| walsufnir said:
|
Thats exactly why I say I need a more indepth analysis.
Its funny how double sided the "hard facts spec analysis seems to be. Indulge me a little.
You have a system that has 12 GPU cores and then one that has 18 GPU cores. In a perfect world, that would mean that the win with 18 will at all times have 50% more GPU performance, since we are saying that this isn't a perfect world, it would mean that the most you will stably be able to get outta the one with 18 cores is lets just say 70% so that means realistically those 18 cores give you only 12.6 cores worth of real world performance.
Now it gets interesting. Doesn't/shouldn't this real world assessment apply to the system with 12 cores too? Shouldn't that also mean that "realistically" they are only eeking out 70% of performance from those 12 cores? Shouldn't that then mean that those 12 cores give a real world performance equivalent of 8.4 cores? Even factoring "real world" performance we should still see a near 50% boost in performance. Unless of course the world the PS4s GPU lives in is realer than the one the XB1s GPU lives in and somehow the XB1 manages to run at peak performance all the time.
Speaking of some worlds be realer than others, its common knowlege that the PS4 so far has better and more efficient APIs so it should at least be living in a real world that is less impactful on its overall performance than the XB1.
Poeple always seem to say that the PS4 realistically wouldn't run as well as advertised, that is true (at least without some serious optimization) but my poing is, neither will the XB1. Which brings me back to, so what are the real benefits of the PS4 having more power across the board. Or have I missed a report somewhere that says having more of everything in the PS4 makes it less efficient?
