Quantcast
The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

Pemalite said: 

1. 6 Teraflops isn't actually that powerful, it's mid-range levels.
Nor is flops everything.

JRPGfan said:

PS4 does the checkerboarding via buildt in hardware, that reduces how demanding it is to do (XB1X doesnt have this).

2, Can you give me some kind of reference to how much overhead checkerboarding has on the Xbox One X? Because I doubt it's even worth mentioning.

But the fact is, the Xbox One X shouldn't need to do checkerboarding, it should be able to hit higher resolutions natively, not full 4k, but still natively.



Foe someone that seems as knowledgeable as you do I find myself sometimes totally disagreeing with you...... then again guess we can't always agree with everyone.

but to the points i disagree with....

  1. 6TF is plenty powerful. Especially for a console. It may not be powerful enough to do 4k gaming across the board or 4k at 60fps, but the things that can do that cost more just for a GPU than the entirety of the XB1X. The XB1X like the PS4pro/PS4 offers the best price to power ratio as far as gaming goes. You simply can't build a PC that will perform like those consoles at their price points. Thats always been the thing and place of consoles.

    To say 6TF isn't powerful is when comparing it to what? Cause thats just something that irks me a bit.... when people that I know to be predominantly PC gamers get dismissive when talking specs simply because there is some PC hardware out there that can do 2 or 3 times the performance...... all the while talking like that thing doesn't cost a significant deal more or that everyone that owns a PC uses that level of hardware. 


  2. Whatever it cost the XB1X to do checkerboarding, it will cost the PS4pro less to do it. Thats the whole point of having specialized hardware for specific tasks. 


Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

I would say you are about right except that if they make mid gens or genless 2-3y refreshes we will have some issues. Tailored games to a HW usually take 2-3 years to show up enjoying the potential of the platform. If we are changing HW every 2-3y we won't ever see the HW maxed out, so we'll be tossing money away on bruteforcing the game.

Well, we'd have something closer to PC gaming.  But, instead of infinite hardware configurations, there may be 2-4 that a developer needs to worry about.  That doesn't seem like too big of a deal.  All XB and PS games are currently dealing with 2 configurations, what's one more?



TallSilhouette said:
AsGryffynn said:

At 6TF, Microsoft basically cornered the competitors before the next generation even started in the first place. Jumping much higher after this yields negligible benefits to performance, and the cost will skyrocket afterwards. Attempting to go further might be costly, so Sony either needs to find a way to be better which precludes power, or risk MS starting with an already vast catalog and around a million or more users. 

They actually played a good hand this time. They did something that would ensure they remained the top dog one way or another once this generation ends... 

Are you just talking about the remainder of this generation and the small possibility of another mid gen console or are you suggesting that the difference between the X and 7nm next gen consoles will be negligible?

It isn't. However, the performance after the power level the XBX is outputting does not allow for a significant jump in graphical capabilities. You might be able to use the power for smarter AI or multitasking, but most games don't use the power that a considerably smarter AI would require. In fact, most devs make relatively dumb AI to keep development simple. 

I mean, they already went for native 4K. What's next in the resolution race? The only thing left is 120 FPS, and that's the cutoff point I mentioned earlier. Die shrinks or not, achieving that sort of performance will make costs skyrocket. MS might have actually chosen the TF threshold specifically because they know that going any lower leads to visible deterioration in graphical capabilities, but going any higher, even with newer technology, will make costs rise at a higher rate than graphical power. Unless it's six years before next gen, there simply isn't anything higher you can aim for without creating an OG Xbox situation where your console is more expensive than the rest or the price does not decrease over time. 

Alternatively, you end in a Wii U scenario where you have a weak product that puts you at a disadvantage even with price to your favor. 

Hynad said:

The Switch isn't even 1 TFLOPS and it's outselling the XBox One and XBox One X, selling at a similar pace as the PS4.


Let that sink in.



