So while Sony shouts things from the roof tops to get cows and fanboys to cream themselves, Microsoft keeps a lid on things. Phil trolled you all with his comments on DX12 and now BAM!!!!!!!!!!! Shot to the nuts.
Thank you Phil for owning these fools.
Is Fake...........................hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
@tormentos:
@tormentos:
You have used R7-250X and R7-265 which are PC SKU examples and you didn't limit your generalizations.
If you are going to use PC SKU examples to reflect XBO vs PS4 comparisons,
XBO ~= Pitcairn ES i.e. 12 CU (768 stream processors) at 860 Mhz (1.32 TFLOPS), 153.6 GB/s, dual tessellation units)
PS4 ~= R7-265 i.e. 16 CU at 900 Mhz (1.89 TFLOPS), 179 GB/s, dual tessellation units.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/768-shader-pitcairn-review,3196.html
XBO's split render target (frame buffer write DDR3 68 GB/s + ESRAM 104 GB/s) + 48 TMU workaround for 16 ROPS. + dual tessellation units ~= Pitcairn ES's 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. Avalanche Studios (Mad Max) has devised the 16 ROPS workaround with 48 TMUs i.e. memory bandwidth bound.
XBO's with just 68 GB/s DDR3 memory usage ~= 7770/R7-250X or down clocked R7-260 at 853Mhz.
PS4 ~= R7-265. it's simple.
See this is why i consider you a blind hypocrite it all most be do as you think it work,so a R250X doesn't represent the xbox one GPU because it has 2 CU less,how the fu** Pitcairn represent the xbox one when Pitcairn was 32ROP and 153gb/s which the xbox one doesn't have.
I use the R250X because regardless of having 2 less CU has about the same flop count as the xbox one,because it is a refresh 7770.
The xbox one GPU is Bonaire 7790 with 2 CU less and lower clock speed is not Pitcairn in any way,so stop your whole this doesn't represent that argument they are hypocrite when you try to pass the xbox one GPU as Pitcairn,the xbox one GPU is bonaire 7790 14 CU with 2 disable for redundancy,the PS4 is Pitcairn 7870 with 2 CU disable the fact that you still hold to that crap today say how stupid and silly your argument still are.
Prove to me Bonaire has 32 ROP and 153GB/s and you have a point,the xbox one GPU is 14 CU not 12,it has 2 disable your argument are pure bullshit.
Hell you are using the arguments of 2013 when the consoles weren't out and you were claiming that the difference would be quality wise only at the same resolution..hahahahaaha you were wrong...hahaha
No is not a workaround split render target only work when the data that will reside on DDR3 doesn't need fast bandwidth,which is why Forza 5 use it,the sky was place on ESRAM because it didn't change and was dead so it didn't require fast bandwidth,anything that need fast bandwidth can't be done by split render target.
There is no downclock R260 and by the way the R260 is 16 ROP unlike Pitcairn example you pick which was 32 and has 96GB/s not 153GB/s like the pitcairn model.
BY the way stop spinning my point is simple you compare to equal GPU using difference CPU,hell in what an i7 vs a A10 represent the PS4 vs xbox one situation.? Oh yeah in nothing you are just to butthurt and blind to see it..hahahaa
LOL I wonder how long it would be before this turned up here.
It's fake. The word frequently wouldn't be misspelt in a technical document.
@tymeservesfate owned in his own thread. @blackace is looking pretty stupid too.
It is fake i already posted the original and the link to MS own page which is where this was took from..hahahaaha
The reasons why I use Pitcairn ES for XBO
1. Duel tessellation units hence it's geometry engine power are identical with XBO. R7-250X is half of XBO's geometry engine power. My reason removes any bottlenecks from this point. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy.
2. The internal bus in XBO reassembles Pitcairn instead Cape Verde or Bonaire i.e. in single cycle, data write operation faces 256 bit interface instead of 128 bit version from Cape Verde or Bonaire. Furthermore, there's are four 256bit I/O interface for ESRAM i.e data writes width per cycle is 1024 bits wide. To write 256 bits of data against 128 bit interface would take two cycles. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy. You failed to notice fine details and you rely on basic marketing code names.
3. With larger data types, 16 ROPS already saturates XBO's memory bandwidth. This was shown with Avalanche Studios GDC 2014 presentation. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy.
