The Real Differences Between PS4 and Xbox One Performance

rocketr2 said:
If ps4 graphics are better than xbox, why does titan fall look so much better than killzone
Click to expand...

the Titan fall video you saw wasn't running on an xbox one none of the ms stuff was running on the console. no ones seen killzone running on the ps4 yet either.
 
Just a last link:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676989

That thread currently goes to around 80 pages, but it holds discussions with certified developers, and true recognized insiders because you see, in NeoGAF when you claim to be an insider you will have to contact a mod and explain your background and credentials or get perma banned for trying to supplant a figure of power.

I will just say that nowhere in that thread have someone popped in trying to tout certain numbers that have been used here, and there are quite a few peeps banned but amazingly a great deal of posters on that very same thread have not, so no matter how they express themselves at times you can take what they say at face value.
 
quimby999 said:
the Titan fall video you saw wasn't running on an xbox one none of the ms stuff was running on the console.
Click to expand...

They've had playable demos on the Xbox One...so this isn't true with all games. Titanfall I believe was demoed as well.

no ones seen killzone running on the ps4 yet either.
Click to expand...

Also wrong.
 
Revdarian said:
Just a last link:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=676989

That thread currently goes to around 80 pages, but it holds discussions with certified developers, and true recognized insiders because you see, in NeoGAF when you claim to be an insider you will have to contact a mod and explain your background and credentials or get perma banned for trying to supplant a figure of power.

I will just say that nowhere in that thread have someone popped in trying to tout certain numbers that have been used here, and there are quite a few peeps banned but amazingly a great deal of posters on that very same thread have not, so no matter how they express themselves at times you can take what they say at face value.
Click to expand...

Damn that thread is super hard to follow. For every decent post, there are about 15 posts talking about "HURR HURR SOMEONE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE RULES"
 
ocellaris said:
Damn that thread is super hard to follow. For every decent post, there are about 15 posts talking about "HURR HURR SOMEONE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE RULES"
Click to expand...

You have to be careful when treading the 'gaf.
It can be quite painful sometimes.
 
ocellaris said:
Damn that thread is super hard to follow. For every decent post, there are about 15 posts talking about "HURR HURR SOMEONE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE RULES"
Click to expand...

The GAF is the elitest of elitests. They are also pretty smart there.
 
It's it's even close to true. I'm shocked. First game reviews will be pointing this out for sure.

P4s with better video drivers as well? Wow!
 
ol1bit said:
It's it's even close to true. I'm shocked. First game reviews will be pointing this out for sure.

P4s with better video drivers as well? Wow!
Click to expand...

The better video drivers has to be taken with a grain of salt, as it could mean that MS was late with their development tools for the launch, which is a thing that has been widely recognized.

And well, launch games won't be all that representative if history has shown us anything, but still i do think that the PS4 will get a nod all in all.
 
DPI said:
Its not about ROI. Its more about political considerations for not making one platform obviously superior to another's for a multiplatform title. Multiplat devs want to keep the best possible relationship with every platform's manufacturer.

By the same token that's also why you won't really see any Kinect integration on multiplat titles. The devs in the article linked in the OP even point this out that "the console companies really want us to use their special features" but they won't.
Click to expand...

Like I said in a similar thread in the Graphics forum, it's disappointing that they won't take advantage of the better hardware regardless of the relationship with the platform manufacturer. If developers continue to do this, then PC games will continue to stagnate graphically and not take advantage of newer hardware.

So very few first-party PC developers do take advantage of better PC hardware and it shows when they are willing to put in the time and money and effort to make the PC version the best there is. However, so many game developers would rather just put very little time, money and effort and just go with the lowest common denominator.

VladDracule said:
The number of CUs alone does not define performance. Period. End of story. The same with shader cores. The reasons you see that high of component counts in dGPUs is because they have the architecture to support them. Architecture that simply cannot exist in an APU with our current technology nodes.

When you downscale a components overall layout size you also decrease the width of the metals used in routing and that exponentially increases resistance. Which is why the added benefit of additional CUs diminishes
Click to expand...

Forgive me if my physics knowledge is rusty, but a part of this doesn't make sense. I thought that decreasing the width of the metal used, decreases the distance traveled by an electron from Point A to Point B. Hence, in return, decreases the resistance of the electrical current.

