You're missing the point completely. There is no "Bottleneck" it's a falacy dreamed up by console gamers who believe in the advertising and hype by their respective companies.
There is a reason why PC's use DDR3 Ram as system Ram and GPU's have GDDR5 Ram.

System Ram is typically 20% give or take lower latency (In overall clock cycles) than GDDR5 memory, this helps massively when there is a stall on the CPU.
GPU's however want bandwidth above all else, latency be damned, GDDR5 is perfect for this.

Grab some DDR3 1600mhz memory, that's 800mhz IO, which has a typical CAS latency of 8, that means it has a latency of 10ns.
Grab some DDR2 800mhz memory, that's 400mhz IO, which has a typical CAS latency of 4, this is also 10ns.

Now with GDDR5 the data rates are 4x faster than the IO clock instead of 2x, I.E. 5ghz GDDR5 is 1.25ghz x4 and would have a CAS Latency of 15.
15/(1.25 GHz) = 12 ns

So the latency of GDDR5 is 20% higher than DDR3, that's a big difference when the CPU doesn't have the data it requires in it's caches and the predicters weren't able to predict the data required for processing ahead of time, we are talking millions/billions of compute cycles here essentially going to waste.

That was done on a Geforce FX.
For one, those cards weren't PCI-E to begin with (There is a big difference between those interconnects and not just in relation to the total GB/s either!).
Secondly... They only used a single core processor and a crap one at that.
Even the Geforce 6800 and 7900 used a PCI-E to AGP bridge chip to enable PCI-E compatibility, with the downside of only maxing out at AGP 8x speeds. - Which is orders of magnitude slower than what we have today.
GPU's are also far more flexible today, The Geforce FX, 6 and 7 series weren't even designed for dedicated compute tasks in mind, I should know I helped write some shaders for Oblivion and Fallout in order to achieve better performance on the FX, Geforce 3 and 4 cards.

You keep parroting that, but that's not what I am seeing on my end on a consumer processor. (And I reiterate, it's essentially the fastest consumer-grade CPU money can buy.)
I can tax all my cores for something like Folding@Home or Bitcoin mining or Seti, I see significant gains when enabling more cores, there is no wall.
I also don't have turbo enabled, all 6 cores and 12 threads run at 4.8ghz as the nominal clock, with allowances for lower when not being utilised to conserve on power.

Confirmed: PS4 is inferior to my PC.
One of my GPU's in my PC is faster than Two PS4 GPU's and a single 8-core Jaguar CPU and I have three of those GPU's.
I could dedicate two of those GPU's to Physics if a developer allowed me to do so, that's almost 9 Teraflops right there, the PS4 would literally scream "I'm a teapot!" in an attempt to process that much data.
And next month my rebuild will be done and I will have four Radeon R9 290X's under water, which would put me at about 12x the power of a PS4 with just my GPU's alone and twice the amount of GDDR5 (Which will also be faster) memory and 8x the system memory.

I also don't have to split work up.
AMD'sdrivers are actually incredibly good at handling that task all by itself even when I give it a generic compute job.

Of course a developer would not bother wasting their time optimising their game for every single GPU on the market, that would be asanine to even suggest such an endeaver, however...
The reality is nVidia and AMD have very similar feature sets when abstracted, they go about implementing specific features very differently but the end result is the same, then AMD and nVidia build an entire range of GPU's from that architectural feature set which is identical across the board minus varying amounts of memories and compute engines and other such things.

Then you have the API, there are several types of API's such as High-Level and Low-Level API's, it's the same for consoles too.
The Low level API's are closer to the metal and are incredibly efficient, however they are also harder to build a game for.
A high Level API is very easy to make a game for, but you sacrifice (obviously) speed.
Both interface with a driver and the driver interfaces with the hardware.

Historically the PC has only had High-Level API's since 3dfx's GLIDE API, consoles have a choice of both.
Battlefield 4 for instance uses a High-Level API on the Playstation 4, hence why it does not run at full 1080P with Ultra settings.

On the PC however, AMD has reintroduced the Low-level API in the forum of Mantle, which initially is only going to be for it's Graphics Core Next Architecture, of course it's open source so nVidia can adapt it's drivers to it too.

To put it in perspective though, nVidia and AMD's drivers have more lines of code than even the Windows Kernel, they're incredibly complex pieces of software in all respects, this is in order to squeeze out maximum performance and image quality whilst retaining complete backwards compatability with decades worth of software and games.

Mantle however will also reduce the Draw Cell overhead, AMD stated that even with an AMD FX underclocked to 2Ghz, that the Radeon R9 290X is still GPU bound.
Draw Cells account for a stupidly massive amount of a games current CPU usage.

Also Real-time Ray tracing isn't going to be here for a long long time, maybe in 3-4 console generations, heck movies like Lord of the Rings, Finding Nemo etc' uses a scanline renderer with photon mapping not ray tracing.

A mix of technologies is the best way to go about it.

Yes but the costs sum up with what I wrote in my post. The comparison is rather invalid.

Again, people should wait for future APU releases from AMD and will have a better PS4.

Why do you even continue to argue someone who doesn't even know what their talking about. The only part of a physics simulation that is limited by or runs better on a CPU is collision detection (Mostly because the algorithms for it are biased towards sequential processing.) and he doesn't even get full credit for mentioning that. 

