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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Penello specifies why X1vsPS4 performance difference is overstated

FiliusDei on 10 September 2013
Madword said:
Couple of things.

1. The guy doesnt know the full Sony specs and how it compares to the XboxOne so really shouldnt try and compare the two.
2. I can see why he has replied, but he should just make a simple reply of he doesn't believe that the two consoles are that far apart, otherwise it just becomes a right old mess.
3. If both consoles were available to test and there was no other evidence, then I might be inclined to believe him more because of his suggestion that he has gone to his top tech guy... but as he hasnt got a PS4.. how can he know.

I can understand he is in a difficult position... but at the end of it all the games will speak for themselves. If they hadnt done such a rubbish PR job, perhaps pre-orders wouldnt be so bad and they wouldnt feel so much pressure to try and defend their box, rather than just sell it on it's merits.

If the guy is wrong, and his tech guy is wrong, then his credibility will be lost. The only problem i see is that this is coming from the company that stated their console will be 40x more powerful because of the cloud... so I am going to wait and see.

Your are right. We don't know full specs of the ps4 but PS fans didn't know everything about X1 and still managed to get a 50% more power.

I guessnthat if that power advantage was real Sony would have said it.



Around the Network
Machiavellian on 10 September 2013
dsgrue3 said:
Machiavellian said:
dsgrue3 said:
Machiavellian said:

"“The facts are on paper, the PS4 has better specs...”"

"...The PlayStation 4 environment is definitely more mature currently, so Microsoft has some catching up to do ... The specs on paper would favour the PS4 over the Xbox One in terms of raw power, but there are many other factors involved so we’ll just have to wait and see a bit longer before making that judgment.”

Another person who struggles to comprehend a deviation of the OP.

This has nothing to do with Penello dude. This is simply about whether or not developers have cited a performance advantage, which they have repeatedly. I mean, fuck, I can grab 100 more sources if you want or maybe you will actually do some research yourself.

You can say what you want but you need to prove your argument not try slight of hand to make it seem like no one understand the subject.  My quotes are Directly compared to the bolded part you suggested is the subject.  Moving the goal post after people demostrate that your point was flawed is a weak tactic.  Either stay on point with the argument you made or just drop it.

I posted 2 sources which cited a PS4 advantage that fit the criterion (you can omit the 2nd source). Unless you have any evidence to the contrary I have fullfilled the obligations of my argument. 

But here's another, just for fun:

Adrian Chmielarz, who used to work at the studio People Can Fly (Bulletstorm)

 

You keep posting stuff from people who have no hands on with both consoles.  Hell Adrian appears to not have hands on with neither console.  Without knowing the developers he is talking about, its hard to know their level of experience.  All developers are not made equal, if that was the case every developer out there would have been able to wrap their minds around the Cell and be producing games like ND.  When you can post something from someone with hands on with final hardware from both companies then make a point.  Right now it looks like there isn't any such info out there.



Mmmfishtacos on 10 September 2013
Machiavellian said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Machiavellian said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Adinnieken said:
Ashadian said:

"The CPU contained within the PS4 is running stock speeds, 1.6ghz compared to Microsofts 1.75 after an upclock - 150mhz does not make up for the different in number of CUs, and (aptly ignored by Albert) the difference in ROP units - hence why even with the 150mhz upclock, the Xbox One is still way behind in terms of raw power - To see just how little difference 150mhz makes, go into your bios and bump your clock speed up to be 150mhz faster, you will see framerates climb barely 2fps at best - most modern CPUs clock to at least 400mhz higher than stock as an average, with some people bumping that to over 900mhz.

But seriously, before you try and tell me im wrong, he is comparing 1.6 to 1.75 and claiming its 10% faster, asside from being factually wrong (10% would be 1.76ghz), it also compares the cpus on the most basic of levels, which is a stupid thing to do, even more so given that theyre APUS - compare a 2ghz celeron to a 2ghz pentium to see why.

Last but not least adding up the ddr3 and esram speeds to get a higher number is universally seen as a retarded pr stunt by those with half a brain because theoretical peaks for different ram types DO NOT COMBINE - just like if you put two 3ghz xeons in a server, it does NOT mean that the server is now running at 6ghz, its running at 3ghz with additional cores - adding ddr3 and the tiny space allotted by esram does not work, even for "on paper" results - you cannot fill the 8gb of ddr3 with the esram fast enough without the esram being bottlednecked, esram could not be used for a large majority of game resources, where as GDDR5 can be used for just about anything at the cost of slightly higher latency."

