Xbox One Extra CPU Core Will Allow Smoother Frame Rates: Technomancer Dev

Spiders CEO Jehanne Rousseau talks the potential of the Xbox One's 7th core.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Cindy-rella1199d ago Show
Sureshot1199d ago

You can keep your "7th core potential". Too many great games on horizon for me to care!

bf0007779661199d ago

There is nothing to brag about the seventh core and the extra 100MHz as both have exactly the same CPU.

Ezz20131198d ago (Edited 1198d ago )

And this news is very old

Gamingbolt strike again with another pointless article

PistolsAtDawn1198d ago

...except that it appears that due to a smaller more encased console, with less fans, and a powerbrick inside....PS4 is restricted by heat limitations which is why they haven't up-clocked their CPU...and won't (unless you prefer to believe Sony just wants to stick it to their fans for the hell of it)...X1 doesn't have those problems. So, maybe the starting point for the CPUs was roughly the say, but the performance the grant isn't.

Sciurus_vulgaris1198d ago

They don't have the exact same CPU, the CPUs both belong to the Jaguar series. If they had the exact same cpu wouldn't the faster variant be better ?

fr0sty1198d ago (Edited 1198d ago )

Talk about the 384 extra gpu cores (1152 vs. 768) ps4 has, and it's a "negligable difference", talk about one extra cpu core on XO, it rockets to the top of n4g.

rainslacker1198d ago (Edited 1198d ago )


Heat has nothing to do with the difference in speed. 100 MHZ difference is going to be a negligible difference, and a core not being used is still going to produce heat.

They're essentially the same CPU at the core. Dunno about what was modified, but that doesn't matter much when determining clock speed, since those modifications aren't core modifications. If you change the core...then it's a different series of chip...simple as that.

Clock speeds of the cores are determined by two factors. The system bus speed, and the CPU multiplier speed. In the case of MS increase before launch, they changed the multiplier within the CPU to gain a faster core speed.

Alternatively, although not the case here, it's also possible to change the bus speed, and retain the same internal clock on the CPU which will effectively make the CPU faster since it's using it's own internal multiplier, but that gets tricky with memory timing.

All of this is the same principal that over-clockers use on PC. On PC though, some motherboards allow for these modifications, and sometimes they bring unwanted result.

However, for an official clock increase such as this, the actual chips would have to be rated to be able to perform at such speeds...just like within the same family of chips from any CPU vendor, they can have multiple clock speeds available to the consumer. Go look for an i5 CPU. For the most part, outside some changes to other things(which would be denoted by marketing speak) the only real difference between them in the same family is the approved internal clock multiplier at which the chip has been rated to run at without causing faults. It's possible these chips can run faster, but the results aren't certified by the vendor.

Both CPU's have the same number of cores(8 to be exact). Before launch, one(or two...can't remember) cores were locked out from ever being used, while one was reserved for the OS on both the PS4 and the X1. The reason they were forever locked away from being allowed to be used is that it allowed increase production yield, where if one chip came off the production line, and had a faulty core, the chip could still be used. It's the same principal on how hard drives will identify bad sectors, and prevent them from being used. In the case of MS, they changed the locking out of this core, so now the previously locked core could now be used. This would result in a lower yield at the production level, but MS felt it was worth it, and I can't really say that having extra power to work with is a bad thing.

Otherwise, the CPU's are exactly the same class of CPU/APU. Modifications would have been made on the internal bus and co-processors of the chip, not the cores themselves.

Anyhow, assuming that they aren't the same CPU at the core, and are simply part of the same series(say comparing an i5 to an i7) then logic would dictate, that given the similar costs of the system, in order for MS to achieve a higher yield, with a higher speed rating, they would actually be using the lower end version of said chip series. I don't know which one tests better, or if it's even possible to test with appropriate benchmarks since there are going to be other factors that will alter the results within a console system. Lower end usually denotes less efficient, which itself will produce more heat than a mere 100MHZ increase in speed.

IamTylerDurden11198d ago

Yep it's funny how nobody mentions the extra 1gb of GDDR5 (flexible memory) that the PS4 has yet to really utilize, Second Son didn't touch any of it yet was a breathtaking technical display.

