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

ethomaz said:

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.


Already addressed the 10% thing.

If CPU clock of PS4 was higher, Sony would have told us about it.

The Killzone Shadowfall developer slides from I believe February, proved the PS4 CPU clock was 1.6 at that time. Unlikely it's changed. If we get proof it has (please dont hold your breath), I will update the specs.



Around the Network

fallen said:

Already addressed the 10% thing.

If CPU clock of PS4 was higher, Sony would have told us about it.

The Killzone Shadowfall developer slides from I believe February, proved the PS4 CPU clock was 1.6 at that time. Unlikely it's changed. If we get proof it has (please dont hold your breath), I will update the specs.

Where? Because Kinect and Metro UI uses 10% of the GPU power.

The CPU part I agree.



ethomaz said:

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.

PS3 GPU can texture from XDR or GDDR pool, effectively 48 GB/s for GPU.

 

Sony themselves actually count this in slides, I have one saved...

 

Please dont be irrational anyway, if 360 only needed 24 GB/s, why would MS have included 10MB of EDRAM in 360?

 

It's the same as people who act as if ESRAM in X1 isn't there, and say X1 has only 68 GB/s. They are basically saying MS put 1.6 billion transistors of ESRAM at significant cost, into the system for no reason at all.



fatslob-:O said:
Pemalite said:
The Peak BW per GFLOP is useless.

Some compute tasks aren't bandwidth sensitive, whilst others are, some compute tasks are latency sensitive, whilst others aren't.

Thus, even though the Playstation 4's "Peak Bandwidth per Gigaflop" is lower, developers can set aside non-bandwidth sensitive compute tasks on the extra GPU resources that are available.

Besides, if we lived in a perfect world, Gigaflops would be the end-all of performance metrics, just unfortunate that GPU's and CPU's as well as Game engines deal with math other than floating point, making it a pointless affair.

Just a question. How useful do you think that 32mb ESRAM will be in trying to close the gap ? 


The ESRAM never was designed to "close the gap" to PS4 but to circumvent the DDR3-bandwidth. And given that companies run many, many tests not obvious to a random guy on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't do its job appropriately. Just stop thinking of "close the gap" and stuff like this, I believe it is a good solutions. We can only make comparisons when the games are released.



fallen said:
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)


There is no rumour this was from the cheif engineer of the console. You even quote the article yourself. 

And yes im sure they will get that 10% down, just like im sure Sony will get there OS footprint down as well, they did on PS3 and on PSP.

But you cant label an article TRUE comparison, claim reduction in PS4 specs for beleiving it has no audio processor when it does and not mention known facts about X1 spec reduction, its just disingenous. 

But everyone knows the spec differences anyway, they are what they are so im not gonna get into any more debates about them, as im sure there will be many "but but but X1 is as fast honest" threads to come. 

MS only fans start talking about the games stop trying to massage the tech specs we all know the differnce now. 



Around the Network
Zappykins said:
Interesting, would you mind pointing to your sources? It will help answer some questions.

And I see it's already brought out some misinformation.

Curious, why are you pulling out one core on the PS4 for audio? It can also do some with 4 CU's of it's GPU (I know) and does have a little audio chip.


Well, I did it both ways, hence -9% raw.

 

PS4 audio chip just does compress/decompress.

 

Doing audio on CU's is apparently pretty darn difficult (difficult to synchronize due to high GPU latency).

 

Regardless, if they are forced to use up some of their 4 "extra" CU 's on audio, I think that's a win for X1. You would have to adjust those GFLOP numbers for PS4 down.

 

From what I've heard SHAPE is equal to about 1 core of audio processing after Kinect reserves. This is a VERY ballpark figure. SHAPE could be even more of a beast, but much of it (beyond the 1 core) is reserved for Kinect audio processing (which IMO sucks, I hate when X1 is weaker for Kinect's sake).



fallen said:

PS3 GPU can texture from XDR or GDDR pool, effectively 48 GB/s for GPU.

 

Sony themselves actually count this in slides, I have one saved...

 

Please dont be irrational anyway, if 360 only needed 24 GB/s, why would MS have included 10MB of EDRAM in 360?

 

It's the same as people who act as if ESRAM in X1 isn't there, and say X1 has only 68 GB/s. They are basically saying MS put 1.6 billion transistors of ESRAM at significant cost, into the system for no reason at all.

No.

