Why are you hoping for this thread ends? This threads should stay up and remind everyone that Digital Foundry failed their readership hard.
-
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.
DigitalFoundry: X1 memory performance improved for production console/ESRAM 192 GB/s)
- Thread starter ekim
- Start date
- Status
LittleJohnny
Banned
If you were truly being generous and really accounting "Theoretical" for both it would be 192GB/s not 133GB/s which is what's expected to be attainable, 176GB/s for the PS4 is purely theoretical, not what's attainable.
You can spin the numbers with GTX 580 vs 680, its the same result, of course one is more powerful, but how this difference translates to games vs your last GPU being a Geforce 7800 GT is so insignificant given diminishing returns and developer talent, budget and time, it's just ridiculous.
If Forza 5 can't compete with Drive Club, then I'll stand corrected, and don't argue that later down the road, blah blah blah, I'm buying a console at launch and I expect the upgrade at that time, if I have to wait 2 years I'll either get the hardware then for cheaper, or just start gaming on PC at that point which would be orders of magnitude more powerful and console specs won't even matter at that point.
Beerman462
Member
PS4 can do compute with out impacting graphics. Someone actually posted a quote from Cerny explaining it
Just wanted to post that everyone that keeps bringing up launch/launch window/1st year titles to show the full power of the system should tame their expectations a bit.
Yes the hardware is closer to a PC than other generations, but the devs from both sides have been working on incomplete (as in alpha, beta and not final) dev kits for a good chunk of their time. Which means that they were never able to target final specs (until recently) because the specs keep changing.
Food for thought.
Yes the hardware is closer to a PC than other generations, but the devs from both sides have been working on incomplete (as in alpha, beta and not final) dev kits for a good chunk of their time. Which means that they were never able to target final specs (until recently) because the specs keep changing.
Food for thought.
IHaveCandy
Banned
I don't really care that the XboxOne is less graphically capable. That's fine. I don't like that the price doesn't reflect that. It should be $400 with Kinect.
Can Crusher
Banned
Here comes the diminishing returns talk.
Covering those bases. Crow shall be served in the end, you can't escape.
Vestal
Gold Member
you are still spouting out the same bullet points and yet you can't even own up to a lot of misleading information and straight bullshitting you did on this thread yesterday??
you should follow your own advice if you are going to post blatant grade a bullshit be ready to back it up.
The delusion
No it can't. Well, it *might* be able to squeeze some compute into idle cycles, but I doubt most devs would rely other, they'd want to control the situation better.
It does seem to have more fine grained control of compute though. So potentially the situation is even worse than I stated, if Xbox devs have to bluntly reserve entire CUs due to less control over compute jobs.
Ok then just for you:
Xbone has 109% of the memory bandwidth, 50% of the ROP performance, and 67% of the shader performance of PS4.
Memory banwidth:
Xbone: 192GB/s
PS4: 176GB/s
ROP's:
Xbone: 16 ROP's
PS4: 32 ROP's
Shader units:
Xbone: 768
PS4: 1152
Even theoretically Xbone still looks to be lacking quite considerably?
Flatline
Banned
It's a classic case of want the cake and eat it too. They don't release the specs because they know the console is a lot weaker but at the same time the "leak" PR bullshit specs with the help of "journalists" like Leadbetter to make it look like the difference isn't that big.
LittleJohnny
Banned
GTX 580 = 1.56 TF
GTX 680 = 3.1 TF
Excuse my math if that doesn't make the 680 roughly 2x more or 200% more powerful on paper. My point is that games will not look the same order of magnitude better, it's just relative, but compare how those 2 cards DEMOLISH games running on a GeForce 7800GT which is basically what we're getting with the next gen console upgrade, then the difference is not that big of a deal, both cards are running what everyone considers "Next gen" visuals.
This is an even greater example but even still I think someone with a GTX 580 will do just fine.
Yes, as long as we are assuming the rest of the system is equally potent. And yes I believe that multiplats will generally look better on PS4 - the question is if anyone (besides people with very good eyes or DF) will give a f*ck.. Which might pose the other question why so many people are arguing about the specs so much - let's wait and see what happens.
Can Crusher
Banned
Also, to put it in perspective the Ps4 could allocate 4 CUs for intense physics calculations that will bring the game to life in way visuals alone can't, and still have two more CUs available than Xbox One's 12 CU.
Just so it's clearer, Ps4 can outmatch Xbox One's performance in visuals while doing stuff with the physics that the Xbox One won't. If anybody thinks that's meaningless and somehow the power of the cloud will calculate those physics in real time... I got a bridge to sell you.
