Nate4Drake said:
Benchmarks say the truth. When they showed X1 CPU slighty better, they clearly said X1 CPU was using ESRAM, which was just theory and in real Game application is the GPU which makes the most use of ESRAM. Also, don't make the most common mistake that some do : don't compare CPU vs CPU, or GPU vs GPU alone. You have to look at the whole Achitecture of each Console. Let's take an example : PS3 vs 360. In that Benchmark, PS3 CPU shows much better performance than the 360 CPU(roughly 3 times), but it's not the whole story. The Cell in the PS3 has to do so many heavy stuff to support the RSX in graphical computing that in the end the left power for Generic task is not superior at all VS 360 CPU. On the other hand, the 360 CPU is almost free to do all the Generic task cause the 360 GPU is more powerful and sofisticated and does not need help from the CPU. And you say ''Even more the PS3 CPU is more capable than PS4s''; completely wrong. As I explained above, most of PS3 CPU resources are 'wasted' for graphical stuff, while the PS4 CPU can be supported by CUs GPU to massively improve CPU performance in Physics, collision system, AI, animations, generic task, etc. Compare APU vs APU, compare Architecture vs Architecture, don't ever compare 1single element VS 1single element. |
The benchmark compared single parts, so do I. Don't tell me that inferring overall performance off this as I know that this is wrong. Moreover it is wrong to infer real world performance by specs as often done even on this forum. Hardware specs on paper don't have a direct relationship to performance in games. This has been done here so many times and it is so wrong that it hurts to even read it.
But no matter what, the slides don't offer enough information to really start a discussion here, anyway.








