text:
PS4 will use its unified architecture to pound Xbox One into the dust – eventually
- By Joel Hruska on August 22, 2013 at 9:30 am
- Comment
Share This article
News from the European gaming convention Gamescom implies another PR win for Sony. According to AMD's senior product marketing manager, Marc Diana, the PS4 is the only console that will support the company's next-generation heterogeneous unified memory architecture (hUMA). When AMD announced hUMA earlier this year, it emphasized that it views the technology as essential to the future of high performance computing — and now it seems that the capability will debut on just one console.
Edit: 8/27/2013. It now appears that the Xbox One will support HSA, based on the disclosures made by Microsoft at Hot Chips.
This difference in capability is being touted as one reason why the PS4 is reportedly seen as far ahead of the Xbox One in terms of its raw performance. German IT magazine C't, which spoke with Diana, also states that numerous developers believe the PS4 is far ahead of the Xbox One on raw compute power. That's particularly interesting given John Carmack's comments on this topic a few weeks back. During his three-hour dissertation on the universe of gaming, Carmack talked about the gap (or lack thereof) between the consoles, saying: "It's interesting — it's almost amazing — how close they are in capabilities, how common they are, and how the capabilities they give are essentially the same… the bottom line being that they're both multicore processor with AMD graphics."
It's actually the very first topic he touched on in his speech, and in doing so he seems to throw cold water on the idea that the PS4 is going to be the breakout winner come November. Granted, John Carmack is not the God of gaming — but he's at least a major power. How do we square these seemingly contradictory statements? By taking a closer look at what hUMA and HSA can and can't do — and putting a bit of context around Carmack's remarks.
HSA's uncertain ramp-up – and long-term promise
The first thing to understand about hUMA/HSA is that adapting these technologies to any use-case is non-trivial. The end goal of allowing CPU and GPU to share main memory pointers and data directly sounds simple. AMD's HSA whitepaper makes it clear that making that happen is anything but. The platform is designed to support multiple languages, all of which are translated into HSAIL (HSA Intermediate Language) for code that runs on the GPU. The CPU side of the equation remains in native code. There's a specific block of hardware that's used to manage the unified memory, dubbed the HMMU, and shown below.
Here's the really important bit. AMD's description of HSAIL emphasizes that HSAIL is "focused purely on compute and does not expose graphics-specific instructions." In other words, most of the publicly available data on expected HSA implementations doesn't apply to gaming in particular. Nevertheless, the whitepaper makes it clear that in order to function effectively, moving data and workloads between CPU and GPU has to be an efficient, low-latency operation. The CPU and GPU need to be able to schedule jobs for the other to complete, which means you need a task scheduler that's capable of understanding how to prioritize a job for the GPU vs. the CPU.
This kind of optimization work is non-trivial. A non-HSA program won't take inherent advantage of HSA or hUMA — it'll have to be optimized for the task. Most of the papers reporting benefits of HSA optimization have been focused on workstation applications or tools like Mathematica, where the ability to leverage the GPU more efficiently is seen as a huge potential boost for its compute aspects, not its gaming focus.
There's one other thing to keep in mind when it comes to considering the benefits of HSA for gaming. Ever since the dawn of 3D acceleration, gaming has been a combined effort between the CPU and GPU. Game developers have a great deal of experience when it comes to minimizing latency and the impact of CPU-GPU data sharing on conventional architectures, which means taking advantage of HSA to deliver improvements on the standard way of doing things is going to take time.
With multiple studios rushing to finish games, it's unlikely that HSA/hUMA will serve as the distinguishing technological features on display come launch day. Instead, I suspect that the early titles will rely on the PS4's higher-end GPU for any attempt to one-up the Xbox One. That's more likely to be true for the studios working on bringing up game versions for each console; studios that have committed to exclusives may have more time to spend on the topic. Sony is likely betting on HSA/hUMA in much the same way that Microsoft is betting on cloud offloading — as a long-term differentiation mechanism that could offer gamers unique benefits that the other console can't duplicate.
But back to Carmack's comments: Is the PS4 more powerful than the Xbox One or not?
Next page: Console convergence
- 1 of 2
- Next
Post a Comment
Crusina .
False and Bullshit article:
"we have to invest a lot in coherency throughout the chip, so there's been
io coherency for a while but we really wanted to get the software out of the mode of managing caches and put in hardware coherency for the first time on the mass scale in the living room on the gpu. " –>hUMA is AMD's definition of a unified memory implementation with certain features. It seems Xbox One has the same features implemented but they just don't call it hUMA due to the extend of customization of the chip.
Another quote :http://www.theverge.com/2013/6…
"The AMD chips inside the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One take advantage of something called Heterogeneous Unified Memory Access (HUMA) "
Posted by a confirmed Xbox One Dev on Reddit:
[–]XboxOneDevConfirmed XB1 Dev 28 points 4 hours ago*
Somebody had PM'ed me earlier linking to the Ars article on how the PS4 has a
big advantage over the Xbox one due to hUMA. This was apparently said by some AMD marketing manager.
I haven't heard of hUMA until today, so I went to look it up. The wayI understand it is that in addition to having unified memory access (shared memory between CPU and GPU), which allows the GPU to read CPU memory, it is also a coherent cache system. To quote Ars,"CPU and GPU will always see a consistent view of data in memory. If
one processor makes a change then the other processor will see that changed data, even if the old value was being cached."
I remember reading something on this when I got my first alpha kit. I pulled up a couple of our internal white papers and it's pretty clear that this was the exact implementation in the Xbox One's memory system. Also I couldn't find any sources where Marc Diana actually said PS4 supports hUMA and Xbox One doesn't. Every media outlet reporting on this seems to source a single German article which I'm not inclined to believe.
Terrible fact finding. I did your job for you Joel.
If ExtremeTech was Fox News, the X1 would be the Democratic Party. I'm used to reading negative comments towards the X1, but ExtremeTech's articles seem to consistently bash the console.
I mean, honestly, look at the title of the article. It's funny how changing one word can make a huge difference. Change the word "will" to "may" and the tone is completely different. As it reads now, the PS4 will win the next console generation. Nevermind the fact that neither have been released. Now, had the author used the word "may", it would simply imply that the PS4 has a certain advantage that may prove to be very beneficial.
I'm perfectly fine if the author prefers the PS4 and believes it will do better this generation than the X1. I honestly do think that the PS4 will sell better after the start Microsoft has gotten off to. However, if you want to state that the PS4 will pound the X1 into dust, clearly mark the article as an opinion piece.
And if Crusina's comment is correct, then it is even more clear that this article was written with a huge bias for the PS4 and a dislike for the X1.
Joel Hruska
At this point, I believe Sony has more momentum as far as selling consumers on a consistent message. But I'm very pleased with how Microsoft has reacted to consumer desires on the Xbox One.
The Xbox One of today is a much better product than it was at its unveil. I am not certain that the PS4s additional horsepower *will* matter; we've seen cases in the past where more horsepower didn't translate to better or more popular games. How developers leverage these capabilities will be crucial.
If you look at the articles I've written in the past regarding the Xbox One, you'll see that while I roundly criticized certain marketing decisions and artificial limitations, I have been agnostic on the underlying hardware apart from Kinect.The PS4 will assuredly be faster than the Xbox One, but it has never been clear (and is not clear now) that this translates into a slam dunk for Sony.
Wrong the Xbox one will GET CRUSHED by the ps4!!!! And yes the extra horsepower does matter and if you think it doesn't than you're an IDIOT!!!! The Xbox ONE SUCKS ASS!!!! Developers have 50% more power to develop with on the PS4 so a few games will much better on the PS4 than on the Xbone!!! Nah Sony has WON THIS WAR before it even started!!!!! Nah M$ just wants to make $$$$ so they are changing so that they will get more money. They are quite mad about not getting their way and helping PRISM spy on people.
Your ignorance is running at the speed of light. You must be about 16 or 17 years old by the way you speak. If you actually really think extra horsepower matters, then you would obviously go with PC. So refrain yourself from talking like a hypocrite, before people will start passing you the ID-10-T form.
Matthew Bryant
I'll agree that j120 is being an idiot, but your statement that horsepower doesn't matter is absolute nonsense. Yes, it does matter. Obviously horsepower needs to work with ease of development, but the PS4 not only has more horsepower, but is also easier to develop for. There's absolutely no reason why the PS4 shouldn't have better looking games. So YES, it does matter. ji120 is furthering his cause by any means, but the PS4 could very, very, very easily have better looking games than the Xbox One. There's absolutely no logical reason why this won't take place. None whatsoever.
I appreciate that your at least stating your thoughts from an intellectual mind set. However, people can assume, and speculate what they want with their opinions. "Opinions are not FACTS" I was referring to how he was talking about how more horse power does matter, and if that's the case for ji120 should go with PC. PC will obviously have better specs then consoles due to the hardware upgrading every 6 months. You can't obviously change out the hardware on consoles every 6 months, RIGHT??
Stating that the Hardware is better on the PS4 therefore the "Xbox Sucks" comment is complete ignorance. NOBODY here has both consoles side by side to make such an assumption, and neither do you.
Has of right now though, I am going to say that "BOTH" consoles are going to be awesome. Furthermore, I truly believe to my core that the GPU technology implemented on "BOTH" consoles are to advanced to see the difference by the "naked eye". We are not talking about 8 bit, 16 bit, to a noticeable 64 bit graphic system here.
I wish to at least engage in a conversation with people who at least can converse with a open mind and not be a fanboy.
All we can do is speculate, we can argue the technicality of each console but the truth is that it doesn't matter because we don't have the consoles to test them. But for the sake of the argument I will go with the ps4. One reason I can think of why MS went with lower hardware would be to keep the price down, seen how the X1 is 499$( I think the Kinect is to blame for that) have they gone with DDR5 and the Radeon 7870 or similar would increase the price to who knows maybe 599$
Matthew Bryant
You're using a red herring fallacy. You're pretending that since PC of higher end specs will outperform both the XBox One and the PS4 that everyone who is interested in better graphics should always choose a PC. That's an incredibly illogical argument. For one, a PC with higher specs than PS4 is much more expensive. For two, a XBox One with lower specs than the PS4 is more expensive. So why should someone who has no interest in Kinect buy a XBox One over a PS4? That's the question you need to answer in order to have any potential for a logical argument.
The hardware is already known for both consoles. Why are you pretending that since you can't see the hardward side by side the hardware specs are not known? That's a ridiculous argument. We've known the hardware specs for over a year, at E3 they were confirmed (even if you can't understand why they were confirmed). Your argument is based out of ignorance. The PS4 is the stronger console. Get over it. Digital Foundry already confirmed that the PS4 is the stronger console. If you want to pick a fight, feel free to yell at them with all your technical prowess. Of course, you'll be wrong, but that won't stop you from your fanboy ignorant diatribe will it?
The difference will be notable by the naked eye. For reference, feel free to take any higher end PC game and increase the graphics so that they decrease the FPS by 7-15. Tell me honestly that you don't notice the difference and I'll call you a liar. It's noticeable. Very noticeable. Enough said.
You wish to converse with people who aren't more intelligent than you. Sorry, you picked the wrong person.
Eric Wright
I love that most of you spouting high PC prices don't bother to research and cite sources….
Visit newegg.com, buy a prebuilt system with 8GB ram and a decent CPU that uses onboard graphics but has a pcie slot…
Buy a BETTER graphics card than is in either console.
Install.. there you have it…
You could do the same with pricewatch.com
It is EASY to build (swap video cards) a PC that is better than any console for less money than a console costs.
PC will not "obviously" have better specs unless you're talking about spending more money on your PC than on the console.
The console systems have a simple but powerful advantage for the first few years of their being available, and that is a uniform system spec designed specifically for the main task- running games. How developers use that can make all the difference between systems, but that goes without saying for any platform.
Given that the PS4 currently has more "horsepower" than the XB1, it can be reasonably asserted that given the proper use by developers the PS4 will definitely have an advantage over XB1, particularly over the long term. That's just on the hardware side.
The subscription system that Microsoft pushed successfully on the 360 has restrictions that prevent the access of practically all separately paid for services such as Netflix, etc. No restrictions such as that are in place on the PS3, nor from all that has been gathered from discussions with Sony will such restrictions be placed on the PS4. PlanetSide 2, DCUO, and other F2P titles will not be held behind a paywall on PS4- unlike XB1 which has the same model of access to online content as its predecessor, which is to say that it's all behind the XBL paywall.
And in the games that are made for the systems, I have seen that Microsoft "exclusive" games tend to be available on PC as well as their console, so it makes little sense to have both a PC and an Xbox system. The same can not be said for the Sony exclusives, most (if not all) of those are truly exclusive to their Playstation systems.
Given the evidence to date, PS4 seems to be the safe bet in so far as getting the most value for your money.
Note- this is all aside from the initial message from Microsoft reps that seemed to be all but coming out and saying that we the consumers are, in their perception, their bitches to use as they please. "Restrictions are good for you. You don't need the right to own what you buy and resell it(physical copies on disc). You want to pay more. You want to be required to check in online to play your games. And if not, you can always buy our older system the Xbox 360. Because if you don't move onto our new system, then you definitely should buy our older shit rather than a competing product."
PC will not "obviously" have better specs unless you're talking about spending more money on your PC than on the console.
The console systems have a simple but powerful advantage for the first few years of their being available, and that is a uniform system spec designed specifically for the main task- running games. How developers use that can make all the difference between systems, but that goes without saying for any platform.
Given that the PS4 currently has more "horsepower" than the XB1, it can be reasonably asserted that given the proper use by developers the PS4 will definitely have an advantage over XB1, particularly over the long term. That's just on the hardware side.
The subscription system that Microsoft pushed successfully on the 360 has restrictions that prevent the access of practically all separately paid for services such as Netflix, etc. No restrictions such as that are in place on the PS3, nor from all that has been gathered from discussions with Sony will such restrictions be placed on the PS4. PlanetSide 2, DCUO, and other F2P titles will not be held behind a paywall on PS4- unlike XB1 which has the same model of access to online content as its predecessor, which is to say that it's all behind the XBL paywall.
And in the games that are made for the systems, I have seen that Microsoft "exclusive" games tend to be available on PC as well as their console, so it makes little sense to have both a PC and an Xbox system. The same can not be said for the Sony exclusives, most (if not all) of those are truly exclusive to their Playstation systems.
Given the evidence to date, PS4 seems to be the safe bet in so far as getting the most value for your money.
Note- this is all aside from the initial message from Microsoft reps that seemed to be all but coming out and saying that we the consumers are, in their perception, their bitches to use as they please. "Restrictions are good for you. You don't need the right to own what you buy and resell it(physical copies on disc). You want to pay more. You want to be required to check in online to play your games. And if not, you can always buy our older system the Xbox 360. Because if you don't move onto our new system, then you definitely should buy our older shit rather than a competing product."