Resistance is also affected by the kind of metal used. Various different metals offer different resistance values. That's like basic physics right there when it comes to electrical conductivity. So, there is no reason for something smaller to have increased resistance over something larger unless they're using highly resistant metals.

Also, whether it's dedicated GPU or integrated GPU, the structure, arrangement and function of a compute unit remain functionally the same whether they're in a standalone PCI-E card or on-die in an APU. Bringing them to smaller processes like 28nm [should] increase power efficiency and the ability to stack other components within the APU. And, from what I can get, both the Xbox One and PS4 APUs are custom SoCs. AMD provided the modules and instructions on function and assembly, but customization happens with the engineers at either company.

Given that the Xbox ONE APU includes either a Radeon 7770 or 7790, it means they had to use a smaller GPU but are able to fit two Jaguar modules (3.1mm x 3.1mm per module), southbridge components, eDRAM, and a DDR3 memory controller. The PS4 APU has a larger Radeon 7850/7870-equivalent GPU on-die, but is able to fit a GDDR5 memory controller, and southbridge components. There is a performance increase from two different GPU models. We know this from various [AMD graphics card] reviews that a certain combination or increase in ROP and CU count as well as GPU clock improves performance. It may not be linear, but the performance increase is noticeable.

A factory overclocked Xbox ONE GPU may offer maybe 7790 or 7830 equivalent performance but it's not going to touch a PS4's 7850/7870 unless you get some clever programming to get around the limitation of decreased CU and ROP count. Also, the PS4's on-die GPU can be allocated to physics calculations when needed, and as Sony stated months ago during the PS4 reveal, it, too, can also do cloud-based GPGPU calculations.

In the end, it all boils down to software and software. It's up to the developers to do what they can with two different graphics API-- a highly customized Direct 11.2 (Xbox One) and a highly customized OpenGL 4.2/4.3 brought over from the PS3 dev kit. Both will be running on x86-64 architectures, so it comes down to whether a Linux-based game is better than a Windows-based game, and vice-versa. That also includes which company is providing a good dev kit and whether developers can optimize them further to squeeze as much performance out of either console.
 
octoberasian said:
In the end, it all boils down to software and software. It's up to the developers to do what they can with two different graphics API-- a highly customized Direct 11.2 (Xbox One) and a highly customized OpenGL 4.2/4.3 brought over from the PS3 dev kit. Both will be running on x86-64 architectures, so it comes down to whether a Linux-based game is better than a Windows-based game, and vice-versa. That also includes which company is providing a good dev kit and whether developers can optimize them further to squeeze as much performance out of either console.
Click to expand...

I hate how people keep saying this shit. Software can get as good as it can get, doesn't change the fact that the PS4's hardware is still above and beyond the Xbox Ones. Doesn't matter how good MS get's the drivers down, doesn't matter how well they can slim down and optimize the OS, etc...30% more shaders is 30% more shaders.

I mean, you even say in your entire post above this paragraph how the PS4's GPU is much more powerful yet you end it all by saying it boils down to software? Huh? Sure software has a lot to do with it but that's hardly then end all of end all.

Plus not matter how well MS does with it's software it isn't like Sony is done with theirs...both consoles will constantly be getting better software, drivers, tools, etc...except the software can never make up for the 30-50% faster hardware difference.
 
JoeUser said:
I hate how people keep saying this shit. Software can get as good as it can get, doesn't change the fact that the PS4's hardware is still above and beyond the Xbox Ones. Doesn't matter how good MS get's the drivers down, doesn't matter how well they can slim down and optimize the OS, etc...30% more shaders is 30% more shaders.

I mean, you even say in your entire post above this paragraph how the PS4's GPU is much more powerful yet you end it all by saying it boils down to software? Huh? Sure software has a lot to do with it but that's hardly then end all of end all.

Plus not matter how well MS does with it's software it isn't like Sony is done with theirs...both consoles will constantly be getting better software, drivers, tools, etc...except the software can never make up for the 30-50% faster hardware difference.
Click to expand...
Obviously you never downloaded more ram.
 
JoeUser said:
I hate how people keep saying this shit. Software can get as good as it can get, doesn't change the fact that the PS4's hardware is still above and beyond the Xbox Ones. Doesn't matter how good MS get's the drivers down, doesn't matter how well they can slim down and optimize the OS, etc...30% more shaders is 30% more shaders.

