz, and you'll notice the benches both show a 7/6 ratio -- because those benchmarks are for easily multithreaded applications of a CPU (i.e. specialized tasks), and the OS takes an extra core on the XB1, supposedly.

Since the XB1's CPU has been kicked up a notch after those benchmarks, most games, which have been demonstrated many times in the PC space to not use more than 2-4 logical cores, would run faster on the XB1 CPU, if the game is CPU-bound.

The thing is, there are only some certain genres (like open world games) that tend to be CPU bound. Games like Dead Rising 3 (I know it's exclusive to the XB1) are likely CPU bound, for example, and would likely perform better on the XB1 than the PS4. The same may be true of Thief, and may explain its better framerate on the XB1.

GTA4 was shown to be CPU bound a while back -- I would not be surprised if the eventual XB1 version has a better framerate than the PS4 version, even if the PS4 version has a higher rez.

[solar]

it is a tablet CPU.

[Ulf]

It's a notebook CPU. Pretty big difference between that and a tablet CPU, my friend.

[Guwapo77]

This is not news, we knew of this back in Nov 2013.

http://www.anandtech.com/sh...

[Lior]

Well its quite trash comparing it to even an i5

[Mikelarry]

Nothing to do with PC was even mentioned in that post so your comment is moot

[Eidolon]

It is a PC CPU based on Jaguar, somewhat measurable and comparable to i5 in PC benchmarks, but PS4 isn't a PC.. so who knows.

Like the GPU power, I can see it being a bit immeasurable thanks to the low level design and development of console architectures.

[NarooN]

@Eidolon

It's not a "PC CPU", both of the console APU's are semi-custom designs from AMD. The Jaguar architecture was not designed specifically for PC, even though it's an x86-64 based processor. It was designed to be scalable into many different processors for different form-factors, not necessarily tied to Windows or Linux-based PCs in particular.

[Eidolon]

What I'm trying to saying is that both i5 and Jaugar can both be tested and measurable to some degree on one platform(PC). Again, I did say that this is roughly immeasurable due to the nature of the consoles, PC benchmarks is hardly an estimate power of the design that went into the PS4.

[Baka-akaB]

cool story bro

[Allsystemgamer]

Obviously but PC processors have to calculate much more than a dedicated game processor.

I'm primarily a PC gamer. Currently looking for a ps4. Keep the fanboy ism out

[yewles1]

WOW!!! REALLY SONY UK??? That's some bad marketing right there. That's like confirming it's a downgrade from the PS3 afterall, especially when you compare "8 x 1.6 GHz" to "9 x 3.2 GHz"...

[Yodagamer]

There are many cpus even on computers that are running lower clock speed compared to their 6 year old counterparts. Why? because they can do more with the smaller clock speed. It's not a matter of speed when it comes to processors anymore it's what they can do with that speed. The ONLY downside of the ps4 cpu compared to the cell is the cell could do some of the grunt work for the gpu, but i don't think that's need this gen since they have a good gpu for a console.

[yewles1]

That's the problem, the advert is multiplying it's power based on clockspeed alone compare to the PS2, which is bad marketing in this day and age.

[fr0sty]

PS3's Cell technically was 7x3.2 (one disabled), but 6 of those cores were far less capable SPUs instead of proper cores.

The CPU in this case can still do some of the GPU's work, however PS4 was designed the other way around. A very powerful GPU that can aid the CPU at compute functions (in addition to using that compute functionality to improve GPU functions).

[Eddoes]

Funny thing is many on here tried to explain when the Wii U clock speed was revealed and was met with strong opposition by a bunch of idiots that knew nothing about technology. There are mid range mobile phones with lower clock speed out now that can perform a hell of a lot better than 360 and PS3. The only problems are battery life, power consumption and no one is going to spend money and time developing a mobile game just to prove what its really capable of.

[JBSleek]

What are these phones that you speak of?

[HighResHero]

"here are mid range mobile phones with lower clock speed out now that can perform a hell of a lot better than 360 and PS3"

Show a few examples.

"The only problems are battery life, power consumption"

Don't forget about thermal, space, manfacturing limitations, etc.

Btw, I agree with some of what you are saying.

