Official Playstation Magazine Builds a PS4

Using the specs that have been released, OPM has gone and built it's own PS4 (or Orbis, what ever you want to call it). In case you have have forgotten or simply haven't been following, the rumoured specs for the PS4 are an AMD "Llano" A8 3850 CPU (2.9 GHz) and a HD 7670, which is nearly identical to the year old HD 6670, which itself is only a low-end card.

OPM first benchmarked it with Cinebench R11.5, in which it scored a 3.5. In comparison they tested a PC with the i70 2700K, which scored a 7.02 , in other words, the CPU on the PS4 sucks.

Of course they also tested the "PS4" on some games, with maxed out GFX setting and at 720p (yep not even 1080p).

On Just Cause 2 they managed to get 21 FPS, not exactly the greatest even at 720p.

On Bulletstorm the "PS4" managed a solid 30 FPS, which is aligned with PS3, wof course the "PS4" version looked better.

Then of course, they played Skyrim, with the HD texture pack as well and managed about 27 FPS.

So overall it doesn't look too good for the PS4 if the rumoured specs are true. Now I am leaving some stuff from the article out but I put in the main details. If you want to see what else they said you can find the article here

seems to me psm are a bunch of morons...most people with functioning brains know that a pc will not have equivilent preformance being a general computing device compared to a console which is a dedicated device.
A pc would require more and more power to bring out its optimum preformance on console where the game is created for that system in mind....

seems to me psm are a bunch of morons...most people with functioning brains know that a pc will not have equivilent preformance being a general computing device compared to a console which is a dedicated device.
A pc would require more and more power to bring out its optimum preformance on console where the game is created for that system in mind....

WilliamRLBaker

Exactly. The amount of optimization on PC games is minimal compared to console games. It could produce great graphics if developers are given time.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

seems to me psm are a bunch of morons...most people with functioning brains know that a pc will not have equivilent preformance being a general computing device compared to a console which is a dedicated device.
A pc would require more and more power to bring out its optimum preformance on console where the game is created for that system in mind....

hoola

Exactly. The amount of optimization on PC games is minimal compared to console games. It could produce great graphics if developers are given time.

21 FPS in Just Cause 2? So this thing is weaker than the PS3?

21 FPS in Just Cause 2? So this thing is weaker than the PS3?

BPoole96

No.

They screrwed up the benchmarks as well. That card gets over 40 FPS in all those games at 1080p

Apparently they ran the games at 1080p 8X AA, 16X AF, Vsync And hjigh settings and then had the audacity of trying to compare it to a console running the games on medium-low, No AA, little if any AF, and SUB HD resolutions.

:roll:

Unfortunately this all Sony could afford on their budget

I didn't think you could even crossfire a 76xx GPU with the A8 APU? So most likely these guys are just morons when it comes to building a PC and are not even using both GPU's anyway, let alone installing the proper drivers, etc.2Chalupas

This might be the case. If they were running off of the APU's GPU instead of the discreet one, or WERE runnign crossfire, but with a set of drivers that did not include Xfire profiles for these games or posisbly didn't support x-fire with an APU, that too might explain it.

They probnably used the drivers that came on the disc! HAHAHA!

Only thing they build was pc.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

21 FPS in Just Cause 2? So this thing is weaker than the PS3?

Kinthalis

No.

They screrwed up the benchmarks as well. That card gets over 40 FPS in all those games at 1080p

Apparently they ran the games at 1080p 8X AA, 16X AF, Vsync And hjigh settings and then had the audacity of trying to compare it to a console running the games on medium-low, No AA, little if any AF, and SUB HD resolutions.

:roll:

Stupid console noobs.

For some reason, I just think that the fact that they bothered doing that means that the ps4 is most likely gonna be more powerful than that

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

21 FPS in Just Cause 2? So this thing is weaker than the PS3?

Kinthalis

No.

They screrwed up the benchmarks as well. That card gets over 40 FPS in all those games at 1080p

Apparently they ran the games at 1080p 8X AA, 16X AF, Vsync And hjigh settings and then had the audacity of trying to compare it to a console running the games on medium-low, No AA, little if any AF, and SUB HD resolutions.

:roll:

Wow that is stupid. I didn't read the link, I just went by what was in the OP.

Using the specs that have been released, OPM has gone and built it's own PS4 (or Orbis, what ever you want to call it). In case you have have forgotten or simply haven't been following, the rumoured specs for the PS4 are an AMD "Llano" A8 3850 CPU (2.9 GHz) and a HD 7670, which is nearly identical to the year old HD 6670, which itself is only a low-end card.

OPM first benchmarked it with Cinebench R11.5, in which it scored a 3.5. In comparison they tested a PC with the i70 2700K, which scored a 7.02 , in other words, the CPU on the PS4 sucks.

Of course they also tested the "PS4" on some games, with maxed out GFX setting and at 720p (yep not even 1080p).

On Just Cause 2 they managed to get 21 FPS, not exactly the greatest even at 720p.

On Bulletstorm the "PS4" managed a solid 30 FPS, which is aligned with PS3, wof course the "PS4" version looked better.

Then of course, they played Skyrim, with the HD texture pack as well and managed about 27 FPS.

So overall it doesn't look too good for the PS4 if the rumoured specs are true. Now I am leaving some stuff from the article out but I put in the main details. If you want to see what else they said you can find the article here

EliteM0nk3y

In terms of instructions per cycle, IBM PPE is worst than IBM PowerPC 970.

"Just Cause 2" is a known NVIDIA title i.e. try Deus Ex HR instead.

Some time in Q2 2012, AMD Llano APU will be replace by AMD Trinity APU.

Some time in Q1 2013, AMD Trinity APU will be replaced by AMD Kaveri APU.

Cows are insane if they think they're getting a powerful console with Sony's financial troubles.

They'd be lucky to even get this.

Cows are insane if they think they're getting a powerful console with Sony's financial troubles.

They'd be lucky to even get this.

groverslanding

A console get's much more optimisation for a game from it's hardware thats a fact. If the Xbox 360 was a computer it would be super underwhelming but it's held up fine because

Console games get maximum optimisation, seeing as the devs only need to make it pefect for that console rather than several different builds of PC's

And It has less tasks to handle. A pc is doing many more things at one time.

If this worries anyone, I'm sorry but you don't know anything

I'm sure that A8 can benchmark higher than that.

Let's put things into a better perspective:HD 7670 vs RSX

>HD 7670:

800 MHz engine clock

1GB GDDR5 memory

1000 MHz memory clock (4.0 Gbps GDDR5)

64 GB/s memory bandwidth

768 GFLOPS Single Precision compute power

TeraScale 2 Unified Processing Architecture

----480 Stream Processing Units

24 Texture Units

>RSX:

550 MHz

256 MB GDDR3 RAM @700 MHz

----24 parallel pixel-shader ALU pipes clocked @ 550 MHz

----8 parallel vertex pipelines @550 MHz

24 texture filtering units and 8 vertex texture addressing units

32 unfiltered texture samples per clock

128-bit memory bus width

Based on this the HD7670 destroys the RSX by a 10 year advantage. I mean, 480 stream processors @800mhz VS only 24 pixel and 8 pipelines @550mhz on the RSX (pixel and pipelines separated because of archaic architecture, at this point of time ATI was ahead of Nvidia), now you do the math. Right now the Intel HD has more stream processors and is faster than the RSX!!!!!! But try to run Modern Warfare 3 at 720p and 60 frames on that thing (and with only 512MB of Ram).... :shock:

But let me say that the CPU is indeed weak compared to the Cell. If I were Sony I would continue using the Cell because why put something weaker on he PS4? And beside, developers already know how to work it and Sony has reduced the transistor's size quite a lot.

