Why didn't Microsoft upclock the CPU some more?

#112006_Posted 12/23/2013 10:59:35 AM
PraetorXyn posted...
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).

Can't really compare a Games console CPU vs a PC CPU. Yes, the new Intel procs are faster, but they all need to process different stuff a game console doesn't have to. The CPU of the X1 & PS4 is heavily customized and optimized for gaming purposes. They will blow a normal i5 out of the water, when it comes to gaming purposes.
#12schmarkenheimerPosted 12/23/2013 2:23:30 PM(edited)
2006_ posted...
PraetorXyn posted...
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).

Can't really compare a Games console CPU vs a PC CPU. Yes, the new Intel procs are faster, but they all need to process different stuff a game console doesn't have to. The CPU of the X1 & PS4 is heavily customized and optimized for gaming purposes. They will blow a normal i5 out of the water, when it comes to gaming purposes.


Sure you can.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7003/the-haswell-review-intel-core-i74770k-i54560k-tested/6

v

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6974/amd-kabini-review/3

Rough estimations abound. I'll assume they're using 8 cores but 1.65GHz clock speeds to make it an easier 2.2x to the Jag's scores in multi, 1.2x in single for benefits. 0.39*1.2= 0.47 Cine single, 1.5*2.2= 3.3 Cine multi, 7-zip single 1323*1.2= 1588 (single again), 7-zip multi 4509*2.2= 9920. Which is still nowhere near given perfect scaling. If it is 6 cores @ 1.75 for gaming (did that change?), that's 1.75x instead of 2.2x like I used which is quite a difference. 1.75x because (1.75/1.5)*1.5 - clock speed increase * 1.5 to get 6 cores @ 1.75GHz score. Even if we use another 1.5x (to make it 3.3x those multi scores) we're still not that close and that's extremely generous, getting on for double the scores (3.3 v 1.75). That OS/background overhead will be done with those 2 cores so there's no point counting them. Obviously they'll use it better than that but even so this seems extremely..... optimistic:
2006_ posted...

They will blow a normal i5 out of the water, when it comes to gaming purposes.


And even then we're not taking into account new CPU gens. Assume they're out for 5-7 years and 1.05% performance improvements that's roughly 1.25-1.4x CPU performance. If they decide to go 6-8 cores in i5/i7 then obviously that's much more performance in engines that use many cores, should be common in a few years.
---
Post of the ****ing year. - crimsyn_76 Best. Example. Ever. - Veliconis
Epic. - Xade76 Want to run that by us in English instead of Derp, champ? - pies12
#13SolisPosted 12/23/2013 5:46:35 PM
2006_ posted...
Can't really compare a Games console CPU vs a PC CPU. Yes, the new Intel procs are faster, but they all need to process different stuff a game console doesn't have to. The CPU of the X1 & PS4 is heavily customized and optimized for gaming purposes. They will blow a normal i5 out of the water, when it comes to gaming purposes.

You absolutely can compare a game console CPU and a PC CPU when they're literally the exact same CPU design. Ironically, it's actually the game consoles that have a larger portion of system resources segmented off and inaccessible to games. It's physically impossible for games to use the two cores of the CPU which are reserved solely for system use, whereas on a PC a game can nearly fully use every CPU core available in the system. So if you had the same CPU in the console and in the PC, the PC utilization would counter-intuitively be better for games.

And they sure as hell won't blow a normal i5 out of the water. At best, they might manage to match one of the earlier higher clocked i3s, and that's only if the game is optimized to use all available cores (in single and dual core performance, an i3 would be notably faster).
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#14SythisTaruPosted 12/23/2013 5:58:29 PM
Solis posted...
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.


Lol, no. CPU is not even very important in gaming these days. And that's coming from someone with an i7 running at 4.5k.
#15SolisPosted 12/23/2013 6:19:09 PM
SythisTaru posted...
Lol, no. CPU is not even very important in gaming these days. And that's coming from someone with an i7 running at 4.5k.

I'd love to see you try to play recent demanding games on an AMD E-350 (coincidentally, I actually have). There might be a certain point where having more CPU power won't necessary help as much, but that sure as hell doesn't mean having a very limited CPU won't bottleneck a game.
---
"Walking tanks must exist somewhere for there to be such attention to detail like this in mech sim." - IGN Steel Battalion review
#16Newbie00Posted 12/23/2013 8:53:35 PM
2006_ posted...
PraetorXyn posted...
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).

Can't really compare a Games console CPU vs a PC CPU. Yes, the new Intel procs are faster, but they all need to process different stuff a game console doesn't have to. The CPU of the X1 & PS4 is heavily customized and optimized for gaming purposes. They will blow a normal i5 out of the water, when it comes to gaming purposes.


Posts like these are why it's hard for PC gamers to respect console gamers.
---
Sokar, Eliot... lay off Tony. I can vouch for him. He's a top lad and a massive PS3 supporter. He's not an enemy here. - SomnusNemoris on the Sony Defense Force