Digital Foundry: next-gen PlayStation and Xbox to use AMD's 8-core CPU and Radeon HD

[Fx1]

i take back what i said earlier a 7970m at 800mhz and 4gb DDR5 would be epic. Now i see this is almost a 7870 desktop card and im pretty sure you can get 64 player BF3 on ultra on a console with this card given it can do High on a laptop.

8 cores will make big multiplayer possible with 8 threads even if they are only 1.6ghz (lets hope thats a mistake and they are higher)

 

[inf64]

I still see no reason why would they choose 8C Jaguar that needs to be ground up design versus 2M APU like Kaveri (even if the iGPU portion is inactive and not used for hybrid CFX). 8T available to for console games seems like a serious overkill especially since no engine now and in foreseeable future will be able to utilize so many threads.
On the other hand 3.2Ghz Steamroller would just walk right over 1.6Ghz Jaguar,there is just no comparison. Even if Jaguar was to be clocked much higher than 1.6Ghz the SR core would stomp it. So this choice by Sony is still not making any sense to me.

 

[2is]

If this is true expect multi-threading in games to take off like a rocket once the consoles launch.

I think a far bigger advantage is they are using x86. Multi-core is nothing new for the consoles. PS3 already has an 8 core CPU, 360 a tri core, but neither x86.

 

[Pedroc1999]

The ps3 has, if i recall. 1big 2core and 3small 2cores. They work together and they can call them 8core

 

[2is]

The ps3 has, if i recall. 1big 2core and 3small 2cores. They work together and they can call them 8core

I don't remember the exact details on the PS3's Cell processor, but yeah, it wasn't a traditional 8 core as we would think of it. Point being that multi-threaded consoles have been around for sometime. x86 on the other hand is pretty new. I say "pretty" new because the original xbox had one.

This should be good for PC gaming. Porting will be easier and more efficient, giving us better optomized games and one less cost/headache for develoeprs.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No it didnt have 10% failure rate at all.

PS3 was more like 1% return rate

I can pretty much guarantee you its way beyond 1%. The failure rates for the HDs used alone is much higher than 1%.

 

[ChronoReverse]

I don't remember the exact details on the PS3's Cell processor, but yeah, it wasn't a traditional 8 core as we would think of it. Point being that multi-threaded consoles have been around for sometime.

You can't really call them "cores". The Cell processor is more like a single SMT core (2 threads) ganged with 7 DSP mini-processors (although the SPE's are really good at their limited functions).

Nonetheless, programming for the Cell could be said to be rather unlike programming a symmetrical multiprocessing system.

 

[Zor Prime]

Multi-core is nothing new for the consoles.

Yup. There's been multi-processor consoles since the 80's. It should also be easier to port between XBOX / PS. If Microsoft and Sony are concerned about their bottom line, it makes sense. If they want a particular game to ONLY be on ONE console, that's what exclusive licenses are for.

 

[Pedroc1999]

But it would be easier to port to pc as ps games would be optimised for multipledual cores

 

[Enigmoid]

I still see no reason why would they choose 8C Jaguar that needs to be ground up design versus 2M APU like Kaveri (even if the iGPU portion is inactive and not used for hybrid CFX). 8T available to for console games seems like a serious overkill especially since no engine now and in foreseeable future will be able to utilize so many threads.
On the other hand 3.2Ghz Steamroller would just walk right over 1.6Ghz Jaguar,there is just no comparison. Even if Jaguar was to be clocked much higher than 1.6Ghz the SR core would stomp it. So this choice by Sony is still not making any sense to me.

I agree. I don't quite get why they would choose 8 low power low performance cores over 4 higher clocked higher performance cores. Yes it might be slightly cheaper or more cost efficient but its more work. Yes console games are heavily optimised but its harder to optimize for 8 cores over 4 and it will not scale as well. Also optimization takes time and time costs money. AAA games are very expensive to make and giving the devs a nicer cpu will cut down costs and result in better games.
8 low performance cores will be a nightmare to code for compared to 4 cores with twice the speed. More cores will not necessarily mean better optimization for cores on the cpu. The xbox 360 has had three cores with hyperthreading since 2005. How many games were there in 2010 that used three cores?

