Support NeoGAF

[Quote]

2. If it comes out after we launch that the difference between 3rd party games is maybe single-digit FPS between the two platforms, will I get an apology or concession?

This is exactly what I'm talking about with integrity and representing a company. In what world does the consumer have to apologize to the guy trying to sell us something? Prove it, maybe you'll gain some sales in exchange instead of apologies.

 

[dem]

Man there's some salty motherfuckers in this thread.

Get over yourselves

 

[Derrick01]

There won't be much difference in multiplatform games at launch. I already know this board will erupt when that happens with people jumping to conclusions everywhere. The differences won't start showing until next year but people are going to jump the gun anyways.

No doubt. It's like everyone's first console launch again.

 

[chadskin]

There won't be much difference in multiplatform games at launch. I already know this board will erupt when that happens with people jumping to conclusions everywhere. The differences won't start showing until next year but people are going to jump the gun anyways.

I think it'll even take longer than next year, given that devs received dev kits just a few months ago.
And by dev kit, I mean the actual hardware of the console, not target PC hardware.

 

[onanie]

I do want to point out, this original discussion started with me saying, "Games on both systems look great. Look at Forza, Rise, Dead Rising, etc. All next-gen, on par or better than anything out there. We believe this 50% number is overstated"

But i have seen Killzone and Infamous! LOL

So I explain that we have people on the team who are very experienced optimizing tools and development for graphics (DirectX, etc.)

And Sony doesn't? ICE cream, anybody?

So at THIS point - I go talk to someone. "Hey, you helped design our system. You're a sr. technical leader at Microsoft. You're sitting with 3rd party developers right now who are working on both systems. Can you give me some points to help explain why
nobody is seeing this rumored 50% delta"

I hope those developers who have come forward publicly don't mind being called "nobody".

I will ask two questions of the detractors, honest questions.

1. What piece of information would you want that I could provide that would convince you there is not a huge delta in performance?
2. If it comes out after we launch that the difference between 3rd party games is maybe single-digit FPS between the two platforms, will I get an apology or concession?

1. Settle my questions at http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=80965437#post80965437
2. No, FPS is only one measure of performance. There are other variables including lighting quality, particle effects, antialiasing effort, etc.

 

[x-Lundz-x]

1. You need to provide if possible the reason why the vast difference in GPU power doesn't matter. You would have to agree that the GPU is the single greatest factor when it comes to graphical performance correct?

2. I think it's more subjective than just FPS, if in reality games like BF4 look identical, with the same level of detail, the same resolution then yes I will concede. Now if games like BF4 run faster on PS4 and also run at a higher res on PS4 you have some more explaining to do.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Are you dense, or just oblivious?

This isn't a good junior.

I vote nay.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with integrity and representing a company. In what world does the consumer have to apologize to the guy trying to sell us something? Prove it, maybe you'll gain some sales in exchange instead of apologies.

I agree with this. Albert I really like you, but it's wrong to frame things in this "apologize" manner.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Hence you ... Posting in here?

He speaks the truth.

 

[Ricky_R]

Best analogy I can think of to explain the ram situation is this....

---

Xbox One and PS4 ram water pump analogy

Imagine the ram types on these consoles as rooms with pumps that are used to pump water (textures or whatever else) in and out of them.

The Xbox One has two rooms (DDR3 and Esram).

The DDR3 room (Room 1) is 8192 square foot in size and has a pump attached to it that is 68 cm in circumference and can only pump water in one direction at a time (read or write), in or out.
The Esram room (Room 2) is 32 square foot in size and has a pump attached to it that is 218(?) cm in circumference and can pump water in and out at the same time.

- Room 2 can pump water in and out of it's room far quicker than Room 1 can in it's room, however, Room 2 is substantially smaller than Room 1 so it has order of magnitude less water to work with at any given time.
- Both of these rooms can operate pumping at the same time (adding together bandwidth), but both are still limited to their respective room sizes.

