152 replies to this topic

[Alex Atkin UK]

The PS4 cpu is an enhancement of an existing chip which massively underperforms compared to some intel designs. No one is expecting that gulf to be bridged with ps4 just narrowed.

 

True, but what we do not really know is how that compares to PowerPC.

 

I suspect even a relatively weak x86 would trounce a PowerPC.

 

Also from X-Bit:

“Jaguar” is the evolution of AMD’s “Bobcat” core architecture for low-power APUs. The new core design will add support for SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AES, PCLMUL, AVX, BMI, F16C, and MOVBE instruction sets and increase memory address space from 36 bits to 40 bits. The FPU-unit will be considerably more powerful and the common performance will be boosted by around 15 percent. Each Jaguar core manufactured with 28 nm process will be 3.1 mm² large, which is smaller compared to Bobcat core manufactured with 40 nm process and 4.9 mm² in size. In order to improve performance, AMD will try to increase the number of cores as well as raise their clock-speed.

Those are pretty major improvements over the earlier architecture IMO.

Edited by Alex Atkin UK, 01 March 2013 - 01:30 PM.

[Desert Punk]

It says 15 percent in that text and the clock speed is already set I sure. The cpu spec is likely completely locked down now for PS4 with no chance of additional cores. It will certainly be a huge improvement on the current cpu performance of powerpc based consoles like 360, wii u and PS3 but just won't match cpu performance of PCs.

 

However the fact is the PS4 hardware will be fully utilised and not go through additional layers of software like on PCs to create compatibility with a wide range of hardware. Look how the 360 compares to PC hardware that in reality should massively outperform it. The PS4 will massively kick above its weight because it won't have all that windows bloatware crap.

 

Already PCs have massive superiority when it comes to CPU resources compared to consoles but you really don't see that much enhancement with regard AI, physics engines etc because games are written first with consoles in mind. The same is likely true of PS4 and Xbox 720. What ever additional cpu resources a PC has will be wasted as the PS4 and Xbox 720 will set the required level.

 

As a consumer I want all three companies to co-exist and compete with each other. This keeps prices competitive.  So I hope Sony succeeds with the PS4. I'm likely to buy one at some point I'm sure, maybe even at launch. I've never ever bought a Sony console at launch though previously. The only launch consoles I've ever bought were the Gamecube and wii u but must admit the PS4 is looking good.

[MorbidGod]

Could someone compare the tri core PowerPC in the Wii U and the 8 core AMD Jaguar in the PS4?

I guess a developer could. There isn't a way for a person like myself to do a fair comparison since we know so little about the Wii U specs.

Believe it or not, we know more about the PS4 at this moment then we do the Wii U.

(To Desert Punk)
I love how you just said the Wii U is 4 to 6 times less powerful than the PS4 (which is what I have been saying all along), and then said the PS4 is 4 to 6 times more powerful then last gen. Which means you believe the Wii U is last gen.

However, in this topic below, you said the Wii U is 2 times the power of the last gen consoles. Which should mean the PS4 is 6 to 8 times more powerful than the Last gen.

http://thewiiu.com/t...than-ps3/page-2

Some good info here;

http://gamrconnect.v...d.php?id=136756

Basically ps4 is about 5-6x more powerful than wii u overall. Which is a similar figure the ps4 has over 360 and PS3 overall. PS4 gpu is very impressive especially paired with the ultra fast memory. Cpu wise its a good upgrade on current gen but as already stated many intel PC cpus's have gone easily beyond it. Unlike the wii u though there does seem geniune cpu assistance inin the gpu.

Its a serious upgrade over wii u but the big issue is Sony are in deep debt and seem to be desperately trying to make sure the ps4 succeeds by having a very competitive specification however Nintendo can easily drop the price of their console and by then it will have a far larger library of software.

Edited by MorbidGod, 01 March 2013 - 02:20 PM.

