-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EDGE: "Power struggle: the real differences between PS4 and Xbox One performance"
- Thread starter Musiol
- Start date
Microsoft is also latching onto same kind of hopes ..
The PS3 had all of it's advantage power wise tied up in Cell, to get a benefit you needed to program some of the graphical load onto the SPEs (and it's GPU was still not as good as the 360 GPU).
The PS4 on the other hand has it's power in a much faster GPU and thus no custom rendering code has to be programmed for it to be faster.
How many damn times does it need to be said?!
There was a thread dedicated to developer testimonies but that got locked.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
He also called bullshit on the claim that the One had been upclocked. Wouldn't place too much weight in his posts.
Sounds about right, we just can't have nice things.
source?
That kind of stuff he's less likely to know about (only Microsoft internal would). But asking to not put too much weight on the opinion of a third party developer on matters of console performance capability seems rather senseless.
Rest assured the mods will have done the regular checks etc to see if he's the real deal, otherwise he'd have been banned long ago.
Is Matt someone who would know for sure?
Thanks, this seems to pretty much confirm to me that the problems with the PS3's architecture are with the Cell and split RAM and not the RSX. Unsurprising that Sony dropped the exotic CPU and stuck with the PC-like GPU for PS4, really.
Dictator93
Member
Admin back insiders are something that are hard to doubt, IMO.
Audible Phonetics
Member
This thread has over 5000 posts crazy lol
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
I'm pretty sure a third party dev would know about an upclock. He certainly wouldn't outright dismiss it.
Not before it happened they wouldn't. It's quite obvious the upclock was a very recent and highly reactionary development. So there's no way he could know really. Obviously it was not a very likely occurrence, but I guess Microsoft decided they needed to do what they could to improve performance even late game.
Similar to how Sony's switch to 8GB ram caught a lot of devs off guard too, even first party one's.
boredandlazy
Member
Devs didn't know about the 8GB of GDDR5 either. Sometimes things just happen that catches people by surprise.
Just like you'd be pretty sure developers would know the PS4 would have 8GB of ram from day one.
Things change.
Keep living in denial... I'm sure the MS PR that frequent this site will be more than happy to twist your mind with words like "balanced" and "cloud". I'd have a lot more respect for them if they would simply admit that the XB1 isn't as powerful, but the games will be good.
Instead of trying to convince us that they have a machine just as powerful, and throwing their credibility down the toilet constantly with stupid PR statements.
Wouldn't ya know it...
A first party dev would be more privy to that kind of info. He and other 3rd parties may very well have learned about the upclock at the same time as everyone else, or he might not be close enough to MS relations within his team to have known it was going to happen.
EDIT: And yeah, lol 8GB GDDR5.
Whiteshirt
Member
While this may or may not be true, keep in mind Sony's first party definitely were caught out by 8GB of GDDR5 memory. And here we're talking about first party developers, not third party developers.
Even once the consoles are released were not going to have any closure on this. If I am understanding things correctly, the Devs for PS4 only knew about the 4 extra gigs of RAM since February. So they have had very little time to really make use of that extra power. The Xbox One isn't really maximizing their potential either due to not being able to fully utilize "The Cloud", and their more complex construction. We're going to be at least the next holidays releases before we are going to see a difference. Not even necessarily then TBH. If the XB1 successfully recovers from their early PR blunders, and somehow manages to maintain parody with Sony in console sales. Titanfall explodes into some kind of mega game like HALO. We're looking at Devs having little choice but to ignore the specs and just port games to PS4, like they did this past generation. I have heard this in other threads. XB1 isn't going to be ignored no matter what the specs are. MS has too much influence with the big players. So a weaker XB1 could be the worst possible news for PS4 owners. Especially early adopters.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm trying to find this and can't? There's a comment where he affirms XB1 yield issues? Is that what you're talking about? That's the only thread I recall that had upclock rumors regarding the XB1.
