Yeah, he basically went all-in on complete bullshit information.
Kind of painful, when you think about it.
-
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.
Ars Technica: Penello's XB1 Numbers, Ars "Sniff Test" Analysis
- Thread starter BRocknRolla
- Start date
Yeah, he basically went all-in on complete bullshit information.
Kind of painful, when you think about it.
Flatline
Banned
So wait, people are supposed to not react to or disprove bullshit because that person is supposed to lie? By that logic we shouldn't complain about politicians either, right?
The same thing all of us were saying in that thread. But it's nice to have some kind of "official" backing I guess.
Most important, he isn't addressing Albert's original argument at all. Albert said that a higher number of CU in itself, not in the context of the entire GPU, leads to a relevant loss of efficiency because that is supposedly an inherent property of multi-core architectures in general. As a general statement that is just not true, and especially not for GPUs.
I'm sure they do. But only a few reach the level and pay grade of "Technical Fellow".
maquiladora
Member
Ars? Never heard of them.
To be honest off the cuff remarks are all that deserves to be said to that post of Alberts, it was wildly inaccurate and does not need or deserve a full tech write up.
We need IGN tech experts for this one.
Penello is a marketing person, not a "fanboy". He is trying to sell us a product by any means necessary, that includes misrepresentation of facts and bizarre misdirection (like his "we invented Direct Compute/DirectX" comment).
It's also why he is trying to "buddy up" on the forums.
They are understanding things just fine, Penello is in PR damage control mode - trying to marketing spin the low-powered nature of the Xbone compared to the PS4 out of existence.
Can Crusher
Banned
Ars doesn't know about the Technical Fellow.
maabus1999
Member
Read his whole quote. He basically stated that there are inefficiencies in core scaling and that he doesn't know if the ESRAM overcomes other bottlenecks. Time will tell but he is on the side the PS4 is more powerful, but not anywhere near the 30-40% thrown around.
SEGAvangelist
Member
I ain't clickin' it.
So much salt from the usual suspects.
gaming_noob
Member
This confusion and chaos wouldn't have happened had Allard been at the helm.
so, ps4 is faster, but xbone is ..stronger?
and op, who da fuck is dat 'ars' dude? never heard of him.
seriously now, i cant wait for next gen multiplats
although looks like I'll be playing them on pc haha
I'm all about shutting down the PR spin, but how exactly is the over analyzing of every single sentence, or this poor excuse of an analysis helping in holding him accountable ?
I just feel that we should let the guy do his job. As long as he doesn't come and pull this shit here on gaf anymore. And if he does, savour his quotes for when the inevitable head-to-heads roll in. But right now, all these samey threads amount to nothing, except giving him a bigger podium.
I mean, is there anyone on this forum that truly believe ps4 won't be blowing the xbone out of the water in the upcoming gen ?*
*except for theKayle.
mangochutney
Member
Yes - this is due to not all things being increased across the board by your 48% figure.
I'm glad Ars took the time to make that article.
I get that Albert wants to defend his console, but to lie when doing so is not something that should be accepted.
He admitted he doesn't know the internal workings of the PS4, and nor do we all, but based on that there is just no way he can then sit there and claim as a fact that the "performance delta" is minimal. If he doesn't know how the PS4 performs it is impossible to compare to how he knows the Xbox One performs.
To be honest, I think we'll get a fair few games being on par. I'd imagine studios right now are more concerned getting their game up to an acceptable level on both platforms rather than working to push the boundaries on each.
It seem the PS4 is more in the range of 50% more powerful than the Xbone, so 30-40% are probably inaccurate.
Publishers/developers also like creating artificial parity whenever possible.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
I wouldn't go that far. Sony wouldnt let him near a mic if not media trained. Its part of his job.
Have you seen Penello's post? It was a point-for-point breakdown of highly technical specs of the both consoles, attempting to spin them in their favor. Ofcourse people are going to analyze his statements. They left nothing to the imagination and were stated as fact.
His job is creating good PR for the Xbone, he's not "going against his boss". Whether he achieves that goal or not is another question.
LittleJohnny
Banned
Exactly, the only thing they rebutted was the 18 CU vs 12 CU =/= 50% more power, and I still consider this a half rebuttal, why? because what Albert is saying is that with equal GPU speed (Both running at 800Mhz) a GPU with 18CU vs 12CU will run 50% faster, but Albert is implying that XBO GPU is running at 853Mhz which is basically 6% faster for every CU so they're not equal.
The only true and clear rebuttal is adding all the bandwidth together but we already knew that
SEGAvangelist
Member
Yeah, I noticed this earlier today. Can't wait for the AMA thread (if it actually happens). If it's good or bad news for MS, it doesn't matter because it's sure to be VERY entertaining.
