I'd trust the better overall hardware, in this case PS4....that being said I wouldn't hesitate to get a XBone if inclined. I'm waiting until after release a few months until they work most of the bugs and kinks out to make a purchase decision.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_light.png){kind=logo}
GPU knowledge wanted: How is the PS4 NOT 30-50% faster than Xbox One?
- Thread starter JoeUser
- Start date
I'd trust the better overall hardware, in this case PS4....that being said I wouldn't hesitate to get a XBone if inclined. I'm waiting until after release a few months until they work most of the bugs and kinks out to make a purchase decision.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
I'd trust the better overall hardware, in this case PS4....that being said I wouldn't hesitate to get a XBone if inclined. I'm waiting until after release a few months until they work most of the bugs and kinks out to make a purchase decision.
Yeah, seriously... It's like having 2 PCs next to each other, one with a GTX 780 and the other with a GTX 770, and saying it's too early to tell which is faster.
Only thing that worries me is PS4's use of a really shitty OS (FreeBSD). I wonder how they made it handle 3d. Because it's probably the worst OS in the world for 3d gaming.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,123
it is too early to tell
If the 780 is running on Linux with Open GL and the 770 is running on Windows 8 with DX.. can you still call it ?
that's not even mentioning the other HW differences.
Just imagine that I tried to give you some sort of meaningful reply here and then copy/pasted my "fav" quote again, and you replied again and I vice versa, etc. off into infinity. *Ativan take me away~~*
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
"Yes" would've sufficed.
As the post above me pointed out, it is precisely BECAUSE consoles are not like PC's that you can't call it.
See, this I don't agree with. If you go back to my OP I think it's CLEAR that the PS4 is not only faster but a LOT faster.
Sure one can argue memory structure, CPU speed, OS, API's, etc...but in my mind the 384 more GPU cores and twice the amount of ROP's in the PS4 instantly make it better than the Xbox One by quite a good bit.
Despite the Xbox One having this DSP or that extra processor for Kinect or whatever...simple fact of the matter is that the PS4 GPU is on a whole different level and that WILL show. Now I'm not saying the Xbox One is garbage or anything, but it's simply in a lower class over all despite a lot of similarities.
I mean, a lot of developers have already come out about the PS4 and have said that it's not only easier to develop for and more open in terms of the hardware, but that it's simply just faster. 30-50% faster according to them.
So to me it really isn't up for argument. MS saying that the difference are exaggerated and that they aren't that large is something I just simply don't believe. The proof is in the pudding and with the PS4's GPU being ~30% faster and having the GDDR5 RAM I see 50% hardware being a no brainer.
Software could be argued but something tells me that Linux, OpenGL, and a custom API will run a little faster than Windows and DirectX (which from what I know doesn't have low-level/bare metal access...everything MUST be done through the API, no?), certainly be less of a resource hog and with less constraints.
dandragonrage
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 8,298
But on the other hand, since they will all have the same hardware, FreeBSD itself is probably much easier to modify for their purposes. No need to bring some generic framework like Gallium3d over and then have to tune that for decent performance.
Correct, there are definitely some cool things that they could do with that. I'm merely pointing out that, unlike on PC, when you compare the same game on each console the OS can be a HUGE factor in how well that game plays. Where on PC (for most games) they're running the same OS better hardware=better performance almost always.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,123
you have pretty much lost all credibility by calling FreeBSD Shitty =)
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
It depends on your definition of "a lot", but I don't generally agree. I believe the PS4 will be marginally faster in practice, but I only generally expect that to really manifest itself as a stabler frame rate in cross-platform titles and some marginally better-looking AAA exclusives, of which the PS4 doesn't currently have an overwhelming number.
I don't think you should be choosing a console based on performance this generation.
Would you mind explaining why you think the difference won't be that major? Genuinely curious really.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,123
Given that all other variables are the same
a 7870 isn't that much faster than a 7850 type thing
50% more raw shader perf and ROP does not equal 50% more performance.
Spazturtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,526
Just a quick reminder, games on the PS4 can't use the whole GPU, some of the GPU is reserved for other GPGPU tasks.
Given that current consoles can pump out some pretty good graphics the last couple of years with severely outdated hardware, you'd think both of the upcoming consoles would have no problems in that respect. I guess the million dollar question is at what resolutions and fps though?
