Support NeoGAF

[geordiemp]

I love party chat on 360 - most of the time in COD I create a party just to auto mute the screaming trash talking kids LOL

 

[Sword Of Doom]

For me personally psn is both painfully slow and unreliable.I find myself dreading switching on my ps3 after a long downtime because of the horrifically slow updates.I know a lot of the issues are down to PS3 hardware and lack of Sony foresight but even then I feel PSN speed needs to improve to compare to Live.

A part of the problem is the long down time. Obviously with so many things to update it takes a while. Hopefully next gen these issues will be resolved as the PS4 can do these things in the background.

I can only speak from my experience but if you use your PS3 regularly you shouldn't have these issues

 

[satam55]

It does need to improve, and I'm sure it will. That's why they are making PS+ mandatory for online multiplayer. Improving the infrastructure would be a major area where that money goes, hopefully.

PSN on PS3 being slow is a hardware issue. The PS3 has an outdated Wi-Fi card. If you hook your PS3 up via Ethernet, you won't have speed issues.

Sony putting Online multiplayer behind PS+ is pretty much BS. They were already gonna have a new PSN regardless. They're only putting online multiplayer behind the PS+ paywall because they want in on the money that Microsoft makes from putting online multiplayer behind XBLG.

I really hope SteamOS takes off, so it forces the console makers to drop their bullshit online multiplayer paywall.

 

[marvin83]

Don't think this is possible. Remote play, as far as I know, works like screen mirroring. So you can't have a vita playing a PS4 game, while your better half watches netflix on the same PS4. That would mean the PS4 would have to drive two different screens and applications in parallel. It doesn't.

I think marvin83 gave the wrong example. But the confirmation that you can suspend games and do other stuff is accurate.

You can suspend the game by hitting the PS button (twice, I think) to switch to any application you please. In fact, you can turn the PS4 to low power mode (which is the standard off state for all intents and purposes), turn it on again and resume your game exactly where you left off.

I swear it was posted here on maybe a different thread. Maybe I misread it as something that's used in conjunction with Vita TV as well as a PS4? Digging now and so far can only find someone asking and confirming in the comments section of an article. I'll keep digging!

 

[hecy234]

With the high number of ACEs on the ps4 will it even need to dedicate CUs to compute or will most games (in the future) just use ACEs and leave most, if not all of the CUs for rendering purposes? Or am I completely misguided/showing my lack of tech knowledge XD

 

[Skeff]

To Clarify the remote play thing:

The PS4 provides remote play by duplicating the exact output of the PS4 and scaling it 544p(or 720p if using vitaTV) and streaming that to the Vita, Whilst assigning the Vita as another controller.

Whatever you do on the PS4 during this time is mirrored on the Vita, this still allows the use of multiplayer games split between Vita/VitaTV but the exact image is sent.

Regarding the majority of the PSN complaints:
Stop using the Wifi card in the PS3 it sucks
Look at the Vita

Between those two, both of which will be further improved on the PS4, PSN is great.

PSN =/= the PSN experience on PS3 via WiFi...

 

[geordiemp]

To Clarify the remote play thing:


PSN =/= the PSN experience on PS3 via WiFi...

Yeah, I read a few articles (wish I remember where) confirming Ps4 has additional hardware to send images at no loss of performance to VITA, and as Ps3 does not the + PS3 performance suffers.

 

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That's a good question actually




I think to be able to do remote play while still using the PS4 for apps like Netflix would require Sony to reserve GPU/RAM and other system resources like MS has. This is where it gets interesting. You balance features with what you want to dedicate to games. I'm no tech guy but is my statement false? Please correct if it is

Don't they have 2 GB of ram reserved and then that Arm core or something? Not saying its possible, but could be. I wish they would release more info already.

 

[schuey7]

A part of the problem is the long down time. Obviously with so many things to update it takes a while. Hopefully next gen these issues will be resolved as the PS4 can do these things in the background.