Actually, he doesn't ignore it.  He addressed it.  Each CU gets a 6% speed increase, not simply the entire GPU with the frequency increase.  So while there are fewer CUs those CUs operate faster than the PS4's.  When 12 CUs are operating at 6% greater speed than the PS4, that equates into a 72% speed improvement.

Early in that thread (not that post) he states near 10%.  He has also stated before greater than 9%.  If we want to get specific it's 9.375%    No, he also talks on a deeper level, about how the the Xbox One's CPU also has a 30GB/s transfer rate between the CPU and memory,   A 50% speed improvement over the PS4.

You missed the part where he also specified that the eSRAM's speed was 204GB/s.  That still happens to be 16% faster than the GDDR5 memory in the PS4.  Don't assume my argument is that 32MB is the same as 8GB, but I wonder what memory speed is necessary in order for a modern GPU to adequately process a 1920x1080 image without bottlenecking or taking a performance hit.  The eSRAM is used both as a buffer for the DDR memory, as well as a cache to temporarily hold data that's needed quickly.

I think you missed the part where he got called out on all the being fud. And he got shreading for this bit of miss info too.

Let me ask you something.  How do you know he got shredded.  Without having the knowledge if the people responding actually know what they are talking about you can easily make that mistake.  After reading a few comments its clear a lot of them do not know what they are talking about and most cannot even make a simple google search to be sure what they are saying is correct.  This is the problem with the net is that people regurgitate information from other people who do not know what they are talking about and you get number to junk.

Because a lot of them do know what they are talking about. And even a quick google search will tell you that the ps4 transfers 20 GB/s down the onion buss. So that alone slames his 50 percent gain. 

Thats exactly what I am talking about.  A lot of them do not know what they are talking about.  This is a pretty big misconception of the forum.  Most times I see comments that are no better than your common fan site.

Yes, 20 down for PS4 compared to 30 for the X1.  You do the math and tell me what you get!!

That's for one Line, Onion + passes another 10GB/s would you not add them togeter for 30gb/s? Seems like Albert loves to added stuff and not do if for ps4.



Madword on 10 September 2013
Machiavellian said:
Madword said:
Couple of things.

1. The guy doesnt know the full Sony specs and how it compares to the XboxOne so really shouldnt try and compare the two.
2. I can see why he has replied, but he should just make a simple reply of he doesn't believe that the two consoles are that far apart, otherwise it just becomes a right old mess.
3. If both consoles were available to test and there was no other evidence, then I might be inclined to believe him more because of his suggestion that he has gone to his top tech guy... but as he hasnt got a PS4.. how can he know.

I can understand he is in a difficult position... but at the end of it all the games will speak for themselves. If they hadnt done such a rubbish PR job, perhaps pre-orders wouldnt be so bad and they wouldnt feel so much pressure to try and defend their box, rather than just sell it on it's merits.

If the guy is wrong, and his tech guy is wrong, then his credibility will be lost. The only problem i see is that this is coming from the company that stated their console will be 40x more powerful because of the cloud... so I am going to wait and see.

Well no one knows Sony full specs but for what they have released.  So why can he not compare what was released compared to what MS has released.  People have been doing this since June.  Hell, this is the reason we have this 50% performance being touted around for months.

You cannot just make a simple comment like that.  Either try to back it up or shut up.  Personally not sure why he even wasted his time.  Who knows maybe he likes to go into fights where everyone has swords and he is carrying a pocket knife.

I am sure MS and Sony has a unit from each company sitting some where in a lab.

When MS can tell their investor that they are shipping and consumers are buying out their supply, I am sure they are doing fine.  Do not fall for fanboy wars where its a big deal if one company is selling more preorders than another.  this is a much longer race then what will happen in 1 to to years and I believe the consoles that release this November will be much different 2 years from now.

Lets get the quotes right, MS stated that having the cloud will be like having 4 X1 in one box.  Whos to say if that will ever happen but they do have the platform, infrastructure and code base to make it work.

I don't need to back it up...Of course I can make a simple comment like that, its a free country and this is a gaming forum... get over yourself.

He is saying that they have hidden things that make the hidden things they dont know about in the Sony console that makes theirs just as good. Seriously its stupid and rediculous converstation by them. I have said i understand why they might need to quell the conversation, but this isnt doing them any favours. I point you towards the Neogaf thread for evidence. How can they claim one thing without knowing the other.

Hey I didnt use the 40x more powerful... MS did. Blame them for that. As someone who worked with cloud servers and data servers, believe me when i call bullshit on that... hey happy to eat crow in 25+ years time when it finally rings true.