[cozomel]

@Eddoes

Really bad comparison. The reason people where not impressed with the WiiU's CPU is because its based on really old technology, we are talking about a 1997 PowerPC 750 CPU w/3 cores at only 1.24mhz, with the only difference being that it has cache in the CPU, but otherwise, old and outdated tech by todays standards. The 3 cores on the Wii U's CPU does not compare to 3 cores on the PS4/X1 CPUs. The (PS4/X1 CPUs) are a much more modern designs and can do more instructions per sec than the Wii U's CPU and run at a faster clockspeed. And both the Tekken and Metro/Witcher dev said the Wii U's CPU is slower than the PS3/360 CPUs, among others. So nobody was being dumb back or now except for the Wii U fanboys who are still being delusional and dumb about the facts.

[Eddoes]

@cozomel Youre right about the Power PC architecture being from 1997 but you have no idea what youre talking about. The year the architecture was invented has nothing to do with how it performs today. Xbox One and PS4 use x86 architecture which was invented in 1971 so by your logic they are weaker when compared to Wii U. Also comparing the clock speed or number of cores makes no sense when comparing two different types of architecture. Youre a fine example of the multiple ignorant people here on N4G. Save your reply we all know your response is the same outplayed cliche (Nintendo is kiddy and the graphics suck cause they use more colors other than grey and brown in their games. There is a reason why so many gaming studios are closing down, because poor excuses of gamers like yourself only care about COD and its multiple clones and console brand loyalty.

[OpenGL]

"There are mid range mobile phones with lower clock speed out now that can perform a hell of a lot better than 360 and PS3."

This is blatantly false despite what Nvidia marketing would lead you to believe. Qualcomm's Snapdragon 805 will be the first SoC that truly rivals the PS3 and 360 in power, as it will be the first SoC to offer more than 20GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Currently the Snapdragon 800 and Apple A7 are a lot more powerful than the Vita, but they're still working with half the memory bandwidth available to the PS3 and 360 GPUs.

[ginsunuva]

clock speed =/= power

In the past decade, clock speeds hit a sort of power wall around 3.5 ghz where it's no longer practical to use higher frequencies since keeping cpu's cooled would be very inefficient. Now they're going back down, but being replaced with better architecture and more cores.

[JBSleek]

Are you serious? This is sarcasm right? You have to be more knowledgeable then this.... I hope.

[fr0sty]

If you knew anything about microprocessors, you'd know that just because the chip runs at a lower clock speed (which has been known since long before the console released) does not mean it runs slower. First of all, PS3 had one full fledged core (but even it was gimped, couldn't do out of order execution) at 3.2ghz and 7 helper cores that were nowhere near as powerful as the main core. 360 had 3 main cores that also were nowhere near as powerful, suffering from many of the same limitations.

PS4's chip is much closer to a PC setup, with 8 fully featured cores. Even at lower clock speeds, it'll run circles around Cell at many tasks and will do so with less power consumption and FAR less programming time.

[SpinalRemains138]

The Cell certainly was a very strange footnote within the history of game machines.

To your knowledge, was Cell programming the most alien CPU to work with, versus other different architecture types?

[fr0sty]

No more alien than PS2 was for its time, but in both cases they were a pain in the ass, and Sony's terrible dev support at the time didn't help matters any.

[Bigpappy]

I believe the CELL only had 1 core with 8 sub cores. The Jaguars used in PS4 and X1 use 8 independent cores. so they are in fact much more powerful than the CELL in PS3, even at slower speeds.

[NarooN]

Yep. The CPU's in the PS3 and 360 were actually based off the same design, just implemented differently.

PS3's Cell had one main physical core and 8 sub-execution units on the die. For the PS3, one of those eight SPU's were disabled for yields, and one was reserved for the OS, which left six total for games.

360's "Xenon" CPU had three physical cores, each of which could create two threads (SMT, or Simultaneous Multi-Threading), for a total of six logical cores. Once again, those sub-execution units didn't offer anywhere close to the throughput of the main physical core(s).

Jaguar is clocked much lower by design, but has higher IPC and is a more familiar architecture overall, being based on x86-64. Both of the semi-custom APU's in the consoles have two Jaguar modules in them (one Jaguar module = 4 full independent cores), for a total of eight physical cores. Jaguar offers much more throughput, is much more energy efficient, and generally a superior design overall.

[djplonker]

@yewl

Boohoo its the strongest console out and the marketing team needs to look busy because we all know its hard to market something that is sold out!

[Fluke_Skywalker]

Didn't we know this many months ago!?