MS and sony are in a tight spot. They can't release a console that is too expensive because no one will buy it (because of mobile gaming) yet they cannot also release a console that is so low powered either.

There is a problem with releasing an xbox that consumes too little power.
An 80 watt xbox. How long before it is surpassed by the power in a phone or tablet? Today's tablets are close to console quality. (Tablets can display better visuals than the wii and it won't be long before they can match the wii u, with its crappy cpu).

For example take a tablet with a tdp of 10 watts (ipad 3 or 4). How long until a tablet can play games acceptably? (with relatively the same visuals, obviously worse but comparable, like medium vs ultra). People buy tablets like candy, if they can just plug it into their tv why would they buy an xbox (using a controller of course, many ios and android games support them).
I could completely see some one like apple doing this. Buy an ipad use it during the day then come home, plug it into your tv and enjoy console quality games with a controller.

Apple released the ipad in april 2010. In less than three years, the ipad 4 now has 4 times the ram, sunspider has gone from ~4 seconds to 1 second, cpu power has increased by more than 4 times, gpu power by more than 20 times.

An ivy ULV has a faster cpu than the xbox 360 along with a gpu that has almost the same theoretical performance that uses only 17 watts (they are both around 250 gflops).

 

[krumme]

A ~46mm^2 die is mighty small and since Jaguar cores have a frequency headroom larger than Bobcat we can assume they can work above 2Ghz in normal or Turbo mode. We know QC 1.4/1.7Ghz Kabini will have TDP of 15W for total package(CPU+GPU) so it's possible that 8C Jaguar part can clock above 2Ghz and be well within 25W for maximum power.

Yes. My numbers were for the cores only, sans L2 and the rest, because we dont know the more excact numbers for that, and probably the design would be some different anyway.

28mm2 or 46mm2 - how much is included doesnt change the cost perspective. Its cheap compared to the predecessors.

And the total cost of the platform needs to be much cheaper than last time. They are not doing this to be kind to the kids

- but anyway the 8 core jaguar solution still sounds weird to me for the arguments you make. I dont beliewe it. It looks like to high complexity and cost on the software side.

 

[Fx1]

I can pretty much guarantee you its way beyond 1%. The failure rates for the HDs used alone is much higher than 1%.

Back when the Xboxs were dying sony made a public statement that its return rate was less than 1%. The fact that i still have the original Ps3 from launch day with the 60GB HDD says something.

Nobody i know owns an original xbox

 

[NostaSeronx]

GP²U workloads will be created and worked upon independently of the CPU. So, I don't get the issue of an 1.6 GHz Jaguar as it's main purpose is calculating the time to finish workloads not completing them.

 

[ShadowVVL]

Back when the Xboxs were dying sony made a public statement that its return rate was less than 1%. The fact that i still have the original Ps3 from launch day with the 60GB HDD says something. Nobody i know owns an original xbox

I know many people who have had ps3's burn out and had to get them replaced multiple times so I agree with shintaiDK it is way over 1%.

 

[Vesku]

Yes. My numbers were for the cores only, sans L2 and the rest, because we dont know the more excact numbers for that, and probably the design would be some different anyway.

28mm2 or 46mm2 - how much is included doesnt change the cost perspective. Its cheap compared to the predecessors.

And the total cost of the platform needs to be much cheaper than last time. They are not doing this to be kind to the kids

- but anyway the 8 core jaguar solution still sounds weird to me for the arguments you make. I dont beliewe it. It looks like to high complexity and cost on the software side.

Back when there was some "will the next Xbox be ARM based" there was some rumblings about it having many cores in an attempt to become THE entertainment system for the house. Play music around the house, stream TV/Movies, Kinect stuff, game, etc. all at the same time.

 

[Yuriman]

A very important point about next-gen is that unlike last time, the consoles will be limited more by their power envelopes than they are by the cost of silicon. The console vendors will decide how much power they want to cool in a small box in a livingroom, and then they split that power among all the devices in the box. This means that every watt spent on the CPU is effectively a watt not spent on the GPU.

Multiplat games tend to scale well to utilize a better GPU but not scale much to utilize a better CPU. This is why skimping on the CPU in favor of a fatter GPU makes sense.

