PS4 performance advantage over XB1 bigger than many expect thanks to hUMA

JoeUser said:
And? Not surprising at all. If the game looks like this on the PS4 I feel bad for the Xbox One.

Either way this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...

Sure it does, it's talking about PS4's graphical capabilities.
 
next-Jin said:
Sure it does, it's talking about PS4's graphical capabilities.
Click to expand...

Your point is? I never said I expected the PS4 to do amazing earth shattering graphics. Also considering the game is still months away who is to say that this is anywhere near final? And again, this has nothing to do with hUMA...

Also if this is the final PS4 version the Xbox One is going to be even worse.

Quit trying to troll, bro.
 
next-Jin said:
Sure it does, it's talking about PS4's graphical capabilities.
Click to expand...

We've known since these were announced that they would struggle to compete with the current PC graphics. This doesn't surprise me one bit. It'll be the same for the X1.
 
Kinsaras said:
Makes me wonder if DICE is just porting over the PS3 version to PS4.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. The One and PS4 are probably getting a scaled down version of PC.

next-Jin said:
Sure it does, it's talking about PS4's graphical capabilities.
Click to expand...
It's quiet common for the console version of these games to be worse than PC version, as well as not have as large of MP maps. The PS4/One is going to be very similar in this regard, both inferior to the PC version. But since the console hardware has only recently been finalized, there is going to be a lot of tweaking remaining.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'm not sure where you are getting your "facts" from, but the Xbox was significantly more powerful than PS2. There is no way Sony could of claimed PS2 was better. An Internet search does not turn up any articles where Sony says PS2 is faster.

As for the bottlenecks, Microsoft may of tweaked the One's OS to try and reduce the impact of bottlenecks, but hardware wise the One is full of them. The PS4 does not suffer from the same bottlenecks that the One has. Does that mean the games will look better? That's up for the developers to decide on how much hardware to take advantage of. At launch I expect both systems games to look very similar. It is true that many developers try to deliver a similar experience on all platforms. Sony designed products will take more advantage of the hardware.

  • The One has 33% less GPU shader processors than PS4.
  • The One has significantly less GPU memory bandwidth due to DDR3 memory.
  • The One needs to use memory copy tecniques to move data between ESRAM and DDR3 due to DDR3 bottleneck (this hurts performance).
  • The One is not cofirmed to use the HUMA technology, thus incurring additional latency and performance loss by copying data between GPU and CPU mapped memory.
So, AMD may be retracting their statements on things, but Microsoft is not showing anything that says AMD was wrong either. Why would they keep it a secret, if it was not true?
Click to expand...

So you don't remember Sony bragging about their "Emotion" architecture from the PS2 from 1999 and on? Sony fudged their numbers during 1999's E3 to demonstrate that it could provide "higher" numbers than the competition, by providing numbers that weren't equated to the numbers provided by the competition. Where Microsoft and Nintendo were providing information as to the number of textured triangles, Sony was providing their numbers as to non-textured triangles and polygons. It's like, comparing how fast your car can go by providing the Km/H where the rest of the industry used M/h

No one seems to remember this shit now, because by the time the generation ended, no one cared or questioned that the PS2 was the slowest of the three consoles. Some people barely remember the PS3's much hyped Cell processor, but while the specs were higher, it generally didn't provide any significant advantage. I would say BluRay was a more significant advantage than the processor.

That brings us to your statement, that the Xbox One is full of bottlenecks. What are they? Is DDR3 Ram the "bottleneck"? Is the speed of the Ram what's going to hold it back? Is it the processor? Is it the GPU? Is it the L1, or the L2 cache? Their video card has signficant performance disadvantages, but you'd think that someone posting on a website dedicated to PC hardware overclocking would understand that the numbers on a video card don't mean much if the rest of the hardware isn't there to support it. Microsoft doesn't seem to want to talk about much in the form of specifics, so it sounds like they're expecting someone to rip it apart in person to find the little details.

And last I checked, Sony wasn't saying anything themselves about the PS4's huMA support either, just the AMD rep was mentioning it.
 
ballistic90 said:
That brings us to your statement, that the Xbox One is full of bottlenecks. What are they? Is DDR3 Ram the "bottleneck"? Is the speed of the Ram what's going to hold it back? Is it the processor? Is it the GPU? Is it the L1, or the L2 cache? Their video card has signficant performance disadvantages, but you'd think that someone posting on a website dedicated to PC hardware overclocking would understand that the numbers on a video card don't mean much if the rest of the hardware isn't there to support it. Microsoft doesn't seem to want to talk about much in the form of specifics, so it sounds like they're expecting someone to rip it apart in person to find the little details.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question. This isn't to say the PS4 is perfect, but there are certainly less hardware limitations within it's ecosystem.
 