Eric Wright
How about you go read reviews on more than one site..
Specifically read about AMD GPUs…
More cores in ANY family of graphics card they make DOES mean better quality.
PS4 has 50% more cores.
That means when the XBone is maxed out for quality, the PS4 would only be at 66% to match it….
Do you not get basic math?
Reviews will show 50% more cores do not ever yield 50% better performance… But it is NEVER worse.
We can expect 25-30% better performance, or put another way, better quality textures at the same frame rates as XBone…
The FACT is, in the same graphics core technology, more cores will always win.
There is your FACT.
Have a nice day.
I will still buy both consoles for exclusives…
I am sure there are a lot of people here who will also have both for the same reason.
Eric Wright
You're right there, Mathew…
The extra horsepower may not be seen in early games, but within a year or so there will be games released with more use of that extra power.
Either that or it will allow them to shift heat around by switching to cooler cores when graphics demand has heated other cores.
M$ will have no such possibility…
For those who think fancy graphics aren't everything, that is true, but it helps.
Back to Extra HP being used: Look at the Uncharted Franchise… The progression of graphics detail is absolutely noticeable and increases playability of the newer episodes.
This isn't the only one, but it's a good representative for what the PS3 was able to do over time with their graphics engine.
The same should hold true for the PS4: It makes little sense to release a game early on that maxes out the console, and sets the bar higher for ALL other titles on their own platform. Starting out decent, and then increasing quality of titles over time will make more financial sense.
Mathew: RE: easier to develop for PS4? I don't think I can agree with that one little statement… M$ has one hell of a good IDE for creating games… I think it remains to be seen, and that said – we will be able to count games available on launch day, and in the first 6 months to determine who's is easier to design for or program.
As to the rest after that, yeah, 100% agreed there, the PS4 has a very real ability to lay down better or more detailed graphics than the XBOX1, but there's always the chance that MS will substitute an even better GPU at a later date in an XBOX1.1 updated model, fully backward compatible, but with even more cores than the PS4 has…
Let the console wars commence!
Matthew Bryant
PS4 is easier to develop for due to the lack of eSRAM. Granted Microsoft apparently made tiling much easier in DirectX 11.2, but it's still an extra step for a minimal gain. While the cache is nice, developers don't like eSRAM. In fact, that's one of the main reasons Sony didn't put a cache of eDRAM in the console. Developers wanted completely unified memory. GDDR5 also makes graphics operations like LOD and reflections much easier for the PS4 than the XBox One. Since bandwidth is a legitimate problem on the XBox One forcing developers to play an interesting balancing act to keep textures as high resolution as possible, on the PS4 developers can stream textures like they're going out of style. There's no reason why textures on the PS4 can't look as good as they do on the PC.
Console manufacturers have yet to change a console in any way that alters graphic potential. Making newer games unplayable on older XBox Ones is a great way to commit suicide as a console manufacturer. Sure they could come out with something like Sega CD or Sega Saturn, but those performed terribly and saw the beginning of the end for Sega. What you see is almost definitely what you'll get with the XBox One.
Besides, multiple developers came out and stated that Sony was considerably farther along in their development environment than Microsoft. Granted that could change, but Mark Cerny is doing incredibly well with the PS4 so far. I think they surprised Microsoft by coming out swinging this time around, and Microsoft is still working on getting back up off the ground.
joseph slemp
"PS4 is easier to develop for due to the lack of eSRAM. Granted
Microsoft apparently made tiling much easier in DirectX 11.2, but it's
still an extra step for a minimal gain. While the cache is nice,
developers don't like eSRAM."
Only time will tell whether eSRAM will complicate things or not. It depends on what sort of tools which Microsoft provides the studios to develop with. Basically, you're blowing smoke right now. It's enough to acknowledge that the PS4 has more raw ponies under the hood. What happens after that is up to how well developers can leverage the respective platforms.
Matthew Bryant
Blowing smoke? There's no question about it. Unified memory is easier to develop for than split memory. Cache memory that isn't automated in particular (like the cell processors cache for instance) can be a considerable headache for developers. Many developers complained about eDRAM on the XBox 360, many refusing to even use it at first or lowering the native resolution of the entire game in order to take advantage of it. It wasn't until tiling became common practice that it was widely accepted, and even then developers weren't exactly happy about jumping through hoops to use it.
Granted it was less of an issue than the cell processor (which was a nightmare for a while after launch), but this is a different generation. Using eSRAM is something that developers specifically requested not be in the PS4. Mark Cerny spoke about it during his Road to the PS4 (or whatever it was called, something like that) conference. They were contemplating putting in a small amount of very high bandwidth eDRAM and going with DDR3, but developers specifically asked for GDDR5 and no eDRAM. Besides, there's no logical way that unified RAM would be harder to code for than RAM which is split between a main memory pool and a cache.
Automated caches are one thing, and extremely useful in order to minimize redundancy of instructions. As far as I know the eSRAM isn't automated. DirectX 11.2 may make it easier to use, but it's still an extra step for developers that they don't have to worry about on the PS4. Besides, there's less optimization needed with GDDR5. Texture size will hardly be an issue with that much bandwidth. The same is not true of the XBox One.
Eric Wright
Good post, Mathew.
I think the 32MB limit will bite Microsoft in the end…
Only allowing access to 32MB at a time means they can't load all of the textures in a level in one movement… Which lowers their throughput to the larger, but slower, DDR speeds.
Meanwhile, the PS4 will be able to load all the textures at once, in a continuous stream of data, without extra copy maneuvers into a separate memory window.
I really want to see how load times are in common titles on both consoles… That will be a good laugh.
Unfortunately for me, there are a few X only titles I will want to play too. Guess I will have to suffer through slow level loading.
Eric Wright
Good post, Mathew.
I think the 32MB limit will bite Microsoft in the end…
Only allowing access to 32MB at a time means they can't load all of the textures in a level in one movement… Which lowers their throughput to the larger, but slower, DDR speeds.
Meanwhile, the PS4 will be able to load all the textures at once, in a continuous stream of data, without extra copy maneuvers into a separate memory window.
I really want to see how load times are in common titles on both consoles… That will be a good laugh.
Unfortunately for me, there are a few X only titles I will want to play too. Guess I will have to suffer through slow level loading.
Eric Wright
Esram is only a small (32MB) part of the picture here.
Once it has delivered it's payload, it has to refresh from a slower source… That will suck for programming.
There is no substitute for GPU memory bandwidth, and the PS4 has .51TFlops/s more than the XB1.
It also has 1152 shaders, vs. the XB1's mere 768 shaders.
As a few have stated above, we do know how GCN architecture scales with shader cores… Because they are already in gaming PC's and have been thoroughly benchmarked.
Remember, there is no trick that will magically refresh new data into XB1 ESRAM after it's initial full speed burst…
Sony will be able to compensate for higher latency GDDR5 RAM by preloading data, and possibly offloading some short instructions to some of the extra GPU cores…
Microsoft's XB1 will have to juggle a lot of data in and out of it's sliwer DDR memory… Too bad for them.
joseph slemp
Lol, it took PS3 developer's how many years to properly leverage the Cell + GPU architecture. That whole platform is an example of what not to do from engineering/manufacturing POV. The PS4's known architecture is a blatant acknowledgement that such was the case. They wanted a more common architecture because it would be easier to code for. That's all.
-.- Except the PS3 had a pathetic GPU compared to the Xbox360…
Better cpu weaker gfx. And Sony kept more cores for its OS than it let devs use. This is not the case this time around. Same cpu stronger gpu.
Better memory arch. Microsoft is trying to make up with the gpu having to use ddr3 by giving it a ESRAM cache.
A cheap more complicated alternative. 32MB of Fast ram ( a touch faster than the GDDR5 use as main system ram in the PS4,192GB/s vs 176GB/s ) …
I just don't see it being enough to make up the gap.
The ps3 paid for having a more complicated arch last time around.
That said… the Xbox360 also used a EDRAM cache (10MB) main memory 512MB.
Architecturally the PS4 has the clear win… Ease of game dev it appears to as well… only time will tell.
Eric Wright
How can the superior x360 not render AC3 without jagged lines when the PS3 can?
Why does the superior x360 stutter in high action scenes in the same game?
When my first PS3 finally cooked from insufficient cooling, I bought a new x360 to play AC3…. Boy, was I disappointed.
I also played Dragon Age, same kind of problem…
I traded my old PS3 and month old X360 for a new PS3 Super Slim, and I have been happy ever since.
I will buy both consoles next month, and be prepared for the difference in them…
I am fully prepared to sell the XB1 as soon as I complete Fable and maybe one or two other games.
Eric Wright
When I played Uncharted 3 and Assassin's Creed 3, I had to laugh at the x360's so-called better graphics…
Talk about jagged lines!
The PS3 didn't have that problem in AC3….
So much for x360 having had superior graphics…
They will lose again, only this time the architectures are similar enough to compare before release because standard PC parts were used in both consoles, and those parts have been benchmarked in the PC world.
Shane Hort
Yawn, heard this same story last console war, which ended up 360 was way better anyway
I don't know I have seen kids that age acting more mature than he/she/it. Try 10yr
No You're the IDIOT Not me. Yes the extra horsepower does matter you stupid twit!!!!!
Extra power matters when you get it at a cost effective price. Bringing PC into it is silly. Diminishing returns. If one product is cheaper and more powerful, I'm afraid the market will vote with its wallet. Democracy in action. PS4 looks well placed to me.
Eric Wright
The PC is good to bring to this comparison, because the PC has had a chance to use equivalent AMD GCN architectures for benchmarks, which shows us conclusively that the PS4 will pound the X1 into the sand….
Things would be different if PC benchmarks showed little advantage to having 50% more sharers…
That is not what they show… They show a huge difference.
Since both M$ and $ony are using mostly stock PC CPU's and GPU's we can be sure performance will be close to PC equivalents.
This means even if the PS4 is one or two percent less efficient, and somehow the X1 is one or two percent more efficient than a PC, Sony still wins by over 18%….
We can extrapolate based on known performance of GCN based video cards in AMD based PC computers…
There is no mystery.
Eric Wright
I was actually thinking about 14…
As far as going with a PC… many console games are exclusives these days.
That means a PC won't be an option for several years (when they are finally powerful enough for emulation)
Both consoles have some good games slated for launch day and in the near future, but the extra power of the PS4 is more than just a few percent… it's half again as many shaders, and 150% more bandwidth between main memory and the GPU….
Mathew Bryant, below, is quite right… the extra power will be meaningful…
That said, I will have both systems, as will most people in here.
The only real issue now is those who are deluded into believing these systems are closer in specs than they really are.
Sony spent wisely going for a better GPU and RAM…
I only hope their cooling was better designed this time.
I work 5 days a week, about 10 hours a day…
Weekends come and I want to be able to play 8 hours or more straight without my console burning up….
I see MS learned and made a VCR sized console to insure better airflow…
We'll see which works best..
I am pretty impressed with the PS3 super slim I have now..
IT is much cooler than my PS3 Slim was after 5 or 6 hours playing.
Case size may not be everything…
Matthew Bryant
Look. I'm a Sony fanboy too, but you're an example of why fanboys are annoying. Seriously. If you want to provide a logical reason why the PS4 is better, like I do and other intelligent fanboys, please do so. Otherwise, stop posting fanboy bullshit. It is true that the PS4 is more powerful, but you just repeat any crap you hear. It's seriously annoying. Just stop talking.
I am no Fanboi you Moron!!! How you stop talking you lame Brain!!!! Nope not happening Pest!!!!!
Mason Rieber
Youre stupid i wish we could all vote to delte your comment. Like a billion others have said just because they had the "50% increase" it doesnt actually mean 50% more power…. and i totally forgot sony is a welfare company that apparently wants to not make any money and give everything for free??? stupid for even brining up the "M$ just wants to make $$$"… theyre successful unlike sony… sony is almost at a 50% chance of going bankrupt in the next couple years, microsoft sits at 2%. So annoying what kids say about ms and the spying…. we've been spied on for years and years has nothing to do with kinect
No it means that PS4 can have better graphics than the Xbone because the hardware is there to support it. No you're Wrong like AMD M$ is on its death bed!!!! Both companies are going to be history soon!!!! Sure The Xbox 360 was on top for the last generation but this generation M$ will fail to grab even 3rd place before the Wii U.
Eric Wright
I'd be willing to bet the only reason people think the 360 was on top is because of sales to satisfy teen and preteen "needs" to play the next version of their favorite games…. not because of any superior hardware.
Having played Assassins Creed games on both consoles, I traded in my 360 when I saw the difference between AC3 on the two consoles… I ended up getting a new PS3 Super Slim, and I do not regret it one bit. (more full HD titles, not upscaled garbage like AC3 on the 360)
I am sure I will get the PS4 after it's had a year to see how it will handle heat issues. If there's no signs of overheating, then I will go buy one… (same goes for the XB1, if it is more reliable and reasonably the same quality)
At this point I am guessing, but I doubt the XB1 will ramp up video quality after the initial games, but we will see.
The other guess is the Sony team will take time to get used to the hardware switch, and will smartly increase quality as they learn the architecture… except they won't be releasing games with as many bugs as the M$ camp will…
jl120: Sorry, doubting, the Wii U is not likely to beat the XB1….
Many who had the Wii before it will realize how childish most of the games are, and will move on to real consoles that have superior controllers with FAR less lag than the Wii type controllers. (Wii controllers were made with very small hands in mind for a reason, and with less possible buttons)
I think MANY young gamers will want the new consoles from M$ and Sony… Even my 10YO daughter has seen the difference between her console and mine, and wants her own PS3/4…
She completed Uncharted 3 in about 11.5 hours, which isn't too bad at all…
Enough said on this matter, until I have actually handled both systems…
Shane Hort
How easy you forget this same scenario with the last consoles. Ps3 had way more "power" than the 360. Difference is Microsoft knows how to get more from their designs and hardware. The 50% power difference is based SOLELY on the bandwidth speed from gpu. But xbone design also has a turbo, esram and will allow developers more ram from the 8gb available. Will be interesting, I believe xbone wins again cause they make better games
Esram is nothing but a big fat joke!!!! No this time the Xbone doesn't has few good games while the PS4 has a whole bunch. The Xbone will hog power like no tomorrow!!!!
Eric Wright
notn this time…
pretty sure COD Ghosts is a prime example of what we can expect from the Redmond guys…
720p native on XB1
1080p native on PS4
it is a fact, apparently.. read it and weep if you are an XBOX fanboi..
Yep and its a sad day for M$ Fanboi's everywhere!!!! PS4 IS SUPERIOR to Xbone!!!!
