For what purpose does a PS4 need 8 weak cores?

[john5220]

I have wondered this, for example most games today only use 1 or 2 cores at most. Games that claim to need 4 cores actually run better on 2 faster cores, so so much for quad core requirements.

Therefore how exactly are devs planning to use 8 cores for gaming on consoles? is it not a bad design and a total waste of time, money and resources to have put in 8 weak cores in a PS4?

why not just 3 or 4 cores?

Why not let Intel build a Pentium G dual core or an i3 for the PS4? would it not have been better than 8 x 1.6 GHZ AMD cores?
How come AMD managed to beat intel and nvidia when it came to getting the contract for both Microsoft and Sony?

Or why not a fully powered 100% intel PS4 with iris pro? maybe even beefing up iris pro just for the PS4?

 

[jpiniero]

Jaguar's MT perf/watt is way higher than the constructor equipment line. You have to remember that the CPU on the consoles is only being budgeted like 20-25 W and the constructor equipment's efficiency is terrible at that low of TDP.

 

[SPBHM]

I think the choice was basically 8 slow cores or less slow cores, because it's what AMD could offer for what Sony wanted to pay... they've learned the lesson with "Cell" and went with something much cheaper this time, and it seems to be working well, good sales, games looking a lot better than the last gen...

also developers will adapt to the hardware they have... just look at the games released for the PS3 during 2011-2013... they've managed to use the weird Cell and slow geforce 7 with limited memory extremely well... I'm sure if devs have access to 8 cores and need more performance they are going to find a way to use it well, but it might take a lot of time and money, which means a lot of games might not use all the cores to well... like some early PS3 games ignored the SPEs and only used the single PPC core basically, but at the end of the day it's was the correct choice for sony to use Jaguar, given the options at the time.

 

[BSim500]

The main reason (other than cost) is simply that consoles are designed with a permitted TDP / power consumption envelope (under 140w or so for the whole system, ie, split across CPU + GPU + memory + optical drive + PSU efficiency losses, etc), and AMD's +95w "big cores" (eg, FX range) draw too much power (even the 4-core FX-4350 which pulls +85w or so would leave less than 50w for the GPU and everything else). And despite the hype, even the top-end APU (A10-7850K) still runs less than half the speed of even the slower XBox's 7790 equivalent dGPU GFX. So the Jaguar's are really all that AMD had that could "fit" within the CPU's sub 50w budget without severely nerfing the GPU side of things way down to the point of unplayability.

As for alternative solutions (ie, a 50w Haswell i3 / low clocked i5 "S" chip + 50w Maxwell 750Ti or even waiting for a 22nm die shrunk version of the 7870 card or upcoming GTX 960) sure that would have been far better for performance overall, but they weren't around when they were planned (and still aren't today). It's just a bit sad in general that the "next gen" consoles came at a fairly stagnant time when GPU's and certainly AMD CPU's should have been moving to a better at least 22nm smaller process allowing higher performance within the same thermal / energy specs, but stagnated on the same 28/32nm processes combined with the usual generational "rebranding" instead of bringing Maxwell (and AMD equivalent) forward a year earlier, and maybe delaying "next gen" for one year to accommodate that (knowing it will have to last another 6-7 years until +2020).

 

[monstercameron]

actually steamroller's fab process is actually more efficient at lower clocks and provides slightly more performance clock-for-clock than jaguar cores. efficiency at clocks lower than ~2GHz is pretty good, you have to take into account the die size aswell, where 4 steamroller modules should be larger than 8 core/2 cluster of jaguar cores.

 

[railven]

There is only two real reasons:

The biggest is cost. Sony didn't want to lose money as quickly as it did with the PS3. So they copied the Nintendo Wii playbook. Crappy hardware on the cheap.

The second biggest is power, engineers already said they had a hard 250W power limit.

All in all, they made a decent console that feels out of date and it's only a year old.

 

[NTMBK]

No DirectX bottleneck like on PC. Console APIs are much thinner, and more like DX12; they scale better with core count.

 

[R0H1T]

There is only two real reasons:

The biggest is cost. Sony didn't want to lose money as quickly as it did with the PS3. So they copied the Nintendo Wii playbook. Crappy hardware on the cheap.

The second biggest is power, engineers already said they had a hard 250W power limit.

All in all, they made a decent console that feels out of date and it's only a year old.

