• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

*** Playstation 4 CPU Equivalent? ***

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Cogman said:
Got some special magical sort of GPU instruction that makes operation 10x faster? Great, use it. You should use it!
Click to expand...

This used to be a common thing to do in the older consoles with bare metal programming but this doesn't happen as much anymore with the amount of middleware used when developing modern games.
 
ttechf said:
Would something like this graphic card do?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-125-_-Product


Perhaps buy an Intel i3 clocked at 3.7Ghz.

8GB of memory.

Thanks. : ]
Click to expand...
Yes that will do, cpu wise, gpu wise, and memory wise. The core i3 4360 is faster than some of the i5 quad cores that are 2nd gen being about 90% of the speed of the 2500k at stock speeds even though it has half the amount of cores. That said how much are you getting the i3 4360 for?
 
Roland00Address said:
Yes that will do, cpu wise, gpu wise, and memory wise. The core i3 4360 is faster than some of the i5 quad cores that are 2nd gen being about 90% of the speed of the 2500k at stock speeds even though it has half the amount of cores. That said how much are you getting the i3 4360 for?
Click to expand...


Oh well wait, Newegg has it for $160. BUT they have the i3-4370 for the same price which is just 100Mhz more - 3.8Ghz.
 
Madpacket said:
This used to be a common thing to do in the older consoles with bare metal programming but this doesn't happen as much anymore with the amount of middleware used when developing modern games.
Click to expand...

It still happens in non-console games. Not in small time stuff, but many AAA titles will exploit hardware specific functionalities to optimize parts of their games. Especially if they partner with one of the major graphics card companies.
 
Roland00Address said:
I understand what you are saying Cogman, but there is nothing stopping Microsoft from allowing some options and not just one option. Of course there will be a certification program to make sure the software is a 100% compatible and that will require specific hardware to be inside the device that will make sure it can run the code exactly. It really depends on how flexible or how bare to the metal the apis for the xbox one is.

As for the console OS vs specific hardware with less excess layers of software. Yes I did not pick my word choice perfectly/exactly for I was trying to simplify a 200 word answer into a 3 word response.
Click to expand...

My point was that microsoft and sony are using pretty much off the shelf parts for their OSes. You implied that the OS would make a huge difference in performance. It does not. The only OS thing that will really truly affect application performance is the scheduler. Beyond that, everything else has pretty much 0 impact on application performance. As a result, you aren't likely to see performance improvements from just the OS alone.

The places where console and desktop OSes differ is how much extra crap is included in the system. Certainly a console OS can boot quicker primarily because it can cut large amounts of cruft from the system. That, however, doesn't change actual application speed, only OS load times.
 
General CPU equivalents:

Phenom II x4
Core i3s (Sandy Bridge and newer)
Athlon 760k
A10 APUs

The major thing here is that the PS4's APU is GPGPU focused, so the x86 cores do not paint the complete picture as to what we may see on the system. Of course, using the CUs for GPGPU will take away rendering performance. However, 2 or 3 years down the road, you may need a newer quad core (i5/i7) or quad module part if you want to maintain 60 FPS. I don't totally play up console optimization, but I don't downplay it either. Consoles do get this benefit, and the addition of GPGPU may make GPGPU in mainstream PC games a normal thing which might shift some of the PC gaming landscape to being more APU oriented for all those crazy whiz-bang physics that I really hope to see.
 
Last edited:
Cogman said:
You implied that the OS would make a huge difference in performance. It does not. The only OS thing that will really truly affect application performance is the scheduler. Beyond that, everything else has pretty much 0 impact on application performance. As a result, you aren't likely to see performance improvements from just the OS alone.
Click to expand...

No Roland it is not worth it, do not waste your time on a person who is a waste of space. The OP got the answer he was looking for.
 
Last edited:
Roland00Address said:
I am so ******* glad you know what I implied since you are a mind reader.

My god...(keeps thoughts to my self).... you are technically right in what you are saying......but you are completely rude and condescending. I am glad you think you know so much more than everyone else and that you think other people are so stupid. An OS where you only run the software that is pre-approved and is so controlling is nothing like a OS such as windows, yes technically it is the software that is not the OS that is running that slows everything down in other OS for it has to balance multiple resources, but if you could not put that software on the computer in the first place due to the OS....

No Roland it is not worth it, do not waste your time on a person who is a waste of space. The OP got the answer he was looking for.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you saw my reply as condescending. I was not trying to insult you in any way. I'm simply speaking from my background. Sorry if misunderstood what you were saying, that was simply how I interpreted your response.
 
ttechf said:
Oh well wait, Newegg has it for $160. BUT they have the i3-4370 for the same price which is just 100Mhz more - 3.8Ghz.
Click to expand...
I also like the fast i3s for certain things, but the irony of your preference is that they are about as far away as you can get on a fundamental level from the CPU in the PS4. Maybe an overclocked G3258 is a bit farther away. We are comparing 2 very fast cores to 8 very slow ones. In many cases the dual core will be faster because the new Haswell cores are so dang fast they can service many threads very efficiently, but they can become swamped if the load is too great, and that's where CPUs with more cores shine. Most guys knowledgeable about CPUs will agree that a fast quad core is about the sweet spot and a safe recommendation these days, more is often wasted but less can result in slowdowns in some situations. To make a good choice it's important to know the intended usage very specifically, what programs and games, and how many things will be running simultaneously.
 
monkeydelmagico said:
A $500.- budget build is more powerful than a PS4/Xbox
Click to expand...

Just thought I'd point out that there are some ~$50 H81 boards out there that can overclock the G3258. You don't need a ~$90 Z97 board unless you want RAM overclocking, too.

It's also better to stick with the default HSF (or whatever you happen to have lying around that has available mounting hardware for LGA1150), so you can save $20 there.

If the OP really wants something like the PS4 CPU, I'm going to second the notion of an underclocked, undervolted FX8320. I wouldn't recommend that for gaming per se (I'd sooner recommend the G3258 if budget is a major concern), but hey, if he wants octocore then there you have it.
 
Enigmoid said:
I know. But so far the new consoles have performed pretty anemically.
Click to expand...

It's only the first year. There have been some surprises in terms of how devs have used the hardware to make use of techniques that the PS3 and 360 really couldn't do all that well.
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
It's only the first year. There have been some surprises in terms of how devs have used the hardware to make use of techniques that the PS3 and 360 really couldn't do all that well.
Click to expand...

You still have very weak parts compared to last gen (relatively speaking the xbone is using a low end GPU and the ps4 mid-range). The CPU isn't any better than mediocre. Its on hardware the devs know too so don't expect the same huge learning curve + gains that last gen had.
 
What all these builds lack compared to new consoles is VRAM size. While PS4 may have GPU processing power of 7850-7870 its equipped with 8GB of shared memory, which is shown by latest console port games reviews, that it is used mainly for graphics.

The card like GTX770 which is much faster than console apu will not be able to deliver the same performance at the same settings only, because it will run out of 2GB of VRAM.

I expect all <3GB cards to age rapidly...
 
There is definitely a need for more vram now thanks to the consoles. I've held off building a rig because I wanted to see how big of a difference the consoles made on games. I couldn't recommend anyone a dual core CPU, you really need a quad now
 
Enigmoid said:
I know. But so far the new consoles have performed pretty anemically.
Click to expand...

Devs get more experienced with the consoles and learn new tricks over the years. Compare some launch 360 games with the stuff that came out later on, there is a massive improvement in quality.
 
NTMBK said:
Devs get more experienced with the consoles and learn new tricks over the years. Compare some launch 360 games with the stuff that came out later on, there is a massive improvement in quality.
Click to expand...

As I said before don't expect nearly as much. Devs are dealing with off the shelf equipment that they already know.
 
Erenhardt said:
What all these builds lack compared to new consoles is VRAM size. While PS4 may have GPU processing power of 7850-7870 its equipped with 8GB of shared memory, which is shown by latest console port games reviews, that it is used mainly for graphics.

The card like GTX770 which is much faster than console apu will not be able to deliver the same performance at the same settings only, because it will run out of 2GB of VRAM.

I expect all <3GB cards to age rapidly...
Click to expand...
Main memory has been the biggest limitation of the previous generation, so it's understandably that they wanted to avoid it this time around. It's also shared memory, so reaching capacity limits and avoiding resulting conflicts is a big concern.

The biggest reason I suspect that 8 gigs of memory serve is to compensate for the slow hard-drives used. For a while it seemed that DX11 games would stream in data as required, rather than preloading it. But it would appear that most console games didn't want to rely on slow and inconsistent HDD I/O and went the opposite route. This is a fundamental shift of direction away from (texture) streaming, that PCs have yet to match or account for, though most likely having at least 8 gigs of RAM is plenty already. I don't think PC ports will run out VRAM anytime soon. As I understand it: 3, 4 and 6 GB cards serve to occasionally save the GPU some copying to take some strain out of the bandwidth bottleneck, nothing more.

Coincidently the new R9 285 exactly matches the bandwidth of the PS4, though it has a whopping 1.55 times the number of stream processors and just 2 GB of DDR5. AMD appears to have found a way to cut down some of the expensive bandwidth by a significant third, whereas in the past the ratio of memory and processing was almost set in stone.
According to Wikipedia the max. memory bandwidth of the PS3 is 176 GB/s which also puts into into range of the older R7 265 - R9 270x; still above the 153 GB/s of the 7850.
 
know of fence said:
It's easy to belittle consoles, but the PS3 APU is quite unique in that it shares DDR5 for main and graphics memory, that's something you can't actually get on the desktop, the closest you get are Kaveri APUs that due to their use of DDR3 ram have only enough memory-bandwidth for about half the GPU cores of the PS3.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

PS3 or PS4?

If you are talking about PS3 it doesn't use an APU. It has a separate CPU (Sony Cell) and GPU (Nvidia RSX).

But you mentioned PS3 twice here. Also it's GDDR5, the G there making a huge difference.

It's important to check your writing before posting so your posts make sense, or else it truly is a waste of time.

Cheers,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top