@navyguy21 said:
@tormentos said:
@navyguy21 said:
Again, so
MS says there is little difference: Fairy tale spun by CEOs
Sony says "Teh Cell/only possible on PS3: Teh truth cuz sony said so
The situation this gen is entirely comparable to last gen. Early on, PS3 had the weaker multiplats because of the unorthodox architecture. Now its XB1. 360 was easier to program for, now its PS4. PS4 has the better GPU, last gen it was 360.
Bottom line is as devs optimize for move engines and ESRAM, multiplats will be the same........just as they were last gen (later in the cycle). Exclusives will still make use of the system as a whole. PS4 has better specs, but right now, the industry says Ryse is the best looking game. That will surely change, but it proves tech specs dont tell the whole story. PS4 has higher framerates because of the simplicity of its design, NOT because it is more powerful. I have a degree in software develpment (not games, admittedly), i can tell you first hand that the differences arent as big as fanboys are making them out to be.
Hell, even Sony isnt touting hardware this gen as they were last gen. Its like everyone except cows know this. Now, PS4 is my chosen console, but i made that decision because of GAMES and Sonys first party. But i can honestly admit that the XB1 isnt that far behind.
What is unorthodox in the xbox one hardware.?
ESRAM is the only problem there and the xbox 360 had EDRAM which was actually worse than ESRAM which on xbox one is more flexible,the real problem with the xbox one,is the memory structure is not as straight forward as the PS4 memory is.
There is no fixing that unless they make a new xbox one hardware without ESRAM and with GDDR5,DDr3 doesn't have the speed and ESRAM is not suitable for all the data the game has,not everything fit there and demand another approach which will not warranty either that the console perform much better.
Is not even close to be the same as the PS3,the xbox 360 had a stronger GPU,but the PS3 had a stronger CPU that could help the GPU with some task actually freeing GPU resources on the xbox 360 the xenos did almost everything on PS3 Cell did several things the RSX did another it was a case of 2 vs 1,which helped the PS3,the first PS3 games didn't use SPE so performance was bad,but regardless of not using it the power was there to be exploited,the xbox one doesn't have something like that it doesn't have extra power hidden that need to be untap,the xbox one has the same CPU as the PS4 clock 100 mhz faster,even so test show the PS4 CPU out performs it,maybe thanks to the PS4 true HSA nature,the GPU is strong on the PS4 660Gflops which is a bigger gap than what the Xenos had on the RSX.
ESRAM and MOve engines don't produce power,Cell did this is where the difference strike and your argument falls apart the PS4 also have a move engine,is call DMA,then adding to this is the PS4 more custom hardware for compute which will pay of even more latter on.
Ryse is a joke of a game and they have to sacrifice space,resolution to make it look like that,fact is Ryse running on PS4 would look better and be 1080p with faster frames,If Uncharted 4 is build by Sony like Ryse with extremely enclosed areas extreme Fog an been 900p with sub 30 FPS it will look way way better than Ryse,Ryse is a 3rd person game and can even hit 1080p,all it has is great looking models,Killzone SF look just as good,is 1080p and has faster frames.
Every engine running on PS4 runs faster Ryse one is no different,the game is not just make for PS4,there is no this game can't run on PS4 crap,every game the xbox one can run the PS4 can run it with the same visuals or better faster or at higher resolutions while been faster,the PS4 and xbox one have the same CPU and GPU from the same family is GCN the stronger one always performs better.
Yeah your right they has just been saying we have build the most powerful console ever,every time they have a chance.
30 vs 60 is a nice power gap a really nice one,that is not 50% more is 100% more,even 20FPS was over 50%.
That is a VERY simplistic way of looking at it.
A part of me feels like you are open to discussion, but your posting history says otherwise......so im not sure how to proceed.
Im being genuine here. I know that you are a Sony fanboy and you dont try to hide it......which is good.
So do you really want me to explain or are you going to just ignore what i say.
Again, its an honest question, not trying to set you up or be a jerk. I just dont like to waste my time explaining only to have people ignore it because its not what they want to hear. (i apologize if this comes off the wrong way)
Looking at the specs alone then these are the scenarios I was expecting before the consoles launched on the assumption that the ESRAM when utilised in the correct manner would be equivalent to the GDDR5.
a) 900p vs 1080p with frame rate parity
b) 40fps vs 60fps with graphical parity
c) something inbetween the above.
d) total parity in games that do not push the X1 fully.
Now with the information we have it seems that the gap is larger than this in some games (COD 720p vs 1080p, BF4 900p vs 1080p with higher FPS) and as predicted in others (ACIV black Flag 900p vs 1080p with frame rate parity).
Tomb Raider is likely to be in region B in all honesty, if it peaks at 45FPS on the X1 and spends most of its time in the 30's then it will likely average 35FPS and the PS4 version if spending most of its time around the 60's with some dips will probably average around 55FPS which is pretty much bang on the predictions I made when the spec sheets were confirmed to be accurate.
Now the question is will the gap increase or decrease? I think the answer to that depends on the game itself. I do not think the gap will ever be smaller than the first 3 scenarios above provided the developers are pushing the hardware. I expect fewer cases of 720p vs 1080p or 900p vs 1080p with higher frame rates to occur now we are out of the launch window but as we start to move away from cross gen games and games start using engines that take advantage of HSA I can see it widening again.
Lets take scenario where a game is designed and it uses 128 SPs (2 CU's worth) for compute purposes.
On the X1 you have 768 SPs, after the 10% reserve that leave 691 SPs for rendering and compute. Take off the compute and you have 563 SPs for rendering which is 960 GFlops (0.96 TFlops).
On the PS4 you have 1152 SPs, there is no known GPU reserve on the PS4 so after taking off the ones used for compute leaves 1024 SPs for rendering which is 1.64 TFlops.
That gives the PS4 a 71% rendering advantage. Now this is assuming 100% utilisation which is unrealistic in a real world scenario but this just fact puts the X1 further behind because the PS4 has another trick up its sleeve in the form of the 64 job compute queue.
It enables the devs to make the compute jobs smaller so each individual job requires fewer SPs. As rendering is never 100% efficient each CU will have some SPs contained inside unused, if there are enough available for a job to run on they can be utilised. What this will mean is that not only does the PS4 GPU have more brute force power than the X1 GPU but when doing HSA it is likely to be able to achieve a higher utilisation rate making the effect gap between the X1 and the PS4 larger than it already is.
In the scenario above it is possible that the devs can make it so that they have 32 compute jobs which on average use up 4SPs each, on the X1 they are forced to use 4 jobs because that is the maximum size of the queue meaning each job will on average use 32 SPs each making it much harder to fit those jobs around rendering and reducing utilisation of the GPU resources.
I can imagine when devs get to the optimisation stage that they will have a team working on optimising the ESRAM on the X1 and another team working on optimising compute on the PS4 to maximise utilisation.
These comparisons to last gen do not hold because the PS3 and the Xbox 360 had pretty similar amounts of performance in total, what differed is how they achieved it and the PS3 went about it in a much more convoluted way. This time around not only does the X1 have a more convoluted path to reaching optimum performance but it has less performance than the PS4 as well.
Log in to comment