M$ $ony
PS4 has 42.6% theoretically more power or shaders I guess and around 33% more Tflops than the xbox one. A little faster memory and that is about it.
Eric Wright
It's exactly 50% more.
1152 shaders for $ony, 768 for Micro$haft.
$ony sports 510GFlops more GPU memory bandwidth, despite M$'s ESRAM, because with only 32MB of ESRAM the X1 can't keep feeding from ESRAM at full speed…. The ESRAM has to be refreshed from a slower source of data, limiting it to 32MB bursts, followed by refreshes that are slower than the GDDR5 latency penalty in the PS4….
X1 already lost .. it will play, but they will have to accept being second best in technical graphics ability. They will have to rely on creating games with more compelling storylines vs. Eye candy…
Not sure where you got your TFlop/s percent at…
At least you were in the right direction. :-)
Not sure why Microsoft went with only 32MB of ESRAM… 256MB might have been enough for most games…
I guess that's all the budget they had left after their new Kinect.
M$ $ony
Give me about a day or so and I will have a thorough explanation for you as to why Microsoft's Xbox One is more powerful than Sony's PS4 and WHY ESRAM is so important to Xbox One and how ESRAM is a game changer and much, much, much more!
I swear to you it was my wife who posted the comment you replied to.
Eric Wright
I look forward to it.
I'd really like to know how the second refresh of a 32MB cache can maintain it's high speed when all possible sources to feed it are much slower (HDD, USB, and even Blue Ray Disc or Cloud Computing over a Network)
I am sure having a burstable ESRAM cache will help the X1, but not enough.
GPU memory bandwidth numbers don't lie… the PS4 can MAINTAIN a higher bandwidth to and from the GPU than the X1 can, by .51 TeraFlops per second, or 510 GigaFlops per second if you prefer…
The numbers are published and agreed upon by console manufacturers and game devs.
But, I welcome your insight.
(No matter who posted, everyone is welcome to their opinions here, and even I might be wrong about things sometimes, too)
If I look at two small 3200Lb cars, and one has a 100HP engine and 5 speed, and the other has a 150HP engine and a 5 speed, and everything else about them is exactly the same, I know which one is more powerful before driving them.
The same is true in consoles when their technology is the same and only there is a vast difference in shader cores and GPU memory bandwidth…
The rest might as well be exactly the same…
Audio will be stellar for both consoles, that is a given.
Both have Blue Ray drives that can read 400GB 16 layer discs..
They both run slightly modified desktop computer operating systems.
Since the DDR3 in the X1 will be less than half as fast as ALL of the memory in the PS4, and the little 32MB high speed cache will not be able to sustain it's rated speed beyond spurts, that tells me all I need to know.
But, I do await your explanation of why ESRAM will save the XBone…
I really really really want to know how that 32MB cache can be refilled as fast as it can be emptied? (writes usually take 2X as long as reads in memory management)
Please do respond!
M$ Spent too much on their Crappy Kinect system. They Should spent it on hardware and making the console more efficient and smaller. Yep M$ has lost and thus they are doomed!!!!
Eric Wright
No need to call the man an IDIOT…
Obviously he isn't.
You are mostly right about PS4, except it doesn't have 50% more power across the board… it's CPU is almost identical to the XB1…
IT's GPU is exactly 50% better in terms of number of shaders, which means about 25-30% in real world gains according to PC based graphics cards based on GCN with the same number of cores….
It's memory can do BULK transfers faster, but GDDR5 has almost 10x the latency (time to respond to a request for data) which hurts in requests for small amounts of data.
I do believe the latency can be programed for, and there's nothing to help a paltry 32MB of high speed cache on the XB1…
I agree, the PS4 is likely to crush the XB1…
It may take a year for developers to push the PS4 that hard though, because they want to sell games on both consoles evenly at first… they don't want to be stuck with 200,000 copies of a game that nobody buys because it looks inferior to the version on the other console….
When you talk exclusive titles, the big win should be PS4, even in the first year… can't ignore the extra details that over 300 extra shaders will bring to the table…
No reason to rip into someone who is just reporting what they have found, and who welcomes your constructive input.
Microsoft may be mad, but it's more about their decision to skimp on shaders and having to overclock their CPU to make their system keep up better with the PS4. ;-)
Yes that is true. And Both have Hardware and Software problems up the wazoo. But it helps with Medium and large data transfers. Correct If M$ didn't skimp on the EDRAM and the GPU they would be SO MUCH better off. M$ is not just mad they are destroying themselves. AMD is also destroying itself with Crappy products that underwhelm and underpeform!!! PS4 does have much more power and it will nice to see what the extra GPU power will bring as far as graphics go.
Eric Wright
Amen, brother…
COD proves it now.
developers say they could not make the XBOX 1 run it at 1080p, except on the PS4!
LOL @ all those who doubted those of us who could see what was about to become common knowledge.. the PC video benchmarks are spot on accurate for predicting x86 and AMD GCN performance levels…
Shane Hort
Yah so strange a large corporation wants to make money… Wow, i bet sonys stockholders would be scared if they are out there not to make money
Shane Hort
Yah so strange a large corporation wants to make money… Wow, i bet sonys stockholders would be scared if they are out there not to make money
Hmmm, John Carmack says the consoles are nearly identical in what they can do. Should I trust the gaming genius' quip on the issue, or this apparently ignorant guy named Joel that writes biased opinions as fact?
The differences are minimal. This 50% nonsense is just that, armchair warrior fodder. Anandtech already showed the difference in shader cores will amount to around 5% visible increase if that.
Now the real differences is Sony's streaming tech vs. Microsoft's server tech. In the next few years, Sony may pull ahead with streaming technology that makes upgrading console hardware along with backwards compatibility moot. I can see a Netflix version of gaming coming from that kind of tech eventually.
On a similar note, Microsoft is using it's server farm to power games. And they are FAR ahead of anyone in the cloud compute server side. This kind of tech could eventually lead to the same thing, no need to upgrade hardware as the server compute side does all the work besides what is on the display.
Its an exciting time, but not for a couple of extra shaders. The tech that will distinguish between the consoles is lightyears beyond those kind of discrepancies.
I wouldn't give it too much thought as for Carmack that guy still lingers in the late 90's gameplay mechanics. Ever sense he step into the hell's portal he hasn't come back.
Joel Hruska
Weak gameplay design is not the same thing as weak graphics engineering. You can be a brilliant engineer and a lousy car driver — or a brilliant driver and a terrible engineer. :P
And for all of that we are still looking for the red key
Matthew Bryant
Agreed. Carmack is a legend, but ID is hardly as respected as say Naughty Dog, Bungie, Epic, etc. ID still makes pretty games, but Rage was almost worse than Bethesda games in terms of glitches, and no where near as large of a scale. Until he actually develops something that sets him apart, he's still running on the fumes from Doom 3. I have no idea why people give him so much credit. Babe Ruth was awesome, but there are better baseball players now (steroids might have something to do with it, but still). He's trying to be relevant again, but he's not putting out the same quality he used to.
Joel Hruska
You know, it's funny you bring up the cloud compute side of things. I really wish Microsoft would do a top-to-bottom demonstration of that technology. It could've been the brilliant unveil that stole the show for Xbox One in May or at E3 this summer.
They haven't. I don't think it's ready. And in a 5-6 year cycle, that's fine. There's a reason I think leveraging HSA for gaming will take more time, even if Sony has baked in capabilities that Microsoft lacks.
As for the increase in shader power being a guaranteed win, I've said it isn't, at multiple points. From my article on the PS4's cost:
"The PS3 was technologically impressive. It could do things that the Xbox simply couldn't do. A lot of those things ended up being poor investments in the long run. Cell was too difficult to program, and Sony killed the supercomputing initiative itself."
From my article on the PS4's internal architcture: "The PS3 tried a similar strategy and failed miserably. But this time around, Sony may have picked better targets for its optimizations. It looks as though the PS4 will have specific capabilities that go beyond simply having more graphics cores or a faster CPU — and that **could** give it the advantage, this time around."
Emphasis added, to underlay the point.
The PS3 was, in many ways, more technologically impressive than the Xbox 360, and all that got Sony was a huge series of losses. The PS4 may have made better bets in this regard. It may not.
I have acknowledged that, repeatedly, in multiple stories.
Matthew Bryant
Comparing the PS3 to the PS4 shows just how ignorant you are on the topic. Sorry, but it's the truth. It's not that the PS4 "may have made better bets in this regard", it's a simple fact. The PS4 is incredibly easy to develop for from a PC perspective. Even easier than the XBox One. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. It doesn't have ESRAM that's notoriously annoying to tile for. It's possible that DirectX 11.2 makes this a non-issue, but ESRAM it's still a horrible attempt to patch the incredibly slow bandwidth of DDR3. It will be useless for everything but processes done on full images like MSAA. I just don't see the point… and tiling is still necessary, which developers hated on the 360.
Eric Wright
We are not talking untried hardware for either console this time…
We are not talking GPU's within 5% of each other.
This is like comparing a WII's graphics to an Xbox 360.
It's not like the GCN based GPU's are not exactly the same as those in video cards already in desktop PC's… Which have been benchmarked in games already.
We know the TFlop/s GPU memory bandwidth, and from the PC world we know how that impacts games.
Joel: re:As for the increase in shader power being a guaranteed win, I've said it isn't, at multiple points. From my article on the PS4's cost:….
Please show some numbers where an AMD GPU based on GCN that has 50% more cores than another model, also GCN, does not beat it hands down, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a huge lead….
So far nobody has.
Everyone pretends somehow these consoles are so different from a PC that using PC based GCN chips will skew the numbers in favor of the GPU with over 700 fewer shaders.
I don't even think so.
Gone are difficult issues imposed by cell and emotion engine..
These are like two PC's built with the same CPU, and only different RAM and GPU … and we know which one has a great deal more shaders and memory bandwidth…
So, this time, if you respond, can you point to a low difference pair if GCN based benchmarks where one has 50% more cores?
Dodging that point only shies away from the truth, and indicates someone living in denial.
Hell, the X1 is so PC like that it even runs DirectX… And likely Windows embedded…. (win8 embedded?)
That would pretty much mean a variant of Linux for Sony, which explains why they'd go with a PC based architecture.
I look forward to a response that covers why a custom motherboard and GDDR5 RAM somehow makes a PS4 not comparable to a PC, including benchmark validity.
Similarly, the X1 is a PC with a 32MB ESRAM cache for the video card.
Yes, both have DRM, and some proprietary interfaces… Nothing that can't be duplicated on a PC, ala a Steam OS.
Just because the desktop is hidden, doesn't mean it isn't there.
I'll be honest, this is the first article of yours I've read.
It just seemed very out of touch with reality with the title and hUMA tech nobody seems to have heard about. And the bit at the end was a little discouraging (the AMD's official response).
Also it seems premature to use this tech in a PS4 vs X1 view, when we don't know if X1 uses the same tech or not.
Joel Hruska
If you haven't read about hUMA, this was the initial unveil: http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/154547-amds-next-gen-apu-unifies-cpugpu-memory-should-appear-in-kaveri-xbox-720-ps4
Here's what I can tell you: Mark Czerny has made statements about the PS4 that point to an extremely high degree of similarity between what that console can do and what HSA/hUMA does. That doesn't mean Sony will actually call the PS4 an HSA-compatible device. The use-cases he's outlined have pointed more towards compute functionality, for example, rather than frame rates or texturing (though you could use hUMA and HSA to make physics processing faster).
Microsoft's console will definitely have some of the characteristics that define HSA. It has cache coherence between CPU and GPU, for example, because *all* AMD APUs have offered that since 2011. What makes hUMA / HSA shine is the way the technology is expected to simplify GPU-CPU data sharing and workload execution.
Microsoft *could* have the exact some feature set as Sony, right down to the last degree — but they have not been as specific about the capabilities of their hardware, and the leaks in question have not illustrated the same function blocks. The Radeon GPU inside the Xbox is supposedly derived from the 7790 that AMD launched earlier this spring and is a pretty standard Radeon.
The Sony chip has four asynchronous compute engine blocks (ACE's), where a normal GCN has just two. That's the sort of compute capability you beef up if you want to improve CPU-GPU cross computing.
Even if these leaks are true, will the PS4's capabilities be leveraged in this fashion? That's just not clear. The Cell Broadband Engine really *was* a much more powerful CPU than the Xenon inside the Xbox 360, but it was esoteric and difficult to program. Very few game developers spent the time to wring maximum performance out of the chip, and since the Xbox 360's GPU was better than the PS3's, a lot of work went into finding ways to use the PS3's better CPU to offset the weaker GPU.
That's why I went to the trouble of bringing Carmack into the conversation. While it's possible that he was speaking more towards the historical context of the two consoles, it's also possible that, at least right now, games are going to look pretty much identical on both.
"That's why I went to the trouble of bringing Carmack into the
conversation. While it's possible that he was speaking more towards the
historical context of the two consoles, it's also possible that, at
least right now, games are going to look pretty much identical on both."
Well see, thats been my take on the whole thing from the beginning, And also why I feel like the title is more of a flame bait than anything.
I feel like the inner specs of both consoles are an unknown for the time being, and the future really rest in tech outside the box, which both MS and Sony seem to be ramping up quite rapidly.
Dexter Rivens
They have when tracking the stars and in that test it was very clear that the cloud + the system were exponentially more powerfull together. BUT the concept was using it effectively rather than sparingly or as a baseline test. In Skyrim if the cloud were to power the sky, ground and landscape that frees up a lot of processing to fighting and lighting effects/sounds for real time actions or combat.
Dexter Rivens
They have when tracking the stars and in that test it was very clear that the cloud + the system were exponentially more powerfull together. BUT the concept was using it effectively rather than sparingly or as a baseline test. In Skyrim if the cloud were to power the sky, ground and landscape that frees up a lot of processing to fighting and lighting effects/sounds for real time actions or combat.
Apart the actual consoles, Carmack isn't a valid source. He have long history with MS and I guess his words represents his personal thoughts more emotional than technical.
joseph slemp
Carmack isn't a valid source? LOL
Matthew Bryant
Carmack is obviously a valid source. I wouldn't put him forward as an expert anymore personally, but he's definitely innovated the industry in many ways and he does some great graphical engine work. It'd be nice if his latest attempts were so glitchy, and Rage was hardly an amazing game, but he's definitely a valid source. Granted I think his comments were mostly misunderstood. Carmack was making an allusion to the similarity of the hardware in both consoles. His fleeting comment on a power comparison come into perspective when you realize he's a PC developer. When he's looking at differences in power they're usually very substantial, from low quality all the way to best quality which is the difference of about $1000 in hardware on impressive games (considerably less if you build your own PC, but it's still substantial).