EDIT:
Is this what you're talking about?
It's from June, when exactly did the upclock occur?
EDIT2:
And this from May right after the unveiling.
EDIT3:
Ah. Thanks, I must have scrolled right past it.
Is this what's supposed to discredit a confirmed insider?
----
Although I did happen upon this:
So really, Matt's comment here is nothing new.
Fixed
shadowsdarknes
Member
You know, I really would have almost nothing against the Xbox product itself being weaker than the PS4 if it weren't for some of the rabid fans.
Perhaps that sounds immature, but its frustrating that a few months ago I kept hearing, "Where are all the 1080p 60 fps games?" Xbox One has plenty of those.
And then we found out KI is not 1080p. TitanFall likely will not be 1080p.
And it really just leaves Forza.
And then their biggest graphical hitter isn't 1080p. Ryse.
And then the goal posts keep continuously getting moved for the Xbox One's performance.
Dual GPUs? 12gb of ram? GPU based upon next gen technology? It doesn't stop there.
It's one thing to claim that you think the difference is going to be negligible, but there's a vocal crowd out there that continue to say, "Well PS4 couldn't do TitanFall because it won't have cloud computing so PS4 will never see an experience like that. We will never see an experience like Dead Rising 3 on PS4. Forza's AI will never be replicated on PS4. PS4 will be lucky to have a game as good looking as Ryse."
And I just have to shake my head.
Perhaps that sounds immature, but its frustrating that a few months ago I kept hearing, "Where are all the 1080p 60 fps games?" Xbox One has plenty of those.
And then we found out KI is not 1080p. TitanFall likely will not be 1080p.
And it really just leaves Forza.
And then their biggest graphical hitter isn't 1080p. Ryse.
And then the goal posts keep continuously getting moved for the Xbox One's performance.
Dual GPUs? 12gb of ram? GPU based upon next gen technology? It doesn't stop there.
It's one thing to claim that you think the difference is going to be negligible, but there's a vocal crowd out there that continue to say, "Well PS4 couldn't do TitanFall because it won't have cloud computing so PS4 will never see an experience like that. We will never see an experience like Dead Rising 3 on PS4. Forza's AI will never be replicated on PS4. PS4 will be lucky to have a game as good looking as Ryse."
And I just have to shake my head.
Sorry buddy, Differences will be shown in November. You should probably stop talking about maximizing "the cloud" bullshit too since Microsoft have even dropped that line.
Don't worry it all ends November 22nd. I wonder what misterxmedia will do once he is outed. It's pretty obvious the dude is just fabricating the insider and posting random garbage lol.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=69314956&highlight=#post69314956
Even then Matt is very non specific in his answer since the rumour involves a RAM upgrade to 12GB as well.
Even the article itself states that this information was withheld from 3rd parties.
Examiner said:
I can smell the desperation...
His time would end this month, but know he is claiming:
So, you'll see how in two years MS will unleash the beast, firmware update will unlock 12GB DDR3, Dual GPU, dGPU, etc...
haha, so MS lies to third party devs, then console-warriors/shills call matt out for not knowing. too funny.
I am trying to understand the new revelations on how ESRAM bandwidth has been calculated, and the explanation for what they were able to measure.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
1. What was described as an accidental discovery of simultaneous read/write capability in the ESRAM was perhaps just new to the developer who leaked the Microsoft blog. The engineers are not THAT incompetent.
2. It seems the ESRAM has 4 main modules, each with a 256-bit interface (27GB/s). They call it 1024bits (109GB/s) as the 4 modules can be accessed in parallel. The catch is that the data must be simultaneously present in all 4 regions in order to achieve 109GB/s (or 218GB/s simultaneous read/write). Hence, "of course if you're hitting the same area over and over and over again, you don't get to spread out your bandwidth and so that's one of the reasons why in real testing you get 140-150GB/s rather than the peak 204GB/s". In a theoretical moment where the data was in only one of the 8mb modules, the bandwidth would be as low as 27GB/s (54GB/s simultaneous read/write).
