Gemüsepizza;83108341 said:[Balance means] that there are other weak parts to complement the weak parts of the X1.
Lol well said.
Gemüsepizza;83108341 said:[Balance means] that there are other weak parts to complement the weak parts of the X1.
If XBo is balanced, what is PS4, hyperbalanced??
5.5 GB vs 5GB + 32 MB
You're supposed to think it's unbalanced. Didn't you read the earlier Digital Foundry article...If XBo is balanced, what is PS4, hyperbalanced??
----It may well be the case that 12 compute units was chosen as the most balanced set-up to match the Jaguar CPU architecture. Our source says that the make-up of the Xbox One's bespoke audio and "data move engine" tech is derived from profiling the most advanced Xbox 360 games, with their designs implemented in order to address the most common bottlenecks. In contrast, despite its undoubted advantages - especially in terms of raw power, PlayStation 4 looks a little unbalanced by comparison.
IIRC, lherre has the devkits so probably knows the actual OS allocations...
8 GB vs 32 MB
People will walk in asking for CU and Tflops comparisons?The real fun begins when clerks at Wal Mart try to explain this.
Megabalanced.If XBo is balanced, what is PS4, hyperbalanced??
I just posted this to the "PS4 and Xbox One performance" thread before noticing this one.
It seemed like from the article that one of Microsoft's main defenses of their less powerful GPU was that most games are CPU limited anyways so that the extra power of the GPU would not matter. My question is "Is this true? Are most console games really CPU limited?"
I have a suspicion that this might be true for Microsoft because they want to be able to run other apps while a game is running.
The point is that it isn't faster then the PS4 main memory. It's only faster than the slow DDR3 in the Xbox One.Thats what I don't get. How does 32mb help. It's faster yes, but its such a smaller amount of memory. Can someone explain?
MS continuously trying to spin the narrative has been the best pre launch."This here PS4 is the most powerful console ever made. This here Xbox One is the most balanced console ever made. Which one you want?"
Funny, they off-loaded a lot of graphics tasks to the CPU (well, the SPUs) on PS3 to compensate for the below par-GPU. It's surprising to me these things are so interchangeable.Sony's chosen the method where you use the GPU to supplement the CPU so while the CPU is weaker, utilisation of the APU might actually be better.
That's just so bloody wrong!
See, I think this is fair. I may disagree on the ultimate conclusions, or on the impact of resolution, something that none of us would have known either way without pixel counting or an outright admission (example, nobody knew either killer instinct or ryse weren't 1080p until somebody said something), but I think there's absolutely nothing necessarily wrong with your conclusions. You are entitled to those opinions, and I respect them. It's true that both systems will have games that look far better than the launch stuff, and that brings us to an interesting dynamic. What are we really talking about? The fact that the PS4 is the notably stronger machine? We know that already. The real issue is that I feel people, unfairly, label the Xbox One as weak and incapable, and all I'm trying to say is that weaker than the PS4 doesn't make it weak. I think the biggest difference between the two machines will be resolution. I think performance will more or less be up to snuff on Xbox One titles, as will the visual fidelity, even if the PS4 has an edge. The real thing that's up for discussion is just how big will that edge be. How noticeable will it be? I can't say, I just don't think it will be massive. Others do. I guess we'll find out.
What they are saying is that the "balance" of the X1 is what will bring them closer to the PS4 than what people think. I guess.
Thats what I don't get. How does 32mb help. It's faster yes, but its such a smaller amount of memory. Can someone explain?
No they won't because 2 are for redundancy which means an unknown number of consoles will be sold with 2 defective CUs among the 14. It's exactly the same reason why we never ever had games that used 8 SPEs on PS3. One of them was set for redundancy and was either disabled or defective and, then, never used.Oh I misread. My initial point from the first page still stands then: All Xbox Ones have 14 CUs and they could unlock those. ;-)
You're supposed to think it's unbalanced. Didn't you read the earlier Digital Foundry article...
