Quantcast
Are XBONE graphics closer to Wii U than PS4?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are XBONE graphics closer to Wii U than PS4?

freedquaker said:

I invite you guys to read this thread that I just created to have a better idea about the actual performance differential between XB1 and PS4

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=178611&page=1#

 

freedquaker said:

There are all sorts of claim whether not machine is faster than the other. However, the truth is not always a straight answer, balck & white, usually shades of grey, depending on the circumstances. This was particularly the case with the 7th Generation but much less so in the 8th Gen. My comparisons below will NOT be technically precise but ROUGHLY ACCURATE. I will try to represent the rough performance indices with mathematical approximations and the associated graphs, based on the given premise.

A) X360 vs PS3

1) X360 was easier to program for, and you'd get higher performance with unoptimized ports.

2) As a norm, third party games will exhibit higher SLIGHTLY higher performance on X360

3) With the given effort and higher costs, PS3 had the potential to exhibit considerably higher performance, usually utilized only by the first party titles, given the economic incentives and the lack of multi-platform development.

B) XB1 vs PS4

1) PS4 is not only easier to program for, but also maintains a perpetual significant performance advantage.

2) As a norm, third party games will exhibit SUBSTANTIALLY higher performance on PS4

3) With the first party titles, things are complicated. The increased effort & development will make it possible to achieve higher pixel fidelity and frame rate on XB1, which is otherwise not possible (narrowing down the gap). PS4 performance on first party titles will also be substantially higher. So technically speaking, the gap may very well widen. However, if XB1 can achieve pixel parity, the perceived visual gap may decrease, at least with first party titles.

Below is a table with regards to the PERCEIVED performance for each console with regards to the effort & development costs


Performance


Performance
Effort/Cost X360 PS3 PS3/X360   Effort/Cost XB1 PS4 PS4/XB1
3 2.16 1.34 62.3%
3 4.41 8.06 182.9%
6 3.51 2.51 71.5%
6 8.43 15.05 178.6%
9 4.66 3.61 77.6%
9 12.43 21.67 174.4%
12 5.69 4.68 82.2%
12 16.47 28.08 170.5%
15 6.66 5.72 85.9%
15 20.59 34.32 166.7%
18 7.56 6.74 89.1%
18 24.81 40.45 163.0%
21 8.42 7.74 91.9%
21 29.12 46.46 159.6%
24 9.25 8.73 94.4%
24 33.53 52.40 156.3%
27 10.05 9.71 96.7% 3rd    Party    Norm 27 38.06 58.26 153.1%
30 10.81 10.68 98.7% 30 42.70 64.05 150.0%
33 11.56 11.63 100.6% 33 47.46 69.79 147.1%
36 12.29 12.58 102.4%
36 52.33 75.47 144.2%
39 12.99 13.52 104.0%
39 57.32 81.11 141.5%
42 13.69 14.45 105.6%
42 62.43 86.71 138.9%
45 14.36 15.38 107.1%
45 67.66 92.26 136.4%
48 15.03 16.30 108.4%
48 73.01 97.78 133.9%
51 15.68 17.21 109.8%
51 78.48 103.26 131.6%
54 16.32 18.12 111.0% 1st    Party    Norm 54 84.07 108.71 129.3%
57 16.95 19.02 112.2% 57 89.78 114.13 127.1%
60 17.57 19.92 113.4% 60 95.62 119.52 125.0%

 

Took a quick look at the graph. I see x1 and ps4 are 100 to 120 rspectivley while the predesessors hang around 15 to 20. I assume the wii u would be way closser to 20 than 100 right? if these graphs are legit, posting one for the wii U would answer the question for those who chose to actually read why the numbers were reached. (I'm not that guy) >_>



http://imageshack.com/a/img801/6426/f7pc.gif

^Yes that's me ripping it up in the GIF. :)

Around the Network
Too_Talls said:
Captain_Tom said:
DirtyP2002 said:
Best looking console game is a Xbox One exclusive. That should give you the answer.


Hahahahahahahahha!  Oh you guys make me laugh!


I don't know why people get so butt hurt over this.

What looks better is subjective, it's no fact what game looks th best when so much people disagree. Some say killzone some say rise. Why laugh when someone decides the one you don't agree with looks better?

 

Seriously.


I am laughing for these reasons:

1) Most people agree that Killzone looks better, but yes it is semi-opinion.

2) Ok so if it is close let's see which one is doing more: 24 players plus up to 24 bots with automatic weapons and grenades going off everywhere VS.  5 guys fighting in QTE's.

3) Some people act like Ryse not looking like garbage somehow makes up for every other game looking like garbage.