JoeUser said:
Your point is? I never said I expected the PS4 to do amazing earth shattering graphics. Also considering the game is still months away who is to say that this is anywhere near final? And again, this has nothing to do with hUMA...

Also if this is the final PS4 version the Xbox One is going to be even worse.

Quit trying to troll, bro.
Click to expand...

My point is in orange.
 
ballistic90 said:
So you don't remember Sony bragging about their "Emotion" architecture from the PS2 from 1999 and on? Sony fudged their numbers during 1999's E3 to demonstrate that it could provide "higher" numbers than the competition, by providing numbers that weren't equated to the numbers provided by the competition.
Click to expand...
Xbox wasn't event announced until March 10, 2000, how how on Earth could they say it's better than Xbox, in 1999?

That brings us to your statement, that the Xbox One is full of bottlenecks. What are they? Is DDR3 Ram the "bottleneck"?
Click to expand...
Yes
Is the speed of the Ram what's going to hold it back?
Click to expand...
The memory bandwidth, yes.

Here is an article by Tom's Hardware. They take two identical GPU's and compare them. One runs with 2GB of DDR3, the other with 1GB of GDDR5. The GDDR5 GPU has 50% less memory but outperformed the DDR3 card by about 30%.
Is it the processor?
Click to expand...
No, the CPU's in PS4 and One are virtually identical.
Is it the GPU?
Click to expand...
Yup, as I already pointed out in an earlier post.
Is it the L1, or the L2 cache?
Click to expand...
See section CPU.
And last I checked, Sony wasn't saying anything themselves about the PS4's huMA support either, just the AMD rep was mentioning it.
Click to expand...
Even without HUMA, PS4's hardware is significantly faster, based on specs alone.

The realistic difference between PS4 and One graphics:

PS4 and One will likely have very similar texture qualities, which is a result of how the assets are built. The PS4 will probably run at a slightly higher resolution or have AA on some titles. The PS4 will also likely have better physics simulations (cloth, debris, etc.) and better lighting. These things will be noticeable improvements, so playing on the One will be similar to un-checking a few graphics options like on PC. The games will still look very similar.
 
Last edited:
Nimisys said:
seriously? while I haven't paid attention to The Last of Us, it was until this last 1 or 2 rounds of game releases that the PS3 games have had visual parity with the 360. going back through any number of reviews comparing the two platforms will back that up.
Click to expand...

Wrong. PS3 has always haad better looking exclusives than xbox 360. Just because early cross platform games looked better on the 360 doesn't make it more powerful.
 
JohnDoe9541 said:
Wrong. PS3 has always haad better looking exclusives than xbox 360. Just because early cross platform games looked better on the 360 doesn't make it more powerful.
Click to expand...

What's the point in comparing exclusives? you want to use a comparison of graphics quality as a basis of console power then you are going to need a control, something they have in common. That can only be done by looking at the same game.

Comparing exclusives would be like comparing Ati tech demos to nVidia tech demos. It serves no purpose.
 
Nimisys said:
What's the point in comparing exclusives? you want to use a comparison of graphics quality as a basis of console power then you are going to need a control, something they have in common. That can only be done by looking at the same game.

Comparing exclusives would be like comparing Ati tech demos to nVidia tech demos. It serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was going to say. Comparing exclusives is seriously retarded.
 
I wouldn't say it's completely useless.

When you take a series like Uncharted for instance what 360 games are there that truly compare graphically? Sure one could use the argument that Uncharted is all super optimized and what not but a developer could do the same on the 360.

Also with Uncharted, Naughty Dog actually used the Cell processor to render graphics as well thus partially using it as GPU...from my understanding a game like Uncharted 2 or 3 simply couldn't be done at the same level of fidelity as the 360.

So of course there is no way to compare exclusives side by side, but to say one consoles exclusives tend to look better than another consoles is pretty accurate.
 
Revdarian said:
Bigdogchris you linked a question on the Tom's Hardware forums, the actual article is here in german, google translated:
Click to expand...
I fixed my link. The link you provided shows the GDDR5 cards, even with 50% less memory, absolutely blowing away the DDR3 cards. Those are the benchmarks I expect. GPU's require the massive memory bandwidth that DDR3 simply cannot provide. It's one of the reason that onboard graphic performance is so poor, because the GPU's write to DDR shared system memory.

Thanks for sharing, that really helps.
 
Nimisys said:
What's the point in comparing exclusives? you want to use a comparison of graphics quality as a basis of console power then you are going to need a control, something they have in common. That can only be done by looking at the same game.

Comparing exclusives would be like comparing Ati tech demos to nVidia tech demos. It serves no purpose.
Click to expand...

Well no not really. It does serve a purpose. If you put a VW beetle and a Corvette ZR-1 in a race who would win? Now if you held that race in a 25 mph school zone who would win? I hate analogies but the point still stands. The Cell was vastly more powerful than the 360, but it was also vastly more complicated to code for. Hence most companies developed on the 360 then ported over to the PS3 which made many of the PS3 games graphically inferior to the 360.

The exclusives that took advantage of the Cell were some of the most graphically superior games of this generation on consoles. The 360 exclusives really didn't look much better than the non exclusives. However, with that said the 360 was the superior console this last generation. We'll need to see if that changes, but at this time the PS4 seems to have the advantage, at least hardware wise right now.
 
JoeUser said:
I wouldn't say it's completely useless.

When you take a series like Uncharted for instance what 360 games are there that truly compare graphically? Sure one could use the argument that Uncharted is all super optimized and what not but a developer could do the same on the 360.

Also with Uncharted, Naughty Dog actually used the Cell processor to render graphics as well thus partially using it as GPU...from my understanding a game like Uncharted 2 or 3 simply couldn't be done at the same level of fidelity as the 360.

So of course there is no way to compare exclusives side by side, but to say one consoles exclusives tend to look better than another consoles is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

Using the Uncharted franchise example, could you predict how PS3 would handle Halo? an educated guess could be made if full scene polygon counts, texture map sizes, etc was used, but a true comparison can not be made, simply because Halo runs as well on the PS3 hardware as Uncharted does on the 360.

if you want use graphic quality of an exclusive as basis of judgment as to the overall quality of a consoles exclusive, that would be fair. if you want judge a console based on the quality of its exclusives that would be valid. to say this console renders its exclusives better than another can not be said, because there is no way to validate it.
 
Climber said:
Well no not really. It does serve a purpose. If you put a VW beetle and a Corvette ZR-1 in a race who would win? Now if you held that race in a 25 mph school zone who would win?
Click to expand...

in that example you have a common ground in location, surface and timing.

personally I think exclusives optimized for PS3 did a better job showcasing the potential within the PS3 than the 360's did. I think the 360 got its edge from the comparative ease in programing, so head to head it looked a little better than with the same game than on the PS3.

as a consumer, this last generation reminded me of the SNES vs Genesis days. the fan boys argued over the small details, but everyone benefitted from the offerings of two excellent consoles. hopefully this trend will continue. I don't want the PS4 to knock the X1 out of the water anymore than I want the X1 to bury the PS4. make both companies compete and we all win.
 
JoeUser said:
I wouldn't say it's completely useless.

When you take a series like Uncharted for instance what 360 games are there that truly compare graphically? Sure one could use the argument that Uncharted is all super optimized and what not but a developer could do the same on the 360.

Also with Uncharted, Naughty Dog actually used the Cell processor to render graphics as well thus partially using it as GPU...from my understanding a game like Uncharted 2 or 3 simply couldn't be done at the same level of fidelity as the 360.

So of course there is no way to compare exclusives side by side, but to say one consoles exclusives tend to look better than another consoles is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

As they said its useless to compare exclusives you cant compare it unless their is a massive difference. Say comparing HL2 graphics to BF3. Your bias comes in way to quickly and simple things which have nothing to do with the power of a game skew the result. Maybe uncharted simply had an art style that was more appealing to you. If a game console truly is way more powerful than the other than even poorly coded games will have enough headroom to turn on extra details or run with better frame rates.
 