I can only speak from my experience but if you use your PS3 regularly you shouldn't have these issues

For me downloading anything on PSN is painfully slow,so much so that I have free ps+ games waiting to download but I couldn't be bothered.Also I use my PS3 infrequently and waiting for updates when I just want a quick race in GT is frustrating due to the slow system updates.I have switched providers but it is of no use .I remember leaving my ps3 on for 14 hours to download the GT update when it should have been done in an hour.Anyway I have my fingers crossed that the speed situation in India will improve for PSN.

 

[schuey7]

PSN on PS3 being slow is a hardware issue. The PS3 has an outdated Wi-Fi card. If you hook your PS3 up via Ethernet, you won't have speed issues.

Sony putting Online multiplayer behind PS+ is pretty much BS. They were already gonna have a new PSN regardless. They're only putting online multiplayer behind the PS+ paywall because they want in on the money that Microsoft makes from putting online multiplayer behind XBLG.

I really hope SteamOS takes off, so it forces the console makers to drop their bullshit online multiplayer paywall.

Did not know this about the wifi card.Will try it on an ethernet shared connection from my laptop when I next play on the PS3 considering I have not switched it on for a month.

 

[Skeff]

For me downloading anything on PSN is painfully slow,so much so that I have free ps+ games waiting to download but I couldn't be bothered.Also I use my PS3 infrequently and waiting for updates when I just want a quick race in GT is frustrating due to the slow system updates.I have switched providers but it is of no use .I remember leaving my ps3 on for 14 hours to download the GT update when it should have been done in an hour.Anyway I have my fingers crossed that the speed situation in India will improve for PSN.

If it takes 14 hours to do a update that's not PSN, either your Ps3 is on the very edge of the WiFi coverage or your router is blocking ports.

In 14 hours on my PS3 (Phat) using WiFi (the worst wifi card of all models) and my 12mbps line with a Max download speed of 1.2MB/sec on my PC, I can comfortably download all of GT, not just an update, with hours to spare.

 

[nib95]

I download entire games on PSN in about an hour or two, so yea, 14 hours means something is wrong on your end unless your internet is just extremely slow. If you check out the GTA V thread, you'll see most people downloaded GTA V in a matter of hours (once the download option actually went up) as well, which shocked me, because I'd imagine tens of thousands were downloading it at the same time.

 

[schuey7]

I download entire games on PSN in about an hour or two, so yea, 14 hours means something is wrong on your end unless your internet is just extremely slow. If you check out the GTA V thread, you'll see most people downloaded GTA V in a matter of hours (once the download option actually went up) as well, which shocked me, because I'd imagine tens of thousands were downloading it at the same time.

Well I have a PS3 slim and the wifi connection is perfect and I have tried a lot of different settings and connections but the PSN is just slow on my end .If you have a link to a troubleshooting guide it could help. Given that I have streamed hd movies from xbmc to the PS3 the wifi does not seem to be the problem.But anyway I think anyone in my shoes would be frustrated,

 

[Cidd]

I download entire games on PSN in about an hour or two, so yea, 14 hours means something is wrong on your end unless your internet is just extremely slow. If you check out the GTA V thread, you'll see most people downloaded GTA V in a matter of hours (once the download option actually went up) as well, which shocked me, because I'd imagine tens of thousands were downloading it at the same time.

Same here, the only problems I have is HDD space but then again I have a 55Mbps connection. I also never use wifi, ethernet port is the way to go.

 

[nib95]

Well I have a PS3 slim and the wifi connection is perfect and I have tried a lot of different settings and connections but the PSN is just slow on my end .If you have a link to a troubleshooting guide it could help. Given that I have streamed hd movies from xbmc to the PS3 the wifi does not seem to be the problem.But anyway I think anyone in my shoes would be frustrated,

Might be an issue with either NAT types or blocked ports by your ISP/Router. Out of curiosity, on your network settings, what NAT type is shown?

 

[schuey7]

Might be an issue with either NAT types or blocked ports by your ISP/Router. Out of curiosity, on your network settings, what NAT type is shown?