As with pre-orders, yeah they were doing that well they dropped all their DRM, online, and basically made it a PS4. They were doing that well they have had to add FIFA in for day 1 pre-orders to show they have good "value". I am not making this crap up, the evidence is there whether you like it or not.

Of course the race isnt won or lost day 1 but did i say that .. no i did not..., i just said they had done a rubbish PR job... or are you claiming they have done a good PR job since they announced the console? I think you need to chill out a bit and not get so defensive.



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

Madword on 10 September 2013
FiliusDei said:
Madword said:
Couple of things.

1. The guy doesnt know the full Sony specs and how it compares to the XboxOne so really shouldnt try and compare the two.
2. I can see why he has replied, but he should just make a simple reply of he doesn't believe that the two consoles are that far apart, otherwise it just becomes a right old mess.
3. If both consoles were available to test and there was no other evidence, then I might be inclined to believe him more because of his suggestion that he has gone to his top tech guy... but as he hasnt got a PS4.. how can he know.

I can understand he is in a difficult position... but at the end of it all the games will speak for themselves. If they hadnt done such a rubbish PR job, perhaps pre-orders wouldnt be so bad and they wouldnt feel so much pressure to try and defend their box, rather than just sell it on it's merits.

If the guy is wrong, and his tech guy is wrong, then his credibility will be lost. The only problem i see is that this is coming from the company that stated their console will be 40x more powerful because of the cloud... so I am going to wait and see.

Your are right. We don't know full specs of the ps4 but PS fans didn't know everything about X1 and still managed to get a 50% more power.

I guessnthat if that power advantage was real Sony would have said it.

That's not totally fair... no Sony fan said it was 50% more powerful... various insiders stated it... people have jumped on the hype train for that. I mean the ex Xbox guy said it was 40% more powerful... so who knows.

When i read the guys twitter i personally found it unclear what he was talking about... was he on about power or development time. All i know is that people generally wait for someone else (insiders before waffling on - just look at the xbox 16GB memory or the hidden dGPU thing).



Making an indie game : Dead of Day!

Around the Network
petalpusher on 10 September 2013
Adinnieken said:

Actually, he doesn't ignore it.  He addressed it.  Each CU gets a 6% speed increase, not simply the entire GPU with the frequency increase.  So while there are fewer CUs those CUs operate faster than the PS4's.  When 12 CUs are operating at 6% greater speed than the PS4, that equates into a 72% speed improvement.


That's not how mathematic works.

 

(1 CU x 853 mhz x 64 ops x 2 cycles)  x 12  

is still the same than

12 CU x 853 Mhz x 64 ops x 2 cycles

= 1 310 208 fl ops

 

A 72% increase would be this gpu at 1376 Mhz (and probably burn quickly)



dsgrue3 on 10 September 2013
Machiavellian said:
dsgrue3 said:

I posted 2 sources which cited a PS4 advantage that fit the criterion (you can omit the 2nd source). Unless you have any evidence to the contrary I have fullfilled the obligations of my argument. 

But here's another, just for fun:

Adrian Chmielarz, who used to work at the studio People Can Fly (Bulletstorm)

 

You keep posting stuff from people who have no hands on with both consoles.  Hell Adrian appears to not have hands on with neither console.  Without knowing the developers he is talking about, its hard to know their level of experience.  All developers are not made equal, if that was the case every developer out there would have been able to wrap their minds around the Cell and be producing games like ND.  When you can post something from someone with hands on with final hardware from both companies then make a point.  Right now it looks like there isn't any such info out there.

You've already acknowledged the 2 out of 3 sources I initially posted as having had on-hand experience with both consoles, so this opening line is just hilarious to me. Are you incapable of being honest?

Furthermore, you are okay receiving information from Penello's third party source and yet reject Chmielarz's third party sources? They are both relaying information from other people. Don't be such a hypocrite.



DD_Bwest on 10 September 2013
petalpusher said:
Adinnieken said:

Actually, he doesn't ignore it.  He addressed it.  Each CU gets a 6% speed increase, not simply the entire GPU with the frequency increase.  So while there are fewer CUs those CUs operate faster than the PS4's.  When 12 CUs are operating at 6% greater speed than the PS4, that equates into a 72% speed improvement.


That's not how mathematic works.

 

(1 CU x 853 mhz x 64 ops x 2 cycles)  x 12  

is still the same than

12 CU x 853 Mhz x 64 x ops x 2 cycles

 

A 72% increase would be this gpu at 1376 Mhz.