[fr0sty]

1.6ghz 8 cores, or up to 2.75ghz if turbo core is used (I think it scales down to 4 cores then IIRC, for use when you have single threaded tasks that need raw clock rate to complete faster. When you need multithreaded performance, you go with more slower cores.). This has been known for a while. I was digging up PS4 devkit patents that stated it from last july.

[Ulf]

It's actually only 2 cores (1 per module), when it clocks up to 2.75 GHz. It's a heat distribution problem, not some sort of other limit.

But yeah, we've known that the base clock was 1.6 GHz for a long while. It's only the uber fanboys that this upsets.

[Am-No-Hero]

Well .. is it bad or good ?

:)

[BG11579]

It can always be worse or better...

[Klad]

Who cares?? just bring the damn games!!

[andibandit]

Yeah!!, more games, less teasing.

Make it happen Sony

[rarity]

it seem it's running a base clock speed of 1.6 Ghz on a 2.75 Ghz capable chip.(i got that from ign btw)

[NarooN]

2.75ghz is the max Turbo Core speed. I believe when Turbo Core is engaged, fewer cores are used to balance out power consumption/heat levels. This is geared more towards lowly-threaded and single-threaded tasks which can be completed faster with the higher clockspeed.

[worldwidegaming]

its too bad it cant run that long at those speeds. FFXIV for the PS4 sounded like it would overheat the console if it was allowed to run maxed out. The developers had to tune it down a bit...

[Milesprowers]

Intel inside

[worldwidegaming]

soon as they went amd it was a wrap! Budget consoles for all. Im fine though.
Everyone is now in the same boat and games will be made faster and cheaper.

[Beastforlifenoob]

AMD inside... Actually

[Milesprowers]

I was referring to my PC... Intel 4770k inside.

[Braid]

Wow, that means PS4 can run 43 copies of Metal Gear Solid 3 at the same time?

/s

[jerethdagryphon]

theroetically if the games were coded to run on ram and cpu you might get away with 30 copies based off of ps2 specifications
but not practically
ps2 had 32mg ram ans a 266/300mhz cpu with a pretty weak gpu i think you could run it inside virtual machines but there would be load of latency as youd be running code on alternating cycles basicaly

[Pinkdolphinyfg]

For comparison the xbox one's cpu is clocked at 1.75 GHz.

[TheOrder1886]

It is a downgrade from the PS3.

[I_am_Batman]

You really can't compare the cpu of the PS3 with the CPU of the PS4. The PS3 heavily relied on the Cell-processor for graphics processing. The GPU was basically just to support the Cell. With the PS4 it's almost the exact opposite. The GPU does most of the work and ideally even takes computing tasks away from the CPU. The CPU is in place to do whatever can't be done by GPGPU.

[hollabox]

The Cell is probably a little bit more customizable than AMD Jaguar cores. The Cell SPU worked almost like DSPs and could actually do pixel shader effects along with other advance shaders. When I took computer science classes almost a decade ago CPUs were limited to vertex shaders in software. Overall depending how you write your code either chip can outperform the other, same with XB1/XB360.

[neoandrew]

But games can use ONLY 6 cores.

[hollabox]

Wow you got 4 disagrees for stating a known fact! Idiots on this site now, can't even agree on truths, I mean what exactly are they disagreeing with? Oh let me stop, probably just trollers.

[Sevir]

It true, of the 8, 6 are used by game developers and 2 reserved for the OS, and 6.5 Tbs of GDDR5 for game development, with 1.5 GB of GDDR5 reserved for the 2 cores that run the OS.

Compare that to the 5 of 8 cores reserved for games and 5 GB of DDR3 for games and 3 cores and 3 GB reserved for each of the OS for the XBO, since the XBO is more multimedia focused they had to upclock both the CPU and GPU to hand the 3 Separate OSs running the XBO, as a result the benchmarks are lower for the CPU in comparison since the PS4 has more resourses available for CPU heavy tasks as shown with the Bink 2 performance test.

Clear which was made to perform better as a game console than the other!

[jerethdagryphon]

i thought the 2ndary cpu handles os duties while in game?

[neoandrew]

@Sevir

ROTFL, does it always need to end as a xone vs ps4 talk.

I have just stated the oblivious, not even remotely mentioning xone, so WTF man?

