• 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"

Foghorn Leghorn

Unconfirmed Member
The size of the eSram isn't really an issue, it's big enough to provide all the ram required for the intermediate requirements of the GPU pipeline. MS have measured real world game code getting average esram utilisation of 150GB/s. Concurrently with 50GB/s from ddr3. Giving an average, real world bandwidth of 200GB/s (so 3/4 of ram requests are coming off the eSram.) Peaking at 274GB/s. Measured by MS and published in the DF interview.The x1 is a bandwidth monster.

Seriously? Then Why aren't Nvidia and AMD sticking a few GB of ddr3 and 32MB of esam on their cards for some monster bandwidth?
 
The size of the eSram isn't really an issue, it's big enough to provide all the ram required for the intermediate requirements of the GPU pipeline. MS have measured real world game code getting average esram utilisation of 150GB/s. Concurrently with 50GB/s from ddr3. Giving an average, real world bandwidth of 200GB/s (so 3/4 of ram requests are coming off the eSram.) Peaking at 274GB/s. Measured by MS and published in the DF interview.The x1 is a bandwidth monster.
Amazing! It almost sounds too good to be true.
 

Bundy

Banned
The size of the eSram isn't really an issue, it's big enough to provide all the ram required for the intermediate requirements of the GPU pipeline. MS have measured real world game code getting average esram utilisation of 150GB/s. Concurrently with 50GB/s from ddr3. Giving an average, real world bandwidth of 200GB/s (so 3/4 of ram requests are coming off the eSram.) Peaking at 274GB/s. Measured by MS and published in the DF interview.The x1 is a bandwidth monster.
lmao....
You do realize that they won't surpass the PS4 bandwidth in real-life (AAA games) performance? Around 140GB/s is what they will get.
edit.
 

jett

D-Member
The size of the eSram isn't really an issue, it's big enough to provide all the ram required for the intermediate requirements of the GPU pipeline. MS have measured real world game code getting average esram utilisation of 150GB/s. Concurrently with 50GB/s from ddr3. Giving an average, real world bandwidth of 200GB/s (so 3/4 of ram requests are coming off the eSram.) Peaking at 274GB/s. Measured by MS and published in the DF interview.The x1 is a bandwidth monster.

I can't believe some people are still spouting off this nonsense.
 
The size of the eSram isn't really an issue, it's big enough to provide all the ram required for the intermediate requirements of the GPU pipeline. MS have measured real world game code getting average esram utilisation of 150GB/s. Concurrently with 50GB/s from ddr3. Giving an average, real world bandwidth of 200GB/s (so 3/4 of ram requests are coming off the eSram.) Peaking at 274GB/s. Measured by MS and published in the DF interview.The x1 is a bandwidth monster.

Amazing! It almost sounds too good to be true.

Yes!, it's almost like the PS4 is super unbalanced and the XB1 the prefect console...(/s)
 

Vizzeh

Banned
Those teams aren't sitting around though, SSM was on GoW:Ascension, Naughty Dog was on TLoU, and Polyphony is just about to release a game in December.

Sony always supports their old platforms much longer then their competitors do, it's not like they release the PS4 and call it quits on the PS3....

I mean the PS2 JUST stopped being produced....that's longevity.

As we know, most of them Studios have 2 teams, the one that made unchartered 3 (Different to TLoU team) for example are working on something.

Quantic Dream have already said in a recent interview about Beyond two souls, that they have already started working on a Next-Gen title for PS4... There are many studio teams unaccounted for.
 

Bundy

Banned
It's been measured, real life, real games at 200GB/s. That the average. There is a good discussion on the subject here http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62867&page=266

It goes on for a while, and it's technical. It appears to come to the conclusion that the x1 is a bandwidth monster.
jjjr.gif
 

Bundy

Banned
So are you saying those MS techies were lying in some way? Knowing that they would inevitably be caught out? Seriously?
?????
Where have you been? Is this your first time on Neogaf/the internet?
Check this thread here from page 1 to ....here.
They have been "cought out" several times since the XBone reveal.
 

