By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Xbox One vs. PS4 Graphics Showdown: The Rematch

Adinnieken on 16 August 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
walsufnir said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


So, you mean  to tell me  and GDDR5 ram cannot larger files and memory better than DDR3? Tell me its so, so I can return to best buy and tell the sales associate I've been had.

 

I say not a single sentence you wrote originally is true. And it still isn't. Don't put words in my mouth I didn't state.


Sorry if I put words in your mouth. 

The actual problem with GDDR5 is that it is designed for larger blocks of data.  The other problem is you can't simply update the memory, you have to clear it and rewrite it.  This is great when you're dealing with graphics, because the GPU takes the original data and if it needs to replace it so what if you lose the original data.  You have the updated, possibly final form of the data you want and it generally takes up the entire block.

The problem with GDDR5 is when you're dealing with the OS, and why I believe the PS4 does hard drive caching (virtual memory).  The OS and applications tend to use small blocks of data, and they often tend to append those blocks of data.  So, instead of replacing them, they simple add to them or subtract from them.

This post, for example, is an addition of memory (data) to the original block I created when I opened the tab.  As I type, this block gets seemlessly updated.  In GDDR memory that doesn't happen.  Every letter I write would require the memory be cleared, and data be reloaded from a cache into memory.  Not an impossible task, especially when you consider the speed of GDDR5 memory but every letter typed requires access the cache and that takes away a clock cycle that could be used for something else.

Sony wasn't the first company to use unified memory in a console.  Microsoft was.  Sony wasn't the first company to use GDDR memory for their unified memory either.  Microsoft was.  There was a reason why Microsoft abandoned GDDR memory.  In fact, on this front Sony is the LAST company to do both.  Even Nintendo came before them on unified memory. 



Around the Network
Zekkyou on 16 August 2013
CGI-Quality said:
Ssliasil said:
There is so much wrong with this post that I would have to rewrite the entire thing for you in order to make all the needed corrections. And quite frankly, i don't particularly want to do that.

What's sad is that some people will come here and believe it.

Truth is, just like with the PS3 vs 360, some people will have a hard time accepting that one of them is more powerful. Just so happens that if the person doesn't favor Sony, these types of articles crop up.

The PS4 could have the specs of a $3000 gaming rig and people would still try and argue the difference was non-existent P:



superspeedybull on 16 August 2013

Dude how you came up with that Ram speed still puzzles me lol you're way off.



Egann on 16 August 2013

I don't know why we're still having this discussion. We *still* haven't seen an actual gameplay screenshot from either system because the demos for BOTH systems were actually high end PC's.

But here's something to put in your craw. All sources agree that the PS4 and XBox 1 have GPU's in the 1.*something* TeraFLOPS range, although until we actually get our hands on the hardware we won't know where each system stands.

We know for a fact the Wii U runs a third or less of this at 0.35 teraFLOPS.

Actual comparison screenshots:

Wii U: 

PS4/ X1:

Yes, I did steal S.T.A.G.E.'s sig because I'm just that lazy.

Conclusion: Whatever the power difference between the PS4 and XB1 exists, it's probably irrelevant. The Wii U is between a factor of three and eight weaker than either console, and yet the actual graphics pumped out are basically one or two notches better at best.



Adinnieken on 16 August 2013
errorpwns said:
Adinnieken said:
The problem with this blog post is it doesn't acknowledge the differences we know of in the GPU. While it talks about the frequency the GPU is running at, it doesn't mention the potential benefits to the PS4 that the number of shaders could have.

My big problem with this article is that unlike with the last generation, no one technically knowledgeable has looked at the specs and in technical terms, spelled out how each one will perform based on what we do know. What we have is people looking at specs and saying "This number is bigger, therefore this is better!".

The Cell processor could smoke the Xenon processor in the PS3 and Xbox 360, yet the technical superiority of one over the other was made moot by differences elsewhere in the console. I don't know if it's because there is no one capable of providing the rundown like we saw last generation, or if it's simply a matter of not having enough data. I would much prefer though having a clear understanding of what the capabilities of each system as a whole operating unit are rather than what one has which bigger specs.

This blog post does nothing to placate that, nor does it advance the discussion any further than it has already been.

The Cell had power, but the rest of the console was one big joke. 512MB of memory and essentially only 256MB of it was allowed for the graphics. The 360 had more available graphics memory and in some multi platform games that showed to help it. The graphics chip and memory bottlenecked the cell. It's all about bottlenecks. I could put a couple titans into my system, but in the end my Athlon II x4 2.8ghz would bottleneck the graphics chips. I'd need to upgrade into a faster processor to see frame increases in some games. See why consoles have 8GB of memory now? They don't want to run into the terrible bottleneck. Even in 06 systems dedicated for gaming were getting 2-4GB of memory. So putting 512 in was flawed from the beginning. Especially when they planned a 7-8 year console cycle.  