In contrast, the whole PS4 GDDR5 memory is interfaced at 256 bits at 5.5ghz. The rate (256 ÷ 8 x 5500 = 176000MB/s) is not dependent on access patterns. Hence, I presume, the practical bandwidth being closer to the theoretical maximum.
3. From Wiki (I know) it appears SRAM with separate I/O buses (as opposed to a common I/O bus) exists that can read and write at the rising and falling edges of a clock signal respectively, using a single port. The catch is that the read and write operations are pipelined and sequential (a read must be followed by a write in the pipeline) to the same memory space. This explains why "if you're only doing a read you're capped at 109GB/s, if you're only doing a write you're capped at 109GB/s". I presume this suits blending operations well, which Leadbetter alluded to in his earlier article. It also suggests that Microsoft fully expects developers to use the ESRAM for framebuffer operations.
Further suggestions welcomed.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
1. What was described as an accidental discovery of simultaneous read/write capability in the ESRAM was perhaps just new to the developer who leaked the Microsoft blog. The engineers are not THAT incompetent.
2. It seems the ESRAM has 4 main modules, each with a 256-bit interface (27GB/s). They call it 1024bits (109GB/s) as the 4 modules can be accessed in parallel. The catch is that the data must be simultaneously present in all 4 regions in order to achieve 109GB/s (or 218GB/s simultaneous read/write). Hence, "of course if you're hitting the same area over and over and over again, you don't get to spread out your bandwidth and so that's one of the reasons why in real testing you get 140-150GB/s rather than the peak 204GB/s". In a theoretical moment where the data was in only one of the 8mb modules, the bandwidth would be as low as 27GB/s (54GB/s simultaneous read/write).
In contrast, the whole PS4 GDDR5 memory is interfaced at 256 bits at 5.5ghz. The rate (256 ÷ 8 x 5500 = 176000MB/s) is not dependent on access patterns. Hence, I presume, the practical bandwidth being closer to the theoretical maximum.
3. From Wiki (I know) it appears SRAM with separate I/O buses (as opposed to a common I/O bus) exists that can read and write at the rising and falling edges of a clock signal respectively, using a single port. The catch is that the read and write operations are pipelined and sequential (a read must be followed by a write in the pipeline) to the same memory space. This explains why "if you're only doing a read you're capped at 109GB/s, if you're only doing a write you're capped at 109GB/s". I presume this suits blending operations well, which Leadbetter alluded to in his earlier article. It also suggests that Microsoft fully expects developers to use the ESRAM for framebuffer operations.
Further suggestions welcomed.
fastford58
Member
Lol...if only Matt had shown up like 49 pages ago.
It's been rather tickling to see the conversation now turn to "well there's not that much difference between 720p/900p and 1080p; I can't see the difference" with that retrospective in mind.
Let Salvor grasp to his straws.
fastford58
Member
Keep fighting the good fight. There is enough evidence out there at this point that the power difference between the consoles is #TRUTHFACT.
How that will translate to 3rd party remains to be seen, but it is safe to say 1st and even 2nd party games are going to be well ahead of X1 by a wide margin.
Iacobellis
Junior Member
What's been going down in this thread? I need a recap.
Balanced->ok gif->esram->someone said something about teamxbox forums saying xb1 is better than ps4 because fly swatter but it's a hammer or some bullshit->3rd party dev said PS4 stronger than xb1->denial->laughing at denial->interesting post about the 8mb sections of ESRAM and the 4x 256 bit buses and how it affects practical bandwidth->172gb/s practical bandwidth of Ps4->you asked what was going on.
fastford58
Member
Many arguments given using actual evidence for PS4 being the stronger console.
Many arguments of magic and wizardry for Xbone being almost par, par, or better than the PS4 (I can't keep track anymore). Despite respected insiders confirming the power difference, people keep fucking that chicken.
