Xbox One and PS4 CPU less than a quarter the grunt of a Core i5-3570K

The AMD Jaguar CPU that lies at the heart of both PS4 and Xbox One may not be the gaming beast we had expected.

Rock Paper Shotgun got its hands on an 4-core 1.5Ghz variant of the 8-core 1.6Ghz chip found in both consoles. It speculates that once the multitasking nature of both consoles is taken into account, only four cores are likely to be left for gaming computations.

The sites conclusions are less than encouraging.

"Is it any good? In a word, no. Not in a gaming context," it stated. "To be fair to AMD, the A4-5000 is a nice chip for its intended market - mobile devices at the cheaper end of the market." But as a gaming CPU?

"In raw processing terms, these four Jaguar cores have slightly less than a quarter the grunt of a Core i5-3570K. Its the same story on a core-by-core basis. Less than one quarter of the performance."

"On the one hand, it does rather look like [PC gamers will] pretty much never have to upgrade your CPU to cope with the next decade of console ports. Almost any half decent CPU you currently have will be game enough."

The same author has previously claimed that the Jaguar chip will even fall behind AMDs FX series by a margin of 50 per cent.

Good news for PC gamers, then. But what does it mean for the next-generation of games? Is the supposed generational leap offered by the new hardware actually going to hold gaming back?

"I just cant see how developers are going to really ramp up game engine technology with these CPU cores. Next-gen AI, fancy physics, dont see how its possible", the site adds.

"At this point, somebody will pitch up and opine that they'll shove some of that onto the GPU. But the graphics grunt in the new consoles is merely OK, so wheres the spare headroom? Pinching GPU resources will limit graphical fidelity. Then again, it might just mean nobody bothers at all and were doomed to suffer a future largely populated with console-compromised ports."

Sauce

mcvuk

ouch!

P.S. as usual, apologies if old.

he's not talking from console world programming, that was straight from pc way of things.

PS4 and Xone will expose the fact that you dont need expensive cpu's to run games. i repeat, to run games.

4 core =/= 8 core and u know both ms ans sony modified the chipslegalize82

Cause even if the OS doesn't take any resources, we're still less than 50% of a Core i5-3570K.

Low powered cores like these are going to severely limit what consles cna get accomplished next gen.

As mentioned, the GPU is merely adequate for "next gen" visuals. With no spare room on the CPU and no spare room on the GPU, we're not going to see much in terms of the sophisticated AI, physics, etc that devs have bene hyping up.

Except, perhaps on PC.

[quote="mcvuk"]

The AMD Jaguar CPU that lies at the heart of both PS4 and Xbox One may not be the gaming beast we had expected.

Rock Paper Shotgun got its hands on an 4-core 1.5Ghz variant of the 8-core 1.6Ghz chip found in both consoles. It speculates that once the multitasking nature of both consoles is taken into account, only four cores are likely to be left for gaming computations.

The sites conclusions are less than encouraging.

"Is it any good? In a word, no. Not in a gaming context," it stated. "To be fair to AMD, the A4-5000 is a nice chip for its intended market - mobile devices at the cheaper end of the market." But as a gaming CPU?

"In raw processing terms, these four Jaguar cores have slightly less than a quarter the grunt of a Core i5-3570K. Its the same story on a core-by-core basis. Less than one quarter of the performance."

"On the one hand, it does rather look like [PC gamers will] pretty much never have to upgrade your CPU to cope with the next decade of console ports. Almost any half decent CPU you currently have will be game enough."

The same author has previously claimed that the Jaguar chip will even fall behind AMDs FX series by a margin of 50 per cent.

Good news for PC gamers, then. But what does it mean for the next-generation of games? Is the supposed generational leap offered by the new hardware actually going to hold gaming back?

"I just cant see how developers are going to really ramp up game engine technology with these CPU cores. Next-gen AI, fancy physics, dont see how its possible", the site adds.

"At this point, somebody will pitch up and opine that they'll shove some of that onto the GPU. But the graphics grunt in the new consoles is merely OK, so wheres the spare headroom? Pinching GPU resources will limit graphical fidelity. Then again, it might just mean nobody bothers at all and were doomed to suffer a future largely populated with console-compromised ports."

Sauce

Mystery_Writer

ouch!

P.S. as usual, apologies if old.

AMD A6-5000 = quad core Jaguar @ 1.5 Ghz. 8 core Jaguar doubles the performance.

The key feature with AMD Jaguar is with the chip size i.e. you could fit 3 to 4 Jaguar cores with 1 Haswell core.