[hollabox]

Actually XBone has 6 cores as well, and according to Naughty Dog only 5 GBs of Sony PS4 is available to developers. I don't know if the 512 MBs of fluff ram is included with the 5 GBs or if its 4.5 GBs before the additional 512 MBs to make 5GBs. I think Sony's biggest advantage is its massive bandwidth of GDDR5, probably the main reason why so many PS4 games run in 1080P.

[ninjahunter]

Congratulations on bringing us a number that means nothing.
So, its somewhere between a snapdragon and an i3? Maybe...

[MicDude]

It's difficult to compare desktop CPUs/APUs with the APUs of consoles because for one the APUs in the consoles are based on a custom architecture that is not available to the public.

Also, consoles do not need the power of a consumer grade desktop CPU because they run on a stripped down OS and don't rely on 100 different background process like Windows for example.

[ninjahunter]

That was my point, hense why i made such a wide comparison.

Also Desktop OS's use less than 5% cpu usage in the background even with 75+ background processes, they most just take up ram, which is pushed into the page file when intensive games run.

[neoandrew]

Based on couple digital foundry analysis, it is more or less high i3 model performance.

[Edsword]

To be honest most of these numbers mean nothing. Clock speeds are only a good comparison if you are talking about the exact same architecture. The PS4 has a slower CPU clock and GPU clock but has shown better performance than the XB1 in both areas. While they might both be using AmD APUs, there is enough difference in design that the PS4 has a pretty decent HW advantage.

[MicDude]

The comparison of the PS2 CPU speed and PS4 CPU speed is nothing more than an advertisement for the PS4. Truth is, the number of cores and clock speeds do not matter as much as you may think.

AMD is known for manufacturing weaker cores and boosting the core clocks of their CPUs while Intel generally has the more powerful cores and slightly lower core clocks which is why the Intel Chips are usually higher up on the benchmarking charts.

The point? Don't let raw numbers mislead you whether you are using a console or a PC.

[kingduqc]

Wow. 1.6 Ghz, that's trully really really low. On top of being an APU from amd that is really slow it's clocked super low.

I mean, even a mid range cpu made in 2009 is faster then this. 1.6ghz, hahahahahah. I can't wait to see dev complaning in 2-3 year that the cpu is limiting them.

[killzone619]

The GPU does most of the rendering....

[kingduqc]

Okay? there still need to be a CPU fast enough. Just about any game you'll see performance gain for how fast cores are go watch some benchmark.

http://www.tomshardware.com...

http://www.techspot.com/rev...

http://www.techspot.com/rev...

http://www.techspot.com/rev...

http://www.tomshardware.com...

All video games have a straight linear increase with botch clock speed and IPC gains. But you play on a console, you are probably clueless about that anyway.

[killzone619]

1.6GHZ?

No wonder sony kept quite about the CPU clock speed. Thats lower than the xbox one!

I thought it was atleast 2.0ghz.

[windblowsagain]

1.6ghz is the normal frequency for these chips.

MS overclocked theirs because they needed power taken away by kinect and the 50% less powerful gpu.

But hey. You have Titanfall/s

[CaptDnaDonut]

Kinect has its own Processor. It doesn't take away from the Xbox One CPU. Why do you think it has a fan on the back and vents.

[imt558]

Read this :

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

[OpinionSmasher]

...........thats fucking garbage

[worldwidegaming]

The ghz race ended years ago.
This generation is about using tech that does more with less. Anti climatic right?
I predict we will hear secret sauce,untapped potential,cloud power all year. as long as the games look better than last gen and run well its worth it.

[captain_slow82]

1.6 gigawatts! 1.6 gigawatts
Great Scott!

What-what the hell is a gigawatt?

its the cpu speed of the ps4

This is heavy.

[jerethdagryphon]

noo a gigawatt or jigawatt if your doc brown is one billion watts, The unit, defined as one joule per second, measures the rate of energy conversion or transfer.

[Father__Merrin]

the speeds are fast enough, there's only one console that's the gamers choice and that is P.S.4

:-)

[Sly-Lupin]

I'm a gamer, and I'm choosing more than one console. PS4/WiiU/PS3/3DS/Vita for me.

[Father__Merrin]

ok, main console then?

[koliosis]

Ahahaha Xboxone wins

[Major_Glitch]

Really? What did it win? It ain't the graphics war, PS4 still has better looking multiplats. It ain't the sales war, PS4 is still selling more than the bone. So really. What did it win?