I wonder if Intel, Nvidia et al could deliver that level of CPU+GPU perf in the same power envelope & at 28nm, like ever if at all

The fact is that consoles needed an x86 chip & AMD managed the best possible solution which the likes of MS, Sony could afford & not lose money on from day one.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Really, I wonder if Intel, Nvidia et al could deliver the level of CPU+GPU perf in that power envelope & at 28nm, like ever if at all

Why would Intel need to use any 28nm process here? When the PS4/XBox One shipped, Intel had been well into the ramp of its 22-nanometer process. I'm sure porting over a Kepler GPU to 22nm for integration wouldn't have been the hardest thing in the world from a technical perspective.

From a business perspective, would have been a mess.

That said...I say congratulations to AMD for putting out a well-designed console chip and getting it out in time. They executed well and need to be given credit for the good job they did.

 

[railven]

I wonder if Intel, Nvidia et al could deliver that level of CPU+GPU perf in the same power envelope & at 28nm, like ever if at all

The fact is that consoles needed an x86 chip & AMD managed the best possible solution which the likes of MS, Sony could afford & not lose money on from day one.

Why is that a fact? Frankly, I feel 360/PS3 delivered more out of the gate than Xbone/PS4 did and it wasn't x86.

If anything, for me specifically, x86 is killing the need for consoles. Sony's own IPs won't ever see a PC release, but Microsoft has no issues cross-publishing their big name titles, and third parties are making me not even bother with my consoles.

I just got through MGS5: GZ on PC. And, this is probably going to be the first MGS title I don't buy on a console. And with rumors of KH3/FFXV and a handful of once only console titles - yeah.

 

[R0H1T]

Why would Intel need to use any 28nm process here? When the PS4/XBox One shipped, Intel had been well into the ramp of its 22-nanometer process. I'm sure porting over a Kepler GPU to 22nm for integration wouldn't have been the hardest thing in the world from a technical perspective.

The given reference, to TSMC's 28nm, was just to show that neither Intel nor Nvidia could ever pull something off like a console chip that ships in the new Xbox & PS4. Sure Intel would've used 22nm FinFET but then the Intel tax, their profit margin, would've been equally high & the chip would've seriously lacked the GPU grunt while in case of Nvidia the lack of an x86 license was the biggest impediment at that point in time.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The fact is that consoles needed an x86 chip & AMD managed the best possible solution which the likes of MS, Sony could afford & not lose money on from day one.

MS and Sony lost money from day 1 on hardware. Not sure why people hold on to that myth.

 

[ShintaiDK]

why not just 3 or 4 cores?

Most likely due to 2 things.

1. Wanting the consoles to be much more than gaming. TV, socializing etc.
2. 8 is bigger number than 4. And for the unknowning it sounds better. Same reason why we see 8 cores in a phone.

 

[railven]

MS and Sony lost money from day 1 on hardware. Not sure why people hold on to that myth.

Sony sold over 5 million units at a loss.
MSFT continues to sell units at a loss.

But shhhhhh, it only matters that EVENTUALLY they'll be profitable. Well, not sure if Xbone will ever be profitable if they keep bundling it.

 

[R0H1T]

Why is that a fact? Frankly, I feel 360/PS3 delivered more out of the gate than Xbone/PS4 did and it wasn't x86.

If anything, for me specifically, x86 is killing the need for consoles. Sony's own IPs won't ever see a PC release, but Microsoft has no issues cross-publishing their big name titles, and third parties are making me not even bother with my consoles.

I just got through MGS5: GZ on PC. And, this is probably going to be the first MGS title I don't buy on a console. And with rumors of KH3/FFXV and a handful of once only console titles - yeah.

Probably because of the ease of porting console games over to the PC arena & the fact that the erstwhile CELL architecture was too complex, I think someone complained about it publicly.

I do agree that CELL was better than any other alternative at that time but it needed further development & don't think IBM was wiling to invest in it further.

 

[R0H1T]

MS and Sony lost money from day 1 on hardware. Not sure why people hold on to that myth.

I know that but does that also hold true for this gen & in current situation, with a node shrink?
http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+One+S...er+Cooler+20+nm+APU+From+AMD/article36813.htm

 

[ShintaiDK]

I know that but does that also hold true for this gen & in current situation, with a node shrink?
http://www.dailytech.com/Xbox+One+S...er+Cooler+20+nm+APU+From+AMD/article36813.htm

They still lose money. And a shrink isnt changing that.

People often confuse BOM cost with actual cost. Even if you got all the buyers to stand in front of the factory and had 0 RMA, BOM cost would still be a wrong measurement of the actual cost.

And due to the fun fact of transistor cost. A 20nm shrinked SoC will cost more than the 28nm one. While you can save on other parts, the SoC itself isnt one of them.