Just so it's clearer, Ps4 can outmatch Xbox One's performance in visuals while doing stuff with the physics that the Xbox One won't. If anybody thinks that's meaningless and somehow the power of the cloud will calculate those physics in real time... I got a bridge to sell you.
Random Eclipse
Banned
Totally agree. I just dont agree that the gap will be as big as certain people here think.
Don't move the goalposts - you used 670 and 680 as an example:
This was my reply:
GTX 670 = 2.46 TFLOP
GTX 680= 3.1 TFLOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
absolute difference = 0.64TFLOP
relative difference = 680 is 26% more powerful than a 670
======================================
PS4 = 1,84 TFLOP
Xbox One = 1,23 TFLOP
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
absolute difference = 0,51TFLOP
relative difference = PS4 is 50% more powerful than an Xbox one
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL;DR: Your example uses a 26% relative performance difference to explain the significance of a 50% relative performance difference between Xbox One and PS4
This thread isn't about the impact on the populace. This thread is clearly labeled as DigitalFoundry and is frequented by people (or used to be frequented by people) that were interested in tech.
I don't go into a Gran Turismo thread and talk about how Mario Kart is more fun with with my buddies.
Can Crusher
Banned
Can you explain exactly what kind of gap are people expecting? And what are you expecting?
I'm curious. How do you think the difference will be reflected in games? Just so people here can understand exactly what you are trying to argue against.
What kind of gap do you mean? Certainly not hardware right?
There we go again. Any source (apart from numbers / graphs yada yada yada) on this one?
Lol?
airmangataosenai
Member
I haven't followed this thread much, but I watched Cerny's Road to Playstation presentation and in it he talks about them considering a RAM solution similar to the 360's using eSRAM, with him admitting that despite it being exotic, in the long run you'd get much better bandwidth results. Could this end up being the case with the 360? I know they went with much slower GDDR3 RAM as a solution so that will impede from an exact comparison.
Something we can all agree on. The whole thread summed up in 3 sentences.
FlutterPuffs
Member
The leaks on both the PS4 and Xbox One has been nearly accurate so far, so I trust what we have. Plus Microsoft has been amusingly quiet about the specs, and hasn't even tried to deny it.
Overall, I'll give the rumors a 90% chance of being true.
I thought that was with the 4GB GDDR5 Ram + 128 bit BUS + eDRAM, but not with Microsoft's current setup.
One gives you around 180-190 GB/s, while the other has the potential to go 1000 GB/s
It's the new argument you make for the Xbox One. Albert Penello (Marketing and Leads planning for Xbox One) also used that in a recent post.
Here is what he said: 'Given the rumored specs for both systems, can anyone conceive of a circumstance or decision one platform holder could make, where despite the theoretical performance benchmarks of the components, the box that appears weaker could actually be more powerful?'
Cerny talks about a small pool of eDRAM with a theoretical bandwidth of 1000GB/s in addition to to GDDR5 (albeit with a lower buswidth) for a total of 1088 memory bandwidth (only theoretically possible for that small pool of eDRAM.)
You're confusing a lot of terms here.
Flatline
Banned
Let me help you: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2
I'd say the fact confirmed by a SHITLOAD of sources that PS4 is 50% more powerful (without even counting the 10% of GPU resources Xbone is wasting on Kinect or the vast RAM speed difference) supports my assertion that it's a lot.
Xenon
Member
So far MS's mouthpieces have all been suits. Has anyone from the engineering side been interviewed? Hopefully if there is a shakeup MS will let someone who isn't getting their information from memos talk about the hardware.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Wow at the range of topics in the thread!
I stripped some useless wordage away.
The more I look at this and read what others are saying, the more I think the answer is right in front of us. The eSRAM bus cannot suddenly read and write at the same time, it isn't possible and they are not claiming it, look at the way they say "from and to ESRAM".
Now look at the last part, "additional operations". SRAM technically just read or writes bits, what operations? My theory and some are saying the same at B3D, they have certain logic on the eSRAM, like the eDRAM had in the 360, to do specific operations. Of course MS didn't just find this, but they might have finally put it to use and measured "133GB/s".
The big question is did they amend their SDK and other dev docs to add this info to the existing 102.4GB/s or did they replace the 102.4GB/s with this new derived number? It might well be a first party dev doing a controlled leak to DF to get ahead of any other leak that doesn't qualify the change with hand waving like "holes". Too bad DF didn't do any homework or followups.
I stripped some useless wordage away.
The more I look at this and read what others are saying, the more I think the answer is right in front of us. The eSRAM bus cannot suddenly read and write at the same time, it isn't possible and they are not claiming it, look at the way they say "from and to ESRAM".
