Talal said: Kynes said: ethomaz said: Conegamer said: Hmm, I guess so. But I really, really doubt all components are perfectly balanced somehow. Could be wrong, but we shall see. Looking at the specs, you could push the RAM more than the CPU, for example. I will use a Beyond3D user comment about RAM to tray to explain that is not a bottleneck. "Not to nit pick, but technically he said that in his opinion there's no clear bottleneck in the system design. Excessive memory wouldn't be a bottleneck, it would be an excess. :P Having more memory than needed wouldn't bottleneck anything, while not having enough would. Excessive memory only bottlenecks BOM. " People have to understand what is "bottleneck"... bottleneck is when a component is significantly less powerful than the other component... the "power" of the RAM is the same... what changed is the amount of it. Ethomaz, it can be a bottleneck if you want to use more than 8 GB of memory. But that would probably be bad programming at this point of time. The way games operate at this time it would be hard to bottleneck the PS4.

Yes and no, it depends on what you want to do with the console. Take a look at Skyrim, there was a time where most Sony fans said the memory subsystem of the PS3 was better than the XBox360 one due to having more bandwidth, but Skyrim was a huge disaster due to it. In other games it was a better subsystem than the XBox360 one, but in Skyrim it wasn't.

What is more balanced, an I7 with a nVidia 660 and 32 GB of slower RAM, or a I5 with a nVidia 670 and 16 GB of faster RAM? It depends on the game you want to play. On RTS games the I7 probably will be more balanced, it's probable that the CPU is the bottleneck, on FPS it's probable that the GPU is the bottleneck.

I'm sure that Blizzard would say that the PS4 isn't a balanced architecture for a game like Starcraft, due to the lack of CPU power in late stages of 4vs4 games.

Kynes said: Ethomaz, it can be a bottleneck if you want to use more than 8 GB of memory. Bottlenecks aren't fixed things, bottlenecks change with what you want to do with your engine.

That is a "limitation" not a "bottleneck".

ethomaz said: Kynes said: Ethomaz, it can be a bottleneck if you want to use more than 8 GB of memory. Bottlenecks aren't fixed things, bottlenecks change with what you want to do with your engine. That is a "limitation" not a "bottleneck".

That's semantics. Every bottleneck is a limitation of performance, and every limitation bottlenecks the system.

Can a programmer as trasharmdsister12 give us his point of view?

Kynes said: Yes and no, it depends on what you want to do with the console. Take a look at Skyrim, there was a time where most Sony fans said the memory subsystem of the PS3 was better than the XBox360 one due to having more bandwidth, but Skyrim was a huge disaster due to it. In other games it was a better subsystem than the XBox360 one, but in Skyrim it wasn't. What is more balanced, an I7 with a nVidia 660 and 32 GB of slower RAM, or a I5 with a nVidia 670 and 16 GB of faster RAM? It depends on the game you want to play. On RTS games the I7 probably will be more balanced, it's probable that the CPU is the bottleneck, on FPS it's probable that the GPU is the bottleneck. I'm sure that Blizzard would say that the PS4 isn't a balanced architecture for a game like Starcraft, due to the lack of CPU power in late stages of 4vs4 games.

Skyrim is a really bad example.

After the dev asked help to learn how to code the DLC for PS3 runs way better than the game itself because the dev is know for lazy code... they are amazing design and really bad programmers.

Even if you look at the PC and 360 version you will see the Skyrim is one of the worst developed games ever created... everything is bugged or run with slow performance.

The Skyrim developers create bottlenecks for themselves lol.

Kynes said: That's semantics. Every bottleneck is a limitation of performance, and every limitation bottlenecks the system.

No. You have limitations without any bottleneck.

The GPU can do at least 1.8 TFLOPS... it is a limitation and not a bottleneck.

ethomaz said: Kynes said: That's semantics. Every bottleneck is a limitation of performance, and every limitation bottlenecks the system. No. You have limitations without any bottleneck. The GPU can do at least 1.8 TFLOPS... it is a limitation and not a bottleneck.

No, it's a bottleneck if your game engine does almost no AI/physics and it's a graphics showcase.

curl-6 said: walsufnir said: SENTIENT6 said: kowenicki said: SENTIENT6 said: kowenicki said: SENTIENT6 said: Kynes said: That's the stupidest thing a developer could say, it's clearly a PR catchphrase that parrots will repeat. Every system has bottlenecks, wider or narrower, but you always find components that limit you. You can have more than one bottleneck, and they can be different bottlenecks depending of the engine and game. Sometimes it can be the memory subsystem, sometimes the cpu, sometimes the gpu. You can even have bottlenecks inside the gpu, in the shading power, TMUs, tessellation units... Here come the experts who know more then the experts lmao. Maybe For the game they are making they have not hit any bottlenecks. I love how everyone on a forum is a developer or financial expert. Some people on this forum perhaps are. Thats impossible? But in any case, you don't need to be an expert to have an opinion or a level of knowledge. Yeah maybe 1 or 2, but everyone seems to think they are which is a joke. When you are discussing technial topics and finances, yes you do need a certain level of knowledge to be able to accurately discuss said topic. And no it is impossible for anyone here to refute or know what bottllneck sguerilla has or has not encountered on Ps4. Except that its not what he said.  He says the PS4 has no bottlenecks.  That's impossible.  I think he's speaking in general terms, read between the lines people please. What? At first you say ppl don't know what they are talking about, then you say they meant their code, now he speaks "in general terms"? Self-modifying text for you? They talk definitely and explicitely about PS4 and it's, sorry, bullshit. Nothing more, nothing less. PR from a first party studio (like PS2 is a nurbs-console, PS2 is able to launch military rockets, PS3 having performance like a supercomputer...). Don't forget PS2 allegedly having "Toy Story" level graphics. ;)

According to the press at the time, yes.  According to Sony, no.  Sony themselves never claimed this. 

Kynes said: No, it's a bottleneck if your game engine does almost no AI/physics and it's a graphics showcase.

You are really confusing hardware and software bottleneck... what you give example is software bottleneck created by developer... software bottlenecks is generate by bad algorithmic efficiency.

Developer a strong graphic showcase to run in a weak hardware sacrificing AI or anything else is a software bootleneck... not hardware... the developer have to balance the algorithmic efficiency to fit the hardware.

Every hardware have a peak performance limitation... reach it not create a bottleneck... hardware bottleneck is when any hardware is holding you to reach the peak performance of other hardware and you don't have any software bootleneck (a bad algorithmic efficiency).

ethomaz said: Kynes said: No, it's a bottleneck if your game engine does almost no AI/physics and it's a graphics showcase. You are really confusing hardware and software bottleneck... what you give example is software bottleneck created by developer... software bottlenecks is generate by bad algorithmic efficiency. Developer a strong graphic showcase to run in a weak hardware sacrificing AI or anything else is a software bootleneck... not hardware... the developer have to balance the algorithmic efficiency to fit the hardware.

No, ethomaz, there is no hardware bottleneck per se. You see bottlenecks when you execute code. As an example, the shading/bandwidth ratio has changed a lot with the years, graphics cards adapted to the engines used now are very inefficient with old engines, as they have much more shading performance than needed in relation to the bandwidth, and will be inefficient in the future as they will have much less shading performance than needed in relation to the bandwidth, as the ratio is going to much more shading ops than the increase in use of bandwidth, due to being much easier to increase the shading power than memory bandwidth in future graphics cards.