freedquaker said:
How did you get this 33% figure? The practical & perceived performance difference is a issue but the theoretical performance gap is definitely not 33%. The most quoted and common differential is 50%. Since PS4 has 50% more compute units (XB1 being 100, PS4 would be 150). Maybe you're talking about from PS4's perspective as XB1 has only 2/3 performance of PS4 (100/150), which implies a 33% lower performance. But if you are referring to what PS4 has on top of XB1, it's a bit more complicated. That sub-50% stories started when MS overclocked both the CPU and the GPU on the XB1. Roughly, they overclocked them by 10%. Well, the CPU overclock is meaningless because we know that the PS4 CPU is still faster (or at least as fast as) the XB1. The increase in GPU speed should indeed improve the speed of XB1 but will it really decrease to below 50%. Initially PS4 had at least 50% more raw power (in some parts, up to 200%). Let's just say, "somewhat more than 50%". However, XB1, due to the hypervisor and the additional Metro in the background reserves around 10% of power to the machine (we pretty much how this works from Windows 8.1), so the difference is even larger. The GPU overclocking is barely there to give that borrowed performance back to the machine so that the performance gap will go back to the goold old "somewhat more than 50%". In any case, the raw theoretical performance gap is no less than 50% between XB1 and PS4, not 33% or 40% or 45% as some may suggest. However, that's not the major concern. That kind of difference is tolerable, and would imply 40-45 fps for XB1 vs 60 fps for PS4, or 1080p vs 900fps with the same frame rate, but the gap today is much more drastic than that. And the reason is the MEMORY SPEED. I suggest you to read this: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=178611&page=3#2 |
I agree with you, i was just trying to be nice.
