PS4 And Xbox One Feature Modern CPUs, Having Faster Memory Isn't Useful If The Processor Stalls

"Both machines feature very modern processor designs which include features such as out of order execution," says David Miles, CTO of BabelFlux.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
mochachino1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

I'd say the CPU is the least impressive thing about the new consoles.

fullmetal2971112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

Yeah, I agree. A processor clocked at under 2.0 Ghz is quite underwhelming. Even modern laptop Intel processors has some kind of boast core clock that can reach up to 3.0 Ghz during load.

Grap1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

The speed doesn't mean anything i have seen a lot of cpu preform better with half of speed than a cpu with 3.0 Ghz. the current gen console yes they have low speed but they also have 8 core which is far better than any cpu with 3.0 Ghz with less core(if the developer wouldn't be lazy and not Distribute the task between the cores) keep in mind we are talking about laptops here not pc cause we all know modern intel cpu crush console cpu single handed.

XBLSkull1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

I'm sorry but processor speed does mean something, ask anyone who knows anything about processing power lol. Why do you think PC's get overclocked, if it didn't mean anything people wouldn't bother. This is something where updates to Sony's API/DX12/Cloud Power should really show their benefits.

andrewer1112d ago

@Grap 0.1GHz equals 100.000.000 more operations per second. In what universe this means nothing?

gapecanpie1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )


You clearly know nothing of cpu and how it works.... a 4 core I7 (even some I5) blows away 8 core AMD prorssor with a higher clock....

Those CPUs in the X1 and PS4 are low powered tablet processors and they suck and there's no way around that!!!! If Sony would have went a updated Cell processor most all the ps4 game would be 60fps no problem but Sony and MS wanted something cheap and went the Nintendo route this gen.

I'm surprised with how many people actually agreed with you but then again this is N4G.....

the-pi-guy1112d ago

A CPU's clock isn't the end all of performance.
Clockrate, IPC, number of cores together give a pretty good idea about performance. A Pentium 3 at 1.0 Ghz will beat a 1.3 Ghz Pentium 4. Much higher clock rate, newer CPU and it loses.
The CPU on the new consoles are very disappointing, but they should be good enough. The GPU is where most of the stuff matters. The GPU's are decent on both consoles. And can actually overcome some of the shortcomings of the CPU due to their design.

SilentNegotiator1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

A desktop that I recycled for a friend from about the turn of the century or so had a 3.0Ghz....the speed on its own, without context, doesn't mean much.

tommygunzII1112d ago

I had a P4 processor 10 years ago that had 3.2 ghz and it probably wouldn't load this page if it had to xD

andrewer1112d ago

@tommygunzII then probably there would be something wrong with your internet

CryofSilence1111d ago

Laptops usually have 2-4 cores. The new consoles have 8.

Hairy Chewie1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

Higher GHz is really important for computers, not so much to consoles that have multiple cores. PC programs generally only run on one or two cores, so the higher the GHz the quicker it runs. Console games are designed to utilise multiple cores, so even though the GHz is lower, you can still push through a lot of information. The benefit of lower GHz is less heat, which is pretty important for a console sitting in a cabinet. That's my understanding anyway.

Gamer19821111d ago

Haha people who know nothing about processors lineup and comment.. Clock speed is nothing more than a number these days for over clockers to gauge how much extra juice they are getting. For proof just look at intel vs AMD you will find a 3.2ghz dual core intel out perform a 4.1ghz AMD 6 core CPU because of better architecture..

Dehnus1111d ago

Erm, you do know that GHZ is just a clockspeed and not the actual speed of the CPU right?

That said the CPU"s in these consoles still are not something I would write home favourably about. But ghz is really not the only thing that matters.

Bajablast1171111d ago


an i3 4350+ series dual core blows away 8 core amds in gaming because of hyperthreading 4 additional threads.

most amd 8 cores are not even "8" cores they are 4 cores with 2 integer units on each module.

badz1491111d ago

Seriously, this article is such a waste of the internet space! It's like saying your Ferrari is useless if don't have fuel! Duhh...

the-pi-guy1111d ago

Those i3s have 2 cores + hyperthread = 4 threads.
Most games are actually only made with one core in mind for whatever reason. The IPC is much higher on intel CPU's so even a dual core i3 will beat a quad core FX for most games. BattleField 4 is made with more cores in mind so the FX-8350 will actually get close to the higher end i7s.

+ Show (12) more repliesLast reply 1111d ago
Hanuman1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

PS4's GPU alone, can do some amazing sh*t in 1080p. All it needs is a cpu that can keep up, and it has one...Case closed...