The PS4 has one room (GDDR5).

The GDDR5 room (Room 3) is 8192 square foot in size and has a pump attached to it that is 176 cm in circumference and can pump water in and out at the same time.

The PS4's one room is both very large and very fast at the same time. With over 2.5x the water pumping speed as the Xbox One's equally sized 8192 square foot room. Whilst the Xbox One does have that secondary room with a large pump, it's still only 32 square foot in size. 256 times less space than the larger rooms.

---


I'm really tired, so there could be mistakes. Why did I even do this lol.

Do you work for Aquafina?

 

[PuppetMaster]

This is exactly what I'm talking about with integrity and representing a company. In what world does the consumer have to apologize to the guy trying to sell us something? Prove it, maybe you'll gain some sales in exchange instead of apologies.

I came to post this... seriously wtf

 

[FINALBOSS]

I think a vast majority of us would like to hear the math and rationale for the ESRAM bandwith number.

And us, having to apologize to you? L O L

 

[Wishmaster92]

And yet he decided GDDR5 is the superior option....hrrrrnnnnng.

From Cerny himself

If we used eDRAM for this on-chip memory, we knew that bandwidths of as much as one terabyte per second — that’s a thousand gigabytes per second — would be achievable. The catch though, is that the on-chip memory would need to be very small, and each game team would need to develop special techniques in order to manage it.

To compare these two architectures, the one on the left has 176 gigabytes per second for any access, the one on the right 88 gigabytes per second if the data is in system memory or a thousand gigabytes per second if the data is in that tiny eDRAM. At first glance the architecture on the right looks far superior to the one on the left, and sure, it takes a while to figure out how to use it, but once you understand how to use that little cache of eDRAM, you can unlock the full potential of the hardware.

But, to our new way of thinking the straightforward approach on the left is definitely advantageous. It gives us excellent day one performance, and we can find other features for the programmers to explore in later years.

.

 

[nib95]

Do you work for Aquafina?

Yes. Lately instead of water bottles we've been getting a lot more orders of tubs.

 

[chadskin]

2. I think it's more subjective than just FPS, if in reality games like BF4 look identical, with the same level of detail, the same resolution then yes I will concede. Now if games like BF4 run faster on PS4 and also run at a higher res on PS4 you have some more explaining to do.

THIS!

 

[Dead Prince]

Yes. Lately instead of water bottles we've been getting a lot more orders of tubs.

not a fan of aquafina btw.

 

[Klocker]

This is exactly what I'm talking about with integrity and representing a company. In what world does the consumer have to apologize to the guy trying to sell us something? Prove it, maybe you'll gain some sales in exchange instead of apologies.

You need to separate in your mind, the Albert trying to sell you something from the Albert, fellow GAF member, sharing his information with us and being attacked as a liar when you read that statement of his.

 

[StevieP]

Are you dense, or just oblivious?

Spoiler: There are people who play games primarily, even exclusively, on consoles. They're going to factor in all sorts of aspects and bullet-points into which console they're going to buy and play on primarily throughout the console generation. Hardware power and potential for graphical fidelity play an important role into that decision - even if it's just a slightly more stable framerate, lower minimum framerate, that's still a factor that can go into the choice of console. That shit is important.

Please get a clue.

Thank you for your contentious tone. For all of the pent up aggression in your post, if you care this much about having more stable framerates and better graphical fidelity consoles aren't for you in the first place.

 

[Lynn616]

How about a better bet? Do you believe that over the life of the platforms, once devs have got to grips with the two consoles and their development tools have matured, there won't be any notable difference between consoles? If that is the case, then the entire world will own you and MS an apology.

I feel that at launch, there will be little to differentiate the two platforms, but with each passing software generation, the gulf will grow bigger and bigger.

I dont see why it would get bigger and bigger. Developers will get better at both systems not just the PS4.

