I really can't tell by looking on my laptop, so does anyone have first hand experience on how much better the PS4 and XBOX1 is to the PS3 and Xbox360 graphically?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I really can't tell by looking on my laptop, so does anyone have first hand experience on how much better the PS4 and XBOX1 is to the PS3 and Xbox360 graphically?
I really can't tell by looking on my laptop, so does anyone have first hand experience on how much better the PS4 and XBOX1 is to the PS3 and Xbox360 graphically?
illmatic8582
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-8790m-mars-benchmark,3382-7.html
Radeon HD 8790M ( 384 stream processors @ 850Mhz).
VS
Radeon HD 7670M (480 stream processors @ 600 MHz)
My 5730M(renamed to 6570M, 400 stream processors @ 650Mhz) beats Xbox 360 and PS3.
I'll post another 768 stream processor GCN, but with lower memory specs i.e. AMD FirePro W5000 SKU. X1's 768 stream processors @ 800mhz,
Notice FirePro W5000's 102 GB/s video memory bandwidth almost matches VGLeaks' eSRAM memory bandwidth.
Some gaming benchmarks for AMD FirePro W5000.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/workstation-graphics-card-gaming,review-32643-9.html
7850 = 45.
W5000 = 33.
With Crysis 2, ROPs issue is minor i.e. 10 CU scale down from 7870 GE's results roughly matches 7770 GE's results.
7870 GE's 52.3 fps / 20 CUs = 2.615 x 10 CUs = 26.15 fps which roughly matches 7770's 25.9 fps result. My scale down theory and actual results works
FirePro W5000's 12 CUs (825 Mhz) scales down from Radeon HD 7850's 16 CUs (860 Mhz).
7850's 45.3 fps / 16 CUs (860Mhz) = 2.831 x 8 CUs = 22.65 fps which roughly matches 7750's 21.5 fps result. 7750 is clocked at 800Mhz. Again, my scale down theory and actual results works.
If we use the 7850 and 7750 as the two points for the "line of best fit", FirePro W5000 falls into the expected slot for scaled 12 CUs @ ~800 Mhz.
From 7850(860Mhz, 16 CU, 64 TMU, 2 primitives/cycle), 7770 doesn't fall into 12 CU scale down like W5000 (825 Mhz, 12 CU, 48 TMU, 2 primitives/cycle).
1. 7770's has "one primitive per clock".
2. 7790 process two primitives per clock which the same as Tahiti's and Pitcairn's 2 primitives per clock. According to VGLeaks data, Durangos front end was capable of issuing up to two primitives per clock like Tahiti and Pitcairn.
3. 7770 has a maximum of 72GB/s memory bandwidth. Via VGleaks, X1's GCN has 68 GB/s for DDR3, + 102/s GB for ESRAM + effective bandwidth from JIT LZ/JPEG hardware compression/decompression. W5000 has 102 GB/s memory bandwidth.
4. L2 cache is linked to memory controller count. According to VGleaks, X1 has 256bit wide links to it's DDR3 memory.
http://i.neoseeker.com/a/AMD_HD_7870_7850/Cache%20Hierarchy.png
PS4 is listed as 1.84. official E3 specs - http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/130611a_e.pdf
[QUOTE="illmatic8582"]
I really can't tell by looking on my laptop, so does anyone have first hand experience on how much better the PS4 and XBOX1 is to the PS3 and Xbox360 graphically?
ronvalencia
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-8790m-mars-benchmark,3382-7.html
Radeon HD 8790M ( 384 stream processors @ 850Mhz).
VS
Radeon HD 7670M (480 stream processors @ 600 MHz)
My 5730M(renamed to 6570M, 400 stream processors @ 650Mhz) beats Xbox 360 and PS3.
I'll post another 768 stream processor GCN, but with lower memory specs i.e. AMD FirePro W5000 SKU. X1's 768 stream processors @ 800mhz,
Notice FirePro W5000's 102 GB/s video memory bandwidth almost matches VGLeaks' eSRAM memory bandwidth.
Some gaming benchmarks for AMD FirePro W5000.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/workstation-graphics-card-gaming,review-32643-9.html
7850 = 45.
W5000 = 33.
With Crysis 2, ROPs issue is minor i.e. 10 CU scale down from 7870 GE's results roughly matches 7770 GE's results.
7870 GE's 52.3 fps / 20 CUs = 2.615 x 10 CUs = 26.15 fps which roughly matches 7770's 25.9 fps result. My scale down theory and actual results works
FirePro W5000's 12 CUs (825 Mhz) scales down from Radeon HD 7850's 16 CUs (860 Mhz).
