The PS5 isn't using a 3700X, its based on the 4800 Laptop APU with cut down clocks and cache levels, so you can knock at least 20% off those 3700X scores for a true representation, still massively more powerful but not quite the jump these graphs suggest.
Bethesda: hold my beer.You can't have a next gen game which doesn't take advantage of the new CPU power.
The 3700X is capped at 3.5 GHZ in the benchmark (at the PS5's max frequency). The lower L3 cache might have an impact, but we're talking maybe a handful of percent of lower performance.
In 2006 maybe this was true.Considering pc games barely use more than one core, do the consoles even use their multi cores properly.
Considering pc games barely use more than one core, do the consoles even use their multi cores properly.
I think that most of the spectacle in ratchet is gpu work more than cpu work.You can't have a next gen game which doesn't take advantage of the new CPU power. All other games for the past 7 years have been using those horrible Jaguar cores as minimum spec. It's why the R&C world looks so alive.
More like "PS4 cpu is two bad tablet cpus ducktaped together. No surprise"Yeah 3700x is a beast. no surprise.
More like "PS4 cpu is two bad tablet cpus ducktaped together. No surprise"
PS2 for time it was made was fine console. I can't think of generation with so underpowered CPU as current one. That shitty Jaguar was slower in some applications than X360 PowerPC.Its always been about the games. Take the PS2: terrible hardware but generally considered the best console of all time because of its extensive and diverse library.
The 3700X is capped at 3.5 GHZ in the benchmark (at the PS5's max frequency). The lower L3 cache might have an impact, but we're talking maybe a handful of percent of lower performance.
?The PS5 only has use of 7c 14t for gaming.
Really? Where'd you see that? I must've missed it.1 core 2 threads on the CPU are reserved for running the PS5 operating system at all times in the background.
Source
redgamingtech
what does that even meanbrute force
what does that even mean
1 core 2 threads on the CPU are reserved for running the PS5 operating system at all times in the background.
FLOPS = 2 * (# of cores) * (number of clock cycles per second) * (number of floating point operations per cycle) for x86 architecture
PS3 Cell ran at 3.2GHz, SPU could do four single-precision floating-point numbers in a single clock cycle
So a single SPU FLOPS= 2*1*4*3.2=25,6 GFLOPS
PS4 Jaguar ran at 1.6Ghz, could do two single-precision floating-point numbers in a single clock cycle
So PS4 whole CPU FLOPS=2*8*2*1,6=51,2 GFLOPS
It’s the same for PS4 so what’s your point?
You do realize that the computer OS has a performance overhead as well right? A PC is not getting 100% of that 8c/16t at all times, some performance is left on the table to execute background OS tasks. Perhaps not a entire cores worth, but the impact is there all the same.No point other than the above benchmarks show a 3700X running at the same clock speeds as the PS5 but with all of its 8c 16t being used, which the PS5 won't be able to do for gaming, so its not exactly an accurate representation of the performance available to the PS5, in terms of CPU grunt.
Source?The PS5 isn't using a 3700X, its based on the 4800 Laptop APU with cut down clocks and cache levels, so you can knock at least 20% off those 3700X scores for a true representation, still massively more powerful but not quite the jump these graphs suggest.
1 core 2 threads on the CPU are reserved for running the PS5 operating system at all times in the background.
No point other than the above benchmarks show a 3700X running at the same clock speeds as the PS5 but with all of its 8c 16t being used, which the PS5 won't be able to do for gaming, so its not exactly an accurate representation of the performance available to the PS5, in terms of CPU grunt.
Actually, the AMD 4800H CPU's design is monolithic, so those cache decreases doesn't affect it, in fact, it is scoring better than the 3700X in some benchmarks, it is about the same if not as powerful.The PS5 isn't using a 3700X, its based on the 4800 Laptop APU with cut down clocks and cache levels, so you can knock at least 20% off those 3700X scores for a true representation, still massively more powerful but not quite the jump these graphs suggest.
So, will PS5 not have a background OS and recording/streaming functionalities? Or the online communications available at all times? Wow, that's a massive downgrade from a PS4 if that's the case.Actually, the AMD 4800H CPU's design is monolithic, so those cache decreases doesn't affect it, in fact, it is scoring better than the 3700X in some benchmarks, it is about the same if not as powerful.
Also, consoles are way more optimized and are made for one certain task, and that is gaming, just look at how Digital Foundry made a PC with an equivalent of PS4/XB1 Jaguar CPU, the CPU utilization was at 99% all the time, they couldn't play a freaking game, yet PS4 & Xbox One can play games like RDR 2, TLOU 2, Doom Eternal at 60 FPS etc etc...
All I'm saying is that these comparisons you're making are wrong, in fact, if we factored in everything, you would see the Ryzen 3700X struggling with the higher-end Next-gen games while the CPUs inside XSX/PS5 will be doing it easily.
S
Source?
You're not getting it, I'm saying that even with this, it still is much more optimized than on a PC, it's a fact you have to deal with.So, will PS5 not have a background OS and recording/streaming functionalities? Or the online communications available at all times? Wow, that's a massive downgrade from a PS4 if that's the case.
Yeah. All of them are dead static worlds with almost no interactivity. Old Trespasser has more interactive world than all that games together.pc peasants frothing teraflops and cache levels seem to forget modest jaguar was enough to play HZD, Detroit, Driveclub, Uncharted 4, GoW and other games that tend to graphically humiliate pc gaming
PowerPC was dead, ARM was to slow so there was only x86 architecture on table with Intel way to expensive and big AMD CPUs to hot for consoles.Why did they think that jaguar was a good basis for this generation? It was a power consumption, or cost decision?
AMD had nothing else at the time that they could put in a console.Why did they think that jaguar was a good basis for this generation? It was a power consumption, or cost decision?
Why did they think that jaguar was a good basis for this generation? It was a power consumption, or cost decision?
Comparing a Jaguar core to a Zen2 core, half of a Zen2 core would already be an overload for a BSD based OS to run on the background.1 core 2 threads on the CPU are reserved for running the PS5 operating system at all times in the background.
Comparing a Jaguar core to a Zen2 core, half of a Zen2 core would already be an overload for a BSD based OS to run on the background.
What's your source?
I guess he is referring to lower L2 cache in consoles and lower fequency comared to desktop, this is known......but again we dont know the effect on performance as its a console APU architecture.
Reserving a full core for OS probably made sense with Jaguar, but a full Zen2 core is a massive waste of resources. It would be better to get a stronger (than ps4) secondary ARM processor with it's own RAM able to handle the OS fulltime.4x jump is solidly sweet
There are no sources for OS core/thread reserves on any systems yet. However, I'd figure you would want to isolate the OS to its own core for security-related reasons and to just give the OS it's own guaranteed space on the CPU to crunch work whenever it needs to (which will be often).
Remember seeing stuff on the 4800H a while back. Dunno about the lower L2$, but L3$ for sure is cut back on both systems. Then again, they wouldn't need as much as desktop (and at least they actually have L3$, the prior systems didn't).
So are we really looking at more around 80% of 3700X in the consoles?
Having two CPUs with different architecture which need to work together is nightmare from any point of view.Reserving a full core for OS probably made sense with Jaguar, but a full Zen2 core is a massive waste of resources. It would be better to get a stronger (than ps4) secondary ARM processor with it's own RAM able to handle the OS fulltime.
Considering pc games barely use more than one core, do the consoles even use their multi cores properly.