I have UPnP enabled on my dlink router but going through my settings the PS3 isn't set up in a dmz. . Maybe I will try that and report back when my leased line is back online.It is "Durga Puja" holiday here and therefore no customer service for the leased line which went down yesterday.

 

[Havel]

First time poster, long time lurker, here.

This has been one hell of a thread to watch this past month. Only wish I could have participated in it from the start. Can't wait to be apart of the crazy community here. ;p

 

[Pain]

Realistically, can the human eye really tell the difference? I've been a vocal critic of several of MS's decisions with Xbone. But, Im not really sure 720p vs 1080p matters. Stable frames, fresh/exciting art design, etc seem more important than check box stats. I'm more worried that Halo 4's mistakes will be repeated. It was and still is a gorgeous game on 9 yr old hardware. I think Halo 5 will likely amaze us graphically. But what remains to be seen is how well it all gels, from story arc in SP to MP balance.

Try any PC game such as an MMO. the difference between 1080p and 720p is HUGE and it is obvious. This isnext-gen. 1080p should be standard. If you want to push extra polygons or whatever you're doing it wrong.

Resolution > Gameplay > Graphics

 

[vcc]

That's a good question actually




I think to be able to do remote play while still using the PS4 for apps like Netflix would require Sony to reserve GPU/RAM and other system resources like MS has. This is where it gets interesting. You balance features with what you want to dedicate to games. I'm no tech guy but is my statement false? Please correct if it is

RAM for sure and it's very likely included in the OS footprint already. gpu problably not. I recall they mentioned a separate video encoding chip which they will be using for both streaming to video sites and the vita.

 

[vcc]

With the high number of ACEs on the ps4 will it even need to dedicate CUs to compute or will most games (in the future) just use ACEs and leave most, if not all of the CUs for rendering purposes? Or am I completely misguided/showing my lack of tech knowledge XD

The ACEs are GPGPU queues that schedule work on the CU. CU are available during the predictable idle parts of the rendering cycle. So you can do theoretically GPGPU tasks even using all 18 CUs for graphics. More work could be done if they permanently reserve a few which seems to be what some launch games are doing. The physics and other calcs are presumed to be more impressive than just traditional GPU tasks alone. Having a flat memory space and high bandwidth seem essential for GPGPU.

 

[FeiRR]

Flops aren't just for iq. Flops are essentially what game will feature.

If your gpu won't be able to render 64 characters on screen there wouldn't be 64 players mode in bf.

Only ignorant people say that power =/= gameplay. Game developers create their design with power in mind.

There wouldn't be euphoria engine in GTA4 if hardware would be to weak.

There wasn't Skyrim for Wii because hardware didn't allow to run skyrim min req for engine.

Power is answer why in deep down casting whirlewind can protect you from fire.

Power doesn't guarantee better gameplay. Look at launch titles. How many of them have breakthrough ideas in the gameplay? I think none... Devs need to sit down and think what they can do with the power. Rendering 64 players on screen is not a problem, how they'll look like is. You could have a 256-player game like MAG but there were other sacrifices to gameplay made. You could remake Deep Down for 8-bit platforms and still have whirlwinds counter dragon fire, even roguelike games do that. You could make a new engine for Skyrim on Wii because, sure, a port wouldn't work. There's always a way but of course we want technical advances and we want to enjoy new experiences. That's one of the reasons I'm siding with Sony because they really want that.

 

[hecy234]

The ACEs are GPGPU queues that schedule work on the CU. CU are available during the predictable idle parts of the rendering cycle. So you can do theoretically GPGPU tasks even using all 18 CUs for graphics. More work could be done if they permanently reserve a few which seems to be what some launch games are doing. The physics and other calcs are presumed to be more impressive than just traditional GPU tasks alone. Having a flat memory space and high bandwidth seem essential for GPGPU.

Thanks for explaining it! So basically games that need lots of compute would be best off reserving CUs whereas those that don't can still do compute, but in a more limited fashion?

 

[Sword Of Doom]

I download entire games on PSN in about an hour or two, so yea, 14 hours means something is wrong on your end unless your internet is just extremely slow. If you check out the GTA V thread, you'll see most people downloaded GTA V in a matter of hours (once the download option actually went up) as well, which shocked me, because I'd imagine tens of thousands were downloading it at the same time.

Downloaded Kingdom Of Amalur which is 14GB in 45minutes last night. They're changing some things I think. Of course I have ethernet connected

 

[twobear]

Resolution > Gameplay > Graphics

Wat

 

[vcc]

Thanks for explaining it! So basically games that need lots of compute would be best off reserving CUs whereas those that don't can still do compute, but in a more limited fashion?

That seems to be Sony's pitch to Devs. It will likely be more important to the PS4 than the XB1 because you can apply GPGPU calculations to anything in memory while the XB! has the ESRAM off limits and less bandwidth to shuttle that data back and forth. It'll probably a whole family of technique and algorithms like what resogun uses won't be used at all on the XB1.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

Try any PC game such as an MMO. the difference between 1080p and 720p is HUGE and it is obvious. This isnext-gen. 1080p should be standard. If you want to push extra polygons or whatever you're doing it wrong.

Resolution > Gameplay > Graphics

I've found it. The worst opinion.

 

[spatenfloot]

Really? Netflix would be running on the same PS4 as you were remote playing from?

I don't believe this.

Why would you need to run Netflix from the PS4? Most people probably have two other Netflix devices by the TV.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

That seems to be Sony's pitch to Devs. It will likely be more important to the PS4 than the XB1 because you can apply GPGPU calculations to anything in memory while the XB! has the ESRAM off limits and less bandwidth to shuttle that data back and forth. It'll probably a whole family of technique and algorithms like what resogun uses won't be used at all on the XB1.

They won't be used on XB1 or they can't be used on XB1?

Cause if they can't be used on XB1 then 3rd party developers will leave them out of games altogether. We will only see them in PS4 exclusives like Resogun

 

[ElTorro]

They won't be used on XB1 or they can't be used on XB1?

Any GPGPU algorithm that can be implemented on PS4 can also be implemented on XBO. There isn't a fundamental barrier preventing such techniques on either platform. The PS4, however, has the benefit of having significantly more compute resources to spend, and, in addition, has the more efficient architecture (scheduling, cache management).

 

[Perkel]

Power doesn't guarantee better gameplay.

No it doesn't but it allow developers to do their work with less restrictions. Better gameplay is just byproduct of developer creating without limitations.

One developer can use all its power to do AO other may use it to run compex simulations so that every trader in world will have stock based on this simulation instead of scripted stock.
One developer can use all power to create beautifull vistas for their linear FPS game, other can create less amazing vistas but where you can actually go and chop wood, mine and do many thing more.

If power wouldn't evolve to this day we would be playing 2D racing games, 2D sport games, there wouldn't be 3D mario nor sunshine would be so awesome.

Devs are still limited by power for many things. There is ton of things that req power that even next gen consoles and best PC don't have. Like full real city simulation where every NPC is living their own live based on his AI. What we have for example are only aprox. of those.

Best proof would be Dwarf Fortress. That games doesn't need really GPU since it renders everything in ASCII grapic but if you take big plot even best PC CPU will have to work a lot to run this game because games has 1000s of different simulations for every little thing. From dwarf internal organs health to tectonic plates movement inside of planet and devs still add more things.

Power alone doesn't give you better gameplay. It allows devs to make better gameplay. The more power you have the better gameplay devs can make.

Any GPGPU algorithm that can be implemented on PS4 can also be implemented on XBO. There isn't a fundamental barrier preventing such techniques on either platform. The PS4, however, has the benefit of having significantly more compute resources to spend, and, in addition, has the more efficient architecture (scheduling, cache management).

Wouldn't this be like any 3D graphic resource ? I mean for example if one dev would create physic engine that would work good on PS4 there might be a case where min req for this tech won't be meet. Same as any other 3D effects.

I mean fire physic like in Deep Down where even on PS4 seems to work in like 10-15 fps. Going for 5 fps or less would look worse than sprite based fire. There is a limit where this new tech would look worse than old tech.

Naturally in era of third party and nonexclusivity we won't see exclusive tech for one or other console.

 

[Servbot24]

Power doesn't guarantee better gameplay.

Sure but that's not what the thread is about. If you think good graphics are evil then this probably isn't the thread for you.

 

[Tsundere]

Power doesn't guarantee better gameplay.

... People really need to know what is relevant in terms of graphical power.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

How does making the most of respective platforms = bad PR?

I never get that either. If a game looks good on one platform and on another platform it looks relatively worse because of hardware limitations that's on the platform holder not the developer.

 

[StevieP]

Sure but that's not what the thread is about. If you think good graphics are evil then this probably isn't the thread for you.

There are other threads on this forum that are even more relevant to power = good graphics. No need for everyone to pile on the same poster for a valid opinion.

 

[Pwn]

Power makes various gameplay possible.

 

[Wishmaster92]

Too true, current/last gen people were getting all up in arms over a 3fps difference and throwing screenshots under the microscope to find the difference between AA technologies.

But I don't care about that, I'm going for the better option the PS4. But I also don't really give much shit about the resolution and framerate, sure it's nice to know they're better, but I wouldn't be crying about it if I had an Xbone.



This, this is what I'm more interested in. Everyone throws out numbers, but has anyone addressed the speed differences between DDR3 and GDDR5 RAM in texture loading, pop ins etc.

I want to know if the PS4 will get differences like PhyX on and off in Borderlands 2 compared to Xbone?

Stuff that visually changes the way the game plays.

If you are talking about latency then no, there wont be any difference between the two (nanosecond difference). Based on all the topics I've read, it seems that the Xbox One is cpu/bandwidth bound and the ps4 is Gpu/Compute bound. The xbox one's cpu is running at a higher frequency than the ps4 (1.75 vs 1.6) and takes up 30gb/s vs 20gb/s of bandwidth.

Some say the Cpu will be a bottleneck for the ps4 and it does make sense. The ps4 has a much better gpu than the xbox one, but both consoles have the same cpu. Doesn't this make the xbox one more balanced? As in mid-end gpu with a mid-end cpu, compared to the ps4 high-end gpu with a mid-end cpu? The ps4 also has this feature called "fine grain compute" which allows these features:

Which might make the cpu bottleneck argument irrelevant.

Regarding hUMA, all we know is that the ps4 most definitely supports it, the xbox one migh support it according to this:

The CPU cache block attaches to the GPU MMU, which drives the entire graphics core and video engine. Of particular interest for our purposes is this bit: “CPU, GPU, special processors, and I/O share memory via host-guest MMUs and synchronized page tables.” If Microsoft is using synchronized page tables, this strongly suggests that the Xbox One supports HSA/hUMA.

And finally regarding bandwidth, the ps4 has 176gb/s theoretical (about 170gb/s real world) and the xbox one has 68gb/s( about 60gb/s real world) and the esram 204gb/s(150gb/s real world) when all is said and done:

Ps4: 170gb/s = 150gb/s for gpu + 20gb/s for cpu.
Xb1: 210gb/s(only 32mb) = 180gb/s gpu + 30gb/s cpu.

As you can see, the difference isn't even that big and we all know that unified memory is much better than the esram/ddr3 combination Microsoft uses. Anyone feel free to correct me.

Regarding the bolded parts, there shouldn't be any texture loading differences comparing gddr5 vs ddr3 as there is barely any latency difference. And regarding physx, i would say both consoles will support it.

 

[KORNdoggy]

Doesn't this make the xbox one more balanced?

Oh no you didn't...

 

[fastford58]

Try any PC game such as an MMO. the difference between 1080p and 720p is HUGE and it is obvious. This isnext-gen. 1080p should be standard. If you want to push extra polygons or whatever you're doing it wrong.