The thing that has changed between this generation and the previous generation is the fact that the bottle necks have become smaller and less obvious.  They require a greater deal of understanding systems and how data is used on those systems, than looking at numbers.

What's the point of having GDDR5 memory when your memory block is 256Mb wide and you only have 4Mb to fill that space?  A block size is an addressible area, only one thing can fit into a single block.  So, having a larger block size as GDDR 5 does, become a disadvantage when you're dealing with smaller files.  Soon, most of your memory is consumed with small files because these 256Mb blocks are now consumed by sub 256Mb files.  Memory density, if you will.  DDR3 memory has a smaller block size, I think 64Mb?  So while it may take more blocks for a larger file, I'm not wasting as much memory on a smaller file.  That 4Mb file is only wasting 60Mb of memory in a block, not 252Mb.

Likewise, as I said before.  GDDR and DDR memory work differently.  In GDDR memory you need to flush the memory before writing to it.  You can't append the memory.  Where as in DDR memory you can.  Which is why I believe the PS4 relies on virtual memory (HDD cache file).  The cache file is used to read and write active data from/to memory as it's being used. 



Around the Network
Nsanity on 16 August 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The PS3 was more powerful but traded but the architecture was bad for multiplats. The PS4 is still more powerful than the next Xbox but this time Sony created the hardware around what will make development easier for third parties.

Instead of having just better looking exclusives they'll have the equal or better multiplats. Thats a tough pill to swallow for some, but they will just have to deal with that.

MS can keep trying to fix the Xbox's PR issues (graphics being one of them) but when the games come out the theories are out the window.

The PS3 had an inferior ram and GPU.



g911turbo on 16 August 2013
Ssliasil said:
There is so much wrong with this post that I would have to rewrite the entire thing for you in order to make all the needed corrections. And quite frankly, i don't particularly want to do that.

I was thinking the same thing.



drkohler on 16 August 2013
g911turbo said:
Ssliasil said:
There is so much wrong with this post that I would have to rewrite the entire thing for you in order to make all the needed corrections. And quite frankly, i don't particularly want to do that.

I was thinking the same thing.

I particularly liked the "I have a computer science degree and I am a software engineer" and then shows his memory throughput graphics - which puts him instantly into the "complete moron" cathegory.



drkohler on 16 August 2013
Adinnieken said:

Likewise, as I said before.  GDDR and DDR memory work differently.  In GDDR memory you need to flush the memory before writing to it.  You can't append the memory.  Where as in DDR memory you can.  Which is why I believe the PS4 relies on virtual memory (HDD cache file).  The cache file is used to read and write active data from/to memory as it's being used. 

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What is "flushing memory before writing?"

You do know that gddr memory adds a ton of features to accessing memory that are simply not available with ddr memory? This is why the controller for gddr memory is much more complex than your run-of-the-mill ddr controller, btw..



uso on 16 August 2013
Zappykins said:

Note: Hey guys, I know we are all excited, but please be respectful and do not get yourself banned/or spanked? MMkay?

Just look at cute little Kirby and take a big breath before you post!

Xbox One vs. PS4 Graphics Showdown: The Rematch

August 14, 2013 by YodasBoy

Note: In light of the many comments below, I just wanted to respond to a few points...

1) Haters would do well to actually read this post; my main point is that the playing field has been leveled between the two systems, a point that no one has refuted.  I didn't say that the PS4 is outperformed by the N64.  Take a deep breath.

2) I am not IGN.  Seriously, what's with the "F IGN" comments?  You know this is just my blog, right?

3) I know the memory bandwidth comparisons in the chart below are not apples-to-apples, that was one of my points...read what I actually said before making idiots out of yourselves.

4) To anyone calling me a "retard" and saying I don't know what I'm talking about, try making a counter-argument instead.  FYI, I do have a computer science degree and half a decade's experience working as a software engineer... odds are that I know more about graphics chips and memory bandwidth than you do.

5) To those who are contributing to the debate and being rational: thanks for commenting on my blog, and keep being awesome.  To any butthurt PS fanboys: I wear your disdain as a badge of honour.

Anyway, thanks everyone for reading.  Original post follows...

---

I wrote a post a while back comparing the graphical capabilities of the next gen systems, and (spoilers!) argued that while the PS4 had an edge on paper, it wouldn't necessarily make a significant difference in actual in-game visuals.

Now, new info has come to light, and I am no longer convinced the PS4 is the more powerful of the two consoles.  On the contrary, the playing field is much more level than previously thought, and the Xbox One may even have a slight edge over Sony's machine.

Item 1: Number of CPU cores dedicated to gaming

While we've known for some time that both consoles sport the same 8-core AMD CPU, a terrible reveal was made on the Xbox front: the One only allocates 6 of these cores for gaming, with 2 cores reserved at all times for the OS.  This essentially reduces the CPU power of the One to 75% of that used in the PS4, where games are concerned, right?  Sure, if the PS4 utilized all 8 cores for games.

