ionicbluebird
Member
Ummm, not on a single APU in 2013, I don't think. I believe the PS4, and the Xbox One with it's ESRAM are pushing the limits of what can be achieved on a single APU right now. I could be wrong though.
Anybody?
-
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.
Substance Engine benchmark implies PS4 CPU is faster than Xbox One's
- Thread starter Brad Grenz
- Start date
Ummm, not on a single APU in 2013, I don't think. I believe the PS4, and the Xbox One with it's ESRAM are pushing the limits of what can be achieved on a single APU right now. I could be wrong though.
Anybody?
fatgamecat
Member
Might be able to look at texture decompression benchmarks elsewhere for the mobile devices and see whether the MB/s count matches up. If other benches are much higher, it could be single core, if the same try to check, if much lower it could be multicore.
Anyone know if this claim from Penello "we have 3X the coherent bandwidth for GPGPU at 30gb/sec" is accurate at all?
That question has already been asked and answered a couple of times in this thread.
That seals the deal right here.
Yeah, it's pretty amusing. It's bad enough that the PS4 has a stronger GPU & 8 GB's of faster RAM, but now with the CPU being stronger than on Xbox One? Hoo-Boy, Microsoft's definitely in for a long, long generation!
Iacobellis
Junior Member
Xbox used to be known as a powerful machine, too.
no...it's nowhere near true.
This. It's very embarrassing having going from two powerful machines (Xbox & Xbox 360), to a much weaker machine (Xbox One) than your competitor (PS4).
And it's all thanks to Kinect 2, & "TV, TV, TV!".
rokkerkory
Member
nah it's thanks to all those guys in mgmt suits!
x1 is selling well so far, so let's see.
if sales continue to be close to PS4, then all is well.
Iacobellis
Junior Member
The gap is just going to widen as we move further away from the previous generation. The current multiplats are simply fancy ports of PS3/360 games.
TacticalFox88
Banned
Ugh people want more powerful consoles, but will only pay >$400 for one.
-_______-
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
-_______-
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
I know. Thank goodness that I'm a Nintendo, Sega, & a Playstation fan (have been since the 80's when I was about 4).
not really, if a company can charge more for a less powerful console and be successful, how powerful do you think their next console would be?
Iacobellis
Junior Member
Huh?
Net_Wrecker
Member
Back in my day, companies lost money on the console so they could be on the bleeding edge, and I wouldn't need 8 jobs to afford it. Then they made up the difference with lots of good software.
I want everyone to be successful this gen so that the PS5 and Xbox TWO will be true beasts again because Sony and MS will have enough bank to be safe.
dev kit memory =/= retail unit memroy.
How powerful was the PS3?
Because that currently gets you the most powerful console available. No reason to pay $500 if you're specifically after the most powerful console...
You must be young then because that's not how things were back in my day. That's something Sony started doing which culminated in the extreme when it cost them $850 to build a PS3 they charged you $600 for or even worse the $800 it cost them to build the quickly discontinued $500 launch PS3.
Do you honestly think that subsidized console business model is possible today?
(Back in my day was Atari 2600 for reference. I'm 39)
Net_Wrecker
Member
"Back in my day" wasn't meant to be taken seriously. I just want to see a bigger jump in tech next time but still at a reasonable price. The only way that happens is if they don't lose a ton of money this time around. I'm not even knocking this gen, I'm sure we'll see some spectacular games, but it is a less impressive jump than before relative to where PCs are.
But maybe the era of cutting edge consoles is dead. (at least in some respects because 8GB GDDR5 still made everyone jump for joy)
I just think the subsidized console model is dead. Think about it. Call of Duty costs millions to make and they expect sales into the 10's of millions of copies. If Sony makes a new Uncharted game for millions of dollars, what are their sales expectations to break even when it's exclusive to their console?
As it costs more and more to make AAA games, the companies that only make games exclusive to one console struggle more and more to make money to pay for that subsidized console.
That's why you see shit like Forza, Ryse, GT6, etc with microtransactions. They're not making enough money by being single platform games.
2005/6 was an anomaly. MS with their unlimited cash and Sony with their boneheaded leadership, people got a lot kit for their money. 2013 consoles are excellent value for the money, but they aren't 05/06 levels of insanity. The wii and the wii u, unfortunately, were not good value for money.
Good point(s).
Sword Of Doom
Member
It sounds to me like dropping Kinect out of the box and charging $400 would STILL be too much in comparison to their chief competition...
They've got zero performance advantage and that's so sad for the Xbox pedigree of being THE multiplatform destination for best console performance for 2 previous generations.
This. Even if Microsoft were to drop the price of the Xbox One to $400 to match PS4's price, the PS4 will still be seen as the better value while Xbox One would be seen as nothing more than "A Weaker PS4" should they drop Kinect.
The only way that Microsoft would be able to compete at this point, would be to lower the price of Xbox One between the $300 to $350 range, but in doing so, they'll probably take tremendous losses off of each console sold (just like with the Original Xbox or Sony with the PS3), forcing MS shareholders/investors to get rid of the Xbox brand as a whole or to spin it off (either one would be bad for the Xbox brand as a whole).
famousmortimer
Banned
Just got asked why Sony hasn't been screaming this from the rafters. They don't have to. CoD at 720p vs 1080p (and all other games having some sort of graphics advantage on the PS4) says far more than someone saying "our CPU is 2.0ghz and our memory is 176gb" which means nothing - until you see the games side by side.