From his perspective, the power difference is negligible. It exists, but it's hardly anything to lose sleep over. This is true. It's also true that the PS4 does have a good 20-30% more power than the Xbox One. So while this won't change a game from lowest settings to highest settings, it can easily boost graphic quality in key areas that make a very noticeable difference.
Matthew Bryant
Digital Foundry showed a different of around 7-15 FPS. Now, I don't know if you've ever actually owned a gaming PC and seen the difference in graphics that sacrificing 7-15 FPS can make, but as someone who has let me tell you that it's definitely visible. 5% shader cores is nonsense. Based on the hardware specs alone it'll be much more noticeable than 5%. You can do a hardware comparison and easily see the difference. There's youtube videos that easily show the difference with benchmark software. Pretending that the PS4 doesn't have an advantage is just absolute denial.
John Carmack is making a relative statement, and yes he is correct. The hardware is very similar in many ways. He never said they were identical or that one console didn't have an advantage though. It's not the night and day difference between a high end gaming PC and a mid range gaming PC, but it's definitely noticeable and it will make a difference in terms of graphics from several different aspects. The PS4 is a more powerful console. It's not only more powerful, but it's easier to develop for. There's no reason why the PS4 won't look better. None, at all. Sorry, but that's reality.
Also, you might want to look into the NVidia research on cloud computing in terms of graphical assistance. They've already written it off currently, stating that technology hasn't reached the point that it's efficient. Unfortunately internet bandwidth is far less than is required for current graphic cards. Until that changes, Microsoft's pipe dream is just straight nonsense. It won't change this generation. Don't get your hopes up.
Once games hit 60fps, all of that is moot. Your not going to notice the difference between 60fps and 67fps. And did you see the actual game footage of Blackflag on the PS4? It was beta demo, so take with a grain of salt, but it looked worse than the games on the X1. Fact.
Eric Wright
At the same framerate, the PS4's 50% more GPU cores will allow it to have noticeably more rendered detail..
That's not 5% more, which would not be much… It's 50% more cores…
To even think that won't be a big thing is to ignore all video card reviews within any given generation if card…. More cores = more performance.
It really is as simple as that.
The only other thing differentiating the two consoles is the RAM.
Microsoft has low latency, but slow bulk transfers.
Sony has higher latency, but bulk transfers will be about 3x faster..
Given the size of texture maps in modern games, Sony looks to have a huge advantage with GDDR5 and a GPU with 50% more cores to deal with all of those massive textures…
Tech: did you see it live, or was it a recorded movie compressed with a poor codec? Bet it was the latter.
Developers seem to mostly agree, the PS4 will be the more powerful console. Creativity and artistry will determine which games look and feel better, and a compelling storyline will determine how many people wish to play them..
As far as graphics and sound quality combined, it is clear the PS4 is the winner. There is no graphics card that had 50% more cores that does not beat the lower specs card.. end of story.
Anything else is pure denial.
It works for Nvidia and AMD, just not against each other… Within each company's products, 50% more cores always wins.
Eric Wright
At the same framerate, the PS4's 50% more GPU cores will allow it to have noticeably more rendered detail..
That's not 5% more, which would not be much… It's 50% more cores…
To even think that won't be a big thing is to ignore all video card reviews within any given generation if card…. More cores = more performance.
It really is as simple as that.
The only other thing differentiating the two consoles is the RAM.
Microsoft has low latency, but slow bulk transfers.
Sony has higher latency, but bulk transfers will be about 3x faster..
Given the size of texture maps in modern games, Sony looks to have a huge advantage with GDDR5 and a GPU with 50% more cores to deal with all of those massive textures…
Tech: did you see it live, or was it a recorded movie compressed with a poor codec? Bet it was the latter.
Developers seem to mostly agree, the PS4 will be the more powerful console. Creativity and artistry will determine which games look and feel better, and a compelling storyline will determine how many people wish to play them..
As far as graphics and sound quality combined, it is clear the PS4 is the winner. There is no graphics card that had 50% more cores that does not beat the lower specs card.. end of story.
Anything else is pure denial.
It works for Nvidia and AMD, just not against each other… Within each company's products, 50% more cores always wins.
Joel Hruska
Did you miss the part where I expressed a great deal of respect for Carmack? :P
Joel Hruska
Did you miss the part where I expressed a great deal of respect for Carmack? :P
Whiskey Rye Bread
The same person you quoted, aka John Carmack says your cloud computing is bullshit…. So, uhhh ohh?
nope, he didn't. That would be you, and every other sony fanboi spouting that rubbish.
John said it's a technology that will take time.
Eric Wright
And then your DSL or cable goes out and you are forced out of the game, and even most of the better games on the XBone…
You mean you believe everything Anandtech writes is infallible?
I will believe there will be more than a 5% difference when all is said and done.. (when they are for sale and several games are out for both) Can't even guess how much more, but I am certain the specs will yield a difference more in line with PC's using the same number of cores or shaders….
We'll see….
I can already hardly wait for AC5…. should be staggeringly more realistic than the previous generations.
Uh.. you don't have to be online for x1 – miss the memo?
I would believe anything a company that devotes its entire reporting investigation into the workings of GPU's than what a bunch of armchair warriors on a biased thread have to say lol.
But you believe what you want to believe.
Eric Wright
How are you going to cloud compute without being online?
News agencies have gotten the story wrong before… doesn't matter which one, it's bit all of them…
As far as believing ANYTHING a company reports, well, that's just unfortunate… I prefer to get a wider sampling, and then weigh the differences to determine the most likely truth… and you can believe that!
(As far as devoting their ENTIRE reporting investigation into the workings… I'd bet it was just one person from a staff of over a dozen, if it were more reporters we'd see more than one name on the article for sure)
Those armchair warriors actually have an active interest in the devices in question, and have likely consulted many sources, not just this one here, and have deduced the truth… (Some of them are just nutz like myself, well informed nutz)
There was no memo… and you didn't get one either…
There have been press releases and leaks (whether engineered leaks or accidental matters little)…
Are you serious? You think X1 still is Online Required? You really are out of the current next gen console loop aren't you. lol
Do some research. It's on MS own X1 website bro.
Also, yes, the words of John Carmack, Forza Devs and Titanfall devs speak truth over any armchair warrior or 'anonymous source'. FACT.
Eric Wright
Did you read all of my post?
I never said ALL GAMES for XB1 would need a connection…
I was pointing out the laughable gains one could see using cloud computing in a game environment where 16.6ms is a displayed video frame… by the time any computing was done and the packet returned it would be too late for anything video related.. (weather or Enemy AI are a different matter)
MS has been pushing their cloud compute as a miracle assist to their underpowered console vs the PS4.
The only thing they have going for them is 100% adoption of their camera bar… (that will mean programmers KNOW that everyone has one, and will be more likely to program for it)
That doesn't change their use of inferior low speed memory vs. the PS4's much faster memory.
There will be games that don't use cloud computing, and those will be nice as long as the developers don't require an always on connection for single player…. (Some will force such a connection, and others won't)
I'd be willing to bet the PS4 will have less games that are forced to have connections for single player though…
Let's wait and see….
However you missed the point, and it was covered in the article, that the PS4 is a superior design, games aside….
True, some will buy the xbone just to play the next in a series of M$ EXCLUSIVE titles… and that's their right. If AC5 were XBone only, I'd get one because I like the Assassin's Creed mechanics and characters…
Thankfully, when it comes out, it's likely it will look better on the PS4 because of superior GPU and RAM… and it will probably be more fluid, but we'll see when the day comes for AC5… I'm just happy AC4 comes out so soon, and for both PS3 and PS4..
What has John Carmack contributed to hardware, ever? (nothing)
How about Forza and Titanfall Devs? (nothing)
They write software, they don't make hardware. (Not on a level with a console manufacturer)
Many of us armchair warriors have actually disassembled our consoles and know a whole lot more about them.
Most of these devs are just a face for their company, not necessarily up to date on all aspects of any console or pending console… and while some may program, that's no guaranty they know everything about their console they program for. Proof is in PS3 games which evolved as programmers learned how to use all of the power provided, especially take a look at the generations of Uncharted 1, 2, and 3…. Each succeeding episode was more impressive than the previous one, because they took time to learn and execute what they learned.
To a lesser degree the same is true of X360 games over it's lifespan…
This early on, there is no programmer who knows every command and register available in either pending console.
Also, read the other ET articles, after this one, and you will see it is a known FACT that the PS4 will be about 30% faster overall because of ALL of it's better specs added together…
PS4 WILL pound the XBone into the dust…. probably sooner than eventually.
"PS4 WILL pound the XBone into the dust…. probably sooner than eventually."
John Carmack: "It's interesting, Its almost amazing how close they are in capabilities, how common they are, how the capabilities they give are essentially the same… it's almost wierd how close they are"
Let's see who's word should I take for it, armchair warrior#1 or game dev genius John Carmack…
You really haven't done your research have you? X1 has higher RAM bandwidth than PS4, and a bigger bus pipeline. GPU isn't the end all be all of the next gen bro. If it was, gaming PC's would be on top – and according to steam the majority of PC gamers have LESS power than a Wii U, regardless of having more powerful GPU's in their systems.
Eric Wright
tech, are you still stuck on that OLD article?
You keep referring back to an outdated comment….
The one on this page is from August…. OLD!
Check this NEWER one… : http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/166649-ps4-is-50-faster-than-xbox-one-report-game-developers
Do a little research and you'll see I was right all along, as well as these so called armchair warriors…
Your opinion is still valued, and thank you for your position here.
I'd be bored if it weren't for people who get stuck on an old article and somehow miss the updates in new articles…
With 1.5X the number of GPU cores, and a slightly faster CPU, AND MUCH FASTER RAM, the PS4 WILL pound the XBOne into the sand…. really…
So much for the "experts," who were guessing at best….
Like I said earlier… Instead of reading JUST ONE article on a subject, I scour the internet and glean the truth out of multiple sources, and I continue to look as new data is posted so I don't look like the fool.
Thanks for playing… I'd really love to play some multi-player anything with you some time… It's nice playing with people with differing points of view.
No, really, I mean it… I do enjoy people who see another perspective… they are not boring.
Thanks for pushing me for linking the newer data on the two consoles…
I'd post offsite links, but I prefer not to on ET most of the time… besides you can google it as easily as I can…
Enjoy your new console(s) when it/they are out…
Oh, did you read the ET article on GTA5 on the PS3 and X360?
Unlike the last installment, the PS3 version doesn't lag the 360 this time, and is even nicer in some scenes, by comparison.
Most of the article's video shows cutscenes, so isn't a reliable indicator of in game quality… not like you'd hope to see.
Anyway, hope everyone else has read the newer article about how much faster and better the PS4 is than the upcoming XBOne that has had it's CPU clocked up above initial speeds, just like they also did to the graphics core…. Ooooh 10%!!! LOL
I don't think 10% faster CPU will help when the RAM is still OLD OLD OLD technology… PS4 got it right using GDDR5 at higher clock speeds.
anybody read the ET article about the new VR headset PS4 will be launching? Sounds like a good idea, especially if it can manage eye tracking..
We all have so much to look forward to in these new consoles.
Speed does not make games better, so game quality is still independent of particular console, thanks to other aspects like gameplay or feel…
There's still room for subjective differences to be discussed, but they concern the programming more than a particular console.
I am wondering if there will be another Dragon Age…..
Thankfully, graphics quality or power aside, there are games for both platforms that I enjoy.
Eric, Eric Eric. lol Do you really think a couple comments from 'Anonymous sources' have any credence over John Carmacks quakecon in August?? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uooh0Y9fC_M
Just watch the first 5 minutes.
The link you posted is probably the worst flame fodder and lack of any journalistic approach for an excuse of an article as I've ever seen.
THIS is the newer information, straight from actual engineers mouths. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-the-xbox-one-architects
In essence – X1 has higher RAM bandwidth than PS4's GDDR5, and twice the bus bandwidth.
X1 also has a much more powerful CPU that runs faster than the PS4. Thats why Sony never talks about its CPU.
Anyhow, enjoy the new information from real named sources. :) You don't have to take what 'anonymous top people' say at their word any longer. lol.
Eric Wright
August? Is outdated material really supposed to be more reliable than recent material?
I am not taking this any farther with you.
When the consoles come out you will see who was right, and so will I…
The wait is short.
I am willing to bet the nearly 50% extra cores in the GPU, married to MUCH faster DDR5 memory will make a day and night difference in exclusive titles quality and will also allow the PS4 APU to run cooler than the XBone… I think Sony learned from their past consoles about overheating causing damage… Did Microsoft learn?
Hmm, M$ is overclocking their chip to try to catch up to Sony specs… NOT a good idea… Only time will tell, especially those owners who play their games for hours at a time…
Casual players may not have so many problems related to heat, but when it comes to a quality build, having more and not using all of it is far better than pushing harder, as M$ is doing…
Don't let the PS4fanboi doors hit you on the way out bro.
Point is – there is more to gaming and consoles than a few shader cores.
Thats all.
Eric Wright
I would agree if a FEW shader cores meant a dozen or so…
Try 1152 in the Ps4 to the XBone's mere 768…
Since you aren't very bright, I will help you…
768 x 1.5 (which is 50% more) = 1152…..
Not NEARLY 50% more… a FULL 50% more shaders..
That does not mean it will be FASTER, but it DOES MEAN it will be able to render more complex scenes at the same framerate as the XBone….
As I invite everyone… Both devices use a VERY similar CPU, and related GPU's….
Read reviews of any recent AMD video cards that are in the same family, and run at the same clock speeds, and are different only by their cores, and the one with more cores ALWAYS beats the lower core count card….
Why would any sane person indicate it would be any different in a console made with a PC CPU and a PC GPU only on a custom motherboard?
Sony's done the smart thing and didn't skimp on the GPU…
Microsoft was trying to increase margins…
I will still buy both due to exclusive titles….
But, I can bet you more Sony exclusives will look substantially better than M$ exclusives…
I am not a PS4 fanboy… I happen to understand hardware a bit better than most.
Going back to the CPU's involved, remember that Sony can overclock their CPU just as much as M$ did if they want to…
That is not an option exclusive to M$.
Sony can program preloading in to account for GDDR5 latency…
M$ only has 32MB of fast RAM, so it's kinda stuck without a hardware upgrade…
When people site the memory bandwidth they pretend the rest of the XBone can magically keep up with the 32MB chunk…. sorry, it can't… the regular DDR RAM just doesn't have that kind of speed…
Now, show me a game that uses only 32MB of texture data, and THAT game will load okay on an XBone…
Everything after that buffer will have to come from a slower source…. too bad for M$.
Peak TFLOPS of the GPU's in question:
Sony 1.84TF/s
M$ 1.31TF/s
I already posted somewhere that 50% more cores would not equal 50% better performance… more like 25-50%….
