PS4 & One Choking already

I know this topic is like food's that been chewed and regurgitated a 100 times, but I haven't really found any answers that fit.

In regards to the PS4's and One's specs,why is the CPU clocked at 1.6ghz (yeh I know One is at 1.73... HUGE diff....) when most CPU's at running at 2.8-3.5GHz. AMD couldn't pump out the jaguar at 3ghz+ ? Or even 2.5ghz? I think doubling the CPU speed would have made a big difference.

And the GPU, ONE having the (like)7790, the PS4 a (like)7850, could they not have opted for 7950's? or at least 7870's?

I know this comes down to cost, but the CPU speed I could never make sense. Why so low? It can't be heat... The Slim versions of the 360 and PS3 are running at 3.2ghz at a much larger die, and those dissipate the heat ok, so with a much smaller die size they couldn't get these new gen consoles to run at near the same speed? And I know clock speed isn't everything, but doubling it to 3.2ghz or similar would have definitely made a difference.

Another thing I read is that Sony and MS pay AMD around $100 for the GPU/CPU combined, which is nothing, especially for a console they want to last 8-10 years. If they doubled that to $200 that would have been a lot of extra GPU power they might have gotten. When the PS2 came out, correct me if I'm wrong, but it retailed for around $600. I would have gladly paid the same for my PS4, and I doubt it would have hurt sony's sales much if they did charge that. With that extra cash, it would have gone a long way.

Very few people would have paid $600.

It's because of power and thermal budget, not cost. You can't run an AMD APU at 3GHz with the thermal design in the form factor they chose. Remember the YLOD/RROD from the last console gen. I don't think Microsoft or Sony could afford taking that risk again.

More shader processors on the GPU would help more than clock speed. With an APU you are limited by the real estate on the silicon, though. But one could argue that the APU could have been designed larger from the start. More parallel processing still leads to more heat and power, though, and you're still limited by the thermals of the form factor.

And no, I would have not purchased a console this generation at more than $400. I purchase video game consoles for what they are and because gaming is my hobby. If I want a PC I'll build a PC.

The launch price of the Playstation 2 was $299.99 US. Adjusted for inflation that is $414.67 in 2014.

The price of each console includes a lot more than the hardware. It includes things like marketing, software development, packing, assembly, etc. The fact that the consoles are priced close to the sum of its parts says a lot as to the hit they always take on new console releases. The logistics of spending additional money on a more powerful APU is going to have a broader impact than just the extra $100 for the hardware.

Bottom line is nobody on the internet is qualified to make an informed decision on how best to develop a console. Go out there and do it yourself, if you're so smart .

Armenius said:

Bottom line is nobody on the internet is qualified to make an informed decision on how best to develop a console. Go out there and do it yourself, if you're so smart .

Click to expand...

Ouya did well, didn't it?

I think there are a lot of us that could develop a console with enough time and resources. But, I do think that with a set final cost, we would be very close to the same specs as are in current consoles (well, when they were developed). It's a give some, take some kind of development. You want a larger HDD? Ok, scrap this other part. Upgrade APU? Downgrade memory. etc.etc.. Unlimited budget? We could all come up with a really kick ass console. It's called a PC.

I'm wanting to create my own console, and I've found it's not that difficult for the hardware. The hard part is the software/firmware/OS to run it.

It also has to do with optomization. They dont need super fast chips to do what they do.

Sony isn't doing very well despite the PS4 all it takes is a slimed down graphics engine to make a game good for the system.

Comixbooks said:

Sony isn't doing very well despite the PS4 all it takes is a slimed down graphics engine to make a game good for the system.

Click to expand...

Sony reported a EBIT of $200 million for Q2 of fiscal year 2014 in the "Game & Network Services" segment. I think PS4 is doing just fine...

Sony Q2'14 Earnings Release said:

This significant increase was primarily due to the contribution from PS4 hardware sales, a significant increase in network services revenue related to the introduction of the PS4 and the contribution from PS4 software sales, partially offset by a decrease in PlayStation®3 (“PS3”) hardware and PS3 software sales.

Click to expand...

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/14q2_sony.pdf

So even though the entire company is operating at a loss, the division that PS4 contributes to is doing very well, often referred to as Sony's "jewel" by investors.

Ur_Mom said:

I'm wanting to create my own console, and I've found it's not that difficult for the hardware. The hard part is the software/firmware/OS to run it.

Click to expand...