[Socalmuscle]

Nobody can compare a thing about the PS4 CPU yet as no CPU using this specific architecture has been released yet.  However dismissing it as weak just because its a low-power CPU is silly.  The only console to ever be considered to have a strong CPU compared to the PC has been the PS3, and it wasn't all that helpful.

 

Lets not forget, the original Xbox used a Celeron which was the low-power version of the Pentium 3, but it punched well above its weight because developers were both more familiar with the architecture and also able to push it harder than on a PC due to knowing every Xbox is identical.  The PS4 has this same advantage, its similar to PC so familiar to developers but also a static configuration so can be pushed to its limit knowing every console will perform the same.

 

Also AMD have publicly said that its a much more powerful version of their chip than any of the PC versions will be, and it has some Sony specific customisations.  http://www.theinquir...aystation-4-apu  So it cannot be compared directly to a PC using a similar chip.

 

No one is saying the PS4 CPU setup is WEAK for its application.  But it is weak in the general CPU world.  

 

Compared to the Wii U CPU foundation, the PS4 cores are weaker at the same speed.  but they are faster and there are 8 of them versus 3.  So it will outperform the Wii U by a decent margin.  I wonder if Sony gave the PS4 CPU cores enough cache compared to the Wii U though...

 

The GPU might outperform the Wii U by a decent margin as well, but with Nintendo's gargantuan custom silicon in that thing, who knows.  That's sort of the wildcard in the graphics arena.  

 

2 GB of slower RAM versus 8 monstrous GB of blazing fast RAM is pretty much a big win in the Sony camp, though it will definitely cost big money.

 

In the end, with what you see on your screen, they should output similarly. Similar polygon numbers, similar texture quality, but more texture variation at once on PS4.  Also more characters with AI scripting at once.  Could end up being like the difference between Ninja Gaiden on PS3 vs Xbox, where the PS3 couldn't handle as many characters, thought the characters and objects you did see looked the same. i don't think we will be seeing a lot of that, but there may be some instances where that shows up.

 

In the end, game performance should be similar (with the edge going to PS4 - and a rare few games down the line pushing PS4 hard that distiguish it more, but never anything close to a Wii vs. PS3 situation. that was blowing a Nintendo console out of the water.  This is not.), with the better controller experience on the Wii U and less money spent on the "services" you will need to bring the PS4 gamepad experience up to par.

[MorbidGod]

True, but what we do not really know is how that compares to PowerPC.

I suspect even a relatively weak x86 would trounce a PowerPC.

Also from X-Bit:
Those are pretty major improvements over the earlier architecture IMO.

PowerPC has always been better than the competing Intel x86 processor. Apple moved away because they needed more apps and wanted to make it easier for developers. Cost probably was an issue as well.

No one is saying the PS4 CPU setup is WEAK for its application. But it is weak in the general CPU world.

Compared to the Wii U CPU foundation, the PS4 cores are weaker at the same speed. but they are faster and there are 8 of them versus 3. So it will outperform the Wii U by a decent margin. I wonder if Sony gave the PS4 CPU cores enough cache compared to the Wii U though...

The GPU might outperform the Wii U by a decent margin as well, but with Nintendo's gargantuan custom silicon in that thing, who knows. That's sort of the wildcard in the graphics arena.

2 GB of slower RAM versus 8 monstrous GB of blazing fast RAM is pretty much a big win in the Sony camp, though it will definitely cost big money.

In the end, with what you see on your screen, they should output similarly. Similar polygon numbers, similar texture quality, but more texture variation at once on PS4. Also more characters with AI scripting at once. Could end up being like the difference between Ninja Gaiden on PS3 vs Xbox, where the PS3 couldn't handle as many characters, thought the characters and objects you did see looked the same. i don't think we will be seeing a lot of that, but there may be some instances where that shows up.

In the end, game performance should be similar (with the edge going to PS4 - and a rare few games down the line pushing PS4 hard that distiguish it more, but never anything close to a Wii vs. PS3 situation. that was blowing a Nintendo console out of the water. This is not.), with the better controller experience on the Wii U and less money spent on the "services" you will need to bring the PS4 gamepad experience up to par.

