PC & Video Games

PS3 has more powerful CPU than PS4 - 8th cell not even unlocked

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 6th, 2014 2:07 am
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 25, 2009
4443 posts
255 upvotes

PS3 has more powerful CPU than PS4 - 8th cell not even unlocked

Shown during an Ubisoft presentation

Xbox One has more powerful CPU also than PS4 but PS4 doubles GPU power on Xbox One a

[IMG]http://abload.de/img/ubisoft-cloth-simulatbjes0.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=915229
[QUOTE]The previous generation – Microsoft’s Xbox 360, and Sony’s Playstation 3 had very robust CPU’s. Naughty Dog (along with many other developers) have often highly praised the PS3′s SPU’s (Synergistic Processing Unit) as they were in effect vector processors Read more on the PS3′s cell processor here. They were in some ways a precursor to the Playstation 4′s GPGPU structure. So, the Jaguar’s lag behind, running the cloth simulation is too expensive.
You’ll notice the Playstation 4′s CPU performs slightly inferior if compared to the Xbox One’s; clearly this difference can be attributed to the raw clock speed difference between the two machines. Microsoft, as you might recall, bumped up the clock speed of their CPU (using the AMD Jaguar, in the same configuration as Sony, that is four cores per module, two modules total) from 1.6GHZ to 1.75GHZ. Sony didn’t do this, and despite tons of speculation as to the actual clock speed of the PS4′s CPU clock frequency, it was eventually confirmed by Sony to have been left at 1.6GHZ, thus providing Microsoft a slight advantage.

The CPU’s in both machines are relatively weak compared to their GPU’s, and thus offloading work load to the GPU’s remains the only logical choice. Ubisoft (like many other developers) are starting off loading a lot of work to the GPU. It’s high shader count allows for SIMD (Single Intruction Multi Data) nirvana. Quite simply put, multiple of the processors inside the systems GPU can be assigned to the task, and they’ll work at this task until it’s complete.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://abload.de/img/slidejpiwb.jpg[/IMG]
26 replies
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jul 18, 2010
2052 posts
573 upvotes
Edmonton
Local processing is soooo 7th gen.

8th gen is all about cloud processing.
Deal Addict
Jul 7, 2013
2895 posts
213 upvotes
I think with PS3 Sony learned that putting a really powerful (at the time) CPU but a GPU only moderatly powerful (at the time), is not very good for developers, who utilize GPU much more than CPU for games.
“My biggest problem with modernity may lie in the growing separation of the ethical and the legal.”
-Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Deal Addict
Feb 26, 2005
3746 posts
338 upvotes
As I have been led to believe most of it goes to the GPU as well graphics is number 1 in games is it not? cloud computing as it maybe called is just load sharing I believe. Just a step beyond hyper threading and multi cores.

What is the term used to allocate many different small processes to different nodes that has been in practice since the 90s possibly earlier?

Either way ps4 seems faster on all accounts the PS3 in my real life. A side from PSN that is total load of &${~%#
Heatware
The difference between wanting and needing is how you justify it.
Deal Addict
Jul 14, 2010
2040 posts
190 upvotes
The cell is a complete monster for basic math operations, but it's also a complete bear to work with. There's a reason IBM abandoned the architecture; no one could work with it effectively.
Deal Guru
Jul 19, 2012
11823 posts
2612 upvotes
Montreal
you just figure this out?

the cpu on the ps4 is a low-end tablet/mini-laptop chip that couldn't process its way out of a wet paper bag.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
7067 posts
390 upvotes
JackWhyte wrote:
Oct 28th, 2014 11:11 am
you just figure this out?

the cpu on the ps4 is a low-end tablet/mini-laptop chip that couldn't process its way out of a wet paper bag.
:D

So true about the CPU in the new consoles. Still, they're power hogs at ~ 130W considering the tablet CPUs. I guess the GPU more than makes up for it.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 18, 2012
7652 posts
2965 upvotes
East York
DiploDocus wrote:
Oct 27th, 2014 2:14 am
Shown during an Ubisoft presentation

Xbox One has more powerful CPU also than PS4 but PS4 doubles GPU power on Xbox One a

[IMG]http://abload.de/img/ubisoft-cloth-simulatbjes0.jpg[/IMG]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=915229

[IMG]http://abload.de/img/slidejpiwb.jpg[/IMG]
lol at PS4 GPU being exactly twice as powerful as Xbox One...
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 25, 2009
4443 posts
255 upvotes
I'd like to see the 360 and PS3 GPU in the final graph, probably be around the 400 or 500 mark?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
7067 posts
390 upvotes
Let's see what DX12 can bring to the Xbox One
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 7, 2003
17814 posts
213 upvotes
YVR
Ascott wrote:
Oct 28th, 2014 10:47 am
The cell is a complete monster for basic math operations, but it's also a complete bear to work with. There's a reason IBM abandoned the architecture; no one could work with it effectively.
Yep and I think it's great that both Sony and MS are using x86 processors. Hopefully this will help with backward compatibility for future consoles. Nintendo would be wise to go down this path as well too.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 7, 2003
17814 posts
213 upvotes
YVR
CFRTim wrote:
Oct 28th, 2014 3:43 pm
:D

So true about the CPU in the new consoles. Still, they're power hogs at ~ 130W considering the tablet CPUs. I guess the GPU more than makes up for it.
Recently I read an article that went into great lengths about the power and future headroom for this generation of consoles. The bottom line is that the future doesn't look very good. In previous generation of consoles, the early generation of games often don't look or run as well as the later generation of games. Developers needed time to figure out how to extract power out of an unfamiliar architecture. The PS4 and XB1 both use x86 processors. It won't take as long for programmers to know what to do with these consoles. Unfortunately the PS4 and XB1 just aren't powerful enough to run 1080p games at high frame rates. The specs have been pretty underwhelming right from day 1. It wasn't this great leap that many expected as compared to previous generation of consoles where it was faster than any PC (at least on paper). I guess neither Sony nor Microsoft wanted to spend millions to develop a proprietary architecture and lose money for years before making a profit. IIRC, Sony, Toshiba, and IBM spend over $100 million to develop the CELL architecture. Unfortunately CELL never found much use outside of the PS3. Toshiba tried using it in some of their devices (don't remember exactly which one, but I think TV and Blu-Ray players). So there wasn't a lot of scale to quickly reduce cost. It's certainly cheaper to pick parts off the shelf. The jaguar cores are very slow. It's even slower than Intel's current Atom chip. I think it's pretty embarrassing that both Sony and Microsoft's consoles have trouble running certain games at 1080p at 30/60fps. The PS4 isn't going to be that much faster than the XB1 in practical terms. The hardware to run native 1080p games at a minimum of 30fps certainly existed at the time the consoles were announced. I don't see a 7-10 year life cycle for this generation of consoles.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Nov 7, 2003
17814 posts
213 upvotes
YVR
CFRTim wrote:
Oct 29th, 2014 12:00 am
Let's see what DX12 can bring to the Xbox One
It's not going to be a game changing technology. DX12 isn't going to make the Xbox One 50% faster.

Top