Resolution > Gameplay > Graphics

That can't be right.

 

[FeiRR]

Sure but that's not what the thread is about. If you think good graphics are evil then this probably isn't the thread for you.

Funny thing because I consider myself a relatime graphics whore but I wouldn't say that resolution > gameplay (lol). I also wrote in the same post: of course we want technical advances and we want to enjoy new experiences. Technical advancement usually means more power and more power usually means better graphics. Better graphics increases immersion which improves gameplay. But they are not equal, games are complex enough to require a good mix of those (damn, I wanted to use the word "balance" but it's been abused too much). I wouldn't play Crysis 3 once again despite it being such an eyecandy because some other elements of this game, like AI and story, suck so much. If I were to design a single player shooter, I'd devote a lot of attention to AI. I played hundreds of them but, regarding the campaign, I remember best those which had great AI (for example F.E.A.R, Halo, Killzone). In case of Crysis 3, it's power wasted on things like foliage. I hope we want more from next gen than that and I hope devs want the same. That's why it will just get interesting post-launch.

Am I making myself more clear now? If not, nevermind... Thanks to Perkel for dropping the name of Dwarf Fortress. A very ambitious project.

 

[nib95]

Ps4: 170gb/s = 150gb/s for gpu + 20gb/s for cpu.
Xb1: 210gb/s(only 32mb) = 180gb/s gpu + 30gb/s cpu.

As you can see, the difference isn't even that big and we all know that unified memory is much better than the esram/ddr3 combination Microsoft uses. Anyone feel free to correct me.

Regarding the bolded parts, there shouldn't be any texture loading differences comparing gddr5 vs ddr3 as there is barely any latency difference. And regarding physx, i would say both consoles will support it.

Tonnes of misinformation in this post. Firstly, the PS4's CPU bandwidth is separate to the GPU's memory bandwidth. Second of all, the PS4 actually has 30 GB\s CPU bandwidth with Onion+ included.

Adding to that, the latest real world bandwidth numbers for the PS4 are 172 GB/s, the latest real world numbers are 140 GB/s for the Esram. We do not have real world bandwidth numbers for the Xbox One's DDR3 ram, which is what is more important if anything, given that it makes up 99.996% of the Xbox One's total available ram.

 

[Skeff]

Regarding hUMA, all we know is that the ps4 most definitely supports it, the xbox one migh support it according to this:



And finally regarding bandwidth, the ps4 has 176gb/s theoretical (about 170gb/s real world) and the xbox one has 68gb/s( about 60gb/s real world) and the esram 204gb/s(150gb/s real world) when all is said and done:

Ps4: 170gb/s = 150gb/s for gpu + 20gb/s for cpu.
Xb1: 210gb/s(only 32mb) = 180gb/s gpu + 30gb/s cpu.

As you can see, the difference isn't even that big and we all know that unified memory is much better than the esram/ddr3 combination Microsoft uses. Anyone feel free to correct me.

Nope!

Firstly, the xb1 is not hUMA due to esram, the clue is in the word "Unified" It can be a slower imitation of hUMA, but still not hUMA. I remember your article from a while ago and there are many mistakes in it:

It implies that there’s a way for the CPU to snoop the contents of ESRAM, but there’s no mention of why that capability isn’t already provided for on the Onion/Garlic buses

Speaking about the XB1 having onion and garlic buses for one is a large mistake.

Also for the Bandwidth That's not real world averages, that's real world maximums. Your using the maximum bandwidth ever achieved on the esram (150gb/s) as an average.

How long was that bandwidth achieved for exactly? At times the esram may be up to 150gb/s but at other times it will surely be as low as 0gb/s because all of the calls are coming for data in the main memory pool. To be honest I'd expect an average of around 140-150gb/s for the xb1 extended real world bandwidth compared to the 170gbs for the ps4.

EDIT: It should be noted at this point the Esram is not on a 1024 bit bus, it is in 4 8mb chunks each on a 256bit bus, this WILL affect the bandwidth.

