Intrinsic 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. |
Oh yes, if you compare this in this way, sure. But GPUs alone can't do anything. They have to be "fed" and this involves CPUs which are the same on both systems. Even more confusing and confusing the imaginary comparison totally is the fact that nowadays consoles run a fully fletched multitasking system which eats up 2 cores and 3gb of ram on both systems. So the scheduler on both systems (which also takes cpu-time) has to handle the game (which of course runs at highest priority) and has to deal with other programs that eat up cpu time. Furthermore there are caches and so on which no one takes into consideration when talking about real life performance of the consoles.
People only mention GPU and GDDR5 and conclude known percentages of advantage while you only see a part of the whole picture where all those other facts rely on.
