i7 CPU vs PS4 AMD Jaguar?

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

Thing is, we don't really need top of the line CPU's in consoles anymore.  Ps4 is basically taking the next step up from Wii U's approach with regards to the CPU, if you look at die shots of the PS4's APU and Wii U's MCM, you'll see the CPU is tiny in comparison.

The reason for that is, games have had roughly enough CPU power since the gamecube for any reasonable or most kinds of design that a developer could want.  We haven't been too limited in design since those days, in other words.  It's mostly about the GPU and memory, from here.

Wii U's CPU or Ps4's is more than plenty for the console's other parts list.

Magescrew

WOW. I didn't think consolites could be this cluless. Serves me right for giving them credit.

CPU's are a NECESSARY part of game engines. NOT all game related logicla work can be done by the GPU.

As for i7 vs Ps4, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

AMD doesn't have a full power desktop CPU that can compete with an i7, you actually think an AMD low power, laptop CPU could even touch one?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You consolites are good for a laugh, I give you that!

[QUOTE="Chozofication"]

Thing is, we don't really need top of the line CPU's in consoles anymore.  Ps4 is basically taking the next step up from Wii U's approach with regards to the CPU, if you look at die shots of the PS4's APU and Wii U's MCM, you'll see the CPU is tiny in comparison.

The reason for that is, games have had roughly enough CPU power since the gamecube for any reasonable or most kinds of design that a developer could want.  We haven't been too limited in design since those days, in other words.  It's mostly about the GPU and memory, from here.

Wii U's CPU or Ps4's is more than plenty for the console's other parts list.

Magescrew

PS4 has 8 CPUs whereas i7 is just one, therefore PS4 is clearly better.

Some of you are going to whine and say that it isn't individual CPUs, just cores. But even then PS4 CPU has more cores=better.

Couple that with GDDR5 ram, and we have a machine that rivals $5000 super computers.

[spoiler]

/Sarcasm

[/spoiler]

dramaybaz

[QUOTE="Magescrew"][QUOTE="Chozofication"]

Thing is, we don't really need top of the line CPU's in consoles anymore.  Ps4 is basically taking the next step up from Wii U's approach with regards to the CPU, if you look at die shots of the PS4's APU and Wii U's MCM, you'll see the CPU is tiny in comparison.

The reason for that is, games have had roughly enough CPU power since the gamecube for any reasonable or most kinds of design that a developer could want.  We haven't been too limited in design since those days, in other words.  It's mostly about the GPU and memory, from here.

Wii U's CPU or Ps4's is more than plenty for the console's other parts list.

Kinthalis

WOW. I didn't think consolites could be this cluless. Serves me right for giving them credit.

CPU's are a NECESSARY part of game engines. NOT all game related logicla work can be done by the GPU.

As for i7 vs Ps4, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

AMD doesn't have a full power desktop CPU that can compete with an i7, you actually think an AMD low power, laptop CPU could even touch one?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You consolites are good for a laugh, I give you that!

you know what you need, Kinthalis?

You need to go back to school to learn some reading comprehension because you clearly don't know how to interpret what you read. You make herms look bad with that low IQ.  :(

PS4 has 8 CPUs whereas i7 is just one, therefore PS4 is clearly better.

Some of you are going to whine and say that it isn't individual CPUs, just cores. But even then PS4 CPU has more cores=better.

Couple that with GDDR5 ram, and we have a machine that rivals $5000 super computers.

[spoiler]

/Sarcasm

[/spoiler]

dramaybaz

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"]

PS4 has 8 CPUs whereas i7 is just one, therefore PS4 is clearly better.

Some of you are going to whine and say that it isn't individual CPUs, just cores. But even then PS4 CPU has more cores=better.

Couple that with GDDR5 ram, and we have a machine that rivals $5000 super computers.

[spoiler]

/Sarcasm

[/spoiler]

Mozuckint

[QUOTE="Mozuckint"][QUOTE="dramaybaz"]

PS4 has 8 CPUs whereas i7 is just one, therefore PS4 is clearly better.

Some of you are going to whine and say that it isn't individual CPUs, just cores. But even then PS4 CPU has more cores=better.

Couple that with GDDR5 ram, and we have a machine that rivals $5000 super computers.