Regarding the CPU being a potential bottleneck in PS4, I don't see it myself, the difference in CPU, is rather small (<10%) if the PS4 is indeed clocked at 1.6Ghz and it could well be that the XB1 reserves more CPU than the PS4 for Kinect/OS features anyway, Not to mention the ability to use GPGPU if required.

As far as the difference in gameplay due to power we are all ready seeing examples with GPGPU:
Knack - The way his body becomes bigger and is show is based on GPGPU physics with all of the parts that make him whole.
DeepDown - GPGPU Fluid Dynamics are used both for visual effect's (Water monsters) but also as gameplay elements(using a tornado to deflect fire) The fire is dissipated by the tornado effect using GPGPU Fluid Dynamics.
The Order - Soft Body Dynamics to create never before done world destruction/deformation.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Nope!

Firstly, the xb1 is not hUMA due to esram, the clue is in the word "Unified" It can be a slower imitation of hUMA, but still not hUMA. I remember your article from a while ago and there are many mistakes in it:



Speaking about the XB1 having onion and garlic buses for one is a large mistake.

Also for the Bandwidth That's not real world averages, that's real world maximums. Your using the maximum bandwidth ever achieved on the esram (150gb/s) as an average.

How long was that bandwidth achieved for exactly? At times the esram may be up to 150gb/s but at other times it will surely be as low as 0gb/s because all of the calls are coming for data in the main memory pool. To be honest I'd expect an average of around 140-150gb/s for the xb1 extended real world bandwidth compared to the 170gbs for the ps4.

EDIT: It should be noted at this point the Esram is not on a 1024 bit bus, it is in 4 8mb chunks each on a 256bit bus, this WILL affect the bandwidth.

Regarding the CPU being a potential bottleneck in PS4, I don't see it myself, the difference in CPU, is rather small (<10%) if the PS4 is indeed clocked at 1.6Ghz and it could well be that the XB1 reserves more CPU than the PS4 for Kinect/OS features anyway, Not to mention the ability to use GPGPU if required.

As far as the difference in gameplay due to power we are all ready seeing examples with GPGPU:
Knack - The way his body becomes bigger and is show is based on GPGPU physics with all of the parts that make him whole.
DeepDown - GPGPU Fluid Dynamics are used both for visual effect's (Water monsters) but also as gameplay elements(using a tornado to deflect fire) The fire is dissipated by the tornado effect using GPGPU Fluid Dynamics.
The Order - Soft Body Dynamics to create never before done world destruction/deformation.

All ps4 exclusive games. Is this how it's gonna be all generation? Or will multiplatform games also use GPGPU eventually?

 

[Wishmaster92]

Firstly, the PS4's CPU bandwidth is separate to the GPU's memory bandwidth.

So the ps4's total memory bandwidth would be 172gb/s+30gb/s? Unless I'm reading your post wrong?

172gb/s for gpu+30gb/s for cpu?
Or
142gb/s for gpu+30gb/s for cpu?

Kind of confused on this part.

 

[vcc]

Some say the Cpu will be a bottleneck for the ps4 and it does make sense. The ps4 has a much better gpu than the xbox one, but both consoles have the same cpu. Doesn't this make the xbox one more balanced? As in mid-end gpu with a mid-end cpu, compared to the ps4 high-end gpu with a mid-end cpu? The ps4 also has this feature called "fine grain compute" which allows these features:

The PS4 and XB1 will have nearly the same CPU capabilities.

Which might make the cpu bottleneck argument irrelevant.

I don't think 6% will be a huge difference although shuttling some Traditional CPU tasks to the GPU may more thank make up for it. May not.

Regarding hUMA, all we know is that the ps4 most definitely supports it, the xbox one migh support it according to this:

XB1 can do something equivalent but suffers from the problem that hUMA is supposed to fix. It's inefficient to copy stuff back and forth and hUMA is meant to address that but letting the CPU and GPU work on data without moving the data much. XB1 can do unified memory addressing but to enable ti they have to move data back and forth which pretty much negates the benefit. It seems to me XB1 is doing it ass backwards. Touting the name of the solution rather than the effect.

