Dictator93
Member
But you see Durante, uh, the Jaguars would uh, be coded to the metal, and uh, therefore are twice as powerful, uh.
It's science.
But you see Durante, uh, the Jaguars would uh, be coded to the metal, and uh, therefore are twice as powerful, uh.
You also forget that it is using way less power than that Jaguar in the tests.
So I guess the 1.6 Ghz 8 core Jaguar CPU in the PS4 will be roughly twice the performance of the ATOM mentioned here?
That's not an issue if you can provide those yourself. Raw benchmark data is exactly what I want when reading about a new piece of hardware -- let me do the interpretation.And this is why I don't read Anandtech or most mainstream tech sites. Zero perspective and context.
Tell us more!
Yes, this is correct. Assuming ideal scaling the 8 core Jaguar it would be slightly better than the 1.9 GHz low power dual-core i7.
Yeah, a little bit more considering the higher clock speed. However, we still have no info regarding the final PS4 CPU clock speed.
The devs did say that Infinity Blade 3 was like next gen so I guess they were right.funny story, the new iphone a7 chip is about on par with the high end atom:
http://anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review
Don't forget the PS4 will only have 6 cores available for gaming.
People really need to start thinking of the PS4 as a 6 core 6GB console for games, not 8 Core 8GB.
Yes?Because when you run a game on a desktop it runs on those magical OS processors right?.
Are these consoles going to be bottle necked by the cpu?
The devs did say that Infinity Blade 3 was like next gen so I guess they were right.
But dat retina displayyyGemüsepizza;82470253 said:While the CPU might be remotely comparable, the GPU is not. So this is not enough to bring such games to a true next gen level.
Well Nvidia did say that PS4 had a low end CPU. I wonder what this will mean from a practical standpoint. How will it limit these new consoles?
Are these consoles going to be bottle necked by the cpu?
Don't forget the PS4 will only have 6 cores available for gaming.
People really need to start thinking of the PS4 as a 6 core 6GB console for games, not 8 Core 8GB.
Is it x86 windows 8 or ARM?My asus windows 8 tablet has 10 hours of battery life.
No, that's not correct. Only in a minor few synthetic benches that exist to load up cores. More cores is not a linear increase.Yeah, a little bit more considering the higher clock speed. However, we still have no info regarding the final PS4 CPU clock speed.
You think FCAT works on consoles? I'm very seriously thinking about making an FCAT setup if one could.That's not an issue if you can provide those yourself. Raw benchmark data is exactly what I want when reading about a new piece of hardware -- let me do the interpretation.
I only heard them mocking the GPU (with some ridiculous comparisons to power hungry chips). Why would nVidia comment on CPU anyway?
This is accurate, though.There was a thread about it. They said PS4 had a low end CPU and a mid range GPU.
No, that's not correct. Only in a minor few synthetic benches that exist to load up cores. More cores is not a linear increase..
This is accurate, though.
Let me put it this way.
If you have a 4 core CPU that can be used in tablets and cellphones, and is even outclassed by other CPUs that are used in tablets and cellphones, then doubling the core count just makes it an 8 core low-end CPU.
When those 8 cores could be outclassed by a single core from a 2500K, it is a low-end CPU.
Just talking about Cinebench is silly. There's a reason why they run multiple benches. But yes, it will have a little under twice the performance in cinebench.
Why?Are we talking about gaming performance here or general performance when a CPU is used for non-gaming applications? Because if it's the latter then yeah, the new Atom may be faster at loading a web browser; however, if it's the former, then what really matters is whether the new Atom is faster than Jaguar in gaming applications. And in this regard, the Cinebench test is surely more relevant than the web browser test.
I am an engineer in Intel. Worked on this Atom processor and now just starting on the newly revealed quark chip which will be used for wearable technology! Intersting times ahead for the company
So I' guessing that these Atoms are quite cheap, right? Since they can at least match Jaguar performance, what are the chances that a higher-clocked Atom ends up in the Steambox in order to keep costs down?
Why?
*edit*
Also, besides this, you're still talking about whether a bottom barrel chip is faster than another bottom barrel chip, which doesn't really discount the fact that we are talking about low-end CPUs here, which was the original point being discussed
It's not bad that it's a low end CPU. Maybe next gen engines are doing something special which will reduce the typical CPU bottleneck that currently exists on all UE3, Blizzard, Source, BF3 MP (or really any MP game) and other single/dual threaded engines.
Though, that does make me a bit worried about Titanfall.
When those 8 cores could be outclassed by a single core from a 2500K, it is a low-end CPU.
Nope. It just proves how Cinebench relies on FPU (SSE). Bulldozer architecture have 1 FPU for every 2 integer cores. So moving from 4 integer + 4 fpu to 8 integer + 4 fpu (4 modules) doesn't increase performance at all.
