Is PS4 really more powerful than PS3 (cpu speaking) ?

[Linux-SWAT]

Hi !

I wonder if the over-optimized CELL processor isn't still more "powerful" than the PS4's x86_64.

After tons of ARM vs x86, time for PPC vs x86 !

 

[Exophase]

What are you comparing exactly? What does powerful mean?

The 1 PPE + 6 SPEs combined had a higher peak theoretical FLOP capability than the 8 Jaguar cores on PS4. But that peak is a drop in the bucket compared to the FLOP budget of the GPU. The PPE really, really sucked at general purpose code, it was just terrible, typical code would spend several cycles per instruction on average. It had really serious problems with weak branch prediction + huge mispredict penalty, high taken predicted branch penalty, big load-hit-store penalty, large L2 hit and especially miss latency, etc. The SPEs weren't really useful for general purpose code at all since they were stuck running with 256KB RAMs, most of the code that was executed on them was well suited to GPUs. Which is a big reason why PS3 games weren't really much ahead of XBox 360 games, those SPEs were often making up for the weak GPU and doing things that XBox 360's GPU could manage directly. So much of the sort of code people ran on the SPEs would be ran on the GPU instead on PS4. For the remaining stuff the Jaguar CPUs are a huge improvement.

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

YES!!! Four is bigger than three!! So it must be better...right?

 

[Batou456]

The PS3's Cell Engine is basically a single general purpose processor with 7 co-processors optimized for FLOPs. 

The PS4 has 8 general purpose x86-64 processor cores and 18 Compute Units which are organized with the intent of being used via the Heterogenous System Architecture to help better balance the load between these components.  The PS4 should have higher core availability and less overhead due to better coherency measures.  That it's not being starved for RAM and thus has less cause the be thrashing related to getting things into RAM should help with real world performance.  The RAM itself should also be better given GDDR5 versus GDDR3 and what happens in almost 10 years with memory tech otherwise.

I picked up a PS3 Super Slim recently due to interest with JRPGs and the PS3's back catalogue of exclusives.  I've been enjoying it in this capacity but also pulled in some stuff via PS+ to compare in terms of 3D engines from the post programmable shader era.  Borderlands 2, which I pulled in associated with PS+, looks like it's running at around 640x480 based on adjusting the resolution on my 22" 1080p PC monitor (DVI-D) and the 24" 1080p TV (HDMI) my PS3 is hooked up to and currently setup so I just have to turn around to look at either.

Note: Something like Dead or Alive 5 isn't a 3D engine in quite the same way something like Borderlands 2 is.  Dead or Alive 5 however isn't the type of game I heard most console advocates focusing on, despite being a traditionally console type of game.

I've noticed the draw distance of post programmable shader 3D games appears to be roughly the distance of a small room before the engine knocks down the details significantly.  From everything I've seen it's really solid with pre-programmable shader engines like the Zone of the Enders HD remake, but doesn't have the grunt to handle programmable shader engines without enough compromises as to almost completely defeat the point.  The AMD C-50 APU could run Crysis at 1024x600, that didn't mean it was hardware you wanted to go out of your way to do so with.

From my perspective the PS3 is hardware meant for late 3D era engines that was forced into the programmable shader era, and the PS4 is the first Playstation that has the power to handle programmable shader 3D engines.  That things can be scaled down like that isn't novel, like I mentioned an AMD C-50 was tested to play Crysis at a low resolution and settings. To me it looks like 8th gen here is a massive revolutionary step for console space, and those claiming the contrary are in denial just how limited the 7th gen's hardware actually was.

 

[TrashyMG]

Borderlands 2, which I pulled in associated with PS+, looks like it's running at around 640x480 based on adjusting the resolution on my 22" 1080p PC monitor (DVI-D) and the 24" 1080p TV (HDMI) my PS3 is hooked up to and currently setup so I just have to turn around to look at either.

It runs 1280x720 on the PS3 ie 720p.. However while I love the series, Borderlands/Borderlands 2 are a tough game to appreciate the PS3 graphics with, mostly because of the graphic style of dark borders around all the models can make aliased lines look bad.. GTA V while not the top graphics it's capable of is damn pretty to look at.