[SynestheticRoar]

Won't you clock these nuts, slamming into your face.

[Tzuno]

in other words is shit. a intel dual core 3.2 is half of that 8 core in therms of frequency and is a little better than amd. Enjoy your laptop. :))

[lemoncake]

Overall the specs on these next gen consoles have been a bit disappointing, they are next gen but not as next gen as they could have been if they had chosen higher quality parts.

1.6GHz on 8 cores is so low when compared to other product on the market, would have expected atleast 3.5-4GHz minimum.

[jerethdagryphon]

find me an apu running 8cores at 3.5ghz

and ill show you thermal runaway

[lemoncake]

Go cry some more. You might discover how thermal cooling works as the tears cool your ravaged a hole.

[Qrphe]

3.5Ghz would have been a waste

[MicDude]

Back when 7th gen started consoles were virtually neck and neck with what PCs were capable of at the time. The GPU that is the closest equivalent to the PS4 is the 7850 which is two years old and the Xbox equivalent is the 7770. These consoles can barley hit 1080p (well the PS4 can) and it'll only get worse. I have a feeling that this console generation is going to be shorter than the last.

As far as the CPU goes, consoles do not need desktop grade because for one gaming isn't all that CPU intensive and the OS isn't performance heavy either.

[RevXM]

I remember the ps3 Cell ad and it clearly said the cell was 40 times more powerful than the cpu in the ps2... and now we are lead to believe ps4 is amazing being as powerful as 43 ps2's?.
*Epic facepalm*

Yeah yeah I know it doesnt work like that. Hz is not really a measure of power but not everyone knows this. epic blunder to make the ps4 sound like Ps3.1 for people like me who remember and or understand the basics with computers and electronics.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[andibandit]

Bu..bu..but only ms do this kind of pr

[Shineon]

So does that mean that the Ps4 is only 3 times as powerful then Ps3???(°O°) No wonder it can't play Mp3,DLNA,and so on# gen 8 sucks

[skoorydook]

Isn't this really old news

[badboy776]

What does this?

[JohnPombrio]

8 x 1.6GHz. WTH? It's 1.6GHz clock rate for the APU. What the 8 has to do with anything, I have NO IDEA.
Oh, I finally got it. 8 (kinda) CORES running at 1.6GHz base clock speed. I thought it was 1.8GHz base clock speed? Heat issues I guess.

[TheRedButterfly]

What's up with the damage control Mr. Shaikh? "Before jumping into conclusion that Xbox One CPU speed is more than Xbox One, i advice readers to read a recent benchmark report Substance Engine."

What conclusions are there to jump to? No conclusions are being jumped to that weren't confirmed by the company themselves! Xbox One's CPU > PS4's CPU. Period. End of discussion.

Microsoft confirms the XO's CPU clocks in at 1.75GHz
Sony confirms that the PS4's CPU clocks in at 1.6GHz

Honestly the differences aren't substantial, but since PS fanboys like to turn everything into a pissing contest, it looks like they get to lose this one. Period. End of discussion.

[imt558]

And for you to :

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

[andibandit]

Stopped reading @ Neogaf

[Ulf]

1) Old benchmarks (on 1.6 GHz XB1 devkits) on specialized applications that multi-thread well, and that can potentially use GPGPU. (unlike entire game engine loops)
2) XB1 OS likely uses 2 cores, whereas PS4 OS likely uses 1, directly affecting these numbers, whereas games tend to weigh down just a couple threads for most of the frame, and thus would be more affected by clockrate.

Give us a link about a game, on a post-1.75 GHZ upgrade machine, rather than posting links, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of people who don't know the details behind them.

[DomceM]

To console fans like theredbutterfly

Leave the specs discussion to pc gamers. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Ghz cannot be compared 1:1 across different architectures. How clueless are you? by that logic any cpu from 10 years ago that had a clock of 3-4 ghz would be faster than a 2-3 ghz processor of today.

Here is a hint: anyone who thinks that has the mental capacity of an armadillo.

[Ulf]

Um... they're the same CPU, basically. Comparing clock speeds is completely valid.

[Agent_hitman]

I love tech news like this, tackling the technical side of the console hardware. Not just the PS4 but also the X1.

Honestly, I'm not surprised about this news, we already know this before. Ever heard of AMA Bobcat?, jaguar was based on this architecture.