Let's put things into a better perspective:HD 7670 vs RSX

>HD 7670:

800 MHz engine clock

1GB GDDR5 memory

1000 MHz memory clock (4.0 Gbps GDDR5)

64 GB/s memory bandwidth

768 GFLOPS Single Precision compute power

TeraScale 2 Unified Processing Architecture

----480 Stream Processing Units

24 Texture Units

>RSX:

550 MHz

256 MB GDDR3 RAM @700 MHz

----24 parallel pixel-shader ALU pipes clocked @ 550 MHz

----8 parallel vertex pipelines @550 MHz

24 texture filtering units and 8 vertex texture addressing units

32 unfiltered texture samples per clock

128-bit memory bus width

Based on this the HD7670 destroys the RSX by a 10 year advantage. I mean, 480 stream processors @800mhz VS only 24 pixel and 8 pipelines @550mhz on the RSX (pixel and pipelines separated because of archaic architecture, at this point of time ATI was ahead of Nvidia), now you do the math. Right now the Intel HD has more stream processors and is faster than the RSX!!!!!! But try to run Modern Warfare 3 at 720p and 60 frames on that thing (and with only 512MB of Ram).... :shock:

But let me say that the CPU is indeed weak compared to the Cell. If I were Sony I would continue using the Cell because why put something weaker on he PS4? And beside, developers already know how to work it and Sony has reduced the transistor's size quite a lot.

Gue1

gonna step in and say this isnt exactly going to be bang on.

remember the ps4 would use specialsed API's a processor set BASED off these if this rumour is believed to be true AND there would be more close to metal coding on the gpu side of things when it came to the actual engine coding.

Yeah....not that bright OPM...

It actually don't work like that, but I guess we all know that :) Nice comparison by the way

SO they were running games in 1080p with 16xAA and 16xAF and still gettint 30FPS with a 7670? thats pretty darn amazing. and they also have the GPU on the CPU to use to.

What a waste of money

Let's put things into a better perspective:HD 7670 vs RSX

>HD 7670:

800 MHz engine clock

1GB GDDR5 memory

1000 MHz memory clock (4.0 Gbps GDDR5)

64 GB/s memory bandwidth

768 GFLOPS Single Precision compute power

TeraScale 2 Unified Processing Architecture

----480 Stream Processing Units

24 Texture Units

>RSX:

550 MHz

256 MB GDDR3 RAM @700 MHz

----24 parallel pixel-shader ALU pipes clocked @ 550 MHz

----8 parallel vertex pipelines @550 MHz

24 texture filtering units and 8 vertex texture addressing units

32 unfiltered texture samples per clock

128-bit memory bus width

Based on this the HD7670 destroys the RSX by a 10 year advantage. I mean, 480 stream processors @800mhz VS only 24 pixel and 8 pipelines @550mhz on the RSX (pixel and pipelines separated because of archaic architecture, at this point of time ATI was ahead of Nvidia), now you do the math. Right now the Intel HD has more stream processors and is faster than the RSX!!!!!! But try to run Modern Warfare 3 at 720p and 60 frames on that thing (and with only 512MB of Ram).... :shock:

But let me say that the CPU is indeed weak compared to the Cell. If I were Sony I would continue using the Cell because why put something weaker on he PS4? And beside, developers already know how to work it and Sony has reduced the transistor's size quite a lot.

Gue1

You are forgeting AMD's APU *is* AMD's answer to IBM's CELL i.e. Radeon HD's SPUs can do similar parallel bias workloads as CELL's SPUs.

For excample, the non-graphics application WinZIP 16.5 has support for AMD's OpenCL GpGPU acceleration.

By the test conducted by OPM, the PS4's specs would be absolutely disappointing if the rumour is true. It's way underpowered. I'm expecting hell a lot more than that.

Using the specs that have been released, OPM has gone and built it's own PS4 (or Orbis, what ever you want to call it). In case you have have forgotten or simply haven't been following, the rumoured specs for the PS4 are an AMD "Llano" A8 3850 CPU (2.9 GHz) and a HD 7670, which is nearly identical to the year old HD 6670, which itself is only a low-end card.

OPM first benchmarked it with Cinebench R11.5, in which it scored a 3.5. In comparison they tested a PC with the i70 2700K, which scored a 7.02 , in other words, the CPU on the PS4 sucks.

Of course they also tested the "PS4" on some games, with maxed out GFX setting and at 720p (yep not even 1080p).

On Just Cause 2 they managed to get 21 FPS, not exactly the greatest even at 720p.

On Bulletstorm the "PS4" managed a solid 30 FPS, which is aligned with PS3, wof course the "PS4" version looked better.

Then of course, they played Skyrim, with the HD texture pack as well and managed about 27 FPS.

