SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
they should be using the base ps4 cpu clocks at 1.6 ghz.
I don't see why. FreeBSD can handle different architectures and it has been done before. All it takes is for the instructions to be translated between instruction sets. In a way the Ps3 was already doing this, the PPC core had an architecture and instruction set somewhat different from the SPUs.Having two CPUs with different architecture which need to work together is nightmare from any point of view.
Apollo H. already shared a better/correct way of comparing cpus
Thread for Thread (theoretical max, as threads are not as efficient as cores)
XB1@56Gflops ([email protected])@1046 points (Cinebench R20)
PS4@51GFlops ([email protected])@950 points (Cinebench R20)
4670@64Gflops (4C@4Ghz)@1254 points (Cinebench R20)
i7 9700@147Ggflops ([email protected])@3750 points (Cinebench R20)
i7 9700@131Gflops ([email protected])@3340 points (CB R20) +45% than i3 10100
i3 10100@131Gflops (4C,[email protected])@2284 points (Cinebench R20)
i5 10500@191Gflops ([email protected])@@3100 points (Cinebench R20)
PS5@224Gflops (4.4x) (16T)
XSX@230Gflops (4.1x) (16T)
3700X@268Gflops (16T)/3800X@5000 points (Cinebench R20)
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)
Those things you mentioned have nothing to do with FLOPS.Is there anyway to know how many Gflops the PS3 had if you include unusable cores, threads for OS, and background tasks?
they should be using the base ps4 cpu clocks at 1.6 ghz.
Those things you mentioned have nothing to do with FLOPS.
Is there anyway to know how many Gflops the PS3 had if you include unusable cores, threads for OS, and background tasks?
The PS3 uses the Cell microprocessor, which is made up of one 3.2 GHz PowerPC-based "Power Processing Element" (PPE) and six accessible Synergistic Processing Elements (SPEs). A seventh runs in a special mode and is dedicated to aspects of the OS and security, and an eighth is a spare to improve production yields. PlayStation 3's Cell CPU achieves a theoretical maximum of 230.4 GFLOPS in single precision floating point operations and up to 15 GFLOPS double precision[1]
Yeah. All of them are dead static worlds with almost no interactivity. Old Trespasser has more interactive world than all that games together.
Wiki says
CELL Chip
8x SPE, 8x 25.6Gflops = 204.8Gflops SPE + 1x PPE = 255 or 265Gflops
PS3 Chip
6x SPE, 6x 25.6Gflops + 1x SPE for OS, Tasks (dont know if clocked the same, as the other 6x SPE or at a lower speed, an 8th SPE disabled) = 169 or 179Gflops
6x SPE + 1x SPE + 1x PPE = 230Gflops
PPE = 51Gflops or 61Gflops
What's interactive about their worlds? Footprints in the snow? Breath of the Wild on weaker hardware was substantially( and by a big big margin) more interactive than either GoW or H:ZD. My biggest complaint about H:ZD was that it's world was just a pretty landscape that you couldn't do anything with. It's like the city in Mafia 2. Looks great, but there's nothing to do.Lol now Horizon and God of War are dead static world. I read it all. So much salt.
Tetris sure looks better on PC 4K/120 fps with Geforce 3x series.
Accept most of the best looking games are console exclusives due to budget and talent and despite having less tetrafloops (tm), you'll feel better.
It's surprising how the PS4/xb1 CPUs aren't that much slower than those 9th gen i7s and 10th gen i3/i5!.. and almost on par with the i5 4670.Apollo H. already shared a better/correct way of comparing cpus
Thread for Thread (theoretical max, as threads are not as efficient as cores)
XB1@56Gflops ([email protected])@1046 points (Cinebench R20)
PS4@51GFlops ([email protected])@950 points (Cinebench R20)
4670@64Gflops (4C@4Ghz)@1254 points (Cinebench R20)
i7 9700@147Ggflops ([email protected])@3750 points (Cinebench R20)
i7 9700@131Gflops ([email protected])@3340 points (CB R20) +45% than i3 10100
i3 10100@131Gflops (4C,[email protected])@2284 points (Cinebench R20)
i5 10500@191Gflops ([email protected])@@3100 points (Cinebench R20)
PS5@224Gflops (4.4x) (16T)
XSX@230Gflops (4.1x) (16T)
3700X@268Gflops (16T)/3800X@5000 points (Cinebench R20)
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)
The PS4 has sound (audio DSP from AMD) and decompression hardware (zlib based decompression of assets) too, just not the same level of decompression or sound processing.Sounds about right, but people should keep in mind PS5 CPU will be not wasting CPU usage on sound and data decompression compared to PS4, so the difference will be much bigger.
The XSX is comparable to a 4800H and this is a tad bit slower...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.
It's surprising how the PS4/xb1 CPUs aren't that much slower than those 9th gen i7s and 10th gen i3/i5!.. and almost on par with the i5 4670.
Lol now Horizon and God of War are dead static world. I read it all. So much salt.
Tetris sure looks better on PC 4K/120 fps with Geforce 3x series.
Accept most of the best looking games are console exclusives due to budget and talent and despite having less tetrafloops (tm), you'll feel better.
He's right tho. Those worlds are pretty, but very static and un-interactive.
The 4800(and console SoC) are monolithic dies, so reduced latency between cores compared to a 3700X, for systems using GDDR6 as system memory this is extremely important.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.
System runs on CPU. You were asking about performance of GPU. You mix up technical terms.It has everything to do with "how many" FLOPS are available for games though.
Fun fact: Intel processors are in fact RISC. x86 code (which is CISC) is translated on the fly.I don't see why. FreeBSD can handle different architectures and it has been done before. All it takes is for the instructions to be translated between instruction sets. In a way the Ps3 was already doing this, the PPC core had an architecture and instruction set somewhat different from the SPUs.
Fun fact: Intel processors are in fact RISC. x86 code (which is CISC) is translated on the fly.
Sigh, you toxic little Sony fanboys really are the worst...
Tell me what you see and work it out for yourself..
4800
![]()
3700X
![]()
Seeing as Cinebench scores scale up or down linearly with clock speeds, the scores between the 4800 & 3700 will always have the same differential, approx 15%, then factor in reduced cache and the PS5 having 1 core/2 threads unavailable for gaming purposes, the 20% reduction in pure CPU processing power is easily reached.
Now you can argue that Sony's custom PS5 SDK & API's will overcome that CPU deficit and that maybe true, but that was not the original point of this thread, was it.
Interactive environment my ass. You could replace whole environment in Horizon with cardboard cutouts and nothing in gameplay would change.That's completely false, there are tons of interactive things. Look in Horizon, grass moving, dinos moving everywhere, wind in Ghost Tsushima altering everything. Which much more interactive worlds are you thinking about ?
I do not like this "brute force" name calling, I think it's sufficient power for next gen, which hopefully is going to be enough for a long years without botllenecking rest of the HW.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.
I do not like this "brute force" name calling, I think it's sufficient power for next gen, which hopefully is going to be enough for a long years without botllenecking rest of the HW.
This implies shitty coding and since I doing programming, I don't find that nice, that's all. However that's all I have againts your argument : DI was referring to zen2 as brute force, on pc xbox and ps5. so iI was not really name calling anything really. Call it super force if ut helps.
This implies shitty coding and since I doing programming, I don't find that nice, that's all. However that's all I have againts your argument : D
Yeah 3700x is a beast. no surprise.
Sure, and some of the best games ever are 8 and 16 bit. But aren’t you glad to see tech progress so we can have games like RDR2 be possible? Better destruction and AI could lead to some really fun gameplayIts 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.