The Real Differences Between PS4 and Xbox One Performance

-.-'

stop the FUD, there is a NDA at the moment and even without it noone would publicly burn bridges at this point in time, but as i said you have to show your credentials in private at the GAF, so everything has been backed by someone actually with the knowledge and connections.

And about needing sources stated, i would like to remind you of this little thing called Watergate, was it less truthful because they couldn't say who DeepThroat was until ~30 years after it was said?...

In any case, you have proven your colors here pretty obviously all around, don't think that there is anyone who holds any trust in you by this point in time. Yeap, i'm talking to you but i won't mention your name.
 
Because not a single person can actually produce legitimate sources? in what was is that FUD? You completely proved my point, there is an NDA on both systems so it is absolutely completely in every sense of the word BS to claim to know the actual performance numbers of either system. In fact I would bet just about every developer has NDA agreements in this which would mean no legitimate dev would ever make these statements because it violates NDA's and which means their company would terminate them. End of story, you cannot take a single performance number at this point at face value, no matter whether or not its an insider because there are things that they cannot disclose without violating agreements. period.

You havent shown me a source that says the PS4 numbers are in actual use, on actual hardware, running actual applications, because that type of information has yet to be revealed which means EVERY SINGLE piece of information we have, is theoretical.

I own 2 gaming computers (as you can see in my sig) a xbox, a 360, a ps2, a ps3, a Vita, a 3ds, 3ds XL and have both consoles on pre order. You cannot call me a fanboy when i am strictly questioning the data that we have, and saying that it is nothing but theoretical numbers. The consoles arent out, block diagrams and system architecture is not 100%, making any conclusions at this point is simply idiotic.
 
I have already pointed you to the place and explained how can you assure that it is true, if you after all that still call "FAAAAAAAAAAAKE" then yeah, you are spreading "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" and your colors will be called into question.
 
Revdarian said:
I have already pointed you to the place and explained how can you assure that it is true, if you after all that still call "FAAAAAAAAAAAKE" then yeah, you are spreading "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" and your colors will be called into question.
Click to expand...

Memory Throughput != GPU Throughput != system throughput. one analysis on one thing is simply a theoretical value and thats it. It is not a SYSTEM level benchmark which is what matters
 
Again, there are the developers experiences too that you wish to throw away and call fake too.

Seriously, suck it up, go to that thread, sit, learn, and just kindly accept.

Of course we can stay on the denial-rage-bargaining periods for life.
 
again, its one developers experience, it is not an actual application level benchmark. Notice the language in the PS4 article. it says nowhere about its sustainability at those numbers. If those numbers can be achieved in spikes or its a consistant, constant, stable value. None of that information is given which again means you cannot base an conclusions on it
 
"...the fact that the memory operates at around 172GB/s is amazing, so we can swap stuff in and our as fast as we can without it really causing us much grief.
Read more at http://gamingbolt.com/oddworld-inha...ates-at-172gbs-is-amazing#pVdRPCLi9VQXdOpX.99 "

Hes talking about memory, strictly memory, and again, memory speed is not indicative of the overall system speed. You can look at these high levels all you want and think whatever you want about them, but you can't drill into them in the manor that people are trying to, you just simply cannot base overall system functionality and speed on a spec like memory speed. My GDDR5 dGPU operates has a much higher throughput value on its own than my PC can achieve
 
133 GB/s are also strictly memory, now go to GAF or keep on the denial-rage-bargaining stages, your choice really.
 
Seriously your not listening to a word i am saying, memory does NOT DEFINE how fast a system will run. drawing a conclusion about overall system performance based off of one number, in this case memory, is absolutely idiotic. If you cant realize that then clearly you have absolutely no experience with hardware and design
 
You are the one not listening, actual developers have exposed their experiences, said experiences agree with the rest, and this has been discussed for months on end, to try and keep denying them puts you on stage 1 of Kübler-Ross model, also known as the five stages of grief.

Denial

Anger

Bargaining

Depression

Acceptance

I don't take you seriously at this point because well, i did my due diligence, you haven't and are unwilling to, so after all these pages it is now for the lulz.
 