 

[railven]

Probably because of the ease of porting console games over to the PC arena & the fact that the erstwhile CELL architecture was too complex, I think someone complained about it publicly.

Hello, isn't this a little counter productive?
"Dear Devs,

We made it so you can port your games to other platforms easier and cheaper, thus saving time and money. In return we hope that you continue to support our platform as the leading platform for your development cycles.

Love,
Sony & MSFT"

Just about every game that isn't IP owned by the platform is getting a PC version day of release. There are a handful of people like me who own all three platforms and games that focus on a SP narrative that I would have bought on console because that was my only choice is now going to be bought on PC because, well, it's a better platform.

I do agree that CELL was better than any other alternative at that time but it needed further development & don't think IBM was wiling to invest in it further.

And it boils back down to cost. Both companies already said it they want to return to profits sooner. Translation - we took the cheapest options. People defending the choices under the reasoning of "we want to fleece you faster" is sort of odd.

I preferred it when as a consumer the company took a huge hit in R&D and sold me things at a loss with the intention of me buying stuff for their platforms because that was the only place I could get them. The library for both consoles right now is absolutely pathetic IF you own a PC.

Take a stroll down memory lane. Gen 7 didn't have this issue, Gen 6 not even close.

 

[R0H1T]

Hello, isn't this a little counter productive?
"Dear Devs,

We made it so you can port your games to other platforms easier and cheaper, thus saving time and money. In return we hope that you continue to support our platform as the leading platform for your development cycles.

Love,
Sony & MSFT"

Just about every game that isn't IP owned by the platform is getting a PC version day of release. There are a handful of people like me who own all three platforms and games that focus on a SP narrative that I would have bought on console because that was my only choice is now going to be bought on PC because, well, it's a better platform.

Is it? I already gave you the reason why x86 was preferred for this console gen, now as you said there are less console exclusives than previous gens, IMO this is a good thing for everyone involved. The flip side is that there're lesser PC exclusive titles as well & that the games are being developed for a wider (larger) audience, this is certainly their (game developers) need of the hour with mobile gaming gaining a massive foothold in this industry.

And it boils back down to cost. Both companies already said it they want to return to profits sooner. Translation - we took the cheapest options. People defending the choices under the reasoning of "we want to fleece you faster" is sort of odd.

I preferred it when as a consumer the company took a huge hit in R&D and sold me things at a loss with the intention of me buying stuff for their platforms because that was the only place I could get them. The library for both consoles right now is absolutely pathetic IF you own a PC.

Take a stroll down memory lane. Gen 7 didn't have this issue, Gen 6 not even close.

Isn't this a bit selfish especially when you look at the price enthusiasts pay for their gaming rigs?

 

[ShintaiDK]

The biggest problem being x86 and weak hardware to begin with is, that you can now today put a PC together that performs equal or better than the consoles. And its only getting worse for the consoles as time goes.

 

[railven]

Is it? I already gave you the reason why x86 was preferred for this console gen, now as you said that there are less console exclusives than previous gens. The flip side is that there are also lesser PC exclusive titles & that the games are being developed for a wider (larger) audience, this is certainly their (game developers) need of the hour with mobile gaming gaining a massive foothold in this industry.

Were you not present during Gen 7 when classically PC only games like Crysis, Battlefield, ummmm...what else does PC have Haha, got Console versions?

Gen 7 was a lit of "Why are PC games getting dumbed down to cater to the giant console market?" Most of gen 7 consoles were lead platforms with ports coming to PC, this time its more PC is lead platform with ports going to consoles.

I'm not sure about you, but if I were a console manufacturer I'd prefer my system be lead NOT the after thought.

Mobile gaming is not going to hurt gaming as a whole. There has been enough research into this. Yes, mobile boomed, but now it's floundering and traditional desktop/console gaming is reviving, and oddly with PC leading the front.

EDIT: DOA is on Steam man. DOA!!!!! If the Japanese market transfers over to PC the consoles loose a huge chunk of their appeal to a large sub section of the gaming community. And if you follow gaming, you know they are waiting at the chance. FFXIII looks amazing on PC.

Isn't this a bit selfish especially when you look at the price enthusiasts pay for their gaming rigs?

A bit selfish? I'm a consumer, my interest is my needs first. What you spend on your rig/consoles is your business, not mine. However, because I'm selfish doesn't mean I'm cheap (even though I am ). I spend a good portion of my disposable income in my hobby, which is gaming. At no point did I say my opinion is THE ONLY opinion or that I should be catered to. People trying to dismiss opinions because "you're not an engineer" or "you don't own stock" or whatever is rather trite. Feel free to share your opinions/thoughts (especially on a forum - t'is the purpose). These companies don't need my specific dollar, but when a vocal majority are slamming your choices, it's hard to take those defending the choices odd. Are you a consumer or stock holder? As a consume their choices sucked. As a stock holder, be a while before I see the return on those choices, and MSFT frankly just axe that division it's costing us (stock holders) yachts.