Iacobellis
Junior Member
Not surprised.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
Well what else he would say, seriously? The only things I see that are under some contention there is the 30vs10GB/s which he may be correct about, but I think it's more like 30vs20, or it's just plain wrong altogether. That and the CPU speed which Sony never announced, so people are using the best guess, (and discounting the possibility that they could ever bump it up through firmware).
Yeah, they're not equal - they are 6% faster, but there's still less 50% more of them on PS4, so since they scale linearly, it's not exactly some mystery math. Also, I never understood Albert's point with API either. Presumably they both have excelent APIs, I wouldn't doubt MS on that, but SCE has more than proven their worth there as well with PSSL and LIBGCM, and tons of good graphics research and implementation they've done in Ice group.
You can be sure that every activity of Albert here on GAF is sanctioned by his bosses and checked by PR.
Him and MN being on message is no coincidence - never forget that this is about a multibillion dollar company launching a new product...
hahaha sorry, but i have to laugh at this.
IF there is 50% MORE POWER there, it is ABSURD to even think about PARITY
I didn't say he was going against his boss, but rather he is willing to fall on his sword.
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
Do we still not know what the official CPU clock speed is for the Playstation 4?
Corporate AMAs are marketing avenues like any other, not places where you'll get truthful answers out of corporate mouthpieces.
Impeccable
Member
It's so easy to spin after launch. Well it wasn't 50%... we are correct.
Read my post again. I don't even mention inefficiencies in core scaling -- I'm just talking about the straight up difference in where he said cores were blocked.
Suppose only 12 cores were used for both the PS4 and the XB1, but both were blocked by either ROPs or by bandwidth to main memory (as his vertex-heavy case seems to imply). In the former case, the PS4 has 2x the ROPs, so should perform roughly 100% better. In the latter, the PS4 has 3x the bandwidth to main memory, so should perform roughly 200% better.
My comment was specifically to point out that the cases that he pointed out were actually some of the worst-case scenarios for XB1 vs. PS4. ESRAM's latency can only possibly help in the ROPs case, but it's not going to nullify a 2x advantage in ROPs. There's also no evidence that there's going to be a significant advantage of latency to ESRAM. Logic says there should be some, but evidence based on L1/L2 latencies say it's not going to be very big.
Exactly, the only thing they rebutted was the 18 CU vs 12 CU =/= 50% more power, and I still consider this a half rebuttal, why? because what Albert is saying is that with equal GPU speed (Both running at 800Mhz) a GPU with 18CU vs 12CU will run 50% faster, but Albert is implying that XBO GPU is running at 853Mhz which is basically 6% faster for every CU so they're not equal.
The only true and clear rebuttal is adding all the bandwidth together but we already knew that
So they rebutted two of the points with the other two points being so nonsensical that they made no sense anyway.
What am I missing?
qa_engineer
Member
Nailed it.
He's not falling on any sword: What matters to MS is good PR now, pre-release. Whether his assertions are strictly factual or not doesn't matter. Major Nelson didn't get fired for his ridiculous Xbox 360 performance charts either. These things are part of modern marketing.
hahaha sorry, but i have to laugh at this.
IF there is 50% MORE POWER there, it is ABSURD to even think about PARITY
Well, not everything about the PS4 is 50% faster: The CPU is bound to be a bottle-neck for accelerating some game logic above Xbone standard.
I think that MS guys seriously underestimated GAF.
I meant credential wise, you know BA/BS in marketing, that sort of thing.
qa_engineer
Member
I agree with this, but I also understand that this specs war thing is beyond beating a dead horse at this point. We're never going to see MS come out and openly say their specs are weaker in comparison to Sony's, nor will they openly admit that they misled the public (neogaf) or lied.
SEGAvangelist
Member
We could still get quality posts calling out the non-truths, or we could also see some crow-munching. Either way... entertaining.
Zatoichi's Cane
Member
To those who are asking why we people are posting yet again about this topic:
You can't go on a well informed forum representing a huge corporation and make "idiotic" claims in an official capacity. You will be called out on it, as one should.
You can't go on a well informed forum representing a huge corporation and make "idiotic" claims in an official capacity. You will be called out on it, as one should.
Nope. Just that the max it could be based on the FCC filing is 2.75ghz. The lowest is 1.6ghz so the real number is somewhere in between.
I thought there were killzone shadowfall slides released that indicated it was 1.6.
I thought that was yhe GDDR5 and has nothing to do with the CPU??
That's the WiFi frequency...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll