PS4 to increase performance lead over XBox One

[GhostRyder]

I'm sorry, but this is total and utter BS. Power budget is not limited in a console, it all depends on how you build it. Given the size of both console boxes, it was very feasible to put more power into it. The ONLY reason for the chosen solution for this console gen, is cost. This console gen is the very first one where the baseline was that the actual production cost of the console would not exceed the sale price, and both MS and Sony succeeded in this. By comparison, the PS3 had a production price tag that was generally higher than the sale price. The original PS3 also had a much higher power budget.

There is an "unlimited" power budget depending on how much they want to spend and how much risk they want to take. Its all relative because consoles are usually run more than PC's are under load and at times more than normal PC's. If there is more heat output and more power usage, all parts of the machine have a chance at higher deterioration over time on top of the chance for failure. It would not only cost more to produce the console and the parts, it would also cost more since there is now a higher chance of failure. They chose the way they are specifically to avoid things like the RROD or the PS3 early equivalent which helps keep maintenance costs down.

Cost was not the only reason, it was the chance to avoid failure rates and design that also played into the decision.

 

[Vayra86]

There is an "unlimited" power budget depending on how much they want to spend and how much risk they want to take. Its all relative because consoles are usually run more than PC's are under load and at times more than normal PC's. If there is more heat output and more power usage, all parts of the machine have a chance at higher deterioration over time on top of the chance for failure. It would not only cost more to produce the console and the parts, it would also cost more since there is now a higher chance of failure. They chose the way they are specifically to avoid things like the RROD or the PS3 early equivalent which helps keep maintenance costs down.

Cost was not the only reason, it was the chance to avoid failure rates and design that also played into the decision.

Effectively, failure rates are also primarily related to cost. But you're right, they can deal with only AMD now, it is less prone to failing.

 

[cdawall]

I have to agree with the others here, show us where you're getting this from. I can't see you supplying us with a credible source though of course, because...

Since Bulldozer, AMD's processors have been well documented as a trainwreck of performance, with IPC significantly worse than Intel and power use is pretty high too, so saying that just a bit more clockspeed is needed is just living in denial. Those Jaguar cores are puny.

Jaguar is not based off of bulldozer in anyway shape form of fashion. If it can compete with a 3.2ghz Phenom II while running at 1.6ghz I find that to be a quite good setup. Even something as simple as the CPUZ benchmark already shows this.

These are pulled from the CPUZ thread. I had to limit to the 1.73 version because the benchmark changed substantially in 1.74 and bloated the numbers up. The better memory setup on the PS4/Xbox will show even more of a performance increase.

 

[natr0n]

Reading through here; I am reminded of this.

 

[Flogger23m]

Maybe at a minimum, but already they are talking of replacing them because they are just not what they had hoped for. They chose to make the consoles at a bad time with such low cost and power consumption to avoid and potential chance of failures (Like the RROD for Xbox or the issue on PS3 that I cannot remember its name currently).

I don't think Sony would agree with that. They moved 30 million consoles in two years. If they keep up the momentum they would have sold 50-60 million in four years. I think the PS4 is just about everything Sony wanted. 5 years itself would make it the shortest major console generation if I am not mistaken. Though I can see them pushing a new console sooner if Microsoft does due to their poorer sales of the One.

 

[GoldenX]

Why is that Phenom only running 3 threads?

 

[cdawall]

Why is that Phenom only running 3 threads?

Because its an Athlon X3 435 with the cache unlocked, but a bad core.

 

[medi01]

@medi01 you quote the wrong sources my friend. You don't need to cherry pick Anand articles from pre-Silvermont days to try to prove that Jaguar is as strong as you think it is.

Why all the lies, jeez?
I've not only did NOT say Jaguar IS strong TODAY, I've even mentioned AMD's own Carrizo, which is better on all fronts.

But back when PS4/Xbone teams had to make choices, as anand states, AMD WAS faster not only on GPU, but also on CPU front (in a given power envelope!!!)

Ok? Try to simply get over it, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, for some very werid reason.