----
IIRC, lherre has the devkits so probably knows the actual OS allocations...
The point is pretty clear, there's only a very small pool of fast RAM.
Just to clarify something, I don't think the PS4 is super powerful. I'm actually disappointed with the specs of both consoles and wanted better, especially on the GPU front. So If I think the PS4 is merely adequate or good in performance, the Xbox One comparative to it would be inadequate or mediocre wouldn't it? That's where the XO gets the term "weak" thrown in, because some people already view the PS4 as only average powered, so compared to that the Xbox One comes off as "weak". Obviously with closed platform advantages and optimisations, the hardware deficiencies become less prominent.
The performance differences between the two consoles is made worse by the fact that the Xbox One is $100 more expensive. The PS4 I can manage to call decent value at $399, but neither console is as good value as the PS3/360 were at launch. I also don't give a shit about Kinect, Move and all the rest. So for me, gaming performance is primary over novelty control gimmicks (imo).
This is what I said on the first page:No they won't because 2 are for redundancy which means an unknown number of consoles will be sold with 2 defective CUs among the 14. It's exactly the same reason why we never ever had games that used 8 SPEs on PS3. One of them was set for redundancy and was either disabled or defective and, then, never used.
XB1 has a 12 operational CUs GPU, not one more, not one less.
In the future we will see Microsoft's own version of "unlocking the last SPU" debate with this. ;-)
.
Oh, and tiled resources makes it possible to store 3GB worth of texture data in just 16MB of memory. But, I know, tiled resources won't be used on the Xbox One at all... 32MB starts to look mighty big in retrospect.
Funny, they off-loaded a lot of graphics tasks to the CPU (well, the SPUs) on PS3 to compensate for the below par-GPU. It's surprising to me these things are so interchangeable.
Just to clarify something, I don't think the PS4 is super powerful. I'm actually disappointed with the specs of both consoles and wanted better, especially on the GPU front. So If I think the PS4 is merely adequate or good in performance, the Xbox One comparative to it would be inadequate or mediocre wouldn't it? That's where the XO gets the term "weak" thrown in, because some people already view the PS4 as only average powered, so compared to that the Xbox One comes off as "weak". Obviously with closed platform advantages and optimisations, the hardware deficiencies become less prominent.
The performance differences between the two consoles is made worse by the fact that the Xbox One is $100 more expensive. The PS4 I can manage to call decent value at $399, but neither console is as good value as the PS3/360 were at launch. I also don't give a shit about Kinect, Move and all the rest. So for me, gaming performance is primary over novelty control gimmicks (imo).
I suppose you could do some crazy maths with requiring PS+ to play a lot of the multiplayer titles, but it'd be just that. Crazy.Both the PS4 and the X1 are delivering better value than the PS3 was at $600. How is that even debatable?
No, but when asked to answer the question of which is more powerful, clerks will become YouTube stars in an instant.People will walk in asking for CU and Tflops comparisons?
You seemingly missed the point entirely. Your correction was relatively redundant to someone who knows the actual OS memory allocations and was simply pointing out that one has 8GB of fast RAM and the other only has 32MB.PS4 OS uses no memory at all? Revolutionary. Like I said, 5.5GB, maybe 6GB with time. Xbox One's 5GB will also likely eventually make it to 6GB, since about 1GB of that was just precautionary reservation from what I've heard.
Why do you keep repeating this over and over as if it's supposed to mean anything to anyone?since I'm going to have both
This is what I said on the first page:
Both the PS4 and the X1 are delivering better value than the PS3 was at $600. How is that even debatable?
You seemingly missed the point entirely. Your correction was relatively redundant to someone who knows the actual OS memory allocations and was simply pointing out that one has 8GB of fast RAM and the other only has 32MB.
I'd debate it. Sony took a huge lose per PS3, and consumer BluRay players were a grand each at the time.Both the PS4 and the X1 are delivering better value than the PS3 was at $600. How is that even debatable?
