I don't know what you are talkig about. No one is referring to GPGPU as a bottleneck fixer. That is not what this thread was about. Rather it is about how GPGPU compute on the PS4 is/can be used and how its different from the already existing GPU compute on PC GPUs before the R9 series. HUMA.

Wow.. ah well...

I guess you would still find a way to make this about the XB1 vs PS4 even if the OP is  talking about the wiiU and the dreamcast.

Because someone points out the bad in someting does not mean he is automatically saying something else is better. That kinda minset will make you see everything like it were some sort of fanboy war. Do whatever makes you happy I guess. If you thik I am picking on the XB1 here I wonder what you would say when you read part two.

I'm referring to the little addendum on Unity... in your OP, obviously you are talking about using it to circumvent bottlenecks.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about.

This is the exact quote about unity from my OP.

AC:CREED UNITY SECTION(if you understand the above point with regard to CPU/GPU render times then you will also understnd why what ubisoft said about the CPU work load being responsible for why AC:Unity runs at 900p on both consoles is just bullshit. A CPU load just means that the GPU has less time to do its thing, that is more likely to affect framerate than anything else because of how GPUs work. This is where it gets interesting. The only way what ubisoft are saying is true is if the XB1 CPU is better than the PS4s, or that the game is better optimized for the XB1 [which brings us back to the whole parity nonsense]. Its interesting cause if say the CPU heavy load takes 25ms to complete its task for the next frame then passes off the render instructions to the GPU, then theoretically limiting the resolution means that they wanted to give the GPU less work to do so it spit outs the frame on time still hitting that 33ms limit. But this is where there is a problem with the story. If the GPUs have only 8ms to complete its task and the XB1 completes that with a  900p frame, what happend to the 40% more GPU that the PS4 has? The PS4 should be able to complete the exact same task 40% faster than the XB1. So if the time is constant, then it means they could have simply allowed the PS4 do more work and it would have still met that render time limit. Unless of course they want you to believe that the XB1 CPU did completed its much much much faster than the PS4s CPU and that way the PS4s more powerful GPU had less time to render the frame than the XB1 so the extra power of the PS4 went to still mathcing the XB1. Which simply isn't the case)

Not once did I imply in relation to assasins creed that GPU compute on the PS4 could be somehow used to improve the performance of the game. Rather what I implied was that if both the PS4 dn XB1 spend the same or near similar time processing their CPU based taskes before passing on the reolve date to the GPU, the fact that the PS4 GPU is just simply more powerful would mean that in the time left for both GPUs to do their thing, the PS4 should be able to do more GPU based work than the XB1. I cannot even start to understand how you or anyone could read all this and imply I was saying that GPU compute could be used to improve AC;U on the PS4. The other guy in this thread also made such accusations, I just asumed he and now maybe you too probably just didnt understand what I said or was saying.

I probably misinterpreted some of your sentences - especially this one "Thus even if cloud-based gaming becomes the standard, PS4 would be able to do both which is still an advantage to only being able to do one." But the better if we have the same / alike opinions.

It's actually quite ironic that he goes on and on about people having an agenda... He's the one here who first brought the console war into the conversation. And he keeps whining about it every chance he gets because the XBO is somehow not depicted as the ultimate console powerhouse... -___-

Everyone can see he's the one with the clear agenda.

I thought microsoft is leading in cloud-computing that´s where my impression was coming from ;). And I highly believe that the azure servers microsoft owns are by a big margin more capable than those of sony. using the ps4 as a cloud-service leads to some issues. first of all, the ps4 of your friend has to be on(line). second, he can´t play on his ps4 at the same time. third, it can´t be used to expand the capabilities of the restricted hardware itself.

About your question - I can´t give you a real answer to that. It depends on how much data you have to transfer for the physics and how much for the image-output of the whole game. While processing the whole game on the cloud can lead to input-lag, outsourcing only the physics / part of the physics is negligible input-lag-wise.

I'm just not getting this game.

Cloud computing for visuals is viable. But be ready for severe pop-ins.  Things like lighting being calculated server-side is doable, and wouldn't affect the input-lag. But you'd see shadows appear inconsistantly as data reaches your console on an untimely fashion. Now, try to do more gameplay specific stuff than that, like collision detection physics, and get ready for some really amusing out of sync moments.

Great read, I will check out the esram thread next.