Exactly.

[3Dude]

True, but what we do not really know is how that compares to PowerPC.
 
I suspect even a relatively weak x86 would trounce a PowerPC.
 
Also from X-Bit:
Those are pretty major improvements over the earlier architecture IMO.

power architecture of comparable purpose historically curb stomps x86. X86's greatest advantadge is typically the legacy of the ancient instruction set. It seems like EVERYTHING is compatable with x86.

the general outcome has been power>x86 for less power draw, and at lower clock speeds, and until 'recently', usually for a much better price to power point.

The G5 era was pretty rough on ibm, but the p7 is getting ibm back on track.... But without apple, they dont have the customer access they had enjoyed before.

Someone actually wrote a bench a little while backthat utilized broadways paired singles, and they were surprisingly capable.

Guy benched it against a bobcat core and iirc the number actually came out a little lower lower (lower is better).

Of course jaguar is not bobcat, but enhanced (somewhere around 15-25% performance gains from shrink, increased cache, and improved logic iirc).

But the espresso is WAAAAAY more improved than that (compared to its predecessor broadway. the 750fx recieved a 35% performance increase over the 750cle (broadways base) just from logic improvements and cache increases.... at 90nm (same process size as wiis broadway). espressos caches are bigger than fx (2 the size of ps4's caches, and one 2x as big as ps4's caches) and its 45nm, half the process size of broadway (big performance gains) and clocked nearly twice as high (more big gains).

However... the ps4 jaguars are half the process size of espresso, clocked higher, and its just too many cores. Even taking amdahls law into account, its just too many cores for espresso.

Espresso probably has an advantadge over code that cant be paralellized... But for everything that CAN benefit from concurrency, the ps4 will be reaping the rewards.

Edited by 3Dude, 01 March 2013 - 02:51 PM.

[Alex Atkin UK]

PowerPC has stagnated though, so I would be surprised if it doesn't come close to current x86 architecture.

 

That said, what is the AMD low-power architecture based on?  Intel Atom had more in common with Pentium 3 than Core, which was very much the same generation as when PowerPC was at its peak. 

 

In fact, the laptop I am using right now is using an ultra low voltage Pentium Dual Core (based on Core 2 Duo) and it utterly trounces the best Atoms at very similar power consumption.  Low power CPUs are just such a confusing mess, as a high-end CPU can be clocked low and get better performance with the same power consumption as a dedicated low-power CPU.  That segment is generally more about cost than the best performance per watt.

 

I think many people underestimate how much difference 8GB of RAM could make.  If a developer wants to really tap the next-gen console, they will have to ignore the Wii U entirely.  The reason they got away with it for so long this generation is they held back all the innovation that greater RAM and CPU power could bring to gaming, in favour of being able to run on consoles.

 

Once we have two consoles with much more CPU power and 8GB of RAM, eventually games will start utilising that in ways that CAN'T be scaled back to less RAM or CPU power.  After all, that is the point, to get the absolute maximum you can out of the machines.  At that point Wii U is going to again miss out, as the Wii did.

 

We already see this when they release a game on home console and portables.  The portable version gets its own separate version, not a port, and generally its a steaming pile of crap in comparison.  I tried playing Lego Harry Potter on PS Vita and it completely sucked compared to the PS3/Xbox 360 version (though granted, it was ported from 3DS).

Edited by Alex Atkin UK, 01 March 2013 - 02:56 PM.

[3Dude]

PowerPC has stagnated though, so I would be surprised if it doesn't come close to current x86 architecture.
 
That said, what is the AMD low-power architecture based on?  After all, Intel Atom had more in common with Pentium 3 than Core, which was very much the same generation as when PowerPC was at its peak.
 
I think many people underestimate how much difference 8GB of RAM could make.  If a developer wants to really tap the next-gen console, they will have to ignore the Wii U entirely.  The reason they got away with it for so long this generation is they held back all the innovation that greater RAM and CPU power could bring to gaming, in favour of being able to run on consoles.
 
