krippaz said: vivster said: Unless they're using the respective APIs this comparison is meaningless. Yes.. But faster GPU and RAM on PC show that it does matter and PS4 have higher/better graphic than XBO this far ..

Yes, but this knowledge isn't worth a whole article.

They could've named the article "More is better" and leave it at that.

vivster said: krippaz said: vivster said: Unless they're using the respective APIs this comparison is meaningless. Yes.. But faster GPU and RAM on PC show that it does matter and PS4 have higher/better graphic than XBO this far .. Yes, but this knowledge isn't worth a whole article. They could've named the article "More is better" and leave it at that.

Alright, I lol'd there.

People forget, Console specs dont need to be equivalent or better than PC specs, for games to run better.

Because on consoles, devs have only one specific set of specifications to work with per console. because of that, good devs can build engines that cohesively and smoothly run on the consoles while getting way more out of them than one would expect.

Perfect customization is perfectly impossible on PC, there are just way too many variations to take into account.

So unless you are going to shell out that insanely big bucks for absolute top of the line PC parts, you will be hard pressed to have your games run or look significantly better than PS4 games.

the-pi-guy said: VanceIX said: Not really. It shows that it makes memory usage much more constricted when you only have 4.5-5.5 shared RAM. Well of course it does.  More constricted wasn't what you were saying though.  More restricted is a no brainer, that is like saying a 5.5 inch pizza is smaller than an 8 inch pizza and a 3 inch pizza.  Using those pizzas for a metaphor though. The advantage of sharing, is that you can take 4 inches of the pizza whereas in the second part you may be restricted to 3 inches.  So, sharing allows it to have more.   Now you followed this up with they both need to be about the same.   "The CPU will in almost all cases be needing just as much RAM as the GPU" And yet you and I were both able to pull up examples of this not being true.

My point then was to show that the CPU needs a lot RAM as well, not just the GPU. To clarify, the CPU usually needs just as much RAM, if not more, than the GPU.

Games like Killzone, which put all resources into looking as pretty as possible, will be heavier on the GPU, but most games that come out will be more than just showpieces. Those games will have much more difficulty optimizing for memory.

VanceIX said: Fixed it in an edit myself right after posting, sorry. And your example is off. The CPU will in almost all cases be needing just as much RAM as the GPU, especially if you are playing a high-end game with a lot happening on the screen. In that case, the GPU suffers because the CPU will be using 3-4GB of RAM, leaving little for the GPU, or vice-versa, so the dev has to choose between optomizing for the CPU or the GPU with RAM. When you have dedicated graphics, the GPU can use all the memory given to it with 2-3GB DDR5, and then the CPU can use all 8GB available to it, without running into problems. Now, if the PS4 had 12GB of RAM, with 9GB available for devs, this wouldn't be a problem, as both the CPU and GPU would have plenty of room to work with, but that isn't the case. 5.5GB for both gives little breathing room if needed.

Was trying to not butt in Vance but I couldn't resist here. Dedicated Ram doesnt work that way. Of the 5.5GB of Ram available one the PS4/XO, devs can really decide how much Ram to give anything. If you look at the KZ:SF dev papers, for the demo postmortem they showed that they were used 1.5GB for CPU, 128MB shared between the cpu and gpu and 3GB gor the GPU. Here.

Back in the PS3/360 gen devs also complained about this a lot too saying that on the PS3 they were stuck with a fixed amount of Ram for either the cpu/gpu. And even on PC you can run most games with as little as 1-2Gb of Ram. The problem on PCs is that a PC will always keep certain parts of the OS in system memory. Thats why you always need more Ram than you well...need. Another thing about games on PC is that they kinda act funny. If you have 4GB of Ram the game will find a way of using most of it even if its as a cache. If you have 16GB it will do the same thing. 