There is no reason that a developer could not get better frame rates out of a system 50% more powerful from day one.

 

[benny_a]

.

Yeah, guess what that setup was? 1GB/s of eDRAM + 88GB/s DDR3.
Not 102GB/s as it originally was combined with DDR3 at 68GB/s.

I wonder if you're ignorant or if you're disingenuous?

A weaker complex setup is not preferable to a faster simpler setup. This shouldn't need explaining. It's almost absurd that this needs to be pointed out.

 

[thesuperfunk]

2. If it comes out after we launch that the difference between 3rd party games is maybe single-digit FPS between the two platforms, will I get an apology or concession?

First off, fair play to you for coming on here and fighting your corner ... Secondly, are you friends with Dennis Dyack by any chance?

 

[nib95]

not a fan of aquafina btw.

I don't really work for Aquafina lol.

 

[rjinaz]

.

It's a fair point, you did start out talking about the games, I just think you need to stay away from the "there isn't much difference" angle. There very well may not be, but people aren't going to take your word on it no matter what you say, they'll have to see it to believe it, and here is why:

I think the problem Microsoft is having, at least when it comes to people like me, it's not so much that I care that the PS4 has better graphics or that the XB1 has lesser graphics. For me, I'm having a hard time seeing the value (price and entertainment value) of the XB1 compared to the PS4 because the PS4 does cost less, and the PS4 does seem to have better specs. It's really hard for people to see why the XB1 is the better choice for them, unless they absolutely love or only play XB1 exclusive games. On the flip side, the PS4 has exclusive games as well.

The Kinect is a wonderful piece of technology, I'm just not convinced it will improve my gaming experience or offer something I will feel I am missing with a PS4. Until Microsoft can convince people of this, they are going to continue to argue what they do know, and that is price and graphics. So far they just haven't done that. I have an open mind though, like most here do I imagine.

 

[TheD]

So I explain that we have people on the team who are very experienced optimizing tools and development for graphics (DirectX, etc.) because we are a SW company, and that we have balance in the system in other places that equalize the playing field.

Then it's said that was all hokum, you're just spinning, we want math and more detail to prove what you're saying.

So at THIS point - I go talk to someone. "Hey, you helped design our system. You're a sr. technical leader at Microsoft. You're sitting with 3rd party developers right now who are working on both systems. Can you give me some points to help explain why nobody is seeing this rumored 50% delta"

Then I publish the points, so now I have GAF telling me a developer working on our system is wrong, and that I should just let the games speak for themselves.

Which is where I started. And since my attempts to provide more direct lines of information aren't considered truthful, because I'm not the source.. then I agree we are back where we started.

I will ask two questions of the detractors, honest questions.

1. What piece of information would you want that I could provide that would convince you there is not a huge delta in performance?
2. If it comes out after we launch that the difference between 3rd party games is maybe single-digit FPS between the two platforms, will I get an apology or concession?

Unless you have an other chip in there with a bunch of ALUs for graphical processing (and with software being at least equal, which we have no reason at all to believe that it is not), no you can not make up for a lack of processing power in the GPU!

Your points are objectively wrong, that is why we are calling you out!

Graphical loads scale very well across more ALUs, the PS4 also has a lot more ROPs than the XB1 (2x as many in fact!) that you do not address.

A 6% GPU clock speed bump making the system more than 6% faster is nearly impossible unless you had some very strange bottleneck.

You can not add up bandwidth like that (Why don't we start tossing in the CPU and GPU caches also, because it is clear you don't care about how much data each RAM pool can store?, that would make the peak XB1 vs PS4 bandwidth difference smaller!).

You can not prove their is not a large performance difference due to the fact there is one!

It does not matter if it is only single digit framerate difference due to the fact that not all games will be running at a high enough frame rate to make the % difference more frames than 9 in first place!

 

[Ricky_R]

not a fan of aquafina btw.

