Look at that jump! In terms of memory and bandwidth, PS4 is easily the biggest leap out of any generation.......
I'm really excited to see the exclusives on this thing. Imagine what Uncharted 4 will look like! *drools*
| VGKing said: Look at that jump! In terms of memory and bandwidth, PS4 is easily the biggest leap out of any generation....... I'm really excited to see the exclusives on this thing. Imagine what Uncharted 4 will look like! *drools* |
I hope they announce uncharted 4 at e3. I wonder where drake will go on his next adeventure, maybe atlantis would be cool.
| Cyborg13B said: I'm somewhat pleased with the direction Playstation 4 has taken. Let's take it by subjects: 1. X86-based CPU processing That was a very logical choice. What a bad move - giving the Playstation 3 a PowerPC-based architecture, given the fact that everyone uses X86. Everyone everywhere likes this, because it makes programming exponentially easier. Plus - the X86 is better at DirectX and OpenGL shader calls, at the same clock-rate. It is way better at operating system procedures at any clockrate. Thus - allowing for a 1.6 ghz clockrate - half the PowerPC. Virtually no heat distribution. 2. Useless hardware The blu-ray drive is useless. Doesn't visibly impact the video game. Plus - 8.4 GB for a DVD is enough for most games - probably 95% of games. The 8 GB of RAM is useless - it would take 6 minutes to load a game with that much data. 2 GB makes more sense - 1.5 minutes, and is enough for 95% of games. 8 X86-based CPUs are useless. There's no way to use 8 CPUs efficiently in in-game conditions. 2 would serve for 95% of games. Playstation 4 could easily cost $275.00 if those features were deleted. We're in the big leagues now! 1.84 TFLOPS performance. That's a lot. Playstation 3 had at best 300 GFLOPS. A TFLOP supercomputer basically - meaning in 2000 - that could've been a super-computer. 2-3 billion transistors. Plus Playstation 4 is intelligently designed. The x86 processing is one component. Another component, is the asynchronous move engines. That certainly helps to move data far more efficiently - while the game is running. Another - the 32 MB SRAM on the GPU, which allows for unbelievably massive geometry rendering, and free 2x AA at 1920 x 1080p, even at 60 fps. Plus - there's likely a vector co-processor in the CPU design we're not aware of - another massive improvement. All said and done - 100% utilization of the available hardware in the best way - that's unheard of. It's main weaknesses are: 1. The Blu-Ray drive. Not necessary. Especially a BD-XL one. A 8.5 GB DVD is enough, and far cheaper then a regular Blu-Ray drive. Games would look identical. 2. 8 CPUs. Hard to utilize 8 separate CPUs! Takes expert programming. 95% of games will use at most 2, and it would make no visual difference. 3. 8 GB RAM - hard to load 8 GB of data. Would take 6 minutes. 95% of games will only use 2 GB, and it would make no visual difference. |
None of that hardware is useless. It may take time for developers to harness the full potential of the hardware, but they have 5-10 years to do so.
1. DVDs are becoming too small for this gen of consoles even with relatively low res assets. Now look at the Install size of some PC games with higher res artwork like Shogun 2 Total War (20Gb), Rage (25Gb), Max Payne 3 (35Gb) and The Witcher 2 (18.4Gb) and it's quite obvious that DVDs are no longer going to cut it (unless all games are install only which seems unlikely).
2. Most PC games now use 3 cores for the simple reason they've been ported from the 360 version. Games like Battlefield 3 have started using up to 8 threads, so developers are already heading in this direction.
3. The RAM is fast (GDDR5) so that should negate some of your loading concerns, but there's a lot developers can do with 8Gb of RAM. That much RAM means more assets and textures loaded into memory. Even though most PC games are ports of current gen games with higher resolution assets/extra effects, they're capable of using at least 2Gb of system RAM plus the VRAM on the graphics card (which can be anything up to 6Gb). Now imagine games developed with the full 8Gb in mind.
Most of this stuff is good. It should really give the PS4 games a bit of headroom for future improvements, specially on the GPGPU feature, which (most probably) will not be used a lot at first.
But I find it quite weird how he is summing up the bandwidth of the older systems there, specially the PS2's. But oh well.
| Cyborg13B said: I'm somewhat pleased with the direction Playstation 4 has taken. Let's take it by subjects: 1. X86-based CPU processing That was a very logical choice. What a bad move - giving the Playstation 3 a PowerPC-based architecture, given the fact that everyone uses X86. Everyone everywhere likes this, because it makes programming exponentially easier. Plus - the X86 is better at DirectX and OpenGL shader calls, at the same clock-rate. It is way better at operating system procedures at any clockrate. Thus - allowing for a 1.6 ghz clockrate - half the PowerPC. Virtually no heat distribution. 2. Useless hardware The blu-ray drive is useless. Doesn't visibly impact the video game. Plus - 8.4 GB for a DVD is enough for most games - probably 95% of games. The 8 GB of RAM is useless - it would take 6 minutes to load a game with that much data. 2 GB makes more sense - 1.5 minutes, and is enough for 95% of games. 8 X86-based CPUs are useless. There's no way to use 8 CPUs efficiently in in-game conditions. 2 would serve for 95% of games. Playstation 4 could easily cost $275.00 if those features were deleted. We're in the big leagues now! 1.84 TFLOPS performance. That's a lot. Playstation 3 had at best 300 GFLOPS. A TFLOP supercomputer basically - meaning in 2000 - that could've been a super-computer. 2-3 billion transistors. Plus Playstation 4 is intelligently designed. The x86 processing is one component. Another component, is the asynchronous move engines. That certainly helps to move data far more efficiently - while the game is running. Another - the 32 MB SRAM on the GPU, which allows for unbelievably massive geometry rendering, and free 2x AA at 1920 x 1080p, even at 60 fps. Plus - there's likely a vector co-processor in the CPU design we're not aware of - another massive improvement. All said and done - 100% utilization of the available hardware in the best way - that's unheard of. It's main weaknesses are: 1. The Blu-Ray drive. Not necessary. Especially a BD-XL one. A 8.5 GB DVD is enough, and far cheaper then a regular Blu-Ray drive. Games would look identical. 2. 8 CPUs. Hard to utilize 8 separate CPUs! Takes expert programming. 95% of games will use at most 2, and it would make no visual difference. 3. 8 GB RAM - hard to load 8 GB of data. Would take 6 minutes. 95% of games will only use 2 GB, and it would make no visual difference. |
Useless?
1. Most games for PC and 360 are released in 2 DVDs... so over 10GB game data in today standards... the Blu-ray is necessary with 25GB minimum. The lack of 7.1 sound, voice transalations, high resolution textures (in PC everytime the developer releases a patch HD textures because the DVD did 't had enough space)... so the games will start to became bigger in a good sense.
2. You know most games uses 4 cores? Yeah... games run in 2-core but they are bootleneck for high-end GPUs... with PS4 8-cores all the developer will begin to parallelize the code to run in more cores... the PC will get a big leap in terms of code running in CPUs. The industry will finally grow to the next level after Crisis (2007).
3. The 8GB is not only to load data... it is to create data with the GPU... sorry but in today standards the BattleField 3 on PC already use over 3GB memory (2GB VRAM + 1.5GB MainRAM)... so again the PC developers will grow to the next leval of graphical and open world games. The work of this generation is Open World... without 8GB that will be impossibile to make huge worlds... forget the small Halo, CoD, Gears, Crysis, Uncharted maps... now you see what the Open World means.
So I disagree with all your points... and PS4 didn't have eSRAM.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