.
Oh, and tiled resources makes it possible to store 3GB worth of texture data in just 16MB of memory. But, I know, tiled resources won't be used on the Xbox One at all... 32MB starts to look mighty big in retrospect.
Both the PS4 and the X1 are delivering better value than the PS3 was at $600. How is that even debatable?
Wut???
By the way, SenjutsuSage, why are you still peddling the 5.5GB number when several insiders have confirmed it was wrong, including a Sony dev themselves? Going down the route of pushing known misinformation is pretty frowned upon round these parts...
You either need to stop commenting or some things or go read more, tiled resources store a subset of components in memory not the entire thing.
In the presentation, Mars is textured using two textures: A 1GB diffuse map and a 2GB normal map for a total of 3GBs of textures.
Using tiled textures they were able to texture the same scene using only 16Mb of RAM.
This extension allows the separation of the graphics processor's address
space (reservation) from the requirement that all textures must be
physically backed (commitment). This exposes a limited form of
virtualization for textures.
A lot of the pro-Xbox people seem to completely misunderstand how PRT works. Also they keep referring back to a Build demo of tiled resources that used 16MB of RAM that actually looked really crappy, so it doesn't exactly bolster their position.
http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/xbo...-2-from-32mb-to-6gb-worth-of-texture-1448545/
Maybe you should read.
This is well documented and covered, even on all the major tech sites. Microsoft showcased 3GB worth of texture data only needing to use 16MB worth of physical memory, and this is a feature on the Xbox One. Don't think for a second they aren't going to use it. 32MB is not as small as you'd think when technology like this is in play. And, yes, I know Sony has access to similar tech through their own API.
http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/AMD/sparse_texture.txt
Where/When did we get explicit info that PS4 games can access full 6GB GDDR5 memory ?
Virtual texturing? The horrible thing from Rage? Cool...http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/xbo...-2-from-32mb-to-6gb-worth-of-texture-1448545/
Maybe you should read.
This is well documented and covered, even on all the major tech sites. Microsoft showcased 3GB worth of texture data only needing to use 16MB worth of physical memory, and this is a feature on the Xbox One. Don't think for a second they aren't going to use it. 32MB is not as small as you'd think when technology like this is in play. And, yes, I know Sony has access to similar tech through their own API.
http://www.opengl.org/registry/specs/AMD/sparse_texture.txt
So its just PRT which is supported by all GCN cards, nothing to see here guys.
I thought that was always obvious. Even if people choose to believe the 204GB/s or whatever is totally bogus, that 109GB/s is real. That 68GB/s is real. Both pools of memory can work together simultaneously helping one another. That's real. It will probably be notably more difficult to leverage that over the PS4's more ideal setup. Developers have a more serious challenge on the Xbox One. Those things are real.
Microsoft has regularly been pretty damn good about giving developers the tools they need to develop incredible games on their platforms. They will likely get up to speed, if they aren't already, and make developer's lives much easier. This is not pie in the sky. This is what they've always done. So, yea, said what I needed to say. Don't want to go around in circles on this thing. I say the same thing. Others same the same thing. We all have our opinions. That's cool and that's the way it should be.
Easier than the 360, harder in comparison to the PS4. Anybody that denies that much is simply not being realistic. Microsoft's bandwidth figures, even ignoring the high point for ESRAM, are real. And they add up to comparable bandwidth to the PS4. People can choose to ignore that fact or embrace it as a reality. Yes, we know it's going to be harder to leverage, but it's real and it's there, and developers will eventually manage to get the most out of it. Microsoft will be helping make that happen.
GDDR5, so good it's uncomfortable.
Thuway and one other fella who Bish checked out collaborated it I believe. It was mentioned that at least one PS4 game presently uses 6GB of ram. Several insiders including a Sony dev themselves also confirmed DF's numbers were inaccurate.