7850's 45.3 fps / 16 CUs (860Mhz) = 2.831 x 8 CUs = 22.65 fps which roughly matches 7750's 21.5 fps result. 7750 is clocked at 800Mhz. Again, my scale down theory and actual results works.
If we use the 7850 and 7750 as the two points for the "line of best fit", FirePro W5000 falls into the expected slot for scaled 12 CUs @ ~800 Mhz.
From 7850(860Mhz, 16 CU, 64 TMU, 2 primitives/cycle), 7770 doesn't fall into 12 CU scale down like W5000 (825 Mhz, 12 CU, 48 TMU, 2 primitives/cycle).
1. 7770's has "one primitive per clock".
2. 7790 process two primitives per clock which the same as Tahiti's and Pitcairn's 2 primitives per clock. According to VGLeaks data, Durangos front end was capable of issuing up to two primitives per clock like Tahiti and Pitcairn.
3. 7770 has a maximum of 72GB/s memory bandwidth. Via VGleaks, X1's GCN has 68 GB/s for DDR3, + 102/s GB for ESRAM + effective bandwidth from JIT LZ/JPEG hardware compression/decompression. W5000 has 102 GB/s memory bandwidth.
4. L2 cache is linked to memory controller count. According to VGleaks, X1 has 256bit wide links to it's DDR3 memory.
http://i.neoseeker.com/a/AMD_HD_7870_7850/Cache%20Hierarchy.png
PS4 is listed as 1.84. official E3 specs - http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/130611a_e.pdf
FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE!!!! I'm not reading that crap[QUOTE="illmatic8582"]
I really can't tell by looking on my laptop, so does anyone have first hand experience on how much better the PS4 and XBOX1 is to the PS3 and Xbox360 graphically?
ronvalencia
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-8790m-mars-benchmark,3382-7.html
Radeon HD 8790M ( 384 stream processors @ 850Mhz).
VS
Radeon HD 7670M (480 stream processors @ 600 MHz)
My 5730M(renamed to 6570M, 400 stream processors @ 650Mhz) beats Xbox 360 and PS3.
I'll post another 768 stream processor GCN, but with lower memory specs i.e. AMD FirePro W5000 SKU. X1's 768 stream processors @ 800mhz,
Notice FirePro W5000's 102 GB/s video memory bandwidth almost matches VGLeaks' eSRAM memory bandwidth.
Some gaming benchmarks for AMD FirePro W5000.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/workstation-graphics-card-gaming,review-32643-9.html
7850 = 45.
W5000 = 33.
With Crysis 2, ROPs issue is minor i.e. 10 CU scale down from 7870 GE's results roughly matches 7770 GE's results.
7870 GE's 52.3 fps / 20 CUs = 2.615 x 10 CUs = 26.15 fps which roughly matches 7770's 25.9 fps result. My scale down theory and actual results works
FirePro W5000's 12 CUs (825 Mhz) scales down from Radeon HD 7850's 16 CUs (860 Mhz).
7850's 45.3 fps / 16 CUs (860Mhz) = 2.831 x 8 CUs = 22.65 fps which roughly matches 7750's 21.5 fps result. 7750 is clocked at 800Mhz. Again, my scale down theory and actual results works.
If we use the 7850 and 7750 as the two points for the "line of best fit", FirePro W5000 falls into the expected slot for scaled 12 CUs @ ~800 Mhz.
From 7850(860Mhz, 16 CU, 64 TMU, 2 primitives/cycle), 7770 doesn't fall into 12 CU scale down like W5000 (825 Mhz, 12 CU, 48 TMU, 2 primitives/cycle).
1. 7770's has "one primitive per clock".
2. 7790 process two primitives per clock which the same as Tahiti's and Pitcairn's 2 primitives per clock. According to VGLeaks data, Durangos front end was capable of issuing up to two primitives per clock like Tahiti and Pitcairn.
3. 7770 has a maximum of 72GB/s memory bandwidth. Via VGleaks, X1's GCN has 68 GB/s for DDR3, + 102/s GB for ESRAM + effective bandwidth from JIT LZ/JPEG hardware compression/decompression. W5000 has 102 GB/s memory bandwidth.