To me there doesn't seem to be as big of a jump hardware wise between the PS3 and PS4 as where when the prior systems came out. So far there isn't really a game that compels me to purchase next gen yet.  

 

[ekianjo]

Yeah the gap is far from showing and my pc feels way more powerful than a ps4. for me the future of home gaming is the pc and not the consoles anymore.

 

[Batou456]

Borderlands 2, which I pulled in associated with PS+, looks like it's running at around 640x480 based on adjusting the resolution on my 22" 1080p PC monitor (DVI-D) and the 24" 1080p TV (HDMI) my PS3 is hooked up to and currently setup so I just have to turn around to look at either.

It runs 1280x720 on the PS3 ie 720p..

You mean the signal output is at 720p.  I'm aware of that, my little Vizio smart TV noted the signal output was 720p as it was piped in.


That's not rendering at 720p though.  Let me explain what did.  I opened Borderlands 2 on both systems, made sure antialiasing was off on the PC, and started dropping the resolution on the PC version until the the resolution indicators like jaggies closely resembled each other.  There was no resemblance at the 720p setting.  There was a very strong resemblance at 640x480.  I doubt that's the actual resolution given eyeballing it isn't that precise, but whatever it is, is close to that probably something more along the lines of 800x480.

However while I love the series, Borderlands/Borderlands 2 are a tough game to appreciate the PS3 graphics with, mostly because of the graphic style of dark borders around all the models can make aliased lines look bad..

Borderlands 2 is a good example exactly because the jaggies are indicators towards the actual rendering resolution and associated settings.  Also it's noteworthy because the art style was otherwise chosen to try to reduce processing load and Borderlands 2 on PS3 doesn't have a lot of programmable shader stuff active that Gearbox added to the engine.  For instance my version on Steam has things like gun and environment reflectiveness/shinyness, which is noteworthy in its absence on the PS3 version.


The only games I've not seen strong indicators of sub-720p rendering resolutions are pre-programmable shader engines.  As I said Zone of the Enders HD looks excellent, it also has nothing you'd really need a programmable shader for going on.  If you drop the rendering resolution and draw distance elements you drop the processing element load dramatically, hence a

https://www.youtube.com/embed/ybiaYzPPluQ?feature=oembed

And your PC could very well be more powerful then a PS4. 

Indeed if you upgraded it recently and weren't penny pinching why wouldn't it be?  In terms of desktop parts, due to the clockrate differences, the PS4's is effectively using a 7790/R7 260X that's going to be bottlenecked significantly by the CPU with any engine not designed to thread well, and even if well threaded probably won't be able to utilize the full potential of the GPU quite as flexibly as the same paired with a modern quad-core desktop CPU.

 

[TrashyMG]

So I see we have someone that NEEDs to be right on the internet.
 

, but whatever it is, is close to that probably something more along the lines of 800x480.

No it's actually rendered in 1280x720 without anti-aliasing. I see nothing stating otherwise on numerous queries on it and usually review sites hammer down hard when things are not rendered at the proper resolution. 

Based on what I've seen with my testing, I don't see any basis for that position.

You see that is why I stated it was MY position.
 

Borderlands 2 is a good example exactly because the jaggies are indicators towards the actual rendering resolution and associated settings. 

It's running without any anti-aliasing. I have 640x480 3DFX tech demos that my 16 year old voodoo card runs that has no jaggies when AA is enabled.

 

 

[Null]

 

[Klumpen]

Yeah the gap is far from showing and my pc feels way more powerful than a ps4. for me the future of home gaming is the pc and not the consoles anymore.

Yep, back to the roots of video gaming.

I have come from C64 over consoles over the first generation after 486pcs slowly back to the PC too and stayed there for many years now.

If I had a big screen, I'd hook up a dedicated gaming PC with all my gamepads with it.

 

[ekianjo]

Klumpen, soon you can make a steam machine for that purpose.