I mean, you even say in your entire post above this paragraph how the PS4's GPU is much more powerful yet you end it all by saying it boils down to software? Huh? Sure software has a lot to do with it but that's hardly then end all of end all.

Plus not matter how well MS does with it's software it isn't like Sony is done with theirs...both consoles will constantly be getting better software, drivers, tools, etc...except the software can never make up for the 30-50% faster hardware difference.
Click to expand...
You have a good point, but the problem is this:
Will the developers make a superior version on the PS4 given it has 30% more shaders, higher ROP and CU count?

It's still down to the software-- are the developers willing to exploit as much of the hardware in their games and push what the console can do? Or, will they take the lazy route out and keep both games relatively the same?

I'd honestly like to see the PS4 games look better and perform better than the Xbox ONE. But, if history has shown itself, we'll most likely get half-assed ports to the PS4 just like what happened with many games ported to the PS3. Why? Developers are unwilling to properly port and develop games for another platform, and that has also affected PC gaming in general. It's also the ambivalence of many game developers' attitudes towards Linux-based gaming and using OpenGL over DirectX. This is going to be the case with the PS4 and the Xbox ONE-- it's Linux vs. Windows, console-version.

So, regardless of the hardware, it's going to come down to which developer is willing to push the hardware's performance in software and optimize them for the console. That or they will keep both versions of the game with little to no difference, very little optimization, and we don't see any performance advantage from the PS4. More likely than not, we'll probably end up with a good looking game on the Xbox ONE and a poorly ported, poorly optimized game on the PS4 just because of the wide use of DirectX, its relative ease of development, the amount of money throws around to developers, and the ambivalence and hesitance of developers unwilling to use OpenGL in modern gaming.

And, that will be disappointing to see.
 
I'm expecting, due to the similar hardware structure that most games will have good PC ports, meaning good scaling, meaning that turning up a few setting for the PS4 would be trivial.
 
silk186 said:
I'm expecting, due to the similar hardware structure that most games will have good PC ports, meaning good scaling, meaning that turning up a few setting for the PS4 would be trivial.
Click to expand...

ROPs still matter, sure you can scale the resolution and the ps4 will take advantage easily but ingame settings arent automatic like that. Devs will use the hardware that is most common to dictate the level of eye candy in a game, that is how they always have done it. There a few instances where we get games that go completely nuts with features but for the most part devs (on the pc side) try to wtretch the mid to lower end hardware first before they try to take advantage of the highend.
 
octoberasian said:
You have a good point, but the problem is this:
Will the developers make a superior version on the PS4 given it has 30% more shaders, higher ROP and CU count?

It's still down to the software-- are the developers willing to exploit as much of the hardware in their games and push what the console can do? Or, will they take the lazy route out and keep both games relatively the same?

I'd honestly like to see the PS4 games look better and perform better than the Xbox ONE. But, if history has shown itself, we'll most likely get half-assed ports to the PS4 just like what happened with many games ported to the PS3. Why? Developers are unwilling to properly port and develop games for another platform, and that has also affected PC gaming in general. It's also the ambivalence of many game developers' attitudes towards Linux-based gaming and using OpenGL over DirectX. This is going to be the case with the PS4 and the Xbox ONE-- it's Linux vs. Windows, console-version.

So, regardless of the hardware, it's going to come down to which developer is willing to push the hardware's performance in software and optimize them for the console. That or they will keep both versions of the game with little to no difference, very little optimization, and we don't see any performance advantage from the PS4. More likely than not, we'll probably end up with a good looking game on the Xbox ONE and a poorly ported, poorly optimized game on the PS4 just because of the wide use of DirectX, its relative ease of development, the amount of money throws around to developers, and the ambivalence and hesitance of developers unwilling to use OpenGL in modern gaming.

And, that will be disappointing to see.
Click to expand...

Who knows man...I see that many developers are claiming that the PS4 is easier to develop for and that Sony has good drivers/software this time around.

I do think that games will be made for the lowest common however I also know that developers do care about getting the most from the hardware. I do think that the PS4 will definitely get more eye candy no matter the game. If it DOESN'T then it'll at least run better (say 60fps vs. 45fps, better resolution, etc). If the Xbox One version of a game looks BETTER than the PS4 version then either MS paid them off or they're biased son's of bitches and just chose to screw the PS4 version over.