The point is some MS fanboys keep stating that Ryse is "The best looking console game."  I believe Killzone looks miles better, but I don't keep stating it like it is some objective fact.  When I wrote "Hahahahha" I was litterally laughing.  It's funny to me how some people are clearly overcompensating for a massive power deficiency.  

I see no reason why I can't say something made me laugh on an  internet forum.



starworld said:
JoeTheBro said:
starworld said:
JoeTheBro said:


Specs are great evidence but they don't tell us the full story. The real world result of the specs is what really matter. Also which non launch multiplats run much worse on Wii U? Most are almost on par if not better.

AC4 runs 5-15 fps behind current gen and looks the same, same for batman, ninaj gaiden 3 and COD ghosts, resident evil  revelations and splinter cell also called worse versions by DF, the only game that is superior NFSWU. specs also do tell the full story, just look at ryse that looks a generion better then anything on wiiu.


Except for AC4 the games you listed are almost on par, not much worse like you said.

go read the digitial foundry its says both batman orgins and cod ghosts run so bad on wiiu thats there almost no fun, compared to the 360/ps3 versions, samething for ninja gaiden 3, that only games that are close are RE and splintercell, try doing some research before making such a silly thread.

talking about hyperbole...

i think that has more to do with unpolished product than with HW power. do i have to remind you how most multiplats look and run worst on PS3 compared to 360? Wasnt PS3 moar powerful?

Bayonetta perhaps?



Pemalite said:
ICStats said:
Pemalite said:
ICStats said:
Pemalite said:
dsp333 said:

As weak as it is (not that the PS4 isn't weak as well), no, not even close. The One is still over 4 times the power of the Wii U by its weakest measure.

The Wii U is more in line with the 360 and PS3 than it is the One and the PS4 as pathetic as that is. In fact, by some measures like ram bandwidth and CPU before GPU assistance, the Wii U is actually WEAKER than those machines approaching 8 and 9 years old.


No way. The WiiU's GPU is superior to that of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3.
The CPU is also superior being an Out-of-Order design.

You're looking at probably 2x the maximum performance of the PS3.
However it's not in the same league as the Next-gen twins.

There is a massive performance disparity between the 7th gen and 8th gen, thanks to the continiously advancing PC technology found in all systems. (And because that generation dragged for so damn long the difference is more pronounced.)

The GPU is superior, but the CPU is inferior.  OoO doesn't make up for the lower clock rate and fewer cores than PS3.  It may be close, but lower.

OoO just makes it easier to get the most out of the cores, but PS3 & XB360 developers already have had 8 years to optimize their code so they are getting the most.  


Kay. Grab one piece of my post, take it out of it's context and disregard everything else I said which also applies.

The PS3 and Xbox 360's CPU's have more in common with an Intel Atom processor.
The Wii U's CPU thanks to the shorter pipelines *and* everything else I stated has more in common with a fully fledge Core based processor.
(Albeit, this point is relatively moot, they have commonalities, but are still very different, but you get the idea.)

The killer in the Wii U's heel is the lack of SIMD's.

Also more cores =/= more performance.
The Cell processor was a poor performer even on release.

A Core i5 4670 which is quad core is faster than an AMD FX 8120 which is an 8 core.
An AMD FX Quad-core running at 4ghz is slower than a Core i5 4670 Quad-Core running at 3ghz.

Kay, I was just commenting on what you said about the CPU.

"The killer in the Wii U's heel is the lack of SIMD's"

OK, well that would do it.  Similar problem to the FX really.  Fewer execution units than an i5.

"Also more cores =/= more performance."

Sure, not without context.

Plus you need to factor in the workload.

At general processing the PS3 was inefficient, and hard to optimize.  
For a lot of general game code an i7 OoO, better branch prediction, huge caches, etc. would win easily.  For stream processing the PS3 Cell still rivals Haswell CPUs today thanks to high SIMD throughput, programmable async DMA, 128 register files, better SIMD instruction set, predicated branching, etc.  Code developed specifically for that could beat an i7.  But that is a narrow area like image processing, or doing the GPU's job.

Anyway, it seems like we're kind of arguing the same point.

As for SIMD, nothing Cell has touches AVX and AVX2 (Which also has a 256bit register file) which is found in Haswell and Jaguar, besides not all tasks benefit from SIMD instructions simply because they can't be vectorised to well. (This plays into the highway analogy.)
Intel also has the advantage of macro-op fusion.

Jaguar doesn't have AVX2, only AVX.

Anyway it's not quite what you think.  PowerPC's SIMD has always been superior to those found in x86.  AVX2 (finally after 8 years!) comes closest by adding more integer SIMD, but still missing a few types of instructions that VMX and Cell SPUs have.

Top end Haswell (Finally after 8 years?) has more FLOPs on paper than the CELL processor, but [as you have said yourself] you can't just compare architectures directly like that.

