Talk about the 384 extra gpu cores (1152 vs. 768) ps4 has, and it's a "negligable difference", talk about one extra cpu core on XO, it rockets to the top of n4g.

@Pistols

Heat has nothing to do with the difference in speed. 100 MHZ difference is going to be a negligible difference, and a core not being used is still going to produce heat.

They're essentially the same CPU at the core. Dunno about what was modified, but that doesn't matter much when determining clock speed, since those modifications aren't core modifications. If you change the core...then it's a different series of chip...simple as that.

Clock speeds of the cores are determined by two factors. The system bus speed, and the CPU multiplier speed. In the case of MS increase before launch, they changed the multiplier within the CPU to gain a faster core speed.

Alternatively, although not the case here, it's also possible to change the bus speed, and retain the same internal clock on the CPU which will effectively make the CPU faster since it's using it's own internal multiplier, but that gets tricky with memory timing.

All of this is the same principal that over-clockers use on PC. On PC though, some motherboards allow for these modifications, and sometimes they bring unwanted result.

However, for an official clock increase such as this, the actual chips would have to be rated to be able to perform at such speeds...just like within the same family of chips from any CPU vendor, they can have multiple clock speeds available to the consumer. Go look for an i5 CPU. For the most part, outside some changes to other things(which would be denoted by marketing speak) the only real difference between them in the same family is the approved internal clock multiplier at which the chip has been rated to run at without causing faults. It's possible these chips can run faster, but the results aren't certified by the vendor.

Both CPU's have the same number of cores(8 to be exact). Before launch, one(or two...can't remember) cores were locked out from ever being used, while one was reserved for the OS on both the PS4 and the X1. The reason they were forever locked away from being allowed to be used is that it allowed increase production yield, where if one chip came off the production line, and had a faulty core, the chip could still be used. It's the same principal on how hard drives will identify bad sectors, and prevent them from being used. In the case of MS, they changed the locking out of this core, so now the previously locked core could now be used. This would result in a lower yield at the production level, but MS felt it was worth it, and I can't really say that having extra power to work with is a bad thing.

Otherwise, the CPU's are exactly the same class of CPU/APU. Modifications would have been made on the internal bus and co-processors of the chip, not the cores themselves.

Anyhow, assuming that they aren't the same CPU at the core, and are simply part of the same series(say comparing an i5 to an i7) then logic would dictate, that given the similar costs of the system, in order for MS to achieve a higher yield, with a higher speed rating, they would actually be using the lower end version of said chip series. I don't know which one tests better, or if it's even possible to test with appropriate benchmarks since there are going to be other factors that will alter the results within a console system. Lower end usually denotes less efficient, which itself will produce more heat than a mere 100MHZ increase in speed.

Yep it's funny how nobody mentions the extra 1gb of GDDR5 (flexible memory) that the PS4 has yet to really utilize, Second Son didn't touch any of it yet was a breathtaking technical display.

Also, the PS4 has 8gb of GDDR5 but it has an extra 2gb of ddr3 as well, this is why the PS4 has a better "play while your game DL/installs" feature, 3x the dvr recording, photomodes, a more efficient rest mode ect. The 2gb of ddr3 may be the reason there is an extra 1gb of GDDR5 flexible memory, it can likely handle some of the OS freeing up that 1gb for potential game use. The PS4 has a lot left, especially when they optimize and make efficient use of all that ram.

This xbone "news" is old news tbh, we heard this so long ago, devs have had access to this "secret sauce" for a while.

Yall stop comparing shader cores to processing cores, makes you look very uneducated on hardware lol

@PistolsAtDawn

Sony sticking to PS4 users by having the best version of most third party games, granted not by a huge amount but they are better.

"Xbox One Extra CPU Core Will Allow Smoother Frame Rates: Technomancer Dev"

Ok,then I want to start seeing X1 games run smoother than their PS4 counterpart because other than "some" games here and there. The PS4 version practically always runs smoother despite it supposedly having the slower CPU (according to fanboys only, off course) and higher res.

Why is PCars a game that is very CPU dependent run at a much lower framerate than the PS4 ver. I mean you got the extra 150mhz, the up to 50-80% use of the seventh core, the supposed lower latency of the DDR3 and the extra CPU bandwidth and it still cant outperform the PS4 in CPU duties? Pathetic!

So less talk and more action. I wanna see X1 games consistently win the CPU performance battles. Cuz til now, it aint happening.

"Also, the PS4 has 8gb of GDDR5 but it has an extra 2gb of ddr3 as well ... The 2gb of ddr3 may be the reason there is an extra 1gb of GDDR5 flexible memory,"

HAHA this comment is absolutely hilarious, you must not be aware GigaBITS (Gb) and GigaBYTES (GB) are two different things. 2Gb of DDR3 = 256MB of DDR3, not 2000MB like you think... There are 8 bits in a byte. LMAO!!!