Future_20151112d ago

The PS4 GPU is an under clocked 7970 custom chip nothing that special or expensive to make

lifeisgamesok1112d ago

Actually the CPU in the PS4 is its biggest bottleneck

gapecanpie1112d ago

7970 is so old and outdated and its not even a full 7970.... it been heavily downgraded and under clocked.

hollabox1112d ago

PS4 GPU is actually closer to AMD's 7850 not an 7970. Looking at the 7850 and 7870 specs, if Sony did not commission AMD to build their GPU, I can see the PS4 GPU being labeled as a 7860. It latterly splits the 7850 and 7870 specs but with more ram and memory bandwidth.

andrewer1112d ago

I recently bought a GTX 770 and my Phenom II 6 cores 3.2GHz wasn't able to keep up. Although once I OC'ed it to 3.9GHz things started to go smoothly. It's not that easy to keep up with a GPU.

dantesparda1112d ago


So if the CPU is the PS4's biggest bottleneck, then it is also a bottleneck on the X1. They are the same exact CPU afterall and if you fanboys honestly think that a scant 150Mhz speed boost somehow makes it magically much better than the PS4's CPU then you are sadly mistaken and the PS4 has already been shown to perform better on certain benchmarks and the games having a better framerate on average also point to/are a testament to a better performing CPU. So the MS fanboys would do wise to stop spewing that nonsense. Now with all that said. I do agree that the CPU is the PS4 biggest bottleneck. But seriously both systems are really weak and i agree with hollabox, the PS4's GPU is an inbetween the 7850 and 7870, i too would call it a 7860.

christrules00411111d ago

The CPU and GPU work together.

The CPU is responsible for calculating damage done, calculating damage taken, spawning AI, telling AI to have x conversation, telling AI to do death animation # when it's health reaches 0, it passes all of that info over to the GPU and the GPU draws it which then outputs to your screen.

It's like in Watch Dogs when your driving fast and vehicles appear in front of you. The CPU is having a hard time keeping up spawning cars.

Of coarse since the consoles are an APU design they can offload tasks from the CPU to the GPU. However the more they transfer over the less they will have for the graphical fidelity. For the best results it's best if they both could handle there own jobs.

thehobbyist1111d ago

PS4 has an APU not GPU or CPU.

ramiuk11111d ago

the thing is the consoel is optimised to run games and is coded that way which is why the lower power makes it look better than the pc equiv imo.

the pc brigade will always go on about how a pc is this and that,been old news for years.

but they dont get to play uncharted,god of war,last of us etc

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1111d ago
TheArkatek1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

@ gapecanpie

Very true. My quad core i7 3770k blows out the amd 8 core jaguar 😂

BluP1112d ago

I'm pretty sure that the CPUs are weak because devs are meant to utilize the GPU's GPGPU as certain calculations are much more efficient on GPU.

psionicinversion1112d ago

no there weak to save on the cost of the APU. the APU costs $130 i think it was which is the most expensive part of the PS4. With the compute units it can help speed up other code that can be offloaded from the CPU but it cant process everything

AndrewLB1112d ago (Edited 1112d ago )

BluP- The problem with utilizing General-purpose computing on graphics processing units (GPGPU) is that in a system with a single GPU, running CPU calculations on the GPU reduces the overall graphics processing power since it's doing things other than focusing on rendering and frame-rates.
PC's have the ability to negate that performance hit by having a dedicated graphics card just for GPGPU functionality as seen with nVidia's CUDA and PhysX. Games with lots of PhysX features when played on a single GPU system definitely take a performance hit.

psionicinversion- PS4's APU costs ~$100 while the Xbone's costs $110. It is my understanding the GDDR5 cost more than the APU.

OpenGL1111d ago

Actually it's more related to the fact that console specific like GNM and whatever the Xbx One low-level API is require a lot less CPU overhead than DirectX 11, and Sony and Microsoft expect multi-threading and HSA to mitigate any CPU performance issues.

FanboyKilla1111d ago

@dantesparda lol i like how what he said made you go on a xone hate rant, and then you admit what he is saying is true. lmfao and then you called others fanboy. hilarious! wtf did the first part of your comment have to do with anything? lol fanboy. hey the ps4s cpu blah blah, bbbbbbbut xone. laaaaaame. L

VealParmHero1111d ago

Yea, no one really mentioned anything in favor of one console or the other, and he just sort of went off randomly to attack "fanboys". Really it just sounded like a failed attempt to stick in a little ps famboyism. What a joke