True, but I'm skeptical about the balance they've supposedly chosen. It looks like it's going to be something like 90/10 in favor of the GPU, where as splitting it 80/20 would *double* the CPU power while only dropping GPU power by 12%.


I can't speak for the quality of the code, but Guild Wars 2 scales almost linearly on an overclocked Ivy Bridge i5. In an area I'd get 35fps on my Q6600 rig, the 3570K (with the same GPU) gets about 60fps and overclocking it 25% brings the framerate up to 75. Other games like Civ 5 (most large-scale strategy games) show visible scaling with modern CPUs too.

 

[SiliconWars]

True, but I'm skeptical about the balance they've supposedly chosen. It looks like it's going to be something like 90/10 in favor of the GPU, where as splitting it 80/20 would *double* the CPU power while only dropping GPU power by 12%.


I can't speak for the quality of the code, but Guild Wars 2 scales almost linearly on an overclocked Ivy Bridge i5. In an area I'd get 35fps on my Q6600 rig, the 3570K (with the same GPU) gets about 60fps and overclocking it 25% brings the framerate up to 75. Other games like Civ 5 (most large-scale strategy games) show visible scaling with modern CPUs too.

Another MMO that is unlikely to find itself on a games console.

 

[Piroko]

my dad is using a celeron 420 right now, single core and 1.6ghz...and it runs half life 1 just fine...

i know, i know...old game...but this 8-core ship is like 9-10 time faster than my dad's computer, and i really think that with a decent gpu it can run HL2 (just igp at the moment)

Just as an uptake: Back in the days my main t-bird gaming rig died right before a lan party and I just threw my Geforce 2 Pro into the old system I still had: An Athlon 500 with a slight FSB overclock to 525 MHz. We had a great laugh and plenty of fun to test what that system was actually able to handle:
Half-Life 2 ran smooth except for the big fight on the streets where I had occasional frame skips.
Doom 3 ran sort of, some levels were wonky while others were perfectly playable.
Empire Earth and Age of Empires 3 had no problems.
I played through the whole singleplayer campaign of Painkiller on that lan, the game had a hilarious bullet time effect as soon as too much was happening at the same time. Still was keeping perfect 85 fps back then with butter smooth response.
Mind you, most of these games have a minimum recommendation of 1 Ghz. And as a reminder: The PS3 and 360 play Battlefield 3 just fine with their seriously outdated CPUs while on PCs it is known to scale all the way to an oced 3770. Thus I don't think an eight core Jaguar with 1,6 Ghz will be the bottleneck of next gen consoles if the speculation is true.

 

[Fx1]

1.6ghz sounds to low. lets hope they can turbo up to 3ghz on 4 cores for real games

 

[Pedroc1999]

I say a 1.8 turboded upto 3.3

 

[Idontcare]

1.6ghz sounds to low. lets hope they can turbo up to 3ghz on 4 cores for real games

I say a 1.8 turboded upto 3.3

Considering existing turbo ranges are more along the lines of 200-500MHz, the turbo ranges you guys are talking about are rather exceptional.

 

[Pedroc1999]

Yes... It is all based around power efficiency... Also some games wont need the full 3.3

 

[quest55720]

There is going to be no turbo in a console. The idea is to write code around a absolutely exact spec. Turbo is not going to work for that.

People are overlooking that the PS4 in this rumor has a separate compute unit that will do the heavy FPU lifting for things like physics. Also I am sure it will have a few other DSPs for audio and other functions. It sounds like Sony wanted to go steamroller but it won't be ready in time for a fall 2013 launch. They will have to go into production in the near future to meet that goal. I am sure AMD let Sony know a while ago about the delays to steamroller so Sony went with the jaguar. As we saw at CES the jaguar is basically ready to go.

MS on the other hand really wants to have a SOC. The jaguar fits that goal much better. The current rumors is the SOC even with small Jaguars is a staggering 400mm^+. There are also rumors that MS has paid AMD to modify the jaguar cores like they had IBM modify XENON.

Getting high end PC specs for 399.99 was never going to happen. If you want the ultimate machine PC is always the way to go.

 

[inf64]

I doubt Jaguar can clock to even 2.5Ghz but I don't want to spoil your fun in predicting things

 

[Jacky60]

So judging from those videos next gen consoles =last years gen pc.