+ PS3 GPU (RSX) have direct access to the GDDR3 @ 22.4 GB/s.
+ PS3 GPU (RSX) can use the CellFlexIO to access the XDR @ 20 GB/s (read) / 15 GB/s (write)
+ PS3 CPU (Cell) have direct access to the XDR @ 25.6 GB/s

That's it... when the RSX is accesing the XDR it uses the 20 GB/s of the 25.5 GB/s (read) or 14 GB/s (write) bandwidth of the Cell... it is not a direct acess... it need to use the Cell to access the XDR.

About the eDRAM... MS used it to framebuffer and apply post-processing filters... 10MB is enoght to 720p framebuffer.

The eSRAM in Xbone is not only for framebuffer and post-processing filters... so the DMEs are needed and all the bus access... the first time MS needs to avoid the low bandwidth using the eSRAM... in 360 the 22.4 GB/s bandwidth was enough.

PS3 and 360 have both the same bandwidth for GPU... the difference is that in 360 the GPU can direct access all the 512MB RAM and on PS3 the GPU can direct access only 256MB of RAM... when the PS3 GPU try to access the other 256MB RAM it is slow and cause all the issues with games not progammed to work with that slow bandwidth.



Xenostar said:
fallen said:
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)


There is no rumour this was from the cheif engineer of the console. You even quote the article yourself. 

And yes im sure they will get that 10% down, just like im sure Sony will get there OS footprint down as well, they did on PS3 and on PSP.

But you cant label an article TRUE comparison, claim reduction in PS4 specs for beleiving it has no audio processor when it does and not mention known facts about X1 spec reduction, its just disingenous. 

But everyone knows the spec differences anyway, they are what they are so im not gonna get into any more debates about them, as im sure there will be many "but but but X1 is as fast honest" threads to come. 

MS only fans start talking about the games stop trying to massage the tech specs we all know the differnce now. 

I already explained this to you. X1 10% is NOT for Kinect, or anything intrinsic to the system.

 

360 had GPU reserved (~10% from what I heard) and it did not have Kinect at the beginning, or snap, or anything people use to justify 10% on X1. These are red herrings to try to claim somehow "only" X1 needs GPU reserves.

 

ALL SYSTEMS RESERVE GPU FOR THE OS. INCLUDING PS4.

BTW PS4 has a camera system too, the PS Eye. When you plug one up, dont you think it takes GPU if Kinect supposedly does? Otherwise does your game slow down when you plug PSeye in?

If you get a "Trophy Unlocked" message in PS4 do you think it happens by magic? No, the GPU draws it out of the reserve! Same as on X1.

 

Without knowing how much PS4 reserves it's pointless to speculate or give one console the edge. IN FACT, given Sony's history (where for example PS3 reserved more RAM for OS than X360), it very well may be MORE GPU reserves on PS4!



fatslob-:O said:

Just a question. How useful do you think that 32mb ESRAM will be in trying to close the gap ? 


Both Sony and Microsoft would have done the math and simulations to determine the optimal amount of bandwidth (For the cost) that is required.
The Xbox One by it's very nature of having less GPU hardware than the Playstation 4 needs less memory bandwidth for the hardware to become fully saturated to begin with.

However, if you take the quoted bandwidth numbers in the Op's post and expect to get that kind of bandwidth 100% of the time whilst rendering a game, then you're literally dreaming, it won't and cannot happen, you cannot fit everything into it.

Regardless of the Bandwidth though, at the end of the day it's not going to make much difference when you have significantly less compute resources that actually renders and displays the pretty pictures on-screen, that limitation should become incredibly apparant by the end of the generation.

I honestly wish that, Microsoft and Sony would take CPU performance more seriously for once, it was incredibly apparant how limited they were with CPU processing in RTS games and Battlefield 3 this generation, with the cut down player counts, limited Physics and such.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

fallen said:

Well, I did it both ways, hence -9% raw.

 

PS4 audio chip just does compress/decompress.

 

Doing audio on CU's is apparently pretty darn difficult (difficult to synchronize due to high GPU latency).

 

Regardless, if they are forced to use up some of their 4 "extra" CU 's on audio, I think that's a win for X1. You would have to adjust those GFLOP numbers for PS4 down.

 

From what I've heard SHAPE is equal to about 1 core of audio processing after Kinect reserves. This is a VERY ballpark figure. SHAPE could be even more of a beast, but much of it (beyond the 1 core) is reserved for Kinect audio processing (which IMO sucks, I hate when X1 is weaker for Kinect's sake).

PS4 audio unit do everything related to audio minus advanced audio like Raycasting... SHAPE can't do that too... it need CU for Raycasting too.

BTW the SHAPE is more for the audio features of the Kienct... if you remove everything it will do for Kinect both audio parts (PS4 and Xbone) are similar.