[purp13m0nk3y]

For starters the 1.6Ghz is the base clock. The APU can dynamically manage clock speed across all 8 cores depending on load and heat. The maximum theoretical clock of each core is much higher.

The CPU component of the APU in the PS4 and Xbox1 are virtually identical. They are both (performance wise) nothing special. They were chosen because they are low heat, low power, low cost. They multi task well and can scale individual cores speeds well. The real power of the new consoles comes from the GPU component of the APU.

The CPU in the PS4/Xbox1 is capable of around 100-110Gflops (real world performance) this figure I sourced from multiple websites. It's an estimate. But an accurate one.

The Cell Processor in the PS3 was capable of around 180Gflops (real world performance) this again was sourced from several websites and is very accurate as benchmarks on Cell Processors has been done to death.

So what does this mean? Is the PS3 actually more powerful than the new consoles? Of cause not. But what it does illustrate is that the CPU in the PS4/Xbox1 is not all that important to their overall performance. What is important (to graphics at least) is the GPU performance.

PS4 GPU approximately 1.8Tflop (around 18x the performance of the CPU in the PS4/Xbox1)

Xbox1 GPU approximately 1.3Tflops (around 13x the performance of the CPU in the PS4/Xbox1).

PS3 GPU approximately 190Gflops (less than 2x the performance of the CPU in the PS4/Xbox1)

As you can see. The new consoles have massively powerful (compared to last gen) GPU performance, but the CPUs are not a massive improvement. They are much more efficient and multitask much better. But they are quite weak.

Even if the Xbox1's CPU runs slightly faster than the PS4 variant. It just a drop in the ocean for overall performance.

Plus the PS4's far superior GPGPU Compute capabilities render whatever edge the Xbox1 may have on the CPU front null and void!

[andibandit]

I think I get what youre saying:
1.75GHz >> 1.6GHz

[purp13m0nk3y]

Yep. Exactly!

andibandit's comment is a perfect example of an Xbot response.

Immature, nonsense comment that completely ignores the facts. Has no basis in reality and has no real relevance to the topic at hand.

I didn't want to waste a bubble responding but it irks me that you took the time to post such a pointless comment and yet you clearly have no knowledge of how the CPUs in question actually operate.

Irrespective of thw base clock 1.6Ghz, 1.75Ghz whatever. Neither CPU will actually be running these speeds for very long on any one core.

The beauty of the Jaguar architecture is that can dynamically vary it's clock speed depending on the performance required, the number of cores active, the current temp of the chip, or many other factors.

A more definitive indicator of which CPU offers better performance would be what their Maximum clock speed is and for how long it can maintain this speed over how many cores before heat starts becoming an issue.

The base clock is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

But back to your original post.

Yes 1.6Ghz < 1.75Ghz Well done. Your mathematical skills know no bounds! Clown!

[AndrewLB]

Purp- Dynamic clock speeds for both CPU and GPU have been around for a decade. This isn't some new technology.

Also, some of you guys don't seem to understand the simple fact that the PS4 APU runs at 1.6ghz. These claims that it can turbo-boost up to 2.75 is NOT TRUE. This is nothing but a fanboy fantasy, much like the "hidden GPU" in the Xbone. This 2.75ghz number originated in an FCC filing for the PS4 Devkit. Dev kits frequently contain hardware much more powerful than the actual retail product, much like how games were being demoed at e3 2013 on high end Intel systems running nVidia graphics cards.

Here is additional proof. Look at slide 8.

http://de.slideshare.net/De...

Oh... and if that dev kit document was to apply with retail consoles, why didn't the retail version get the extra vagina

[LAWSON72]

How impressive and important, it is more powerful than a PS2, which is 13 years old. Mindblown, too bad the CPU is still nothing special.

[Jamaicangmr]

Perspective.

[kewlkat007]

Sometimes I wonder in 3 years what can these consoles really do...I think I'm going back to PC gaming..The hardware(which is based on PC architecture is lacking big time).

The only thing in the consoles corner is the games..

[parentsbasement]

"The only thing in the consoles corner is the games".....??? ....isn't that the only thing that matters?

[andibandit]

Apparently not because these comment section are full of xb1 fans acting dumb, and sony fans desperately trying to explain why:
E = mc^2

In other words an amazing amount of trolling in here, and its funny as hell

[teflontactics]

The amount of misinformation that's spewed in the comments here is mind-boggling.

[pakua]

These debates are stupid, to be fair if you say anything pro Xbox you may as well not say anything.

N4G needs to scrap the agree/disagree voting system, it's useless and just encourages fanboys to disagree with anything positive said about the 'rival' system. Pathetic.

[jasondracd]

HUH? WTF is this supposed to mean? whats the actual estimated clock speed?

[DOOMZ]

Wow, lol!

[HumanatPlay]

The Order 1866 looking spectacular...check!
MGS:GZ looking spectacular...check!
Infamous second son looking spectacular...check!
Deep down looking spectacular...check!

Killzone Shadow fall looking spectacular...check! **My least favorite KZ though...disappointing.

Cut a long story short, you could have the fastest car on the track but if you ain't got the skills and passion to win...well...sucks for you buddy.

[fullmetal297]

I like how everybody in the comments sections are trying to explain the Jaguar chipset as if they have a degree and specializes in computer engineering, when they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

The PS4 and Xbox One uses the same exact CPU, except one is slightly clocked faster than the other. That slight difference in clock speed will hardly make any difference in performance, so stop this pathetic attempt to damage control.

[purp13m0nk3y]

Agreed. I find it comical that people blow information like this completely out of proportion. I mean just go look at the DX12 thread in the Xbox1 section. The amount of misinformation and uninformed comments would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

They make out like it is the solution to all the Xbox1's problems and now it will wipe the floor with the PS4.

Lols! like an API update will do anything of thd kind!

The same thing happened when MS announced the updated SDK with the 8% extra GPU performance. It was heralded as the savior of the Xbox1. Suddenly all games would be 1080p 60fps!

I just wish people would do a little reading outside of this site. Or at the very least read the article instead of just the headline ffs.

[maroon1]

8x1.6GHz = 12.8GHz and this is 43 times higher than 299MHz PS2 CPU

However, you can't say that PS4 is 43 times faster because of that. PS2 and PS4 CPU are based on different architecture. So you can't compare them with just GHz and number of cores, just like you can't directly compare AMD and Intel CPU with GHz and cores.

[fingazblank]

The bottom line is they are both pretty poor performance wise, Amd APU's lol do me a favour, come on you know and i know they both cheaped out on us with the pure grunt of a console... The cheap so and so's gave us old tech and pretended its the 2nd coming. Im not at all suprised by the reaction of some people, 1.75ghz over 1.6ghz is nothing...

Amd are clever, hell i have a AMD graphics card in my pc but these guys are clever at selling this crappy tech to two companies that are fighting tooth and nail to conquer each other. I know they are both respected companies but how did they fall for this, they both got the same tech and didnt have to lift a finger to enhance any of it. Clever amd stupid ms and sony.

We are on the verge of 2k screens or maybe 4k and they struggle to out put 1080p at 60fps sony are guilty of this too also, although they have the upper hand in this first cycle, they are guilty of dropped frames because it cant handle it.

Things can only get better, i hear you scream, erm perhaps but they should be hitting the nail on the head from the get go and then maybe struggle with 4k...

10 year life cycle

I loved the 360 and make no mistake that generation is gone.

[shotime97]

wonder why they haven't officially released the info on the cpu clock speed. just seem's a little odd does anyone know if digital foundry has looked into this?

[feraldrgn]

So it's confirmed to be 1.6GHz??
If so... I'm ok with this.

[sephiroth420]

this is supposed to last how many years?

[Azzanation]

Funny, how come they don't compare the PS4 CPU to the XB1 CPU?

[TheFrag]

Are Xbox fans so desperate they will scream from the rooftops over a difference of 125mhz?
You realize all Sony has to do is push one update to raise the frequency of the cpu since both jaguars are said to be clockable up to 2.2ghz. It must be tough to be an Xbox fan this generation.

[Rageanitus]

LOL this articles are funny because it brings the worst of fanboys from the console fronts.

If your SO concerned about POWER just jump on the PC bandwagon....... but then again these exact ppl like to bring up the price to performance ratio when comparing console to PC

Kindov reminds me of the car market.... when ppl who by pocket rockets think its comparable to the driving a standard BMW.

[Animal Mutha 76]

I tell you what I find interesting....

A couple of hours ago this story was hottest on main page - mega news over 1000 deg heat.

Now its gone. I could only found it again by using browser history.

N4SG burying stuff???

Edit: Found it page 6 but still removed from hottest tab.