Support NeoGAF

[GamerEDM]

Source
redgamingtech

 

[rofif]

Yeah 3700x is a beast. no surprise.

 

[BlueXImpulse]

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.

 

[Dr.D00p]

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.

 

[Thugnificient]

Why do people keep saying the 3700X is equivalent to console CPU's? It's probably the closest but compared to the desktop-class, it has a paltry amount of L3 cache.

Furthermore, Renoir also has a Zen-2 based 8C/16T CPU in the Ryzen Pro 4700G 3.6GHz with the same L3 cache as the PS5 and same clock speeds yet it's about 15% slower than the 3700X when OC'd to 4.5GHz compared to 4.3GHz for the 3700X.

Here, however it seems to be pretty much a wash but boosts higher. Don't forget the SX has no boost to 4.4GHz like the PC CPU's which can boost 1-2 cores at a time.

I'm not quite ready to say the consoles are equivalent to the 3700X. I wouldn't jump the gun just yet.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

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.

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.

 

[FeiRR]

You can't have a next gen game which doesn't take advantage of the new CPU power.

Bethesda: hold my beer.

 

[BlueXImpulse]

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.

Probably further offset by the fact that the console CPU's don't have to do as much system oriented work.

 

[CrysisFreak]

tl;dr get your tissues ready for the next-gen console gaming you pervy cunts

 

[The Hamburglar]

Considering pc games barely use more than one core, do the consoles even use their multi cores properly.

 

[Thugnificient]

Considering pc games barely use more than one core, do the consoles even use their multi cores properly.

In 2006 maybe this was true.

 

[Armorian]

Considering pc games barely use more than one core, do the consoles even use their multi cores properly.

LOL, if you said 4 you would be right, most games are still not using much more than that.

 

[GymWolf]

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.

I think that most of the spectacle in ratchet is gpu work more than cpu work.

I want to see some non scripted destruction in future games, now they have zero fucking excuse.

 

[kuncol02]

Yeah 3700x is a beast. no surprise.

More like "PS4 cpu is two bad tablet cpus ducktaped together. No surprise"

 

[YeulEmeralda]

More like "PS4 cpu is two bad tablet cpus ducktaped together. No surprise"

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.

 

[kuncol02]

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.

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.

 

[Dr.D00p]

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.

 

[TLZ]

The PS5 only has use of 7c 14t for gaming.

?

 

[Dr.D00p]

?

1 core 2 threads on the CPU are reserved for running the PS5 operating system at all times in the background.

 

[TLZ]

1 core 2 threads on the CPU are reserved for running the PS5 operating system at all times in the background.

Really? Where'd you see that? I must've missed it.

 

[geordiemp]

Source
redgamingtech

4 x has been known for a long time, and its 8 x for AVX.

Whats interesting is with CPU heavy next gen games with more physics, animations and alive worlds, PC is no longer 4 to 5 x the console jaguar CPU power to brute force frame rates on more complex games without going much wider.

Next gen will be interesting for sure.

 

[notseqi]

brute force

what does that even mean

 

[geordiemp]

what does that even mean

CPU Powerful force, call it whatever you like if it makes you happy. That was not the point being made.

Point is next gen Consoles will be Zen 2 3.5 Ghz and so any next gen game CPU heavy you cannot just throw 4 x the power at it as easily as was possible last gen to get high frame rates.

 

[GreyHand23]

1 core 2 threads on the CPU are reserved for running the PS5 operating system at all times in the background.

It’s the same for PS4 so what’s your point?

 

[llien]

Only 3 times slower single core, 4 times slower multithreading?
Preorder canceled!

joking

 

[Great Hair]

Apollo H. already shared a better/correct way of comparing cpus

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

Spoiler

Thread for Thread (theoretical max, as threads are not as efficient as cores)
XB1@56Gflops (8T@1.75Ghz)@1046 points (Cinebench R20)
PS4@51GFlops (8T@1.6Ghz)@950 points (Cinebench R20)
4670@64Gflops (4C@4Ghz)@1254 points (Cinebench R20)
i7 9700@147Ggflops (8C@4.6Ghz)@3750 points (Cinebench R20)
i7 9700@131Gflops (8C@4.1Ghz)@3340 points (CB R20) +45% than i3 10100
i3 10100@131Gflops (4C,8T@4.1Ghz)@2284 points (Cinebench R20)
i5 10500@191Gflops (12T@3.9Ghz)@@3100 points (Cinebench R20)
PS5@224Gflops (4.4x) (16T) roughly 4,070 points (Cinebench R20) -18.6%
XSX@230Gflops (4.1x) (16T) roughly 4,186 points (Cinebench R20) -17%
3700X@268Gflops (16T)/3800X@5000 points (Cinebench R20) 100%
3900X@403Gflops (24T)
3950X@560Gflops (32T)@9300 points (Cinebench R20)
3990X@1,9996Gflops (128T)@23500 points (Cinebench R20)

Threads used for Games (2 core, threads for OS, background tasks)
XB1@42Gflops (6T)
PS4@38GFlops (6T)
PS5@196Gflops (5.1x) (14T)
XSX@201Gflops (4.8x) (14T)

 

[Dr.D00p]

It’s the same for PS4 so what’s your point?

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.

 

[Zathalus]

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.

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.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I already knew the CPU upgrade was big but damn.......

Same goes for the massive I/O upgrade BTW.

 

[A Most Virtuous Cat]

S

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.

Source?

 

[GymWolf]

Unfortunately nobody force devs to insert more physics in their games if they don't wanna waste time and money on it, also more physics always come with more glitch and bugs to iron out in betatesting, so even with these big cpu upgrade we really don't know how devs are gonna use all this power.

 

[Dodkrake]

1 core 2 threads on the CPU are reserved for running the PS5 operating system at all times in the background.

Source? I'll wait

 

[Fake]

Mild shock.

 

[LED Guy?]

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.

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.

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.

 

[nochance]

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.

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.

 

[geordiemp]

S

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.

 

[namekuseijin]

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

 

[LED Guy?]

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.

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.

 

[kuncol02]

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

Yeah. All of them are dead static worlds with almost no interactivity. Old Trespasser has more interactive world than all that games together.

 

[aries_71]

Why did they think that jaguar was a good basis for this generation? It was a power consumption, or cost decision?

 

[kuncol02]

Why did they think that jaguar was a good basis for this generation? It was a power consumption, or cost decision?

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.

 

[SlimySnake]

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.

 

[Bryank75]

Last gen was a decent jump in GPU, this next gen is all about CPU and SSD.

 

[DonF]

Hopefuly FromSoftware games this gen will not have frame pacing issues...

 

[Fake]

Why did they think that jaguar was a good basis for this generation? It was a power consumption, or cost decision?

Money. You people are delusional if you think Sony and Microsoft should use a 'Intel like' CPU for current gen. For the time PS4/Xbox was launched and for the price they're asking, was a excellent deal.

Every console CPU is trash for non talent hands.

 

[Ar¢tos]

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?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

4x jump is solidly sweet

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?

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).

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.

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?

 

[Ar¢tos]

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?

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.

 

[kuncol02]

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.

Having two CPUs with different architecture which need to work together is nightmare from any point of view.

 

[iHaunter]

Considering pc games barely use more than one core, do the consoles even use their multi cores properly.

PC gaming hasn't used 1 core in 10 years. What?