Because youve supported anything by linking a verified devs comments on actual system performance? And havent just linked things about memory alone? Thats what i asked for isnt it? The links you provided simply state memory performance, they do not state system performance and the two things arent equal. end of story
 
funny-Consuela-meme-no-no.jpg


I posted you the main GAF thread long ago and pointed it out.

Repeatedly i might add.
 
You mean the GAF thread that again only takes into account high level specs? That doesnt know anything about the ability of offloading to the CPU or the co processors? Or doesnt have access to 100% of the system architecture? Your right, thats a 100% proof thread right there regardless of the fact that it is all based off of high level component specs which in the scheme of things do not matter.

I can list the specs of my PC all day, but its actual performance will never hit those levels
 
VladDracule said:
Because youve supported anything by linking a verified devs comments on actual system performance? And havent just linked things about memory alone? Thats what i asked for isnt it? The links you provided simply state memory performance, they do not state system performance and the two things arent equal. end of story
Click to expand...

You act like Sony and AMD have never designed gaming hardware before. AMD has almost two decades of experience getting the most from hardware and making it accessible. This isn't their first time to the rodeo and it seems foolish to think that the PS4 performance advantage just won't be there because you think so. AMD isn't going to just randomly drop the ball after designing competitive GPUs and APUs for years.
 
:) you haven't read the thread.

Actual developers.

With true backgrounds and working knowledge.

But keep putting your fingers in your ears and going na-na-na-na-na i can't hear you!!!, i am sure that a lot of people will believe that there is no power difference.


tumblr_mic5rpa4Ff1rikv46o1_r1_250.gif
 
ocellaris said:
You act like Sony and AMD have never designed gaming hardware before. AMD has almost two decades of experience getting the most from hardware and making it accessible. This isn't their first time to the rodeo and it seems foolish to think that the PS4 performance advantage just won't be there because you think so. AMD isn't going to just randomly drop the ball after designing competitive GPUs and APUs for years.
Click to expand...

Yet AMD designed both PS4 and Microsofts chips. You think Microsoft didnt go through as defined a selection process as Sony? You think Microsoft doesnt have the time/money to investigate issues and bottlenecks as much as sony?

you cannot take high level specs and draw a conclusion on its overall performance, its a heck of a lot more detailed than that, details that have not been released to the public. All your doing is making an assumption based on who the companies are
 
Revdarian said:
:) you haven't read the thread.

Actual developers.

With true backgrounds and working knowledge.

But keep putting your fingers in your ears and going na-na-na-na-na i can't hear you!!!, i am sure that a lot of people will believe that there is no power difference.


tumblr_mic5rpa4Ff1rikv46o1_r1_250.gif
Click to expand...

and none of those devs names have been released. How do i know they arent indie devs? How do i know its not naughty dogz who develops strictly for the PS4? you cant draw conclusions when you dont know the sources
 
Damn I hit Submit before I was done...

When AMD GPU specs leak, the expected performance is generally close to expectations based on history. This happens because AMD has a track record and paper spec are a good approximation of real world performance. We don't all sit around and go, "Yeah but that new 9990 GPU might not even get to use that memory bandwidth this time, they could screw it up and it will be slower than other cards with lower specs!"
 
ocellaris said:
Damn I hit Submit before I was done...

When AMD GPU specs leak, the expected performance is generally close to expectations based on history. This happens because AMD has a track record and paper spec are a good approximation of real world performance. We don't all sit around and go, "Yeah but that new 9990 GPU might not even get to use that memory bandwidth this time, they could screw it up and it will be slower than other cards with lower specs!"
Click to expand...

But we do sit around and say i dont have the CPU to support these values, or the RAM to support it either. PC builders look at overall system performance when building a rig. Im not going to buy GDDR7 ram (if it existed) if the rest of my system cannot support its speeds.

And that background architecture is information we do not have
 
Let's see, proper credentials and trust on Gaf developers /Vlad:


X/0 = OH CRAP BRO, YOU MADE ME DIVIDE BY 0!!!!


