| Dark_Feanor said: Source? Is that your opinion? If so, what are your qualifications? But you ask. "what happend to the 40% more GPU that the PS4 has? " 9 pregnant women don´t output 1 babe each month. That is basicaly why we have seem a lot of resolution delta and only Tomb Raider with lock vs unlock frame rate. And that is why games with the same resolution on both the XOne gets only a 10% hit in intense sceanes. |
Well, this thread and the subsequent series here is open to scrutiny and discussion. I welcome it.
And my qualifications? would it make you feel better if I told you I am one of those over education types, have a first degre in computer science and currently about to finish my second degree in medicine, worked on two android and IOS apps and is currently building what I think is going to one day be one of the best apps ever made (if I can pull it off that is). Feel free to take believe what I say or not, or if you have doubts feel free to do your own research and disprove what I have said. Free world man.
But to address what you have said.
What happened to the 40% GPU advantage?
I am going to just assume you didnt read or understand the point right above that insert. So i will go over it again just for you.
In a game engine The CPU processes a scene (AI, Physics, lighting, positional data, controller input...etc) > and calculates how that scene is different from its last processed scene > then sends the info of the differences to the GPU > which goes onto render the new scene > and sends that image to your screen.
Everything I just explained above, in a 30fps game.. happens 30 times per second. So image (frame) has to be ready in 33ms. A 60fps game will need to do all that in 15ms.
Now keep this little snippet of information close by. The PS4 has a GPU that is 50% more cores than the XB1. Lets expand on this. Everything you see being rendered by the XB1, it does so with its 12 GPU core. If it had only 9 cores, it would NOT be able to do with that what it could with 12. So it either will do less work or take more time doing the same amount of work. I am explaining this as simply and as straighforward as I possibly can. Now if the same XB1 GPU had 6 more GPU cores, common sense and logic would tell you that it would either be able to do more work in the same amount of time than it could with 12 cores or it would do the same work in less time. I would think this line of reasoning is indisputable. And this is just looking at only the GPU cores and not talking about any other advantages the PS4 has to keep this as simple as possible.
If you understand that, then this next part would make more sense. YOUR ANSWER STARTS HERE
Now lets go back to what I said about the game engine render pipeline and 33ms for a 30fps game render time per frame.
A developer is making the same game for two platforms. this game runs at 900p@30fps. So the game has a frame render time limit of 33ms. Now the developer has said that the game is CPU heavy. Meaning the CPu has a lot to do. So lets say of that 33ms, the CPU takes up 25ms handling all its calculations. This leaves the GPU with only 8ms to render the frame and send it to your display.
Now th developer realizes that because of how much time they have used up on the CPU side of things, there is not enough time for the GPu to render the frame and still hit that 33ms limit. So since they don't want the frame rate to drop below 30fps, they then decide to reduce how much work the GPU has to do by dropping the res from 1080p to 900p. So basically to maintain a 30fps output they sacrificed 180p worth of pixels.
Everything I have just said is perfectly ok. Nothing wrong with that at all. The only problem is one of the GPUs in question is capable of doing 40% more work in the same amount of time. Not 3%, 10% or 15%....... at least 40%. And why this is important is that rendering of pixels, is an ALL GPU affair. If both the XB1 and the PS4 have exactly 8ms to render a frame, and the XB1 can render that frame at 900p, then it simply means that the more powerful GPU of the PS4 can render the same frame given the same amount of time either FASTER or BETTER. So it would mean that the PS4 would either have a higher frame rate or at least render it at a higher resolution. It cannot be neither of those. Do you understand now?
There is a perfectly reasonable (and ok) explanation for why this strange thing happened the way it did. And its not about MS paying them or nonsense like that nor is it about he BS excuse they gave.
Oh, and theer is this from the very same company that made the game in question.
Lets break that chart down.
- XB1 CPU is ~10% more powerful than the PS4s CPU. Now even though there is evidence that the PS4 CPU still performs better lets ignore that and lets just take this as a cat for the sake of this argument. So if the XB1 can complete its CPU tasks in 25ms, it means that it did it 10% faster than the PS4 and the PS4 completed its task with its less powerful CPU in 27.5ms. Bummer I know.
- That means the XB1 had 8ms left to render a 900p image by the GPU. The PS4 on the other hand had only 5.5ms second to render the frame.
- Now the PS4 (based on the graph) is 100% more powerful than the XB1. XB1s 830 + 830 = 1660. This benchmark is probably factoring in all those other GPU advantaged the PS4 has and not just the amount of cores. This means that the PS4s GPU can do what it took the XB1s GPU 8ms to do in 4ms. So the question is, do you believe that if it takes the PS4 4ms to render 900p at 30fps, it could not render an additional 180p in the remaining 1.5ms it has? Remember the PS4 has only 5.5ms to complete the task.
