By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 02 October 2013
Edit Thread
ethomaz said:

Machiavellian said:

How can I spread any false information since I never made a claim the PS4 GPU does anything non game related.  I asked you for proof that it doesn't.  Those are very different statements and it appears we will go on a long jorney of you not understanding context again.

My question remains the same, how do you know.  Where is the info, interview, tweet statements from Sony.  How do you know what the PS4 uses for non gaming features.  I care not about fanboy wars and who has the most power and all that crap.  I just like to know how these systems are made.  If you have this info then share it.  If not, then its just an opinion and we can leave it at that.

Because it is false information lol.

Maybe you lost everything released news about the OSs from MS and Sony... I don't how do you even read articles lol.

But ok I will give you source from a place that you said you always read but... well... just stop and start to reacher how the OSs works first.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-face-to-face-with-mark-cerny

Digital Foundry: Going back to GPU compute for a moment, I wouldn't call it a rumour - it was more than that. There was a recommendation - a suggestion? - for 14 cores [GPU compute units] allocated to visuals and four to GPU compute...

Mark Cerny: That comes from a leak and is not any form of formal evangelisation. The point is the hardware is intentionally not 100 per cent round. It has a little bit more ALU in it than it would if you were thinking strictly about graphics. As a result of that you have an opportunity, you could say an incentivisation, to use that ALU for GPGPU.

To you understand... the rumor was about how the devs can use the 18CUs in PS4... 14 for graphics and 4 for GPGPU... Cerny demystified saying all the CUs is open to devs to what they want even 1CU for graphics and 17 for GPGPU... there is nothing for the OS. 

LOL, so let me get this straight.  Richard pressed Mark on a rumor and Mark cleared it up and this is bias.

So what is the difference from this interview Richard had with MS engineer when he pressed about the ROPs

"Having attempted to comprehensively address questions about the ESRAM and system memory bandwidth of the architecture, the issue of the Xbox One's fill-rate and ROPs deficit compared to PlayStation 4 is now under the microscope. ROPs are the elements of the GPU that physically write the final image from pixel, vector and texel information: PlayStation 4's 32 ROPs are generally acknowledged as overkill for a 1080p resolution (the underlying architecture from AMD was never designed exclusively just for full HD but for other resolutions such as 2560x1400/2560x1600 too), while Xbox One's 16 ROPs could theoretically be overwhelmed by developers."

"In our interview, Microsoft revealed research it had carried out that suggested that the 6.6 per cent increase to GPU clock speed was more beneficial to the system than two additional AMD Radeon Graphics Core Next compute units. Our question was straightforward enough - were the results of these tests skewed by the code saturating the ROPs?"

Lets talk about the conclusion he makes about the ROPs

"Our take on the ROPs situation is that while these figures make perfect sense, there are many other scenarios that could be potentially challenging - depth-only passes, shadows, alpha test and Z pre-pass for example. But from a user perspective, the fact is that native 1080p isn't supported on key first-party titles like Ryse and Killer Instinct. Assuming this isn't a pixel fill-rate issue as Microsoft suggests, surely at the very least, this impacts the balanced system argument?"

Does not sound like he is in MS pocket or that he is drinking the MS Koolaid.  Instead what I find is that when people see something negative about the system of their choice, they blind themselves to everything else.