AVX peak is at 256bit SIMD, but that is rarely used.  Most SIMD usage is still 128bit, and there's more to writing code than doing FMADs.  Cell SPUs can pump two 128bit SIMD instructions per cycle.  This can come close, or even beat Haswell in some tasks.

You're right that generally Cell is like running at 50mph and rarely speeding up to 150mph, while a Haswell is running 100mph all the time.  But I think that 1st party games are running at 150mph more than you think.

Anyway it doesn't matter, PS3's CPU is wasted doing GPU work - while a PC, or Wii U doesn't have to do that.  Still it seems Wii U CPU is underpowered compared to gen 7.



My 8th gen collection

My guess is that that gap between the PS4 and the Xbox One will close. At which point, this discussion will be a moot point.

The Xbox One and PS4 share the same class of GPU. So, no the Xbox One and the WII U are not comparable.



Around the Network
Dr.EisDrachenJaeger said:

The 2013 games pretty much look like the next gen versions in all honesty

Have you seen AC4 on WiiU compared to the Xbone?

I like this comparrison myself, it shows that the effects, geometry, draw distance is virtually identical but...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGNeLufdAU

"The biggest issue with the Wii U version is its lacklustre performance level, the game visibly struggling even to match the inconsistent update of the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game."



supernihilist said:
starworld said:
JoeTheBro said:
starworld said:
JoeTheBro said:


Specs are great evidence but they don't tell us the full story. The real world result of the specs is what really matter. Also which non launch multiplats run much worse on Wii U? Most are almost on par if not better.

AC4 runs 5-15 fps behind current gen and looks the same, same for batman, ninaj gaiden 3 and COD ghosts, resident evil  revelations and splinter cell also called worse versions by DF, the only game that is superior NFSWU. specs also do tell the full story, just look at ryse that looks a generion better then anything on wiiu.


Except for AC4 the games you listed are almost on par, not much worse like you said.

go read the digitial foundry its says both batman orgins and cod ghosts run so bad on wiiu thats there almost no fun, compared to the 360/ps3 versions, samething for ninja gaiden 3, that only games that are close are RE and splintercell, try doing some research before making such a silly thread.

talking about hyperbole...

i think that has more to do with unpolished product than with HW power. do i have to remind you how most multiplats look and run worst on PS3 compared to 360? Wasnt PS3 moar powerful?

Bayonetta perhaps? it has do with hard power

it has everything to do with hardware power. ps3 was not more powerful, they both had there strenghts and weak points, but ps3 was a pain to develope for, wiiu doesnt have the same problem, if ports are running worse then you know that console is weaker not powerful enough for it to matter and were not talking about one port, were talking about most.



ICStats said:

Jaguar doesn't have AVX2, only AVX.

Anyway it's not quite what you think.  PowerPC's SIMD has always been superior to those found in x86.  AVX2 (finally after 8 years!) comes closest by adding more integer SIMD, but still missing a few types of instructions that VMX and Cell SPUs have.

Actually there pretty similar for the most part ...

Top end Haswell (Finally after 8 years?) has more FLOPs on paper than the CELL processor, but [as you have said yourself] you can't just compare architectures directly like that.

The top end Haswell also has better prefetching mechanisms, better IPC per core, better branch predictors, a simpler concurrency model, and better caching system. 

AVX peak is at 256bit SIMD, but that is rarely used.  Most SIMD usage is still 128bit, and there's more to writing code than doing FMADs.  Cell SPUs can pump two 128bit SIMD instructions per cycle.  This can come close, or even beat Haswell in some tasks.

Anyway it doesn't matter, PS3's CPU is wasted doing GPU work - while a PC, or Wii U doesn't have to do that.  Still it seems Wii U CPU is underpowered compared to gen 7.



Captain_Tom said:


I am laughing for these reasons:

1) Most people agree that Killzone looks better, but yes it is semi-opinion.

2) Ok so if it is close let's see which one is doing more: 24 players plus up to 24 bots with automatic weapons and grenades going off everywhere VS.  5 guys fighting in QTE's.

3) Some people act like Ryse not looking like garbage somehow makes up for every other game looking like garbage.

The point is some MS fanboys keep stating that Ryse is "The best looking console game."  I believe Killzone looks miles better, but I don't keep stating it like it is some objective fact.  When I wrote "Hahahahha" I was litterally laughing.  It's funny to me how some people are clearly overcompensating for a massive power deficiency.  

I see no reason why I can't say something made me laugh on an internet GAMING forum.

You can but it makes ripples.



Yay!!!

DirtyP2002 said:
Best looking console game is a Xbox One exclusive. That should give you the answer.


No offense but nothing on the Xbox One looks visually anywhere as good in engine  graphics as InFamous, Killzone and The Order is looking to be incredibily beautiful itself.