So in the end software matters a great deal. However, I do believe that the PS4 versions of games will still look better and perform better. The whole Windows vs. Linux thing isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be. It might be a bit of a learning curve, but even DICE said that the Xbox version of BF4 would be the "definitive" version as DX11 was "familiar" but now the dev's are coming out and saying the PS4 version of the game is the one to get. The Xbox version is "definitive" because MS paid for first access to DLC...the PS4 version is the one to get because it runs and looks better.

All my speculation of course, but what other answer is there? Either way, as I said, unless a dev is getting paid by MS to have better graphics/features or the dev just hates Sony/Playstation brand then there's no reason games won't either look better or run better on the PS4, despite what ever software there is on each console.
 
octoberasian said:
Will the developers make a superior version on the PS4 given it has 30% more shaders, higher ROP and CU count?
Click to expand...
By and large: no. Developers very rarely even make a superior version for existing platforms that sport an order of magnitude more power (the high-end PC).
 
Revdarian said:
Since i can't edit, let's add another fun link:
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/777?vs=778

7770 vs 7850 comparison, it has roughly less difference in gflops than what will exist in reality, it has the proper ROP difference tho of a 100% increase.

Sure, you can use a smaller resolution or slightly modify assets and get to a parity of sorts, all for 100$ more.
Click to expand...

People are still trying to make that argument? Both the Xbox One and PS4 are 256bit, the 7770 is 128bit. The 7850 is more powerful then what the PS4 has, and the 7770 is slower then what the Xbox One has. The difference is more akin to a 7810 vs 7830 if AMD made them.

Outamyhead said:
I'm buying a PS4 a few months after launch, Xbox dOne kinda killed it's interest for me after the initial announcements, and then the prompt BS spin, and back peddling at E3. Don't care if it's better by .01GHz or 1MB of RAM, I can't trust a system that can have those features originally announced switched back on without even telling anyone.

And Microsoft aren't exactly known for getting the system right for launch, they relied on someone figuring out the problem, and supplying an aftermarket fix, until the third revision of the console seemed to have resolved most of the trouble (what's with the noisy as f#@k fans when they speed up though?), and the original xbox had problems at launch as well.
Click to expand...

You forgetting how bad the PS2 was, or how fine the original Xbox was? Every company has a dud at some point. There are no indications that the Xbox One will have high failure rates. Again, if anything, the PS4 would since its smaller, with a smaller cooler, and PSU in the box rather then external.
 
Cecil said:
People are still trying to make that argument? Both the Xbox One and PS4 are 256bit, the 7770 is 128bit. The 7850 is more powerful then what the PS4 has, and the 7770 is slower then what the Xbox One has. The difference is more akin to a 7810 vs 7830 if AMD made them.
Click to expand...

Meh...more like a 7830 for the PS4 and a 7780 for the Xbox One. The 7790 has 896 shaders. That's 128 shader cores more than the Xbox One.

I know it's being nitpicky...but yeah, the PS4's GPU really is just THAT much better. 77xx vs. 78xx at the least.
 
Cecil said:
People are still trying to make that argument? Both the Xbox One and PS4 are 256bit, the 7770 is 128bit. The 7850 is more powerful then what the PS4 has, and the 7770 is slower then what the Xbox One has. The difference is more akin to a 7810 vs 7830 if AMD made them.
.
Click to expand...

lol whut?

You do know that total actual achieved bandwidth with the one has been reported by MS itself to be 133GB/s, real use scenario, while the total bandwidth achieved by the PS4 has been reported by the oddworld developers at 172 GB/s? more than notorious enough.

And the 7850 isn't more powerful, the 7850 achieves 1.76 GFLOPS vs the PS4 1.84.

What the heck man, at least get your facts straight.

1.84 / 1.31 = 1.40458; 1.76/1.28 = 1.375 => that means that the difference between a 7770 and a 7850 is SMALLER than the actual proper difference between the overclocked one and the ps4.

So, in short, WRONG.

