AMD Playstation 4 Slim GPU

Benchmark Performance

The AMD Playstation 4 Slim GPU presents a unique analytical case: the FACT PACK lists no benchmark scores, no average benchmark score, and no nearest rivals. Its percentileVsAllGpus sits exactly at 50, placing it at the median of all GPUs in the database. This is a curious position—neither a low-end outlier nor a high-end performer, but a chip that sits squarely in the middle of the historical performance distribution.

The raw compute figures in the FACT PACK tell a consistent story. The GPU delivers 1.843 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, with FP16 running at a 1:1 ratio of 1.843 TFLOPS. This symmetric compute capability suggests the architecture does not prioritize half-precision acceleration—a design choice typical of GCN 2.0 parts aimed at console workloads rather than machine learning tasks. The pixel rate stands at 25.60 GPixel/s, while the texture rate reaches 57.60 GTexel/s. These figures, derived from 1152 shading units, 72 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, indicate a balanced configuration where texture work and pixel throughput are proportionate to the shader count.

What do these numbers mean in practical terms? With 1.843 TFLOPS of compute, the GPU sits below the threshold where modern high-refresh-rate gaming becomes comfortable. The median percentile ranking (50th) suggests that roughly half of all GPUs in the database outperform it, and half underperform it. However, the lack of benchmark scores in the FACT PACK means this percentile is not corroborated by actual test data—it stands as a database classification rather than a measured result. This analytical gap is notable: the hardware specifications are concrete, but the empirical performance validation is absent.

The pixel rate of 25.60 GPixel/s and texture rate of 57.60 GTexel/s are modest by contemporary standards. For a 1080p target, these rates indicate the GPU can handle pixel fill workloads without immediate bottlenecks, but at higher resolutions or with demanding shader effects, the limits would become apparent. The 1.843 TFLOPS figure, when viewed against the backdrop of the 50th percentile ranking, implies a GPU designed for consistent, predictable performance rather than headline-grabbing speed. The data suggests a part that delivers a stable experience at its intended resolution and settings, but one that offers no headroom for ambitious graphical overrides.

Who Should Consider It

Based solely on the specifications in the FACT PACK, this GPU appears oriented toward 1080p gaming at standard settings. The 25.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 57.60 GTexel/s texture rate provide enough throughput for a 1920×1080 display at 60 Hz, assuming typical game workloads. The 1.843 TFLOPS compute capability aligns with titles designed for console hardware—games that are optimized to run within a fixed performance envelope rather than scaling to arbitrary PC hardware.

At higher resolutions, the data becomes less favorable. The 176.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 8 GB GDDR5 capacity (details explored in the next section) would likely constrain performance at 1440p or 4K, particularly in texture-heavy scenes. The 32 ROPs, a relatively low count, directly limit pixel throughput; at 4K resolution, the GPU would need to process over 8 million pixels per frame, which at 25.60 GPixel/s translates to roughly 3 milliseconds of pure pixel fill time per frame—before any shader work, texture sampling, or memory latency is considered.

The FACT PACK lists a production status of "End-of-life" and a release date of 2016-09-06. This positions the GPU as a legacy part, one that would be considered by users seeking a known, fixed hardware target for retro gaming or console-optimized titles. The 50th percentile ranking suggests it is not a part for enthusiasts chasing maximum frame rates; rather, it suits a user who values consistency over extremes. For someone building a dedicated emulation box or a secondary system for older games, the specifications are adequate. For modern, unoptimized PC ports, the data indicates the GPU would struggle to maintain high settings at playable frame rates.

Memory Subsystem

The memory configuration is one of the more distinctive aspects of this GPU. It pairs 8 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, yielding a total bandwidth of 176.0 GB/s. The memory clock is listed at 1375 MHz, with an effective data rate of 5.5 Gbps. These figures are modest—not just by today's standards, but even against mid-range GPUs from the same era.

The 256-bit bus width is the key structural element here. It provides a wide data path that partially compensates for the relatively low memory clock. The resulting 176.0 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for 1080p gaming with standard texture loads, but it becomes a limiting factor at higher resolutions. At 4K, texture data requirements scale exponentially; a single high-resolution texture can consume hundreds of megabytes, and the GPU must stream this data from VRAM to the shading units continuously. The 176.0 GB/s figure means the GPU can theoretically transfer 176 gigabytes per second, but real-world efficiency is lower, and demanding scenes will approach this ceiling.

The 8 GB capacity is worth scrutinizing. For a GPU released in 2016, 8 GB was generous—the FACT PACK's release date confirms this. However, the database's 50th percentile ranking suggests that, over time, 8 GB has become a baseline rather than a differentiator. Modern games at 1080p can exceed 8 GB of VRAM usage when ultra textures are enabled, and at 1440p or 4K, the capacity becomes a hard constraint. The GDDR5 type, while adequate, lacks the bandwidth advantages of newer memory standards. The 256-bit bus width is the saving grace; it provides a structural foundation that a higher clocked memory could exploit, but the 1375 MHz clock limits the potential.

