Because if your console can do 4K 30fps, but it can’t do 1080p 60ps that means the issue is not with your graphics card.
The only console Nvidia have anything to do with is the Switch. I am not talking about the Switch. PS4 Pro and Xbox One X (especially the latter) very definitely pushed 4K.
I guess it’s magic that makes Bulldozer a more capable CPU than Jaguar despite having lower IPC then… if it’s nothing to do with the fact that it runs at double the clockrate.
See, I told you you aren’t listening.
Jaguar is objectively a better CPU in pretty much every way.
I am not going to argue with you anymore.
OK then. Show me the cinebench numbers that show at 1.6GHz 8 Jaguar cores perform better than 8 Bulldozer cores at 3.5 GHz… If you’re going to accuse me of not listening at least say the thing that I’m apparently not listening to.
That is called dynamic resolution scaling my guy. They pushed a max of 1440P internal resolution and then were upscaled to 4k, because upscaling is a cheap operation and is all done on the GPU for like a loss of one cycle.
The New Xbox and PS5 cannot do native 4k 30 sustained currently. They are using VRR, DRS, and AMD’s version of DLS to pull this off. Most games are rendered well under 2160P and then upscaled.
Yes, because the desktop part does not have to share a Die with GPU. The resources are bigger on the Desktop part.
The Xbox One X had quite a few native 4K games, and even its DRS didn’t actually drop that far below. It’s really not a controversial point to make that the last generation was very, very lopsided as far as GPU and CPU go.
The catch here is that Jaguar is more of a CMT part than Bulldozer. Bulldozer has shared resourced for the FPU and stuff. Jaguar’s cores have their own resources.
I don’t dispute that. It still a higher performing CPU than Jaguar, however.
Do.you remember the PS3 and 360, those were the era of bulldozer and those had console focused chips that were made to work in the heat and power they had and still over headed to the point of PCB flax and desoldering.
So yeah… Put a bulldozer in there and you have a self recycling furnace.
While the ps4/5 x/s and X/s have much better cooling you have to think how they are built. Passive chunky heatsinks, that are just in some idle air flow from a single struggling fan.
A 300w GPU like you reference having g no issues, has typically 3 fans forcing air through a MUCH better heatsink which is thinner allowing the heat to dump quickly where the consoles do heat soak up to about 85-90° and then the single fan with all its duckting working on cooling both a CPU and GPU indirectly… Yeah it screams.
So bulldozer would NEVER work in Consoles like we know. They would just be PCs which defeats the point.
I think we’re at the point where PCs and consoles are indistinguishable. The PS5 and the Xbox Series X are hefty chonkers. Obviously if you put Bulldozer and a HD 7870 or an RX 480 it’ll get toastie, but I’d just design the case to be bigger, and the heatsink/fan to be more adequate as in fact Microsoft and Sony both did for this current generation. I don’t see the issue with that they did there.
1
2
3
4
To quote:
Right around 1.6GHz seems to be the sweet spot, as going to 2GHz requires a 66% increase in TDP.
Jumping to just 2GHz would have increased the TDP with 66%… Guess what would have happened at 4GHz?
Bulldozer was antiquated design, that was improved with Jaguar and you are asking why aren’t they using the old design?
Because 8300 is 95W and 9590 is 220W and the performance difference is what… 15%?
It is not about performance purely. It was always power and heat and price…
Can you quote me where I suggested using a 9590? No you can’t. I can, however, quote where I suggested slightly underclocking the 8320:
It’s seems it is you who are not listening
What is the base clock of Bulldozer?
Is it the 8300 clock? Or the 8350 clock? Maybe the 6300 clock? What is the base clock of Bulldozer?
3.5GHz. As I have said several times now.
Why?
You think Bulldozer CPUs are produced at 3.5?
No, I chose an 8 core SKU that was released in 2012 as a reasonable thing that would have been new and possible at the time. And I underclocked it slightly in said example, also to be reasonable.
Like even the link you posted is about overclocking Jaguar, which is something you keep going on about but something I have never, ever suggested. It’s a completely different architecture, of course running it at 3.5GHz is different to running Bulldozer at 3.5GHz. The power characteristics are going to be wildly different.
OK, and based on those 3.5GHz, the lower clockspeed and increased IPC you will get roughly 20% lower performance for the 1.6GHz Jaguar CPU.
But you also get much much lower heat output, making the console easier to cool, and the gaming performance won’t suffer all that much in the base PS4 and XB1. Because the GPUs in those two weren’t powerful enough to push the CPUs to their maximum.
I do not how else to explain that to you.
If we are talking PS4 pro, that basically have RX480 in it, even the most powerhungry Bulldozer can’t deal with that GPU. It’s waaay too powerful for the Bulldozer.
You asked why the Jaguar is so low clocked. I posted the line, that clocking it up to 2GHz from 1.6GHz is pushing the heat to insane degree.
No it is not completely different. It’s Bulldozer with massive improvements, but it is still Bulldozer. It’s just a better version…
I am going on about overclocking is because you keep talking about clockspeeds.
Don’t you get it? The ancient Bulldozer cores are not an option. They are so lacking behind in features…
HSA is something that helps a lot for gaming if utilized properly. Bulldozer doesn’t have it. Jaguar does have it. I do not know how to tell you this, Bulldozer is not an option…
Given how underpowered those consoles are in terms of their CPUs, that 20% reduced estimate, even as a number without any data behind it – is a massive detriment. As we have established, these consoles ran such hefty bottlenecks they were pushing 4K just to give the GPUs something to do.
No, I didn’t. You’re arguing with yourself here.
What are you even talking about? Bulldozer and Jaguar are radically different architectures.
Yes, because one is a low power, very efficient but very low performance architecture, and the other is a high power mainstream architecture. I only mentioned clockspeed because you said that the Jaguar out-performed Bulldozer, but only with the massive caveat of at the same (low) clockspeeds. No one with an 8320 would have been running it at 1.6GHz so your point was moot. It’s like comparing Intel’s E and P cores. Bulldozer wasn’t even ancient, it was the best AMD had up until Ryzen. That CPU was released only a year before the consoles.
Because to you low power consumption and small form factor matters in a device that required a wall power connection and never moves from its spot. To me it doesn’t.
You know what? I am done. You know better than me, the rest of the forum, the Sony people who specced it up and tested it and built it, the Microsoft people that did the same, etc etc.
You are correct, we see a massive influx of trash games because there was Jaguar cores.
I am done with that thread.
Very bizarre reaction to the mainstream analysis of the previous generation of consoles. If it’s not too controversial: the Wii U did the same thing… it paired a pretty decent GPU with an underpowered CPU too.
I’m curious as to why you think everyone was so excited about the new consoles being Ryzen-based…