Quantcast
TRUE XB1 vs PS4 spec comparison

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - TRUE XB1 vs PS4 spec comparison

Dark_Feanor said:
5 weeks to go, still no games running on the PS4 with 50% more resolution or frame rate.

I can´t understand why people with ZERO hardware/software archtecture knowledge are confident for speaking with so much passion of memory access bus, gigaflops and the like.

Its the Devs stating the power difference! Look the articles up!



Around the Network
drkohler said:
Adinnieken said:
stevechan said:
So since when the bandwidth for both ESRAM and DDR3 of XBOX One can be lum sum as one total bandwidth,
guess i have to get back to college and check this out with my Computer Science lecturer.

The GPU is capable of accessing both the eSRAM for read and write purposes.  It has four channels to that memory.  In addition, in parrallel it can also read from or write to the DDR3 memory, and it has four channels to that memory as well.

That is not how memory controllers work. I have explained (to the best of my insight into the technology) how the gpu mmu crossbar works in another thread. I'm not going to do that again.

The 204GB/s number thrown around by ms is completely bogus (and probably corresponds to creative accounting for some rmw cycles inside the gpu caches). At this time, I stick with a maximum achievable bandwidth of approx. 150 GB/s (for some peculair access patterns). Until a REAL ms engineer comes forth and explains the REAL functions of the gpu crossbar, we should take the numbers forwarded by ms pr speak as rumours (or extremely creative accounting).

Why is everyone getting down to the nitty gritty when the big issue is the amount of high bandwidth memory.  32MB/8000MB is 0.4% of the memory pool.

So 0.4% of the Xbox one memory is higher bandwidth than PS4, the other 99.6% of the memory pool is much higher bandwidth on the PS4.  In terms of moving texture data, the PS4 has an advantage hands down.  Let's cut the BS.  Why even bother going further on that front?

Now, MS may have its advantages too.  Fast swiching to/from the OS hub, etc. might be benefitted by ESRAM and parallel pools of RAM etc.  There is the issue of latency too. 

 

At the end of the day, IMO, PS4 ram choice was better but was a risk.  What if GDDR5 didn't take off?  What if it was still rediculously expensive?  Etc.  Was a gamble by Sony and I think it worked, expecially since they were able to double it from 4 to 8 late in the game.  Now, if we were comparing 4 GB of GDDR5 to 8+32 DDR3/ESRAM, would be a different story.  But we're not.  Hands down you gotta give this one to Sony.  That and the GPU.

 

Now things like co processors, OS experience, fluid GUI, server farm support for online gaming experience, bold moves / different experiences (Kinect) etc.  Might all go Microsoft's way.  Then of course there are the Games (lest we all forget) that are subjective.



PS4 is not that powerful compare to Xb1 really. If PS4 fanboys want real amazing graphics, get a high end PC :)



g911turbo said:

So 0.4% of the Xbox one memory is higher bandwidth than PS4, the other 99.6% of the memory pool is much higher bandwidth on the PS4.

That is something most people misunderstand. The esram may only be a small fraction of the total ram, but if the gpu can do 99% of the work it has to do in esram, then you are obviously ok. How much edram/esram you need has been tested endlessly by whoever makes chips . It seems that 32MB is some kind of "sweet spot" if you look at <=1080p images. Ms has built a very complex infracstructure around the esram bottleneck to ensure they get as close as possible to 100% efficiency.



drkohler said:
g911turbo said:

So 0.4% of the Xbox one memory is higher bandwidth than PS4, the other 99.6% of the memory pool is much higher bandwidth on the PS4.

That is something most people misunderstand. The esram may only be a small fraction of the total ram, but if the gpu can do 99% of the work it has to do in esram, then you are obviously ok. How much edram/esram you need has been tested endlessly by whoever makes chips . It seems that 32MB is some kind of "sweet spot" if you look at <=1080p images. Ms has built a very complex infracstructure around the esram bottleneck to ensure they get as close as possible to 100% efficiency.

Trust me.  I am a BSEE.  I understand this stuff isn't always black and white.

This anandtech article says it pretty well.   I think at the end of the day, GDDR5 is the better choice for a gaming centric console, hands down.  Microsoft is most certainly aiming for a media hub, and there could be some advantages to DDR3 there.  But from a games perspective, its hard to argue against GDDR5 being better, especially AT 1080P

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/3

Also, 32MB was probably more of a "cheap" spot too in terms of cost.



Around the Network
Subie_Greg said:
All this talk of specs

And no talk of BALANCE

Thread failed

PS4 is uncomfortably unbalanced .



The Chosen ONE will bring balance....



Stop adding bandwidth from different memory sub systems together nub cakes, it's not a straight up + sign but more on memory management. It's all about how RAM is managed.



Adinnieken said:
drkohler said:

That is not how memory controllers work. I have explained (to the best of my insight into the technology) how the gpu mmu crossbar works in another thread. I'm not going to do that again.

The 204GB/s number thrown around by ms is completely bogus (and probably corresponds to creative accounting for some rmw cycles inside the gpu caches). At this time, I stick with a maximum achievable bandwidth of approx. 150 GB/s (for some peculair access patterns). Until a REAL ms engineer comes forth and explains the REAL functions of the gpu crossbar, we should take the numbers forwarded by ms pr speak as rumours (or extremely creative accounting).

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-xbox-one-architects

He's not really wrong Adinn, while his probable real number is guesswork, he's saying achievable, not theoretical maximum at peak, which neither console will be able to do anyways.



g911turbo said:
drkohler said:
g911turbo said:

So 0.4% of the Xbox one memory is higher bandwidth than PS4, the other 99.6% of the memory pool is much higher bandwidth on the PS4.

That is something most people misunderstand. The esram may only be a small fraction of the total ram, but if the gpu can do 99% of the work it has to do in esram, then you are obviously ok. How much edram/esram you need has been tested endlessly by whoever makes chips . It seems that 32MB is some kind of "sweet spot" if you look at <=1080p images. Ms has built a very complex infracstructure around the esram bottleneck to ensure they get as close as possible to 100% efficiency.

Trust me.  I am a BSEE.  I understand this stuff isn't always black and white.

This anandtech article says it pretty well.   I think at the end of the day, GDDR5 is the better choice for a gaming centric console, hands down.  Microsoft is most certainly aiming for a media hub, and there could be some advantages to DDR3 there.  But from a games perspective, its hard to argue against GDDR5 being better, especially AT 1080P

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/3

Also, 32MB was probably more of a "cheap" spot too in terms of cost.


I don't believe that is the argument.

I think the argument Microsoft is making is that while Sony has the performance specs, it doesn't necessarily equate to a significant advantage due to the limitations of the choices made.