PS4 CPU clock frequence confirmed

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

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Majin-vegeta1660d 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 ;)


pedrof931660d 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.

kickerz1660d ago

I wander how many ps1s it is ..

Elzer1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.

Cha0tik1660d ago

@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.

Prime1571660d ago

@ elzer,

Says the brainwashed Microsoft fanboy.

sergons1660d ago


You mean brainless, right?

Sevir1660d 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.

morganfell1660d ago

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

mp12891660d ago

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

SaturdayNightBeaver1660d 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.

StrangerX1660d 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.

cozomel1659d ago (Edited 1659d ago )


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.

nirwanda1659d 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.


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

StrangerX1659d ago (Edited 1659d 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.

badz1491659d ago (Edited 1659d 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!

games_FTW1659d ago (Edited 1659d 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.

Theantidote6191659d 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.

+ Show (18) more repliesLast reply 1659d ago
Dlacy13g1660d ago

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

devwan1660d 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.

SolidGear31660d ago

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

Qrphe1660d 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

lolCHILLbro1660d ago

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

DoesUs1660d ago

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

shogunknight1660d 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.

slivery1660d 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.

Sonysexual1660d 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.

Eonjay1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.

cozomel1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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

johndoe112111660d 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?

G20WLY1660d 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

MysticStrummer1660d 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.


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 ;)

frostypants1659d 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.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1659d ago
bigfish1660d ago

wow 8 * 1.6 = 12.8 GHz

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

dantesparda1660d ago

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

jerethdagryphon1660d ago

thats effective clock speed not actuall usable closckspeed

Irishguy951660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.

dantesparda1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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?

dantesparda1660d ago Show
scott1821660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.

Ulf1659d ago (Edited 1659d 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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1659d ago
Ulf1659d ago

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

Guwapo771659d ago

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

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1659d ago
Lior1660d ago

Well its quite trash comparing it to even an i5

Mikelarry1660d ago (Edited 1660d ago )

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

Eidolon1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.

NarooN1660d 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.

Eidolon1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.

gapecanpie1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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?


slivery1660d 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.

gapecanpie1659d 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....

Allsystemgamer1660d 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

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1659d ago
yewles11660d ago

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"...

Yodagamer1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.

yewles11660d 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.

fr0sty1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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).

Eddoes1660d 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.

JBSleek1660d ago

What are these phones that you speak of?

HighResHero1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.

cozomel1659d ago (Edited 1659d 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.

Eddoes1659d 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.

OpenGL1659d 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.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1659d ago
ginsunuva1660d ago (Edited 1660d 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.