The wisdom of less than half a TFLOPS vs 6 TFLOPS.

It's still on year one. After a year and a half, the inflow is going to wither... 



It was Britain, it is America, tomorrow France and next year, the world... 

Warning: This poster has a very negative opinion of Sony and Nintendo, Idea Factory and companies Tecmo Koei, EA, BioWare, Blizzard, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Kadokawa and Sega. If you have very positive views of these and a negative view of Microsoft or Bethesda Game Studios, AVOID ENGAGEMENT AT ALL COSTS! 

    Ganoncrotch said:
    AsGryffynn said:

    I was actually going to mention this. At 6TF, Microsoft basically cornered the competitors before the next generation even started in the first place. Jumping much higher after this yields negligible benefits to performance, and the cost will skyrocket afterwards. Attempting to go further might be costly, so Sony either needs to find a way to be better which precludes power, or risk MS starting with an already vast catalog and around a million or more users. 

    They actually played a good hand this time. They did something that would ensure they remained the top dog one way or another once this generation ends... 

    If that graphical power was coupled with a CPU half way capable of utilizing it, would blow the X out of the water in games like Assassins creed where you have cpu hungry scenes killing the X, stick a Ryzen 1600 in place of the Jaguar and you have a next generational Console instantly.

    A Ryzen is rather expensive now, and a lot of people don't notice these differences now. Why would they then? 

    DonFerrari said:
    Ganoncrotch said:

    Feels strange when such a hot new console is already being bundled with €100 of extras by gamestop to sell some for Christmas



    Also if you ask me... a terrible idea to ship a premium console like the Xbox1X along with basically a beta of a game which chugs down as low as 4fps on the system at times... I would feel terrible if I was a clueless gamer and got home to my new system to find it ran the only game I got for it like that. Would be instant buyers remorse.

    As for talking about a consoles launch week as though it's some sort of "come back" against the other systems. Wow

    Yep I don't think MS choose good games to show-off the potential of X1X, with those simple looking indies, Minecraft 4k, Crackdown 3 and now a pre-release game that doesn't look pretty.

    AsGryffynn said:

    I was actually going to mention this. At 6TF, Microsoft basically cornered the competitors before the next generation even started in the first place. Jumping much higher after this yields negligible benefits to performance, and the cost will skyrocket afterwards. Attempting to go further might be costly, so Sony either needs to find a way to be better which precludes power, or risk MS starting with an already vast catalog and around a million or more users. 

    They actually played a good hand this time. They did something that would ensure they remained the top dog one way or another once this generation ends... 

    It shall not cost more than 399 USD to put a lot better machine in 2020-2021 that is when I expect PS5. Even more when CPU can be a lot better without additional costs by that time.

    Random_Matt said:
    6TF is such a waste with a shit CPU.
    At the end of the day, it's still mostly a sub 30FPS box.
    $500, what a rip off.
    My opinion of course.

    The idea behind both Pro and X1X is more on resolution improvement, so keeping the fps at the same level was important to keep the leveled playfield between base and midgen HW. So the CPU upclock is just enough to keep the same framerate at the additional pixelcount.

    But to what end? Graphically, they are as high as you can get without jumping a really far. This is what I am referring to. Each gen, a console has sold on the idea that something changed. Either DVDs, online multiplayer or PC functions and resolution. The next generation is either a long way off, will need a gimmick to work, be entirely portable, or limit itself to negligible graphical improvements. 

    Since when do devs bother creating a powerful AI or using all of the processors' power? They didn't do with the XBO except for a few games, then they stopped doing it altogether once the XBX was announced, which is my whole point. They will attempt nothing and instead cut corners to sell a profitable product instead. 



    It was Britain, it is America, tomorrow France and next year, the world... 

    Warning: This poster has a very negative opinion of Sony and Nintendo, Idea Factory and companies Tecmo Koei, EA, BioWare, Blizzard, Treyarch, Infinity Ward, Kadokawa and Sega. If you have very positive views of these and a negative view of Microsoft or Bethesda Game Studios, AVOID ENGAGEMENT AT ALL COSTS! 

      Intrinsic said:
      Pemalite said: 

      1. 6 Teraflops isn't actually that powerful, it's mid-range levels.
      Nor is flops everything.

      2, Can you give me some kind of reference to how much overhead checkerboarding has on the Xbox One X? Because I doubt it's even worth mentioning.

      But the fact is, the Xbox One X shouldn't need to do checkerboarding, it should be able to hit higher resolutions natively, not full 4k, but still natively.

      Foe someone that seems as knowledgeable as you do I find myself sometimes totally disagreeing with you...... then again guess we can't always agree with everyone.

      but to the points i disagree with....

       

      1. 6TF is plenty powerful. Especially for a console. It may not be powerful enough to do 4k gaming across the board or 4k at 60fps, but the things that can do that cost more just for a GPU than the entirety of the XB1X. The XB1X like the PS4pro/PS4 offers the best price to power ratio as far as gaming goes. You simply can't build a PC that will perform like those consoles at their price points. Thats always been the thing and place of consoles.

        To say 6TF isn't powerful is when comparing it to what? Cause thats just something that irks me a bit.... when people that I know to be predominantly PC gamers get dismissive when talking specs simply because there is some PC hardware out there that can do 2 or 3 times the performance...... all the while talking like that thing doesn't cost a significant deal more or that everyone that owns a PC uses that level of hardware. 


      2. Whatever it cost the XB1X to do checkerboarding, it will cost the PS4pro less to do it. Thats the whole point of having specialized hardware for specific tasks. 

       

      The tailoring of the code also help the GPU power difference to get a little smaller as well.

      VAMatt said:
      DonFerrari said:

      I would say you are about right except that if they make mid gens or genless 2-3y refreshes we will have some issues. Tailored games to a HW usually take 2-3 years to show up enjoying the potential of the platform. If we are changing HW every 2-3y we won't ever see the HW maxed out, so we'll be tossing money away on bruteforcing the game.

      Well, we'd have something closer to PC gaming.  But, instead of infinite hardware configurations, there may be 2-4 that a developer needs to worry about.  That doesn't seem like too big of a deal.  All XB and PS games are currently dealing with 2 configurations, what's one more?

      It is a bad way to approach the PC gaming this way. Because as I said, we will never really see the devs pushing that HW or getting the ins and outs of it, because they'll be always giving attention to either pushing the most powerful HW or making a decent version for all platforms, etc. They no longer will take the time to master the platform. But I guess we may be headed over there anyway.

      AsGryffynn said:
      Ganoncrotch said:

      If that graphical power was coupled with a CPU half way capable of utilizing it, would blow the X out of the water in games like Assassins creed where you have cpu hungry scenes killing the X, stick a Ryzen 1600 in place of the Jaguar and you have a next generational Console instantly.

      A Ryzen is rather expensive now, and a lot of people don't notice these differences now. Why would they then? 

      DonFerrari said:

      Yep I don't think MS choose good games to show-off the potential of X1X, with those simple looking indies, Minecraft 4k, Crackdown 3 and now a pre-release game that doesn't look pretty.

      It shall not cost more than 399 USD to put a lot better machine in 2020-2021 that is when I expect PS5. Even more when CPU can be a lot better without additional costs by that time.

      The idea behind both Pro and X1X is more on resolution improvement, so keeping the fps at the same level was important to keep the leveled playfield between base and midgen HW. So the CPU upclock is just enough to keep the same framerate at the additional pixelcount.

      But to what end? Graphically, they are as high as you can get without jumping a really far. This is what I am referring to. Each gen, a console has sold on the idea that something changed. Either DVDs, online multiplayer or PC functions and resolution. The next generation is either a long way off, will need a gimmick to work, be entirely portable, or limit itself to negligible graphical improvements. 

