cebri.one
Member
So who is tidux?
PS4 dev apparently
So who is tidux?
So who is tidux?
PS4 dev apparently
Click on his quote and read through that thread he is in, he is very active in it, seems to be a developer of a game working on the snowdrop engine, possibly the division, or he is being cryptic about another game, interesting thread and insight tbh, he does mention the PS4 is much faster/easier etc.
He also says Ubisoft about watchdogs is only the first of few top devs to admit the PS4 advantage.
Thanks, was just making sure he legitimate source.
sources that claim to be legitimate developers or insiders get banned VERY quickly if they can't back it up to moderators. No need to worry about that one here, at least.
Thanks, was just making sure he legitimate source.
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.
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.
He seems to be an okay source, but doesn't seem to be very subtle. Especially when we've already managed to get a name and face to Tidux, not sure what his employers think of him mentioning these sort of things. Alas, he's lasted this long, don't think statements like his would be missed by mods.
Demonite on the other hand, it's quite rare for him to actually comment console performance. Nice to see him pitch in.
The new guy, assuming he isn't bishslapped presumably works for Ubi considering he talks about the Snowdrop engine.He seems to be an okay source, but doesn't seem to be very subtle. Especially when we've already managed to get a name and face to Tidux, not sure what his employers think of him mentioning these sort of things. Alas, he's lasted this long, don't think statements like his would be missed by mods.
Demonite on the other hand, it's quite rare for him to actually comment console performance. Nice to see him pitch in.
Both the Xbox One and PS4 version of Battlefield 4 were demonstrated running at 720p resolution and 60 FPS, but as confirmed by Frostbite Technical Director Johan Andersson on Twitter, it runs at a higher resolution in the PS4 developer environment and the final resolution will be apparent when the game will launch.
Can Xbox One users planning to get the game hope for the same treatment? Apparently not, as confirmed by an âÂÂEA representative in chargeâ to the Japanese site Game*Spark, that got hands on time with the game at Eurogamer Expo.
According to said EA rep, the Xbox One retail version of the game will still run at 720p , 60 fps, the same as the alpha version showcased at Eurogamer Expo.
In addition to that Game*SparkâÂÂs writer mentions that graphics âÂÂlook blurred and a little flat, probably due to lower resolution textures and somewhat worse lighting compared to the PC versionâÂÂ.
The new guy, assuming he isn't bishslapped presumably works for Ubi considering he talks about the Snowdrop engine.
Also someone found his home address, lol. DetectiveGAF is scary GAF.
What does DemonNite do/who does he work for btw - such that he's an insider?
I believe he is a Sony Employee (might be wrong)
So the slugline is "confirmed" but later in the article DS says to take it with a grain of salt and that he contacted EA for further confirmation but got no reply... ... ... I love how "journalists" always try to pass off news leaving themselves an out as thinking somehow it absolves them from any misinformation. I mean... I'm all for a better version on PS4 but that whole article smells fishy.Xbox One Retail Version of Battlefield 4 Will Still Run at 720p, 60 FPS, EA Representative Confirms. PS4 version will run at a higher resolution, I'm assuming at least 900p like at TGS.
No.So the people that talk about the ESRAM all the time like people who talked about the CELL all the time?
Xbox One Retail Version of Battlefield 4 Will Still Run at 720p, 60 FPS, EA Representative Confirms. PS4 version will run at a higher resolution, I'm assuming at least 900p like at TGS.
B3D is an excellent source for laughs these days. Glad to see juniors linking such excellent comedy here. Saves me the work of actually sifting through B3D's bullshit to get to the fun stuff
On that note, we need to pack shit up. No amount of developer commentary citing personal experiences developing on both platforms will ever quell the uprising of "junior"s spouting nonsense and spreading FUD.
Sorry, juniors, I'll take a dev's word over yours all day every day - even if its news I don't want to hear.
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.
"The same discussion with ESRAM as well - the 204GB/s number that was presented at Hot Chips is taking known limitations of the logic around the ESRAM into account. You can't sustain writes for absolutely every single cycle. The writes is known to insert a bubble [a dead cycle] occasionally... one out of every eight cycles is a bubble so that's how you get the combined 204GB/s as the raw peak that we can really achieve over the ESRAM. And then if you say what can you achieve out of an application - we've measured about 140-150GB/s for ESRAM.