Riky

$MSFT
150gb/s is around what my 7870 does and that has 20 CU's, with only 12 CU's would it actually be any benefit for the X1 to have more bandwith?
 

Vizzeh

Banned
It's been measured, real life, real games at 200GB/s. That the average. There is a good discussion on the subject here http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62867&page=266

It goes on for a while, and it's technical. It appears to come to the conclusion that the x1 is a bandwidth monster.

bandwidth for what a 32mb frame buffer to enable at the minute 900p? (forza at 1080?) or at BEST a Tiled resource target file. Its still beyond me how people are still arguing 32mb eSram + DDR3 vs GDDR5 @ 8GB pool. That 32mb buffer isnt exactly going to hold massive amounts of top quality textures/other game data. The majority of the game will be using the DDR3. The bandwidth has to go somewhere and thats the CPU/GPU.

Regardless the bandwidth of both consoles are feeding the Rops and GCN Cores/Shader units of which 1 has the clear advantage.
 
150gb/s is around what my 7870 does and that has 20 CU's, with only 12 CU's would it actually be any benefit for the X1 to have more bandwith?

Because the eSram is on die and extremely low latency. They are able to push those CUs up to a higher utilisation.
 
?????
Where have you been? Is this your first time on Neogaf/the internet?
Check this thread here from page 1 to ....here.
They have been "cought out" several times since the XBone reveal.

Sorry. I was talking about the DF article, I haven't seen them caught out about anything in there. Like anyone proving their bandwidth measurements were made up.
 

Bundy

Banned
Sorry. I was talking about the DF article, I haven't seen them caught out about anything in there. Like anyone proving their bandwidth measurements were made up.
DF article is crap, too.
Thanks to the small clock boost, etc.... and speaking about AAA games -->around ~140GB/s is what the XBone will achieve, if everthing goes as it should.
PS4 is currently at ~172GB/s.
edit.
 

foxbeldin

Member
The size of the eSram isn't really an issue, it's big enough to provide all the ram required for the intermediate requirements of the GPU pipeline. MS have measured real world game code getting average esram utilisation of 150GB/s. Concurrently with 50GB/s from ddr3. Giving an average, real world bandwidth of 200GB/s (so 3/4 of ram requests are coming off the eSram.) Peaking at 274GB/s. Measured by MS and published in the DF interview.The x1 is a bandwidth monster.

Oh come on. This bullshit has been called out countless time on this very thread. Are we gonna go all over it again?
Bandwidth doesn't add up. It doesn't. If it did, x360 would have more than x1.
Peak performance was measured at 133GB/s before the upclock. Now you can assume it's 140. And no, 3/4 of ram requests aren't coming off the eSram, and yes, everything that has to make a journey in DDR3 is limited to 68GB/sec theoretically.
 
It's been measured, real life, real games at 200GB/s. That the average. There is a good discussion on the subject here http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62867&page=266

It goes on for a while, and it's technical. It appears to come to the conclusion that the x1 is a bandwidth monster.

Are you referring to the zupallinere post? The one where he/she quotes you, and makes the assumption the xbox one is a monster on the back of your comment? Wow.
 

Vizzeh

Banned
Bandwidth is irrelevant if you assume both the X1 + Ps4's graphic cards are Saturated, we know the PS4 has double the Rops, more SU's GCN Cores so if both are saturated with data, Its all about the end product... The capability of the CPU and GPU, it boils down to what the Graphics Chips are doing.

Whats the point in having a 600BHP Car with Tyres that cant transfer the power to the ground, adding Esram bandwidth figures and expecting the X1's Graphic chip to utilise more than it needs is pointless. Bandwidth is not Storage space, thats why the GDDR5 is clearly going to be holding far superior quality textures and general data at 1 time.

What X1 needs is to utilize tiled resources on that 32mb of EsRam, use 16mb for a frame buffer and the other 16mb for a tiled resource target file that can STREAM textures from a file upwards of 10GB, but it requires developer optimization and is possibly the X1's version of the PS3 Cell, a pain in the ass, its a botch job versus the PS4 ease of use + better hardware. But its definately a help if the developer puts the effort in.