50+ pages later. Here we are.
As I'm one of the few who are buying a PS4 primarily for a) multiplatform games, and b) the promise that multiplatform games will run better on the PS4, I will be apoplectic if these consoles come out and the difference is negligible. So I am trusting that what I'm reading is based on facts and not fanboy hopes 'n dreams.
Sony has screwed me on that PS3 six ways to Sunday, so I am EXTREMELY skeptical they will give me as smooth of an experience as I'm used to on 360 (not in terms of raw console power, but mostly their abysmal exclusives and horrid network infrastructure compared to Microsoft's). I am hedging my bets somewhat by only buying BF4 at launch for it, so if it turns out that Sony shit the bed again on yet another console, I'm only out the few bucks to trade BF4 in and sell that PS4 for most of what I paid for it.
Now, I do have a good amount of faith. Sony has been a dud machine for a decade now, so I'm trusting that they put everything they have into making the PS4 the best it can possibly be and take me back to the PS2 days.
Sony has screwed me on that PS3 six ways to Sunday, so I am EXTREMELY skeptical they will give me as smooth of an experience as I'm used to on 360 (not in terms of raw console power, but mostly their abysmal exclusives and horrid network infrastructure compared to Microsoft's). I am hedging my bets somewhat by only buying BF4 at launch for it, so if it turns out that Sony shit the bed again on yet another console, I'm only out the few bucks to trade BF4 in and sell that PS4 for most of what I paid for it.
Now, I do have a good amount of faith. Sony has been a dud machine for a decade now, so I'm trusting that they put everything they have into making the PS4 the best it can possibly be and take me back to the PS2 days.
There's no promise that multiplats will be better. PS4 is obviously more capable (i can't understand people still trying to fight the truthfact), but you don't know if editors/ms won't push for parity, just to get peace from gamers.
As i see it, they'll probably devellop and optimize games for xb1 then push the "port to ps4" button. (i'm exagerating on purpose, please don't bash me gaf)
shadowsdarknes
Member
You're not buying a PS4 at launch on a leap of faith are you? You sound like you may be best off waiting and seeing.
As far as "horrid network infrastructure", what is it that you don't like?
Pretty sure the big ones such as cross game invites, party chat, and other social features are there from day 1.
If its the slow speeds that some people get, then that may be a wait and see. I'm hoping with PSN+ being there to generate extra revenue, we will see a massive overhaul and expansion of the PSN.
PS4 seems to pride itself on being seamless and snappy, so I'm hoping the PSN is very integrated into the overall experience.
HocusPocus
Member
I can understand getting the ps4 for exclusives and the extra power. I can't imagine wanting to get it over Xbox one for multiplayer focused games from what we know now.
MS wont have any influence on visual parity between platforms. It'll likely come down to how much developers want to get out of each system, which will probably be dependent on the individual dev group - some will probably be satisfied with "make Xbone version, shove it onto PS4," though I could see the likes of Crytek and CD Projekt pushing hardware much further in their multiplats.
Abysmal exclusives? I mean I know opinions and everything but...abysmal? TLoU, Uncharted and gran turismo are abysmal?
Well, one cannot account for taste.
But I sure am not taking any gaming recommendations from that guy lol.
dragonelite
Member
I think most X1 multiplats will use the display planes game on 900p and UI maybe player character on 1080p and call it a day with ps4 version being 1080p all around.
Im pretty sure ps4 will just be an downgraded settings of the pc version with maybe some optimization thrown in to stabilize framerate. The X1 will be a bitch to optimize for with esram and the need to juggle data around. Unless Microsoft documented everything well which im sure they will do.
Except if moneyhat. I don't see why they wouldn't try that to reinforce their story and their truth.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
The sad part is some people need stuff like that to wake them up a little. I know it's a forgone conclusion but I'm getting tired of reading 5 paragraph posts from Senjetsu which mostly spin for Xbone.