These numbers are available for all of you to see…
If it were only 3-5% I would agree that it's too close to call… but we are talking the difference between an X360 and a WII's graphics…
On games released for both consoles, one will have crippled graphics or the other will run a lot cooler for not using it's full potential.
I have not seen ONE person here show me a GPU review where one with less cores outperforms the one with more cores, with equal RAM and clock speeds….
You know why? In the real world a 50% core advantage is huge.
Benchmarks and real world play agree…. all else being equal, more cores will always either look better or be faster…
I don't need to wait for the actual consoles to know this…. the same core family is already for sale for computers, and the reviews tell me what these consoles will be capable of now.
You can keep pretending 50% cores is a close match, but that has never been true in PC graphics cards, and it won't be true in a new console…
Prove me wrong with reviews showing an equal clocked AMD card with 2/3 the cores of another AMD card in the same family that it beats…
Better, show me one that is almost equal, even close in terms of FPS in all tested games and resolutions…
You can't do that either, so why would you think the same chips being soldered onto a console's motherboard would act any different?
I can't believe anyone would stand by such unsupported self delusion…
These are not untried graphics cores in both consoles… they are well tested and known quantities…
Did anyone find reviews of cards where the lower core count (remember, at least 50% less) has even come close to matching the higher core count card?
I am waiting….
Xtreme Derp
LOL!!!!!!!! Dumb as rocks, delusional, worthless, constantly WRONG microsoft fanboy destroyed!,
Xtreme Derp
LOL!!!!!!!! Dumb as rocks, delusional, worthless, constantly WRONG microsoft fanboy destroyed!
Xtreme Derp
LOL!!!!!!!! Dumb as rocks, delusional, worthless, constantly WRONG microsoft fanboy destroyed!
Matthew Bryant
Since tapping into the added horsepower of the PS4 is ridiculously easy, I can't imagine how it wouldn't matter. Yes, the PS3 was more powerful and it didn't translate into better looking multi-platform games. Of course, the tables are turned next generation. The PS4 has the console that's easier to develop for due to the lack of ESRAM, and the XBox One is more difficult to develop for. It's not the night and day different of this generation, but it doesn't have to be. The PS4 is not only easier to develop for, but it's also the more powerful console. There is absolutely NO REASON why games on the PS4 won't look better. So the argument that in the past it hasn't matter that the PS3 was more powerful is nonsense.
The original XBox was more powerful than the PS2 and easier to develop for and guess what? Games looked better on the original XBox. That doesn't mean the PS4 will sell better, but games will look better. Believing otherwise is absolute denial. Of course, given the current market trend there's every reason to believe the PS4 will mop the floor with the Xbox One. Fanboys aside, Sony is in a WAY better position right now. Arguing otherwise is just nonsense.
Mason Rieber
STOP THIS RUMOR PLEASE the ps3 was shit to develop for compared to the 360 and it isnt going to change…. neither system is hard to develop for so idk why you kids keep bringing this up. On a game development stand point there is no difference between the two other than any multiplatform game HAS to run on the lowest graphics of the two systems meaning there wont be any difference between the two and the xbox one has better exclusives
Matthew Bryant
Multiplatform games do not have to meet lowest common denominator. In fact, it's ridiculously easy to scale games now that the only difference is the graphic DLL. All of that is pushed off into separate objects anyway. They simply replace function calls and optimize arguments between DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL, put in some eSRAM calls on the XBox One, increase texture resolution on the PS4, and call it a day. There's not a lot more that needs to happen. It's likely there's some changes for efficiency between the differences in GPU and CPU of the consoles (especially since developers will have much more access to lower level functions of both next generation), but porting will be considerably easier now.
Eric Wright
Mason: Go play AC3 on both a 360 and a PS3 in HD, then come back when you realize you know nothing about multi-platform game differences…
Look at the differences in Skyrim packs…
Duh…. they are not made to the lowest common denominator…
Do you even own both systems to be able to compare?
Overall, the PS3 games are all higher resolution… since scaling up does not count… (and that's how the 360 plays AC3 – and the jaggies suck because of it… which is why I sold my 360)
Do a little research…
Matthew, you are speaking like a true fanboi.
Seriously. Carmack said "what the consoles can acheive is nearly identical"
And Sony fanbois keep regurgitation the opposite. "PS4 is SO much more powerful!!!!!11″
Honestly. Nobody is listening to armchair warriors spouting that rubbish any more. We've seen the X1 and PS4 launch games in action now. And guess what? They look pretty much the same, with design factor going to the X1 for now for better looking games. And thats about it.
In 5 years? I'm sure Naughty Dog and Quantic Dream will have their day. And so will Halo and Gears equivalents.
But multiplatforms are going to be on par. Mark my words. Framerates will likely be better on X1 due to better server technology as well.
Matthew Bryant
Carmack isn't the only developer and others, most who have touched on the subject, have stated that the PS4 does have a noticeable advantage when it comes to graphics. Besides, why are we pretending that the GPUs have even performance when benchmarks show that's not true? The PS4 is more powerful. Just admit it and move on. Carmack never said the two machines were evenly matched in power, he said they were similar in many aspects. They are similar in many aspects. That doesn't mean the PS4 doesn't have more powerful hardware. It does. Reality exists.
Go yell at the people who do the benchmark tests. Digital Foundry even did one recently. The PS4 has a 15-25% advantage in terms of FPS. That can easily be turned into a considerable difference in graphics. The difference won't be mindblowing, but you'll definitely notice. It's the difference between low quality reflections and shadows to best quality reflections and shadows. It's quite noticeable. Keep pretending it doesn't exist if you'd like…
DF's benchmark shows a 7% to 12% advantage. Its funny how your numbers keep rising in the %' range lol. Internet rubbish to the T.
Eric Wright
tech: Thanks for admitting there is a definite measured difference…
So, even if it's only 7-12%, that's pre-release….
Patches will increase that…
Also, since M$ overclocked their CPU, why don't you think Sony can do the same thing as well?
If I make two milkshakes and one is 16Oz and the other 17.9Oz, which do you think most will reach for?
That's your 12%…
now, after programers have had a year or two to learn the systems, I can bet you they will get even more performance, but the PS4 won't have to work so hard for it.
We'll see..
Eric Wright
Great post…
There's always the other benefit of all that extra power… if they don't use it the GPU will likely run cooler than the maxed out X1…
I for one would LOVE Sony for making a machine that is awesome AND is made to last, despite marathon playing sessions.
I think we can all agree that both the X360 and PS3 Regular and Slim all had issues overheating… especially if played for extended periods… (I have to feel the x360 showed failure in less hours of system use than the PS3s, as in within the first few weeks on the market)
Personal experience showed me this was true, not just forum complaints which can still be verified as posted by date… My first PS3 Slim overheat was in Uncharted 2… I allowed one more overheat before I traded it in for credit with Game Stop.
I didn't buy my X360 when they first came out, but I was surprised it only lasted a hair over a year, and Dragon Age: Origins killed it (caused the first shut down with dual red lights)
I bought it NEW, but not when they first came out…
My friends have had similar experiences, from what they tell me.
Anyway, We will know how they compare better after they both launch and games come out (2nd gen games, not launch day)
Y'all can compare AC2 to AC3 and see the obvious quality improvements made by Sony developers…
I haven't seen that kind of improvement in x360 games from generation to generation on the same console…
Time will tell…
Eric Wright
tech: You say you have seen, but what you have seen is compressed video clips….
Launch day we will all find out who is best out of the door, and in a year we will see what maturation does for each camp as they refine programming and hardware utilization.
X1 having better looking games(playability)? Or better as in you like the look, or better appearances in quality?
I'd say U3 on the PS3 beats any similar game on the 360 in image quality and fluidity… It's also got a good storyline, but that isn't a factor of the platform…
Framerates will be faster because of network offload? REALLY?
LOL – you are deluded…
How will network lag that is slower than ANY HDD access help framerates??? BS!
Even a GbE connection isn't going to gain any noticeable framerate… (packet is sent to server farm with internet lag, packet is decoded and altered before being sent back over the same lagged internet, then it has to be re-integrated with whatever the console has already rendered and calculated….)
Enemy AI assistance, maybe….
Random wind or weather? maybe….
Faster frame rates? NOT EVEN…
1920 x 1080 is about 2.1 mega pixels… 24 bit color would require huge bandwidth to do anything meaningful for GPU assistance….
the round trip time for a packet, over the best internet connections is about 30ms not including any processing…
There are 1000ms in a second…
Each frame at 60fps is displayed for 16.6ms…
That means by the time a single packet transferred from your console to the cloud and back that your console would already be working on displaying the next frame… it could NEVER keep up with anything slower than a gigabit fiber connection…
DSL has a typical latency in the 70-160ms region….
Cable varies greatly by provider, but is usually much slower in response in my experiences.
Do you understand yet? Offloading any work over the "net" just isn't going to help frame rate enough to matter… (might as well process everything locally on the console, except maybe AI reactions)
To summarize: MultiPlatform games will continue to be slightly different, but very noticable…. and processing over the internet will be very problematic for some, and less problematic for others, but in no way will it appreciably increase frame rates. (under a 1fps gain in real world performance)
Don't delude your self….
Eric Wright
Why are you like a broken record…. Carmack said…
Try a new source, because last I checked Carmack doesn't work for either console manufacturer…. he's just a man.
Many of us will own both consoles, but those who have the PS4 will have more than 5 or 10% more performance… try closer to 25% or more real world performance…
And in terms of texture quality, the PS4 will own the XBone, by shear virtue of a higher shader count… a very full 50% higher…
And, the PS4 is known to have memory bandwidth about 50% faster as well…
32MB of cache just doesn't compete against PS4's GDDR5..
These are real numbers, and not even close….
It's like if we both by similar cars, where the only difference is you have one with 200HP, and I have the same model with a 300HP engine… I am gonna have a lot more fun with the extra 50%…. and you bet it wins the race too, even if I let you beat me off the line…
Night and Day…
Xtreme Derp
LOL!!!!!!!! Dumb as rocks, delusional, worthless, constantly WRONG microsoft fanboy destroyed!,,
Eric Wright
You got it all right, except the PS4 does have more shaders and more memory bandwidth, which will translate to day and night differences.
No more pesky cell and emotion engine…
All x86 and standard PC style GPU commands will mean the PS4 has somewhere near 25% or more performance than the M$ platform.
I think we can all agree, not everyone has a fast enough internet connection for cloud computing to aid XBone games in a meaningful way. it's more of a gimick to be sure.
Eric Wright
Joel: if all else is equal in a PC, and you upgrade just the GPU to one with 50% more cores, that allows you to display higher detail settings at the same resolution, no?
Obviously I am talking upgrading an AMD card to an AMD card with more cores at the same clock speed ..
There is another interesting side effect of a GPU with more cores it can turn off and on as needed… Spreading the heat output around the die so the chip doesn't desolder itself like past consoles have done by pushing the hardware to it's limits.
I wrote above about how reviews consistently show more cores in a GPU family does equal better performance or quality settings… And admitted that for gddr5 latency to not be an issue, some work arounds, offloading, or preloading will have to happen for PS4.
Given both machines are now closer than ever to a PC, the same tricks may be used to combat defficiencies, except when textures need to be loaded.. the PS4 will have a clear advantage.
Games with absolutely huge, realistic textures should load faster and likely smoother on the PS4. Games like Assassin's Creed that have stunningly detailed backgrounds will be able to load areas much faster because of PS4 gddr5 memory vs. Slower bulk transfers on the XBone.
AMD has been doing audio processing on their GPUs for a while now, so that will benefit both console makers.
I only slightly agree about clock speed not being a huge issue. But we have to look at how data is loaded as well. GDDR5 has initial latency, and then RAW speed once data starts to flow, favoring large transfers. Knowing the latency exists allows programers to nullify any penalty of latency by preloading the data so it will be available in time to the CPU..
For the XBone to overcome it's mass transfer speed deficiency it will have to start preloading much sooner thanks to low latency memory designed to feed small instructions to a CPU, not a GPU… If a player in an open world changes direction and takes a different route the loaded data was a waste and instead the game then has to discard the un-needed data and load a new area… Not very efficient.
The advantages to highly detailed worlds will belong to the PS4 certainly.
I have a slight concern over operating temperatures for both consoles.. PS4 due to it's smaller size, and XBone due to the CPU overclock announced after the case was designed and a known quantity. It was never mentioned what was done to cool the CPU after the decision by M$ to turn up the heat…
Joel Hruska
The PS4 is going to be the more powerful console. But the question of how much that capability will matter, in the end, is still open. And we won't know the answer until people start queueing up to buy, and we see the game experiences.
Eric Wright
I notice you sidestepped my first question….
What kinds of gains do we see in the PC world from 50% more cores, all else being equal….
I can tell you the answer falls between about 25-30%.
That is not a small thing.
In claiming the XBONE has memory bandwidth comparable to the PS4, people keep ignoring that only 32MB of that memory is that fast… the rest is quite slow by comparison.
This makes the PS4's only issue to be whether or not programers can make up for GDDR5's latency by a software mechanism, possibly loading game data in the same data stream as texture data, or some other method….
From an engineering standpoint I see the PS4's problem far easier to solve than the one of being limited to 32MB of full speed memory, and much slower RAM…
I think the .53TFlop/s difference in GPU bandwidth tells the story accurately… for the XBONE, once the 32MB is exhausted it must be filled from a slower source…
Think what half a Teraflop is in computing performance, where the PS4 can use cores for general compute…
In terms of game settings, any game maxed out on XBONE at what we'd call normal detail, would be high detail on the PS4 without using all of the cores…. and a PC version would be able to use an even better GPU and see MAX detail..
That analogy is a good one because the consoles use PC based CPU and GPU cores, only on a custom motherboard.
RE: your second sentence -
In common titles either the PS4 will be allowed to play the titles with 1/3 of it's graphics cores turned off, or it will be allowed to load and present higher quality imagery… either is a bonus.
Less cores active translates to cooler running of the system, and more details… well, you know….
Now, exclusives will be the telling tale, I am sure.
Though I am fairly certain Assassin's Creed 4 will probably look better, or be more fluid, on the PS4… kind of like AC3 was on the PS3 vs. X360… (Did you try it on both? That made me sell my X360)
The X360 version had BAD jagged edges on just about everything when compared to the PS3 version…
It also was not as smooth.
Now that both new systems will have CPU's that are a very close match, and the biggest differences to running games being RAM and GPU differences, we can take reviews of equivalent cards in PC's and extrapolate the outcome with a high degree of reliability….
It's not like they made special new GPU's that the world hasn't seen already… We know how these two compare already.
If I didn't already know what the TFlops/s differences were, I might concede the RAM is an unknown.
And if your second sentence refers to playability, then you are talking about the games and not the systems.
This is really all interesting, and being one of those who will buy both systems, I will compare, and keep both systems at least a year, and then likely the one I play the least will get sold or traded off…
Given the numbers are so drastic for GPU shader cores and memory bandwidth, experience with PC equivalent systems has shown me the difference will be more than just a little noticeable. It should be day and night different for some titles.
We might have to wait for something like Uncharted to show off the full potential of the PS4, but that's one title that is likely to push the PS4 further than the XBONE can manage… but we will see.
Joel Hruska
The PS4 is going to be the more powerful console. But the question of how much that capability will matter, in the end, is still open. And we won't know the answer until people start queueing up to buy, and we see the game experiences.
Eric Wright
PreOrders at various retailers looks to be pointing at a runaway for PS4…
That said, I am sure I won't be the only one to buy both consoles because of exclusive titles… in my case I will want to play through the new Fable…
There's no reason for you to defend your position on one console vs. the other…. you do try to stay agnostic, as you said.
I do believe if you look at PC graphics card reviews for GCN based cards, clocked the same, you'll see more cores always makes for better quality or frame rates… and 1152 shaders vs. 768 is not even a close match in the PC world, and we can expect similar numbers in consoles because they use PC friendly hardware on custom motherboards. (XB1 even uses DirectX for sure)
Love this article more than any other this year! (your articles)
I am glad you criticize artificial limitations… so do I…
Especially when it's holding back quality in a game so it looks the same on two consoles by using the lowest common denominator… I hate that when there is also a PC version with far superior graphics to let us know one of the consoles was purposefully held back..
Thanks for the great article, and all the debates it has spawned!
Eric Wright
how do you like the differences in COD ghosts?
guess all that power does make a difference.
Do you really believe exclusives will have any easier of a time coding higher resolution games for the Microsoft console?
I believe Microsoft shot themselves in the proverbial foot when they limited themselves to 4 x 8MB ESRAM banks…
8 banks of 8MB might have been more meaningful. (maybe still not enough, though)
Love the article and all this feedback.
Matthew Bryant
The PS4 has a rather large hardware advantage. Pretending otherwise is nonsense. This PR slip just further clenches the deal. The PS4 is currently destroying the XBox One in pre-orders, and pretending otherwise is just absolute denial. Amazon and Gamestop have pretty much proven that without a doubt. You can believe whatever you'd like, but currently the PS4 is trouncing the Xbox One both in public opinion and in prospective sales. Keep fighting the good fight though. Denial is a powerful drug.
… are you responding to me? Really?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you are arguing that the PS4 has more powerful hardware (CPU/GPU/RAM). Out of curiosity, who are you arguing with? I didn't state anywhere in my post that the X1 was more powerful. In fact, the only statement that I made comparing the two consoles was that I thought the PS4 would sell better.
So please tell me what type of denial am I in?
Matthew Bryant
Touche. Honestly I'm not sure why I responded to you. I'm guessing I meant to respond to someone else. I do apologize for the situation. My reply obviously had little to do with your comment.
Mistakes happen, apology accepted. Good day to you sir.
You were probably responding to me. And to that I say "lol"
I'll take Carmack's brilliance over a Sony fanbois rubbish any time. So no, you are quite wrong in your assumptions of the power difference.
Matthew Bryant
Digital Foundry did a benchmark test that showed a system similar to the PS4 running games at a higher FPS than a system similar to the XBox One. Not only are you taking Carmack's response out of context, because he never claimed they were identical in terms of power, simply that their architecture was very similar, but you're pretending that the known difference in compute units and higher bandwidth of GDDR5 makes no difference. You're ignorant. I know you love Microsoft, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Battlefield 4 devs have already stated the PS4 has more power. As did the Warthunder and Odd World devs. I guess they're lying though. After all, Carmack is the only developer in existence…
Battlefield 4 devs also confirmed BF4 looks better on X1. Why do you think that is? lol. The news lately must really be getting your knickers in a twist.
Brendan Lackey
Doesn't the X1 have the advantage because of DX11.2? or 11.1. Whichever it was.
Russell Gorall
No doubt the article has a weird bias to it, but there is no running from the fact of the performance difference from PS4 to Xbox One.
I think AMD has retracted the statements about PS4 having HUMA, though that may just be because AMD is announcing it in November.
Xbox One has a better lineup of games at launch and immediately after, and PS4 has more power.
Matthew Bryant
They both have a decent lineup of games. I prefer the games on the PS4 simply because there's more variety and I'm not a fan of online shooters at all, but I can understand why many wouldn't agree with me. The genres you enjoy matter more in this situation than actual game quality. Both consoles have a decent number of quality games available at launch which is a nice change from past generations.
Devin Runyan
QQ cry baby. Need a tampon or a tissue?
Eric Wright
I posted a link above… read it and weep….
ExtremeTech has done a great job as data has been made available…
pelov lov
The eSRAM inside the Xbox One is strictly a GPU-based cache, thus tearing the cache-coherency system at the seams. Furthermore, though the Xbox one might still access the same memory pool (one of the requirements of HSA and the main requirement of hUMA), it's only at the DDR3 stage for the Xbox One and not that eSRAM cache. The GDDR5 in the PS4 will still easily outpace the Xbox One's DDR3. This heavily limits the benefits of any HSA implementation, as the memory pool is, although adequate for a CPU – we'll be using DDR3 for at least another 1-2 years – it limits the bandwidth for the GPU, and certainly limits the bandwidth for the two working in tandem. For example, looking at a modern AMD GCN-based GPU, you're looking at a 30%-to-40% decrease in performance when opting with DDR3 over GDDR5. The eSRAM cache might make up a bit of that ground, but it also adds a layer of complexity and limits the HSA/GPGPU potential.
The article isn't wrong, per se. The problem here is in the wording and the explanation. The Xbox One might utilize HSA/hUMA, but not to the same extent that it's available to the PS4. When opting to go with a unified architecture, you want to make sure that you've got a large and incredibly fast pool of RAM. Ultimately, that's where MS decided to save a few dollars
As to how this will affect games and performance… well, that's difficult to tell. I do think that we might see better physics engines on the PS4, but if history is any indicator we'll probably have yet another generation of developers gunning for the lowest common denominator – and this time, that's the Xbox One with limited HSA/hUMA compatibility.
Joel Hruska
And according to the c't author, Marc Diana was crystal clear on Xbox One not having hUMA, and the PS4 having it. HSA is more than just a cache coherent link. I/O coherency and full cache coherency are also not the same thing. See here:
The ESRAM isn't cache coherent. CPU and GPU on the Xbox One can still be passing data through copying — you can do that now, on Llano and Piledriver. The question of whether they share the same memory space is still open to discussion.
It is possible that c't is wrong or misunderstood, sure. But they are not a fly-by-not publication with no history in this field. Additional useful discussion on the topic is here: http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1776083
AMD is finished and Consoles aren't going to stop that from Happening either!!!! No GDDR5 in Kaveri means that AMD IS FINISHED!!!! Because AMD won't be able to come close to broadwells IGP power not its IPC and power efficiency!!!!!
aniket mittal
someone is getting angry…chill out man…want an xbox one???get an xbox one…no need to shout at the top of ur voice that its better than or even at the level of ps4…….. CUZ ITS NOT…
Matthew Bryant
First off, both of your links are bogus. One goes straight to Youtube without referencing any videos and the other goes the theverge, but gives a 404 error. So, your sources have absolutely no credibility. Second, you're pretending that enabling the GPU to directly access virtual memory means nothing, and that's 100% bullshit. That's amazing. Shut up and learn something. Stop being an ignorant fanboy.
I'm not going to bash the Xbox One, but the one thing Sony still has over Microsoft is 3rd party and in house developer power in the Open Source way. In house Microsoft still can't compete on games with Sony's own developers making exclusives that have never seen the likes of a desktop x86 computing platform. But with HSA and it's cross platform members, unlike Microsoft's closed proprietary Xbox platform, has the first native ability for true heterogeneous computing utilizing any OS API's Open or NOT!
And that my friend is the huge advantage for developers working AMD Fusion powered computers. Because we already know that Sony has struck deals to bring their much greater great range of Exclusives to not just Fusion Powered Windows machines, but Linux and upcoming Macs as well. Yeah Macs with HSA Member ARM's chips in them. The reality is HSA is not just about x86 like in Xbox One. It's about HSA being available on both Windows and Non Windows platforms as well as about every mobile platform too!
And Microsoft has decided the opposite of everyone else in the HSA membership and those platforms that can take full advantage of Sony's Game Developers coding prowess across multiple OS platforms, from Sony's own PS4 to Android to iOS, etc. Meaning a much richer development community with true in depth heterogeneous cross hardware and OS platform computing!
Being not first and foremost tied down to just Microsoft's API control plans!
This idea of AMD's has taken 6 yrs to come to full fruition. With Sony's, Google's and Apple's co-operation, we'll see PS-4 Exclusives only available on AMD and ARM powered systems running OpenGL family of API's, instead of Microsoft's Direct X derived family of Control API's!!! ;-P …..and Microsoft won't have a dammmm thing to say about it!
BTW….. Samsung (an HSA member) recently became the first to implement Heterogeneous Computing on ARM big/LITTLE chips. Meaning they can now utilize all 8 cores of their Exynos chips w/ both it's asymmetrical and symmetrical chip cores! ;-P ….that's the power that HSAIL will bring to computing in the future!
I'm not going to bash the Xbox One, but the one thing Sony still has over Microsoft is 3rd party and in house developer power in the Open Source way. In house Microsoft still can't compete on games with Sony's own developers making exclusives that have never seen the likes of a desktop x86 computing platform. But with HSA and it's cross platform members, unlike Microsoft's closed proprietary Xbox platform, has the first native ability for true heterogeneous computing utilizing any OS API's Open or NOT!
And that my friend is the huge advantage for developers working AMD Fusion powered computers. Because we already know that Sony has struck deals to bring their much greater great range of Exclusives to not just Fusion Powered Windows machines, but Linux and upcoming Macs as well. Yeah Macs with HSA Member ARM's chips in them. The reality is HSA is not just about x86 like in Xbox One. It's about HSA being available on both Windows and Non Windows platforms as well as about every mobile platform too!
And Microsoft has decided the opposite of everyone else in the HSA membership and those platforms that can take full advantage of Sony's Game Developers coding prowess across multiple OS platforms, from Sony's own PS4 to Android to iOS, etc. Meaning a much richer development community with true in depth heterogeneous cross hardware and OS platform computing!
Being not first and foremost tied down to just Microsoft's API control plans!
This idea of AMD's has taken 6 yrs to come to full fruition. With Sony's, Google's and Apple's co-operation, we'll see PS-4 Exclusives only available on AMD and ARM powered systems running OpenGL family of API's, instead of Microsoft's Direct X derived family of Control API's!!! ;-P …..and Microsoft won't have a dammmm thing to say about it!
Joao Ribeiro
At this stage nobody is leading the race, just trying to push it in different directions.
Reason and Logic went out the door when people started making PR announcements. The truth of course is that PCs are already wayyyy ahead. Pretty soon Tablets will be on par with PCs (3-4 years to put them at 80% graphics power I'd estimate, roughly where consoles are) and nobody will ever bother with consoles again. They'll just plug their tablet into any screen and use their Bluetooth controller to play.
Scott V
"Pretty soon Tablets will be on par with PCs (3-4 years to put them at 80% graphics power I'd estimate, roughly where consoles are) and nobody will ever bother with consoles again. They'll just plug their tablet into any screen and use their Bluetooth controller to play."
I've seen this idea bandied about at Forbes.com, but it doesn't make sense. For starters, why can't you plug tablets into your television set now? Is there some technological hurdle that prevents people from connecting hdmi cables from a tablet to a tv? Obviously, this could be done but there is no demand for it. Tablet games are, with few exceptions, not the sort of games that you sit down and invest a lot of time in. As far as advancing hardware is concerned, the latest iterations of the Galaxy and Ipad tablets have more RAM and processing power than current (seventh) generation consoles. But despite this, you don't see big-ticket game publishers like EA and Ubisoft releasing games for them. Why aren't GTA V, COD Ghosts, Battlefield 4 and Assassin's Creed IV coming out on the Ipad this fall? The install base isn't there. And the transition from console development to tablet development is probably not seamless, since console games are written in C++ and tablet games are written in Objective C or Java. So when tablet hardware surpasses PS4 and Xbox One hardware, that won't automatically guarantee the release of console games on tablet platform.
Matthew Bryant
Yeah, tablets will be no where near that powerful in 3-4 years. Not even remotely close. Currently the iPad 4 is at possibly 5-10% the power of the PS4. Anyone who believes that tablets are going to overtake consoles this generation is ridiculously ignorant. It's not going to happen. I wish people would stop spouting rumor bullshit and start actually educating themselves. Tablets are currently considerably less powerful than the PS3 and XBox 360, and not even marginally close to the PS4. What a stupid statement.
Edit: 5-10% is incredibly generous. More likely they're around 1-3% as powerful as the PS4. I just can't imagine how anyone with any knowledge of the industry would make such an ignorant claim. Tablets are not a viable alternative to consoles. Ignorance at its finest.
Scott V
The Ipad 4 has twice as much RAM as the 360 and PS3, as well as greater processing power. But you don't see console games coming out for the Ipad. Why is that? I imagine that hardcore gamers aren't going to shell out $400 for an Ipad when they can get a 360 for half the price. There are probably issues coding the games as well. Plugging a console into a television set seems pointless. Why don't people do it now?
Matthew Bryant
No. The IPad 4 does NOT have greater processing power than the PS3 or the 360, especially not the PS3. The cell processor is a beast still to this day. It's difficult as hell to develop for, but it runs circles around the IPad 4 in terms of processing. The IPad 4 has 1 GB of DDR2 (which has considerably less bandwidth than DDR3), not 2 GBs. It also has no VRAM, which makes memory intensive operations much slower. It's definitely more powerful than the Vita, but not by any great stretch (the iPad 3 is actually less powerful than the Vita). Neither are even remotely close to as powerful as the PS3 or the 360. The GPUs in the PS3 and 360 destroy the iPad 4. I have little doubt that in 4-5 years time mobile technology will have passed current gen consoles, but it's not there yet. I'm sorry, but you're ignorant. =/
Joel Hruska
Fairly meaningless comparison. If we're strictly talking architecture, I expect Qualcomm's Snapdragon to be 50-80% as fast as Kabini when compared core-to-core and clock-to-clock. If we're talking about the realistic operating environment (handheld tablet vs. console) that's going to drop due to TDP and clock speeds.
GPUs are similarly constrained, but the comparison is going to tilt more towards GCN. Even in an ideal case, I'd be surprised by 10% — but keep in mind that the GCN GPU inside the PS4 is going to be larger than the entire SoC inside a tablet.