And finally regarding bandwidth, the ps4 has 176gb/s theoretical (about 170gb/s real world) and the xbox one has 68gb/s( about 60gb/s real world) and the esram 204gb/s(150gb/s real world) when all is said and done:

Ps4: 170gb/s = 150gb/s for gpu + 20gb/s for cpu.
Xb1: 210gb/s(only 32mb) = 180gb/s gpu + 30gb/s cpu.

The number are off.

PS4 is 176GB/s from GPU to main memory and 40gb/s on 3 different busses between CPU and main memory (20GB,10GB,10GB) supposedly.

Theoretical peak, 176Gb/s GPU to Main memory.

XB1 is 109GB/s either writing or reading and not both at once to the 32mb of ESRAM and 68GB/s from GPU to main memory and 30GB/s from cPU to main memory.

Theoretical peak. 177GB/s, 109GB/s to ESRAM, 68GB GPU to main memory.

CPU poking into main memory or rooting through caches reduced effective bandwidth on both machines.

As you can see, the difference isn't even that big and we all know that unified memory is much better than the esram/ddr3 combination Microsoft uses. Anyone feel free to correct me.

Regarding the bolded parts, there shouldn't be any texture loading differences comparing gddr5 vs ddr3 as there is barely any latency difference. And regarding physx, i would say both consoles will support it.

Yeah Latency difference in between GDDR5 and DDR3 are likely meaningless regarding game performance. Might make a small difference if you are doing a 65535x65535 cell spreadsheet using a algorithm that needs random access but not for games.

 

[vcc]

They won't be used on XB1 or they can't be used on XB1?

Cause if they can't be used on XB1 then 3rd party developers will leave them out of games altogether. We will only see them in PS4 exclusives like Resogun

I'd say 'won't'. It could be used but it doesn't seem like the XB1 is made to use it as easily as the PS4. Memory bandwidth limits, need to copy work back and forth between ESRAM, and the lack of much spare GPU resources suggested if it is used it'd be to a much lesser extent.

 

[Skeff]

All ps4 exclusive games. Is this how it's gonna be all generation? Or will multiplatform games also use GPGPU eventually?

I'm sure they will make their way on to multiplatform games too, but to what extent, no idea. The teams working on exclusives will have been working with the development of the PS4 longer so will have known that the architecture allows for a very efficient use of GPGPU that could be planned for. Personally I'd like to soft body Dyamics in Battlefield, it would be outrageous.

 

[foxbeldin]

Yeah Latency difference in between GDDR5 and DDR3 are likely meaningless regarding game performance. Might make a small difference if you are doing a 65535x65535 cell spreadsheet using a algorithm that needs random access but not for games.

Latency difference is even close to 0 since identified X1 memory chips are Micron "2133 Mhz CAS 14" which is not exactly high end modules.

Translation in real world latency :
(14 / 1066) x 1000 = 13.1 ns

Some GDDR5 chips have better latency than this. Even with a CL 20 it could be close, cause the base clock is higher (1375).

 

[nib95]

So the ps4's total memory bandwidth would be 172gb/s+30gb/s? Unless I'm reading your post wrong?

172gb/s for gpu+30gb/s for cpu?

This one.


EDIT: I forgot there's Onion and Onion+.

It's actually 40 GB/s for the CPU across all 3 different buses.

 

[vcc]

So the ps4's total memory bandwidth would be 172gb/s+30gb/s? Unless I'm reading your post wrong?

172gb/s for gpu+30gb/s for cpu?
Or
142gb/s for gpu+30gb/s for cpu?

Kind of confused on this part.

PS4
176GB/s OR 30GB/s (Diagram shows 40GB?)

XB1
DDR3 68GB/s + ESRAM 109GB/s OR 30GB/s

You don't add the CPU's view of the main memory. As far as I know the GPU can't access main memory full throttle if the CPU is poking around.

 

[mintylurb]

Oh no you didn't...