I want a xbox one. Badly. But not because it's in the same league as the ps4 in terms of graphics - it isn't. Games is games though and I want to play the good ones.
I want a xbox one. Badly. But not because it's in the same league as the ps4 in terms of graphics - it isn't. Games is games though and I want to play the good ones.
But is it in fact 2.0 GHz? Not that it matters, but I'm curious to know the number.
Because the benchmark is showing the PS4 CPU to be ~ 16% faster than the Xbox One CPU.
if they are both using the same CPU with 6 cores for games that would place PS4 CPU at 2.0GHz vs 1.75GHz.
or this could mean that PS4 is able to use all 8 cores for games & they are clocked at 1.6GHz with less than a core reserved for the OS.
or it could just be that PS4 APU is designed to get more out of it's CPU than what the Xbox One can.
phosphor112
Banned
Yep.
Surface Pro
I wouldn't call it "easy". You can do small easy OC's, but anything major requires voltage tweaks, otherwise you can really create an unstable environment.
I see. Thanks! So there is no explicit confirmation yet. Why can't someone just say it already?! This is the only number that isn't being revealed for some reason!
Can't anyone stick some electrodes into the CPU and find out? Sigh...
Just look below and count the pins. Just like the Olympics gender test.
No, sadly the only joke is the XB1. The very fact Kinect is driving up the price is an insult, and the fact that the XB1 is being outclassed in basically every area by the PS4 is pathetic. 360 was my go to console last generation, now I want nothing to do with the XB1. The PR lies also annoy me, they just look so stupid when they try to hide the fact that the XB1 is underpowered next to the PS4.
JordanN
Banned
I still hate what Microsoft did to the resolution.
If it weren't for the DirectX11 GPU and 8GB of RAM, I would hate putting it alongside PS4. Not even PS2/GC dragged down Xbox by having 2x worse IQ.
I think Cevat Yurli and American McGee managed to whine about it, at length.
What is to read into? That the media has been trumpeting certain aspects of the PS4's CPU as facts, almost entirely simply because Microsoft said so and Sony didn't specifically mention some of the finer details, and they neither questioned Microsoft's take - in fact, reprinting wholesale articles from their "technical fellows" that have long since been debunked - or even figured to do some more digging about Sony's CPU?
Hey, one calls it like they see it. In reporting, when you're missing a data point like the clock speed of the CPU, you don't simply make assumptions or auto assume the worst, you check. And when you don't find out, you don't report that you know or act like you know. You say you do not know and say until you know you cannot make a judgment either way on which CPU is better, therefore.
It's may not be anything like bias. It's probably more like rank incompetence. I'll let you decide which is more damning.
JordanN
Banned
I google searched the first 10 results and got:
McGee: No mention of CPU. Only disappointed by "hoping for innovation in control input."
Cervat: There's this article but nothing really says he hates it. He only makes obvious observations (CPU smaller leap, GPU is bigger and that there should be scaling across cpu and gpu).
But this is actually great, now we have a treasure trove of posts to go to from people that said the CPU advantage of the Xbone will result in complexer games, because the C in CPU basically stands for Complexity.
Or maybe that's just me and I find it amusing to read the post history of people that coincidentally always change their tune when an official spin out of a camp is released.
My memory is obviously worse than your use of Google
But this is actually great, now we have a treasure trove of posts to go to from people that said the CPU advantage of the Xbone will result in complexer games, because the C in CPU basically stands for Complexity.
Or maybe that's just me and I find it amusing to read the post history of people that coincidentally always change their tune when an official spin out of a camp is released.
I mean I find it hilarious too, don't get me wrong. But this is how corrosive it was... I actually even thought XBO's CPU was better. This is how fucked up the reporting was. And I consider myself extremely abreast of the situation. If the job of these places is not to CORRECTLY inform gamers, what is the point? Why is it GAF has to always show me the truth?
I think I came to the conclusion that it was 1.6GHz not necessarily due to the failure in reporting, but to the way one has to evaluate evidence.
Several times I posted in response to people that posted the 1.8GHz and 2.0GHz figures that those can't be used because they were either based on what is alleged to be good thermal trade-off points or those Japanese estimates.
The only access we had was to a solid number was the Killzone February demo technical overview. And that one also couldn't be taken as 100% truth, because we don't know if their profiler just didn't track above 6 cores and because it never needed to before.
At least that's what I tell myself at the moment, it could also be that I was influenced by the shitty reporting that just repeated speculation and conjecture. The fallability of Human psychology would have done the rest.
I think that's a reasonable prediction, but I'd be surprised if it's anything less than five years.
travisbickle
Member
If it is an up clock to 2ghz, won't that take total flop count of the PS4 tipping over the 2Tflop line.
Matt's reply makes it look like the culprit in the affair is the greater overhead the X-One CPU has to deal with. It might be that the PS4 only reserves one core for the OS, which would offset the superior frequency adjustement made by MS.
Similar threads
- Poll