Still, the comparison is flawed. It's like asking, "Which is better? A super-efficient hybrid, or a huge diesel truck?"
Sorta depends on what you want to *do* with it.
Thats a great comparison actually.
Matthew Bryant
The statement was made that tablets will be on par with PCs in 3-4 years. The statement was also made that the iPad4 has more processing power than the 360 and PS3, which is just sheer nonsense. Utility has little to do with power. Obviously you can do comparisons between the iPad 4 and the PC. Mobile processors are obviously designed for different purposes than those in PCs and consoles, but that hardly changes the fact that they perform the same basic operation. I'm aware that mobile devices run at low clock speeds as a matter of necessity to avoid overheating, but that simply adds to the argument. Pretending that mobile technology will surpass consoles and make them useless is just a ridiculous argument.
Joel Hruska
You and I are on the same side on this. In my opinion, we've already hit the the growth peak (in terms of % gain year-on-year) in mobile. Blame the failure of Dennard scaling.
Tablets and phones will continue to get more powerful, yes. They will continue to do more things. But fully leveraging that capability will always require more heat / thermal regulation.
It's not a question of whether or not we could build a "mobile PS3." We could, I guarantee it, at least by 22nm. But that just gets the chip *into* a device. It doesn't do squat for thermals or battery power once you fire up.
Since power requirements and heat aren't falling at anything like the rate power is increasing, there will always be a gap between mobile and laptop, just as there's a gap between laptop and desktop, and just as there's a gap between handheld and console. At a certain point in the future, maybe, graphics get good enough that most people don't care, but I wouldn't try to put a date on that.
Matthew Bryant
Agreed completely. I'm just glad at least one journalist isn't predicting the death of the console market due to the amazing console market. I've never understood why that particular belief caught on in the media, but it makes little sense. I'll agree that mobile gaming has taken away a lot of the casual audience that used to buy consoles, but the number of "core" gamers has increased over the years as well.
There will likely always be some kind of market for core games (whatever form that takes in the future). Even in Japan where free time is much less of a commodity and goods are considerably more expensive, there's still a good 10-15 million consumer base for consoles. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Nintendo over the next 10-15 years (they certainly have the funds to survive for quite a while), but 2 consoles can easily still be profitable for the forseeable future.
Scott V
"Pretty soon Tablets will be on par with PCs (3-4 years to put them at 80% graphics power I'd estimate, roughly where consoles are) and nobody will ever bother with consoles again. They'll just plug their tablet into any screen and use their Bluetooth controller to play."
I've seen this idea bandied about at Forbes.com, but it doesn't make sense. For starters, why can't you plug tablets into your television set now? Is there some technological hurdle that prevents people from connecting hdmi cables from a tablet to a tv? Obviously, this could be done but there is no demand for it. Tablet games are, with few exceptions, not the sort of games that you sit down and invest a lot of time in. As far as advancing hardware is concerned, the latest iterations of the Galaxy and Ipad tablets have more RAM and processing power than current (seventh) generation consoles. But despite this, you don't see big-ticket game publishers like EA and Ubisoft releasing games for them. Why aren't GTA V, COD Ghosts, Battlefield 4 and Assassin's Creed IV coming out on the Ipad this fall? The install base isn't there. And the transition from console development to tablet development is probably not seamless, since console games are written in C++ and tablet games are written in Objective C or Java. So when tablet hardware surpasses PS4 and Xbox One hardware, that won't automatically guarantee the release of console games on tablet platform.
Scott V
One more thing: tablets are released every year. Do you really think console gamers are going to plonk down $400-600 every year for the latest tablet? The prices of the PS4 and Xbox One will fall every year. That is a deterrent to console dedicated gamers.
Matthew Bryant
Doesn't matter, it'll be 15-20 years before a tablet reaches the same graphic power as the PS4. How long did it take before tablets reached the same graphic power as the PS2? A good 15 years. It's arguable that the original XBox is still more powerful than any tablet on the market. The tablet argument is just mindless ignorance. Ignore him, he has no idea what he's talking about.
Scott V
I agree. When tablets that match the forthcoming consoles in processing speed and RAM finally hit the market, they will be much more expensive than the consoles. The consoles will already have a vast library of games and a big install base. Tablet manufacturers would have to give dedicated console gamers a reason to play games like COD on a tablet. The only advantage I can think of is portability.
Remember, MS metro is on tablets and pcs and consoles. It's unpopular, but wildly compatible for porting.
This is currently:
Think about where tablets where 3 years ago, now contemplate where they can be in a mere 3 more.
Joel Hruska
This assumption would hold a lot more water if Moore's Law had continued scaling effectively. My own prediction is that tablet performance has already hit what I'll call the "jello wall."
This does not mean you won't see faster tablets in the future. It means that getting their is going to be like walking through jello. Slow, arduous, and marginal.
This has already begun to happen. In 2010, my iPhone 3G was already slow as death, at two years old. In 2013, my iPhone 4S feels quite snappy. With 20nm delivering the smallest gains in history, the next possible jump in performance will come from the adoption of FinFET at 16/14nm by TSMC and GF, and that's not going to ship in volume until 2016 – 2017.
Moore's Law is scaling even now. But the technology is going in other directions than mainstream. It requires an entire upgrade of the whole architecture. There's been a breakthrough with Graphene as a computing component, and it's going to change a lot of elements of computing over the next two years. And 100 other things. You really can't read even just this website and sit and thing Moore's law isn't still in charge. We may have hit some barriers on current tech, but new tech is preparing to jump in and continue with a nearly seamless transition.
Not even counting that Haswell chips were specifically designed to be used in Tablets as well as Laptops and we haven't even seen them deployed virtually at all yet. You've been able to buy a laptop with one since about mid June, but I don't think any tablets have had one worked in yet.
Scott Vater
I have to agree. No way in HELL is a tablet going to catch up to next-gen consoles ANY time soon. The Tegra 4 for instance, based purely on the number of GPU cores, is equivalent to a Nvidia 9600GT. This doesn't even take into account that the 9600GT has a faster clock speed, etc.
So even Tegra 4 is STILL slower than CURRENT generation consoles, and it's the newest most graphically advanced SoC available right now. Tegra 5 coming out a year or so from now will be the first SoC that I could comfortably say is equal to current gen console. So that would make tablets, what, 9-10 years behind game consoles. The PS4 has a 8-core CPU and a 1024-core GPU…no way a tablet can catch up to that without using 150-200 watts.
Yeah, I'm going to have to weigh in at this point here. You are (All)
severely discounting the speed of current technological innovation.
Lets break this into several points to address the comments you seem to
think are important.
Scott: 1. Tablets released every year: First
of all, we're in the genesis of tablet time right now. They are
released every year, because literally something new is figured out
every 3 months or less. Something huge and game changing, or what would
have passed for that in a time of less technological innovation.
Matthew 2. You can do this right now on a tablet:
I said 80% graphics of a PC. Currently that device has a
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_Cortex-A15_MPCore) 1.8 Ghz multicore
processor running on roughly a normal mini-Pc sized motherboard with 2
gigs of Ram. It could have a lot more ram I expect rather easily.
That's probably already about half as good as a PS3 at present. Given 3-4 years, yeah, they are right in there. This website will still be here, I'll probably still be here. You just get back to me in a few years.
Scott V
By the time tablets have the hardware capabilities of the PS4 and Xbox One, those consoles will be much cheaper than they will be on launch date and they will have a vast library of games. Why would gamers pay $500+ for a tablet to play games on? It doesn't make sense.
But why WOULDN'T a gamer pay 500+ for a Tablet that plays games and is ALSO his laptop, which ALSO plays PC games? And checks the internet and saves files and surf's porn, etc. Tell me, why is a console so important to playing games? It's surely not the power of the device.
Matthew Bryant
The Vita has games that look similar as well. That game is obviously running at 480p or lower and has minimal post processing effects. There's no way that tablet could run a game like The Last of Us at 720p with all the graphical bells and whistles. It'll likely be a few years before that happens. The PS4 is about 8-10 times more powerful than the PS3 in terms of graphic power. I can't imagine why you'd pretend that tablets are going to take over the console or PC industry anytime soon when it comes to gaming. Try hooking your console up to a TV and see what games look like on the big screen. You'll be amazed at how terrible they quickly become.
You're super focused on the now. The speed at which Tablets are progressing is stupid. Sure right now they are roughly 1 core 2 Ghz machines + or -. But I'm betting there's going to be some Haswells inside them in a very short while.
10 W TDP class (SoC): Haswell-ULX (For tablets and certain UltraBook-class implementations.)
Then it's just a matter of getting a good graphics card variant in there.
I don't really like tablet gaming in any case, it feels wrong. Maybe propped up with a controller or something. I wouldn't really use that myself in any case, unless I was on vacation or something. But I would be way more likely to use it than a console. That's my only point really. I'm not saying tablets will be the king of gaming, I'm just saying they will be about 80% of what a console is, and 100% more portable, and several times more useful. There will still be people who have a console in their house, much like there are still people who have a desktop in their house.
Xtreme Derp
LOL tablets with 2 teraflops in 3 years? LOL
A mere 11 months later: Here's a 2.66 Ghz laptop/tablet hybrid. I rest my case. http://tablets.findthebest.com/l/102/Acer-Iconia-6120
Minecraft Greek
Here is a truth, if both of these chips, Xbox One and PS4, can each perform at their theoretical maximums, no amount of Memory architecture, or Memory bandwidth differences will hinder each console. You could argue that the Xbox One chip is less powerful, and thus the lower bandwidth memory with the high bandwidth ESRAM should be able to max out it's abilites. With the PS4 having a more powerful chip, and higher bandwidth memory and improved Unified architecture, if it can supply data to the chips and they can reach max theoretical performance, than there is no advantage other than the power alone.
A lot of good is data, if it isn't ready to be used yet, you can only cache so much. It really comes down to the PS4 chip being 40% more powerful. Real world differences in performance will be about 20%. For every APU, for every mHz, there is additional handling overhead. It can't be measured in horsepower alone.
What this means, is what is expected, both consoles will make current gen look last gen. Playing in HD you will notice the difference, you will notice that the level of effects, and not just the polygons, will make a huge difference too. Multiplatform games will be nearly the same. First party games will excel on each respective platform. Whoever can find the best way to put it to use.
In no way do I see either console failing, nor either console really graphically outshining each other. Either way, games on both machines will be leaps beyond the last gen. We will see it more as this generation gets moving.
Joel Hruska
Don't bet on the ESRAM. The original design from 2005 was a 200GB pipeline. The current design is, I think, a little over half that. MS went with a different architectural layout this time around as far as how much they're going to lean on that RAM pool to provide bandwidth.
Edit: There's rumor that the cache is capable of considerably more bandwidth due to scheduling holes that it can exploit, but no word on how this works. The idea that MS would "discover" extra bandwidth is rather dodgy. But even if peak theoretical bandwidth is higher, this will not clarify HSA implementation.
Since your source has been officially outed as 'incorrect' i guess all this mucking about the specs has been moot hasn't it?
Minecraft Greek
As I stated though, if you max out the chips abilities with the resources available, you aren't going to squeeze much else out of it by talking memory specs, if the specs are good enough already to handle max performance.
A lot of people were saying that MS didn't go with faster memory on purpose, because they wouldn't see much benefit not having a faster chip.
Ya, this exactly.
The future develoment hurdles and innovation leaps are going to be developer side improvements on what they can do with the hardware. Not the other way around.
Matthew Bryant
There are areas where you can improve a game considerably graphically through faster RAM without influencing the resources used by the GPU greatly. Take texture streaming for instance. Granted pixel shading can be considerably more complex with higher resolution textures, but you can substitute effects here and there for higher quality textures (which I prefer higher quality textures over effects any day, though obviously there's a balance to be made at some point). LOD is very memory bandwidth intensive. This is one area that the Xbox One will lack considerably compared to the PS4. Again, compare Ryse to Infamous when it comes to background texture quality. The walls in Ryse and floors are pretty unimpressive, but they put a lot of detail in effects and mobiles. Infamous, on the other hand, doesn't sacrifice the scenery for the focus of attention.
Matthew Bryant
eSRAM has incredibly limited usage anyway due to the low quantity. I can't see developers using it for much more than free MSAA like in the past, and for 1080p they still need to tile the images. It's too small to hold any relevant amount of textures or meshes. I can see them placing static lighting results in the eSRAM or similar slow changing values, but there's no way it'll compete at any meaningful level against 8 GBs of GDDR5. It seems to be used more a PR ploy. Microsoft adding the bandwidth of DDR3 and eSRAM together in an attempt to fool the average consumer into believing that the mere presence of the eSRAM makes the DDR3 function better. I'm not suggesting that Microsoft placed the eSRAM in the console for that reason, because obviously it has some uses (as all cache does), but they throw around misleading information regarding it that's simply nonsense from a technical standpoint.
Regardless, Microsoft will be considerably behind when it comes to LOD and reflections. There's no much they can do about it without lowering FPS. The increased bandwidth of the GDDR5 will allow much larger textures on the PS4 than the XBox One can supply (comparing the environment in Ryse to the environment in Infamous is a great real world example of this).
Joel Hruska
I assume the SRAM cache is going to be used for the same sort of MSAA as the 10MB was on the Xbox 360. And that's fine, as far as I'm concerned. That approach worked well with the Xbox 360; there's no reason it won't continue to work well here.
I agree with you that adding them together is ridiculous and that the story about MS "discovering" new bandwidth is also dubious. It's entirely possible that MS found a way to use the cache more effectively thus yielding an *effective* increase in bandwidth or a latency reduction, but it's rare to just "find" bandwidth-doubling capabilities.
But as I've written, at great length, I want to know more about the memory controller in the PS4. That's going to be the secret sauce that either ties this together extremely effectively… or doesn't. And unlike the Xbox One, which could plausibly be using an IMC that looks a lot like Kabini's, the PS4 probably has some custom silicon there.
But maybe not. It's a puzzle.
Matthew Bryant
Agreed. The bandwidth doubling was nonsensical. Regardless, it's hardly groundbreaking. If it's main function will be MSAA for most developers due to its limited capacity more bandwidth will hardly make a night and day difference. If it keeps up with framerate, the rest is just superfluous.
I admittedly know less on the memory controller aspect, but from reading the other comments it seems that GDDR5 itself isn't higher latency, but rather that the simplistic controller isn't allowing data through as quickly as it could. If a custom controller can fix the latency issue, that would be nice. Granted the higher latency on a console is hardly a deal breaker anyway, as I said previously (and another QA session confirmed) if it keeps up with the framerate then it's hardly an issue. It'll be nice for OS multitasking functionality without a doubt, but I can't see it being a huge issue for gameplay.