Also, the PS4 has 8gb of GDDR5 but it has an extra 2gb of ddr3 as well, this is why the PS4 has a better "play while your game DL/installs" feature, 3x the dvr recording, photomodes, a more efficient rest mode ect. The 2gb of ddr3 may be the reason there is an extra 1gb of GDDR5 flexible memory, it can likely handle some of the OS freeing up that 1gb for potential game use. The PS4 has a lot left, especially when they optimize and make efficient use of all that ram.

This xbone "news" is old news tbh, we heard this so long ago, devs have had access to this "secret sauce" for a while.


Yall stop comparing shader cores to processing cores, makes you look very uneducated on hardware lol

princejb1341198d ago Show
GameForever1198d ago (Edited 1198d ago )


Sony sticking to PS4 users by having the best version of most third party games, granted not by a huge amount but they are better.

dantesparda1197d ago

"Xbox One Extra CPU Core Will Allow Smoother Frame Rates: Technomancer Dev"

Ok,then I want to start seeing X1 games run smoother than their PS4 counterpart because other than "some" games here and there. The PS4 version practically always runs smoother despite it supposedly having the slower CPU (according to fanboys only, off course) and higher res.

Why is PCars a game that is very CPU dependent run at a much lower framerate than the PS4 ver. I mean you got the extra 150mhz, the up to 50-80% use of the seventh core, the supposed lower latency of the DDR3 and the extra CPU bandwidth and it still cant outperform the PS4 in CPU duties? Pathetic!

So less talk and more action. I wanna see X1 games consistently win the CPU performance battles. Cuz til now, it aint happening.

IrishSt0ner1196d ago (Edited 1196d ago )

"Also, the PS4 has 8gb of GDDR5 but it has an extra 2gb of ddr3 as well ... The 2gb of ddr3 may be the reason there is an extra 1gb of GDDR5 flexible memory,"

HAHA this comment is absolutely hilarious, you must not be aware GigaBITS (Gb) and GigaBYTES (GB) are two different things. 2Gb of DDR3 = 256MB of DDR3, not 2000MB like you think... There are 8 bits in a byte. LMAO!!!

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1196d ago
Kingthrash3601199d ago ShowReplies(19)
GordonKnight1198d ago


If you only have a PS4 I feel sorry for you.

The power of three consoles.

Volkama1199d ago

I only clicked to confirm my suspicion that this was another Gamingbolt special. The title had that distinctive "innocent dev got put on the spot with a stupid question" aroma they're known for.

gfk3421199d ago (Edited 1199d ago )

This is not news in the first place, but just click bait and ammunition for console war.

MS released the 7th Cpu core (more precisely 50% of it) from last year.

So all the games from this year used the 7th core ( but in practice doesn't give a real benefit.

SirJoJo1199d ago

Or even more precisely without fanboy editing 50 to 80%.

"So all the games from this year used the 7th core but in practice doesn't give a real benefit"

You worked for every dev team for the games that came out on X1 this year? My my what a busy B you must be.

Anyway I wanna play me some awesome games, couldn't give two poops about this console war ridiculousness. MS and Sony don't pay my bills!

LexHazard791199d ago

I dont think all the games used the 7th core. The only one i can think of is Project Cars.

nitus101198d ago

Basically the article says nothing, well at least nothing an IT Engineer can fathom. Both the XB1 and the PS4 have 8 cores so what's this pseudo magical seventh core in the XB1?

I can understand locking out a CPU for specific purposes such as Kinect but really why do even that when you can assign priority and even CPU access to processes.

Professional Operating Systems have had scheduling, priorities and CPU control since the 1960's and since MS Windows is actually based on VMS (Developed by Digital Equipment Corp in 1975) which supports scheduling there is no valid reason why MS Windows does not do that.

Basically the article is click bait.

zidane13411198d ago

LOL you obviously know a lot about game development...too bad that core that you speak of every game using, really isn't considering they had to change code to use it. And how many developers this year confirmed that they are using this extra core? hint: not all of them.

PistolsAtDawn1198d ago

So in the article you posted:

"Since October, Microsoft has allowed developers access to 50 to 80 per cent of a seventh processing core - which may partly explain why a small amount of multi-platform titles released during Q4 2014 may have possessed performance advantages over their PS4 counterparts in certain scenarios."

How did you get "precisely 50%" and "So all games this year used the 7th core"?