Intrinsic said: VanceIX said: Fixed it in an edit myself right after posting, sorry. And your example is off. The CPU will in almost all cases be needing just as much RAM as the GPU, especially if you are playing a high-end game with a lot happening on the screen. In that case, the GPU suffers because the CPU will be using 3-4GB of RAM, leaving little for the GPU, or vice-versa, so the dev has to choose between optomizing for the CPU or the GPU with RAM. When you have dedicated graphics, the GPU can use all the memory given to it with 2-3GB DDR5, and then the CPU can use all 8GB available to it, without running into problems. Now, if the PS4 had 12GB of RAM, with 9GB available for devs, this wouldn't be a problem, as both the CPU and GPU would have plenty of room to work with, but that isn't the case. 5.5GB for both gives little breathing room if needed. Was trying to not butt in Vance but I couldn't resist here. Dedicated Ram doesnt work that way. Of the 5.5GB of Ram available one the PS4/XO, devs can really decide how much Ram to give anything. If you look at the KZ:SF dev papers, for the demo postmortem they showed that they were used 1.5GB for CPU, 128MB shared between the cpu and gpu and 3GB gor the GPU. Here. Back in the PS3/360 gen devs also complained about this a lot too saying that on the PS3 they were stuck with a fixed amount of Ram for either the cpu/gpu. And even on PC you can run most games with as little as 1-2Gb of Ram. The problem on PCs is that a PC will always keep certain parts of the OS in system memory. Thats why you always need more Ram than you well...need. Another thing about games on PC is that they kinda act funny. If you have 4GB of Ram the game will find a way of using most of it even if its as a cache. If you have 16GB it will do the same thing.

It's all good, lol

But yes, the RAM can be shared, and that is good, and I'm not contesting that. The problem is the amount of RAM available. While PCs do have to handle the OS in RAM, there will still be plenty of DDR3 RAM left over for gaming with the PC. With the PS4, there will usually be ~2 GB available for graphics and ~2-3GB available for the system on a fairly intensive game (Killzone was more of a graphical showpiecce, which is why it put so much memory into graphics. Infamous SS may be a better example, and it only had 1.5GB memory dedicated for graphics). On a gaming PC, you can have 2-3GB for graphics and then ~5GB for the game.

And using the RAM as a cache is actually useful, speeds up loading in many games.

In short, the PS4′s GPU is — on paper — 50% more powerful than the Xbox One. The Xbox One’s slightly higher GPU clock speed might ameliorate some of the difference, but really, the PS4′s 50% higher CU count is a serious advantage for the Sony camp. Furthermore, Microsoft says that 10% of the Xbox One’s GPU is reserved for Kinect. Games on the PS4 will have a lot more available graphics power on tap.

And the reserve for Kinect is gone so only 40%.

Well and faster RAM for PS4

wasnt sony 60% stronger since it never reserved 10% for its camera? ,now that Kinect gives 10% back,its now back down to 50% on paper?

Raziel123 said: My 2012 GPU beats both :3 sorry i just had to be the guy. (and it actually does)

Which GPU is it?

This bullshit has to stop:

GPU benchmarks without the actual machine and software running means ABSOLUTELY nothing.

The reason why Mac are underpowered but performed better than PC to some equivalence is because both the machine, components choice and software are 3x better optimized than PC.

Console are not just optimized better than PC, they're mainly optimized for games. Killzone, which only used half of the PS4 GPU memory, is impossible to run on PC, and you won't see games with such details and depth of field until two or three years.

The only thing at which PC will and already surpass consoles is resolution and frame-rate, since you can push or upscale games to any reach your GPU can support.

PC will only be as powerful as consoles for games in 2 to 3 years even with Mantle or DX12 (which will also be brought to consoles).

SaberSaurus said: Raziel123 said: My 2012 GPU beats both :3 sorry i just had to be the guy. (and it actually does) Which GPU is it?

a factory overclocked 7870 (basically the Radeon 7870 XT on that graph)

and the post above me is terribly wrong