1271089771480.gif
 
VladDracule said:
Seriously your not listening to a word i am saying, memory does NOT DEFINE how fast a system will run. drawing a conclusion about overall system performance based off of one number, in this case memory, is absolutely idiotic. If you cant realize that then clearly you have absolutely no experience with hardware and design
Click to expand...

Ok define what aspect of the Xbox One is either A) On Par or B) Superior

Please prove to me either of those being the expert on hardware engineering and enlighten us.
 
VladDracule said:
You mean the GAF thread that again only takes into account high level specs? That doesnt know anything about the ability of offloading to the CPU or the co processors? Or doesnt have access to 100% of the system architecture? Your right, thats a 100% proof thread right there regardless of the fact that it is all based off of high level component specs which in the scheme of things do not matter.

I can list the specs of my PC all day, but its actual performance will never hit those levels
Click to expand...

You do realize that despite having co-processors and the like that it won't likely change anything right? The PS4's hardware is faster. This is a fact. You seem to not want to admit this...why is that?

I mean, sure the Xbox has a couple co-processors for this and that, but that has little to do with actual game performance. One co-processor is supposedly for video decoding/encoding and the other is for network processing...neither of which effects video game performance.

Also a lot of what MS has spoken of for it's specs seems whack to say the say the least. At first they say the ESRAM is capable of like 130GB/s then say they found some hacks or some shit and now it's 200GB/s...so with no change in hardware MS has somehow increased the bandwidth ~70GB/s? Yeah...right...

So I understand where you are coming from with the whole "there is more to it than just main system components" and you are right. Problem is that these minor system components really don't effect gaming performance as much as I believe you'd WANT them to.

The Xbox One is incredibly weak compared to the PS4. This is simply a fact. You can scream and yell "BUT BUT BUT!!!" all you want, it just simply won't change the facts.

When developers actually make games that are made fairly for each console and these games consistently look better on the Xbox One then you are correct in what you want to happen. However, this simply isn't going to happen.
 
VladDracule said:
But we do sit around and say i dont have the CPU to support these values, or the RAM to support it either. PC builders look at overall system performance when building a rig. Im not going to buy GDDR7 ram (if it existed) if the rest of my system cannot support its speeds.

And that background architecture is information we do not have
Click to expand...

/rips out hair

So you are saying Microsoft built a more robust platform with their 1.6+Ghz CPU + 77XX w/DDR3 + 32MB ESRAM yet somehow Sony dropped the ball with a 1.6(?) Ghz CPU + 78XX series GPU w/DDR5?

You keep going on and on about your big bad PC (It's weak btw) comparing it to consoles when as a systems engineer you should know better than anyone that is just an asinine comparison. It's a closed platform with drastically lower background tasks happening.

I call bullshit on your certifications sir, bullshit I say.
 
JoeUser said:
You do realize that despite having co-processors and the like that it won't likely change anything right? The PS4's hardware is faster. This is a fact. You seem to not want to admit this...why is that?

I mean, sure the Xbox has a couple co-processors for this and that, but that has little to do with actual game performance. One co-processor is supposedly for video decoding/encoding and the other is for network processing...neither of which effects video game performance.

Also a lot of what MS has spoken of for it's specs seems whack to say the say the least. At first they say the ESRAM is capable of like 130GB/s then say they found some hacks or some shit and now it's 200GB/s...so with no change in hardware MS has somehow increased the bandwidth ~70GB/s? Yeah...right...

So I understand where you are coming from with the whole "there is more to it than just main system components" and you are right. Problem is that these minor system components really don't effect gaming performance as much as I believe you'd WANT them to.

The Xbox One is incredibly weak compared to the PS4. This is simply a fact. You can scream and yell "BUT BUT BUT!!!" all you want, it just simply won't change the facts.

When developers actually make games that are made fairly for each console and these games consistently look better on the Xbox One then you are correct in what you want to happen. However, this simply isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

your saying a potentially higher ability to offload isnt relevant? Offloading is THE ONLY reason a game like TLOU is even possible on the PS3. We dont know if the PS4 will perform all together at that 176 GB/S mark. That has been shown no where. It is directly stated as a theoretical value of the memory itself. If its bottlenecked by even 10%, that makes the margin between the memory bandwidth alone significantly smaller. There is speculation about the additional CU's in the PS4 and whether or not they are dedicated to gaming. The dedicated co processors in the XBox One if they truely due handle all DSP related tasks that is a significant advantage on the CPU from for the XB1.