Within a given chip size budget, you could fit more GPU on the console.

On BOM basis, AMD Jaguar is the first X86-64 CPU to rival ARM Cortex A15. Intel Atom is not cost competitive enough against ARM Cortex A15. You don't win total war with German Tiger tanks.

Low powered cores like these are going to severely limit what consles cna get accomplished next gen.

As mentioned, the GPU is merely adequate for "next gen" visuals. With no spare room on the CPU and no spare room on the GPU, we're not going to see much in terms of the sophisticated AI, physics, etc that devs have bene hyping up.

Except, perhaps on PC.

Kinthalis

Guess my phenom won't need replacing then.

Consoles don't really need much CPU power.

A beefier GPU is more important for a console.

I would not be surprised if future console games will be programmed with the GPU in mind, also off-loading some CPU related tasks to it.

Both consoles are a modern, APU-like design with lots of memory, capable GPUs and decent CPUs.

Infact, this is the first gen where consoles actually have a comparable amount of RAM to most PCs.

In the previous gens the shortage of RAM was the biggest issue for the consoles.

8 Powerful Cores> 8 Low Powered Cores > 4 High Powered Cores

Graphics/Physics processing is all about threading/parallel processing. 8 high powered cores would be better, but this is fine. Better than the i5 actually.

PCers probably still won't have to upgrade though, as I don't think most PC developers are even utilizing 4 cores properly yet, despite the 360 being tricore, so I doubt they'll reach optimization for 8 cores for some time.

8 Powerful Cores> 8 Low Powered Cores > 4 High Powered Cores

Graphics/Physics processing is all about threading/parallel processing. 8 high powered cores would be better, but this is fine. Better than the i5 actually.

PCers probably still won't have to upgrade though, as I don't think most PC developers are even utilizing 4 cores properly yet, despite the 360 being tricore, so I doubt they'll reach optimization for 8 cores for some time.

shadowlusterx

On physics, AMD GCN (i.e. 8790M) with 6 CUs murders intel Core i5-2500K.

Consoles doesn't have PC's issue with 60ms DX11 compute shader results turn around (feed back to CPU for game play processing). AMD bypass this DX issue with HSA for Windows software. Read http://www.slideshare.net/zlatan4177/gpgpu-algorithms-in-games

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 equipped with the same GPU would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

[QUOTE="shadowlusterx"]

8 Powerful Cores> 8 Low Powered Cores > 4 High Powered Cores

Graphics/Physics processing is all about threading/parallel processing. 8 high powered cores would be better, but this is fine. Better than the i5 actually.

PCers probably still won't have to upgrade though, as I don't think most PC developers are even utilizing 4 cores properly yet, despite the 360 being tricore, so I doubt they'll reach optimization for 8 cores for some time.

ronvalencia

On physics, AMD GCN (i.e. 8790M) with 6 CUs murders intel Core i5-2500K.

Consoles doesn't have PC's issue with 60ms DX11 compute shader results turn around. AMD bypass this DX issue with HSA for Windows software.

I agree with your overall point, but isn't that benchmark super flawed? Like... Intel 4000 graphics beats the 670M (And the 3570k).

7850 also completely destroys 3570k... and even beats TITAN by a good margin. O.o

So yes, putting everything on the GPU would be easy and nice. But you have to be using the CPU for something. :P

Rovalencia sharing the language of the Gods .. always nice to see. Even I have trouble comprehending on occasions, i'll have to ascend back into the heavens before my brain turns into consolite mush!

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7!).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

Mystery_Writer

Your point is?

The Intel Q6600 ran circles around PS3's and 360's CPUs too.

Still didn't prevent them from being successful game systems.

And you're still missing the point he's trying to make - within the given budget, cooling and form-factor limitations, those CPUs are good.

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 equipped with the same GPU would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

Mystery_Writer

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7!).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

nameless12345

Your point is?

The Intel Q6600 ran circles around PS3's and 360's CPUs too.

Still didn't prevent them from being successful game systems.

And you're still missing the point he's trying to make - within the given budget, cooling and form-factor limitations, those CPUs are good.

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 equipped with the same GPU would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

shadowlusterx

But even the GPU isn't powerful. I once asked ronvelancia on whether or not the new console GPUs (when first leaked) are more powerful than my more than 2 years old HD 6990. And he said, no they're not.

So, what kind of a cheap hardware went into those consoles?

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7!).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

Mystery_Writer

Your point is?

The Intel Q6600 ran circles around PS3's and 360's CPUs too.

Still didn't prevent them from being successful game systems.

