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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Ubisoft GDC Presentation of PS4 & X1 GPU & CPU Performance

ethomaz on 21 October 2014

mornelithe said:

You mean last year, before Microsoft bumped the clock up 10%?  And this year...after the bump, it shows differently?  No way!

Or after June SDK that free up the Kinect use of the CPU :D



Around the Network
mornelithe on 21 October 2014
ethomaz said:

mornelithe said:

You mean last year, before Microsoft bumped the clock up 10%?  And this year...after the bump, it shows differently?  No way!

Or after June SDK that free up the Kinect use of the CPU :D

Right?  Imagine that, MS boosts the clock, and alleviates the overhead burden, and the bencharks come out different.  Who'd have thought?



alabtrosMyster on 21 October 2014
mornelithe said:
ethomaz said:

mornelithe said:

You mean last year, before Microsoft bumped the clock up 10%?  And this year...after the bump, it shows differently?  No way!

Or after June SDK that free up the Kinect use of the CPU :D

Right?  Imagine that, MS boosts the clock, and alleviates the overhead burden, and the bencharks come out different.  Who'd have thought?

Yup, that also shows that the GPU situation is not something MS can do anything about, except convince people that resolution and frame rate are for idiots... which is something they have been able to convince quite a lot of people of :-/



walsufnir on 21 October 2014
ethomaz said:

mornelithe said:

You mean last year, before Microsoft bumped the clock up 10%?  And this year...after the bump, it shows differently?  No way!

Or after June SDK that free up the Kinect use of the CPU :D


1. The first benchmark arose when consoles already launched. So it was after the upclock.

2. Kinect freed gpu resources, not CPU. A shame ethomaz, as you want to sell us yourself as a hardware specialist and then you come up with this.

 

Either way, there is clearly data missing to explain numbers to us further.



ethomaz on 21 October 2014

walsufnir said:

1. The first benchmark arose when consoles already launched. So it was after the upclock.

2. Kinect freed gpu resources, not CPU. A shame ethomaz, as you want to sell us yourself as a hardware specialist and then you come up with this.

 

Either way, there is clearly data missing to explain numbers to us further.

It is free GPU, CPU and memory.



Around the Network
walsufnir on 21 October 2014
ethomaz said:

walsufnir said:

1. The first benchmark arose when consoles already launched. So it was after the upclock.

2. Kinect freed gpu resources, not CPU. A shame ethomaz, as you want to sell us yourself as a hardware specialist and then you come up with this.

 

Either way, there is clearly data missing to explain numbers to us further.

It is free GPU, CPU and memory.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/06/17/xbox-one-kinect-gpu-heres-how-it-works/

No it's only GPU. They even explicitly mention there is no more ram available.



Captain_Tom on 21 October 2014
HollyGamer said:
Captain_Tom said:
HollyGamer said:
Even if the CPU is weak they can utilize GPGPU for PS4, because that's the purpose of GPGPU for the AMD technology right? PS4 also benefit from HSA technology and more CU on the GPU.


Correct.  The PS4's GPU actually has a ton more optimizations and add-ons to the the GPU that make it dominate at GPGPU.  That is why in the end the gap will grow even more than people think it will.

I guess we have to wait for Naughty Dog to shows and smack every lazy developer face when Uncharted 4 comes :) .  I think when it comes to multyplatform games it's gonna be hard to shows PS4 graphic capability , because they trying to sell to all console fans, and parity clause is a nature thing for every third party developer. That's why console sales and sofware sales  is very important because the developer and publisher will see which console has a bigger fanbase and which fanbase buy most of their games, and determine which console will be  the priority. 


With a few exceptions (AC:U) practically every third party game has taken advantage of the extra performance.  Keep in mind that 1080p is 44% more pixels than 900p, and most games also have extra AA and effects on PS4.  

 

SoM for example was running at 1080p with high settings while the X1 was running 900p at medium settings.  That is pretty close to the difference (Minus the GPGPU advantage knowone has completily tackeled yet).



Captain_Tom on 21 October 2014
walsufnir said:
I always think these benchmarks funny. Remember the benchmark from last year that showed us PS4 CPU was faster than Xbox One? Now this shows the exact opposite.
Without any further data what was really tested (given these slides provide way more information than the graph last year) we can't infer *anything*, in my opinion.


The PS4 CPU won in that benchmark because they didn't use the X1's ESRAM, and the PS4 main memory is over twice as fast (Which made up for the X1's clock speed advantage).



ethomaz on 21 October 2014

Captain_Tom said:

The PS4 GPU won in that benchmark because they didn't use the X1's ESRAM, and the PS4 main memory is over twice as fast (Which made up for the X1's clock speed advantage).

I thought it won because they tested GPGPU (GPU compute) and PS4 have 8 ACEs, 64 queues for compute while Xbone only 2 ACEs, 8 queues... and of course the obvious difference in RAW power helps too (18 vs 12 CUs).



ICStats on 21 October 2014
walsufnir said:
ethomaz said:

mornelithe said:

You mean last year, before Microsoft bumped the clock up 10%?  And this year...after the bump, it shows differently?  No way!

Or after June SDK that free up the Kinect use of the CPU :D


1. The first benchmark arose when consoles already launched. So it was after the upclock.

2. Kinect freed gpu resources, not CPU. A shame ethomaz, as you want to sell us yourself as a hardware specialist and then you come up with this.

 

Either way, there is clearly data missing to explain numbers to us further.

This benchmark gives the performance for "5 milliseconds", in other words it is peak CPU performance without system overhead, and it is in line with the XB1's faster CPU clock speed.  The reason XB1 came short overall is because of system overhead (for Kinect voice recognition, multiple OS, snap, etc.).



My 8th gen collection