Remember that games on both platforms (PS3 and XB360) like Bayonetta, were often better on the XB360. That was mainly due to memory issues on the PS3. The PS3 and the XB360 had only 512MB of RAM. The biggest difference is that the XB360 like the upcoming generation have a shared memory space, while the PS3 had a 256MB chunk that was dedicated to the GPU. It's one of the reasons that the cross chat feature could never be implemented on the PS3. They just couldn't fit it into memory along with the game. While on the XB360 you could cut down the video frame size and that memory could be used by the system for anything, the same wasn't true on the PS3. If you freed up some memory by reducing the size of the frame, that memory would be still only available to the GPU. If you could use that space for anything it'd be for stuff like physics (IIRC PS3 had a NVIDIA GPU). Still there was also a transfer penalty of the bus between the GPU and main memory that also slowed down the PS3. That is what Sony mainly fixed in the PS4 from looking at the specs IMHO. The XBone still has the same shared memory access, but it has to go through the cache to speed up transfers because of the slower DDR3 RAM which won't be an issue at first but might be a issue later as developers start using the full power of each system and the cache begins to thrash.
 
wait, what? someone said it was useless to compare exclusives to each other?

come back to reality now please. it is absolutely fair to compare exclusives to each other sa they demonstrate the true power of the system when it is exploited by capable prorammers

Xbox had the much easier to use API and this allowed for most games to look better on that system as it was easier to do. But you get naughty dog and insomniac rollin' on the PS3, it becomes abundantly clear that they know their stuff and eeked out a very solid game in all aspects with graphics that are undoubtly better than what one can acheive on a 360 despite it having the superior GPU. That cell processor is a superior number cruncher and that is what you need for graphics.

I have both and halo isn't squat compared to Uncharted....
 
Well a more fair comparison would be a halo 4 vs resistance 3 or killzone 3. Something in the same category at least. 360 doesn't really have anything comparable to uncharted or last of us.
 
Nimisys said:
What's the point in comparing exclusives? you want to use a comparison of graphics quality as a basis of console power then you are going to need a control, something they have in common. That can only be done by looking at the same game.
Click to expand...
The problem with comparing graphics of cross platforms is because many developers work hard to deliver a consistent product across different platforms. Often times the difference comes down to a few FPS and maybe screen tearing.
Comparing exclusives would be like comparing Ati tech demos to nVidia tech demos. It serves no purpose.
Click to expand...
So you're saying The Last of Us can't be used to show the PS3 hardware potential because it's like a tech demo?
 
Won't we find out when they compare BF4, Watch Dogs etc.? The PS4 should technically run the smoothest/load quickest if HUMA is worth a damn I would imagine.
 
teletran8 said:
Won't we find out when they compare BF4, Watch Dogs etc.? The PS4 should technically run the smoothest/load quickest if HUMA is worth a damn I would imagine.
Click to expand...

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/23/gamescom-battlefield-4s-graphics-lacking-on-ps4

Seems like bf4 wont be running 1080p and will be running maybe medium settings on ps4... kind of sad really that we will be stuck with these underperforming consoles for 10 years. I wonder how it's going to look on xb1.
 
yourgrandma said:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/23/gamescom-battlefield-4s-graphics-lacking-on-ps4

Seems like bf4 wont be running 1080p and will be running maybe medium settings on ps4... kind of sad really that we will be stuck with these underperforming consoles for 10 years. I wonder how it's going to look on xb1.
Click to expand...

Not shocked. A high end PC costs $2000 or so, a PS4 costs $400. From looking at the article they were specifically mentioning BF4 under performing and even mentioned other next gen games looked far better. I'm guessing optimization is a big part of it too.

The console vs PC comparisons are silly anyway.

When you can build a $400 pc that can push the visuals of a ps4, I'll be impressed. Otherwise it's different formats for different needs. I have no doubt my 4770K, 16gb ram, 780gtx PC will shit all over the PS4. I will also be buying a PS4 due to some great gaming experiences there.
 
Nimisys said:
Using the Uncharted franchise example, could you predict how PS3 would handle Halo? an educated guess could be made if full scene polygon counts, texture map sizes, etc was used, but a true comparison can not be made, simply because Halo runs as well on the PS3 hardware as Uncharted does on the 360.

if you want use graphic quality of an exclusive as basis of judgment as to the overall quality of a consoles exclusive, that would be fair. if you want judge a console based on the quality of its exclusives that would be valid. to say this console renders its exclusives better than another can not be said, because there is no way to validate it.
Click to expand...

I think he was simply saying the best looking PS3 games look better than the best looking 360 games. Owning both consoles, I would agree with that statement. Nothing I've played on the 360 touches Last of Us in graphical quality and detail.
 
Last edited:
JohnDoe9541 said:
Did you really think it was going to run everything maxed out 1080p 60fps? I don't get some of you people.
Click to expand...

I would be pretty surprised if first gen multi-platform titles were running at 1080P/60FPS at this stage, especially from EA. Companies are more worried about getting the game and their tools up and running to hit release dates than they are about optimizing their game engines and hitting performance targets.
 
ocellaris said:
I would be pretty surprised if first gen multi-platform titles were running at 1080P/60FPS at this stage, especially from EA. Companies are more worried about getting the game and their tools up and running to hit release dates than they are about optimizing their game engines and hitting performance targets.
Click to expand...

