"Both machines feature very modern processor designs which include features such as out of order execution," says David Miles, CTO of BabelFlux.
I'd say the CPU is the least impressive thing about the new consoles.
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.
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.
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.
@Grap 0.1GHz equals 100.000.000 more operations per second. In what universe this means nothing?
@Grap 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.....
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.
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.
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
@tommygunzII then probably there would be something wrong with your internet
Laptops usually have 2-4 cores. The new consoles have 8.
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.
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.. http://www.tomshardware.com...
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.
@grap 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.
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...
@Baja 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.
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...
The PS4 GPU is an under clocked 7970 custom chip nothing that special or expensive to make
Actually the CPU in the PS4 is its biggest bottleneck
7970 is so old and outdated and its not even a full 7970.... it been heavily downgraded and under clocked.
@Future_2015 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.
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.
@life 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.
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.
PS4 has an APU not GPU or CPU.
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
@ gapecanpie Very true. My quad core i7 3770k blows out the amd 8 core jaguar 😂
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.
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
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.
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.
@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
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
This article is so inaccurate. The premise is basically faster memory isn't better because 1% of operations will fail to happen in a timely fashion.
The developer is saying out of order calculations is a great CPU feature to have. They are saying that memory bandwidth is great, but you also need a CPU that can handle modern code.
"So having the fastest memory in the world isn’t useful if the processor stalls whenever you have to branch to another part of the code.” I'm telling you that stalls and faults even in sloppy code are only going to equal 1-2% of the operations.
@Ashlen Yes, but the comment about memory not being useful is not literal. He is simply saying that its the sum of the systems parts. What is the point of having fast memory if the CPU stalls? He is saying this ISN'T a problem because the CPUs have good branch prediction. Basically, the article is simply saying that everything is working well. The article is accurate but it is titled in such a way for max clicks.
It's off the wall alright. If the memory and architecture isn't fast enough to deliver messages to the processor it doesn't matter how fast the processor is, it will only go as fast as the memory throughput allows.
No, the premise is you have to have a balanced system and I mean that in general on all systems (not just Xbox One). If you have a fat water pipe, but a tiny outlet, it is kind of useless to have that fat water pipe drain water. This developer is right on the money! Ironically though, out of order execution is darn old, but for the recently released consoles it is a "new" thing! It is amazing how far behind consoles really are. What I would love to see is a two concurrent cycle console i.e. we have a low end and a high end and both are supported, and every 2-3 years you introduce a new and high end console and drop (as in optionally support) the lowest end console.
@YouAreSalty What do you mean how far consoles are behind? Consoles are designed for low cost gaming machines. If people wanted the newest tech they would buy or build a PC. Each console gen is a fairly substantial leap in tech. So in terms of last gen consoles to the new gen is fairly good upgrade. But if you wanted the newest tech in your game console, that would just be a PC.
Still, based on Steam statistics, Xbox and PS4 are way better than the most PCs available with gamers. I understand that high end pc is better but it's also unreachable for the most people
"This article is so inaccurate." No, not really. Memory and data transfer speeds never have been quick enough to feed processors when we talk about raw performance. It's the ever-growing 'processor-memory performance gap' that dictates how we design h/w and s/w for performance. Unless you have a trivial control flow or predictable access patterns that can benefit from data prefetching there's always going to be the chance of starving the cpu. Out-of-order execution is one way of helping here, so that the processor can jump ahead and load, operate on, or store nearby independent instructions and keep the instruction pipeline and memory bus active whilst we wait for other such stalls nearby to clear up. An i- or d-cache miss on the highest level cache in a modern cpu can cause pipeline stalls of hundreds of cycles as it waits on a load, or even a store in some cases. In the context of high performance code that's quite a hit to take when you consider how much could be done in that time. OOE helps to mitigate those 'worse cases', and even when data is in local cache because there's still the chance for stalls there. It's a problem that's by far and large the most critical problem to work around if one is trying to write performant code. Even processor cache speeds, as quick as they are in comparison to main memory, aren't quick enough to mitigate issues faced in the last generation of consoles. For example, the fabled 'load-hit-store' occurrence was a massive headache to work with on the in-order execution PowerPC cpus and could cause stalls all over the place if one wasn't careful or even used to looking for the cases for it's occurrence. I wholeheartedly agree with this developer, as I'm sure most would within the industry.
"PS4 And Xbox One Feature Modern CPUs" The cpus inside console are slower then a i7 920 released in 2008. Freaking slower then 6 years old Hardware.
thats an understatement, i have an i7 950 and it destroys the console cpu's. The console cpu jaguar is low power tablet cpu, 4+4 config like all 8 core AMD cpu's
Yup! Too bad, the benefits of PC doesn't outweigh its major cons. Otherwise I would be on it like a hot babe.
