By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - TRUE XB1 vs PS4 spec comparison

fallen said:

I see a lot of so called spec comparison on places like Neogaf that are incomplete, or extremely biased towards PS4 to the point of being nonsense, so I wanted make a true, unbiased reference. The PS4 will go second and be compared to the X1 baseline in terms of percentages.

X1:

Disc: 6X Blu Ray

Disc capacity: 50 GB

HDD: 500 GB 5400 RPM

RAM quantity: 8GB

CPU: 8 core (6 game usable) 1.75 ghz Jaguar (Plus SHAPE audio chip likely ~1 CPU core of audio processing, +cloud support which we will ignore for now but could offload things like AI from X1 CPU in the future)

GPU FLOPS 1.31 teraflops

Texture units 48 at 853 mhz

Triangle setup engines: 2 at853 mhz

ROPS 16 at 853 mhz

Peak bandwidth: 204+68=272 GB/s

Peak BW per GFLOP= 272,000 MB/S/1310=207.6 MB/S/GFLOP

 

PS4:

Disc: 6X Blu Ray (+0%)

Disc capacity: 50 GB (+0%)

HDD 500GB 5400 RPM (+0%)

RAM quantity: 8GB (+0%)

CPU 8 core (6 game usable) Jaguar CPU 1.6 ghz (-9% raw, -24% after removing 1 core for audio processing to match SHAPE, ignoring X1's cloud capability for now)

GPU FLOPS: 1.843 (+41%)

Texture units: 72 at 800 mhz (+41%)

ROPS: 32 at 800 mhz (+88%) (However, the real world impact will be much lower as 16 ROPS typically enough at 1080P and less)

Peak bandwidth: 176 GB/s (-35%)

Peak BW per GFLOP: 176,000 MB/S/1843=95.5 MB/S/GFLOP (-54%)

 

 

 

There you have the complete picture of baseline specs, subject to countless other variables we know nothing about...

 

From a high level, PS4 has a stronger GPU while X1 has a sigjnificant edge in peak bandwidth, and a slight to moderate advantage in CPU, which could grow if developers begin to leverage the cloud in the future. The disc read subystems and RAM quantities are identical.

To all of ya'll talking about this; Shut the hell up.  This is like the 25th post about xbox1 and ps4 specs.  I can't come to this site without seeing xb1VSPS4.  Xbox1 winner.  PS4 winner. 

Imma just get it all.



Around the Network

Serving your own sauce.



Ex Graphics Whore.

PS4 have a Audio processor too

And the bandwidth is just wrong lol and you forget Kinect uses 10% of the GPU... plus the CPU clock of PS4 is unknown.



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 can read from both at once, so yes, they can and will be added.



OdinHades said:
Oh, so now it's MB/S/GFLOP, I see! You know that South Park episode where they measure penis sizes and keep on changing the formula until everyone has a big one? Kinda reminds me of that.

Also, that bandwidth of Xbone is impressive, but what will happen in the crazy case that a developer needs more than 32 MB RAM? I know, I know, it's hard to imagine to use such a massive amount of data, but just what will happen theoretically?

It's pretty simple in the end. There are some minor differences, but after all, they are both using the same architecture. PS4 is just faster, end of story. The cloud won't do jack shit, I can tell you that. That said, the graphics of the Xbox One will be good enough. But please stop making these silly threads where you try to make the systems look even in hardware. It's getting ridiculous. No, to be perfectly honest, it already became ridiculous a long time ago. If you care THAT much about specs, just get a PS4.


PS4 is faster in some areas, but it's also slower in some. "End of story", as you say, but would refuse to face facts and admit.

For your 32MB RAM question, the idea of ESRAM is to load very commonly read/witten data in the 32 MB, and write and read to the same frequently used data over and over.

If you think somehow this wont work, tell that the the PS2, the gamecube, the 360, etc, all which use a small cache of fast embedded RAM to great effect. In fact it's more common than not in the history of console design.



Around the Network

fallen said:

The GPU can read from both at once, so yes, they can and will be added.

You are right for only have 32MB of the RAM... because you know you need to get the data from DDR3 to fill the eSRAM.



Xenostar said:
You need to remove 10% you for Kinect but keep that damage control coming. And 1 core for shape lol again shape is mostly there for Kinect.


No there is nothing for Kinect. Rumors say MS reserves ~10% of the GPU for OS use, however contrary to believe all systems including gasp, the PS4, 360, and PS3, reserve some amount of GPU for this. It is needed to pop up say "Trophy unlocked", or a message from a friend.

MS also said to Digital Foundry they are working on reducing the 10%. Regardless, without knowing how much the Ps4 reserves, it's pointless to speculate about this or even declare one side has the advantage.

It reminds me how it was claimed as fact PS4 reserved only 1Gb of RAm for OS, until we found out it's actually 3GB, same as X1 (which some people naturally still deny that fact)



ethomaz said:

fallen said:

The GPU can read from both at once, so yes, they can and will be added.

You are right if you have the same data in eSRAM and DDR3 but you only have 32MB eSRAM... so the bandwidth can be added just for 32MB.


But you have too look at the whole system.

 

360 had HALF the main (22 GB/s verss 48 GB/s) bandwidth as PS3, yet did fine due to adding "only" 10MB of EDRAM.

 

There is very small  amounts of data in games that use a large portion of the bandwidth. Hence why small cache works.



fallen said:

No there is nothing for Kinect. Rumors say MS reserves ~10% of the GPU for OS use, however contrary to believe all systems including gasp, the PS4, 360, and PS3, reserve some amount of GPU for this. It is needed to pop up say "Trophy unlocked", or a message from a friend.

MS also said to Digital Foundry they are working on reducing the 10%. Regardless, without knowing how much the Ps4 reserves, it's pointless to speculate about this or even declare one side has the advantage.

It reminds me how it was claimed as fact PS4 reserved only 1Gb of RAm for OS, until we found out it's actually 3GB, same as X1 (which some people naturally still deny that fact)

Rumor? lol

"One thing to keep in mind when looking at comparative game resolutions is that currently the Xbox One has a conservative 10 per cent time-sliced reservation on the GPU for system processing. This is used both for the GPGPU processing for Kinect and for the rendering of concurrent system content such as snap mode. The current reservation provides strong isolation between the title and the system and simplifies game development (strong isolation means that the system workloads, which are variable, won't perturb the performance of the game rendering). In the future, we plan to open up more options to developers to access this GPU reservation time while maintaining full system functionality."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-the-complete-xbox-one-interview

Both: Kinect and Metro UI (snap mode).



fallen said:

But you have too look at the whole system.

 

360 had HALF the main (22 GB/s verss 48 GB/s) bandwidth as PS3, yet did fine due to adding "only" 10MB of EDRAM.

 

There is very small  amounts of data in games that use a large portion of the bandwidth. Hence why small cache works.

PS3 have 24GB/s bandwidth for GPU and 22GB/s for CPU... 48GB/s is wrong and the memory pools are separated... NUMA.