True but the consoles can't be said to be a 7850 vs. 7870.
It would be more like a GPU inbetween a 7770 (640 cores) and 7790 (896 cores) with GDDR3 vs. something inbetween a 7850 (1024 cores) and 7870 (1280 cores) with GDDR5.
Granted there is nothing desktop wise that really compares but even then there, in my opinion, is a pretty significant difference.
Benchmarks of a 7790 vs. 7870...difference are rather large.
Either way, not the best comparison, but for people saying the GPU's aren't that different just simply doesn't make sense to me.
I've always been of the mind that if cross-platform games are genuinely tweaked for each console I really see them both doing 60fps with the Xbox One running at 720p upscalled to 1080p and the PS4 running at native 1080p.
Of course who is to say, but based on hardware alone if the graphics aren't that different, I certainly see the resolution and/or fps being the main difference.
I see Xbox One running 1080p @ 45fps and the PS4 running 1080p @ 60fps...given that graphics are the same. Other than that I see them both running the same resolution and frame rate with the PS4 having, at the least, better AA and/or better post processing effects.
I think GRAPHICAL difference will lie mainly with exclusives and no so much cross-platform where the Xbox One will probably be mainly developed on as the lowest common denominator.
Spazturtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,526
From what I have heard they run 1080p at 30FPS, 720p at 60FPS and 1080i at 60FPS
Fact of the matter is the eDRAM was maxed out very early on. M$ promoted it as basically giving free 2x-4x AA in games with no performance hit, and we all know that didn't really happen.
Actually, the GPU performance is where it is really at for games, so the PS4 has the advantage no matter what M$ wants you to believe.
There is a reason they are telling everyone they have increased the CPU and GPU clocks a little bit, because they themselves are worried their console is going to be behind the PS4.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,469
Ah, ok, that makes sense, you and he are right on that.
And yes, it was four 32-bit buses (hence the '128-bit' title it held) that I'm sure were a pain to program for.
The EmotionEngine CPU wasn't exactly a processor of finesse.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
Partially that, partially due to the X1's eSRAM (which offers good bandwidth, but likely exhibits very low latency), partially due to the fact that the CPU in the PS4 is likely to be somewhat hampered by a higher-latency memory subsystem, and partially due to most developers aiming for a fairly fixed frame rate target with their games. Many if not most, I suspect, will go with the swap-tear approach, where the game's vsync'ed until a frame miss. The PS4 is unlikely to ever be powerful enough to lock to 60 Hz in cases where the X1 can only lock to 30, so I would expect very similar frame rates on cross-platforms.
I don't doubt that there will be cases where the PS4 version simply looks better or runs somewhat faster than the X1 version, but I don't expect that to be the norm. In terms of exclusives, I'd expect the PS4 is going to hold a slight or moderate advantage, but I don't think that's really a good deciding factor for buying a console (in terms of how much better exclusives look, anyway).
Does anyone else here think this is sort of a silly fight? Do people ACTUALLY pick consoles based on how much power they have? It just seems irrational....to me it appears that one of the only things that should matter in the console world is what games will I be screwed out of playing and what games will I have access to that I otherwise wouldn't. Does anybody who is actually serious about having a powerful gaming system get a console?
On another note, it seems foolish to me to believe what ANY company says about their product when it is called into question. Just as every other human on the planet, they'll spin as much as they can to what they consider to be their advantage. But come on....consoles can't keep up! I mean the first xbox was like 4 years and this last one was 8? So while technology has grown exponentially the refresh times have gotten longer? You can't be seriously into graphics an choose a console for very long.
On another note, it seems foolish to me to believe what ANY company says about their product when it is called into question. Just as every other human on the planet, they'll spin as much as they can to what they consider to be their advantage. But come on....consoles can't keep up! I mean the first xbox was like 4 years and this last one was 8? So while technology has grown exponentially the refresh times have gotten longer? You can't be seriously into graphics an choose a console for very long.
This is a technology and computer forum. These are the types of things that are discussed. Anyone can think of 1000's of different discussions that would seem "silly". If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread and topic at hand then why post? Silly to you? OK...then why waste your time?
For me and many here we like discussing these things because we like discussing technology and electronics.
Also, a lot having to do with price and exclusives, but I know that I'm going with the PS4 due to its better hardware. Should "last" longer and be able to pull of some nicer effects and/or physics on down the road compared to the Xbox One. So yes, some people do care, and I would guess by the PS4 outselling right now 2 to 1 that more people probably care than you'd think.
For me and many here we like discussing these things because we like discussing technology and electronics.
Also, a lot having to do with price and exclusives, but I know that I'm going with the PS4 due to its better hardware. Should "last" longer and be able to pull of some nicer effects and/or physics on down the road compared to the Xbox One. So yes, some people do care, and I would guess by the PS4 outselling right now 2 to 1 that more people probably care than you'd think.
Also console tech does influence game tech which in return affects gpu tech. Since both consoles will have a large pool of ram, we will obviously see tech develop to take advantage of it. Games over the 7 years have been trying to minimize ram usage since they'be only had 512mb to work with.
man...relax. I think it is interesting too, that's why I participate. As a human being I engage in all sorts of time wasting silly activities. But I'm alright if you take yourself more seriously than me. Perfectly acceptable. And I see your point that you're looking for hardware that will last longer. For me it just seems more rational to choose which games you want to play rather than choosing hardware.
Would you change your mind if the consoles came out and the xbox1 was getting better performance? If it isn't about exclusives, why would you ever want to game on a console compared to the beast of a machine that you have there? And I know why people would care, especially if they're tied to their consoles. You don't have to make yourself feel better about caring by telling me other people care, your caring is valid on its own.
Would you change your mind if the consoles came out and the xbox1 was getting better performance? If it isn't about exclusives, why would you ever want to game on a console compared to the beast of a machine that you have there? And I know why people would care, especially if they're tied to their consoles. You don't have to make yourself feel better about caring by telling me other people care, your caring is valid on its own.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,123
Considering consoles are almost PCs now I can see quicker refresh cycles(probably won't happen though). Probably much less r&d to do going forward in terms of CPU / GPU and the os could probably be ported over even more so now that it's a vm. As long as amd delivers good apus! =p
I think the console refresh has to do a lot with the switching of the CPU architecture and them previously trying to do there "own" thing. Stay on the x86 architecture since ARM isn't coming anywhere close to superseding it on the desktop anytime soon, and that is where non-console games head to or console ports. Not the iPad, or touch phones.
So long as they stay with relatively PC parts with little modifications here and there they could easily pimp out new consoles much like Microsoft was able to pimp out the X-Box then move to the X-Box 360 lightning fast and with a huge leap in performance. They should have stuck with Intel and not IBM's PowerPC crap and then Sony with there Cell architecture, they screwed themselves into the long game doing specialized chips.
The PS4 won't be hampered by high latency. Mark Cerny already addressed this.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-to-face-with-mark-cerny
Its Cerny's job to play up PS4's specs but the reality is that GDDR5 is high latency RAM. Its typical for graphics cards that use it to have latency measured in several hundreds of cycles. The trade off is that it gives you lots of bandwidth. For GPU's this is fine since they're usually bandwidth starved. Modern GPU's in particular are designed to deal with that much latency with out issue. The CPU is a different story. They tolerate high latency poorly since the work loads they have to process are usually inherently latency sensitive.
The thing that is real interesting to me is that this time around neither Sony or MS was willing to go really balls out on the hardware like they did with previous consoles. They sold them at a significant, even large in PS3's case, loss for quite a while after launch. This time around MS is going to make money day 1 on each console sold and I think Sony is supposed to make money after gamers buy 1-2 games per console. The only area where either of them were willing to try and push the specs was on RAM, and I suspect in Sony's case that was more of a "keeping up with the Jones" sort of thing. I don't think these consoles are going to age nearly as gracefully as their predecessors but both MS and Sony will try and make them stretch out for nearly as long.
