| Michael-5 said: 1) So I'm right when we talk about raw power, PS4 is about 10x as powerful as PS3, not up to 15x, or more powerful? 2) I don't undertand how the jump from XB1 to 360 is only 10x, when the GFLOPS diff is about 15x. I know you said I shouldn't use GFLOPs to measure, since stuff like shaders have improved drastically, but the lack of an improvement in shaders wouldn't make the performance jump smaller. Either way, not worth arguing, you admit that in 4 years the graphical jump was more insane then current gen jump, and if I were to argue anything (why are we arguing about PS4's performance, we both agree 9/10x or so), that's my arguement. Also I would argue that we see less improvements with similar jumps in power because of dimishinging return. 600-6,000 polygons is noticable, but 60,000 to 600,000 polygons isn't really. PS4/One will look good because they can have so many objects on screen. Killzone for instance had a whole city rendered, well I would add. Where did you find out the number of unified shaders? Also I'm not basing my comparisions on core clock speed. I said: I didn't say it to downgrade PS4's performance, just to make a point that not everything on PS4 improved so drastically. I didn't say anything wrong, but people assumed I was implying something by saying that. ---- Basically, what I've learnt from you is that you can't directly measure PS4's performance based off its specs. GFLOPS seems the best way to estimate a number (What's a better way?), but you need a raw benchmark because things like Memory Bandwidth, fill rate, and bus (something I know was PS2's bottleneck) affect performance. With consoles, you won't get that, since PS3/PS4 games run off 1 setting, where PC games can be altered. Now I have a question, if Memory bandwidth is only a 5x improvement in the PS4 (38.4 -> 192 GB/s), will that hinder and help the PS4's performance? Is there a linear relationship, or exponential? |
1) Yes, whole system is "at least 10x powerful as any current gen console" (Cerny on Jimmy Fallon's show)...GPU alone is more than 10x as powerful
2) Due to other specs not jumping as much (actually, most of them saw higher increase in this jump than in last) - though, tbh, PS3 to PS2 was much more radical jump than X360 to XBOX1. But yes, 10x in 8 years is not as impressive as 10x in 4 years, so I see why lot of people think it's not as big of a jump...16x overall performance would be much better, but that would come with massive price and heating issues at this state of GPU tech (better CPU wouldn't hurt either).
BTW, Permalite made great post regarding some of the improvements in visuals we'll see in next-gen games - others include a lot better lighting/shadowing (that Deep Down demo), bigger worlds and better AI (hopefully - they've been promising this for years, but still FarCry 1 from 2004 has arguably better AI than any modern FPS)
3) Yeah, usual mistake - people keep refining wiki though...not so long ago some really silly number stood in place of 176GFLOPS for RSX for example, glad someone with more knowledge changed it.
4) I was explaining you that core clock speed can't be used for comparisons alone without knowing what that core clock drives. So, if you know number of shaders/TMUs/ROPs and architecture you can make some educated guesses about performance based on that...of course, nothing beats real life benchmarks/aggregates.
As for memory bandwidth (btw, it's 22.4GB/s to 176GB/s), I gave you one good example (HD5550) how it affects overall performance when all other parameters are the same. Here's another one (7750 with same core clocks, one with 72GB/s bandwidth, other with 36GB/s):
Again, Permalite made a good explanation on that.