      Since when do devs bother creating a powerful AI or using all of the processors' power? They didn't do with the XBO except for a few games, then they stopped doing it altogether once the XBX was announced, which is my whole point. They will attempt nothing and instead cut corners to sell a profitable product instead. 

      If you see the things CGI have been showing for next gen sneak peeks you would change your mind that we are already at the peak of what we can evolve graphically.



      duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

      http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363


      Around the Network
      Captain_Yuri said:

      From a hardware perspective, I think MS had the right moves and the better execution. If I want to get a console for 4k, I want it to be a 4k experience. A lot of games on x1x are running native 4k or at the very least, higher than ps4 pro and it comes with a 4k Bluray player. It also has Super Sampling and AF for every game instead of leaving it up to the developers at 1080p. That is the kind of a console that I want if I wanted a "4k" experience at least for this generation. Yea it costs more money but if I can't afford it, may as well get the cheaper one.

      The problem with the x1x is the same problem with the x1... The games... Sony has more exclusive games than Xbox does while having most if not all third party games the xbox one does.

      So you have one console that gives you plenty of games and some exclusives vs another console that gives you mostly the same games plus a lot more exclusives. And that's not even getting into the whole "most xbox games are playable on PC."

      I think at the end of the day, they made the right call overall with the x1x. If they made the hardware close to the ps4 pro, then there wouldn't be much of a reason to get an x1x but having a hardware that is much more powerful than the ps4 pro while having a 4k bluray player... There is at least something there to give buyers a reason.

      But these features the X has over the Pro arent something you cant fundamentally fix. Downsampling is something they can update for the Pro, 4K blue ray playback they can update or release it with a PS4 Pro revision in the future. The Pro was never supposed to be a 4K machine, otherwise they would have called it the PS4K.

      You also forget that the Pro came out one year earlier, so its not only about money. I dont think it was the better execution to let customers wait another year of better PS4 and PS4 Pro multiplats for something the X wouldnt accomplish in the first place. The Xbox One was always 500$, it would have been stronger than the Pro even a year earlier, and Sony wouldnt have made the Pro to be 500$ hardware.



      AsGryffynn said:
      Ganoncrotch said:

      If that graphical power was coupled with a CPU half way capable of utilizing it, would blow the X out of the water in games like Assassins creed where you have cpu hungry scenes killing the X, stick a Ryzen 1600 in place of the Jaguar and you have a next generational Console instantly.

      A Ryzen is rather expensive now, and a lot of people don't notice these differences now. Why would they then? 

       

      A Ryzen 7 1700 costs about £200 to the consumer and is capable of doing this with 10% of its power (Overwatch, HD videos, browser)

      Not to mention the fact that the chip runs at about 20w of power which doing this, the per core voltage of the chip is incredible which would mean less heat and less intrusive noisy cooling required than the absolute massive jet of heat now coming out the back of the X with the overclocked to within an inch of its life Jaguar

      Look at those core voltages and it's pretty much just over room temp.

      When they start to put these into consoles the "power" of the Jaguar will absolutely be shown up for what it is.

      And aye like I said, to a consumer these cost a couple of hundred today, to a console manufacturer offering to buy 20million of them? think they wouldn't get a big discount on that? not to mention there are far less powerful/costly versions of the Ryzen which would still blow a jaguar out of the water without breaking a sweat.



      Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

      AsGryffynn said:

      A Ryzen is rather expensive now, and a lot of people don't notice these differences now. Why would they then? instead. 

      Its 300€, you can except it to be a lot cheaper in the years to come. It already gives you 60fps in every game, so on a console where drivers arent an issue that would result in a lot of performance. I also wouldnt be surprised if Sony puts the PS3 Cell processor too in the PS5 for extra power and BC, it would only cost them 40$ or even less per unit.



