Talk:PlayStation 4 technical specifications

Orphan Status

This article is not an orphan, as the main Playstation 4 article links to it, that's how I got here. Just thought I'd point it out :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.38.143 (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedic explanation of lost of cell architecture

About Central processing unit: PS3 use Cell (see PS3), but PS4 not uses an "upgraded version of Cell"... Why?? Cell was the "fastest ever seen" game processor (!)...

These links ([1], [2]) have a good explanation, and we can summarize here.

EXAMPLE (draft): "... PlayStation 3 has a lot of hidden potential thanks to its heterogeneous multi-core Cell microprocessor. By contrast, game designers hated the PS3 because it was hard to develop for the Cell. As a result, when Sony was deciding the architecture of the PlayStation 4, it asked game creators what they wanted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.91.148 (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Original research? on GHz and GFLOPS performance deleted

I reverted [3]. Tried to make the language better but stopped halfway through. Doesn't belong here?:

PlayStation 4 CPU is according to rumors clocked at 1.6 GHz. Benchmarking a top of the line Jaguar APU for mobile, the A6 5200, scores 1.99 points in Cinebench 11.5 where 1 point seems to mean 10 GFLOPS four Jaguar cores at 1.6 GHz scores 1.6 points in Cinebench 11.5 then multiply by two with result of 3.2 points equals 32 GFLOPS of computation power.

1.6 GHz might be ok if really ok (and referenced by a credible source). 16:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you that this is not original research, I apologize if my english was not well since I kinda rushed with doing this while I am shocked at your incompetence in doing proper research and vandalism. -- Eyeofcore (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no obligation that I do (original) research. In fact it is prohibited that I do my own original research by Wikipedia rules that I linked to (in the title). Your argument was based on your 1.6 GHz claim that was unsourced and like you said a rumor. I checked the references you had and they don't say Playstation 4. Bechmarking is a complicated business and not just based on the core frequency and type of core. It might or might not be a valid argument you make. It is besides the point because it is not yours to make. Someone in WP:reliable sources has to make them at a minimum I would think (unless maybe you can convince other editors - on the talk page?). comp.arch (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, what you are doing is the definition of original research. I can also add that using Wikipedia as a base for it won't fly any better since using Wikipedia as a source is forbidden too. You must find an external source doing all the piecing together of information and supporting math before you can include it on Wikipedia. And including the source too of course. -- Henriok (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Even if your recent update, after I deleted, were allowed, I'm not sure the Cinebench score you calculate is relevent. Cinebench doesn't have a page in Wikipedia. I wander how notable it is. It seems to be used for customers for their rendering application that will not run on the PS4 (would it be included in game's graphics engines?). Benchmarking is best done with actual applications (on the actual hardware), in the case of a game console, actual games (or game engines, physics engines). Or theoretical peak capability could could be looked up in spec or calculated from a simple benchmark, not sure Cinebench is appropriate. Cinebech "test procedure consists of two main components - the graphics card performance test and the CPU performance test." The CPU performance test does graphics rendering without using the GPU it seems to me. Doesn't seem likely to me that that is the way that games would use in a game console that always has a powerful GPU included. comp.arch (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So you wonder if Cinebench is relevant? well it is relevant as hell because its most consistent/neutral benchmark out there and just because Cinebench does not have a Wikipedia page does not mean it is not relevant/important since it is being used by all tech sites like Anandtech, Legit Reviews, Toms Hardware, Hard OCP, Extreme Tech, Arstechnica and many others... You know that Cinebench is appropriate because its core is basically a Cinema 4D, a tool used for 3D modeling, animations and rendering?! Cinebench is an actual benchmark, do the research you amateur. I will undo your edits... -- Eyeofcore (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Name-calling is really unnecessary. Just follow the rules of Wikipedia and you'll be fine. They are not for you to break and we didn't make them up. If you feel that Cinebench is a relevant product, please write an article about it. Follow the rules of Wikipedia while writing it, i.e. don't use original research and cite references. There's probably plenty as you point out. This is not the issue we have with your edits though. You are doing original research. You are finding a source of data concerning another product, drawing conclusions on your own concerning similarities to this article, are essentially making up that a 1.6 GHz Jaguar core would score some number in Cinebench, and then you are doubling that figure for reasons that deem sensible to you. This is the essence of original research. You are drawing conclusions on your own. You can't do that. That's forbidden. You must find an external, good source that claims exactly what you put in the article. You have not. -- Henriok (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Name calling is necessary when somebody is doing acts of vandalism. I followed the rules, you broke them again and you accuse me of things that I did not do this time because you are just abusing the system because you don't like the information. If I feel? Are you dumb? It is not about being relevant to me, it is about being relevant to major tech sites like Anandtech and as I explained to you before, it is based around Cinema 4D since Cinebench 11.5 is basically a variant of Cinema 4D designed for benchmarking. Your logic is broken, you think just because of that or that does not have an article on Wikipedia that it is not relevant thus you rendered yourself irrelevant. If that is original research then entire wikipedia is basically original research, your logic and seems logic of other people is seriously broken and irrational. Your point of using source of another product would be valid if the architecture was different and not from the same designer and manufacturer, but it is about Kabini that is Jaguar cores and GCN architecture so it is basically the same to PlayStation 4 APU just on a smaller scale. How I am drawing conclusions on my own when those conclusions from that article are basically what I wrote, if quad core 1.5 Ghz Jaguar scores 1.5 points that means that quad core for each 100mhz/0.1Ghz scores 0.1 point and since PlayStation 4 has two modules and each have 4 cores at 1.6 Ghz that means it is 1.6 points per module and two modules are scoring together 3.2 points. If I was making up then Anandtech, Arstechnica, Toms hardware, PCper and other tech sites made everything up. It is your logic not mine, learn to think rationally and if you don't like the way I did it then modify it and not remove it just because you are lazy to do anything that needs some thinking. You accuse me of making original research and doing conclusion and making things up yet I use sources yet you don't read them and those "conclusions" are conclusions of those tech sites yet you can't comprehend it and you most likely don't like the information that I presented. Those conclusions are adapted conclusion for the PlayStation 4 scenario and if they were making an article then you would see exact same information as I presented. You only complain, you don't contribute, you don't modify or add anything, you just talk and delete, you just sabotage, you are just a vandal. Do I really need to write this on some forum, do I need to source myself and risk my credibility? Just because nobody wrote exactly what the truth is?! Your logic, your reasoning, your rationality is severely broken, you don't contribute anything. Go away or at least avoid this if you don't have anything to contribute expect for just complaining, crying and deleting stuff that you don't like and abusing the system and rules with such poor excuses for your "valid" actions and "valid" reasons. You know what, I quit. Go screw up this page up that you eagerly want too, sugar cout yourself. You are disgusting... -- Eyeofcore (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I followed Wikipedia protocol when I reverted first (started this section of the talk page) and the second time when I said I'm sympathetic to how difficult it would be to get benchmark numers on the machine. Maybe a language that people can support can be put on the talk page first. Then another person reverted your edit. I feel all the critisism your edit (and more) has gotten applies. If at least one person would support you then we could look into this further. Feel free to report me as a vandal, that would be a first and I welcome judgement on which one of us is following protocol. comp.arch (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