4. With lesser data types, Avalanche Studios has shown a re-purposed 48 TMU as thier ROPS write operation hence saturates XBO's memory bandwidth. PS4's 32 ROPS MSAA X4 are memory bound e.g. The Order's 1920x800p was gimped by memory bandwidth which wouldn't be a problem with 7950's 32 ROPS and it's 240 GB/s memory bandwidth. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy. Your scope is limited by XBO vs PS4 when 7950 shows it's 32 ROPS are not limited by PS4's lower memory bandwidth.
5. GDC 2015's split target render presentation which combines DDR3 and ESRAM reassembles Pitcairn in terms of data write width instead of Cape Verde or Bonaire. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy.
6. ALL AMD GCNs are built from the same CU building blocks. Different SKUs changes internal bus and I/O interfaces. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy. You failed to notice fine details and you rely on basic marketing code names.
The evidence for your lack of technical knowledge when you facked-up basic PS4's memory bandwidth math.
If it doesnt work then no games will benefit, and itll be business as usual. It seems like yall XB1 haters care about this fiasco more than XB1 owners. Such fear of whats not understood.
NO it is you people that care and keep making threads about things that will not materialize,for example this one already was prove to be fake.
@tormentos:
The reasons why I use Pitcairn ES for XBO
1. Duel tessellation units hence it's geometry engine power are identical with XBO. R7-250X is half of XBO's geometry engine power. My reason removes any bottlenecks from this point. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy.
2. The internal bus in XBO reassembles Pitcairn instead Cape Verde or Bonaire i.e. in single cycle, data write operation faces 256 bit interface instead of 128 bit version from Cape Verde or Bonaire. Furthermore, there's are four 256bit I/O interface for ESRAM i.e data writes width per cycle is 1024 bits wide. To write 256 bits of data against 128 bit interface would take two cycles. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy. You failed to notice fine details and you rely on basic marketing code names.
3. With larger data types, 16 ROPS already saturates XBO's memory bandwidth. This was shown with Avalanche Studios GDC 2014 presentation. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy.
4. With lesser data types, Avalanche Studios has shown a re-purposed 48 TMU as thier ROPS write operation hence saturates XBO's memory bandwidth. PS4's 32 ROPS MSAA X4 are memory bound e.g. The Order's 1920x800p was gimped by memory bandwidth which wouldn't be a problem with 7950's 32 ROPS and it's 240 GB/s memory bandwidth. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy. Your scope is limited by XBO vs PS4 when 7950 shows it's 32 ROPS are not limited by PS4's lower memory bandwidth.
5. GDC 2015's split target render presentation which combines DDR3 and ESRAM reassembles Pitcairn in terms of data write width instead of Cape Verde or Bonaire. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy.
6. ALL AMD GCNs are built from the same CU building blocks. Different SKUs changes internal bus and I/O interfaces. Your reason is just bias blind fan boy. You failed to notice fine details and you rely on basic marketing code names.
The evidence for your lack of technical knowledge when you facked-up basic PS4's memory bandwidth math.
1-Yeah i guess that mean i should use Tonga on my next comparison you know,since it has 8 ACES like the PS4.
This ^^ is what you did now,i am just doing what you did,so don't argue against me about it is your argument.
2-Is Bonaire with 256 bit bus and 16 ROP,just like the PS4 is Pitcairn with Tonga Aces count it mean nothing this GPU were slightly modify that doesn't mean the PS4 GPU will have the performance of Tonga in their high end GPU.
Details mean shit actual performance is what matter,and the 7770 is most of the time spot on or over the xbox one in performance regardless of having a bigger bus and more bandwidth the problem is that a GPU with the flop count on PC doesn't have 150GB/s it has 72GB/s which is basically half if AMD uses a 256 bit bus and a 150GB/s the 7770 still would not come close to a 7850 period those 2 features what allow is the GPU to run more freely problem is the xbox one has a wimpy GPU which can't run much.
So it can have 400GB/s the end result would be the same and I ALREADY PROVE IT SINCE THAT ARGUMENT YOU USE IT YEARS AGO AND WAS WRONG,should i quote you using your derange arguments about how the xbox one wasn't a 7770 because it had more bandwidth and bigger bus..? then quote the benchmarks were the 7770 beat the xbox one silly.?
Exhibit A.
Detail mean shit end result is what speak here a 7770 running Ryse at higher resolution and frames than the xbox one.
And this is a game made first for the xbox one than for PC by a very capable company.
3-I think you are about to get owned again....
PS4 GPU Can Handle 64bit Path, Xbox One Must Render 32bit To Avoid Bandwidth Issues.
“On the XB1, if we are rendering to ESRAM, 64bit just about hits the crossover point between ROP and bandwidth-bound.
But even if we render to the relatively slow DDR3 memory, we will still be ROP-bound if the render-target is a typical 32bit texture.”
Read more at http://gamingbolt.com/ps4-gpu-can-handle-64bit-path-xbox-one-must-render-32bit-to-avoid-bandwidth-issues#HLpAbSOigmq4Akv5.99
Avalanche Studios...lol
The xbox one can become ROP bound.
This was proven already the xbox one can become ROP bound.
4-Proven the xbox one can become ROP bound and the same developer state it,funny how you always want to go against the current.
5-That work on some scenarios,opn Forza 5 for example it uses split render targets the sky on Forza in Forza 5 is dead,so they place it on DDR3 because it worked on DDR3 bandwidth which is split,the xbox one GPU doesn't have 68GB/s + 109GB/s it had 38GB/s + 109GB/s The CPU and system of the xbox one use 30GB/s from the main ram pool of DDR3 so the GPU can't use all 68GB/s only a portion so anything there must not require fast bandwidth,split render target will not probably bring Frostbite 3 from 720p because the number of effects that require fast bandwidth is too much.
No they don't resemble pitcairn which has a sole bandwidth of 153GB/s which allow the GPU to use any effect that require high bandwidth and the only problem would be power to run them,on xbox one bandwidth has a limited use because on split render target you can't use both pools for process that require fast ones,which also requires more work by the way.
6-Yes they are but there are specific models already done,the xbox one is Bonaire 7790 which is the only GPU with 14 CU on GCN for that time,the PS4 Pitcairn 7870 with 2 CU disable as well.
So you are arguing something already proven,7790 with 2 CU disable and lower clock speed,it retain the 7790 16 ROP while 256 bit bus was added instead of 128 bit one.
Evidence of my lack of knowledge.?
@ronvalencia said:
XBO's split render target (frame buffer write DDR3 68 GB/s + ESRAM 104 GB/s) + 48 TMU workaround for 16 ROPS. + dual tessellation units ~= Pitcairn ES's 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.Avalanche Studios (Mad Max) has devised the 16 ROPS workaround with 48 TMUs i.e. memory bandwidth bound.
Evidence of your lack of knowledge.
The xbox one split render target method can't use 68GB/s + 104GB/s ESRAM,the xbox one CPU and system have reserve 30GB/s from the main DDR3 pool,which mean you can get 30GB/s + 68GB/s for the GPU because the maximum is 68GB/s so if the CPU takes 30GB/s that leave you with 38GB/s ill wait while you claim it was a mistake or ignore it..
Yeah 30GB/s for systems you just claim falsely that is 68GB/s + 104GB/s...lol
Talking about messing up i guess next time you quote me with that shit you are getting quoted with the same memory error as well.
Seriously, you're calling someone dumb when you talk like this?.... lol WTF.
Natural selection failed when it let you slip through the cracks torfaggo.
I see someone is anal about the thread been debunked...hahahahaaaa
@tormentos:
PC end-users can down clock their R7-260 from the control panel or from MSI Afterburner tool. AMD has not block end user's ability to change GPU clock speeds and this is part of being a gaming PC owner.
I use MSI Afterburner tool to under-clock and overclock my Samsung ATIV Book 8 laptop's 8870M to 850Mhz GPU and memory to 1250Mhz (GDD5-5000Mhz) hence exceeding R9-M370X configuration.
I didn't say you can't down clock it,i say it doesn't come downclock which is true..
I have a R270 and afterburner as well dude i know,you are arguing something i didn't imply.
oh god i will punch a baby in the face if he brings up projet cars again, so help me god!
Na i did better i debunked the thread as fake my dear troll lemming account..hahahaa
Holy crap! Is the article not fake? If it is then lets call it what it is and move one. Every thread goes the same way. No proof is given, only more speculation. Wait for official benchmarks already...
It is fake but lemming pretend they don't see it then fools get enrage and claim i am wrong and don't know anything..hahahaha
I know I'll regret this, but tormentos, I don't think you have any idea what an API is for...
xbox's API's have the same interface as desktop API's but also have extensions for xbox because it does have customized hardware dev's need access too. MS doesn't implement the directx drivers, they just make a specification for hardware manufacturer's to do so. With xbox they probably write the implementation in this case. Its an abstraction layer and how slim it it depends on the back end implementation which would likely be highly optimized version of directx for consoles.
Wasn't established already.? API is for learning how to turn petroleum into gasoline i think... That is what i read when i search for it look...
http://www.americanpetroleuminstitute.com/
API stand for American Petroleum Institute.