And you're still missing the point he's trying to make - within the given budget, cooling and form-factor limitations, those CPUs are good.

Me?

I already implyed what I think.

I'd personally rather see Sony and MS expanding on their previous Power architecture (for the sake of backwards compatibility) but the given CPUs will do the job.

Devs can always resort to GPGPU if they want to.

He didn't try the supercharged version. BTW, Ps4 is designed to move a lot of the computation to the GPU as Cerny explained during the conference.

[QUOTE="shadowlusterx"][QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 equipped with the same GPU would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

Mystery_Writer

But even the GPU isn't powerful. I once asked ronvelancia on whether or not the new console GPUs (when first leaked) are more powerful than my more than 2 years old HD 6990. And he said, no they're not.

So, what kind of a cheap hardware went into those consoles?

So you want them to make a high-end desktop PC instead of a compact-case games console?

It seems to me some people were expecting super computers instead of gaming consoles...

[QUOTE="shadowlusterx"][QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 equipped with the same GPU would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

Mystery_Writer

But even the GPU isn't powerful. I once asked ronvelancia on whether or not the new console GPUs (when first leaked) are more powerful than my more than 2 years old HD 6990. And he said, no they're not.

So, what kind of a cheap hardware went into those consoles?

Consoles don't really need much CPU power.

A beefier GPU is more important for a console.

I would not be surprised if future console games will be programmed with the GPU in mind, also off-loading some CPU related tasks to it.

Both consoles are a modern, APU-like design with lots of memory, capable GPUs and decent CPUs.

Infact, this is the first gen where consoles actually have a comparable amount of RAM to most PCs.

In the previous gens the shortage of RAM was the biggest issue for the consoles.

nameless12345

Not much new her ein this thread, no matter of optimation can make the consoles compare, nor do they need to.

As usual I will reserve judgement tilll I see concrete coding lines, as proof of what they are or are not capable of.

But if they turn out too weak to give any leap in AI and the like, then there might be an entirely different reason why this gen of consoles might be the last.

It has been some strange months here, These consoles are far inferior to the 360 and PS3 when they came out, yet it might prove overall more flexible and cost performance superior.

Expecting these consoles to crush PCs are halfway a joke, all games will likel take a good kick up, since the playingfield in graphics and tools used will be more similar again, but expecting the consoles to perform like a higher end gaming pc will likely be a mistake.

The first party titles will be nice to see, only 1 hardware combination to focus at, will portray how the consoles CAN look, so far most of what we have seen are multiplats, and despite multiplats overall should be far better optimized and quicker to squeeze good performance out of the consoles, I think it is the exclusives that will be the first true demonstration of the consoles. Strengths and flaws.

Alot of technical info gets thrown around here, alot of it purely theoretic, so I will not even try to guess at which and what might be the more precise.

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

[QUOTE="shadowlusterx"] I'm interpreting his post completely differently from you. If the GPU can destroy the CPU in most every type of processing necessary for games, why even use the CPU all that much (hence GPGPU).nameless12345

But even the GPU isn't powerful. I once asked ronvelancia on whether or not the new console GPUs (when first leaked) are more powerful than my more than 2 years old HD 6990. And he said, no they're not.

So, what kind of a cheap hardware went into those consoles?

So you want them to make a high-end desktop PC instead of a compact-case games console?

It seems to me some people were expecting super computers instead of gaming consoles...

[QUOTE="nameless12345"]

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

But even the GPU isn't powerful. I once asked ronvelancia on whether or not the new console GPUs (when first leaked) are more powerful than my more than 2 years old HD 6990. And he said, no they're not.

So, what kind of a cheap hardware went into those consoles?

C_Rule

So you want them to make a high-end desktop PC instead of a compact-case games console?

It seems to me some people were expecting super computers instead of gaming consoles...

Resolution and framerate are developer's choice.

And I think Sony did say they are targeting the resolution and framerate you mentioned.

Textures should be fine given the amount of RAM they have on offer.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="nameless12345"]

 

So you want them to make a high-end desktop PC instead of a compact-case games console?

It seems to me some people were expecting super computers instead of gaming consoles...

nameless12345

Resolution and framerate are developer's choice.

And I think Sony did say they are targeting the resolution and framerate you mentioned.

Textures should be fine given the amount of RAM they have on offer.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="shadowlusterx"]

8 Powerful Cores> 8 Low Powered Cores > 4 High Powered Cores

Graphics/Physics processing is all about threading/parallel processing. 8 high powered cores would be better, but this is fine. Better than the i5 actually.