MS and Sony went shopping and Nvidia asked too high a price, so they went with AMD. AMD at the time was also moving to their custom chip design department and marketing it actively, which is no coincidence of course. And we all know that when we buy in bulk, we get a better price. AMD being able to combine production of CPU/GPU in an APU solution was therefore hard to beat. The high volume required on these mass produced chips enabled AMD to keep their running costs under control. Win/Win. The consumer/gamer is the only loser in this little game.

Conclusion here is truely astonishing...
Both MS and Sony have reserved TWO CORES for background tasks. (now reduced to one)
What would they reserve in case of i3? HALF of a core? One eights of a core? Seriously?!?!?

Sony could barely not lose money on PS4, Microsoft was losing money.
How on earth could they affort putting 240$ CPUs into it? (let alone the timings)

Who told you that CPU performance could significantly boost any of the consoles, with given GPU?

What we bloody got is the need to actively do "multi threaded coding". Which is bloody great considerings all the walls we hit with single core performance.

As a bonus we also got a little stream of cash for startving underdog. Which, even if you prefer to buy from the other guys, does you a favor, by (yet) not letting prices skyrocket. God knows if Zen would save AMD, or even if AMD makes it that far to actually ship it.

 

[Ikaruga]

Please show me power at the wall numbers. AMD 25W is not the same as Intel 25W.

The problem with the consoles is that they're limited at how much power they can pull from the plug. They have to make a design that's not going to kill itself if it bakes in its own heat. There's only so much power you can draw to make such a design.

To put it another way, how much more power are you drawing to get a faster IPC with the Intel CPU and is it worth it? The licensing is going to be higher with Intel driving up the cost of making the console, and for what? A xx% increase in performance? What kind of performance increase do you gain from keeping the power draw the same? This was the reason I think they went with AMD instead of Intel. Given the power limit they were targeting, the extra cost from an Intel licensing did not out weight the performance increase given, thus I'm willing to bet that it was minuscule.

Just to be clear about your intentions: Are you really want to convince us (people who are working with computer software and hardware for decades) that AMD CPUs are just as fast as efficient as Intel ones, because "dis gon b gud" then for sure?
AMD CPUs are slow for the power they take and Jaguar is no exception. They could have used a simple low power mobile Intel CPU and that would have destroyed and ran circles around the Jaguar in no time. The problem was that Intel has bad graphics, and going with a CPU+GPU solution would have been a lot more expensive to make.

 

[tabascosauz]

Why all the lies, jeez?
I've not only did NOT say Jaguar IS strong TODAY, I've even mentioned AMD's own Carrizo, which is better on all fronts.

But back when PS4/Xbone teams had to make choices, as anand states, AMD WAS faster not only on GPU, but also on CPU front (in a given power envelope!!!)

Ok? Try to simply get over it, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, for some very werid reason.

Welp, looks like someone is getting a little worked up over something that was 0% provocative.

Kinda funny that you mention Carrizo because Carrizo isn't even in the same vein as Jaguar. Carrizo's Excavator is a CMT core, part of the Bulldozer/Piledriver/Steamroller lineage. Jaguar is not. This I was alluding to when I mentioned Carrizo-L and not Carrizo, because the former features Puma+, which is a conventional core that comes off of K10.5 (in some ways) and the former features Excavator. So...not sure what you're trying to get at. No one was saying that AMD can't make CPUs, just that Jaguar is a very cheap part and performance should be expected to reflect that.

Was AMD the best choice for a console-making company that wants to be dealing with one manufacturer for both CPU + GPU? Of course. I thought we covered that. This isn't about the fact that they should have picked Nvidia and Intel instead. This is about the fact that Jaguar isn't strong, which is also not incredibly important in consoles because it's easier to work with these weak cores when a single console is all that you have to develop for.

Not sure what made you think that I was uncomfortable. In any case, this agitated response from you left me scratching my head a bit. Are your emotions in check today?

 

[mastrdrver]

Just to be clear about your intentions: Are you really want to convince us (people who are working with computer software and hardware for decades) that AMD CPUs are just as fast as efficient as Intel ones, because "dis gon b gud" then for sure?
AMD CPUs are slow for the power they take and Jaguar is no exception. They could have used a simple low power mobile Intel CPU and that would have destroyed and ran circles around the Jaguar in no time. The problem was that Intel has bad graphics, and going with a CPU+GPU solution would have been a lot more expensive to make.

No, as I never made that claim.

I was saying that the increased cost (and to a certain extent heat) that came with the increase in performance was not worth it (in cost terms) given normal work loads.

Again though, AMD TDP numbers are not the same as Intel TDP numbers, this was the claim made earlier. To suggest that Intels i3 3110C 25W is the same as AMDs 5350 25W is ludicrous.

 

[Ikaruga]

No, as I never made that claim.

I was saying that the increased cost (and to a certain extent heat) that came with the increase in performance was not worth it (in cost terms) given normal work loads.

Again though, AMD TDP numbers are not the same as Intel TDP numbers, this was the claim made earlier. To suggest that Intels i3 3110C 25W is the same as AMDs 5350 25W is ludicrous.

It's TDP, not power consumption. You are mixing up things I think.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

No, as I never made that claim.

I was saying that the increased cost (and to a certain extent heat) that came with the increase in performance was not worth it (in cost terms) given normal work loads.

Again though, AMD TDP numbers are not the same as Intel TDP numbers, this was the claim made earlier. To suggest that Intels i3 3110C 25W is the same as AMDs 5350 25W is ludicrous.

It's TDP, not power consumption. You are mixing up things I think.

Yeah, a 25w TDP is a 25W TDP, doesnt matter the chip or manufacture that makes it. Also TDP =/= power consumption. It stands for Thermal Design Power.

 

[phanbuey]

Yeah, a 25w TDP is a 25W TDP, doesnt matter the chip or manufacture that makes it. Also TDP =/= power consumption. It stands for Thermal Design Power.

definitely matters - tdp between intel and AMD are not comparable.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Namely because Intel can stand a lot higher temps.

 

[MxPhenom 216]

definitely matters - tdp between intel and AMD are not comparable.

had to ask @cadaveca about it so that it could make sense. It does now somewhat.

 

[LightningJR]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_design_power

It's unfortunate that there's no better standard for power consumption of CPUs and GPUs. So many variables to take in to account when considering TDP.

 

[medi01]

They could have used a simple low power mobile Intel CPU...

With how many cores?

 

[cdawall]

Just to be clear about your intentions: Are you really want to convince us (people who are working with computer software and hardware for decades) that AMD CPUs are just as fast as efficient as Intel ones, because "dis gon b gud" then for sure?
AMD CPUs are slow for the power they take and Jaguar is no exception. They could have used a simple low power mobile Intel CPU and that would have destroyed and ran circles around the Jaguar in no time. The problem was that Intel has bad graphics, and going with a CPU+GPU solution would have been a lot more expensive to make.

Out of curiosity which Intel CPU are we swapping in to compete? The Atom's certainly don't hold a candle to AMD's low power offerings.

 

[LightningJR]

Intel Xenon E3-1230 V2 is a quad core HTed 3.3Ghz Ivy Bridge 22nm 69W TDP CPU.

Intel would have zero problems making a CPU that could stomp over what's in the consoles.

Do they have a competing solution now? Doesn't seem like it but it's Intel, it's not like they can't if they needed to. With their cash flow and fab they really are a powerhouse.

EDIT: There's also a lot to choose from in the laptop CPU area. The i7-6700HQ is 45W.

 

[cdawall]

Intel Xenon E3-1230 V2 is a quad core HTed 3.3Ghz Ivy Bridge 22nm 69W TDP CPU.

Intel would have zero problems making a CPU that could stomp over what's in the consoles.

Do they have a competing solution now? Doesn't seem like it but it's Intel, it's not like they can't if they needed to. With their cash flow and fab they really are a powerhouse.

I fail to see your point in this post at all.

