_____________________________UPDATE_______________________________

Ok people. Give me some GCN 1st-gen vs Maxwell DX-12/Vulkan benchmarks and I will update this with new analysis and everything. Remember it has to be GCN 1st-gen vs Maxwell. This isn't an NVIDIA vs AMD maximum performance dick-measuring comparison but more of a "EFFICIENCY" comparison between the GPU architectures of PS4/XBone and NX current rumored one, especifically focused in actual performance vs claimed teraflop throughput. Since the NX rumor mill is now pointing more towards Pascal, I'll accept GCN 1st-gen vs Pascal benchmarks too.

_____________________________Original_______________________________

When Eurogamer reported that the Tegra X1 is the GPU currently powering the NX dev units, many people where quick to compare it to the XBOne. Except that the extend of said scrutiny consisted on comparing only one factor: Flops. The difference in performance was deduced using only this number. Seems like many people only compare the amount of Teraflops a console can perform when figuring out power. But GPUs aren’t Magikarps and there is more to them than flops. 

That said I want to know how the Maxwell architecture used in the Tegra X1 actually compares to the older GCN architecture found in the both the PS4 and XBOne. Of course, I can’t simply take the Tegra X1 as implemented on the NX and compare it to an Xbox One or PS4. And there are simply too many factors involved in taking an Android based Shield tablet and comparing it to a console or even a Windows PC. Luckily there are plenty of desktop GPUs using these architectures, so a comparison between them can be made under the exact same conditions. Meaning same OS and same CPU/RAM.

Of course I wasn’t going to go trough all the trouble of doing all this research myself so I simply went to Anandtech and compared their data on a couple GPUs, one of each architecture and with similar Teraflop capabilities. I used the HD 7850 as the GCN representative due to having a similar shader throughput as the PS4. From the Maxwell camp, the GTX 950 was the closest match. Here is how they stack:

That’s a 10.69% Teraflop advantage the HD 7850 has over the GTX 950.

The HD 7850 also has 47.6GB/s more Memory Bandwidth.

How does these differences translate into actual game performance? Let’s look at the Anandtech benchmark comparisons:

I’m feeling too lazy to calculate the average difference of all these benchmarks but I’m going to guess it is 30% in favor of the GTX 950. By adding it’s 10.69% Teraflop disadvantage I think is pretty safe to assume that the Maxwell architecture somehow delivers at the very least 40% more performance per flop compared to GCN. If that makes any sense then:

You would only need a 790 Gflops Maxwell GPU to match the performance of a 1.31 Tflops GCN GPU. *Wink*

You would only need a 1.1 Tflops Maxwell GPU to match the performance of a 1.84 Tflops GCN GPU.

You would need a 716.8 Gflops GCN GPU to match the performance of a 512 Gflops Maxwell GPU.

Edit: I can only use the resources I have and I definitely don't have the resourses to compare this cards to the metal. Also, I think is pretty clear that I'm speculating and making plenty of assumptions in the proccess.

That is a neat comparison. Cool stuff, and well done! =)

Looks like a X2 chip would be stellar, especially for a hybrid console.

Link to article?

Hahaha, I just saw it.

I don't get where you are getting your numbers from for the 7850, but I suspect it's a case of the 950 being 4 years newer and being optimized for the games used in the review.

A fairer comparison is the Radeon r7 370, which is the same silicon as the 7850, but obviously released more recently (and hence reviews have been done with more contemporary drivers.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/msi-radeon-r7-370-gaming-2g-review,16.html

Good example of a review of the 370, and shows its equal to the 950 on average. I bring this up because it totally changes your analysis. You go from Maxwell being 30% more efficient to 0% from a fps/flop perspective, and really goes to show that flops is a really dumb measure of performance. It is a measure of compute, but fps is more than just how fast you can calculate shader ops.

What do you mean article? This is 100% FunFan BS!

But here is the link to the Anadtech benchmark comparison tool I used. If thats what you wanted.

The point is comparing architectures as they are implemented on current gen consoles. Neither the PS4 nor Xbox one use a r7 370. The closest cards to them are the HD 7000 series.

You can't use the 950 as comparison because it is a 90 watts GPU. A large portable device, such as a tablet, can use 10 to 12 w top. So NX will probably be way behind X1, unless it has some extra stuff when docked.

The only Tegra X1 device we have is the Shield console, but even it can have a larger TDP going as far as 20 watts when playing. It's a bit more powerful than PS360. So realistically, NX could be between PS360 and X1. Of course, supposing that docked it wouldn't have any extra juice. Anyway, don't count on a miracle because Tegra X1 was designed as a low TDP SoC for tablets, micro-consoles and embedded systems.

It's the same architecture,  same silicon.  Both have 1024 SP,  running at ~ 1 Ghz,  with a 256b wide memory bus running at 5.7GHz. The difference you think you seeing as an architectural issue is actually a driver issue. 

That's not how it works... at all. You complain about people comparing just Tflops... but this is just as bad.

Let's take the 7770 and the 750 TI for example.

7770 is a GCN card, 750 TI is a maxwell card.

7770 has 1.28 Tflops

750 TI has 1.3 Tflops.

And as everyone knows a Maxwell gpu needs less Tflops to equal a GCN gpu so this should be a complete STOMPING.

oh wait....