A CPU profiler showing Killzone: Shadowfall running... wait, 6 cores?

However, it turns out that the PS4 also only allocates 6 of its 8 cores for gaming, so... nevermind then.  No advantage: PS4, no advantage: Xbox One, their CPU's are identical.

Item 2: Memory allocated to the OS

The collective internets had been under the impression for some time that the One's oppressive OS configuration greedily gobbled up 3 out of the 8 GB or RAM at all times, leaving 5 GB available for running games.  Good Guy Sony, meanwhile, only allocate 1 GB to the OS, leaving a whopping 7 GB for developers to utilize in their games.  An extra 2 GB, gosh, that could result in faster load times, larger areas, higher res textures, more polygons on the screen, and so on.  A definite advantage for the PS4.

Except for one thing.  The OS in the PS4 is easily just as burdensome as (and perhaps moreso than) the one(s) sported in the Xbox.  Apparently only 4.5 GB is accessible to game developers at all times, in addition to an odd configuration that allows access to an extra GB that is sort of available but not really.  Based on Sony's response to this leak, that extra GB is split evenly between hard drive paging (not sure that legitimately counts, since it's not actually RAM) and another half GB that is supposedly accessible to developers (but is somehow separate, and the PS4 dev kits still run at a default 4.5 GB...).  Given this, PS4 game developers have 5 GB of actual RAM to work with, tops, and most likely have closer to 4.5 GB in practice.  If developers can't count on that extra GB, then they can't reliably use it, and even if they could, 5.5 GB is still quite a drop from 7 GB.

This mayhem is running on 4.5 GB, ostensibly the maximum possible on the PS4.  Meanwhile, the Xbox will sport an additional half gig of RAM above that.

Instead, developers have a guaranteed 4.5 GB to play with on the PS4, and 5 GB on the One.  Advantage: Xbox.

Item 3: The speed of the One's eSRAM

Commentators not caught up in the anti-Xbox mob mentality have already noted that the DDR3 RAM in the Xbox One is actually faster than the GDDR5 RAM in the PS4 under certain circumstances.  There is, however another asterisk to add to the RAM speed debate.

The super-fast embedded memory of the One's GPU (of which the PS4 has no equivalent) complements the (slower) main memory in the system - this we knew all along.  Microsoft later revised their numbers for this eSRAM, however, increasing the theoretical speed by 88%.

Comparing the two systems' memory as 176 GB/s (PS4) to 68 GB/s (Xbox) has never been an honest apples-to-apples comparison, since it ignores the advantages of DDR3 and the eSRAM in the One.  Since that hasn't stopped anyone from making those comparisons, however, let's play that game and look at the theoretical speed of the One's memory:

192 GB/s (eSRAM) + 68 GB/s (DDR3) = 260 GB/s overall.

If we are to go off of theoretical numbers (which has been fair game for the PS4 fanboys thus far), the One destroys the PS4 with 260 GB/s vs. 176 GB/s overall RAM speed.

Booya

Item 4: Xbox's GPU boost

Another recent tidbit from Microsoft's camp is that the One's GPU has been given a clockspeed increase, albeit a minor one.  The next Xbox's AMD chip now runs at 853MHz, as opposed to its original specification of 800MHz.

This isn't a big bump up, but it's a bump nonetheless.  This results in roughly a 7% speed boost over the PS4's GPU and may help compensate for the One's chip sporting less GCN's.

Conclusion

All in all, we now know that the CPU's are virtually identical, the One's GPU is faster, and the RAM comparisons are much more even than previously thought.  Sony's OS occupies just as many CPU cores as its Xbox counterpart, and, as it turns out, is an even greater burden on the system memory.  A few months back, it looked like the PS4 had both faster and more RAM than the Xbox, but now it appears to have neither.

With these revelations, many of the PS4's supposed advantages over its competitor are essentially moot.  Perhaps now the debate will shift from memory and OS burdens to some other spec comparisons, such as the number of GCN's in the graphics chips.  At this point, though, the remaining differences between the two systems are trivial.  If a few extra GCN's in the PS4 are all the advantage it has, then it's time for people to stop acting like the PS4 is a vastly more powerful system.

Truth is, these two systems are virtually identical, and they are a more even match than we've ever seen in past console wars.  Don't count on either system having a significant edge on the hardware level.  Most likely, game developers themselves will be a much bigger variable in their games' graphics than the machines they're running on.

Which one will have better graphics?  The one with the better developers.

http://www.ign.com/blogs/yodasboy/2013/08/14/xbox-one-vs-ps4-graphics-showdown-the-rematch

You sure gona lock bad when games start to came out, for a "computer science degree and half a decade's experience working as a software engineer" you are getting to many things wrong.

Let´s wait and see. Save for later