LOL you obviously know a lot about game development...too bad that core that you speak of every game using, really isn't considering they had to change code to use it. And how many developers this year confirmed that they are using this extra core? hint: not all of them.

So in the article you posted:

"Since October, Microsoft has allowed developers access to 50 to 80 per cent of a seventh processing core - which may partly explain why a small amount of multi-platform titles released during Q4 2014 may have possessed performance advantages over their PS4 counterparts in certain scenarios."

How did you get "precisely 50%" and "So all games this year used the 7th core"?

So if the Dev kits allowing this to happen started getting released in October...how many devs you do you anticipate went back and completely rebuilt their game from the ground up in order to take full advantage of the 7th core? I'm not saying they all avoided it or anything...but that far into development, they probably used it more like a bandaid. Not to mention...not that DX12 will be god's gift to the world or anything, but allowing the 7th core will become more meaningful when games are built from the ground up for DX12....so the jury isn't completely out just yet....except for you I guess based on how you carefully crafted your comment.

@PistolsAtDawn

Since you are such a big fan of the X1 and defend it so much, I give you the article from Digital Foundry with the performance analysis of Project Cars AFTER the release of the patch (using the 7th core of X1).

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

In order to be clear I extracted a paragraph from the article:

"Comparing PS4 and Xbox One still puts Sony's platform ahead though. Even with upgrades to both platforms, THE MARGIN IS STILL AS WIDE AS 12fps in favour of PS4 at points, and rarely does the twain meet in terms of the frame-rate read-outs between the two."

@ gfk342

That depends on whether a game is graphics-bound or CPU-bound at a given target framerate. Project Cars was likely graphics-bound.

I wasn't implying there was deception. Just that it's not so ridiculous that hardware makers would lock out cores, or CU's, or whatever to increase yields.

As far as if it's a bad thing or not...I don't really think it is. I mean, if it performs like it should given the specs it's sold under, then I don't really see the problem. Overall it keeps costs down, and allows companies to profit. Kind of a win-win for everyone.

@andrew, you alright Buddy? Master didnt even mention PS4. He went as far as saying that the 7th core will help, just dont expect a big boost.

@Bakpain

Yeah that's exactly what I said. By big boost I mean that if a game runs in 900P 60FPS it isn't going to be boosted to 1080P 60FPS.

If you had a game with minor FPS dips (1-2 FPS) than maybe this update will improve the performance enough to lock the framerate which isn't bad at all.

@gfk342 From the article you posted "Tech Analysts ‘Digital Foundry’ recently published their Project CARS findings online. But, unfortunately those findings came from an early build of Project CARS and were taken down as the build wasn’t supposed to be used for tech analysis."

The bit you put about 10-12 fps on PS4 is incorrect...that quote was based on the Early build before the 7th core. Now Project Cars on X1 has a the better FPS.

"The bit you put about 10-12 fps on PS4 is incorrect...that quote was based on the Early build before the 7th core. Now Project Cars on X1 has a the better FPS. "

No, it doesn't, but I see you are really either misinformed, blissfully ignorant or just a dumb fanboy or a liar. The 7th core has been used since v1.04 and the PS4 STILL has a 12fps advantage. And that's the fact, now show me where the X1 has the better framerate?

"Comparing PS4 and Xbox One still puts Sony's platform ahead though. Even with upgrades to both platforms, the margin is still as wide as 12fps in favour of PS4 at points, and rarely does the twain meet in terms of the frame-rate read-outs between the two. If the PC version isn't an option for those eager to try Project Cars ambitious racing sim, PS4 remains the best performer in the console space. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

I wouldn't call anything on that list "mid-tier" or AA.

@blufox755

Well AAA or AA isnt an opinion, all these games have little to no marketing, made with half the amount of people at a fraction of the cost of a AAA game, I.E. mid tier games. Just because its good doesn't make it AAA, they are just good mid tier games

Dear god this site is really starting to be populated by people who cant accept facts. AAA and mid tier is determined by how much funding is put into a game, thats just a fact. Some can pull of better games than others on the same budget. AA/mid tier is not determined by a level of lacked polish or jank, its budget, plain and simple. Hellblade is a mid tier game, ninja theory have even said so MANY MANY times, still looks as good as a AAA game, but it isnt. You people are really going to sit there and tell me the 505 Games published Sniper Elite 4 had just as much money and marketing behind it as say anthem? Or Battlefield V? 505 Games has always been a mid tier publisher. Oh and Warhammer Vermintide? Its literally published by a mid tier publisher (THQ Nirdic) who quite literally, publically said they are a mid tier publisher and aim "to bring the mid tier back to the video game industry". And if Yakuza 0 isnt mid tier why did it launch at $40 with the explanation being it was a smaller project? These are facts, and somehow you're going to look at facts and disagree? I dont understand you people