Well Jaguar will be a lot better then Bulldozer/Vishera architecture, also it won't have 2 shared threads per module, but each module with its own thread.. If Bulldozer had this apporach it would crush current SB/IB.

Jaguar is in the same league as Atom, Vishera would eat it alive. It's not even supposed to be in the same benchmark graph as Vishera or Ivy Bridge.

One is running D3D the other is OpenGL, there are bound to be differences in graphics between the two especially when it comes to lighting as the shaders are totally different. Also why would the textures be limited on PS4? It has nearly the same texture bandwidth as the GTX680 and has access way to more memory. Anyway, we don't even know how long Epic has had to optimize their engine for the PS4. AMD's SIMD architecture barely gets utilized properly now as a 7970 despite having significantly more shader performance than 680 performs similarly. Once these games are optimized to fill all those SIMDs the performance gap will close. As for the CPU, it hardly matters on a PC either. Look at AMD vs Intel, AMD despite performing worse in pretty much everything matches Intel when the load is GPU bottlenecked. Which is going to be the case in pretty much everything next-gen. On a console it's even less, especially considering they are offloading more and more onto either specialized chips (like PS4's encoding unit or PS4's GPU based physics) I'm also pretty sure that the engineers who have been designing CPUs and GPU's for the last 15 or so years know how properly strike a balance between the two, especially AMD who have been dominating in the APU area. I mean obviously these consoles aren't going to be as good as PCs. But they aren't terrible and they are more than capable of running this demo at decent framerate. And because the hardware is so similar to that of a PC ports off the consoles should be less buggy and should have better performance. Hopefully they'll take the time it used to, to implement better control schemes for mouse and keyboard.

Again, I want to know where this myth that the CPU doesn't matter at high resolutions and graphic levels came from. It's been debunked so many times, it's almost criminal to keep repeating it. Here's a bunch at 1080p (the same resolution this console is targeted at): http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-63.jpg http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-67.jpg http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-69.jpg http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-6300-FX-4300/FX-6300-FX-4300-71.jpg http://media.bestofmicro.com/O/M/375430/original/Crysis3-CPU.png http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/E/371210/original/Skyrim.png http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/H/371213/original/StarCraft2.png ========== ========== The problem is the console ports up till now have nearly always been like this: http://media.bestofmicro.com/F/5/371201/original/DiRT.png But that's 100% a problem of the game itself not being properly coded by the devs. The games that are properly coded end up looking like the one's I quoted. And now keep in mind that Jaguar is far weaker than all of the CPU's quoted on the list, even 8 cores of them wouldn't come close to many of them.

Jaguar is in the same league as Atom, Vishera would eat it alive. It's not even supposed to be in the same benchmark graph as Vishera or Ivy Bridge.

Maybe, but it has more efficient architecture then Vishera, it has no sharing threads and each module can do more..

Chillin. Right on the ball. 🙂. I'm all for a better video games as i see them as art but i can;t stand them crippled on a console and i don't like how i pay the same price for it not working as it should on a PC with all its great hardware. IE not dedicated servers.

Maybe, but it has more efficient architecture then Vishera, it has no sharing threads and each module can do more..

I don't think you understand what Jaguar is or who it's targeting. Let me put this into a better perspective. http://www.3dcenter.org/dateien/abbildungen/AMD-Jaguar-vs-Bobcat.jpg An E-350 gets 2,251 in Cinebench MT, an i7-3770k gets 25,703. So even if I go completely crazy and say Jaguar will be 50% faster than the E-350 and that it will have four times the cores, that only reaches 13,200; or less than half the speed of an i7-3770k. And that's if I went completely nuts in estimating the improvements from Bobcat to Jaguar, a more realistic look is perhaps 15% per core, with double the cores for Jaguar vs. Bobcat. Anand went through some math on his Twitter, basically the new CPU in the PS4 might be only slightly faster than the one in the xBox360 per thread! https://twitter.com/Fire0cean/status/304453492741898240 http://www.anandtech.com/show/6770/sony-announces-playstation-4-pc-hardware-inside

As far as i know it will be 8 core not 4 like on that slide.. Also what's with this AMD PS4 bashing? The thing will have enough power for next-gen engine games like U4E, Luminous, etc.

As far as i know it will be 8 core not 4 like on that slide.. Also what's with this AMD PS4 bashing? The thing will have enough power for next-gen engine games like U4E, Luminous, etc.