The problem with that is X1 GFX Chip only supports DX11.1 and can be upgraded by software to DX11.2 TEIR 1, which means it cannot do the same things as the PS4 Card supporting DX11.2 TEIR 2 Tiled resources potentially. (Software DX11.2 vs hardware DX11.2)
 

Tabular

Banned
The size of the eSram isn't really an issue, it's big enough to provide all the ram required for the intermediate requirements of the GPU pipeline. MS have measured real world game code getting average esram utilisation of 150GB/s. Concurrently with 50GB/s from ddr3. Giving an average, real world bandwidth of 200GB/s (so 3/4 of ram requests are coming off the eSram.) Peaking at 274GB/s. Measured by MS and published in the DF interview.The x1 is a bandwidth monster.

The 150 GB/sec was not in a game. It was just a test. Games might get that in a very limited usage but the average is far far lower. As this thread points out; devs are getting 50% faster memory fetches with PS4. It has the better memory and if anything is the bandwidth monster.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
I wonder if there's any value in comparing X1 and PS2 as far as relative dev difficulty and memory management.

If devs can manage with the input bandwidth afforded by DDR3 alone, at the top of the pipe, things might be more comparable to 360 dev. Fairly straight forward. If, though, devs aren't getting enough bandwidth out of DDR3 for the top of the pipe, they could quickly find themselves in something more comparable to PS2-ish territory.

Just food for thought when hearing about eSRAM being 'a nightmare'.
 
It's been measured, real life, real games at 200GB/s. That the average. There is a good discussion on the subject here http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62867&page=266

It goes on for a while, and it's technical. It appears to come to the conclusion that the x1 is a bandwidth monster.

So for the sake of argument that would leave the ps4 with about 130GB/S, less anything the CPU needs (max of 20GB/s)...so if the x1 is apparently balanced with it's 200GB/s (less max 20GB/s for the cpu) the 14CUs figure may be already a bit much.

Yep the conclusion seemd to be balanced.
 

Skeff

Member
It's been measured, real life, real games at 200GB/s. That the average. There is a good discussion on the subject here http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=62867&page=266

It goes on for a while, and it's technical. It appears to come to the conclusion that the x1 is a bandwidth monster.

Bullshit.
The real world practical bandwidth numbers will likely be:

XB1: 130-140 GB/s
PS4: 172 GB/s

The PS4 number has already been confirmed by a developer's CEO on this forum.

The esram can only provide speeds of 150gb/s maximum according to MS at the moment and that is pushing it to specifically do only certain tasks and with it being as full as possible of data for those tasks. Please don't spout Beyond3D bullshit here on GAF as that shit get's called out real fast.

EDIT: btw the xb1 number includes the DDR3 bandwidth too, the fact the Esram is not a 1024bit bus and is actually 4x 256 bit bus attached to 4 8mb sections means it will generally be operating at far lower than any of these theoretical numbers in a real world scenario.
 

killatopak

Member
Wasn't MS' NDA expire today? Any news regarding the console?

I'm interested since a lot of tech sites, blogs and tech journals kinda links their source to misterxmedia which we all know is some kind of a delusional guy.

I need confirmation so his blatant lying , despite the actual specs that we know of , is put to rest.
 

Skeff

Member
Wasn't MS' NDA expire today? Any news regarding the console?

I'm interested since a lot of tech sites, blogs and tech journals kinda links their source to misterxmedia which we all know is some kind of a delusional guy.

I need confirmation so his blatant lying , despite the actual specs that we know of , is put to rest.

There is no NDA, the imaginary one will always be pushed back, everything you read that has anything to do with that blog is not real.
 

KidBeta

Junior Member
None of the latency figures have been published, but it's safe to say the eSram latency will be lower than going off die to system memory.

Considering how slow the GPU cache is and how long it takes to traverse the cache structure I don't see the point in keeping it very low tbh.
 

neodeano

Member
Wasn't MS' NDA expire today? Any news regarding the console?

I'm interested since a lot of tech sites, blogs and tech journals kinda links their source to misterxmedia which we all know is some kind of a delusional guy.