/* Central processing unit */ 1.8Ghz rumor is not possible

Rumor from ps3news is not confirmed and is rumor and is from a PDF life that has in the title "(estimate)" so it is not actual specifications nor fact, it is mere speculation/estimation/theory/expectation from that site that created the PDF that is used as source of this rumor.

Anyway PlayStation 4 APU is restricted by its heat that it produces and the cooling solution that is being used which is designed for its original design and size. Any higher clocks would mean higher failure rates, overheating and damage to the chip. PlayStation 4's cooling is not as open as PC cases that have way more space for air to flow and more fans not to mention that CPU and GPU are in the same chip rather than individual components dozens of inches away.

We are talking about 155-160 watts for entire system when gaming on PlayStation 4 and the chip its self is likely 140-145 watts at full load with Killzone Shadow Fall! That is higher than FX 8350 from AMD that needs a good heatsink while the one packed it is okay for what it is... PlayStation 4's cooling solution is excellent for the conditions it is in a very tight space yet because of the fan position, air flow and how everything is packed it I can't see above 150 watts and that bump to 1.8Ghz would push it to the limits which would cause failure! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeofcore (talk • contribs) 08:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not 1,152 cores

The performance is that of 64 stream processors per compute unit, which makes it 1,152 stream processors, not "cores." While a stream processor may be considered a "core", it's confusing to imply "logical core" in this context, and "stream processing" redirection should be placed instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.173 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Standby mode 10 W

Current EU regulations state that a standby power consumption of 1 Watts is not to be exceeded. How come, the PS4 consumes 10 Watts? Is this a mistake? User:ScotXW^t@lk 17:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)