Try our new beta!Click here
Submitted by sibbor 706d ago | news

PS4 CPU clock frequence confirmed

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

« 1 2 »
GribbleGrunger  +   706d ago
What the hell is this?
Majin-vegeta  +   706d ago
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 ;)

pedrof93  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
I wander how many ps1s it is ..
Elzer  +   706d ago
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.
#1.1.3 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(39) | Disagree(159) | Report
Azuske  +   706d ago | Well said
@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  +   706d ago | Well said
@ elzer,

Says the brainwashed Microsoft fanboy.
sergons  +   706d ago | Funny

You mean brainless, right?
Sevir  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
In addition the PS4 has more cores free due to a lower OS overhead.
mp1289  +   706d ago
Its the exact same cpu, one is just being pushed more than the other
SaturdayNightBeaver  +   706d ago
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  +   705d ago
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.
MorePowerOfGreen   705d ago | Trolling | show
cozomel  +   705d ago | Well said

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.

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.
#1.1.13 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(22) | Disagree(9) | Report
GameNameFame   705d ago | Trolling | show
nirwanda  +   705d ago
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  +   705d ago
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
pyramidshead   705d ago | Trolling | show
StrangerX  +   705d ago
@ cozomel

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.
#1.1.18 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(7) | Report
badz149  +   705d ago
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!
#1.1.19 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report
games_FTW  +   705d ago

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.
#1.1.20 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
Theantidote619  +   705d ago
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.
Dlacy13g  +   706d ago
Apparently Sony UK showing off a bit of the power of the PS4 compared to the PS2 for consumers and followers.
devwan  +   706d ago
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.
SolidGear3  +   706d ago
devwan said cum .. ::Butthead style laugh::
Qrphe  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
So its lower than Xbox One's? Xbox One has a more powerful CPU?
DoesUs  +   706d ago
XB1 is clocked slightly higher. And slightly as in...slightly higherr.
shogunknight  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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.
#1.3.6 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(19) | Disagree(17) | Report
cozomel  +   706d ago

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
#1.3.7 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(8) | Report
johndoe11211  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
"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  +   705d ago
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  +   705d ago
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  +   706d ago
wow 8 * 1.6 = 12.8 GHz

amazing - not even Nasa space station has this sort of power, just amazing
dantesparda  +   706d ago
Come on man, it doesnt work that way, dont be as dumb as them (the MS fanboys)
jerethdagryphon  +   706d ago
thats effective clock speed not actuall usable closckspeed
okmrman  +   705d ago
Irishguy95  +   706d ago
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.
#1.5 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(18) | Report | Reply
dantesparda  +   706d ago
"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?
#1.5.1 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(13) | Report
dantesparda   706d ago | Personal attack | show
scott182  +   706d ago
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.
#1.5.3 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report
Ulf  +   705d ago
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.
#1.5.4 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
solar  +   706d ago
it is a tablet CPU.
Ulf  +   705d ago
It's a notebook CPU. Pretty big difference between that and a tablet CPU, my friend.
Guwapo77  +   705d ago
This is not news, we knew of this back in Nov 2013.
Lior  +   706d ago
Well its quite trash comparing it to even an i5
Mikelarry  +   706d ago
Nothing to do with PC was even mentioned in that post so your comment is moot
#2.1 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(49) | Disagree(21) | Report | Reply
Eidolon  +   706d ago
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.
#2.1.1 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(10) | Report
NarooN  +   706d ago

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  +   706d ago
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.
#2.1.3 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report
Baka-akaB  +   706d ago
cool story bro
gapecanpie  +   706d ago
Those butt hurt replies and disagrees are hilarious!

8 x 1.6 GHz = (T*rd)

lol....Why not compare it to the ps3 cell?

#2.3 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(15) | Disagree(36) | Report | Reply
slivery  +   706d ago
Because a cell processor does not in any way work like a CPU or APU does, so to compare it would be very hard considering the architecture is so different. Cell uses PPE and SPE's while a CPU or APU simply use cores. The only way you could compare them is through a direct performance comparison, not a spec sheet comparison.

Clearly it wouldn't matter, to think any company would honestly make a product inferior to their last is extremely stupid anyway, obviously the PS4 is more powerful regardless of its slower clock speed compared to the PS3 and as I said the PS3 using a cell makes it impossible to compare them in the way they did here other than through a benchmark, as to why they probably chose the PS2 to compare it to instead since it used a CPU and not a cell.

Everyone should know by now that having a higher clock speed or even having more cores doesn't always mean what you are using is the best around. I already explained this with Intel and AMD.
djplonker  +   706d ago
Lol xbone 720p...

gapecanpie  +   705d ago
I never said it was inferior to the ps2 or ps3, you should learn how to read. (Just slighty better then the last)

The cell is not a conventional cpu but nor was the Emotion Engine(the Cell is a CPU! I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it's not) so the whole point you tried to make is just ret**ded and that's including the butt hurt people who agreed with you over a piece of plastic....
Allsystemgamer  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago | Well said
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  +   706d ago
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.
#3.1 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
yewles1  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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).
#3.1.2 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(2) | Report
Eddoes  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
What are these phones that you speak of?
HighResHero  +   706d ago
"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.
#3.2.2 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
cozomel  +   705d ago

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.
#3.2.3 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
Eddoes  +   705d ago
@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  +   705d ago
"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  +   706d ago
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.
#3.3 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(13) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
JBSleek  +   706d ago
Are you serious? This is sarcasm right? You have to be more knowledgeable then this.... I hope.
fr0sty  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   704d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago

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!
#3.7 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
Fluke_Skywalker  +   706d ago
Didn't we know this many months ago!?
fr0sty  +   706d ago
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  +   705d ago
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.
#4.1.1 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
Am-No-Hero  +   706d ago
Well .. is it bad or good ?

BG11579  +   706d ago
It can always be worse or better...
Klad  +   706d ago
Who cares?? just bring the damn games!!
andibandit  +   705d ago
Yeah!!, more games, less teasing.

Make it happen Sony
rarity  +   706d ago
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)
#7 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
NarooN  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
Intel inside
worldwidegaming  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
AMD inside... Actually
Milesprowers  +   706d ago
I was referring to my PC... Intel 4770k inside.
Braid  +   706d ago
Wow, that means PS4 can run 43 copies of Metal Gear Solid 3 at the same time?

jerethdagryphon  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
For comparison the xbox one's cpu is clocked at 1.75 GHz.
TheOrder1886  +   706d ago
It is a downgrade from the PS3.
I_am_Batman  +   706d ago
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.
#11.1 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
hollabox  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
But games can use ONLY 6 cores.
hollabox  +   706d ago
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.
#12.1 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
Sevir  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
i thought the 2ndary cpu handles os duties while in game?
neoandrew  +   706d ago

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  +   701d ago
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  +   706d ago
Congratulations on bringing us a number that means nothing.
So, its somewhere between a snapdragon and an i3? Maybe...
MicDude  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
Based on couple digital foundry analysis, it is more or less high i3 model performance.
Edsword  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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.
#15 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
kingduqc  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
The GPU does most of the rendering....
kingduqc  +   706d ago
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.

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  +   706d ago

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

I thought it was atleast 2.0ghz.
#17 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(12) | Report | Reply
windblowsagain  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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.
OpinionSmasher  +   706d ago
...........thats fucking garbage
worldwidegaming  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
the speeds are fast enough, there's only one console that's the gamers choice and that is P.S.4

Sly-Lupin  +   706d ago
I'm a gamer, and I'm choosing more than one console. PS4/WiiU/PS3/3DS/Vita for me.
Father__Merrin  +   706d ago
ok, main console then?
koliosis  +   706d ago
Ahahaha Xboxone wins
Major_Glitch  +   705d ago
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?
#22.1 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
SynestheticRoar  +   706d ago
Won't you clock these nuts, slamming into your face.
Tzuno  +   706d ago
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. :))
#24 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
lemoncake  +   706d ago
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.
#25 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(6) | Report | Reply
jerethdagryphon  +   706d ago
find me an apu running 8cores at 3.5ghz

and ill show you thermal runaway
lemoncake  +   706d ago
Go cry some more. You might discover how thermal cooling works as the tears cool your ravaged a hole.
Qrphe  +   706d ago
3.5Ghz would have been a waste
MicDude  +   706d ago
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  +   706d ago
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.
#26 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
andibandit  +   705d ago
Bu..bu..but only ms do this kind of pr
Shineon  +   705d ago
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  +   706d ago
Isn't this really old news
badboy776  +   706d ago
What does this?
JohnPombrio  +   706d ago
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.
#29 (Edited 706d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
TheRedButterfly  +   706d ago
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.
andibandit  +   705d ago
Stopped reading @ Neogaf
Ulf  +   705d ago
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.
#30.1.2 (Edited 705d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
DomceM  +   705d ago
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  +   705d ago
Um... they're the same CPU, basically. Comparing clock speeds is completely valid.
« 1 2 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Dying Light: The Following Review | Gamespresso

6m ago - Gamespresso's Alana Fearnall reviews Dying Light: "It’s hard to argue that The Following even ha... | PC

Official Update on Don Bradman Cricket 16 Release Date

16m ago - CricketGaming: Big Ant Studios has provided an update on the release date for Don Bradman Cricket... | PC

Gran Turismo SPORT Beta Testing Begins early 2016

Now - Start tracking GTS with's release date alert service and be notified when the GTS beta launches. | Promoted post

Firewatch Review - Gaming Respawn

16m ago - Gaming Respawn reviews Campo Santo's highly anticipated Firewatch out now for PC and PS4. Find ou... | PC

PlayStation Blogcast 196: Ranger of a Lonely Heart

16m ago - Posted by Justin Massongill on Feb 11, 2016 // SCEA Social Media Manager Subscribe via iTunes... | PS3

Party Hard Coming to Xbox One & Playstation 4

59m ago - tinyBuild Games has announced that their title Party Hard will be coming to the Xbox One and Play... | PS4