[QUOTE]According to data buried in a recent update for the FMOD audio tool, Sony has quietly released an SDK that will maintain Playstation 4’s supremacy over Microsoft’s Xbox One as far as graphics are concerned. Initially, two of Sony’s eight Jaguar cores on the PS4 were reserved for the operating system and other vital console tasks. Now, if this update report is accurate, Sony has opened up one more core to developers for use in games.This comes after a similar move by Microsoft to try and close the performance gap between the two top-tier gaming consoles that have dominated the console gaming space since their respective releases. Microsoft released an update for Xbox One last year that unlocked more GPU bandwidth and another of the system’s cores, giving developers access to a coveted seventh out of eight. This meant a 10 percent improvement in GPU performance, but it also meant sacrificing some Kinect performance like voice commands — one of the features for which the system was so famous.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The first reports of Sony’s change to PS4 function came from the line in the FMOD Studio API revision history from November 17: “Added FMOD_THREAD_CORE6 to allow access to the newly unlocked 7th core.” However, Sony has yet to make an official announcement about this, and debates continue to rage on various forums.
PS4 players — and end users — won’t see anything different immediately, but unlocking an additional core could help game performance in the future, and give developers the little bit extra they need to stuff more detail in their virtual worlds.[/QUOTE]
Source: [URL]http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/sony-unlocks-ps4-core/[/URL]
Glad to see Sony potentially taking a step towards better performance. I wonder if current games could even be patched to harness more processing power? Don't get me wrong, I love my PS4 but I'd like to think that after 10 years a "next-gen" console would be able to render its games in 1080p.
They really need that extra core for the PS4 VR which is coming in 2016
I think the push to have all sorts of background crap running is hindering performance on today's consoles.
While the app-switching, fancy menus, and constant background recording of games is nice, I'd certainly give it all up in favor of a little performance boost or higher resolution rendering.
[QUOTE=Matt2468rv;49225250]I also think the push to have all sorts of background crap running is hindering performance on today's consoles.
While the app-switching, fancy menus, and constant background recording of games is nice, I'd certainly give it all up in favor of a little performance boost or higher resolution rendering.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure later in this generation devs will figure out a way to get optimization and impressive visuals with all of these features. This is a particularly tough generation, but it's not uncommon to have games within the first 5 years kind of run like crap. Check out any early Unreal game last-gen and a bunch of garbage games you don't remember.
I hope just cause 3 runs better
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49225252]I'm sure later in this generation devs will figure out a way to get optimization and impressive visuals with all of these features. This is a particularly tough generation, but it's not uncommon to have games within the first 5 years kind of run like crap. Check out any early Unreal game last-gen and a bunch of garbage games you don't remember.[/QUOTE]
the cool thing about consoles is that they're a standardized platform so once devs get used to it they can push optimization to insane degrees
PLUS, this point last-gen game development was much different. Sure there were pressures from Suits on devs then, but comparably games now are so much more business investments and have rigorous campaigns driving triple-A games more than ever before.
If you told anyone then that they'd need to create Paris or Victorian era London in near-replication [I]within[/I] 2 years I'm not sure how many devs would have stuck around. Games just aren't the same as they were, and there are many clear elements that lead to the explosive products you're being delivered today.
It's crazy that a lot of people's phones have faster processors than these consoles do.
[QUOTE=helifreak;49225291]It's crazy that a lot of people's phones have faster processors than these consoles do.[/QUOTE]
Interested, do you have something to support this? It honestly does not sound correct.
[QUOTE=Matt2468rv;49225250]I think the push to have all sorts of background crap running is hindering performance on today's consoles.
While the app-switching, fancy menus, and constant background recording of games is nice, I'd certainly give it all up in favor of a little performance boost or higher resolution rendering.[/QUOTE]
Screw the multi media gaming console
Just go back to the old PS1 days and make it 100% devoted to gaming.
Back to the "Oh fuck it froze I'll have to reset the psone" golden days
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49225305]Interested, do you have something to support this? It honestly does not sound correct.[/QUOTE]
It's not I'm retarded. I thought the lower clocked cores on the snapdragons were higher than ~1.5GHz. Still, they are remarkably close considering how small they are. Obviously GPU performance isn't anywhere near there yet but maybe some day.
[QUOTE=helifreak;49225291]It's crazy that a lot of people's phones have faster processors than these consoles do.[/QUOTE]
Having lots of cores doing work parallel is better than less cores that are faster in a consoles case, the standardized hardware allows for this.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49225305]Interested, do you have something to support this? It honestly does not sound correct.[/QUOTE]
Thats because its not correct. If it was correct we'd be seeing a huge difference in consumer electronics.