Not sure he works there...

Btw, how can you not be a fan of any water, but be a fan of another? Can't be taste right?

 

[nib95]

How about a better bet? Do you believe that over the life of the platforms, once devs have got to grips with the two consoles and their development tools have matured, there won't be any notable difference between consoles? If that is the case, then the entire world will own you and MS an apology.

I feel that at launch, there will be little to differentiate the two platforms, but with each passing software generation, the gulf will grow bigger and bigger.

My thoughts and prediction also. Launch differences will be minor and to either or, but the differences will continue to grow in favour of the PS4 as the generation continues.

 

[Wishmaster92]

Oh, I'm sure I'm going to regret this.

Let me ask on the AMA. I think the team wanted to do something different. The people I'm talking about will be getting out there to give details.

I do want to point out, this original discussion started with me saying, "Games on both systems look great. Look at Forza, Rise, Dead Rising, etc. All next-gen, on par or better than anything out there. We believe this 50% number is overstated"

Then people said, "that's subjective, we want proof"

So I explain that we have people on the team who are very experienced optimizing tools and development for graphics (DirectX, etc.) because we are a SW company, and that we have balance in the system in other places that equalize the playing field.

Then it's said that was all hokum, you're just spinning, we want math and more detail to prove what you're saying.

So at THIS point - I go talk to someone. "Hey, you helped design our system. You're a sr. technical leader at Microsoft. You're sitting with 3rd party developers right now who are working on both systems. Can you give me some points to help explain why nobody is seeing this rumored 50% delta"

Then I publish the points, so now I have GAF telling me a developer working on our system is wrong, and that I should just let the games speak for themselves.

Which is where I started. And since my attempts to provide more direct lines of information aren't considered truthful, because I'm not the source.. then I agree we are back where we started.

I will ask two questions of the detractors, honest questions.

1. What piece of information would you want that I could provide that would convince you there is not a huge delta in performance?
2. If it comes out after we launch that the difference between 3rd party games is maybe single-digit FPS between the two platforms, will I get an apology or concession?

I'm loving this line, Penello.

 

[lostsouldier]

Single digit difference in FPS can make a HUGE difference. CoD on PS3 being the perfect example as it never runs @ a solid 60fps, and the difference can really be felt with stuff like Zombies or when theres a lot of action going on and it starts to chug.

I would think the guys that made the 360 happen would understand how important framerate is.

How is the competitive scene going to react if multiplatform games like CoD ultimately windup performing better on PS4?

 

[evolution]

From Cerny himself
.

Microsoft didn't go with either of the examples discussed there.

 

[Dead Prince]

I don't really work for Aquafina lol.

Not sure he works there...

Btw, how can you not be a fan of any water, but be a fan of another? Can't be taste right?

they actually taste different lol.

 

[Quote]

You need to separate in your mind, the Albert trying to sell you something from the Albert, fellow GAF member, sharing his information with us and being attacked as a liar when you read that statement of his.

No, I don't. Albert, both the MS employee and "fellow GAF member", lives off MS's dime. His house, his car, his food and the Internet he uses to grace us comes from the company Microsoft.

Actually, this this statement is so absurd that I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm going to assume you're not.

 

[Ricky_R]

they actually taste different lol.

haha need to do a test then.

 

[thunder_snail]

Being weaker is not the problem. Being 50% weaker and at the same time $100 more expensive, just like Xbox One, is the problem.

Also MS relies heavily on third party games running the best on their system. It's been that way since the original Xbox.

 

[Bsigg12]

they actually taste different lol.

Truth. Fiji water for the win.

 

[NullPointer]

Certainly.

In addition, you always have the problem that the ESRAM pool might be to small for your needs. The 360, for instance, hit its limit in games that needed relatively big pixelbuffers for deferred rendering [1]. For instance, a buffer with 12bytes information per pixel requires more than 10MB at 720p, but the 360 only had 10MB of eDRAM.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_shading

I love learning things

Thanks for the details, seriously. I'm not used to dealing with hardware on this level so all the back and forth of console power has been fascinating.