In any case respect to parity, from a certified 3rd party developer on that GAF thread, post #4240
"Third party devs will develop their IP to look similar to protect their own interests, not the platform holders, and to make sure they dont alienate one side or other. Differences will be slight, mostly resolution stretches, framerate locks or other subjectives. This is done at design/preprod to develop your scenes with this is mind and use graphical effects to maximise its look/impact. Think GOW3.
The MOST important aspect is the time taken to produce your basic complete - Faster complete means more time to polish, add extras etc. Will MS have direct control? Unlikely, even at the most pro-MS studios. There are too many tech-savvy fans out there and studios need all the goodwill they can get."

We shall see how it ends up being down the line.
 
Am I the only one that still finds it a mind trip that the EXTRA cores that the PS4 has over the Xbox One is equal to HALF the total number of cores in the Xbox One? It's like, not only does the PS4 have more cores, but it has 50% more cores...that's just insane if you really think about it. 50% more cores. Man, I just don't understand what MS was thinking with the Xbox One. Too much money in the Kinect that no one wanted. Too much money in all the T.V. shit that no one asked or cared for.

It seems that since Windows 8 MS seems to be caring less and less about what their actual customers want and more about what THEY want. They could have dropped the expensive Kinect and T.V./HDMI input features and NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WOULD HAVE GIVEN A SINGLE FUCK. It's not like people would have been saying "wheres Kinect 2.0?" or "where are these T.V. features that I didn't know existed and/or never asked for from my gaming console?". Like I know people like Kinect, but I HIGHLY doubt anyone would have got their panties in a wad if MS either didn't release a new one or didn't release it bundled with the console. Same with the T.V. shit. Sure it might be useful to some, but in the end it's something that just cost's more money and something that no one asked for. MS could have skipped it entirely and no one would have been the wiser.

So in my opinion MS's own smugness and lack of giving shits about it's customers are going to be its downfall...at the very least it will end their reign in the enthusiast market. Most hardcore gamers that know their hardware specs and all that are already going PS4 exclusively...hell, two times the number of PS4 preorders over the Xbox One is pretty damning to say the least.

I'm just waiting for exclusives...I know everyone here remembers that "The Dark Sorcerer" demo from Quantic Dreams for the PS4. Now I'm no software engineer...but damn, I just don't see that being possible on the Xbox One. I mean, maybe it is, but certainly not at the level of detail in the video.

Either way, who knows how this will turn out. All I can say is that being a pretty hardcore gamer the Xbox One does nothing for me. Same ole exclusive IP's (though I will admit I've always admired the PS3 exclusives more so I might be a bit biased here. Halo will always have a special place in my heart though), drastically slower hardware, more expensive, and a bunch of features that I don't give a shit about thus I'm not paying for. If MS had just stuck to, ya know, GAMING WITH IT'S GAMING CONSOLE BRAND then I think things wouldn't be so one sided this time around.

Sony did right. They stuck to gaming. Better hardware, better controller (by a lot of people's accounts), better price, and arguably better software.
 
Revdarian said:
lol whut?

You do know that total actual achieved bandwidth with the one has been reported by MS itself to be 133GB/s, real use scenario, while the total bandwidth achieved by the PS4 has been reported by the oddworld developers at 172 GB/s? more than notorious enough.

And the 7850 isn't more powerful, the 7850 achieves 1.76 GFLOPS vs the PS4 1.84.

What the heck man, at least get your facts straight.

1.84 / 1.31 = 1.40458; 1.76/1.28 = 1.375 => that means that the difference between a 7770 and a 7850 is SMALLER than the actual proper difference between the overclocked one and the ps4.

So, in short, WRONG.
Click to expand...

http://n4g.com/news/1340944/xbox-on...k-bandwidth-to-off-chip-8gb-ddr3-ram-and-more

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/08/xbox-one-processor-hot-chips-conference/


So before you bring your epeen BS in to a post to call someone wrong, check your facts.


The 77xx series are ALL 128bit, so using that compared to Xbox One is not a fair example. Just because the 7790 has more cores, its still 128bit. So if AMD were to release a card based on the Xbox One's GPU, it would be a 78xx card, likely a 7810-7830. Its not a stretch to understand they can release a card with a larger memory bus with less SPUs then another card.

The mistake I made was mixing up the number of SPUs on the 7850 vs 7870. Been a couple months since I bothered to look them up.