      Ruler said:
      Captain_Yuri said:

      From a hardware perspective, I think MS had the right moves and the better execution. If I want to get a console for 4k, I want it to be a 4k experience. A lot of games on x1x are running native 4k or at the very least, higher than ps4 pro and it comes with a 4k Bluray player. It also has Super Sampling and AF for every game instead of leaving it up to the developers at 1080p. That is the kind of a console that I want if I wanted a "4k" experience at least for this generation. Yea it costs more money but if I can't afford it, may as well get the cheaper one.

      The problem with the x1x is the same problem with the x1... The games... Sony has more exclusive games than Xbox does while having most if not all third party games the xbox one does.

      So you have one console that gives you plenty of games and some exclusives vs another console that gives you mostly the same games plus a lot more exclusives. And that's not even getting into the whole "most xbox games are playable on PC."

      I think at the end of the day, they made the right call overall with the x1x. If they made the hardware close to the ps4 pro, then there wouldn't be much of a reason to get an x1x but having a hardware that is much more powerful than the ps4 pro while having a 4k bluray player... There is at least something there to give buyers a reason.

      But these features the X has over the Pro arent something you cant fundamentally fix. Downsampling is something they can update for the Pro, 4K blue ray playback they can update or release it with a PS4 Pro revision in the future. The Pro was never supposed to be a 4K machine, otherwise they would have called it the PS4K.

      You also forget that the Pro came out one year earlier, so its not only about money. I dont think it was the better execution to let customers wait another year of better PS4 and PS4 Pro multiplats for something the X wouldnt accomplish in the first place. The Xbox One was always 500$, it would have been stronger than the Pro even a year earlier, and Sony wouldnt have made the Pro to be 500$ hardware.

      Too bad the developers are lazy... Yea the devs can patch it in themselves except they don't. Just cause they can doesn't mean they will which is proven by the year lead the Ps4 Pro has. The devs had an entire year to patch their games with it yet they didn't. Only a few games on the pro really have Down Sampling when it comes to 1080p where as every game that has a higher resolution than 1080 on the X1X has Down Sampling and AF. And if it's not supposed to be a 4k machine, then maybe they shouldn't advertise it as that... Yet they do...

      If it meant to the pro would have what the x1x has now, then I would consider it to be worth the wait. The Ps4 Pro leaves it all to the developers which is its problem. Some games you have all the features like a Down Sampling at 1080p with increased visual affects while having an option of performance mode or 4k mode while in many others, it's just basic 1440p checkerboard to 4k and that's that. With the x1x, there is more of a guarantee of what the buyers will get cause every game that has a 4k mode will also have down sampling and AF at 1080p. Yea it costs $500 but oh well... If I am gonna spend money on a mid-cycle refresh, I would want the best experience there is. If I can't afford it, well there's always the base console. The only reason I don't own a x1x is cause of the games but if the games were the same and weren't available on PC, I'd choose it over the pro any day of the week even if it costs more.



                   

                                     Anime: Haruhi                                                                                      Anime: Love Live
                                    Nsfw Anime Thread                                                                             Join our Anime Threads!
                                   Sfw Anime Thread                                                                                VGC Tutorial Thread

      Kerotan said:
      The fact that WW the xb1 barely outsold ps4 the week it launched tells you something.

      Worldwide the month it launched it will lose heavily. Sony have nothing to be worried about.

      And I mean literally nothing. Because xbox yet again next year hasn't got a software line up to match the ps4.

      Sony must be relieved because the xbx was their last shot at redemption.

      Even if the Xbox One was selling the Playstation 4 5:1 with the Xbox One X, Sony would not have anything to worry about, the Playstation 4 is still a resounding success and there are still 10's of millions of consoles that Microsoft would need to make up ground for anyway.

      Intrinsic said:

      Foe someone that seems as knowledgeable as you do I find myself sometimes totally disagreeing with you...... then again guess we can't always agree with everyone.

      I don't need you to agree with me.
      Nor do I expect it or even care.