The memory subsystem's implications are clear: this GPU is optimized for a fixed gaming experience at 1080p, with enough capacity for standard textures but not enough bandwidth for extreme resolution or high-detail scenarios. The data does not support expectations of smooth 1440p or 4K performance, as the bandwidth would bottleneck shader throughput in texture-heavy workloads.

Power and Cooling

The FACT PACK lists a TDP of 75 W—a remarkably low figure that places this GPU in the efficient segment of the database. This power draw is consistent with the console-derived design philosophy: the chip is engineered to deliver consistent performance within a strict thermal envelope, not to chase maximum clock speeds.

The 75 W TDP has direct implications for cooling. The FACT PACK does not specify a slot width, power connectors, or a suggested PSU, which is notable. The absence of power connector data suggests the GPU draws power exclusively from the motherboard slot, a configuration typical of low-power parts. The lack of a suggested PSU recommendation further reinforces the low-power nature—a standard 300 W to 400 W PSU would be more than sufficient, though the FACT PACK does not provide specific wattage guidance.

The physical dimensions are listed as 288 mm in length (11.3 inches), 265 mm in height (10.4 inches), and 39 mm in width (1.5 inches). These are substantial dimensions for a 75 W GPU, indicating that the cooling solution—likely a large heatsink with a blower-style fan—is designed for quiet operation rather than compactness. The 75 W TDP means heat generation is manageable; a single-slot or dual-slot cooler would suffice, though the exact cooler design is not specified in the FACT PACK.

The low TDP also affects performance expectations. A 75 W GPU cannot sustain high clock speeds under load, as power delivery and thermal limits would constrain boost behavior. The FACT PACK lists no base or boost clocks, which is unusual—it suggests that clock behavior is fixed or variable in a way that the database does not capture. For a console GPU, clocks are often locked to a specific value for consistency, and the absence of boost clock data aligns with this design philosophy.

How It Compares

The FACT PACK lists no nearest rivals, no benchmark scores, and no deltaPct values. This is a significant analytical limitation. Without comparative data, the GPU's position can only be inferred from its absolute specifications and the 50th percentile ranking.

The percentileVsAllGpus of 50 is the only comparative metric available. It indicates that, in the database's overall ranking, this GPU sits exactly at the median. This is a neutral position—neither impressive nor disappointing. The absence of rival data means there are no specific deltas to report, no "30% ahead of X" or "15% behind Y" statements. The analysis must rely on the internal consistency of the specifications rather than external comparisons.

The GPU's architecture, GCN 2.0, and its chip, Liverpool 16nm, are factual identifiers but offer no comparative context without rival data. The 16 nm process node from TSMC, a 209 mm² die size, and the absence of transistor count data further limit comparative analysis. The GPU is an end-of-life product, released on 2016-09-06, which places it in a specific historical context, but the FACT PACK does not provide data on contemporaries or successors.

FAQ

Q: What is the release date of this GPU?

A: The FACT PACK lists the release date as 2016-09-06.

Q: How much VRAM does it have, and what type?

A: It has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 176.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP and what does it imply for cooling?

A: The TDP is 75 W, which is low and suggests a simple air cooler is sufficient; the FACT PACK does not specify power connectors or a suggested PSU.

Q: What is the FP32 performance in TFLOPS?

A: The FP32 performance is 1.843 TFLOPS, with FP16 at the same 1.843 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio).

Q: What APIs does this GPU support?

A: It supports DirectX 11.1*, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.1.

Q: What is the production status?

A: The production status is listed as "End-of-life."

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The FACT PACK lists no RT cores and no tensor cores. This is a definitive statement: the GPU does not include dedicated ray tracing hardware or tensor acceleration units. The architecture is GCN 2.0, which predates the ray tracing era. Any ray tracing capability would be software-based, and the FACT PACK does not provide data on such implementations.

The API support is limited to DirectX 11.1*, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.1. The asterisk on DirectX 11.1 is notable—it may indicate a partial or extended implementation, but the FACT PACK does not clarify. Vulkan 1.1 support is a positive feature, as it enables modern graphics APIs that can improve draw call efficiency and multi-threading. OpenGL 4.6 is a mature API, though it is less relevant for modern gaming workloads.

The display output is a single HDMI 1.4a port. This is a significant limitation. HDMI 1.4a supports 4K at 30 Hz and 1080p at higher refresh rates, but it lacks the bandwidth for 4K at 60 Hz or high-dynamic-range (HDR) passthrough at 4K. The FACT PACK does not list DisplayPort or other outputs, so the single HDMI port is the only display interface. For a GPU with 176.0 GB/s bandwidth and 8 GB VRAM, the display output limitation aligns with the overall design philosophy: this is a console-class part, not a flexible PC GPU.

The absence of ray tracing and tensor cores means the GPU cannot accelerate features like DLSS or ray-traced reflections. The FP16 performance at 1:1 with FP32 suggests no dedicated half-precision units, further confirming the lack of AI-accelerated features. The feature set is firmly rooted in the GCN 2.0 era: traditional rasterization, compute shaders, and async compute are the core capabilities. The data indicates a GPU that excels at its intended console workload but offers no modern feature set beyond the basics. The 50th percentile ranking, combined with the absence of RT and tensor cores, positions this as a legacy part for users who prioritize compatibility with older titles over modern graphical enhancements.