no its 100% more

Interesting Thread.


MS magic tomato sauce.

Well... 100% more = 200% of.

but following op research methods maybe 200% more is right.

Shouldn't we sum the individual cache speed as well? They are memories.

Memory size is also a killer, with trillions of petabytes of ram in the cloud it is gugol% better than ps4 ram.

Cloud have 40 extra x1 for each bought, with an secret dgpu, tiled resources and directx 12 i see x1 geeting 10000% better. So in Xmas '15 we will see 25k120fps games on x1 showing in the 5th dimension. 

This is a joke Post based on exagerated rumours, prs and expectations.

???

Or are you talking about Trine 2 as "the only true 1080p60fps"?

Nope, forza motorsport 5, so there is 2?

Because super stardust hd and wipeout 1080 doesn't count since they are 7th gen and wouldn't help on the bs of 1080p60fps capable machine (which even 6th gen could render, but not output) while ignoring that 1080p60fps is just a meaningless number if we ignore what is being displayed at that resolution and framerate.

This is heavy stuff in there, you seem like you are in denial and you may be a yoga master at mental gymnastic.

Number 1

True HD is 720p that is 1366 x 768 pixels which equals more than 1 million pixels.

the difference will be marginal at best.

 - it's like putting on glasses when you have a slight sight problem, everything is crisper, cleaner.

Number 2

Xbox One have delivered on the true hd experience 720p at 60 frames per second.

 - The problem is that games on the XB1, both exclusives and multi platform titles have lower resolution AS WELL as lower frame rate (except the less demanding games, which are 1080p60fps on both).

Number 3

The Playstation 4 does indeed have a faster GPU.

 OMG! GASPS! Playstation 4 is better. I knew it all along. I knew it all along. 

 - Yes, this along with the better memory architecture ensure bettre resolution and frame rate, it has been the case for every games so far, that along some missing effects and shaders in most games.

BUT WAIT.

So multiplatform games will be based on the Xbox One GPU! 

 - you just made that up, as a proof, I would point out to every single decent multi-platform titles released... if they look similar, the frame rate is better on the PS4, or they have similar frame rate, but the resolution is cut in half... in some cases it's only relatively subtle effects that are missing, but the compromises are always made on the xb1.

Why?  

How will Xbox One catch up to Playstation 4 in performance if the Playstation 4 GPU is faster.

 - It's never been like that, as far as I know most devs will develop on PC first, then downport to each platform, basically adjusting settings for each platform until they reach their target frame rate... that will always result in the xb1 versions having either half the resolution or half the frame rate.

ESRAM!

The 32 MB of ESRAM is faster than the 8 Gigs of DDR 5 ram in the Playstation 4.

 - As you said, that eurogamer "article" was them spouting out the MS PR lines about their architecture, you do not ADD bandwidth like that, like you do not just add the read + write speed of the esram (even if in some cases it will do both at the same time) add to this that using the esram is not free, it takes CPU time as well as memory bandwidth to manage its content, it's not all just there to be used as needed by either the CPU and GPU.

Future Xbox One games will have no problem running games at 60fps and 1080p.

 - Well, sure just like in Forza 5 and Strider, some will, but the sacrifices made in lighting and details must be HUGE to attain that on this machine, nothing close to even Tomb Raider DE by example.

 - OR anyway, why would they bother because 720p 30or60fps or so is just good enough, so far many people bought into it.

Tiled Based Rendering!

 - This is a hardware feature of the GCN architecture, wrapped an MR PR buzzword, it's available on any modern GPU and is not necessary on the PS4 since there is nothing like the esram require textures to be streamed into... that's just another "secret sauce" type argument, it means nothing out of context.

Basically, you have been going in circles in your mind, trying to argue the xb1 into it being some kind of beast its definitely now, now go enjoy it instead of trying to justify it to us.

whenever i read jega comment i read it in Jake's voice from Two and Half :D

1. So 1280x720 is not True HD then. It's 80,000 pixels short. 1080p is true HD, and argue all you like there is a huge difference in quality.

2. Above 24 FPS, a human eye can't detect any changes to frame rate (first year chem/bio). You will see a smoother image, but never any screen tear or lag. So above 24 FPS and the difference is marginal. PS3 games lock in either 30 or 60 FPS, XB1 does the same, and so does WiiU. Neither is performing better here, all are doing well.

3. Not an arguement, you're saying developers won't change the game in any way for the PS4? Sure MP games will be based off the XB1, just like MP games were based on the PS2 during the 6th gen, but are you saying Metal Gear Solid looks the same on XB as it did on PS2?

It's not just a matter of texture detailing, or resolution. A game can be designed so it can run with various features turned off on XB1, and those features on on PS4. Stuff like Anti-alliasing, geometric texture mapping, partical dynamics and advanced lighting can make the difference from a meh looking game to a great looking game.

If you argue otherwise, then go play Assassin's Creed IV on your XB 360 because it looks about the same...... :-/

4. 8 GB DDR3 ram can process 64G-bps, 8GB DDR5 ram can process 256G-bps. In order for that 32MB os ESRAM to make a difference, it would need to operate at 10,000 times faster, or 16,000,000 MB/s (4*8/0.032)........ Not going to happen. (The 4 comes from DDR5 RAMbeing able to compute 4x more data then DDR3 if both had the same speed DDR5 is 256 bit where DDR3 is 64bit. i.e. DDR5 can compute 16GB of data where DDR3 does 4GB)

Even if this ridiculous compression were possible, you would still need 8x more ESRAM (so 256 MB of ESRAM)

5. It's funny because since the GPU is so weak in the XBO, it won't be able to take advantage of this rendering technique. Stuff like Tile based texture rendering and geometric texture mapping require a lot of raw computing power. Speed is important too, but the XB1 is just too weak to use this effect at any level. PS4 too, Tile based mapping is something we probably won't see on 8th gen consoles.......

It's really funny to see you contradict yourself with this point. You say rendering tecniques won't make a big difference between PS4/XB1 games since they are based off the XB1 (or 360 right now) version, then you praise a rendering tecnique........

Good Job

-----

To help you understand how the ESRAM in the XB1 works http://www.vgleaks.com/durango-gpu-2/2/

6. I noticed another contradiction to your statement. You claim multiplatform games won't look better on PS4 aside from resolution and "texture details" because they will be based off the XB1 version.......so why will devs bother with texture mapping for multiplatform games?

Which devs will spend more money and optimize a game for XB1, but not do the same for PS4???

To keep my answer short:

#1: The difference become more noticeable the larger the TV
#2: Many multiplat games are higher resolution AND higher frame rate on PS4
#3: There's not enough ESRAM to counter the faster GPU & DDR5

Does any of this matter? No... what matters is what exclusives are the most fun.

This.

Basically to explain #3 (which is the OP's arguement) in more detail. PS3 has 5 drives of RAM (Disk Drive Rate type 5 synchronous) where XB1 has 3 (+ the tiny ESRAM).

5 drives with 8GB of bandwidth opperating at 172 GB/s >>>>>> 3 drives with 8GB of bandwidth + 1 drive with 32 MB of bandwidth

Even with the additional compressional abilities, that ESRAM drive is just too small to make a difference.