      Intrinsic said:
      1. 6TF is plenty powerful. Especially for a console. It may not be powerful enough to do 4k gaming across the board or 4k at 60fps, but the things that can do that cost more just for a GPU than the entirety of the XB1X. The XB1X like the PS4pro/PS4 offers the best price to power ratio as far as gaming goes. You simply can't build a PC that will perform like those consoles at their price points. Thats always been the thing and place of consoles.


      "6TF" is not plenty powerful.
      Nor is Teraflops all there is to a GPU's power.

      But to put it in comparison to AMD"s product lineup... It falls roughly inline with the Radeon RX 580, which is a rubbish GPU.
      How do I know it's a rubbish GPU? Because I own one.

      The Xbox One X and Playstation 4 Pro haven't demonstrated games beyond that GPU's capabilities yet, in-fact... Sometimes the results are even worst as far as visuals and performance go.  Like... PUBG.

      And how do I know the Xbox One X hasn't demonstrated games beyond my RX 580? Because I own that console as well.

      Intrinsic said:
      1. To say 6TF isn't powerful is when comparing it to what? Cause thats just something that irks me a bit.... when people that I know to be predominantly PC gamers get dismissive when talking specs simply because there is some PC hardware out there that can do 2 or 3 times the performance...... all the while talking like that thing doesn't cost a significant deal more or that everyone that owns a PC uses that level of hardware.

      The GPU that the Xbox One X has is Radeon RX 580 class and thus falls short of Geforce 980, Geforce 980 Ti, Geforce 1060, Geforce 1070, Geforce 1070 Ti, Geforce 1080, Geforce 1080 Ti, Titan X, Titan XP... And that's just nVidia's GPU's.

      And to reinforce the fact that flops are a useless denominator... Some of those GPU's have 1 Teraflop or more LESS of single precision floating point capability.

      On the AMD camp... AMD Radeon R9 Nano, Fury, Fury X, Vega 56, Vega 64 all beat the RX 580. The old R9 390X is roughly on par.

      Cost is of course a big deal, but nVidia GPU's tend to be smaller, consume less power, meaning they are cheaper to manufacture anyway.

      Intrinsic said
      1. Whatever it cost the XB1X to do checkerboarding, it will cost the PS4pro less to do it. Thats the whole point of having specialized hardware for specific tasks. 

      The point is moot... Because if Sony and Microsoft packed sufficient hardware to begin with... Then we wouldn't need to use checkerboarding to fake higher resolutions to start with.
      Checkerboarding is something that the Playstation 4 Pro needs to rely on, more so than the Xbox One X.

      However, again... If you have a source that you can demonstrate the overhead that Checkerboarding has on the Xbox One X, then we can safely assume the overhead is inconsequential and thus not even worth mentioning.

      It's called evidence. And I wants it. It's my precious.

      AsGryffynn said:

      A Ryzen is rather expensive now, and a lot of people don't notice these differences now. Why would they then? 

      Ryzen Mobile based on Zen+ seems to be allot more cost efficient than Ryzen on the Desktop.
      Making some cutbacks to things like the memory controllers, caches and so on has actually made it a rather economical chip to manufacture... So I would assume next-gen would take the same approach. I.E. Using a mobile variant.

      Ganoncrotch said:

      A Ryzen 7 1700 costs about £200 to the consumer and is capable of doing this with 10% of its power (Overwatch, HD videos, browser)

      To be fair... I can do a similar thing with my 3930K, which is 6+ years old now.
      Granted it will use a little more of it's total CPU time as it has less CPU cores... And consume more power which is expected for it's age, but it would give your Ryzen 7 a run for it's money once I overclock her.

      And I was also doing a similar thing on the old Phenom 2 x6 1090T back when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth, 6x Phenom cores was amazing back then, especially when you overclocked the NB to 3ghz, giving it a good 15% IPC boost, putting it hitting distance of Nahelem.

      We can pretend that FX never happened though right?