Now look at the last part, "additional operations". SRAM technically just read or writes bits, what operations? My theory and some are saying the same at B3D, they have certain logic on the eSRAM, like the eDRAM had in the 360, to do specific operations. Of course MS didn't just find this, but they might have finally put it to use and measured "133GB/s".
The big question is did they amend their SDK and other dev docs to add this info to the existing 102.4GB/s or did they replace the 102.4GB/s with this new derived number? It might well be a first party dev doing a controlled leak to DF to get ahead of any other leak that doesn't qualify the change with hand waving like "holes". Too bad DF didn't do any homework or followups.
googleplex
Member
The Xbone does not have 192GB/s bandwith! Even if by some miracle the ESRAM can hit that (it wont) thats not the bandwidth of the main system RAM.
Vestal
Gold Member
it is possible that given the specs revealed by Sony, MS is scrambling to squeeze out more performance from the hardware before spilling it out?
is it possible that they will overclock the gpu and CPU to make up some of the difference? Given their larger hardware they could go for a stronger cooling solution to cope with the extra heat from an OC.
that is speculation on my part. However I am curious to hear others take on it.
I would personally be against such a route this late in the dev cycle, but if it is feasible from a hardware perspective I don't see why they couldn't explore it.
They dont have to, once the Xbone is out the capable folks will figure out how much weaker the specs are.
Structural changes to the silicon are rather unlikely, especially if they'd land behind the PS4 even with those changes. There would be no reason to do that. And big changes are virtually impossible at this stage.
That is possible, but would go against the yield rumors.
FlutterPuffs
Member
It would probably be too late given the November release plus from what we have heard, yields have not been great for the Xbox One. Overclocking it will just make that situation worse. So I don't think they can. Best I think they are doing (and why we have this new news on the Xbox One performance) is that Microsoft had created their own version of the ICE Team recently.
God knows they need it, considering the other rumor that most game development for the Xbox One is 6 months behind.
How have you not banned for trolling yet
perineumlick
Member
Ask yourself this question; did people give a fuck this gen about minute differences? How many meltdowns did we have when DF face offs constantly favored 360 versions of multiplats?
Not necessarily. For instance, we still don't know much about the Wii U's inner workings. There is always room enough for debates like in this thread to happen. I also don't think that multi-platform games will change much. People will either downplay the technical differences (You can't see a difference between 720p and 1080p), or argue that developers are to lazy to leverage the full potential of ESRAM (if the Xbox version is inferior), 6 additional compute units (if the PS4 version is not better), or whatever, while the other camp will, of course, argue for the opposite case.
The problem is that this is framed with the bit about this being a discovery by Microsoft.
A way old vgleaks leak already spoke about having higher theoretical bandwidth than 102GB/s.
It just means reading from eSRAM and writing to DRAM and vice versa.
To give an example: Reading from DRAM is at 68GB/s and writing to eSRAM would also be a 68GB/s as it's limited to by how fast it can copy.
In total that is 136GB/s bandwidth. But it's all fancy accounting and has been known since the first memory system leak.
Can Crusher
Banned
They are having enough troubles making enough Xbox One's as is. If they raise the clocks, it will get much worse really fast, and if they overclock it on the box then it needs a different cooling solution that could change even the design of the box itself. That would mean less dollars per unit sold too.
I doubt anybody with decision making at MS is even wasting time thinking about that. They should spend their time on cutting down the amount of ram the OS uses though. It's a true resource hog.
BrainZEROX
Member
GAF will give a fuck. Non GAF people will care for the price. Both perspectives favour PS4. Well, until MS announces a price cut which I expect now.
In that case MS is only prolonging the inevitable.
IF the specs Make a visual difference then the truth will be for the whole world to see and MS cannot stop or prevent that from happening.
Comparisons will be made.
FlutterPuffs
Member
What matters now is where the positive word of mouth is. Even if both systems are completely identical in power and price, the PS4 might still get ahead in terms of sales due to how positive everyone has been about it.
Here's where the core really matters. It helped Apple when the core bought the iPhone by the droves when it first came out, now it can help Sony if they still can keep the positive news around the PS4 going.
Can Crusher
Banned
Anybody who argues there isn't much of a difference between 720p and 1080p should by default have his/her opinion on tech/graphics shot down. Clearly that person would be fine saying Wii games looked just as good as PS3 games.
Show your source for these, or stop spewing bullshit.
If oldergamer got banned for not showing a credible source for his outrageous claims, you should be held to the same standard.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
As soon as you are moving data to or from the DDR3 it maxes at 68GB/s of course. I'm wondering if the latest news is talking about something entirely on the eSRAM and not that bridge to the GPU memory system which most people are thinking it is.
Not happening anytime soon
- Status