So if the Dev kits allowing this to happen started getting released in many devs you do you anticipate went back and completely rebuilt their game from the ground up in order to take full advantage of the 7th core? I'm not saying they all avoided it or anything...but that far into development, they probably used it more like a bandaid. Not to mention...not that DX12 will be god's gift to the world or anything, but allowing the 7th core will become more meaningful when games are built from the ground up for the jury isn't completely out just yet....except for you I guess based on how you carefully crafted your comment.

gfk3421198d ago


Since you are such a big fan of the X1 and defend it so much, I give you the article from Digital Foundry with the performance analysis of Project Cars AFTER the release of the patch (using the 7th core of X1).

In order to be clear I extracted a paragraph from the article:

"Comparing PS4 and Xbox One still puts Sony's platform ahead though. Even with upgrades to both platforms, THE MARGIN IS STILL AS WIDE AS 12fps in favour of PS4 at points, and rarely does the twain meet in terms of the frame-rate read-outs between the two."

SirJoJo1198d ago

So thats your argument, DF project cars analysis? Please GTFO! Have you not seen Forza 6?

It is pretty clear that project cars was not optimised very well for either console regardless of them utilising the 7th core on X1 in what ever fashion they did so please just stop with the fanboy BS.

starchild1198d ago

@ gfk342

That depends on whether a game is graphics-bound or CPU-bound at a given target framerate. Project Cars was likely graphics-bound.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1198d ago
rainslacker1198d ago (Edited 1198d ago )

I didn't even need to click. I come to these articles for the comments and the pleasure of shooting down flawed logic in said comments from people that think they understand how any of this technology works.

I get disagrees, but I rarely get anyone that can actually tell me why I'm wrong. Wish I'd get more people telling me why I'm wrong...with actual facts to back it up. Those tend to be the best conversations I have on here.:)


what other metric should we use to test whether there is a substantial difference from the extra core? DF puts up their methods and their results for scrutiny, and they can often be scrutinized, but in the case of Project Cars, the patch did indeed use the extra it makes sense to compare the difference between having it, and not having it.

I mean...should we just take every developers word for what they say? Seems people only do that when the argument suits what they want to already a bit of supposedly unbiased analysis is welcome to really make a determination. It may not show a result across the board, because we have no idea what PC actually implemented with that core, but it does show that just having the extra core being used won't necessarily make the game better.

1198d ago
rainslacker1198d ago

It would be ridiculous if they were selling an 8 core CPU and it only had 7 working cores.

Anyhow, I addressed it further down, but I actually did confuse the CPU cores with the compute units which are disabled at manufacturing. It's used to produce yields for manufacturing...particularly early on. Locking out a core means it's not accessible to the user(programmer), not that the whole CPU doesn't work.

The PS3 did this as well, and I believe they could ship with two, non-working SPE's. Video cards do this frequently, and it can be much more than one bad core or compute unit. 2 compute units are disabled in the PS4's GPU to make 18 available, yet the chip specification states that the total at manufacture is 20. X1 does something similar, however I'm not sure what the the numbers are.

The CPU portion of the chips is using all 8 cores as far as I could find, however, in the PS4, 2 have been reserved for OS use and future enhancement, and in the X1, 1 is now reserved for OS functions, but the 7th core being mentioned here is the one that was originally reserved for Kinect. basically, from my understanding, the 7th core is now been freed up some to be made available to developers. Again, this was a mistake on my part due to long days and lack of sleep this past week.

Quite a few dual core CPU's for general purpose computing were made as quad-core CPU's, yet when a core was bad, they couldn't sell it. Instead of discarding expensive materials, they simply changed it to something else. These were typically the lower end dual, or tri cores, as the quad cores clock speeds were lower than dual cores at the time due to efficiency increases.

Anyhow, there is absolutely no problem with disabling a core on a CPU or any processor when it comes to if it will work or not. if they left it active, and it tried to use the core, then it would cause problems, but all that has to be done, is that the internal controller has to be set to only allow working cores to to be addressed by the controller, and by extension, the OS/program.

Ultimately, whether a core can be disabled without problem or not depends on it's operating environment. A PC for instance will only use whatever cores are available to it, and will never try to address a core which it can not see. A console, can easily do the same thing, as shown by the PS3's setup. Many mobile phone/tablet processors do this as well to increase yield, which ultimately results in profits. For something that is a closed system, that relies on software that uses all the cores of a specific specification, then they could not just disable cores.