Once we have two consoles with much more CPU power and 8GB of RAM, eventually games will start utilising that in ways that CAN'T be scaled back to less RAM or CPU power.  After all, that is the point, to get the absolute maximum you can out of the machines.  At that point Wii U is going to again miss out, as the Wii did.
 
We already see this when they release a game on home console and portables.  The portable version gets its own separate version, not a port, and generally its a steaming pile of crap in comparison.  I tried playing Lego Harry Potter on PS Vita and it completely sucked compared to the PS3/Xbox 360 version (though granted, it was ported from 3DS).

Nope, power 7 actually slaps i7 around.

Jaguar is based on bobcat which was the next gen after atom.

Its actually quite the stark departure in philosophy from the ps3 and cell....

ha, yeah, no, ps4 is nowhwere near that powerful. Its actually weaker than even I expected. And 720 is actually pretty far behind ps4...

Wii u may be in last place, but this is nothing like last gen.

Edited by 3Dude, 01 March 2013 - 03:03 PM.

[routerbad]

True, but what we do not really know is how that compares to PowerPC.

 

I suspect even a relatively weak x86 would trounce a PowerPC.

 

Also from X-Bit:

Those are pretty major improvements over the earlier architecture IMO.

Yeah x86 and PPC are different animals, but suffice it to say that PPC Power Architecture are seen more often in supercomputers and in spcaecraft, aircraft, etc.

True, but what we do not really know is how that compares to PowerPC.

 

I suspect even a relatively weak x86 would trounce a PowerPC.

 

Also from X-Bit:

Those are pretty major improvements over the earlier architecture IMO.

Yeah x86 and PPC are different animals, but suffice it to say that PPC Power Architecture are seen more often in supercomputers and in spcaecraft, aircraft, etc.

 

PowerPC has stagnated though, so I would be surprised if it doesn't come close to current x86 architecture.

 

That said, what is the AMD low-power architecture based on?  Intel Atom had more in common with Pentium 3 than Core, which was very much the same generation as when PowerPC was at its peak. 

 

In fact, the laptop I am using right now is using an ultra low voltage Pentium Dual Core (based on Core 2 Duo) and it utterly trounces the best Atoms at very similar power consumption.  Low power CPUs are just such a confusing mess, as a high-end CPU can be clocked low and get better performance with the same power consumption as a dedicated low-power CPU.  That segment is generally more about cost than the best performance per watt.

 

I think many people underestimate how much difference 8GB of RAM could make.  If a developer wants to really tap the next-gen console, they will have to ignore the Wii U entirely.  The reason they got away with it for so long this generation is they held back all the innovation that greater RAM and CPU power could bring to gaming, in favour of being able to run on consoles.

 

Once we have two consoles with much more CPU power and 8GB of RAM, eventually games will start utilising that in ways that CAN'T be scaled back to less RAM or CPU power.  After all, that is the point, to get the absolute maximum you can out of the machines.  At that point Wii U is going to again miss out, as the Wii did.

 

We already see this when they release a game on home console and portables.  The portable version gets its own separate version, not a port, and generally its a steaming pile of crap in comparison.  I tried playing Lego Harry Potter on PS Vita and it completely sucked compared to the PS3/Xbox 360 version (though granted, it was ported from 3DS).

That's where hardware tessellation, hardware lighting, etc can really cut down on RAM utilization.  Add to that Wii U has a relatively massive on die cache which is unthinkably fast, which cuts down on the need to swap in and out of main RAM pools as often.  The RAM does help a lot with unoptimized code, but there are diminishing returns there as well.  The idea is to try and reduce the need for massive amounts of data sitting in RAM and letting the GPU handle some of the functions that would normally be handled with memory mapped textures.

[Alex Atkin UK]

Nope, power 7 actually slaps i7 around.

Jaguar is based on bobcat which was the next gen after atom.

Its actually quite the stark departure in philosophy from the ps3 and cell....

ha, yeah, no, ps4 is nowhwere near that powerful. Its actually weaker than even I expected. And 720 is actually pretty far behind ps4...