[QUOTE=Lone Wolf807;49225326]Having lots of cores doing work parallel is better than less cores that are faster in a consoles case, the standardized hardware allows for this.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately games are more easily threaded on fewer cores than several, and the fact that nearly every multiplatform game engine out today still prefers less cores with more IPC is proof of this (an Intel i3 fitted system can outperform the PS4 and Xbox One in recent releases)
And fixed hardware optimization as we know it from the past just isn't possible anymore, especially since devs are programming through software libraries and writing directly "to the metal" has basically been dead on consoles for a generation now.
[QUOTE=Matt2468rv;49225250]I think the push to have all sorts of background crap running is hindering performance on today's consoles.
While the app-switching, fancy menus, and constant background recording of games is nice, I'd certainly give it all up in favor of a little performance boost or higher resolution rendering.[/QUOTE]
I can totally understand that. This might come across as me being an old man, but I remember when consoles didn't have a splash screen or whatnot, when you fired up the old PlayStation, stuck your memory card in and popped in the disc you wanted to play, no fiddling about in menus. Or when you slipped the cartridge into the GameBoy Colour, flipped the on-switch, and within a couple of seconds you were at the title screen of Pokemon Blue, ready to jump right back into Kanto and make tracks towards the next Gym.
Thinking back, it was pretty neat when things just started up and worked nearly instantly, fully focused on just running a game. It might sound strange coming from a guy who's spend nearly all of his life gaming on the Personal Computer, which is a machine designed to do everything, but the thing is that consoles do seem to be trying to be more than they should be, trying to be all the things but being shackled by not having the raw horsepower to do it all decently. Sure, it might feel convenient to have a gaming console that also functions as a social media platform or home cinema system or whatever, but if you have to allocate moderately constrained resources to do everything, lacking the size or power of a modern day desktop that roars underneath your desk, maybe it's better to stick within the console's limitations and focus on doing what its meant to do to try and be the best it can?
Being a "machine-of-all-trades" can work if you're powerful enough and aren't restricted by a three digit hardware budget at the time of launch (though in theory you could buy a roaring stallion of a pre-built PC for just under a grand, like I did last year). But if the budget for parts means you can't buy the power needed to construct a princely machine (it probably needn't be super-kingly like a top-of-the-range four digit custom rig), trying to get it to do all of the things would probably cause it to be a jack of all trades that's a master of none.
Come to think of it, I feel like console manufacturers shouldn't just make one version at launch and simply iterate on it. $500 for a new console, especially considering the performance of Xbone and PS4 in comparison to PCs at the time, should be the launch pricetag for the "lite" or "vanilla" version of the console. For console followers who actually want true power, they should try designing "Xtreme" or "Deluxe" versions of a console that are built on a larger budget, with measurably more powerful hardware and better storage, and sold at a higher pricetag.
The higher price would probably put off people on a more restrictive budget, as well as people who're fine with the standard versions, BUT the manufacturers could build a smaller number than the standard models so there are enough to land in the hands of the ones who're dedicated enough to shell out for a markedly more powerful machine that is truly "next-gen" and has the power to be truly multimedia like a PC. Though then again, for a lot of us, the only thing to attract us to consoles is that that's the only place to play certain exclusives, which is kind of a flimsy marketing tactic if that's all it really has over a PC.
[QUOTE=helifreak;49225324]It's not I'm retarded. I thought the lower clocked cores on the snapdragons were higher than ~1.5GHz. Still, they are remarkably close considering how small they are. Obviously GPU performance isn't anywhere near there yet but maybe some day.[/QUOTE]
iirc, ARM processors and the CPUs that AMD and Intel produces are hardly comparable by clock speed alone
Hell, it's hard enough just to compare an Intel chip to an AMD one of the same clock speed.
[QUOTE=helifreak;49225324]It's not I'm retarded. I thought the lower clocked cores on the snapdragons were higher than ~1.5GHz. Still, they are remarkably close considering how small they are. Obviously GPU performance isn't anywhere near there yet but maybe some day.[/QUOTE]
Be careful with comparing entirely different CPU architectures by GHz.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Orkel;49225209]They really need that extra core for the PS4 VR which is coming in 2016[/QUOTE]
How exactly does the Morpheus connect to the PS4, I'm wondering?
I mean, what interface does the PS4 have that supports 1080p at 120fps?
