Why didn't Microsoft upclock the CPU some more?

#1dolablaPosted 12/22/2013 9:53:56 PM
I don't get it. The one advantage they were thought to have is no longer. Now they've allowed Sony to have this advantage as well.
#2Apex-PlayerPosted 12/22/2013 10:06:01 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#3Sith JediPosted 12/22/2013 10:27:00 PM
dolabla posted...
I don't get it. The one advantage they were thought to have is no longer. Now they've allowed Sony to have this advantage as well.


Neither system will have games that push the limit of the CPU for a while. When that time comes, they can always overclock it through a patch. Until then, lower clock speed is less stressful on the chip.
#4MecamattPosted 12/22/2013 10:56:15 PM
Sith Jedi posted...
dolabla posted...
I don't get it. The one advantage they were thought to have is no longer. Now they've allowed Sony to have this advantage as well.


Neither system will have games that push the limit of the CPU for a while. When that time comes, they can always overclock it through a patch. Until then, lower clock speed is less stressful on the chip.


That makes very good sense...
---
3DS Friend Code: 2251-4708-8870 Guys, check out my kickstarter!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/742636845/the-cumulus-engines-debut-record
#5SolisPosted 12/23/2013 6:12:14 AM
Sith Jedi posted...
dolabla posted...
I don't get it. The one advantage they were thought to have is no longer. Now they've allowed Sony to have this advantage as well.


Neither system will have games that push the limit of the CPU for a while. When that time comes, they can always overclock it through a patch. Until then, lower clock speed is less stressful on the chip.

The CPU is by far the most limiting factor of both consoles. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was responsible for the majority of the bottlenecks developers encounter.

And they can't "overclock" at all, they can only run it at levels that the hardware has been reliably certified to run at. If the current consoles haven't been tested to run at a higher clockrate than they already are, then there's not really much they can do through software without an extremely high risk. However, if they were only lowered for noise concerns, then it could certainly be a viable option. Not sure what chance there is of that though.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#6RyzekiPosted 12/23/2013 8:41:28 AM
Due to the physical size of the chip, the voltage it requires and the materials and transistors it was designed in mind to have a low TDP. There is a physical limit to which the CPU clock can run before it gets damaged.

These Jaguar cores most likely have a limit around 2ghz for nominal operation, but can hardly get higher.

It doesn't matter, even if MS overclocked the CPU, it wouldn't really help them much at all, as it would give them less than 10% nominal cpu performance boost, and even less in gaming. At best it would slightly help with multitasking.
---
Core i7 4700MQ | | 16GB DDR3L || 128GB SSD + 1TB || GTX780M OC
#7DojoMaxPosted 12/23/2013 8:52:00 AM
Another doabala troll flopic
---
XBL: xShotz 101x | PSN DojoMax | I've had both systems and they're both garbage... :) | stop trollin
#8Dannyson97Posted 12/23/2013 9:08:09 AM
Maybe they want developers to work with what they have and innovate with system's limitations? Unlocking the extra power for developers when they're used to the system.
---
The Dreamcast didn't fail, we failed the Dreamcast.
#9labountiPosted 12/23/2013 9:09:22 AM
Ryzeki posted...
Due to the physical size of the chip, the voltage it requires and the materials and transistors it was designed in mind to have a low TDP. There is a physical limit to which the CPU clock can run before it gets damaged.

These Jaguar cores most likely have a limit around 2ghz for nominal operation, but can hardly get higher.

It doesn't matter, even if MS overclocked the CPU, it wouldn't really help them much at all, as it would give them less than 10% nominal cpu performance boost, and even less in gaming. At best it would slightly help with multitasking.


Agreed, the most it would due is reduce any lag in the UI.
#10PraetorXynPosted 12/23/2013 9:42:44 AM
Ryzeki posted...
Due to the physical size of the chip, the voltage it requires and the materials and transistors it was designed in mind to have a low TDP. There is a physical limit to which the CPU clock can run before it gets damaged.

These Jaguar cores most likely have a limit around 2ghz for nominal operation, but can hardly get higher.

It doesn't matter, even if MS overclocked the CPU, it wouldn't really help them much at all, as it would give them less than 10% nominal cpu performance boost, and even less in gaming. At best it would slightly help with multitasking.


This. While a good CPU isn't end-all-be-all for gaming (it really only shines when lots of stuff is going on at once), there's a point when the CPU is so terrible it will severely bottleneck the GPU and RAM. That's pretty much the case with both consoles; the Jaguar is a tablet CPU of all things, with a nominal speed of ~2 GHz, whereas desktop CPU's run nominally at ~3.5 GHz without overclocking. Not to mention it's an AMD CPU, so it will consistently be outperformed by an Intel CPU even if the Intel is running at a lower clock speed (i5-3570K at ~4.5 GHz vs FX-8350 at ~5 GHz for example).
---
Console war in a nutshell:
http://imgur.com/xA6GJZ9