The I7 920 and i5 3570 has roughly double the IPC of the Jaguarsin Xbox 1/PS4, - then scale with operating frequency. So 3-5 times faster
Only in efficiency (watt/work). A quad core 920 is much faster than 8 jaguar cores in any workload.Intresting, dont the 8 core jaguars have an advantage of more cores compared to the 4 core/8 thread 920?
The i7 920 had a low base clock so an 8core PS4pro is probably ball park stock i7 920. There was a pretty big IPC jump from nelahem to sandy and then to haswell. So a Jaguar's per clock performance isn't that bad relative to nelahem ( maybe 25% per clock behind)Only in efficiency (watt/work). A quad core 920 is much faster than 8 jaguar cores in any workload.
Putting Zen cores in next gen console is going to be a massive upgrade
Cheers
The i7 920 had a low base clock so an 8core PS4pro is probably ball park stock i7 920
A quad core 920 is much faster than 8 jaguar cores in any workload.
Even when the 920 is clocked at 1.6ghz? What about heavy multithreaded, say 8 thread/core software?
In that case the Jaguar's just as wide (AFAIK) SIMD capabilities would give it an edge when 8 Jaguar cores are pitted again the 920.
a 3770 has a ghz on a 920 as well as about 10-15 point on IPC which would give a score somewhere around 450 for a 920. I also said PS4pro, so that would be around 340 with its 2.1ghz clock.Just a quick comparison from Anandtech on Cinebench R15 with a very rough approximation to PS4 Jaguar
Code:Cinebench R15 Athlon 5150 PS4 2x 5150 i7-3770 (4 cores@1.6) (8 cores@1.6) (4c/ 8th) Single Thread 35 70 143 Multithread 129 258 708
I owned a C0 920 for ~5 years, i think people are over estimating its stock performance.