 

 


Thankyou!  i posted about that earlier but its really good to know we atleast have 1 other person who  can do basic math.  Albert makes himself look SO bad with that statement



I am Torgo, I take care of the place while the master is away.

"Hes the clown that makes the dark side fun.. Torgo!"

Ha.. i won my bet, but i wasnt around to gloat because im on a better forum!  See ya guys on Viz

Machiavellian on 10 September 2013
Mmmfishtacos said:
Machiavellian said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Machiavellian said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Adinnieken said:
Ashadian said:

"The CPU contained within the PS4 is running stock speeds, 1.6ghz compared to Microsofts 1.75 after an upclock - 150mhz does not make up for the different in number of CUs, and (aptly ignored by Albert) the difference in ROP units - hence why even with the 150mhz upclock, the Xbox One is still way behind in terms of raw power - To see just how little difference 150mhz makes, go into your bios and bump your clock speed up to be 150mhz faster, you will see framerates climb barely 2fps at best - most modern CPUs clock to at least 400mhz higher than stock as an average, with some people bumping that to over 900mhz.

But seriously, before you try and tell me im wrong, he is comparing 1.6 to 1.75 and claiming its 10% faster, asside from being factually wrong (10% would be 1.76ghz), it also compares the cpus on the most basic of levels, which is a stupid thing to do, even more so given that theyre APUS - compare a 2ghz celeron to a 2ghz pentium to see why.

Last but not least adding up the ddr3 and esram speeds to get a higher number is universally seen as a retarded pr stunt by those with half a brain because theoretical peaks for different ram types DO NOT COMBINE - just like if you put two 3ghz xeons in a server, it does NOT mean that the server is now running at 6ghz, its running at 3ghz with additional cores - adding ddr3 and the tiny space allotted by esram does not work, even for "on paper" results - you cannot fill the 8gb of ddr3 with the esram fast enough without the esram being bottlednecked, esram could not be used for a large majority of game resources, where as GDDR5 can be used for just about anything at the cost of slightly higher latency."

Actually, he doesn't ignore it.  He addressed it.  Each CU gets a 6% speed increase, not simply the entire GPU with the frequency increase.  So while there are fewer CUs those CUs operate faster than the PS4's.  When 12 CUs are operating at 6% greater speed than the PS4, that equates into a 72% speed improvement.

Early in that thread (not that post) he states near 10%.  He has also stated before greater than 9%.  If we want to get specific it's 9.375%    No, he also talks on a deeper level, about how the the Xbox One's CPU also has a 30GB/s transfer rate between the CPU and memory,   A 50% speed improvement over the PS4.

You missed the part where he also specified that the eSRAM's speed was 204GB/s.  That still happens to be 16% faster than the GDDR5 memory in the PS4.  Don't assume my argument is that 32MB is the same as 8GB, but I wonder what memory speed is necessary in order for a modern GPU to adequately process a 1920x1080 image without bottlenecking or taking a performance hit.  The eSRAM is used both as a buffer for the DDR memory, as well as a cache to temporarily hold data that's needed quickly.

I think you missed the part where he got called out on all the being fud. And he got shreading for this bit of miss info too.

Let me ask you something.  How do you know he got shredded.  Without having the knowledge if the people responding actually know what they are talking about you can easily make that mistake.  After reading a few comments its clear a lot of them do not know what they are talking about and most cannot even make a simple google search to be sure what they are saying is correct.  This is the problem with the net is that people regurgitate information from other people who do not know what they are talking about and you get number to junk.

Because a lot of them do know what they are talking about. And even a quick google search will tell you that the ps4 transfers 20 GB/s down the onion buss. So that alone slames his 50 percent gain. 

Thats exactly what I am talking about.  A lot of them do not know what they are talking about.  This is a pretty big misconception of the forum.  Most times I see comments that are no better than your common fan site.

Yes, 20 down for PS4 compared to 30 for the X1.  You do the math and tell me what you get!!

That's for one Line, Onion + passes another 10GB/s would you not add them togeter for 30gb/s? Seems like Albert loves to added stuff and not do if for ps4.

Its not the same.  The X1 has 30GBs directly to ram, the PS4 has 20GBs directly to ram.  The Onion is 10GBs between the CPU and GPU cache

Actually the X1 has direct access to the ESRAM so can snoop its content just like the PS4 can do the same with the 10GBs to CPU/GPU cache.