 

[R0H1T]

The biggest problem being x86 and weak hardware to begin with is, that you can now today put a PC together that performs equal or better than the consoles. And its only getting worse for the consoles as time goes.

The thing is people choose their gaming platform based more on what suits them, like portability or exclusive titles, & not necessarily what value or absolute performance their gaming rig/console provides them. This is the reason why PS4 & Xbox One are such massive hits, also most people don't like to deal with the complexities of PC gaming & we all know the massive complains people have regarding drivers, compatibility (software/hardware) et al.

In short (most) people will, more often than not, choose something that just works & consoles are a perfect match for such consumers.

 

[Yuriman]

Regardless of whether current or future games use them, Jaguar cores are small and cheap enough that adding four more probably didn't impact BoM/die size significantly. Most of the APU is GCN cores.

 

[ultimatebob]

Hello, isn't this a little counter productive?
"Dear Devs,

We made it so you can port your games to other platforms easier and cheaper, thus saving time and money. In return we hope that you continue to support our platform as the leading platform for your development cycles.

Love,
Sony & MSFT"

Just about every game that isn't IP owned by the platform is getting a PC version day of release. There are a handful of people like me who own all three platforms and games that focus on a SP narrative that I would have bought on console because that was my only choice is now going to be bought on PC because, well, it's a better platform.



And it boils back down to cost. Both companies already said it they want to return to profits sooner. Translation - we took the cheapest options. People defending the choices under the reasoning of "we want to fleece you faster" is sort of odd.

I preferred it when as a consumer the company took a huge hit in R&D and sold me things at a loss with the intention of me buying stuff for their platforms because that was the only place I could get them. The library for both consoles right now is absolutely pathetic IF you own a PC.

Take a stroll down memory lane. Gen 7 didn't have this issue, Gen 6 not even close.

I think that it's really being caused by lack of competition in the console space right now. Both Sony and Microsoft seemed to have decided that 900p at 30fps is "good enough" for their AAA titles, so there isn't much reason to try harder right now.

Nintendo gave up on competing on performance over a decade ago, and there aren't any other major competitors left now.

Perhaps we should hope that the Steambox catches on, so Sony and Microsoft have motivation to try harder and make 4K gaming a reality in their next gen consoles.

 

[railven]

I think that it's really being caused by lack of competition in the console space right now. Both Sony and Microsoft seemed to have decided that 900p at 30fps is "good enough" for their AAA titles, so there isn't much reason to try harder right now.

If console threads are any indication of competition, there is strong competition - well at least loyalty to each side. And Gen7 was definitely a fierce battle between Sony and MSFT with Sony barely edging out MSFT.

I would assume both manufacturers would be aiming to blow each other out of the water. Sony sort of did with their hardware selection, but it just wasn't enough to really even set it's sell apart considering they both have the same CPU (with advantage going to MSFT).

Some times I'm starting to feel like I'm just getting older and I can't appreciate these consoles, but then I look at my Steam library that is getting fatter with games I'd normally love to play on a console. So I dunno, anymore.

Lords of the Fallen - PC purchase, day and release as PS4. Dark Souls 2. Same. It's going to be Bloodborne that brings me back to PS4 for hack n slash.

Nintendo gave up on competing on performance over a decade ago, and there aren't any other major competitors left now.

Perhaps we should hope that the Steambox catches on, so Sony and Microsoft have motivation to try harder and make 4K gaming a reality in their next gen consoles.

Nintendo sort of always focused on their own thing. It works for them. Holding their IPs exclusive only to their platform (Sony does this too but Sony doesn't have the catalog or nostalgia value that Nintendo has) keeps them afloat.
Mario Kart releases - Wii U saw boom in sales.
Melee releases - Wii U saw boom in sales.
Next Zelda - repeat

Sure, the Wii U won't capture the success of the Wii, but the GC sold like 25 million units and Nintendo didn't capsize or go the way of Sega. And if rumors are right, Nintendo might release with a console on par with these consoles if not have an advantage. But rumors are rumors, and we'll have to wait and see.

Steamboxes are a joke. Valve can't even get the controller right let alone the software needed to make them even viable. It's a niche to a niche of another niche and will go into the quiet night like the Ouya.