I never said the hardware in the XB1 is superior in any way, im saying this 50% number is purely speculation and most likely bogus. Driver support, ESPECIALLY with the eSRAM isnt finalized nor is a development and actual use of it. If devs find a good way to use the eSRAM that again shrinks the gap between the two consoles.

Its widely accepted that the PS3 exclusives FINALLY brought out the potential of the PS3 in recent releases, and that 3rd party titles performed better on the XBox 360 (generally speaking). Why is it so far fetched to believe that first party devs for the XBox One will find a very very good practical application to use the eSRAM in the xbox one to close that gap?

On paper the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, but it took first party devs to realize that, and it took them a very long time to do it. If the full potential of the X1 is brought out anytime soon, the gap between the two consoles is severely over rated.
 
Has it even been confirmed that the eSRAM is implemented as a directly addressable resource? Developers can really only "take advantage of it" if it isn't implemented as a last-level cache.
 
Its said that both CPU and GPU can access the eSRAM, and again thats a big question mark on the XBox One architecture, you simply cannot draw conclusions when architecture is not completely known. Even if these are real legit 3rd party devs developing for both systems stating performance differences, whos to say theyre even utilizing the eSRAM? they wouldnt change their development to account for the eSRAM if its difficult to do, but first party devs will
 
Revdarian said:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79922221&postcount=1792

Respect to importance of offloading for example sound, the PS4 also has a DSP but arguably not as strong as the one, it still doesn't matter in the great scheme, same with a lot of other things.

Everything else is just wishful thinking.

The division by zero stands, HARD.
Click to expand...

according to sources the dedicated sound chip in the PS4 is strictly for decompressing audio, it doesnt ever site it as being a dedicated DSP chip, and DSP chip takes a very large chunk of processing power
 
VladDracule said:
according to sources the dedicated sound chip in the PS4 is strictly for decompressing audio, it doesnt ever site it as being a dedicated DSP chip, and DSP chip takes a very large chunk of processing power
Click to expand...

We've had full sound processing done on the host CPU since the days of the Pentium 2, it doesn't take a lot of CPU power.
 
VladDracule said:
Its said that both CPU and GPU can access the eSRAM, and again thats a big question mark on the XBox One architecture, you simply cannot draw conclusions when architecture is not completely known. Even if these are real legit 3rd party devs developing for both systems stating performance differences, whos to say theyre even utilizing the eSRAM? they wouldnt change their development to account for the eSRAM if its difficult to do, but first party devs will
Click to expand...
There's little to be done to account for it in the case that its implementation is that of a lock-guarded cache. It's like trying to do something to take advantage of the extra meg of L2 on certain desktop CPU processors. Okay, great, it's there, but there's really nothing I can do in my application to take advantage of it. I can't simply access it the same way I access a register.
 
VladDracule said:
your saying a potentially higher ability to offload isnt relevant? Offloading is THE ONLY reason a game like TLOU is even possible on the PS3. We dont know if the PS4 will perform all together at that 176 GB/S mark. That has been shown no where. It is directly stated as a theoretical value of the memory itself. If its bottlenecked by even 10%, that makes the margin between the memory bandwidth alone significantly smaller. There is speculation about the additional CU's in the PS4 and whether or not they are dedicated to gaming. The dedicated co processors in the XBox One if they truely due handle all DSP related tasks that is a significant advantage on the CPU from for the XB1.

I never said the hardware in the XB1 is superior in any way, im saying this 50% number is purely speculation and most likely bogus. Driver support, ESPECIALLY with the eSRAM isnt finalized nor is a development and actual use of it. If devs find a good way to use the eSRAM that again shrinks the gap between the two consoles.

Its widely accepted that the PS3 exclusives FINALLY brought out the potential of the PS3 in recent releases, and that 3rd party titles performed better on the XBox 360 (generally speaking). Why is it so far fetched to believe that first party devs for the XBox One will find a very very good practical application to use the eSRAM in the xbox one to close that gap?