[spoiler]

/Sarcasm

[/spoiler]

dramaybaz

An i7 should be stronger but that doesn't mean much. An 8 core CPU on a console will be much better than on a PC for gaming. I remember when i was little both PS2 and my PC had 300mhz cpu's, my PS2 killed my PC lol

KillzoneSnake

There is no proof which is better. Hermits and their arrogance will say i7. 8 cores vs 4 cores. Me thinks ps4 for a few monthsrazu2444

:lol:

so much denial

even AMD's flagship 8 core cpu does not beat an intel i7, so why would you think a low TDP based laptop/tablet based cpu at 1.6 ghz going to beat a modern quad core....

There is no proof which is better. Hermits and their arrogance will say i7. 8 cores vs 4 cores. Me thinks ps4 for a few monthsrazu2444

There is no proof which is better. Hermits and their arrogance will say i7. 8 cores vs 4 cores. Me thinks ps4 for a few monthsrazu2444

me thinks you're an idiot

[QUOTE="razu2444"]There is no proof which is better. Hermits and their arrogance will say i7. 8 cores vs 4 cores. Me thinks ps4 for a few monthssirk1264

[QUOTE="sirk1264"][QUOTE="razu2444"]There is no proof which is better. Hermits and their arrogance will say i7. 8 cores vs 4 cores. Me thinks ps4 for a few monthsadamosmaki

What kind of question is this?

i7 of course.

The i7 would get obsolete when next gen games take full advantage of all the eight cores in next gen systems. But i7 is faster.

Alienware_fan

[QUOTE="Alienware_fan"]

The i7 would get obsolete when next gen games take full advantage of all the eight cores in next gen systems. But i7 is faster.

clyde46

Stop comparing the two.  Most games are GPU intensive anyways. CPU matters to a point, but devs have already stated that the PS4 is a balanced system without bottlenecks. 

Let's put it this way.  

The PS4  would destory a Gaming PC with an Intel i7 3770k CPU and AMD 7770 GPU.  

The PS4's GPU was custom designed to handle General Purpose Compute more efficiently, so the GPU will help take the load off the CPU for certain tasks.  

Mine destroys both of those CPU's.  

I7 3770k.  

Fizzman

Stop comparing the two.  Most games are GPU intensive anyways. CPU matters to a point, but devs have already stated that the PS4 is a balanced system without bottlenecks. 

Let's put it this way.  

The PS4  would destory a Gaming PC with an Intel i7 3770k CPU and AMD 7770 GPU.  

The PS4's GPU was custom designed to handle General Purpose Compute more efficiently, so the GPU will help take the load off the CPU for certain tasks.  

emgesp

Mine destroys both of those CPU's.  

I7 3770k.  

Fizzman

Indeed.  3770k brothers HIGH FIVE!

Its not even better than my i5 :|

It's a tablet chip.

Magic will be required to make the PS4/Durango powerful, because their paper specs are in line with $500 hardware.

[QUOTE="emgesp"]

Stop comparing the two.  Most games are GPU intensive anyways. CPU matters to a point, but devs have already stated that the PS4 is a balanced system without bottlenecks. 

Let's put it this way.  

The PS4  would destory a Gaming PC with an Intel i7 3770k CPU and AMD 7770 GPU.  

The PS4's GPU was custom designed to handle General Purpose Compute more efficiently, so the GPU will help take the load off the CPU for certain tasks.  

NFJSupreme

without bottlenecks maybe but not without limitations as proven by the unreal engine 4 demo. 

Stop comparing the two.  Most games are GPU intensive anyways. CPU matters to a point, but devs have already stated that the PS4 is a balanced system without bottlenecks. 

Let's put it this way.  

The PS4  would destory a Gaming PC with an Intel i7 3770k CPU and AMD 7770 GPU.  

The PS4's GPU was custom designed to handle General Purpose Compute more efficiently, so the GPU will help take the load off the CPU for certain tasks.  

emgesp

without bottlenecks maybe but not without limitations as proven by the unreal engine 4 demo. 

Hi all, how would one of the latest intel i7 CPU compare against the AMD CPU that is inside the PS4? Isit all just guesswork or do we have a good estimation of the performance of each?CwlHeddwyn

From http://www.overclock.net/t/1364086/sweclockers-amd-temash-apu-a6-1450-in-cinebench-r11-5

8 core/8 threads AMD Jaguar @1.4 Ghz would score about 2.78 i.e. about half of Intel Core i7-2600K (quad core/8 threads) @ 3.4Ghz

If PS4 has 8 core/8 threads AMD Jaguar @ 2.0Ghz it could score 3.97.