PCers probably still won't have to upgrade though, as I don't think most PC developers are even utilizing 4 cores properly yet, despite the 360 being tricore, so I doubt they'll reach optimization for 8 cores for some time.

shadowlusterx

On physics, AMD GCN (i.e. 8790M) with 6 CUs murders intel Core i5-2500K.

Consoles doesn't have PC's issue with 60ms DX11 compute shader results turn around. AMD bypass this DX issue with HSA for Windows software.

I agree with your overall point, but isn't that benchmark super flawed? Like... Intel 4000 graphics beats the 670M (And the 3570k).

7850 also completely destroys 3570k... and even beats TITAN by a good margin. O.o

So yes, putting everything on the GPU would be easy and nice. But you have to be using the CPU for something. :P

[QUOTE="Mystery_Writer"]

@ronvalencia

Those charts paint such a grim picture of next gen. Core i5 equipped with the same GPU would run circles around both next gen consoles according to this (let alone i7).

Where you expecting this low level of performance when the specs first leaked about Jaguar capabilities?

shadowlusterx

PC has a problem with DX's compute latency i.e. the problem is with the software infrastructure. The hardware is ready but the software (i.e. the Microsoft factor) is gimping PC hardware. Microsoft is not offering "Xbox OS" software for OEM gaming PCs.

For AMD's POV on this issue, please read http://www.slideshare.net/zlatan4177/gpgpu-algorithms-in-games

NVIDIA has TCC driver to solve DX/WDDM's compute latency but the problem is with the interop with Direct3D. i.e. the TCC driver is targeting servers first not gaming PCs.

Both NVIDIA and AMD may follow Intel's lead in kitbashing DirectX with real direct access APIs.

The next gen consoles are just PCs without Microsoft's DX/WDDM gimping PC's GPUs.

A fully fledged desktop CPU beats a tablet type CPU? shocking.

I hope those CPUs don't hold back the next consoles cos the rest of the systems sound pretty decent

[QUOTE="shadowlusterx"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

 

On physics, AMD GCN (i.e. 8790M) with 6 CUs murders intel Core i5-2500K.

 

 

Consoles doesn't have PC's issue with 60ms DX11 compute shader results turn around. AMD bypass this DX issue with HSA for Windows software.

 

 

clyde46

I agree with your overall point, but isn't that benchmark super flawed? Like... Intel 4000 graphics beats the 670M (And the 3570k).

7850 also completely destroys 3570k... and even beats TITAN by a good margin. O.o

So yes, putting everything on the GPU would be easy and nice. But you have to be using the CPU for something. :P

I agree with your overall point, but isn't that benchmark super flawed? Like... Intel 4000 graphics beats the 670M (And the 3570k).

7850 also completely destroys 3570k... and even beats TITAN by a good margin. O.o

So yes, putting everything on the GPU would be easy and nice. But you have to be using the CPU for something. :P

shadowlusterx

Watch as they reply with "Optimization"NoodleFighter

[quote="mcvuk"]

The AMD Jaguar CPU that lies at the heart of both PS4 and Xbox One may not be the gaming beast we had expected.

Rock Paper Shotgun got its hands on an 4-core 1.5Ghz variant of the 8-core 1.6Ghz chip found in both consoles. It speculates that once the multitasking nature of both consoles is taken into account, only four cores are likely to be left for gaming computations.

The sites conclusions are less than encouraging.

"Is it any good? In a word, no. Not in a gaming context," it stated. "To be fair to AMD, the A4-5000 is a nice chip for its intended market - mobile devices at the cheaper end of the market." But as a gaming CPU?

"In raw processing terms, these four Jaguar cores have slightly less than a quarter the grunt of a Core i5-3570K. Its the same story on a core-by-core basis. Less than one quarter of the performance."

"On the one hand, it does rather look like [PC gamers will] pretty much never have to upgrade your CPU to cope with the next decade of console ports. Almost any half decent CPU you currently have will be game enough."

The same author has previously claimed that the Jaguar chip will even fall behind AMDs FX series by a margin of 50 per cent.

Good news for PC gamers, then. But what does it mean for the next-generation of games? Is the supposed generational leap offered by the new hardware actually going to hold gaming back?

"I just cant see how developers are going to really ramp up game engine technology with these CPU cores. Next-gen AI, fancy physics, dont see how its possible", the site adds.

"At this point, somebody will pitch up and opine that they'll shove some of that onto the GPU. But the graphics grunt in the new consoles is merely OK, so wheres the spare headroom? Pinching GPU resources will limit graphical fidelity. Then again, it might just mean nobody bothers at all and were doomed to suffer a future largely populated with console-compromised ports."