Now if the xbox one runs on 81 octane and the PS4 uses nothing but 93 octane so no matter where are you driving to the PS4 will always last longer on the same amount of fuel... See...
well you confirmed it, an api when talking about software has nothing to do with petroleum, and your argument complete nonsense.
I know I'll regret this, but tormentos, I don't think you have any idea what an API is for...
xbox's API's have the same interface as desktop API's but also have extensions for xbox because it does have customized hardware dev's need access too. MS doesn't implement the directx drivers, they just make a specification for hardware manufacturer's to do so. With xbox they probably write the implementation in this case. Its an abstraction layer and how slim it it depends on the back end implementation which would likely be highly optimized version of directx for consoles.
Wasn't established already.? API is for learning how to turn petroleum into gasoline i think... That is what i read when i search for it look...
http://www.americanpetroleuminstitute.com/
API stand for American Petroleum Institute.
Now if the xbox one runs on 81 octane and the PS4 uses nothing but 93 octane so no matter where are you driving to the PS4 will always last longer on the same amount of fuel... See...
well you confirmed it, an api when talking about software has nothing to do with petroleum, and your argument complete nonsense.
I know the point, your completely ignoring my response which is what confirms how stupid you are. If you can't argue with some insane stretch of logic you outright dismiss it.
PS4 doesn't have
1. 28 CUs, Tonga has 32 CUs but they are reserve for Apple iMacs and high end mobile GPUs.
2. Quad tessellation units, <---- this indicates a newer GCN design. PS4 is limited to dual tessellation units.
3. ROPS delta compression/decompression. R9-285's 3DMarks Vantage Color Fill score beats R9-280X.
This ^^ is what you did now,i am just doing what you did,so don't argue against me about it is your argument.
Bullshit. You haven't matched the active CU count and tessellation units.
2-Is Bonaire with 256 bit bus and 16 ROP,just like the PS4 is Pitcairn with Tonga Aces count it mean nothing this GPU were slightly modify that doesn't mean the PS4 GPU will have the performance of Tonga in their high end GPU.
Flawed argument setup since you haven't factored in
1. Tonga has 28 CUs,
2. Quad tessellation units, <---- this indicates a newer GCN design. PS4 is limited to Bonaire/Pitcairn's dual tessellation units.
3. ROPS delta compression/decompression. R9-285's 3DMarks Vantage Color Fill score beats R9-280X.
The xbox one can become ROP bound.
Both myself and Microsoft has argued XBO can be memory bandwidth bound with higher data types.
Again, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-microsoft-to-unlock-more-gpu-power-for-xbox-one-developers
"For example, consider a typical game scenario where the render target is 32bpp [bits per pixel] and blending is disabled, and the depth/stencil surface is 32bpp with Z [depth] enabled. That amount to 12 bytes of bandwidth needed per pixel drawn (eight bytes write, four bytes read). At our peak fill-rate of 13.65GPixels/s that adds up to 164GB/s of real bandwidth that is needed which pretty much saturates our ESRAM bandwidth. In this case, even if we had doubled the number of ROPs, the effective fill-rate would not have changed because we would be bottlenecked on bandwidth. In other words, we balanced our ROPs to our bandwidth for our target scenarios."
Avalanche Studios' presentation backs Microsoft's argument for higher data types.
For lower data types, Avalanche Studios' presentation has 48 TMU workaround for 16 ROPS (effectively 17 ROPS at 800Mhz).
4-Proven the xbox one can become ROP bound and the same developer state it,funny how you always want to go against the current.
Wrong, Both myself and Microsoft has argued XBO can be memory bandwidth bound with higher data types. I have posted .http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-microsoft-to-unlock-more-gpu-power-for-xbox-one-developers link multiple times.
I have stated that arguing for 32 ROPS alone are useless without factoring memory bandwidth. I have always pointed to you the 7950/7970's 32 ROPS as counter argument against PS4's 32 ROPS.
5-That work on some scenarios,opn Forza 5 for example it uses split render targets the sky on Forza in Forza 5 is dead,so they place it on DDR3 because it worked on DDR3 bandwidth which is split,the xbox one GPU doesn't have 68GB/s + 109GB/s it had 38GB/s + 109GB/s The CPU and system of the xbox one use 30GB/s from the main ram pool of DDR3 so the GPU can't use all 68GB/s only a portion so anything there must not require fast bandwidth,split render target will not probably bring Frostbite 3 from 720p because the number of effects that require fast bandwidth is too much.
Don't be a hypocrite i.e. Sony has posted pure GPU memory usage benchmarks. The memory handling from one console would be similar to another console but with different bandwidth number values.