While the CPU and GPU are coherent, it appears the all processors, CPU, GPU, co-Processors and System IO are coherent within the X1.  There is a lot going on in the X1 which shows MS put a lot of thought in the system.  Hopfully we can see the samething from Sony if they release more info.



Mmmfishtacos on 10 September 2013
Machiavellian said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Machiavellian said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Machiavellian said:
Mmmfishtacos said:
Adinnieken said:
Ashadian said:

"The CPU contained within the PS4 is running stock speeds, 1.6ghz compared to Microsofts 1.75 after an upclock - 150mhz does not make up for the different in number of CUs, and (aptly ignored by Albert) the difference in ROP units - hence why even with the 150mhz upclock, the Xbox One is still way behind in terms of raw power - To see just how little difference 150mhz makes, go into your bios and bump your clock speed up to be 150mhz faster, you will see framerates climb barely 2fps at best - most modern CPUs clock to at least 400mhz higher than stock as an average, with some people bumping that to over 900mhz.

But seriously, before you try and tell me im wrong, he is comparing 1.6 to 1.75 and claiming its 10% faster, asside from being factually wrong (10% would be 1.76ghz), it also compares the cpus on the most basic of levels, which is a stupid thing to do, even more so given that theyre APUS - compare a 2ghz celeron to a 2ghz pentium to see why.

Last but not least adding up the ddr3 and esram speeds to get a higher number is universally seen as a retarded pr stunt by those with half a brain because theoretical peaks for different ram types DO NOT COMBINE - just like if you put two 3ghz xeons in a server, it does NOT mean that the server is now running at 6ghz, its running at 3ghz with additional cores - adding ddr3 and the tiny space allotted by esram does not work, even for "on paper" results - you cannot fill the 8gb of ddr3 with the esram fast enough without the esram being bottlednecked, esram could not be used for a large majority of game resources, where as GDDR5 can be used for just about anything at the cost of slightly higher latency."

Actually, he doesn't ignore it.  He addressed it.  Each CU gets a 6% speed increase, not simply the entire GPU with the frequency increase.  So while there are fewer CUs those CUs operate faster than the PS4's.  When 12 CUs are operating at 6% greater speed than the PS4, that equates into a 72% speed improvement.

Early in that thread (not that post) he states near 10%.  He has also stated before greater than 9%.  If we want to get specific it's 9.375%    No, he also talks on a deeper level, about how the the Xbox One's CPU also has a 30GB/s transfer rate between the CPU and memory,   A 50% speed improvement over the PS4.

You missed the part where he also specified that the eSRAM's speed was 204GB/s.  That still happens to be 16% faster than the GDDR5 memory in the PS4.  Don't assume my argument is that 32MB is the same as 8GB, but I wonder what memory speed is necessary in order for a modern GPU to adequately process a 1920x1080 image without bottlenecking or taking a performance hit.  The eSRAM is used both as a buffer for the DDR memory, as well as a cache to temporarily hold data that's needed quickly.

I think you missed the part where he got called out on all the being fud. And he got shreading for this bit of miss info too.

Let me ask you something.  How do you know he got shredded.  Without having the knowledge if the people responding actually know what they are talking about you can easily make that mistake.  After reading a few comments its clear a lot of them do not know what they are talking about and most cannot even make a simple google search to be sure what they are saying is correct.  This is the problem with the net is that people regurgitate information from other people who do not know what they are talking about and you get number to junk.

Because a lot of them do know what they are talking about. And even a quick google search will tell you that the ps4 transfers 20 GB/s down the onion buss. So that alone slames his 50 percent gain. 

Thats exactly what I am talking about.  A lot of them do not know what they are talking about.  This is a pretty big misconception of the forum.  Most times I see comments that are no better than your common fan site.

Yes, 20 down for PS4 compared to 30 for the X1.  You do the math and tell me what you get!!

That's for one Line, Onion + passes another 10GB/s would you not add them togeter for 30gb/s? Seems like Albert loves to added stuff and not do if for ps4.

Its not the same.  The X1 has 30GBs directly to ram, the PS4 has 20GBs directly to ram.  The Onion is 10GBs between the CPU and GPU cache

Actually the X1 has direct access to the ESRAM so can snoop its content just like the PS4 can do the same with the 10GBs to CPU/GPU cache.

While the CPU and GPU are coherent, it appears the all processors, CPU, GPU, co-Processors and System IO are coherent within the X1.  There is a lot going on in the X1 which shows MS put a lot of thought in the system.  Hopfully we can see the samething from Sony if they release more info.

Makes sense. but how does that transalet in to graphical performance. Considering everything else on the PS4 is stil higher?