If PS4 has 8 core/8 threads AMD Jaguar @ 1.6Ghz it could score 3.17.

Note that this is with AMD Temash's slower laptop DDR3 memory speeds e.g. 1066 Mhz or 1333 Mhz types.

AMD Kabini supports the faster 1600Mhz DDR3 memory type.

Without DirectX/WDDM overheads, GpGPU's compute shader results can be use like a FPU. On the PC, GPU's compute shader results doesn't return to the CPU i.e. visual effects only. http://www.slideshare.net/zlatan4177/gpgpu-algorithms-in-games

DX Compute Shader results turnaround.

i7.

#GloriousnVidiaMasterRace

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=287 Considering this is AMD's latest release, it struggles to keep up with a 2nd gen i7. clyde46

Adobe Photoshop CS4 is old.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8350-vishera-review,3328-9.html

Running games less than 1280x720p is not realistic.

[QUOTE="emgesp"]

Stop comparing the two. Most games are GPU intensive anyways. CPU matters to a point, but devs have already stated that the PS4 is a balanced system without bottlenecks.

Let's put it this way.

The PS4 would destory a Gaming PC with an Intel i7 3770k CPU and AMD 7770 GPU.

The PS4's GPU was custom designed to handle General Purpose Compute more efficiently, so the GPU will help take the load off the CPU for certain tasks.

04dcarraher

Not quite, tricks like Intel Instant Access** (direct access to memory with rendering) saves compute shader/memory resources. PS4 allows additional transfer of CPU workload types while reducing compute shader usage via direct memory operations.

**Only works with Intel APU. PS4 would have it's own "Instant Access" tricks since it's not gimped by PC's DirectX. AMD GCN has OIT GPU extensions.

I do not know if PS4's Unreal Engine 4 uses direct memory rendering tricks. There are ongoing questions if +3 TFLOPS GPUs can overcome the algorithms inefficiencies caused by DX or can PS4's efficiencies mitigate APU's 1.84 TFLOPS performance gap.

The i7 would get obsolete when next gen games take full advantage of all the eight cores in next gen systems. But i7 is faster.

Alienware_fan

Joke question?

The CPU in the PS4 is a low power effetively notebook CPU, whilst the i7 goes up to a high end high power desktop Processor, designed for the most intensive of tasks...

a 3770k would completely stomp the PS4 CPU, even if it was underclocked by 1.5GHz...

If you are also comparing graphics, then the PS4's gpu would beat the Intel HD4000 built into the Ivybridge CPUs... but anyone with an Ivybridge CPU is not going to have integrated graphics anyway...

_Matt_

i7-3720QM has 2.6Ghz base clock with 3.6 Ghz Turbo.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

Joke question?

The CPU in the PS4 is a low power effetively notebook CPU, whilst the i7 goes up to a high end high power desktop Processor, designed for the most intensive of tasks...

a 3770k would completely stomp the PS4 CPU, even if it was underclocked by 1.5GHz...

If you are also comparing graphics, then the PS4's gpu would beat the Intel HD4000 built into the Ivybridge CPUs... but anyone with an Ivybridge CPU is not going to have integrated graphics anyway...

clyde46

Halve the i7-3720QM's score.

PS4 has 8 core/8 threads AMD Jaguar @ 2.0Ghz it could score 3.97.

[QUOTE="Magescrew"][QUOTE="Chozofication"]

Thing is, we don't really need top of the line CPU's in consoles anymore.  Ps4 is basically taking the next step up from Wii U's approach with regards to the CPU, if you look at die shots of the PS4's APU and Wii U's MCM, you'll see the CPU is tiny in comparison.

The reason for that is, games have had roughly enough CPU power since the gamecube for any reasonable or most kinds of design that a developer could want.  We haven't been too limited in design since those days, in other words.  It's mostly about the GPU and memory, from here.

Wii U's CPU or Ps4's is more than plenty for the console's other parts list.

Kinthalis

WOW. I didn't think consolites could be this cluless. Serves me right for giving them credit.

CPU's are a NECESSARY part of game engines. NOT all game related logicla work can be done by the GPU.