Wii u may be in last place, but this is nothing like last gen.

Very interesting, I guess I was wrong to suggest PowerPC had stagnated.  However the Wii U CPU is not the top of the line PowerPC so its still fair to say its going to be far below the power of the PS4?

 

As for the Atom, what I meant was that its generally VERY weak by todays standards (unless you are comparing to ARM).  Its meant to be Intels NEXT architecture that finally brings Atom out of the gutter.  So are you saying that Jaguar is actually more like Intels next low power architecture and so in fact a fair jump above Atom performance? 

 

Generally, AMD is weaker on the CPU but stronger on the GPU.  Although all bets are off here anyway as we do not know if Sony added any features to the CPU or GPU side, we know they added something as AMD said as much.

 

Like I said, its not so much the CPU power that I can see being a problem - its RAM.

 

If they target games for PS4/XboxN then I can't see those games being portable to Wii U, they would need to butcher them in a big way or more likely write it from scratch.  But so many publishers seem to be putting big downers on the Wii U, it makes you wonder if they will bother.  Although, I would not be surprised if they change their tune once they see the PS4/XboxN struggle to sell in great numbers.

 

Its not a problem for me, I had no unrealistic expectation of the Wii U and always intended to get either PS4 or XboxN to go alongside it.  I expect the Wii U to have enough games catering to its own strengths, and those I agree will not necessarily look bad compares to PS4/XboxN games, at least as long as you can ignore the fact Wii U will probably predominantly be 720p.

 

Getting back on topic though, I think we can agree that the PS4 specs are perfectly reasonable and probably accurate.

Edited by Alex Atkin UK, 01 March 2013 - 03:19 PM.

[3Dude]

Like I said, its not so much the CPU power that I can see being a problem - its RAM.
 
If they target games for PS4/XboxN then I can't see those games being portable to Wii U, they would need to butcher them in a big way or more likely write it from scratch.  But so many publishers seem to be putting big downers on the Wii U, it makes you wonder if they will bother.  Although, I would not be surprised if they change their tune once they see the PS4/XboxN struggle to sell in great numbers.
 
Its not a problem for me, I had no unrealistic expectation of the Wii U and always intended to get either PS4 or XboxN to go alongside it.  I expect the Wii U to have enough games catering to its own strengths, and those I agree will not necessarily look bad compares to PS4/XboxN games, at least as long as you can ignore the fact Wii U will probably predominantly be 720p.
 
Getting back on topic though, I think we can agree that the PS4 specs are perfectly reasonable and probably accurate.

8Gb is not all for games, a large amount of it is going to be for the massive amount of simultaneously running services orbis and durango are going to wage war on each other with.

I cant even begin to describe the cost it would take to fund a team that made a game that filled 8GB of ram with assets and mantained that quality over the course of an actual game.

[routerbad]

Like I said, its not so much the CPU power that I can see being a problem - its RAM.

 

If they target games for PS4/XboxN then I can't see those games being portable to Wii U, they would need to butcher them in a big way or more likely write it from scratch.  But so many publishers seem to be putting big downers on the Wii U, it makes you wonder if they will bother.  Although, I would not be surprised if they change their tune once they see the PS4/XboxN struggle to sell in great numbers.

 

Its not a problem for me, I had no unrealistic expectation of the Wii U and always intended to get either PS4 or XboxN to go alongside it.  I expect the Wii U to have enough games catering to its own strengths, and those I agree will not necessarily look bad compares to PS4/XboxN games, at least as long as you can ignore the fact Wii U will probably predominantly be 720p.

 

Getting back on topic though, I think we can agree that the PS4 specs are perfectly reasonable and probably accurate.

Mainstream and even some performance GPU's only come with 2GB or less of VRAM. That hasn't been an issue because the GPU assistance has improved.  Many devs are able to get by with front loading all of a game's textures into RAM, but that isn't optimal, because there is more that needs to go on there other than texture caching.  