So again, it comes down to the Xbox One having 28.5% less shading performance (1.84TFlops - 28.5% = 1.31TFlops), which with equal graphical settings and not taking account for cloud, or faster CPU, would relate to a 15-25% difference in frame rate depending on the game and occasion. Or if frame rates were equal, it would be the difference of more AA, some better shadows, whatever else would make that difference. In real world, not comparing side by side, you could play the game on a PS4, then a few hours later play on Xbox One and not tell a difference.


But that's unlikely to happen anyway, since third party games will be created equal.

If you were to try and compare two first party games, the PS4 is capable of better looking graphics, while the Xbox One is capable of better AI, and other things that can take advantage of the CPU and cloud differences.
 
OK so the Xbox One's GPU has a 256-bit bus. What about the DDR3 RAM? Also, due to the amount of shader cores even IF AMD released the Xbox One GPU as a desktop part it would STILL be in the 77xx series of cards unless they called it a "78(-30)".

Fact remains, despite the rest of your post, that the PS4's GPU is 50% faster. Whether you can't admit this to yourself or not doesn't bother me but to say it's only 15-25% faster is just incorrect.

1152 cores vs. 768, 32 ROPs vs. 16, GDDR5 RAM vs. DDR3, etc... the 50% number isn't being thrown around for no reason.
 
Cecil you don't understand math when talking about comparisons or you are intentionally trying to make it look smaller.

If you use the bigger number, then yes the smaller will be ~33% smaller than the big one, but if you use the small one as the comparison basis then it will be ~50% bigger. This is significant.

128bit at over 96GB/s constant is better than 133GB/s peak and 68GB/s base, and this number would only come in effect in situations that are actually bandwidth constrained.

BTW Theoretical peaks of over 200GB/s have, again, been heavily called into question and haven't been properly answered back in multiple GAF threads where even Penello intervened, but the 133GB/s number was, again, a real world use number shared by MS themselves. If you try to use that 200GB/s number you will force me to dig out MS's bandwidths numbers for the 360, which were also utter bullcrap.


100 - 28.5 = 71.5

100/ 71.5 = 1.398 or the bigger number is roughly 40% bigger than the smaller one.

So, if the PS4 achieves 1080p 60 then the one would achieve ~42fps, if you try to vsync it without any modification it would get it all the way down to 1080p 30, so the experience would be compromised.

Of course that what the developer will do is to use a lower resolution, 900p as they are gonna do with Ryse. 1600*900p 60 is effectively a 40% smaller workload, and it will result in a blurrier output than native 1080p => This is how they are gonna achieve parity most of the time btw.
 
Cecil said:
If you were to try and compare two first party games, the PS4 is capable of better looking graphics, while the Xbox One is capable of better AI, and other things that can take advantage of the CPU and cloud differences.
Click to expand...
Cloud computation is not unique to the X1. It's simply offered as a 'mainline' feature to developers.
 
Yeap "cloud computing" has been debunked for anything significant gamewise due to latency since quite some time.

And this all still doesn't explain why the least powerful console should cost 25% more.

In any case the guy that tries to defend it, keep doing it, won't change preorder rates, the ball was dropped way too long ago for anyone to really change their mind by this point.

Even in the UK which was the MS bastion of Europe there has been a significant shift in the form of confirmed 3:2 preorder numbers from one of the biggest retailers. That is 3 PS4's for 2 XOnes, in what was the 2nd most pro MS ground... first one is the United States of America of course.
 
The "Cloud" thing is just straight up MS PR fluff, the PS4 has the exact same capabilities as the One for cloud services. Sony just does not need it to be a "selling point" and if you read articles with Sony execs and engineers when questioned on the matter just shrug it off saying yea it's possible and we will provide it to anyone who asks but for us it's not a highlight of the platform.

Basically they can do the same thing they just don't care and consider it to be like the Move, you can use it if you want but who the F*** would want too? Microsoft is using it like a selling point because quite frankly if you take that away they won't have much to brag about.

It's like having two people one who is a bodybuilder, the other one just now able to bench 250. The bodybuilder guy does not need to brag about benching 250 because he is already benching 300 and running 20 miles with a 50lb vest while the other guy can't even run a 18 minute 2 mile.
 
The funny thing is people say that the eSRAM theoretical numbers arent relevant but they use the PS4's theoretical numbers all the time. Hypocritical much?