I need confirmation so his blatant lying , despite the actual specs that we know of , is put to rest.

Delusional is being kind. Batshit insane is more appropriate.
 

cheezcake

Member
Is it actually possible, as most believe, to add the ESRAM+DDR3 speeds and factor in the sum to essentially claim it is more than the PS4's bandwidth? I was under the impression (perhaps wrong) that you can't/don't add bandwidth.

I've read comments on a few occasions that the bandwidth of the XB1 is greater as is its CPU but I wasn't sure, though I had thought that the PS4's CPU was more powerful technically.

You can in fact add it up in the case of the X1, but the obvious limitation being you can only access 32MB of data with the ESRAM data bus at 140 GB/s and access the rest of the data in regular RAM at 62 GB/s.

In the end having a unified memory space which you can access at a flat 176 GB/s is going to be the better option
 

avaya

Member
B3D is surely reaching banned site status?

The abdication of modding responsibilities at that site has seen it become a cesspool of FUD. It really has become what AVS was during the HD format wars.
 

nib95

Banned
B3D is surely reaching banned site status?

The abdication of modding responsibilities at that site has seen it become a cesspool of FUD. It really has become what AVS was during the HD format wars.

GAF will always be more accurate and reliable, because here we have a strict control and check up system where insiders etc are vetted before they're allowed to spout BS claims. After the sifting through the weed, this generally leaves a better cut of actual insiders and industry people left posting. Many of the ones who've posted in here even, despite not being insiders, still have experience in the field or fields similar, and can usually pretty quickly and astutely shoot down FUD. It's a shame so much FUD on B3D is not only propagated, but actually regurgitated and continually given traction.

The majority of secret sauce developments actually originated from B3D, that should tell you what you need to know credibility wise. Luckily they do still have a few genuine insiders and devs etc who do still post, albeit not nearly enough.
 
Stopped reading that misterxmedia blog after checking out the comment sections, I swear this sly git writes most of them himself. Pretty sad trying to string a few fan kids along with a bunch of goal posting shifting horse shit. He gives himself away as any posts questioning it all do not appear. Sad case
 
The size of the eSram isn't really an issue, it's big enough to provide all the ram required for the intermediate requirements of the GPU pipeline. MS have measured real world game code getting average esram utilisation of 150GB/s. Concurrently with 50GB/s from ddr3. Giving an average, real world bandwidth of 200GB/s (so 3/4 of ram requests are coming off the eSram.) Peaking at 274GB/s. Measured by MS and published in the DF interview.The x1 is a bandwidth monster.
Because the eSram is on die and extremely low latency. They are able to push those CUs up to a higher utilisation.
...

First 6 posts, all in this thread, all about the wonders of ESRAM.

lucille-closes-door-o.gif
 

cebri.one

Member
From this thread

Dan Greenawalt has told VG247 that his team is already using “100%” of Xbox One to develop Forza Motorsport 5.
This sounds extremely strange, I myself have not been working on a Xbox One.

Our game engine uses about 45-55% of the PS4 performance.
the GPU and RAM is an absolute beast.

I think that in the near future will have a video where Sony itself will demonstrate the UI.

I've heard many similar stories from 3rd parties to be honest. Certain unnamed developers I've talked to have said that getting the Xbone version up to the speed requires a decent amount of work. Whereas just porting it straight to PS4 without optimisations is still faster from just its raw power.

Yeah heard whispers from Epic Games,
MR said "Yeah, we're really pleased with what we got - at least so far from Sony
This is a phenomenal piece of hardware and we're going to do amazing things with it."

TS said "Sony has defined an ideal next-generation platform"

SG said "Having 8GB of DDR5 ram is staggering, as the speed that the data can be shifted around outstrips that 8GB. However, as a smallish indie, to us it's not about what we can do, it's about what we can do well. 1080p, 60fps, 3D is where it's at, and so far we're blown away by what we've managed to achieve with the hardware. Currently our imaginations are running away with themselves"

I know 4 a fact Snowdrop is running better on the PS4 then on a Xbox One.
 
Top Bottom