 

[MIRTAZAPINE]

There could be an intel on console. Remember this thing from Microsoft? Yes the first xbox with
Custom 733 MHz Intel Pentium III "Coppermine-based" cpu. The first xbox was the fastest console of that generation even faster than a gamecube or ps2. It a possibility for intel to enter the console market if they wanted too. This gpu gap is also closing in too.

 

[cdawall]

There could be an intel on console. Remember this thing from Microsoft? Yes the first xbox with
Custom 733 MHz Intel Pentium III "Coppermine-based" cpu. The first xbox was the fastest console of that generation even faster than a gamecube or ps2. It a possibility for intel to enter the console market if they wanted too. This gpu gap is also closing in too.

View attachment 69615

And after that they went to a powerPC IBM chip. They do it based off of performance/cost ratio, right now AMD wins that.

 

[Vayra86]

And after that they went to a powerPC IBM chip. They do it based off of performance/cost ratio, right now AMD wins that.

Why all the lies, jeez?
I've not only did NOT say Jaguar IS strong TODAY, I've even mentioned AMD's own Carrizo, which is better on all fronts.

But back when PS4/Xbone teams had to make choices, as anand states, AMD WAS faster not only on GPU, but also on CPU front (in a given power envelope!!!)

Ok? Try to simply get over it, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, for some very werid reason.




Conclusion here is truely astonishing...
Both MS and Sony have reserved TWO CORES for background tasks. (now reduced to one)
What would they reserve in case of i3? HALF of a core? One eights of a core? Seriously?!?!?

Sony could barely not lose money on PS4, Microsoft was losing money.
How on earth could they affort putting 240$ CPUs into it? (let alone the timings)

Who told you that CPU performance could significantly boost any of the consoles, with given GPU?

What we bloody got is the need to actively do "multi threaded coding". Which is bloody great considerings all the walls we hit with single core performance.

As a bonus we also got a little stream of cash for startving underdog. Which, even if you prefer to buy from the other guys, does you a favor, by (yet) not letting prices skyrocket. God knows if Zen would save AMD, or even if AMD makes it that far to actually ship it.

My conclusion still stands. The only consideration here was cost. You can be sure about this if you look at previous generations of consoles. The original Xbox is an example of this, the PS3 is another. Both consoles had a higher production cost than what they were available for in stores. Both Sony and Microsoft invested with the idea of a return on that investment through the sale of games. That is how consoles traditionally have always worked, including every Nintendo console release. The money comes from games, not the hardware. A lot of PS3 sales were based purely off the fact that the PS3 was one of the earliest and best Blu-Ray players on the market, at an attractive price point. The console part could be seen as a bonus that didn't cost anything at all; the price of a similar Blu-Ray player was generally similar or higher than the cost of a PS3. Add to that the fact that the PS3 is a media center as well that allows you to put in your own HDD... and you can see why I am disappointed about the offerings of the current console gen compared to the last. Also, the choice for an APU is another new thing this generation; previous consoles have always had a combination of CPU/GPU from different parties - again the only conclusion here is a cost-oriented decision.

The current gen is the first generation of consoles where the cost of the console is about equal with the sale price. Therefore the consumer loses and the manufacturers win. Games haven't become cheaper for the consoles, but the consoles themselves offer less value for the money they cost. Add to that the fact that many recent releases suffer from performance issues and it is no surprise that these cores get unlocked so early in the life cycle of these consoles. It is damage control.

 

[cdawall]

I still fail to see how this console varies from any other console. It is a midrange batch of hardware in the PS4. 7870+8 core cpu (low power), what more did you want? This is no different than the previous generation which was roughly a 7800 series card (PS3), go back another and the xbox was a 733mhz P3 and geforce 3. Never once has the console been the leading item on the market they have always been a midrange CPU/GPU. The only reason people say anything on these consoles is because they are AMD based and there is an intense anti-AMD issue in the world that assumes they are the issue behind console speed when in reality its a midrange machine sold exactly as such and always has been.

It is also not the first APU. The xbox 360 had an integrated CPU/GPU in the last three generations of the console.