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

Forums - Gaming - PS4 And Xbox One GPU Performance Parameters Detailed, GDDR5 vs DRAM Benchmark Numbers

MortienGerrux on 27 March 2016
Pemalite said:
elektranine said:

How is this gen different than last gen, other than PlayStation being in first place, where PCs can massively outperform consoles but with single parts costing more than all the consoles combined. Or did you just not notice the power difference until now?

Last generation the consoles launched with high-end GPU's, relative to the PC.
This generation... The GPU's in the consoles were only mid-range relative to the PC.

There has always been a power difference between Console and PC, with the PC in favour, but I don't think the difference has *ever* been this catastrophically massive, which is extremely depressing as developers tend to build games for the lowest common denominator. (Consoles.)

Why do you think games like Hellblade will only release on PS4 and PC? Developers are already dropping the XB1 as a choice.

Games like The Witcher 3 sold well over 3 million copies on PC and PS4, while they only sold 1.14m on XB1 while it was the console with the marketing rights.

Sadly, the Xbox One won't be profitable soon anymore, developers would easily get that money back from invensting into a good PC and PS4 port. And the lowest common denominator will be the PS4 which means games won't be hold back that much.



Around the Network
JRPGfan on 27 March 2016

So the PS4 is between 23% and 37% faster than the Xbox One in this benchmark....

Thats only true for this one benchmark though.

It varies on a game by game basis.


That said... I think most people already know the PS4 is faster.



SvennoJ on 27 March 2016

Any benchmarks for handling transparancies? That always seems to be the biggest bottleneck.

Also odd that the Titan X only doubles the ps4 in ALU numbers and instruction limit, whatever that means.
So what makes the Titan X 4 to 12 times faster in this test? And does that mean that a Titan X can run games at 4K60, when ps4 runs them at 1080p30? 12 times should be more than enough for that?



Ruler on 27 March 2016
curl-6 said:
It's really quite sobering just how massively modern PC parts outperform current gen consoles.

Those time comparisons in particular are just brutal, where you have, in the tesselation chart for example, 0.70ms on PC vs 8.21ms on PS4 and 11.3ms on Xbox One.

PC hardware which costs 1000€. PS4 will get its upgrade soon enough 



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

curl-6 on 27 March 2016
Ruler said:
curl-6 said:
It's really quite sobering just how massively modern PC parts outperform current gen consoles.

Those time comparisons in particular are just brutal, where you have, in the tesselation chart for example, 0.70ms on PC vs 8.21ms on PS4 and 11.3ms on Xbox One.

PC hardware which costs 1000€. PS4 will get its upgrade soon enough 

Will be very interesting to say the least to see how the PS4.5 compares to PC tech. I mean, it'll obviously still be behind compared to premium parts like the Titan X, unless PS4.5 is a $1000 console, but it will be interesting to see to what degree (if at all) the gulf shrinks.



Around the Network
Ruler on 27 March 2016
JRPGfan said:

So the PS4 is between 23% and 37% faster than the Xbox One in this benchmark....

Thats only true for this one benchmark though.

It varies on a game by game basis.


That said... I think most people already know the PS4 is faster.

the 37% seems about right imo, Bloodborne to DS3 is the best example

Xbox One - Dark Souls 3 900p

PS4 - Bloodborne 1080p and better graphics than Dark Souls 3



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

Ganoncrotch on 27 March 2016

The PC component being compared here is a strange choice, not just for the cost being 3x the consoles it's against but also when you consider that it launched in Mar 2015 compared to the PS4 which came out in Nov of 2013, not that odd for something which is 2 years younger and 3x the price to be ahead on the charts.... not to mention that it is just a single component of a PC, not a complete gaming PC.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

fatslob-:O on 27 March 2016
SvennoJ said:
Any benchmarks for handling transparancies? That always seems to be the biggest bottleneck.

Also odd that the Titan X only doubles the ps4 in ALU numbers and instruction limit, whatever that means.
So what makes the Titan X 4 to 12 times faster in this test? And does that mean that a Titan X can run games at 4K60, when ps4 runs them at 1080p30? 12 times should be more than enough for that?

I'd be interested in how well consoles can handle transparency too but I suspect that the PS4 would most likely come on top since it has 5.86 GB/s of bandwidth per frame @ 30FPS compared to 2.23 GB/s of bandwidth @ 30FPS on the Xbox One to play with so it should definitely come out on top when doing multi-layer/pass rendering like transparency ... 

Also the presentation is talking about the Fury X and the numbers in question are about the ratio ALU operations to rasterized triangles ...  

What specifically makes the Fury X much faster in this test has to do with the fact that it's using GPU compute culling to accelerate the graphics pipeline ... (Fury X is known for it's infamous rasterization or other geometry related bottlenecks among developers so that is why it profits most in this research when it has a skewed ALU op to fixed function capability ratio.)



SvennoJ on 27 March 2016
CGI-Quality said:

One Titan X can run games in 4K/60fps, but not without dialing some stuff back.

Ah not bad. Of course with the extra resolution you would want to increase the lod and draw distance instead of dialing back.
TItan X came out in 2015, seems a reasonable chance that 4K gaming becomes affordable in 2019.

fatslob-:O said:

I'd be interested in how well consoles can handle transparency too but I suspect that the PS4 would most likely come on top since it has 5.86 GB/s of bandwidth per frame @ 30FPS compared to 2.23 GB/s of bandwidth @ 30FPS on the Xbox One to play with so it should definitely come out on top when doing multi-layer/pass rendering like transparency ... 

Also the presentation is talking about the Fury X and the numbers in question are about the ratio ALU operations to rasterized triangles ...  

What specifically makes the Fury X much faster in this test has to do with the fact that it's using GPU compute culling to accelerate the graphics pipeline ... (Fury X is known for it's infamous rasterization or other geometry related bottlenecks among developers so that is why it profits most in this research when it has a skewed ALU op to fixed function capability ratio.)

That explains why they picked that card. I wondered why not compare to a 2016 card if you're not going to compare to what was available end 2013.



fatslob-:O on 27 March 2016
SvennoJ said:

That explains why they picked that card. I wondered why not compare to a 2016 card if you're not going to compare to what was available end 2013.

The research is not about comparing the performance of GPUs released in a similar timeframe, it's about GPU compute culling ...