It's not AMD bashing, I would be vocal about it if they chose Atom as well. And you have to remember, the PS3 is going to be 7 years old by the time the PS4 launches, the PS2 was 6 years old by the time the PS3 launched. There is no indication that the PS4 will have a shorter lifespan. The difference being is that the PS3 and xBox 360 both launched with CPU's that were competitive (if not faster) than most top desktop CPU's at the time and also launched with the top graphics chip, the main place they skipped out on was RAM. This time around the PS4 launches with neither, it launches with a pathetic CPU and a mid-high range GPU, but enough RAM. What's disappointing as well, is that it doesn't seem to be launching with any new standards for use as a media hub as well. I haven't heard anything about 802.11ac, etc.

I hope next gen at least uses 4xAF.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFgVR2Ke0XY&feature=youtube_gdata_player Pc and ps4 comparison.

I'd be interested in learning how much of that was done in post production, I noticed some (minor) lens effects, like chromatic aberration and glints. The recent BF4 video had a lot of this, but believe that's just 'style' and not post production. For some reason, even though BF3 and soon BF4 are first person perspective, we still have lens effects, as if the person playing is a Borg drone and not, y'know, human. As this demo was cinematic, it's okay to have lens effects. I just want to know how much of this was 'in game' and not 'in After Effects/nuke'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFgVR2Ke0XY&feature=youtube_gdata_player Pc and ps4 comparison.

Thanks, looks like PS4 is crippled a bit.. Nice to know PC gpu has more potential when such games arrive.

Thanks, looks like PS4 is crippled a bit.. Nice to know PC gpu has more potential when such games arrive.

It also could've been the PC demo wasn't running UE4, but just a render - we'll never know.

It's not AMD bashing, I would be vocal about it if they chose Atom as well. And you have to remember, the PS3 is going to be 7 years old by the time the PS4 launches, the PS2 was 6 years old by the time the PS3 launched. There is no indication that the PS4 will have a shorter lifespan. The difference being is that the PS3 and xBox 360 both launched with CPU's that were competitive (if not faster) than most top desktop CPU's at the time and also launched with the top graphics chip, the main place they skipped out on was RAM. This time around the PS4 launches with neither, it launches with a pathetic CPU and a mid-high range GPU, but enough RAM. What's disappointing as well, is that it doesn't seem to be launching with any new standards for use as a media hub as well. I haven't heard anything about 802.11ac, etc.

They'll probably wait until they do a hardware revision (slim) and stick in some new stuff like the 802.11ac you mentioned.

Again, I want to know where this myth that the CPU doesn't matter at high resolutions and graphic levels came from. It's been debunked so many times, it's almost criminal to keep repeating it. Here's a bunch at 1080p (the same resolution this console is targeted at): But that's 100% a problem of the game itself not being properly coded by the devs. The games that are properly coded end up looking like the one's I quoted. And now keep in mind that Jaguar is far weaker than all of the CPU's quoted on the list, even 8 cores of them wouldn't come close to many of them.

The "Myth" originated when you look at games that primarily taxing the GPU over the CPU. Which is actually, in my opinion, a well designed game -- not a poorly coded one. The only thing the processor should be used for is AI, physics and handling the D3D/OpenGL API calls. On a console a CPU is primarily focused on doing these tasks and the tasks themselves are heavily optimized and multithreaded for the architecture of the CPU. The CPU on the PS4 isn't an issue when it comes to gaming on it. The issue at first is going to be learning how to fill all the SIMD units on the GCN GPU they have in it. Until that happens they are only going to be utilizing like 1.2-1.3TF of the 1.84 they have. And I still stand by my original statement, the console will be able to play this tech demo fine.

It's not AMD bashing, I would be vocal about it if they chose Atom as well. And you have to remember, the PS3 is going to be 7 years old by the time the PS4 launches, the PS2 was 6 years old by the time the PS3 launched. There is no indication that the PS4 will have a shorter lifespan. The difference being is that the PS3 and xBox 360 both launched with CPU's that were competitive (if not faster) than most top desktop CPU's at the time and also launched with the top graphics chip, the main place they skipped out on was RAM. This time around the PS4 launches with neither, it launches with a pathetic CPU and a mid-high range GPU, but enough RAM. What's disappointing as well, is that it doesn't seem to be launching with any new standards for use as a media hub as well. I haven't heard anything about 802.11ac, etc.

They also cost $800 to manufacturer and needed to be subsizied for a long time before they were actually making money on them. I mean to compete with high end stuff now the console would literally need to be $1500 to compete with Titan/7990 or whatever. I mean the largest complaint about the last gen was the entry price, they are obviously trying to remedy that. And yeah, lack of AC and 5Ghz is terrible on Sony's part. The only reason why I was going to get one was for media playback and for that it seems pretty useless now. Separate from all this.. I wonder what physics system they are utilizing in these demos. I think I read somewhere that they licensed PhysX again, but the particle effects and water physics are pretty awesome looking in these.

That Elemental on PS4 was apparently running with Havok hw physics, that last part where its missing on PC version. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNRYaKE87X8