1197d ago
rainslacker1197d ago

I wasn't implying there was deception. Just that it's not so ridiculous that hardware makers would lock out cores, or CU's, or whatever to increase yields.

As far as if it's a bad thing or not...I don't really think it is. I mean, if it performs like it should given the specs it's sold under, then I don't really see the problem. Overall it keeps costs down, and allows companies to profit. Kind of a win-win for everyone.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1197d ago
sammarshall1021199d ago

Any software improvements are welcomed. Microsoft has some very smart programmers

Nosred1199d ago (Edited 1199d ago )

I agree, if anyone can utilize the Xbox softawre potential and this MS.A good example is the muti console task and the BC.

MasterCornholio1199d ago (Edited 1199d ago )

I know its a software improvement. But the reason why the framerates can improve is because developers can access more of the systems hardware.

That's why I believe the performance can improve.


What a harsh comment.


But to put it in a more civil way people like Me.X will take advantage of this news. They always do.

Now while I believe that having access to a 7th core will improve performance I also believe that it won't be a massive improvement.

Just my opinion.

gfk3421199d ago

You are right. The 7th core cpu was used for Project Cars, but we all know that even with it X1 version was lacking behind PS4 in both visual (X1 was only 900p) and performance (10-12 fps less than Ps4 according to Digital Foundry.

AndrewLB1199d ago


Ahh... look at the peasants squabble over a few FPS and some extra pixels
And PC makes your PS4 look like last gen. Ahh... nothing like gaming at 1200p\60fps in just about everything while having higher resolution textures, far better shadow filtering, and 24bit/192 glorious audio.

Just so you know, I wouldn't have rubbed it in had you refrained from crapping in another Xbone topic. Nobody was talking about PS4 until you fanboys showed up. You all must be bored due to the lack of decent games. Ahh.. such is the life of a peasant.

MasterCornholio1199d ago (Edited 1199d ago )


I didn't even mention PS4 so might as well remove the plural from your comment.

"You all must be bored due to the lack of decent games. Ahh.. such is the life of a peasant."

In the end the ones who really have nothing better to do say that. You just never want to admit it.

At least I'm capable of saying that all three systems have games worth playing on them. Just recently we had Arkham Knight and shortly after we will get Until Dawn. I don't see why gamers would be bored at all unless they choose to not play the games available on the market.

Like you said peasents refuse to have fun in an amusement park.

LexHazard791198d ago

@andrew, you alright Buddy? Master didnt even mention PS4. He went as far as saying that the 7th core will help, just dont expect a big boost.

MasterCornholio1198d ago (Edited 1198d ago )


Yeah that's exactly what I said. By big boost I mean that if a game runs in 900P 60FPS it isn't going to be boosted to 1080P 60FPS.

If you had a game with minor FPS dips (1-2 FPS) than maybe this update will improve the performance enough to lock the framerate which isn't bad at all.

PistolsAtDawn1198d ago

@gfk342 From the article you posted "Tech Analysts ‘Digital Foundry’ recently published their Project CARS findings online. But, unfortunately those findings came from an early build of Project CARS and were taken down as the build wasn’t supposed to be used for tech analysis."

The bit you put about 10-12 fps on PS4 is incorrect...that quote was based on the Early build before the 7th core. Now Project Cars on X1 has a the better FPS.

dantesparda1197d ago

"The bit you put about 10-12 fps on PS4 is incorrect...that quote was based on the Early build before the 7th core. Now Project Cars on X1 has a the better FPS. "

No, it doesn't, but I see you are really either misinformed, blissfully ignorant or just a dumb fanboy or a liar. The 7th core has been used since v1.04 and the PS4 STILL has a 12fps advantage. And that's the fact, now show me where the X1 has the better framerate?

"Comparing PS4 and Xbox One still puts Sony's platform ahead though. Even with upgrades to both platforms, the margin is still as wide as 12fps in favour of PS4 at points, and rarely does the twain meet in terms of the frame-rate read-outs between the two. If the PC version isn't an option for those eager to try Project Cars ambitious racing sim, PS4 remains the best performer in the console space. "

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1197d ago
Nosred1199d ago

Very good and knows it, but the console runs very well any adicinal games are welcome.