[ifrit05]

...Intel Atom had more in common with Pentium 3 than Core... 

 

The "Core" series are based upon the Pentium M arch, which in turn is based on the PIII arch. Both Atom and "Core" series are semi related. 

Edited by ifrit05, 01 March 2013 - 03:21 PM.

[routerbad]

8Gb is not all for games, a large amount of it is going to be for the massive amount of simultaneously running services orbis and durango are going to wage war on each other with.

I cant even begin to describe the cost it would take to fund a team that made a game that filled 8GB of ram with assets and mantained that quality over the course of an actual game.

I believe they most likely needed all of that 8GB to keep the system running smoothly in ANY game environment, they are taxing the crap out of it with their services, it's going to be cannibalizing a lot of CPU time as well, though the ARM chip will help with some of that.

[3Dude]

I believe they most likely needed all of that 8GB to keep the system running smoothly in ANY game environment, they are taxing the crap out of it with their services, it's going to be cannibalizing a lot of CPU time as well, though the ARM chip will help with some of that.I dont think they are cannibaluzing any cpu time.

You simply cant have 8 cpu's all focusing on one thing. Not everything can be paralellized, and once you hit amdahls law putting anymore cores towards running the game is a complete waste because they can only help speed up the part that can be paralellized, no matter how many cores you throw in the system it will NEVER be faster than how fast 1 core can execute that non paralellizable instruction thats being waited on. Super computers are INCREDIBLY ineffecient because of this.

It seems several cores should be plenty free to take on all manner of non gaming tasks, by design.

Edited by 3Dude, 01 March 2013 - 03:37 PM.

[routerbad]

I believe they most likely needed all of that 8GB to keep the system running smoothly in ANY game environment, they are taxing the crap out of it with their services, it's going to be cannibalizing a lot of CPU time as well, though the ARM chip will help with some of that.I dont think they are cannibaluzing any cpu time.

You simply cant have 8 cpu's all focusing on one thing. Not everything can be paralellized, and once you hit amdahls law putting anymore cores towards running the game is a complete waste because they can only help speed up the part that can be paralellized, no matter how many cores you throw in the system it will NEVER be faster than how fast 1 core can execute that non paralellizable instruction thats being waited on. Super computers are INCREDIBLY ineffecient because of this.

It seems several cores should be plenty free to take on all manner of non gaming tasks, by design.

Cannibalizing was probably the wrong word, I didn't mean to say at the expense of game code processing, over utilizing parallelism can hurt just as much as not using it at all.  What I meant was that because of the now and future services that the platform will be based around, they will have to set limitations on hardware utilization.  Background tasks do limit performance on any system, especially a closed system, and adding more, which will likely happen at some point, will cost more cycles, and it's something they need to plan for.

Edited by routerbad, 01 March 2013 - 03:52 PM.

[Alex Wolfers]

Even if the specs are true I'm still not won over by the flashy bells and whistles. I speak games. However I do know this to be a lie for a fact...

[MorbidGod]

PowerPC has stagnated though, so I would be surprised if it doesn't come close to current x86 architecture.

That said, what is the AMD low-power architecture based on? Intel Atom had more in common with Pentium 3 than Core, which was very much the same generation as when PowerPC was at its peak.

In fact, the laptop I am using right now is using an ultra low voltage Pentium Dual Core (based on Core 2 Duo) and it utterly trounces the best Atoms at very similar power consumption. Low power CPUs are just such a confusing mess, as a high-end CPU can be clocked low and get better performance with the same power consumption as a dedicated low-power CPU. That segment is generally more about cost than the best performance per watt.

I think many people underestimate how much difference 8GB of RAM could make. If a developer wants to really tap the next-gen console, they will have to ignore the Wii U entirely. The reason they got away with it for so long this generation is they held back all the innovation that greater RAM and CPU power could bring to gaming, in favour of being able to run on consoles.