COD Ghost is confirmed to do that.
 
I dunno if COD2 was a 60 fps title on consoles, but it's been targeting it since at least COD4.
 
yourgrandma said:
No but 1080p should be the goal in any case especially in a game like this where long rage visibility is important.
Click to expand...

Resolution isn't the only thing affecting long range visibility. I'd rather take a resolution hit over fog or pop-in.
 
Nimisys said:
in that example you have a common ground in location, surface and timing.

personally I think exclusives optimized for PS3 did a better job showcasing the potential within the PS3 than the 360's did. I think the 360 got its edge from the comparative ease in programing, so head to head it looked a little better than with the same game than on the PS3.

as a consumer, this last generation reminded me of the SNES vs Genesis days. the fan boys argued over the small details, but everyone benefitted from the offerings of two excellent consoles. hopefully this trend will continue. I don't want the PS4 to knock the X1 out of the water anymore than I want the X1 to bury the PS4. make both companies compete and we all win.
Click to expand...

The big difference was in the end, nintendo was able to clearly show it had superior hardware with snes over genesis. With ps3 and 360, neither system has been shown to have quite the superior hardware. Even the cross platform games, clearly showed the snes had better graphics and sound. Though the "blast processing feature" was a heck of a system seller for sega.
 
Zohar78 said:
The big difference was in the end, nintendo was able to clearly show it had superior hardware with snes over genesis. With ps3 and 360, neither system has been shown to have quite the superior hardware. Even the cross platform games, clearly showed the snes had better graphics and sound. Though the "blast processing feature" was a heck of a system seller for sega.
Click to expand...

Usually you only notice the difference between the Xbox 360 version of a game and the PS3 version of a game when they're side by side. Usually it's something small, like PS3 games have better textures, or the Xbox 360 has a smoother framerate or something.
 
Honestly I thought that most of the differences between the PS3 / 360 were due to these two factors.

1) PS3 was harder to program for.
2) 360 has a dedicated hardware upscaler. So you can take really crappy low res game and make it look good at 1080p.
 
ballistic90 said:
Usually you only notice the difference between the Xbox 360 version of a game and the PS3 version of a game when they're side by side. Usually it's something small, like PS3 games have better textures, or the Xbox 360 has a smoother framerate or something.
Click to expand...

I think there were quite a few instances of multi-platform games, on the 360, having slightly better lighting and shadows. The side-by-side comparisons of Oblivion come immediately to mind. Although I think the 360 version also had slightly better textures, in some areas, as well.
 
Jerome36 said:
I think there were quite a few instances of multi-platform games, on the 360, having slightly better lighting and shadows. The side-by-side comparisons of Oblivion come immediately to mind. Although I think the 360 version also had slightly better textures, in some areas, as well.
Click to expand...

I believe GTA 4 had the same issue too.

I was thinking about this a litle more. This past generation when it came to multiplatform games, it was the closest it ever been since the nes days. With super nintendo, games like mortal kombat, street fighter 2, rock'n'roll racing showed superb graphics and sound over their genesis equivalent. With the 32 bit gen, N64 is normally considered more powerful. Though a lot of people had issues with how it rendered blurred textures. gamecube/ps2/xbox era, xbox was a good bit more powerful and it showed in the games.
 
Last edited:
Zohar78 said:
I believe GTA 4 had the same issue too.

I was thinking about this a litle more. This past generation when it came to multiplatform games, it was the closest it ever been since the nes days. With super nintendo, games like mortal kombat, street fighter 2, rock'n'roll racing showed superb graphics and sound over their genesis equivalent. With the 32 bit gen, N64 is normally considered more powerful. Though a lot of people had issues with how it rendered blurred textures. gamecube/ps2/xbox era, xbox was a good bit more powerful and it showed in the games.
Click to expand...

With the 32 bit generation, the N64 was more powerful, but the cartridges couldn't hold nearly as much data as a PS game could. In the end, the textures were the biggest difference.

The PS2 was definitely weaker than the Gamecube, and the Xbox was more powerful still. When Resident Evil 4 was ported to the PS2, there was a noticeable difference between it and the Gamecube version.
 
russnuck said:
2) 360 has a dedicated hardware upscaler. So you can take really crappy low res game and make it look good at 1080p.
Click to expand...
Never really found it to make a single game look any better on my monitor... and in some cases it made games run slower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top