Yar, agreed here. I'd love to be able to just go build my dedicated console (especially with all of the cool mini-itx cases that are coming out), but it's the software side of things that complicate it. Sure, I could just run windows, but I'd rather have something more lightweight and gaming dedicated. Which is one of the reasons that I'm hoping SteamOS proves to be a success.

I think AMD was the better choice, but not AMDs best.

Sure Intel could have crammed a core i5 with iris graphics but it would still be no match for an AMD apu overall.

And nvidia didn't have anything to offer other than tegra 4, tegra 5 was just released and its still no match for the 360/ps3. (but its getting close).

Armenius said:

It's because of power and thermal budget, not cost. You can't run an AMD APU at 3GHz with the thermal design in the form factor they chose.

Click to expand...

I don't quite get this argument, because they were able to jam a 3.2Ghz 45nm PowerPC chip into the Xbox 360 / PS3, the RROD that affected the 360 was primarily with the 90nm version. The 360/PS3 box size doesn't differ that much from this new gen, and AMD's APU's are much smaller die size, not to mention lower thermal/power requirements. 3GHz + should have been easy.

Consoles compete on content, accessibility, long term support, social features, price, continuous improvements, and ease of use. It would be stupid to have a long term plan of trying to stay ahead of PCs.

I got just under eight years of use out of my PS3 and found games enjoyable and decent looking throughout the life cycle. The same cannot be said for a PC purchased eight years ago.

And no way would the PS4 be such a success if it was $600. Even at a $600 price, it would still be slower than a PC within months.

dave343 said:

I don't quite get this argument, because they were able to jam a 3.2Ghz 45nm PowerPC chip into the Xbox 360 / PS3, the RROD that affected the 360 was primarily with the 90nm version. The 360/PS3 box size doesn't differ that much from this new gen, and AMD's APU's are much smaller die size, not to mention lower thermal/power requirements. 3GHz + should have been easy.

Click to expand...

It's not just about the heat, but the noise as well, which is a part of the thermal budget. I still have a launch 360 that runs, and it is really annoying to me how loud it is due to fan speed required to keep air flow at maximum. The One is bigger than the 360, yes, and it is almost dead silent because of it.

The PS4 is much more compact than the PS3, but also has a much better thermal profile than the original fat console. Again, it was able to run at a higher clock speed, but the cooling system was much more powerful and noisy than what we have now. And have you ever seen or felt how hot the air being exhausted from the PS3 was? Even with the lower power and heat, people still complain about the PS4 being noisy.

So yes, they were able to run the larger chips at a higher clock speed, but not very efficiently. With how the GPU and CPU interact this console generation I think there isn't much performance to be gained from a higher CPU clock speed, anyway.

Enthusiasts, especially on this forum, always say power and heat don't concern them when it comes to squeezing out the most performance from their systems. But gaming consoles are more mainstream and they have to cater to their audience.

dave343 said:

I don't quite get this argument, because they were able to jam a 3.2Ghz 45nm PowerPC chip into the Xbox 360 / PS3, the RROD that affected the 360 was primarily with the 90nm version. The 360/PS3 box size doesn't differ that much from this new gen, and AMD's APU's are much smaller die size, not to mention lower thermal/power requirements. 3GHz + should have been easy.

Click to expand...

Even though each core/shader is more efficient per watt they added extra cores and ended up back at similar thermal output.

I think the real answer is corporate greed. How SHITTY of a console can we make that will still sell?

Megalith said:

I think the real answer is corporate greed. How SHITTY of a console can we make that will still sell?

Click to expand...

This is precisely why literally no one is happy with their PS4 or XBox One

Megalith said:

I think the real answer is corporate greed. How SHITTY of a console can we make that will still sell?

Click to expand...

They knew, we knew, I mean everyone knew for fuck's sake that 1080P @ 60 FPS should be the standard for the console.

Megalith said:

I think the real answer is corporate greed. How SHITTY of a console can we make that will still sell?

Click to expand...

What's Sony's profit on the PS4 @ $399? I would have gladly paid $499 instead of $399 if every game was 1080p 60FPS but am pretty sure a lot of other people wouldn't. Look at how many more Xbone's Microsoft is selling now that they're $399 instead of $499.

PS4 currently operates at the brink of self destruction, heat wise. They can't run it any faster.

bigdogchris said:

PS4 currently operates at the brink of self destruction, heat wise. They can't run it any faster.

Click to expand...

What information are you basing this on?

guitarguy6 said:

What's Sony's profit on the PS4 @ $399? I would have gladly paid $499 instead of $399 if every game was 1080p 60FPS but am pretty sure a lot of other people wouldn't. Look at how many more Xbone's Microsoft is selling now that they're $399 instead of $499.