"That's real code running. That's not some diagnostic or some simulation case or something like that. That is real code that is running at that bandwidth. You can add that to the external memory and say that that probably achieves in similar conditions 50-55GB/s and add those two together you're getting in the order of 200GB/s across the main memory and internally."
So 140GB-150GB is a realistic target and DDR3 bandwidth can really be added on top?
"Yes. That's been measured."
Neither L1 nor L2 are system memory, and their latency is in the 100s of cycles. Is that "extremely low"?
OK!You are so cool. I bet all those "juniors" wish they had more posts like you do. They all must be so jealous of you.
No, according to the DF article and what microsoft says they get 200GB/s aggregate bandwidth.
Now if you continue to state that the x1 only has 140GB/s then you are saying MS/DF are lying. Which is a view that you or anybody is entitled to, but its a bit tinfoil hat to me.
Direct quote from the article.
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.
"That's real code running. That's not some diagnostic or some simulation case or something like that. That is real code that is running at that bandwidth. You can add that to the external memory and say that that probably achieves in similar conditions 50-55GB/s and add those two together you're getting in the order of 200GB/s across the main memory and internally."
So 140GB-150GB is a realistic target and DDR3 bandwidth can really be added on top?
"Yes. That's been measured."
So the slugline is "confirmed" but later in the article DS says to take it with a grain of salt and that he contacted EA for further confirmation but got no reply... ... ... I love how "journalists" always try to pass off news leaving themselves an out as thinking somehow it absolves them from any misinformation. I mean... I'm all for a better version on PS4 but that whole article smells fishy.
We've been over this many, many times. Latency is barely even a factor for GPU tasks, bandwidth is what's important for that.
The rep confirmed it - but then you said to take all that information with a "bit of a grain of salt" - so I did EXACTLY as you instructed and took it with a grain of salt - if you did not want that to happen - perhaps you shouldn't tell people to take things with a grain of salt. Also - if you didn't get an email reply, then I am correct in saying you "got no reply". "Yet" is not an indicator or timestamp at the time of writing/publishing.Way to misinterpret it. The rep indeed confirmed it, exactly as the headline says.
But since it's a rep, I reached out to EA out of scruple. the "Got no reply" part is also inaccurate, as of course they didn't reply YET. I mailed them two hours ago on a sunday.
Well acording to MS it does add up.
3/4 or ram requests coming of esram?
We have 150GB/s from esram and 50GB/s from ddr3. Each second, over all the frames they are seeing 3/4 of the requests server from esram. Ie 150/200 = 3/4.
Well acording to MS it does add up.
3/4 or ram requests coming of esram?
We have 150GB/s from esram and 50GB/s from ddr3. Each second, over all the frames they are seeing 3/4 of the requests server from esram. Ie 150/200 = 3/4.
Well acording to MS it does add up.
3/4 or ram requests coming of esram?
We have 150GB/s from esram and 50GB/s from ddr3. Each second, over all the frames they are seeing 3/4 of the requests server from esram. Ie 150/200 = 3/4.
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.
Don't worry. There will be a new one to replace him when that happens.Not that this isn't very entertaining, but you're aware that junior bans are permanent, right? Just so we're clear?
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.
Why is 'we measured' not good enough? That's actually the best way to ascertain real-world performance; actually use the design in the real world and see how it performs. 150 GB/s should mean they shifted 150 GB within the span of one second. That may have been sustained 150 GB/s for a second, or a mix for 30 GB/s and 200 GB/s over that second.
I don't understand why people are arguing so much over these BW figures. We have an ESRAM bus structure, and explanation why it isn't read+write simultaneous 100% of the time, clockspeeds and bus widths, and finally some measured performance from real-world use that seems eminently plausible, favouring the middle of the road between high and low. We can't get any more info than that unless we get hold of game performance profiles from the dev tools. Maybe with XB1 being an SDK, someone will manage to do that somehow. Until then, this topic seems kinda done to death.
As for the conversation, I'll post a summary that'll hopefully bring it to a natural close instead of everyone delving into cyclic arguments to nowhere. Bandwidth is a measure of data capacity over time. Whenever measured, it's an average (even a peak BW measurement is an average over time). That MS measured 150 GB/s means they achieved 150 GB/s. That's with considerable probability. There's no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe that was 150 GB/s for a fraction of a second and the average BW for ESRAM access is notably less than that; that defies the purpose of the measurement as an average and a metric you'd use to inform your development partners. That sort of argument is basically looking for an opportunity to doubt the evidence in front of is, and is unnecessary.