@YouAreSalty What do you mean? I start up my PC in Steam's Big Picture mode, and use my Dualshock 4 to select my game. I never even have to look at Windows if I don't want to. Add to that the cheaper games, mod support, upgradability and tons of exclusives, and PC starts to look pretty good. And this coming from someone who also owns (and loves) a PS4. Edit: I don't mean to sound confrontational, I'm just wondering what you feel are the major cons of PC gaming
I know I have replied to you before, and I do not wish to have to dig up my past comments to find your old account that clearly lost bubbles because of your ignorant lack of spewing out the same fake information over and over. It's a laptop CPU. Get over it. No on cares that PC hardware destroys console hardware. If people want high end hardware then clearly they are going to get a PC. This is common sense that only ignorants latch onto in order to try and justify their gaming PC's. I primarily game on PC but I see benefits in console gaming and still enjoy it. It doesn't matter what the hardware is. The PS4 gets great results.
I don't understand the disagrees, this is a clear fact. Though with that said, you could go back even more than 6 years (to the Core2quads etc)... those would still be faster than the CPU's in the next gen consoles
yeah they may do but theyd also be missing newer instruction sets that help make things more efficient and stuff like that but raw power, most likely
But what does it matter? He got disagrees because nobody likes him, because his comments in console articles constantly lack relevance.
Bloomfield was a beast though. I7 920 is at least as fast as an FX 8350 on games which is years newer and has a massive clockspeed advantage. These console processors are for budgetary reasons and such.
The goals changed. Now they tend to power efficiency and low cost. Usually those mentioned Intel CPU cost twice or thrice as much, and require a kilowatt power supply (considering a good but outdated video card as well). Old PC gaming rigs would also require huge PC case, were extremely noisy and overheated
The goals never changed in the past years, the most performance for the least power has been a main aim for decades. You are always looking at the server markets and applying your technologies to it, and power consumption/heat has always been a critical factor there. If anything AMD have been the ones pushing the envelope for what is acceptable power consumption wise in CPUs. Their fastest parts were over 200 watts which is entirely ludicrous and never really been seen before in a consumer part. I7 920 2.66ghz was simply monstrous and is still good for today's games. It matches an FX8350 @ 4ghz, which is difficult to overclock much beyond 10 percent (4.4ghz). Whereas a typical i7 920 will overclock 30 percent (3.5ghz), and potentially more on a good air cooler. These consoles CPUs however are low power consumption and have small cores to keep the costs down, costs for making the silicon and costs for everything else, cooling in the machine, size of the machine, power supply etc
A CPUs architecture and its functions etc are what would classify them as modern.. Speed isn't everything.. They make cars now that are slower then ones 50 years ago, it doesn't make them any less modern.
They're even slower than a sandy bridge i3. They're just low-power laptop apus.
It also had a TDP of 130W, while the CPU components of the Xbox One and PS4 probably use less than 30W. The entire PS4 uses less than 150Ws under load, and the vast majority of its die consists of the GPU.
'extremely' fast esram?
xbox one CPU will be really good once dx12 comes out thats really the only component it affects
shhh, dat secret sauce!
shhh, you are being a troll. Why not just wait and see what's happens. You are sounding like another worried PS4 fan, that will do anything they can to put down the Xbox One.
what a pathetic delusional fanboy. LOL. even ms confirmed that dx 12 benefits are exclusive to pc.
They aren't exclusive to PC.. PC is going to see the greatest benefit.. And what they are showcasing so far..
God I wish every body would read this post, he nailed it, how close n good BOTH systems are, I think this post should shut the X1 haters up for good, I own ps4 n X1 and you can Not tell a diff in the two... It should come down to what system you like better, i do have both but I like the X1 better cause of the controller.. unified GDDR5 Memory of the PS4 and the extremely fast memory eSRAM of the Xbox One which has a bandwidth of 204 Gb/s. Ps4 has it gddr5 memory n X1 has the Extremely fast eSram so no one better then the other!!! Just funny when most write bout the two they call 4 the faster, n forgets to say anything bout 1 extremely fast ram
@Macdaddy71: I also feel the same. Can barely tell the difference between the two systems. I think with Destiny I noticed a slight diffrence in the graphics. The PS4 has a sharper clearer picture but the X1 version is completely playable and enjoyable. I'm considering picking the X1 version up over the PS4 version due the the fact I like the X1 achievement tracker you can Snap to the left hand side of the screen.
It's not always sharper and clearer, just remember the story with killzone multiplayer when everyone boasted 1080*60, or first COD footages when journalists were comparing the same 720 p footage and said 1080p on ps4 was amazing, though they saw 720p, lol
well they arent running a demanding os like windows and all have the same specs,so its far easier for games to be optimized and improved on these new consoles,pcs hardware is all over the place so you gotta develop games for a variety of different setups, on consoles you dont
Ah, that explains why every game on my PS4 is 1080p 60fps. /sarcasm
the ps4 hasnt even about a year and several games are running 1080p 60fps, they got along ways to go to being maxed out
@ mysteryraz11 Care to name some out right now ? I can only think or Resogun.