Click to expand...

Actually they are now $349.

As others have said, consoles are about content and not necessarily about getting the most high end stuff possible. When I had to make hard financial decisions, that was why I ultimately chose to get rid of my high end gaming PC and stick to consoles as I found gaming on them to be far more enjoyable due to my hectic schedule. Unless you are buying a Ubisoft game, I love how everything simply just works.

guitarguy6 said:

What information are you basing this on?

Click to expand...

I gotta say I don't think the ps4 could run much faster reliably it blows a ton of hot air. Xbox one runs quite a bit cooler they probably could upclock it more. Just my opinion based on my observations of both my system in a well ventilated and cool environment.

HisSvt76 said:

I gotta say I don't think the ps4 could run much faster reliably it blows a ton of hot air. Xbox one runs quite a bit cooler they probably could upclock it more. Just my opinion based on my observations of both my system in a well ventilated and cool environment.

Click to expand...

The PS4 power supply is also built into the console unlike the X1. I'd have to do a bit of research but from what I remember when the consoles launched the PS4 appeared to run slightly cooler based on the design.

If it wasn't for Bloodeborne I would sell the monster on top of paying 49.00 a year for online and paying full price for every game.

The low FPS and bad graphics =(

ocellaris said:

Consoles compete on content, accessibility, long term support, social features, price, continuous improvements, and ease of use. It would be stupid to have a long term plan of trying to stay ahead of PCs.

Click to expand...

Which is why the new consoles are in trouble. There will be no "decade" of PS4/One as the PS3/360 enjoyed - that era has passed and only happens once.

ocellaris said:

I got just under eight years of use out of my PS3 and found games enjoyable and decent looking throughout the life cycle. The same cannot be said for a PC purchased eight years ago.

Click to expand...

It was a great run no doubt, but the same also won't be able to be said about the PS4/One in as little as 3-4 years, for above mentioned reasons. The livingroom entertainment/gaming landscape will be a much different landscape - Google, Apple, Valve and maybe Sony will be the players. Microsoft will be out. According to my source it was already decided that the One will be Microsoft's last console, for what reasons he didn't say but I think they're kind of obvious.

dave343 said:

I know this topic is like food's that been chewed and regurgitated a 100 times, but I haven't really found any answers that fit.

In regards to the PS4's and One's specs,why is the CPU clocked at 1.6ghz (yeh I know One is at 1.73... HUGE diff....) when most CPU's at running at 2.8-3.5GHz. AMD couldn't pump out the jaguar at 3ghz+ ? Or even 2.5ghz? I think doubling the CPU speed would have made a big difference.

And the GPU, ONE having the (like)7790, the PS4 a (like)7850, could they not have opted for 7950's? or at least 7870's?

I know this comes down to cost, but the CPU speed I could never make sense. Why so low? It can't be heat... The Slim versions of the 360 and PS3 are running at 3.2ghz at a much larger die, and those dissipate the heat ok, so with a much smaller die size they couldn't get these new gen consoles to run at near the same speed? And I know clock speed isn't everything, but doubling it to 3.2ghz or similar would have definitely made a difference.

Another thing I read is that Sony and MS pay AMD around $100 for the GPU/CPU combined, which is nothing, especially for a console they want to last 8-10 years. If they doubled that to $200 that would have been a lot of extra GPU power they might have gotten. When the PS2 came out, correct me if I'm wrong, but it retailed for around $600. I would have gladly paid the same for my PS4, and I doubt it would have hurt sony's sales much if they did charge that. With that extra cash, it would have gone a long way.

Click to expand...

There isn't a direct desktop comparable GPU. But at the time of Launch, the PS3's GPU in a desktop form would probably have cost about $220. Maybe a bit more, depending on the amount of ram. The GPU is spec'd in between a 7850 and 7870---except it carries the same compute capabilities as the 7970 and potentially has access to more VRAM than most GPUs of the past couple of years. There are also some design points which eliminate classic wait states and sources of latency. Those could be a performance boon, if utilized properly (I would guess that some of the multi-plat games are not). That's pretty darn good, coming in a package totaling $400.

As for the CPU, I think it will be just fine in the long term. I would posit that not many console games right now are properly threading their engine's over all of the cores and is likely the main reason why some multiplat games are barely hitting 30fps. The next gen consoles went through a game drought. I'm sure that many of the games releasing right now were jammed out as quickly as possible, ignoring finer points like well thought out threading.

It will probably be another year before most devs really start doing multi-threading properly in their development tools.