I just hope the conversation can keep going, and stay civil.

 

[Brad Grenz]

From Cerny himself
.

In his hypothetical design the main memory was 30% faster, and the EDRAM was 1000% faster than what the Xbox One has.

 

[redhot_]

That AMA is just going to be a one sided shit storm.

 

[J-Rzez]

Poor Al. He's got nerves of steel at least.

Unfortunately it sounds to be a losing battle here. Too many people with computer science knowledge and too many developers saying the PS4 is superior.

Let the games talk. Let's see what ports are like. Let's see if a dev says, we took advantage of all the powers and see what happens. I say ports though because Sony's 1st-Party is a superior, and not a fair comparison. If hardware was on parity, they'd be capable to make that difference, but it's not. If they have more powerful hardware, it's going to be a bloodbath.

 

[Klocker]

No, I fucking don't. Albert, both the MS employee and "fellow GAF member", lives off MS's dime. His house, his car, his food and the Internet he uses to grace us comes from the company Microsoft.

Actually, this this statement is so absurd that I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm going to assume you're not.

Sorry you are so angry... yes I was serious that you took his statement out of context

 

[USC-fan]

I will ask two questions of the detractors, honest questions.

1. What piece of information would you want that I could provide that would convince you there is not a huge delta in performance?
2. If it comes out after we launch that the difference between 3rd party games is maybe single-digit FPS between the two platforms, will I get an apology or concession?

1. There will not be a "huge delta" in performance. But there will be a difference and will you agree to that?

2. LOL you just do not understand what people are talking about. While i agree with #1 I do NOT agree with they way you are spinning numbers to muddy the water.

While you may feel people jump all over MS unfairly. You guys have not earn any respect launching the x1. I do not need to list the countless screw ups. These esram numbers just seem to be the latest spin ms has put out there. That at least the way it comes across.

 

[ElTorro]

1. What piece of information would you want that I could provide that would convince you there is not a huge delta in performance?
2. If it comes out after we launch that the difference between 3rd party games is maybe single-digit FPS between the two platforms, will I get an apology or concession?

Frankly, those questions cannot be answered objectively since people here never quantify what they mean by a "huge" difference. Some will say that a 900p/1080p resolution difference is huge, others won't notice.

In addition, since you don't know the details of the PS4's system architecture yourselves - at least, you implied so much -, comparisons about performance deltas due to such details in both system architectures are not really possible.

The only somewhat valid metric will be multi-platform games over the next years.

 

[FINALBOSS]

No, I don't. Albert, both the MS employee and "fellow GAF member", lives off MS's dime. His house, his car, his food and the Internet he uses to grace us comes from the company Microsoft.

Actually, this this statement is so absurd that I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'm going to assume you're not.

He wasn't. Read Klocker's previous posts to get an idea of where he comes from and how he posts.

Sorry you are so angry... yes I was serious that you took his statement out of context

He's not angry. He's tired of people like you with your coy responses and buttering up to anything Xbox and Albert. It's one thing to like the product and be enthusiastic...it's another to go out of your way to do it over all other logic and reasoning.

 

[2dshmuplover]

To be honest, Xbox showed its power over PS2 immediately despite developers already being well into PS2 2nd gen software. I remember Xbox very early on running titles that PS2 had been struggling at 30fps with bad draw distance had not only bigger draw distance on Xbox, but had sharper textures and displayed at 480p and 60fps.. Snowboarding game, can't remember the name atm. This is despite being ports because games like Splinter Cell obliterated the PS2. Note that some folks believe the gap between XB1 and PS4 to be larger which is absurd imo

I agree and especially since the hardware isn't as exotic as previous consoles, the power gap should already be apparent, certainly if it's 50% as some are claiming.

 

[Finalizer]

Dude easy... lol. The guy was just making an observation... not life or death brah...

It's no less a dumb "observation." Belittling the entire conversation because "lol console peasants" does nothing for anyone. But feel free to keep trying to exaggerate my point in an attempt to trivialize my posts.

And for what it's worth, let me make it clear - it's not the conversation over the power difference between the consoles that's gotten me irritated, I've made my thoughts on that clear numerous times in the past; it's this thinly-veiled "PC master race" crap getting thrown around that I'm specifically responding to.

 

[Final Boss]

Also MS relies heavily on third party games running the best on their system. It's been that way since the original Xbox.

Honestly see payola continuing this trend


perception is reality, if reviews keep pointing out how the Xbox version is better like this gen then sales will go their way

 

[nib95]

Not sure he works there...

Btw, how can you not be a fan of any water, but be a fan of another? Can't be taste right?

Oh trust me, there can be big differences. Amount of calcium, acid, alkali etc can all effect taste. For example, I dislike Nestle, Dasani and Volvic mineral water, and really like Buxtons, Evian and Highland Spring.

 

[beast786]

. All i know is Sony has exagerated before..

I am sure that's all you know.

2nd its not just Sony but also 3rd party developers.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

Never? Not a single game was better on PS3 than 360?

Also trying to equate two wildly different architectures to two extremely similar architectures with one just packing more power is incredibly misleading. Seems intentional.

I did not try to equate them at all in that sense.

The situation this time around is actually different in the sense that the consoles are very similar. This suggests to me that whatever differences are there will show straight away. Is it not better to just look at games instead of specs?

If for some reason the situation changed after 3 years it's not like people wouldn't notice and change their opinion. I just don't see the point in arguing about untapped power and specs when there are actual games to compare.

 

[LittleJohnny]

but if it is 50% you should notice quite a difference regardless

Correct. Both consoles will be running unoptimized code, in fact even more so true for XBO since it has a more complicated architecture. The more powerful + easier to optimize hardware will shine the brightest during launch.

 

[Glorified G]

1. What piece of information would you want that I could provide that would convince you there is not a huge delta in performance?
2. If it comes out after we launch that the difference between 3rd party games is maybe single-digit FPS between the two platforms, will I get an apology or concession?

The questions have been asked ad-nasuem. It's not about the performance difference, it's the fuzzy math and constant contradictions that you seem to be avoiding. At least you didn't bail, though you might as well have since you're evading any direct questions and supplying your own instead.

I am honestly surprised I spent so much money on my rig and nobody cares enough to talk about it.

fixed

 

[anexanhume]

Two more points I haven't seen brought up, both of which concern Mark Cerny.

Using the GPU to do audio raycasting in a GPGPU manner is something explicitly mentioned. Given that the PS4 has 50% more CU resources, it seems obvious any DSP advantage could be compensated by GPGPU.

Second, Cerny explicitly mentioned that they looked at embedded RAM with bandwidths up to 1 TB/s. They discarded that in favor of high bandwidth main RAM. They stated that developer simplicity was the goal. So, that means that even with huge amounts of memory bandwidth, they were worried about developers being able to expose it. Tell us why third parties will want to expend the effort when they don't have to on PS4? Keep in mind, developers complained about PS3 complexity this gen and third party titles never looked as good as first party titles developed using ICE team and other shared assets.

You have to understand that to an outsider, the ESRAM does not look like a performance booster. It looks like a cost saver. You use a high bandwidth moderately sized local memory so you can use an inexpensive, lower bandwidth main memory so that your system costs decreases very favorably. Otherwise, you're telling us that 32MB of ESRAM was a better way to spend die space than 50% more CUs and 100% more ROPs. Given how much time MS is using to explain why we'll never see that increased 50% number rather than explaining the explicit benefits of ESRAM bandwidth and move engines to increase GPU efficiency is very telling.