Aaaaaaa! It is not possible to understand the flow of data in a system by a single metric (unless that system has a single memory pool). Your aggregate number is true and yet pointless, and there's zero sense in trying to condense understanding of the BW into this single value.
Sometimes the code will run at the fastest aggregate speed of the total RAM. Sometimes it could be bottlenecked by the slowest singular pipe. Mostly it'll be hitting shifting limits as data moves around the different pools. All games will have access to ~200 GB/s (actually 272 GB/s as total peak available BW) but the amount of data flowing through the system could be very different. The most important thing is that devs will try to maximise dataflow within budgets and development targets, which is why they want to know bus speeds. Bus speeds aren't really for informing the masses about the potential of the consoles!
The read to write ratio is something like 2-4:1 for normal graphics workloads. If we assume we use all of the ESRAM read bandwidth (ie >95%) and 60 % of the DDR3 bandwidth for GPU reads, we get around 45-50GB write traffic to ESRAM with a 3:1 ratio.
That's 150GB/s (100 read, 50 write) of ESRAM bandwidth with aggregate system bandwidth being well over 200GB/s. Lower average latency too.
Cheers
Originally Posted by MrFox View Post
They discovered that it was designed with a full bidirectional interface. Someone somehow forgot to tell anyone.
Some pointy hair bosses, marketing drones, and a bunch of internet tards suddenly discovered the aggregate bandwidth numbers.
The engineers who designed the thing didn't do it based on assumptions and luck. They examined various workloads and existing bottlenecks, designed the thing to have separate read and write buses to/from the ESRAM knowing all along what typical aggregate bandwidth could be expected for various graphics engine implementations.
As did the ones working on PS4.
MS ended up with more aggregate bandwidth and lower average latency. Sony ended up with a lot more computational grunt. That's because they looked at different workloads and designed for different price points.
Cheers
Aaaaaaa! It is not possible to understand the flow of data in a system by a single metric (unless that system has a single memory pool). Your aggregate number is true and yet pointless, and there's zero sense in trying to condense understanding of the BW into this single value.
Sometimes the code will run at the fastest aggregate speed of the total RAM. Sometimes it could be bottlenecked by the slowest singular pipe. Mostly it'll be hitting shifting limits as data moves around the different pools. All games will have access to ~200 GB/s (actually 272 GB/s as total peak available BW) but the amount of data flowing through the system could be very different. The most important thing is that devs will try to maximise dataflow within budgets and development targets, which is why they want to know bus speeds. Bus speeds aren't really for informing the masses about the potential of the consoles!
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.
However just like main memory, it's rare to be able to achieve that over long periods of time so typically an external memory interface you run at 70-80 per cent efficiency.
Actually the way I see it looks like this.
X1, peak 274GB/s average 200GB/s
PS4, peak 176GB/s average 130GB/s
What is this I don't even
Senju's backup is here.What is this I don't even
Senju's backup is here.
Seriously. Is this the same guy with different new accounts?
(Yay! Not a junior anymore!)
You have absolutely no proof to back those figures up. Your post is full of conjecture and speculation.Actually the way I see it looks like this.
X1, peak 274GB/s average 200GB/s
PS4, peak 176GB/s average 130GB/s
Now the only figure that can possibly be in dispute is the PS4 average figure as Sony havent been forthcoming with any test results. But MS state that
If you take the middle of that its 75% hence 130GB/s. Now I have heard guys going on about "The ps4 gets 172GB/s" which has its source in a web site where there is a quote from a director of an indi games company. No unless somehow sony have silently solved the intractable average vs peak bandwidth problem that has been in existence since the year dot, I would suggest thats a mis-quote/mis-speak etc and he was actually referring to the peak bandwidth of 176GB/s.
Maybe its 140, or if they actually managed to achieve 85% they could get 150, but even that is a long way south of 200.
This article goes into depth as to why http://archive.arstechnica.com/paedi...latency-1.html you never achieve peak for any great amount of time.
With regards to they beyond3d bullshit...hummm to be honest I think they hold their posters to pretty high standards. They certainly get well moody when you try and make a direct comparison between the x1 and the ps4!
What is the read speed from esram?
Ask the technical fellow or Albert to answer that simple question. Not the read and write speed combined, but just the read speed or the write speed.
"[ESRAM has four memory controllers and each lane] is 256-bit making up a total of 1024 bits and that in each direction. 1024 bits for write will give you a max of 109GB/s and then there's separate read paths again running at peak would give you 109GB/s.