*why didn't they make consoles which cost more:

At the beginning of last gen, Sony as a whole was doing quite well and had just come off the most successful console generation in history. They could afford to be extravagant and deliver a premium product which didn't necessarily need to sell amazingly, right away. The economy also hadn't tanked yet, so they were betting on people paying the high cost of entry. But....
.....now, Sony as a whole company, is in serious financial condition. Playstation is their only profitable department right now. Rather than gambling the economy or pushing the limits of what can be squeezed into a little box; they decided to design something sleek, small, medium cost, and still pretty potent. It appears to have been a great move as the PS4 is selling wonderfully and PlayStation remains the reason Sony is still floating.

Microsoft ate humble pie, last gen. The first Xbox was ahead of the curve on some key design decisions and got Live going right at the end of the generation. Sony still beat them in total sales and overall amount of good games. But MS was cocky because they really did some stuff right, marketed well, and had some incredible momentum built up. For the 360: On paper, they created another good design, made Live into something amazing, and pretty much let that market itself. But they skipped on hardware R&D. Lucky for MS, they have bundles of expendable cash. So they could afford the over 1Billion dollars they had to spend on repair service and damage control. They did a remarkable job of keeping the Xbox brand in good ratings with consumers. However, from a business standpoint, they wanted to ensure that they didn't have a repeat situation for this new generation. They wanted to make billions, not spend them. So they played it even more safe than Sony. Making a pretty large unit which generates even less heat and downplays the hardware. Instead, going all in on Live and new network features. However, they got bit on that, too. Now they are forced to play the hardware game, which isn't a favorable situation. It appears they may be spending extra money, afterall. To get devs from making their PS4 ports clearly better.

DPI said:

Which is why the new consoles are in trouble. There will be no "decade" of PS4/One as the PS3/360 enjoyed - that era has passed and only happens once.



It was a great run no doubt, but the same also won't be able to be said about the PS4/One in as little as 3-4 years, for above mentioned reasons. The livingroom entertainment/gaming landscape will be a much different landscape - Google, Apple, Valve and maybe Sony will be the players. Microsoft will be out. According to my source it was already decided that the One will be Microsoft's last console, for what reasons he didn't say but I think they're kind of obvious.

Click to expand...

Crap man, I see your Microsoft hate shining through as always. Google? What, are we going to play Angry Birds on our 60 inch TV? Apple? What are you smoking? Also, Valve and the Steam box has almost no shot with the vaporware direction they are taking. It will still be Sony and Microsoft slugging things out for a long time to come. (Assuming Sony remains viable overall that is.)

ManofGod said:

Crap man, I see your Microsoft hate shining through as always. Google? What, are we going to play Angry Birds on our 60 inch TV? Apple? What are you smoking? Also, Valve and the Steam box has almost no shot with the vaporware direction they are taking. It will still be Sony and Microsoft slugging things out for a long time to come. (Assuming Sony remains viable overall that is.)

Click to expand...

Any poster that doesn't praise Microsoft is just a hater to you...yup got it.

Your ignore list must be huge...

pcjunkie said:

Any poster that doesn't praise Microsoft is just a hater to you...yup got it.

Your ignore list must be huge...

Click to expand...

Nope, I just read posts and see a pattern. What, don't you read posts? He has a consistency that I have seen time and again. Oh well, whatever, enjoy.

Edit: Yes, I am a fan of Microsoft products but, that does not make me blind to the mistakes they have made in the past. However, I am seriously looking forward to buying the Microsoft Band for what it does and the excellent $199 price. None of the other smart watches are stand alone and do what I will need it to do. (Replace my Garmin Forerunner 305 to be exact.)

I just got an X1, although it is huge, it was a good choice to put the power brick outside of the package. Btw, there is a fan inside of that power brick too. I'm not sure why the thing is still friggen big. I run my consoles elevated sitting on top of 4 tins of pellets (each corner):

I also have a small desk fan to blow all the hot air out, I have a bit of OCD when it comes to cooling, but have never ran a water cooled setup!

Fwiw, bought an msata SSD + msata usb 3.0 enclosure running Forza Horizon 2, imo its perfect. load times are kept at a minimal. After seeing some twitch streams, I would gladly pay the $208 again ($194.99 512gb msata ssd/$12.99 msata usb 3.0 enclosure), I do not like to wait and I plan to keep this till XB1 gets replaced. Excited about Forza 6 too.

chimera996 said:

I just got an X1, although it is huge, it was a good choice to put the power brick outside of the package. Btw, there is a fan inside of that power brick too. I'm not sure why the thing is still friggen big. I run my consoles elevated sitting on top of 4 tins of pellets (each corner):

I also have a small desk fan to blow all the hot air out, I have a bit of OCD when it comes to cooling, but have never ran a water cooled setup!

Fwiw, bought an msata SSD + msata usb 3.0 enclosure running Forza Horizon 2, imo its perfect. load times are kept at a minimal. After seeing some twitch streams, I would gladly pay the $208 again ($194.99 512gb msata ssd/$12.99 msata usb 3.0 enclosure), I do not like to wait and I plan to keep this till XB1 gets replaced. Excited about Forza 6 too.

Click to expand...

The fan in the power brick must be very quiet then because I have never noticed it. My D Link DNS-321 NAS fan on the other hand is louder than all the fans in my main PC. The SSD was a good idea but I just stuck to a 1GB Seagate USB3 2.5 inch Hard drive instead.

I dunno, I'm thinking this holiday season will be very strong for the XBone. The price point is very competitive (barely more than a Wii U really), the software lineup is becoming solid, and the Halo compilation will sell consoles. Oh, and a new Battletoads is rumoured to be coming to the Xbone.

As for the PS4 and Xbone 'choking' already - I think it is disappointing that 1080p @ 60fps seems to be such a hard target for these consoles. I'd be really surprised if the old 10 year life spans will apply to these new consoles. Personally, I'd be fine with a new $399 console coming out every 4-5 years, as long as backwards compatibility for older software and a solid 'trade-in' program for older hardware was in place.

I don't believe we would have a 1080p/60 standard even with extravagant hardware. I would think most developers would simply keep raising the graphic fidelity.

To comment on the topic pretty much everyone knew years in advance this gen would be APU centric and not be as powerful as earlier generations in relation to PCs. The world economy crashed and Sony especially was no longer in a position to do it.

Selling at a large loss at launch will probably never happen again.

guitarguy6 said:

The PS4 power supply is also built into the console unlike the X1. I'd have to do a bit of research but from what I remember when the consoles launched the PS4 appeared to run slightly cooler based on the design.

Click to expand...

PS4's cooling system is actually much louder. Not surprising since it's much more compact. I prefer the X1's cooling as it's cool and quiet, but it's the size of a VCR.

My PS4 runs cool and is dead silent. It has been turned off since i bought it. My XBOX One is quiet as well while its running

ManofGod said:

The fan in the power brick must be very quiet then because I have never noticed it. My D Link DNS-321 NAS fan on the other hand is louder than all the fans in my main PC. The SSD was a good idea but I just stuck to a 1GB Seagate USB3 2.5 inch Hard drive instead.

Click to expand...

When its dead silent you can hear the power brick humming along, even with the system off. Its not a knock at all in MS's design, if the power brick isnt inside the console, the console should've at least been smaller or the same size as the PS4.
I have a slight bias towards PS, but bought an MS system for the 2nd time just for one game, well two now (waiting Forza 6).

JohnleMVP said:

PS4's cooling system is actually much louder. Not surprising since it's much more compact. I prefer the X1's cooling as it's cool and quiet, but it's the size of a VCR.

Click to expand...

That design is probably one of the best things I have seen in a long time. That was also precisely why I loved my Toshiba HD-A1 as it looked and felt like a tank. It looks like a serious piece of equipment instead of trying to be cute.

JohnleMVP said:

size of a VCR.

Click to expand...

What's that?

JohnleMVP said:

PS4's cooling system is actually much louder. Not surprising since it's much more compact. I prefer the X1's cooling as it's cool and quiet, but it's the size of a VCR.

Click to expand...

Does your PS4 have proper ventilation? I've had mine since day 1 and haven't noticed it sitting about 4 feet away. I am surrounded by home theater speakers though

DPI said:

...According to my source it was already decided that the One will be Microsoft's last console, for what reasons he didn't say but I think they're kind of obvious.

Click to expand...

Your source is dead wrong says my sources.

My sources say your sources don't know from sources!!!!

Actually I've heard that it will be the last true (in the classic sense) console from MS. I think they're attempting to cook up something a little more cloud based. That could be wrong, scrapped, further out, or whatever, but I heard that, and I don't even follow Sony and MS that closely these days. I'd take it with about six spoons of salt, but it doesn't sound THAT far fetched. I am aware of all of the things stacked against something like this (network latency, peoples' need to own and collect media, etc. etc. and I agree that there are major obstacles.) That doesn't seem to keep people from trying though.

To quote David Lo Pan of the Wing Kong Exchange "And yet we all keep trying, like fools!"