On paper the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, but it took first party devs to realize that, and it took them a very long time to do it. If the full potential of the X1 is brought out anytime soon, the gap between the two consoles is severely over rated.
Click to expand...

OK...both consoles have CPU cores reserved for OS/background tasks...so either way both consoles only have SIX CPU cores available. While the Xbox One does have numerous co-processors the fact is that it still has six cores available. Same as the PS4. Also the Xbox NEEDS these co-processors because of what it does. If Sony cared to cram the unneeded T.V. functions and all that into the PS4 it to would have a bunch of co-processors. However Sony decided to make a GAMING console...not whatever the hell the Xbox One is.

Also you think that when this "full potential" of the Xbox One comes around that the PS4 will for some reason still be stuck in first year graphics mode or something? When the Xbox One reaches full potential (might already have) then PS4 will as well...so the PS4 will STILL be on top.

Either way you need to research you arguments points more and really learn what you are talking about. A lot of your points just don't make sense...:confused:
 
Lol at very large chunk... no, sorry, sound processing isn't very large actually since quite some years ago, and if you really wanna go exquisite, you could go GPGPU and again, the PS4 would have an advantage.

Everything that you try to post here, has been debunked by professionals at the GAF.

Btw again, expected parity when using eSRAM properly is the 900p vs 1080p deal, currently tho MS dev tools suck at eSRAM forcing manual tuning that is a PITA and producing disastrous performance of less than half effective power of the PS4 > 3rd party devs aren't happy.
 
JoeUser said:
OK...both consoles have CPU cores reserved for OS/background tasks...so either way both consoles only have SIX CPU cores available. While the Xbox One does have numerous co-processors the fact is that it still has six cores available. Same as the PS4. Also the Xbox NEEDS these co-processors because of what it does. If Sony cared to cram the unneeded T.V. functions and all that into the PS4 it to would have a bunch of co-processors. However Sony decided to make a GAMING console...not whatever the hell the Xbox One is.

Also you think that when this "full potential" of the Xbox One comes around that the PS4 will for some reason still be stuck in first year graphics mode or something? When the Xbox One reaches full potential (might already have) then PS4 will as well...so the PS4 will STILL be on top.

Either way you need to research you arguments points more and really learn what you are talking about. A lot of your points just don't make sense...:confused:
Click to expand...

The difference is the PS4 doesnt have any functionality aside from a slightly unified memory pool. The PS4 will not take long to reach its peak, it is an extremely familiar architecture with a very standard hardware setup aside from one minor thing
 
By the way, again, go to the GAF and you will notice something again said by the developers, and that is that due to the SNAP feature for windows, 10% of the Xb1 already smaller GPU power is reserved, in other words, won't be useable for gaming.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=77531589

Now let's suppose that the PS4 also has an overhead, it wouldn't be 10% of it's total, since it is naturally stronger even if it saves a bit more flops for it the overall percentage of peak performance loss will be smaller.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=657221&page=11 => actual developer claims that the PS4 overhead will be much smaller because of a certain design decision.


Seriously when i told you to sit your behind and read certified info on the GAF i meant it as a good thing, it takes some time to dig the good info, but it is there, and the image it paints is NOT pretty for MS.
 
VladDracule said:
The difference is the PS4 doesnt have any functionality aside from a slightly unified memory pool. The PS4 will not take long to reach its peak, it is an extremely familiar architecture with a very standard hardware setup aside from one minor thing
Click to expand...

OK...so what does the Xbox One have in advantage exactly?
 
VladDracule said:
ok again i never said the XBox One has an advantage, i said the gap between the two is smaller than people are spouting it to be
Click to expand...

I agree...I don't think it's a clear cut 50%...but I also don't think it's only 10-15% either. I would be comfortable in the greater than 30% range, but really wouldn't go any lower as the number of shader cores alone is 30% greater in the PS4. So in my opinion the shader cores will account for at least a 30% increase...everything else such as the DDR5 vs. DDR3/ESRAM, ROP's, etc can be up for debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top