[QUOTE=paul simon;49225925]Be careful with comparing entirely different CPU architectures by GHz.
[/QUOTE]
Be careful comparing different CPU architechtures at all. There's no definitive test you can run between two processors of different architechtures that objectively compares them.
Sounds like they're already streching the hardware
[QUOTE=Megaman1811;49225266]I hope just cause 3 runs better[/QUOTE]
Maybe not, it was probably built using just the 6 processors available on the PS4, but we'll see.
I'm willing to bet they're releasing it so they can eventually have it locked for Morpheus anyway.
[QUOTE=Matt2468rv;49225250]I think the push to have all sorts of background crap running is hindering performance on today's consoles.
While the app-switching, fancy menus, and constant background recording of games is nice, I'd certainly give it all up in favor of a little performance boost or higher resolution rendering.[/QUOTE]
I would hope there is a feature the devs can use like the 3DS, where a few games which take up a lot of processing power can lock off certain "app-switching" features, so it can dedicate more resources to the game.
[QUOTE=Orkel;49225209]They really need that extra core for the PS4 VR which is coming in 2016[/QUOTE]
It has been reported that Sony will be releasing something akin to an expansion pack for the PS4.
Else they really can't run VR at a decent framerate and/or graphics. Unlocking 1 extra core WILL NOT be enough for this so they gotta do something like that or just have total shit graphics with limited physics in any VR title.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49225925]Be careful with comparing entirely different CPU architectures by GHz.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
How exactly does the Morpheus connect to the PS4, I'm wondering?
I mean, what interface does the PS4 have that supports 1080p at 120fps?[/QUOTE]
The PS4 has HDMI 2.0 support for 1440p @ 90FPS iirc
[QUOTE=Valiantttt;49226882]It has been reported that Sony will be releasing something akin to an expansion pack for the PS4.
Else they really can't run VR at a decent framerate and/or graphics. Unlocking 1 extra core WILL NOT be enough for this so they gotta do something like that or just have total shit graphics with limited physics in any VR title.[/QUOTE]
It's a hardware video signal splitter, so that it can output signals to the Morpheus while also outputting an "unwrapped" (no VR distortion) signal to the TV, its not additional hardware For RENDERING stuff. Just splitting, scaling, and probably some other VR related tasks.
Good, the puny Jaguars need all the help they can get.
Just buy a PC people, why go through all this?
[QUOTE=vrej;49227460]Just buy a PC people, why go through all this?[/QUOTE]
Consoles more than suit a majority of people who buy them. I would say most people who game on consoles don't notice when the framerate dips below 30 or when there are other technical problems because of the hardware.
That being said though, I can't imagine the current Gen lasting as long as the last Gen. You can only squeeze so much out of dated hardware.
[QUOTE=vrej;49227460]Just buy a PC people, why go through all this?[/QUOTE]
lol "go through this"? do you mean sit on my ass while games are made and then I get to be selective about which one I pay money for? The sheer stress of being a console user!
[QUOTE=helifreak;49225291]It's crazy that a lot of people's phones have faster processors than these consoles do.[/QUOTE]
An ARM core and any x86/x64 core are in no way comparable in terms of core count and pure clock speed. ARM as an architecture is inherently slower than x86/64, allowing it to have a lower thermal output and lower power draw, 1GHz of ARM is considerably slower than 1GHz of any modern x86/64 CPU.
Your Samsung Galaxy S6 might have a beef CPU, but it's never going to be as powerful as what a console, even one from last gen, contains by the sheer nature of the architecture.
[editline]2nd December 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Matt2468rv;49225195]Don't get me wrong, I love my PS4 but I'd like to think that after 10 years a "next-gen" console would be able to render its games in 1080p.[/QUOTE]
There isn't anything preventing a console from doing this other than consumer expectations for the hottest new visual effects. Many things could be scaled down a bit to increase resolution and decrease frametime, but then you'd be subjected to shrieks from the "PC master race" of "HAHA LOOK HOW SHITTY THESE ARE!!!!!!!", despite the fact they are still massively outperforming the equivalent hardware if it was in a PC due to the nature of a unified architecture.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49227037]It's a hardware video signal splitter, so that it can output signals to the Morpheus while also outputting an "unwrapped" (no VR distortion) signal to the TV, its not additional hardware For RENDERING stuff. Just splitting, scaling, and probably some other VR related tasks.[/QUOTE]
It also has some sort of audio function for uh, what's it called? That thing that is like surround sound, but not surround sound.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