Sauce

Mystery_Writer

ouch!

P.S. as usual, apologies if old.

The whole article is a piece of sh**,even the xbox one who has a more taxing OS leave 6 cores for gaming,the PS4 is say to use all for gaming,since it has an extra ARM CPU for background task.

There is no 8 core Jaguar on PC.

Old and inaccurate.SaltyMeatballs

Like I said in my latter post, AMD dominates in compute performance so it's no shock to see the 7850 beating the Titan in compute performance.faizan_faizan

This ^^^ is something in which the PS4 GPU has been modify.

The GCN the PS4 GPU is based on has 4 compute queues 2 Aces,the PS4 one has 64 compute queues and 8 Aces,it was one of the customizations done to the GPU,the PS4 will hardness thant compute power way better than any PC with GCN ever will.

Then it will use cache by pass,and its CPU has out of order execution so no stallments,if one job stall another just pass,the PS4 can also run both compute and graphics at the same time.

This is the reason why the PS4 doesn't need a I7 CPU,a fraction of that GPU for compute will boost that CPU to hell and beyond.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]Like I said in my latter post, AMD dominates in compute performance so it's no shock to see the 7850 beating the Titan in compute performance.tormentos

This ^^^ is something in which the PS4 GPU has been modify.

The GCN the PS4 GPU is based on has 4 compute queues 2 Aces,the PS4 one has 64 compute queues and 8 Aces,it was one of the customizations done to the GPU,the PS4 will hardness thant compute power way better than any PC with GCN ever will.

Then it will use cache by pass,and its CPU has out of order execution so no stallments,if one job stall another just pass,the PS4 can also run both compute and graphics at the same time.

This is the reason why the PS4 doesn't need a I7 CPU,a fraction of that GPU for compute will boost that CPU to hell and beyond.

For cache bypass, use GCN's OpenCL Atomic instructions. Somebody is not reading their AMD's OpenCL docs.

Read and learn from http://www.whatmannerofburgeristhis.com/blog/gcn-opencl-memory-fences-update-and-inline-ptx/

Use atomics to bypass the L1 cache if you need strong memory consistency across workgroups

From http://developer.amd.com/resources/heterogeneous-computing/what-is-heterogeneous-system-architecture-hsa/

The HSA team at AMD analyzed the performance of Haar Face Detect, a commonly used multi-stage video analysis algorithm used to identify faces in a video stream. The team compared a CPU/GPU implementation in OpenCL against an HSA implementation. The HSA version seamlessly shares data between CPU and GPU, without memory copies or cache flushes because it assigns each part of the workload to the most appropriate processor with minimal dispatch overhead.

Should this be important to me?.............Because,this is not important to me.:)

For cache bypass, use GCN's OpenCL Atomic instructions. Somebody is not reading their AMD's OpenCL docs.ronvalencia

Yeah because the majority of games on PC are done with OpenCL and not DirectX...:lol:

By the way funny did not saw you talk about the 64 compute queues and 8 Aces vs GCN 4 compute queues an 2 Aces,some things on the PS4 GPU were modified,to take advantage AMD great compute performance which know exist.

By the way did i say Cache bypass was PS4 exclusive there.?

I'd love to see their reasoning behind only 4 CPU cores being available for games given that we already know Killzone Shadowfall was running on six cores back in February.

EDIT: FTA

Dunno about you, but when I watched that quick-switching, multi-tasking demo for the new Xbox One, I distinctly got the impression that the trick involves keeping everything running all the time.

And that makes me think the CPU cores are going to be partitioned. In other words, games are likely only going to have access to a limited number of cores. On that note, the Jaguar CPU architecture essentially groups cores in modules of four.

Communications between those modules are sub optimal compared to core-to-core comms between cores in a module. That only lends weight to the idea that both consoles will use one quad-core module for games and the other for everything else.

So his reasoning was as silly as I thought it was. No basis is provided for why communication would be sub-optimal (is it even confirmed that we're talking about 2 4-core dies?) and the facts and rumors we know of up to this point directly contradict it.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] For cache bypass, use GCN's OpenCL Atomic instructions. Somebody is not reading their AMD's OpenCL docs.tormentos

Yeah because the majority of games on PC are done with OpenCL and not DirectX...:lol:

By the way funny did not saw you talk about the 64 compute queues and 8 Aces vs GCN 4 compute queues an 2 Aces,some things on the PS4 GPU were modified,to take advantage AMD great compute performance which know exist.

By the way did i say Cache bypass was PS4 exclusive there.?