Adinnieken said:
errorpwns said:
Adinnieken said:
The problem with this blog post is it doesn't acknowledge the differences we know of in the GPU. While it talks about the frequency the GPU is running at, it doesn't mention the potential benefits to the PS4 that the number of shaders could have.
My big problem with this article is that unlike with the last generation, no one technically knowledgeable has looked at the specs and in technical terms, spelled out how each one will perform based on what we do know. What we have is people looking at specs and saying "This number is bigger, therefore this is better!".
The Cell processor could smoke the Xenon processor in the PS3 and Xbox 360, yet the technical superiority of one over the other was made moot by differences elsewhere in the console. I don't know if it's because there is no one capable of providing the rundown like we saw last generation, or if it's simply a matter of not having enough data. I would much prefer though having a clear understanding of what the capabilities of each system as a whole operating unit are rather than what one has which bigger specs.
This blog post does nothing to placate that, nor does it advance the discussion any further than it has already been. |
The Cell had power, but the rest of the console was one big joke. 512MB of memory and essentially only 256MB of it was allowed for the graphics. The 360 had more available graphics memory and in some multi platform games that showed to help it. The graphics chip and memory bottlenecked the cell. It's all about bottlenecks. I could put a couple titans into my system, but in the end my Athlon II x4 2.8ghz would bottleneck the graphics chips. I'd need to upgrade into a faster processor to see frame increases in some games. See why consoles have 8GB of memory now? They don't want to run into the terrible bottleneck. Even in 06 systems dedicated for gaming were getting 2-4GB of memory. So putting 512 in was flawed from the beginning. Especially when they planned a 7-8 year console cycle.
|
The thing that has changed between this generation and the previous generation is the fact that the bottle necks have become smaller and less obvious. They require a greater deal of understanding systems and how data is used on those systems, than looking at numbers.
What's the point of having GDDR5 memory when your memory block is 256Mb wide and you only have 4Mb to fill that space? A block size is an addressible area, only one thing can fit into a single block. So, having a larger block size as GDDR 5 does, become a disadvantage when you're dealing with smaller files. Soon, most of your memory is consumed with small files because these 256Mb blocks are now consumed by sub 256Mb files. Memory density, if you will. DDR3 memory has a smaller block size, I think 64Mb? So while it may take more blocks for a larger file, I'm not wasting as much memory on a smaller file. That 4Mb file is only wasting 60Mb of memory in a block, not 252Mb.
Likewise, as I said before. GDDR and DDR memory work differently. In GDDR memory you need to flush the memory before writing to it. You can't append the memory. Where as in DDR memory you can. Which is why I believe the PS4 relies on virtual memory (HDD cache file). The cache file is used to read and write active data from/to memory as it's being used.
|
The thing is the memory bandwidth/amount of memory only comes into play when you bump up to a higher resolution. The Xbox One has more than enough capability at 1080p. Considering that the current gen cosnoels will most likely never exceed 1080p for games it is safe to assume that both consoles will hit a peak eventually after optimization and stuff is factored in. Neither console needs more than 4GB of memor dedicated to video. Anything more than 3 is absurd for games running at 1080p. Which is why it would be a joke to bring up the fact one has more usable memory than the other. Since in the end IT DOES NOT MATTER AT 1080P. PC benchmarks would verify that perfectly. The fact is 2GB of GDDR5 seems to handle 1080P in games perfectly fine should be more than enough proof of that. I don't get why people think the way they do about hardware. The fact one produces more flops than the other has no real standing in games. Drivers have increased graphics cards performance by large amounts. So if Microsoft can out write Sony driverwise their graphics chip could end up working out to be the more powerful one even though on paper the one in the PS4 is more powerful. People have severely underestimated what a graphics driver rewrite can mean for the Xbox One. It has been rewritten and that alone could boost the Xbox Ones performance. The 50mhz bump up not as much.
Currently Online 