4. L2 cache is linked to memory controller count. According to VGleaks, X1 has 256bit wide links to it's DDR3 memory.
http://i.neoseeker.com/a/AMD_HD_7870_7850/Cache%20Hierarchy.png
PS4 is listed as 1.84. official E3 specs - http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/130611a_e.pdf
Benchmarks mean nothing.Compared to PS3/360, I'm definitely pleased with the PS4 at least..... That's based on the previews we've seen so far.
i dont have any first hand knowledge as OP is asking, But its pretty much well known out there that the PS4 has a 1.84 teraflop GPU and the Xbone has a 1.24 Teraflop gpu.Â
Â
So by understanding that, the PS4 is infact stronger.
Â
Now performance alone wont make better looking games, It also depends on how well optimized a game engine is.. Â Â Example, For some reason Drive Club on ps4 looks downright ugly and is at 30 frames per second, Â While Forza 5 looks much better an is at 60 frames per second. Â Â That to me showcases that the Forza 5 devs know how to CODE a game, whereas the Drive Club Devs are amateurs or really sucky at their job.Â
If you put Forza 5 on the ps4, it would give more performance than the Xbone.Â
Â
So basically Ps4 is stronger, But that isnt going to result in better looking games.. Â Â Â How well optimized a game engine is has the most amount of effect. Â Â This is why Cry Engine 3 can push really good looking graphics with medicore performance specs, and then some crap like drive club is struggling because the game engine they built it on sucks.Â
Â
Infamous is probably Sony's best looking Ps4 game as of yet.Â
360 GPU = 240 Gigaflops
PS3 GPU = 176 Gigaflops
XBO GPU = 1.23 Teraflops
PS4 GPU = 1.84 Teraflops
1,000 Gigaflops = 1 Teraflop
1,230 divided by 240 = 5.125 x more powerfull then 360.
1,840 divided by 176 = 10.45 x more powerfull then PS3.
Now lets look at PS4 GPU vs 360's.
1,840 Divided by 240 = 7.666 x more powerful then 360.
PS4 has around an extra 2 360 consoles of power when compaired to XBO.
umm....ok... Has anyone seen the new consoles on a hdtv running? Are the graphics much better? If you have not seen it live please ignore. Not looking for specsillmatic8582
You will not see much of a diff... CONSOLE ARE NOT LAUNCHED YET! Launch games are also NOT representative of final looks.
Give it a few years and you'll start to see the separation. PS4 is more powerful then XBO.
All we got is the specs right now to go on.
and here we go ronvalencia with his graphs.... legalize82
You seem oddly familiar with his posting style for a level 10
Yes360 GPU = 240 Gigaflops
PS3 GPU = 176 Gigaflops
XBO GPU = 1.23 Teraflops
PS4 GPU = 1.84 Teraflops
1,000 Gigaflops = 1 Teraflop
1,230 divided by 240 = 5.125 x more powerfull then 360.
1,840 divided by 176 = 10.45 x more powerfull then PS3.
Now lets look at PS4 GPU vs 360's.
1,840 Divided by 240 = 7.666 x more powerful then 360.
PS4 has around an extra 2 360 consoles of power when compaired to XBO.
Â
Truth_Hurts_U
Thanks. Only got an answer after 15 plus responses....Most of you guys have no reading comprehension skills. Amateurs.Killzone Shadowfall is looking gorgeous on PS4 since it's an exclusive. Multi plats are looking the same since devs don't care to make one better than the other.Â
This is what I've read, which is all any of us have to go off of.Â
clr84651
I'm not sure if I'm pleased to the point where I need to buy a new $400 console.illmatic8582
Its all about the games dude. Sure it still cant do a constant 30 fps on a current gen game like battlefield 3 but hey a whole new gen of exclusives, that has to be worth something.
For one, both consoles will be taking advantage of newer engines.I really can't tell by looking on my laptop, so does anyone have first hand experience on how much better the PS4 and XBOX1 is to the PS3 and Xbox360 graphically?
illmatic8582
360 GPU = 240 Gigaflops
PS3 GPU = 176 Gigaflops
XBO GPU = 1.23 Teraflops
PS4 GPU = 1.84 Teraflops
1,000 Gigaflops = 1 Teraflop
1,230 divided by 240 = 5.125 x more powerfull then 360.
1,840 divided by 176 = 10.45 x more powerfull then PS3.
Now lets look at PS4 GPU vs 360's.
1,840 Divided by 240 = 7.666 x more powerful then 360.
PS4 has around an extra 2 360 consoles of power when compaired to XBO.
Truth_Hurts_U
The awesome thing about cows, is they always forget that the PS4 & XB1 numbers are "theoretical". And, until real engineers get their hands on the released product, those numbers are should be taken with a grain of salt.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment