Consoles are notoriously indifferent to CPU performance. But in the PS4 era, as graphics improve and open world games are loaded all the time, CPU power is needed more and more. We often describe the late PS4 as lacking in functionality, but unlike previous consoles, the PS4's weakness is mainly in CPU, not memory or graphics. This is not, now is the PS5 early stage, 8 core ryzen, finally is no longer the short board of the game machine, anyway, compared to the PS4 Jaguar, that is crushed, the same frequency more than 2 times the performance, or 2 times the frequency.
So what does PS4 jaguar have? How strong will the PS5's 8 core Rayon be? Write about it in this issue, once and for all, to address such discussions in various communities.
In 2011, when the news of the chip of the next generation host was released step by step, everyone thought that SONY's "eight core processor" was the worst that bulldozer lowered the frequency to 2.5ghz level. After all, the AMD8 core was only bulldozer, and the power consumption performance of tens of W was acceptable, and the whole 200W was similar to the first version of PS3. This belief is not only felt by players, but also by developers. Ubisoft, for example, went to the 8,000-person Assassin's Creed Revolution.
Developers' hatred of the PS3's CPU has been with the PS3 since its inception. The PS3 uses a unique cell processor architecture, which can be understood as a single core processor that manages seven coprocessors. The main core is the PPE. In fact, the cell is a simplified main core of IBM Power G3, and the eight coprocessors randomly shield one faulty product, called SPE. The SPE can also do graphical calculations, such as first party uncharted, killzone, etc. It can also be used as a CPU such as the PS3 XMB system running on a separate SPE. But managing the PPE performance of the main core of all spEs is a rush. Most importantly, it doesn't run out of order, and can be viewed as a single core Atom processor with a frequency of up to 3.2ghz. This makes the PS3 frame count problematic. Next door 360 has the same core, but with the same 3 PPE, it is much better than this single core.
At the end of 2012, the PS4 released a gamepad with specs. Instead of bulldozer, both consoles ended up with Puma cpus with only 8 cores at 1.6GHZ. This is too bad. 8000 people will die if this frequency runs assassin's Creed revolution on the same screen. Then there was ubisoft's lengthy optimization, which locked 900P upon release, and neither of the next generation consoles could run 30 frames.
So where the hell is the cougar chicken? Compared to the 2011-2012 comparable processors, the Jaguar architecture is similar to the APU-A4-5000, which is used in laptops and has four core frequencies of 1.5GHZ. PS4 is 8-core, but with two 4-core modules.
By contrast, the A4-5000 is similar. The first note-taking, fully SOC APU for the A4-5000. It has a different CPU structure than the previous E350/ A4-3300m and so on. At any rate, the CPU portion of the two chip diagrams does not differ much. Both are 28nm process, Jaguar architecture, single core area is 3.1 square mm, native 4 cores. So the CPU is the same thing, and the difference is the frequency.
A4-5000 on PC, AMD official documents, technical ability is very strong. Support AVX, F16C, AES, out of order, integer division, level 2 cache prefetch, etc., these parameters are on paper, the PS3 cell is crushing, similar to the Core i3 crushing Astro N270, but the problem is the low frequency, the A4-5000 CPU runs at 1.5ghz, the power consumption of the whole machine is 15W. That's a lot less electricity. On a PC, this CPU runs a bunch of performance testing software scores as follows.
So many experiments, the jaguar's performance is really not good. Winrar, Chess, cinebenchR11.5, this 1.5ghz Jaguar single-core is less than one third of the 4th generation I3, multi-core, 4 core can not beat the dual core i3, the performance of the 4-core Jaguar is only half of the dual core I3, this result somewhat surprised me. The Puma's performance is as bad as it gets, and the ARM processor in the phone, the A76, is now much better than that. Assassin's Creed Revolution ran out of 900P averaging 20 frames, which is also true to be difficult for cougar.
All right, cougar spicy chicken, half the performance of a dual-core old i3. What is the CPU level of the PS5?
This question is really easy to answer. Starting last year, a bunch of AMD 4700S minicomputes were shipped to The company. Many media outlets disassembled this chip compared to the PS5.
If from 99% of the probability, the 4700S as the core of PS5, as long as the win10 system installed, it is easy to test, the core display is shielded that only test CPU performance. If there's a 1% chance you don't believe this is the core of the PS5, it's a joke.
The conclusion is obvious. AMD 4700S, single core is 10% less than R5 3600, multi-core is similar to R5 3600, although this 4700S has 8 cores and 16 threads, but because of GDDR6 memory delay performance loss, radiator specification is not enough frequency down performance loss, and win10 under the heaps of BUG performance loss, The overall performance is similar to that of the six-core R5 3600. On consoles, of course, there is no such loss of performance. It makes sense to think of it as an 8-core Ryzen laptop processor. It's nothing compared to zen3's Ryzen 5 series.
Anyway, looking at the PS5 chip diagram, the CPU is still modified within the zen2 framework. The zen3 architecture of the Ryzen 5 series shares 32 MB of cache per module 8 core. This 7nm zen2 is special. Of course, its performance is the zen2's standard 8-core notebook processor. I see a media test, AMD 4700S CPU power is very low, more than 40 W to the sky. This fits the low-power ethos of the console.
Overall, the PS5 CPU is five to six times more single-core than the PS4 processor, and seven to eight times more multi-core, which is an amazing improvement.