Synthetic benchmarks =/= real world workloads.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Dude. C'mon. Turbo boost is at 3.7, just about any gaming PC has them at 4.2-4.5, with 4.6-5.0 even being fairly common.The problem is that I disagree with your definition of low end. You said in your previous post.
Now, a single 2500K core gives you around 50 GFLOPs at 3.2GHz. An 8 core Jaguar gives you 102.4 GFLOPs at 1.6GHz. So I completely disagree that 50 GFLOPs are better than 102.4 GFLOPs, even if the i5 is a much stronger CPU than Jaguar.
Dude. C'mon. Turbo boost is at 3.7, just about any gaming PC has them at 4.2-4.5, with 4.6-5.0 even being fairly common.
And again, we are talking about a single core on a 3 year old processor.
*edit*
You also dodged the question of why you think cinebench is a more accurate representation of gaming performance. You seem to be playing word/forum games rather than looking to have a conversation, so I think I'm done here.
There's two games I can think of off the top of my head that are n-threaded. So, it's not really accurate. At least not right now with any empirical evidence we have to go on.Even at 3.7Ghz you have 59 GFLOPs, which is still not better than 102 GFLOPs. Talking about overclocking does not make sense in this context because you can't overclock the CPU in a console.
Cinebench is a 3D rendering bench and is a very FPU heavy application. Surely it's more relevant for gaming than a web browser test.
With even 100% scaling, you're still below the performance of a low-end desktop part released a year ago. That's not even looking at single/dual threaded performance, which is still very important for examining gaming performance.
It's low-end. Accept it.
No. An 8 core Jaguar at 1.75GHz, which is the Xbox One CPU clock speed, should score around 3,5 at Cinebench. An 8 Core Jaguar at 2GHz should score around 4, which is more than the FX-4350. However, we don't know what is the PS4 CPU clock speed.
You can't make up numbers as an argument.No. An 8 core Jaguar at 1.75GHz, which is the Xbox One CPU clock speed, should score around 3,5 at Cinebench. An 8 Core Jaguar at 2GHz should score around 4, which is more than the FX-4350. However, we don't know what is the PS4 CPU clock speed.
You can't make up numbers as an argument.
*edit*
Are you trolling me? If so, well done.
Even if the PS4 clock speed was 2ghz, it would still be a low end CPU.
You don't judge a CPU's performance by a single synthetic benchmark though.Sure, but then we should consider the FX-4350 a very low end CPU.
Sure, but then we should consider the FX-4350 a very low end CPU.
The FX 4350 is very much a low end processor.
As is the Jaguar. Obviously.
I am an engineer in Intel. Worked on this Atom processor and now just starting on the newly revealed quark chip which will be used for wearable technology! Intersting times ahead for the company
I have read the source article of that graph and those numbers are accomplished by running cinebench in four threads, this will of course limit the performance when the fx-8350 is an octocore processor.
Talking about overclocking does not make sense in this context because you can't overclock the CPU in a console.
No. An 8 core Jaguar at 1.75GHz, which is the Xbox One CPU clock speed, should score around 3,5 at Cinebench. An 8 Core Jaguar at 2GHz should score around 4, which is more than the FX-4350. However, we don't know what is the PS4 CPU clock speed.
Even if the PS4 clock speed was 2ghz, it would still be a low end CPU.
Durante, that paper is truly amazing. I just hope you have no part in it. I mean, I read it up to this paragraph I'll quote here, for coder's gaf amusement:Just in case you ever want to shut such people up hard (I know I had occasion to!):
http://research.cs.wisc.edu/vertical/papers/2013/hpca13-isa-power-struggles.pdf
Jaguar is a low end CPU because it have abysmal IPC.
BD/PD decoder is shared between two cores. A module can decode 4 uops per cycle, but the decoder is time sliced (every other cycle) between two cores.
Quote from Agner Fog's analysis:
"The decoders can handle four instructions per clock cycle. Instructions that belong to different cores cannot be decoded in the same clock cycle. When both cores are active, the decoders serve each core every second clock cycle, so that the maximum decode rate is two instructions per clock cycle per core."
So Jaguar and BD/PD cores can decode an equal amount of instructions per cycle.
Also BD/PD have an additional stall case, because the decoder is shared between two cores (Agner Fog):
"Instructions that generate more than two macro-ops are using microcode. The decoders cannot do anything else while microcode is generated. This means that both cores in a compute unit can stop decoding for several clock cycles after meeting an instruction that generates more than two macro-ops"
Wrong. Jaguar IPC is similar to Piledriver. And Piledriver is the core used in high end AMD CPUs.
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1667815&postcount=48
That is the fucking x86 decoder, (as in the max instructions per cycle that it can decode into microcode) that is not the CPUs IPC when processing a load!