Does this beat Next Gen Consoles?

[][SG][ Greg]

Hello everyone! I was just wondering if the my recently built PC beats the Xbox One and Ps4 in terms of performance with gaming? Thanks!
SPECS:
APU (I know, I know...): A-10 6800k Clocked at 4.1 ghz.
GPU: Radeon 7850 2gb (GPU Clock: 1040 mhz. Memory clocked at: 1440 mhz.
Asus motherboard that I forget.
8 GB Memory
2 tb HDD 7200 RPM.

[[☥] - CJ -]

If you have a dedicated GPU you dont need an APU..

GPUwise your PC is better, but CPUwise im not to sure.

[_I_]

spec wise, match at best

if your using a dedicated gpu, get an 1150/1155 or am3+ board and cpu

the consoles use amd 8 core apus (<2ghz per core)
gpu is close to the 7790 range

[Inquisitor Germanicus]

Sure does! The next-gen consoles use a cpu similar to the A4-5000. A notebook cpu.

[lapengu]

That APU is fine. Most games arent too CPU intensive anyways, unless youre playing something like starcraft 2. Yes, it is better than the consoles by a quite large margin. Enjoy your gaming! :)

[ACJCLIGHTNING]

yes, but I wouldn't say comfortably above them. Your slightly better that the Xbox one in GPU performance, and I would guess right about the same as the PS4.
CPU wise is the big problem though. Not a great CPU. Many games may have problems with it. It tends to be why people go for a solid base CPU, even if it takes away from their graphics card power.
There arent as many settings to solve a CPU bottleneck as there is for a GPU.

[Benjamin]

Another thing, is that both consoles have multiple VMs running at once. This is going to have an affect on the utilization of the cores. It used to be that Consoles were more bare metal than PCs, but it doesn't seem like that's necessarily the case anymore.

[Rove]

I'd say you are above both consoles.

Your CPU is lots faster even if the console CPUs are capable of the same IPC which I don't think they are because they are Ultra Mobile "Jaguar" based CPUs while the A10 is a fullblown desktop. However even if they were as-good clock-for-clock the consoles are slower. 8*1.6 or 1.75 Ghz = 12.8 or 14, so that means you would need a 3.2 or 3.5 Ghz 4 core desktop CPU to match them. Yours goes up to 4.4 Ghz (4.1Ghz stock) on 4 cores with Turbocore (=17.6 compared to their total scores of 12.8 and 14) and I think desktop CPUs are better than these console Ultra Mobile ones also. SO yes you are comfortably better with the CPU.

GPU might be a bit closer but I think still it is a bit better. AMD makes both these also so compare here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units

Also your desktop can overclock both CPU and GPU.

Now PC quality often goes above console as the generation matures so you should be able to play at PS4 / XB1 quality at minimum; However better PCs than yours may be able to play at even higher qualities in the future even while the consoles are still current generation.

In addition to your CPU and dedicated GPU being better than the consoles you do also have the APU's GPU portion as well which can accelerate some things even faster with GPGPU computing. So this may also place you yet another fairly significant margin ahead of consoles for supported applications. However this is still in it's early stages and still needs to grow.

I have this same CPU as well as a AMD FX 8 core and both the 4 core A10-6800K APU and the 8 core AMD FX 8 core are very good for games, are properly used and are not strained in the least by any current games I have played.

[Benjamin]

That's not accurate. The a10-6800 has two dual core piledriver modules: 2+2=4. Each dual core module does share L2 cache, but it is certainly a quad core CPU. This is not the same as Hyperthreading as seen on Intel's CPUs.

And also, PC OS does not really consume more resources any more. Xbox One and PS4 are not "Bare Metal" like their predecessors were. Both run an additional virtualization layer to handle a base OS which is running underneith the "game" VM. This is arguable much less efficient than PCs with a standard single OS running.

Just look at the games released so far on the consoles. It's pretty pathetic for 2013/14 standards, so reaching that level of quality is hardly difficult.

[Rove]

Both CPUs are made by AMD, if they say one is a 8 core and the other is a 4 core then I sort of have to believe they actually mean it like that.

It's a 4 core CPU. A10 6800K has 4 real cores organized into 2 modules which each really performs like 2 cores.

The only reason they use modular architecture is to increase throughput between the cores so that they can talk to each other and cooperate more effectively.

Otherwise they would have just shrunk the Phenom II x6 down to 32nm and added another +2 Phenom II cores (which 32nm would leave room and power for) and called it a Phenom II x8 or Phenom FX (similar to Athlon FX) instead of AMD FX 8xxx. The new archicture is a significant improvement over the Phenom for future applications or it would never have made it out of the lab. AMD FX is not some strange malicious attempt by AMD to make worse CPUs than they previously did, at least I think not.

[Benjamin]

Benchmarks seem to dissagree with you. The question was whether or not it was comparable to the new consoles.

[Rove]

Put it this way. XB1 and PS4 are Jaguar based CPUs.

This is a benchmark of a 4 core 2Ghz Jaguar APU found commonly in a netbook:

AMD A6-5200 APU
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A6-5200+APU

The PS4 and XB1 are clocked even slower than this (1.6Ghz) so even if their architecture is newer or better I don't think they will perform better than this times 2 (4*2=8) in total performance.

Meanwhile this is a A10 6800K APU benchmarked:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A10-6800K+APU&id=1935

And as you can see it is over 2 times as good as the other meaning better than PS4 or XB1 8 core CPUs even with 4 cores because they are so much faster.

Also something to note which the benchmarks do not show, this CPU A10 has the possibility to use a 256bit FPU while Jaguar only has 128bit. Jaguar also shares L2 cache just like the A10 CPU does.

Jaguar architecture is weaker performance than Richland (A10 6800K) in a lot of ways.

[Rove]

Nope. Then they compile it in C, C++ or whatever regular PC language they use and that's that. 1 compile for each console & 1 compile for PCs and no performance gain or loss I don't think.

[Rove]

Sorry I'm just gonna drop it. I get better results hitting my head on a wall.

[rotNdude]

These threads always turn into a PC versus Console war and this thread is now locked.