Why do you even continue to argue someone who doesn't even know what their talking about. The only part of a physics simulation that is limited by or runs better on a CPU is collision detection (Mostly because the algorithms for it are biased towards sequential processing.) and he doesn't even get full credit for mentioning that. 

You're missing the point completely. There is no "Bottleneck" it's a falacy dreamed up by console gamers who believe in the advertising and hype by their respective companies.
There is a reason why PC's use DDR3 Ram as system Ram and GPU's have GDDR5 Ram.

System Ram is typically 20% give or take lower latency (In overall clock cycles) than GDDR5 memory, this helps massively when there is a stall on the CPU.
GPU's however want bandwidth above all else, latency be damned, GDDR5 is perfect for this.

Grab some DDR3 1600mhz memory, that's 800mhz IO, which has a typical CAS latency of 8, that means it has a latency of 10ns.
Grab some DDR2 800mhz memory, that's 400mhz IO, which has a typical CAS latency of 4, this is also 10ns.

Now with GDDR5 the data rates are 4x faster than the IO clock instead of 2x, I.E. 5ghz GDDR5 is 1.25ghz x4 and would have a CAS Latency of 15.
15/(1.25 GHz) = 12 ns

So the latency of GDDR5 is 20% higher than DDR3, that's a big difference when the CPU doesn't have the data it requires in it's caches and the predicters weren't able to predict the data required for processing ahead of time, we are talking millions/billions of compute cycles here essentially going to waste.

That was done on a Geforce FX.

For one, those cards weren't PCI-E to begin with (There is a big difference between those interconnects and not just in relation to the total GB/s either!).
Secondly... They only used a single core processor and a crap one at that.
Even the Geforce 6800 and 7900 used a PCI-E to AGP bridge chip to enable PCI-E compatibility, with the downside of only maxing out at AGP 8x speeds. - Which is orders of magnitude slower than what we have today.
GPU's are also far more flexible today, The Geforce FX, 6 and 7 series weren't even designed for dedicated compute tasks in mind, I should know I helped write some shaders for Oblivion and Fallout in order to achieve better performance on the FX, Geforce 3 and 4 cards.

You keep parroting that, but that's not what I am seeing on my end on a consumer processor. (And I reiterate, it's essentially the fastest consumer-grade CPU money can buy.)
I can tax all my cores for something like Folding@Home or Bitcoin mining or Seti, I see significant gains when enabling more cores, there is no wall.
I also don't have turbo enabled, all 6 cores and 12 threads run at 4.8ghz as the nominal clock, with allowances for lower when not being utilised to conserve on power.


Confirmed: PS4 is inferior to my PC.

One of my GPU's in my PC is faster than Two PS4 GPU's and a single 8-core Jaguar CPU and I have three of those GPU's.
I could dedicate two of those GPU's to Physics if a developer allowed me to do so, that's almost 9 Teraflops right there, the PS4 would literally scream "I'm a teapot!" in an attempt to process that much data.
And next month my rebuild will be done and I will have four Radeon R9 290X's under water, which would put me at about 12x the power of a PS4 with just my GPU's alone and twice the amount of GDDR5 (Which will also be faster) memory and 8x the system memory.

I also don't have to split work up.
AMD'sdrivers are actually incredibly good at handling that task all by itself even when I give it a generic compute job.


Of course a developer would not bother wasting their time optimising their game for every single GPU on the market, that would be asanine to even suggest such an endeaver, however...

The reality is nVidia and AMD have very similar feature sets when abstracted, they go about implementing specific features very differently but the end result is the same, then AMD and nVidia build an entire range of GPU's from that architectural feature set which is identical across the board minus varying amounts of memories and compute engines and other such things.

Then you have the API, there are several types of API's such as High-Level and Low-Level API's, it's the same for consoles too.
The Low level API's are closer to the metal and are incredibly efficient, however they are also harder to build a game for.
A high Level API is very easy to make a game for, but you sacrifice (obviously) speed.
Both interface with a driver and the driver interfaces with the hardware.

Historically the PC has only had High-Level API's since 3dfx's GLIDE API, consoles have a choice of both.
Battlefield 4 for instance uses a High-Level API on the Playstation 4, hence why it does not run at full 1080P with Ultra settings.

On the PC however, AMD has reintroduced the Low-level API in the forum of Mantle, which initially is only going to be for it's Graphics Core Next Architecture, of course it's open source so nVidia can adapt it's drivers to it too.

To put it in perspective though, nVidia and AMD's drivers have more lines of code than even the Windows Kernel, they're incredibly complex pieces of software in all respects, this is in order to squeeze out maximum performance and image quality whilst retaining complete backwards compatability with decades worth of software and games.

Mantle however will also reduce the Draw Cell overhead, AMD stated that even with an AMD FX underclocked to 2Ghz, that the Radeon R9 290X is still GPU bound.
Draw Cells account for a stupidly massive amount of a games current CPU usage.

Also Real-time Ray tracing isn't going to be here for a long long time, maybe in 3-4 console generations, heck movies like Lord of the Rings, Finding Nemo etc' uses a scanline renderer with photon mapping not ray tracing.

A mix of technologies is the best way to go about it.

Dude, let them argue! That was really interesting and informative to read.

I think the point was that as a consumer, you're only spending 400$. It's not 'how close can we get to the price equivalent of ps4', it's 'how close can you get to the pricetag'.

This would be for the purpose of showing what's a better value.