Once we have two consoles with much more CPU power and 8GB of RAM, eventually games will start utilising that in ways that CAN'T be scaled back to less RAM or CPU power. After all, that is the point, to get the absolute maximum you can out of the machines. At that point Wii U is going to again miss out, as the Wii did.

We already see this when they release a game on home console and portables. The portable version gets its own separate version, not a port, and generally its a steaming pile of crap in comparison. I tried playing Lego Harry Potter on PS Vita and it completely sucked compared to the PS3/Xbox 360 version (though granted, it was ported from 3DS).

I'm not under estimating anything. But that 8GB if ram is not allt being used for Games. I think 2GB is being used for games and the rest for the OS, and sharing features.

But the speed of the ram def matters.

Very interesting, I guess I was wrong to suggest PowerPC had stagnated. However the Wii U CPU is not the top of the line PowerPC so its still fair to say its going to be far below the power of the PS4?

As for the Atom, what I meant was that its generally VERY weak by todays standards (unless you are comparing to ARM). Its meant to be Intels NEXT architecture that finally brings Atom out of the gutter. So are you saying that Jaguar is actually more like Intels next low power architecture and so in fact a fair jump above Atom performance?

Generally, AMD is weaker on the CPU but stronger on the GPU. Although all bets are off here anyway as we do not know if Sony added any features to the CPU or GPU side, we know they added something as AMD said as much.

Like I said, its not so much the CPU power that I can see being a problem - its RAM.

If they target games for PS4/XboxN then I can't see those games being portable to Wii U, they would need to butcher them in a big way or more likely write it from scratch. But so many publishers seem to be putting big downers on the Wii U, it makes you wonder if they will bother. Although, I would not be surprised if they change their tune once they see the PS4/XboxN struggle to sell in great numbers.

Its not a problem for me, I had no unrealistic expectation of the Wii U and always intended to get either PS4 or XboxN to go alongside it. I expect the Wii U to have enough games catering to its own strengths, and those I agree will not necessarily look bad compares to PS4/XboxN games, at least as long as you can ignore the fact Wii U will probably predominantly be 720p.

Getting back on topic though, I think we can agree that the PS4 specs are perfectly reasonable and probably accurate.

The Wii U CPU isn't the best IBM has, but it's good enough. As you said, AMD makes great GPU's, and they have made one great GPU for Nintendo.

Where Sony is choosing to start with a lower end AMD APU, Nintendo choose a versatile GPU that was top of the line and used as a base for future brands. What they ended up with (in both cases) is a highly customized GPU that will make up for the weaker CPU's.

This is the better way to make a console. Low powered CPU and a very good GPU. They are cheaper and it will end up with the same result.

Edited by MorbidGod, 01 March 2013 - 05:43 PM.

[Greg1040]

U seriously believe they are using 6gb of ram for os.

Rumours have it only 512mb is used for os even the Xbox is only meant to use 3gb and that has kinect ect and slower ram and 5gb for games.

Edited by Greg1040, 02 March 2013 - 02:58 AM.

[Alex Atkin UK]

There seems to be a lot of assumption that background services will eat RAM and CPU power, but if Sony have any sense (granted, the poor state of the OS for PS3/PS Vita doesn't hold much hope there) I cannot see any good reason that would be the case.

 

Just look at how much the Xbox 360 was able to do with its background services.  I really do not see why the PS4 would suddenly need 64 times the amount of RAM the Xbox 360 needed, even considering that the video encoding in the background will need some RAM to work.

 

We already know it has a low power CPU so it can remain online and download stuff when in standby.  We also highly suspect its an ARM, which have their own dedicated RAM and often come with hardware video encoding, something we also know the PS4 capable of.  That to me makes it highly likely that the video encoding isn't even using the main RAM or CPUs, it could be entirely offloaded onto the ARM chip.  The only place it could then cause problem is HDD IO latencies as obviously it must be caching the video data somewhere.

 

I could be way off the mark, but it just makes a lot of sense to do it that way.  Considering how powerful ARM chips are now, and how cheap they are, they could offload pretty much all the background services on there leaving the main CPU, GPU and RAM purely for games.