So overall it doesn't look too good for the PS4 if the rumoured specs are true. Now I am leaving some stuff from the article out but I put in the main details. If you want to see what else they said you can find the article here

EliteM0nk3y

link

At max settings

By the test conducted by OPM, the PS4's specs would be absolutely disappointing if the rumour is true. It's way underpowered. I'm expecting hell a lot more than that.

GamerwillzPS

For the development machine, AMD haven't released AMD Trinity and AMD Kaveri APUs.

seems to me psm are a bunch of morons...most people with functioning brains know that a pc will not have equivilent preformance being a general computing device compared to a console which is a dedicated device.
A pc would require more and more power to bring out its optimum preformance on console where the game is created for that system in mind....

WilliamRLBaker

seems to me psm are a bunch of morons...most people with functioning brains know that a pc will not have equivilent preformance being a general computing device compared to a console which is a dedicated device.
A pc would require more and more power to bring out its optimum preformance on console where the game is created for that system in mind....

WilliamRLBaker

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

seems to me psm are a bunch of morons...most people with functioning brains know that a pc will not have equivilent preformance being a general computing device compared to a console which is a dedicated device.
A pc would require more and more power to bring out its optimum preformance on console where the game is created for that system in mind....

RyviusARC

[QUOTE="RyviusARC"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

seems to me psm are a bunch of morons...most people with functioning brains know that a pc will not have equivilent preformance being a general computing device compared to a console which is a dedicated device.
A pc would require more and more power to bring out its optimum preformance on console where the game is created for that system in mind....

tormentos

That doesn't change anything.

Yes, the requirements of the OS on memory are larger than what's ona console, but IF YOU COMPENSATE FOR IT. nothign changes that much.

An x1900XT is no longer supported by drivers, so it's hard to compare performance wiht that exact card.

Instead do the following: Use a modern GPU that PERFORMS the same as an x1900XT (this bypasses the nod river support issue). Make sure the game uses the same amount of RAM/VRAM as it does on cosnoles, but provide enough for the Os as well.

Now run the game.

According to you consolites, the game should run 10 times better on the console, because the magic of console OPTIMIZATION! OMG! automagically turns a 7 year old GPU into 2 GTX 680's in SLI, or something.

The reality is that the console version WILL perform better, but not by much. It might hold 30 FPS more steadily, it might have a slightly longer view distance, but that's it.

That's what optomization does.

Look, next gen consoles will be optimizing both ahrdware and software. They WILL be able to squeeze more performance out of the hardware than a PC could.

BUT FOR THE UMPTEETH time. NO it will not give you anythign close to 100%, much less 10,000% as the poster above suggests in performance improvement! Jeebus on a pogo stick, come back to relaity consolites!

@kinthalis y u so nerd rage?

For everyone saying Sony can't afford another high end system, lets take a look at Sega. Sega wasn't doing so well when the Dreamcast launched and it was pretty damn powerful for the time. True the DC failed, but the PS4 isn't going up against the hype machine and cheap dvd player that the PS2 was.

For everyone saying Sony can't afford another high end system, lets take a look at Sega. Sega wasn't doing so well when the Dreamcast launched and it was pretty damn powerful for the time. True the DC failed, but the PS4 isn't going up against the hype machine and cheap dvd player that the PS2 was.

Uloset

What? Thats a terrible example :lol:

The failure of the dreamcast knocked Sega down to third party. The same will happen to Sony.

@kinthalis y u so nerd rage?

razgriz_101

[QUOTE="Uloset"]

For everyone saying Sony can't afford another high end system, lets take a look at Sega. Sega wasn't doing so well when the Dreamcast launched and it was pretty damn powerful for the time. True the DC failed, but the PS4 isn't going up against the hype machine and cheap dvd player that the PS2 was.

RR360DD

What? Thats a terrible example :lol:

The failure of the dreamcast knocked Sega down to third party. The same will happen to Sony.

Umm did you read the 2nd half of my statement. Nothing next gen is going to have the hype behind it that the PS2, that killed the DC more than anything.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

seems to me psm are a bunch of morons...most people with functioning brains know that a pc will not have equivilent preformance being a general computing device compared to a console which is a dedicated device.
A pc would require more and more power to bring out its optimum preformance on console where the game is created for that system in mind....

RyviusARC