As for i7 vs Ps4, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

AMD doesn't have a full power desktop CPU that can compete with an i7, you actually think an AMD low power, laptop CPU could even touch one?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You consolites are good for a laugh, I give you that!

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Mine destroys both of those CPU's.  

I7 3770k.  

Rage010101

Indeed.  3770k brothers HIGH FIVE!

i7 destroys it, the CPU in the PS4 is a low end CPU meant for laptops

it's only 2ghz as well, which is pretty low

regardless it is much more powerful then what current gen consoles have so we'll notice a small increase in visual fidelity for games such as crysis 8 or whatever

Joke question?

The CPU in the PS4 is a low power effetively notebook CPU, whilst the i7 goes up to a high end high power desktop Processor, designed for the most intensive of tasks...

a 3770k would completely stomp the PS4 CPU, even if it was underclocked by 1.5GHz...

If you are also comparing graphics, then the PS4's gpu would beat the Intel HD4000 built into the Ivybridge CPUs... but anyone with an Ivybridge CPU is not going to have integrated graphics anyway...

[QUOTE="Rage010101"]

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

Mine destroys both of those CPU's.  

I7 3770k.  

PcGamingRig

Indeed.  3770k brothers HIGH FIVE!

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

Joke question?

The CPU in the PS4 is a low power effetively notebook CPU, whilst the i7 goes up to a high end high power desktop Processor, designed for the most intensive of tasks...

a 3770k would completely stomp the PS4 CPU, even if it was underclocked by 1.5GHz...

If you are also comparing graphics, then the PS4's gpu would beat the Intel HD4000 built into the Ivybridge CPUs... but anyone with an Ivybridge CPU is not going to have integrated graphics anyway...

ronvalencia

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="Magescrew"] This. CPU's for a device designed purely for gaming don't need to be behemoths like the Core i7. ShadowriverUB

WOW. I didn't think consolites could be this cluless. Serves me right for giving them credit.

CPU's are a NECESSARY part of game engines. NOT all game related logicla work can be done by the GPU.

As for i7 vs Ps4, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

AMD doesn't have a full power desktop CPU that can compete with an i7, you actually think an AMD low power, laptop CPU could even touch one?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You consolites are good for a laugh, I give you that!

It's not just about developing multi-threaded applications and optimizing parallel functions though. There are some workloads that just cannot be optimized in the same manner as 3D rendering can.

What good is having an AI routine, a pathfinding routine and a colliision detection routine all running in parallel, if you can't actually do anythign until it's all done? Issues with thread synchronization will prevent multi-core CPU's from achivieng the kind of parallelization of some facets of the game engine that it can achieve in something like video encoding.

The pathfinding routine can't continue until it's received a vector from the AI routine, and the collission detection algoryth can't do it's work until it's received an updated location from pathfinding.

When you do things like render a 3D image or encode a video, except for a few steps, it doesn't matter when somethign gets done. You simply send a block of information to be processed and you get back your answer whenever you get it back. It's not important to synchronize much of anything. 

But that is not the case for a lot of stuff involved in a game engine. 

I'm not saying developers can't do better. I AM saying, however, that you won't see the same type fo parallelization advantages you see from tasks that are naturally predisposed for parallelization, like video encoding.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="Magescrew"] This. CPU's for a device designed purely for gaming don't need to be behemoths like the Core i7. ShadowriverUB

WOW. I didn't think consolites could be this cluless. Serves me right for giving them credit.

CPU's are a NECESSARY part of game engines. NOT all game related logicla work can be done by the GPU.

As for i7 vs Ps4, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

AMD doesn't have a full power desktop CPU that can compete with an i7, you actually think an AMD low power, laptop CPU could even touch one?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You consolites are good for a laugh, I give you that!

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"][QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

 

WOW. I didn't think consolites could be this cluless. Serves me right for giving them credit.

 

CPU's are a NECESSARY part of game engines. NOT all game related logicla work can be done by the GPU.

 

As for i7 vs Ps4, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

 

AMD doesn't have a full power desktop CPU that can compete with an i7, you actually think an AMD low power, laptop CPU could even touch one?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

You consolites are good for a laugh, I give you that!

Kinthalis

It's not just about developing multi-threaded applications and optimizing parallel functions though. There are some workloads that just cannot be optimized in the same manner as 3D rendering can.