The truth is NOBODY and i mean NOBODY has any clue as to how the actual system will perform. You can tell me that a GPU is capable of 176 GB/s or whatever numbers you want and i say thats a great component! But what about the entire system architecture? is it even capable of supporting those numbers? That is a question that absolutely nobody can answer at this point, and thats the flat out truth.

You cant use your theoretical numbers for comparison sake then say the others theoretical numbers are irrelevant, it just doesnt work that way
 
172GB/s where actual useage numbers. PS4 ~97% efficiency vs theoretical.
133GB/s also was real world useage. Xbone ~65% efficiency vs BS theoretical.


And hey, want to hear another thing from a recognized developer from GAF?
*For reference, the story going around E3 went something like this:

"ATVI was doing the CoD: Ghosts port to nextgen. It took three weeks for PS4 and came out at 90 FPS unoptimized, and four months on Xbone and came out at 15 FPS."*

^^ This actually has an explanation, but you will have to fish it up.
 
I have never seen that and i will call absolutely and utter BS because what were the drivers at that time? what was the dev kit like? that does not in any way implicate final numbers
 
Even where does it actually site the 172 gb/s as ACTUAL application specific numbers. was this actually done on the hardware or a dev kit. Who published these numbers and how did they test them. PR is PR theyll do whatever they possibly can to make numbers appear better than they actually are
 
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware
http://gamingbolt.com/oddworld-inha...act-that-memory-operates-at-172gbs-is-amazing

The one's memory peak was in a single special event, the ps4 was a standard workload.

And you could have gone to the GAF since long ago and read about this all if you are so knowledgeable. I said that the game performance had a reason, and for what is worth, also from GAF:

*FWIW a Japanese developer was having similar issues apparently. They will remain nameless for obvious reasons.*

You may cry BS all you want, but as i explained, unlike here were someone claims to be a designer but doesnt really tries to talk hardware, there you are asked to explain and share your credentials in private with a MOD or be perma banned when trying to do claims in general.

For all that is worth i already said that what seems to be the ideal down the line would be to do the games on 900p vs 1080p, because apparently that is a nice way to achieve parity for the developers from their own PoV, it lowers the workload without affecting "too much" the IQ nor the experience... if you overcome certain hurdles, otherwise the CoD thing will happen.
 
VladDracule said:
Even where does it actually site the 172 gb/s as ACTUAL application specific numbers. was this actually done on the hardware or a dev kit. Who published these numbers and how did they test them. PR is PR theyll do whatever they possibly can to make numbers appear better than they actually are
Click to expand...

That PR bullcrap works for both companies by the way. You can't call out one and pretend the other is gospel...just sayin.
 
pcjunkie said:
That PR bullcrap works for both companies by the way. You can't call out one and pretend the other is gospel...just sayin.
Click to expand...

No apparently he thinks multiple multiple developers are lying or somehow care whether Sony or Microsoft has better hardware.

It's not really both ways, the PS4 has a straight up 176gb / second through out put with general workloads. The 360 is going to fluctuate drastically across the board and fwiw the consoles have not even been released yet and developers are getting pissed off.
 
I'm not up on the XBone specs but does that theoretical bandwidth have to do whether the esram is being used to its full potential or not?
 
next-Jin said:
No apparently he thinks multiple multiple developers are lying or somehow care whether Sony or Microsoft has better hardware.

It's not really both ways, the PS4 has a straight up 176gb / second through out put with general workloads. The 360 is going to fluctuate drastically across the board and fwiw the consoles have not even been released yet and developers are getting pissed off.
Click to expand...

you cannot claim its actual 176 throughput without a cited source directly explaining how the test was done, you absolutely on a system level CANNOT take these numbers as truth until you really know how it was tested what type of data was tested whether or not this is strictly passthrough or processing/rendering is taking place. Thats the absolute truth of it
 
next-Jin said:
No apparently he thinks multiple multiple developers are lying or somehow care whether Sony or Microsoft has better hardware.

It's not really both ways, the PS4 has a straight up 176gb / second through out put with general workloads. The 360 is going to fluctuate drastically across the board and fwiw the consoles have not even been released yet and developers are getting pissed off.
Click to expand...

Name an actual cited source developer that any of these articles list, that answer is none. In fact the devs that have gone on record such as Kojima (one of the biggest names in the gaming industry, BTW) has said the performance they are getting out of each console is nearly identicle
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top