Early adopters do. I think they're good for a few million or so sales in the 1st year of the console's life. Hyping up their products with marketing backed by bits and pieces of the truth is also very effective. Go back and look at forum posts or stories from gamers reacting to the POOOOOWAAAAA of the EE in PS2 or PS3's Cell. Every time Sony or MS release something new its hyped to the heavens as the end all be all.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
The PS4 may be 30% faster on the GPU but what does that means for games that are likely already limited on so many fronts? It means a game that will surely run at 30fps on the xbone will run at 40fps on the PS4.. Not that it is put into perspective it's easy to see why it is not that much faster. Its not even enough to get them up to the 60 fps gold standard. And all of that assumes a perfect world, usually reviews of video cards have a top end CPU which neither of these has.
Of course it was, that is how its supposed to be used! How is it bad if developers get max performance out of the hardware early? Do you believe that if the hardware is harder + more time consuming to get performance out that somehow it must have automatically have more performance?
Based on what? I'm not aware of any public numbers on how many games used FSAA on X360 but it wasn't uncommon to see at all in game.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,123
I'm not sure I agree. I would say ms and Sony invested more in GPU this time around.
They may have invested more money into the GPU as far as system cost goes, but in comparison with how fast current-gen was at released and GPU technology/speed in general the GPU's in the new consoles I would consider to still be pretty damn weak.
The AMD 7970 will be two years old come January...two years...yet it's more than twice as powerful as the GPU in the PS4.
I find that sad in my opinion. I don't quite understand it either. I know Sony didn't want to put all top of the line hardware in the console because they're already struggling...the PS3 really hurt them and business in general isn't going that well.
But Microsoft on the other hand HAS the money...LOTS OF MONEY...so I am a bit disappointed in them because they decided to go with such a relatively cheap console. They could have sold them for $500 AT COST...meaning $400 went to the actual console...and would have gotten something A LOT more powerful.
So over all I'm disappointed. mesyn191 is right.
I'm not a game developer so I can't really comment on the very specifics as to how eDRAM will come more into play with the XBONE by increasing the size and memory bandwidth of it. I'm sure it's used much more than just for giving free 2/4x AA though.
I will be the first one to admit looking at the XBONE (which I'm buying neither console at this point), it looks inferior GPU wise. A 50Mhz clock speed isn't going to change anything. We are long past the point of minor clock speed increases doing much of anything these days. I like the PS4's hardware in general. It looks superior and more on par with what I see and understand from a PC perspective, but MS always has a way with developers and the fact of the matter was that the 360 in most comparisons to the PS3 was either slightly or noticeably superior for the first two years it was out. Now the hardware has changed drastically, which is why I say we need to wait and see and start running comparisons for each title to see which is coming out ahead like last time.
The PS3's Cell architecture was superior, or should have been, but it was a PITA to program for. Although once PS3 exclusive games started coming years after its release, they were starting to show an edge. The cross platform titles WILL have to work around the lowest common hardware denominator as an article pcjunkie even posted refers to. This is why I say wait and see. Personally I think both are a disappointment and who knows how well multi-threaded games will be to fully take advantage of 6 (available) cores @ 1.6Ghz. That clock speed would drastically affect games on a PC. Maybe bare metal programming changes things, I have no idea.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/13/playstation-4-and-xbox-one-performance-compared-by-devs
octoberasian
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,082
Some developers anonymously confided with DigitalFoundry claiming that the PS4 is more powerful and that the eDRAM of Xbox One doesn't provide a clear advantage. However, to not anger consumers of a ported game to the PS4 looking better than an Xbox One, they'll keep both versions in a multiplatform game look alike even if the PS4 has the ability to provide better visuals and framerates.
Kind of disappointing to read that article a week ago.
Kind of disappointing to read that article a week ago.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Why would you say that? Do you have any evidence to back it up?
XBox One: somewhere between a 7770 and 7790
PS4: somewhere between a 7850 and 7870
I have a computer with a 7850 I bought as a budget card not high end. Its mid range at best.
The best argument would be they shot for similar performance but no one in their right mind considers these GPUs to be high performance. On the other hand during the last generation many people did think the GPUs were roughly close to mid -high or high performance parts. As with all things console the companies purposely make things complicated because they want it to be hard for consumers to see direct comparisons because they don't want you to easily see what you are really getting.
Digital Viper-X-
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2000
- Messages
- 15,123
I'm using the 360 and ps3 as examples . when they released I believe the GPU was 2 generations behind mid range hardware. this will be only 1 gen behind mid range .