The only time GPU can use the entire memory bandwidth is when CPU communicates with GPU via the Onion links i.e. CPUs doesn't access the DDR3/GDDR5 memory.
For GPU's DDR3, the theoretical peak 68 GB/s with real world result's 54 GB/s i.e. 80 percent. Have you forgotten 54 GB/s against 68 GB/s?
GDC 2015's example is not just rendering the sky segment. GDC 2015 split render targets presentation introduces the new ESRAM APIs that replaced the old "harder to use" ESRAM APIs.
Talking about messing up i guess next time you quote me with that shit you are getting quoted with the same memory error as well.
The only person who messed up is you.
Have you forgotten real world DDR3's 54 GB/s against 68 GB/s?
Have you forgotten there's a link between GPU and CPU?
Details mean shit actual performance is what matter,and the 7770 is most of the time spot on or over the xbox one in performance regardless of having a bigger bus and more bandwidth the problem is that a GPU with the flop count on PC doesn't have 150GB/s it has 72GB/s which is basically half if AMD uses a 256 bit bus and a 150GB/s the 7770 still would not come close to a 7850 period those 2 features what allow is the GPU to run more freely problem is the xbox one has a wimpy GPU which can't run much.
Spot on you say? There's are several multi-platform games that both consoles failed to reach PC's 7770 results.
1-Oh really because the xbox one doesn't have The ROP or bandwidth as Pitcairn and you certainly didn't match them either...
So again is your argument owning you.
2-Flawed my ass you walking salami,i used your bullshit ass argument against you,the xbox one doesn't have 153GB'/s bandwidth nor has 32 ROP so is not PITCAIRN PERIOD,just like the PS4 doesn't have 28CU,and 240GB/s either.
3-What MS argue there was damage control on one side they argue that they would be bandwidth bound at 165GB/s but on another claimed 204GB/s bandwidth,there is nothing balance about the xbox one is pure bullshit and damage control fact is at 16 ROP the xbox one becomes even more ROP bound that at 32ROP period more at 1080p.
4-
Avalanche >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You..
ROP bound in 2 out of 3 scenarios and on of of those both memory and ROP bound.
5-Hypocrite.? Yo u are the one inventing shit and adding things where they are not,quote sony saying the PS4 usable bandwidth is 140GB/s or your full of shit,the only thing you have is an old graph from before the console was even release,funny how the xbox one can improve everything but some how sony can't right.?
Prove it because even that chart you use doesn't say maximum is 140GB/s in reality all it does is illustrate how the CPU can consume bandwidth disproportionaly in some ways.
Hahahaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... Nice way to damage control my argument,you claim 68GB/s + 104GB/s for split rendering fool,that is impossible because the system use 30GB/s from the main pool of ram,in other words is 104GB/s + 38GB/s which would be a total of 142GB/s. is lower than pitcairn by 11GB/s.The argument wasn't about how much you can get from the 68GB/s which you claim is 54GB/s is about you claiming 68GB + 104 GB which is impossible as that would leave both the CPU and system without any bandwidth fool.
The only person who messed up is you.
Have you forgotten real world DDR3's 54 GB/s against 68 GB/s?
Have you forgotten there's a link between GPU and CPU?
No it is you because it was you who claim 68GB/s + 104GB/s not me you walking salami.
@ronvalencia said:
XBO's split render target (frame buffer write DDR3 68 GB/s + ESRAM 104 GB/s) + 48 TMU workaround for 16 ROPS. + dual tessellation units ~= Pitcairn ES's 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth.Avalanche Studios (Mad Max) has devised the 16 ROPS workaround with 48 TMUs i.e. memory bandwidth bound.
You claimed this ^^^^^ this is False you claimed 68GB/s not 54GB/s it was you,you claimed that false shit,the true is split render target can operate at 142GB/s peak because the cpu uses 30GB/s of the main pool of ram you mess up your math and you are now claiming that 54GB/s is what you can get from 68GB/s the problem is i never argue that it so you are deviating the argument again you downplay the fact that you were wrong,in fact been 54GB/s works even worse against you and your argument about pitcairn.
Problem is Ryse wasn't a multiplatform you fool Ryse was an exclusive xbox one game that was ported to PC..hahahaa
So basically you have no argument,the 7770 beat the xbox one in Ryse period.
I know the point, your completely ignoring my response which is what confirms how stupid you are. If you can't argue with some insane stretch of logic you outright dismiss it.
Na i just trolled you dude,i know what an API is what it does and how legacy can ruin its performance we have experience it for years on Consoles vs PC.
Log in to comment