What good is having an AI routine, a pathfinding routine and a colliision detection routine all running in parallel, if you can't actually do anythign until it's all done? Issues with thread synchronization will prevent multi-core CPU's from achivieng the kind of parallelization of some facets of the game engine that it can achieve in something like video encoding.

The pathfinding routine can't continue until it's received a vector from the AI routine, and the collission detection algoryth can't do it's work until it's received an updated location from pathfinding.

When you do things like render a 3D image or encode a video, except for a few steps, it doesn't matter when somethign gets done. You simply send a block of information to be processed and you get back your answer whenever you get it back. It's not important to synchronize much of anything. 

But that is not the case for a lot of stuff involved in a game engine. 

I'm not saying developers can't do better. I AM saying, however, that you won't see the same type fo parallelization advantages you see from tasks that are naturally predisposed for parallelization, like video encoding.

[QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

[QUOTE="ShadowriverUB"] But there 8 CPUs each can do something diffrent each work in 1,6GHz speed, ofcorse that requires developer skill to utilize it, but hey CPUs still can't naturally cross 4GHz barrier (but there rumors that that may be break soon), game developer need to learn how to use more then one threads in order to evolve games anyayronvalencia

It's not just about developing multi-threaded applications and optimizing parallel functions though. There are some workloads that just cannot be optimized in the same manner as 3D rendering can.

What good is having an AI routine, a pathfinding routine and a colliision detection routine all running in parallel, if you can't actually do anythign until it's all done? Issues with thread synchronization will prevent multi-core CPU's from achivieng the kind of parallelization of some facets of the game engine that it can achieve in something like video encoding.

The pathfinding routine can't continue until it's received a vector from the AI routine, and the collission detection algoryth can't do it's work until it's received an updated location from pathfinding.

When you do things like render a 3D image or encode a video, except for a few steps, it doesn't matter when somethign gets done. You simply send a block of information to be processed and you get back your answer whenever you get it back. It's not important to synchronize much of anything. 

But that is not the case for a lot of stuff involved in a game engine. 

I'm not saying developers can't do better. I AM saying, however, that you won't see the same type fo parallelization advantages you see from tasks that are naturally predisposed for parallelization, like video encoding.

Did you miss the part where I said things CAN be accellerated and CAN be processed in parallel? 'Cause that's what I said. However, there are inefficiences that are simply part of certian workloads required ina  game engine. 

Things will improve, however, you're never going to get a full game engine running in such a high parallel state as you could a video encoding. So bringing up vidoe encoding benchmarks into the discussions is a silyl thing to do IMHO.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Kinthalis"]

It's not just about developing multi-threaded applications and optimizing parallel functions though. There are some workloads that just cannot be optimized in the same manner as 3D rendering can.

What good is having an AI routine, a pathfinding routine and a colliision detection routine all running in parallel, if you can't actually do anythign until it's all done? Issues with thread synchronization will prevent multi-core CPU's from achivieng the kind of parallelization of some facets of the game engine that it can achieve in something like video encoding.

The pathfinding routine can't continue until it's received a vector from the AI routine, and the collission detection algoryth can't do it's work until it's received an updated location from pathfinding.

When you do things like render a 3D image or encode a video, except for a few steps, it doesn't matter when somethign gets done. You simply send a block of information to be processed and you get back your answer whenever you get it back. It's not important to synchronize much of anything.

But that is not the case for a lot of stuff involved in a game engine.

I'm not saying developers can't do better. I AM saying, however, that you won't see the same type fo parallelization advantages you see from tasks that are naturally predisposed for parallelization, like video encoding.

Kinthalis

Did you miss the part where I said things CAN be accellerated and CAN be processed in parallel? 'Cause that's what I said. However, there are inefficiences that are simply part of certian workloads required ina game engine.

Things will improve, however, you're never going to get a full game engine running in such a high parallel state as you could a video encoding. So bringing up vidoe encoding benchmarks into the discussions is a silyl thing to do IMHO.

Note that

1. PC GPU via DX wouldn't be able to create new tasks while HSA GPU can create new tasks.

2. PC GPU via DX wouldn't be able to generate an interrupt while HSA GPU can generate an interrupt.

3. PC GPU via DX doesn't support full C++ constructs while HSA GPU can support full C++ constructs.

4. PC DX doesn't directly expose AMD GCN's CU scalar processor. Each CU has a scalar processor with it's own register storage. CU's scalar processor was designed to advance GpGPU workload types.