Either way, it would be nice if eSRAM wasn't constantly referenced as a match for GDDR5. Too few people actually understand why it exists and seem to think it magically fixes DDR3 bandwidth. I guess good on Microsoft PR for throwing around that misinformation and having it stick.
Joel Hruska
You'll have to do some digging, but these charts will show you some data on memory latencies between GPUs and CPUs (and for various video cards). http://www.sisoftware.net/?d=qa&f=gpu_mem_latency
The big-picture take-away is "It depends," but since that sucks for a big-picture takeaway, the shorter answer is "Speculative prefetching and DDR3 can make for much better latency than traditional GDDR5."
Here's my understanding in very broad terms: It depends on what you want to do. In most cases, an architecture that emphasizes maximum bandwidth will be higher latency. But it gets complicated very quickly. For example, GDDR5 and DDR3 might have the same latency on an initial request, but random reads of small amounts of data might very much favor DDR3, while sustained transfer rates favor GDDR5. There's always a trade-off regarding how quickly you can send new requests and retire them.
That's why I say this comes down to the memory controller. Bandwidth alone is no promise of a great GPU architecture — for examples, look to the 2900XT (Radeon) or the GeForce FX (NV). Both cards with smashing amounts of bandwidth for their time. Neither made good use of it.
Matthew Bryant
Awesome. Thanks for the information. ^^ Really appreciate it.
Thank you, somebody with a BRAIN speaks.
Matthew Bryant
Looking at it from a purely power aspect makes little sense. Yes, the 40% more powerful GPU will obviously translate directly, for the most part, into faster graphic calculations and rendering, but looking at RAM in terms of power makes no sense. GDDR5 will be extremely useful in some situations, like texture streaming and reflections for instance, and much less useful in other situations, like lighting or refraction. So while there's absolutely no reason why LOD and reflections shouldn't be superior in every single PS4 game than the XBox One version, the same is not true of shadowing or pixel effects. Still, textures go a long way to making a game look better and the considerably higher bandwidth of the GDDR5 will allow for much higher texture resolution, especially at higher FPS, than the XBox One.
eSRAM will have almost no effect on texture streaming. It's just one huge area where XBox One will be at a complete disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, 32 MBs of eSRAM will be nice to have, but it's hardly comparable to 8 GBs of GDDR5. It's like putting a bandaid on a severed artery. You won't accomplish much. I imagine it'll mostly be used for post processing effects like MSAA on fully rendered images just like on the 360, and tiling will still be necessary for 1080p. Thankfully MS added tiling to DirectX 11.2, but tiling isn't free. It does waste resources to piece the images together and take them apart, although relatively little.
This on top of the fact that OpenGL has been reported as more efficient than DirectX 11.2 currently and that the PS4 development environment is more advanced than the XBox One, and there's really no where I can see that Microsoft has an advantage right now in terms of development. That may change over time, but I can't imagine how Microsoft can possibly overcome that much of a hardware deficit even if they come out swinging with their IDE.
Dexter Rivens
Anyone notice all the comparisons don't include Xbox One's esram that theoretically reads and writes simultaneously at 193/gbs + the DDR3's 63/gbs
PS4 is only 173/gbs reading OR writing but not both
Dexter Rivens
Anyone notice all the comparisons don't include Xbox One's esram that theoretically reads and writes simultaneously at 193/gbs + the DDR3's 63/gbs
PS4 is only 173/gbs reading OR writing but not both
Joel Hruska
This post is about HSA/hUMA. The ESRAM pool on the Xbox One is definitively not shared with the CPU. It's GPU only. That makes it spurious relative to any conversation of data sharing.
That's also why you don't see me spending a lot of time talking about the PS4's memory bandwidth. This isn't about memory bandwidth. It's about CPU-GPU coherency, task scheduling, and other HSA features.
All of which have officially been debunked by AMD. Thanks.
AMD did not debunk anything. Two different people from their marketing have released contradicting statements. Its called "back-pedalling". Of course AMD wouldn't outright say "PS4 will support hUMA while XB1 will not."
"only PlayStation 4 incorporates hUMA [Heterogeneous Uniform Memory Access] for supporting a shared memory space. This was explained by AMD's Senior Product Marketing Manager Marc Diana"
Dexter Rivens
You can't talk about one in comparison without the other as you stated, the Xbox esram is not shared with the CPU so because the PS4 theoretically has higher bandwidth for their CPU that all depends on what's being used/what's available as the GPU is pulling more from the unified pool.
You seem to think only one action is happening at a time. The Xbox One does run game+ OS simultaneously. Are you suggesting the PS4 does not therefore the unified pool, flexible memory and DDR5 will cause that to crush the Xbox One?
What are you comparing as the two are very different
Sony needs 3.5gig of DDR5 to run its OS and M$ only needs 3gig of DDR3 so assuming the bandwidth theory is correct one system is efficient and the other is very non-efficient which hardly makes the argument true that the PS4 will crush the Xbox One
Matthew Bryant
The PS4 has higher bandwidth for the CPU AND GPU. The XBox One has a cache for their GPU that the PS4 does not. You're pretending that the eSRAM will somehow modify the bandwidth of the DDR3. That's not how it works. They are separate pools of RAM and as such they have separate bandwidths. You can't change all 8 GBs of DDR3 simply by installing a cache. It doesn't work like that. No offense, but if you don't understand how the technology works, then stop talking about it. Ask some questions. Do some research, but arguing with someone who is throwing out illogical information as facts is just annoying. >.>
Also the flexible memory is part of the unified pool. There is the option of using VRAM which is apparently accessible directly through the GPU (which is pretty awesome), but it won't be needed for some time. 8 GBs of RAM is more than enough for currently releasing games. Especially when that RAM can move data faster.
Eric Wright
Install a linux live cd/dvd… Boot into it's GUI desktop, and check memory load…
Do the same thing in Windows8…
No pretending is going on… PS4 uses a linux like OS…. And XBone uses a Windows 8 based OS…
It is what it is… And the PS4 OS requires less resources…
don't forget that the ram pool is really small. (32MB). so it will be used as a cache.
xbox will mostly use the ddr3 if they use big date but it will be faster if the code fits in the 32MB cache. so if you optimise it than you will get more out of it but it is a lot harder to do. also making the chip whit so much sram isn't cheap ether.
ps4 will have higher latency but a lot faster ram.
but it will always have the high bandwidth.
Latency of gddr5 memory and ddr3 memory is exactly the same.
Joel Hruska
This comes down to memory controller. And that's an area where we don't know much, yet. GPU memory controllers tend to be quite simple (and very high latency) when compared to CPU memory controllers. This reflects the nature of their workloads and respective capabilities.
The memory latency on AMD's GCN is quite high — which may or may not be relevant depending on the PS4's memory subsystem. But saying they are "exactly the same" is inaccurate.
Otherwise – the memory chips have exactly the same latency – easy to check in Hynix product specification. The difference is, as you stated, in controller. We don't have enough data to guess what kind of controller will be in ps4, I can just hope they addressed this area and latency will be cpu optimized.
Still I'd say memory by itself have the same latency;). People quite often can't differentiate latency of chips and latency of controller.
sorry i didn't know gddr and ddr had the same latency. we haven't learned memory architectures in depth. I'll look into it when i have time.
GDDR5 memory has 2x the latency of DDR3.
GDDR5 memory has around 6x the latency of DDR2
It makes a difference with compute. It will be noticeable in some instances, not in others. As a game console, it shouldn't make much difference, but where apps and compute heavy media software may be concerned, X1 will have an edge on the tasking. GDDR5 will not be used for desktops ever for this reason. A more user friendly DDR4 will eventually be used with less latency and higher bandwidth than DDR3.
DDR3 is much more suitable for the X1 and its triple OS.
Joel Hruska
DDR4's latency is *much* higher than DDR3's. I've discussed this.
The latency situation is actually a bit worse. Details here: http://i36.tinypic.com/308ib0z.jpg
That graph on second link is nice. Would be cool to see the GDDR5 comparison on it.
Not really;
page 5: CAS latency 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and (11) supported
CAS Write latency (CWL) = 5, 6, 7, 8
page 42:
CAS latency: from 5 to 20
CAS Write latency (CWL) = 1 to 7
page 43
By default CLmrs is specified by bits A3‐A6, defining a CLmrs range of 5 to 20 tCK.
Write Latency from 3 to 7
Latency of the memory is more or less identical, with better recovery and write latency on gddr5.
Nice discussion:
Vienn_22 said: ↑
I think he was meaning what will happen to the CPU now that the PS4 is using GDDR5 instead of DDR3
-Nothing of any importance.
A console processor requires a very limited functionality compared with a PC proc. Consoles processors aren't required to be optimized for a vast range of software, drivers, hardware changes, OS bloat, concurrent processes. Even a PC CPU can make do with a very small amount of RAM if the workload is streamlined- as it is in a console.
Vienn_22 said: ↑
You also said above that the APU is "sensitive to memory bandwidth" but that is only for the GPU side, since the APU has a CPU side too what will happen now that PS4 is using GDDR5 for both, since the 2 memories are opposites wouldn't it affect the CPU performance??
-Nope, not in the slightest. What applications would a console be running that are CPU intensive and require minimal latency? CPUs require minimal latency because of multiple applications fighting for resources from available compute threads/cores – and multiple concurrent applications aren't likely to come into play with a console.
Most, if not all, applications running on a console APU would be hardware (GPU) accelerated. At this point I'm not even sure if PhysX wouldn't be HW accelerated on an AMD APU.
Dexter Rivens
Actually 32mb of ESRAM is Huge. ESRAM does not = DDR ram by size
Joel Hruska
I cannot tell what you mean by this.
32MB of ESRAM is the same amount of storage as 32MB of DDR, which is the same as the 32MB of NAND, which is the same as 32MB of EDO RAM. If you have 32MB of RAM you have 32MB of RAM.
The speed, access latency, and bandwidth of that RAM can be very different, but the *amount* of storage is identical in all cases. 32MB of L1 cache is the same size as 32MB of hard drive space.
Dexter Rivens
32mb of ESRAM is not nearly the same as 32mb of DDR3 or DDR5
Joel Hruska
If I hand you a quart of mustard, a quart of mayonnaise, and a quart of liquid gold, I have given you the exact same amount of each substance. That does not mean they are of equal value. It doesn't mean they are equally tasty. It does not mean they weigh the same or smell the same.
But they are all one quart. 32MB is 32MB. A 32MB cache will have very different operating characteristics than 32MB of hard drive space, but it will always be 32MB.
Dexter Rivens
Do you understand the difference between ESRAM, DDR3 and DDR5?
Your analogy suggests you think ESRAM = DDR. The 32mb of ESRAM in the Xbox One runs at a theoretical 193/gbs. 5 gig of DDR3 in the Xbox One runs at 60/gbs. 7gig of DDR5 in the PS4 runs at a theoretical 173/gbs. They are very different so your example makes no sense or lacks understanding
Joel Hruska
Read what you wrote: "ESRAM does not = DDR ram by size"
ESRAM does = DDR RAM by size.
ESRAM does not equal DDR RAM by *capability*.
Dexter Rivens
You're trying to treat it like we are cooking in a kitchen. Please read up according to M$ how the 32mb of ESRAM is used. And 32mb does = 32mb but 32mb of ESRAM does not = 32mb of DDR by size. Please also research what the differences are on a board or chip
Joel Hruska
You're killing me, 32MB is 32MB, period, always, regardless, in any circumstance. A megabyte is a measure of data storage. You can store 32MB in a tiny circuit or 32MB in a dumpster, but it's still just 32MB of data.
Dexter Rivens
Have you ever built electronics?
There is a reason the chips have different names.
The way you see it mb = mb is like saying all cars are =
A BMW or Porsche is much more of a car compared to a Honda or Camry. For their uses, and they way each handle data 32mb of ESRAM is not the same as 32mb of DDR of any kind.
That's one point I'm making. So back to your article…you shown your lack of understanding the differences of the three memory types and attempting to apply your understanding of how this customized system will work and suggest such as actual is bad. Both Sony and M$ have talented engineers so to suggest that M$ has put out a gaming system that is underpowered is rediculous. Last gen the X360 was thought to be a third of the x360 and I don't have to attempt to prove that theory was far off.
Write as you wish….
Dexter Rivens
That last part should say the PS3 was said to be almost 2/3 more powerful than the X360
Matthew Bryant
Looking at the Last of Us, it is considerably more powerful than the XBox 360. Probably not 66% more powerful, and it's difficult to tap into, but the PS3 can do amazing things for a 7 year old console.
Matthew Bryant
Your argument makes no logical sense. You're making random statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. 32 MBs of eSRAM IS the same as 32 MBs of DDR3 or GDDR5. Obviously it can read and write faster. That doesn't change the fact that you can't hold ore than 32 MBs of data in the eSRAM. Granted, that's a decent amount of eSRAM and it is lower latency than GDDR5, but if you're trying to pretend that 32 MBs of eSRAM will somehow compete with 8 GBs of GDDR5, or that the eSRAM will somehow negate the low bandwidth of DDR3 then you're delusional.
It's a nice cache, and it will obviously help a lot when doing repetitive tasks, but it's a bandaid. It's a pressure valve to let out steam, more or less. It won't change the fact that the PS4 has a lot more room for steam to build up and doesn't really require the valve because of this.
Probably a terrible analogy. <.< But I'm not spending a lot of time thinking up a better one.
Dexter Rivens
Do you understand the difference between ESRAM, DDR3 and DDR5?
Your analogy suggests you think ESRAM = DDR. The 32mb of ESRAM in the Xbox One runs at a theoretical 193/gbs. 5 gig of DDR3 in the Xbox One runs at 60/gbs. 7gig of DDR5 in the PS4 runs at a theoretical 173/gbs. They are very different so your example makes no sense or lacks understanding
Matthew Bryant
Latency is a non-issue so long as it can match the framerate. While the XBox One may have a potential advantage when it comes to the OS, the PS4 will definitely have an advantage when it comes to games. There's little reason why GDDR5 latency should cause a problem for AI and physics routines. We've been running physics routines on GDDR5 on PCs for some time now without any issues. DDR3 will obviously be ideal for multitasking, but I'd much rather have better looking/performing games than the ability to easily call my grandma while playing. I have a cell phone for that.
Matthew Bryant
First off, you can't add the bandwidth of DDR3 to the bandwidth of eSRAM. They're separate pools of memory. eSRAM doesn't have any effect on the function of DDR3, and vice versa. eSRAM will be used as a cache. Basically, functions that are run often will be stored in eSRAM so the results can be referenced and variables can be modified without running the function again (so long as the arguments stay the same of course). While this is great, the vast majority of the time the system will be using DDR3, and the eSRAM won't have any beneficial effect on the DDR3 unless it is referencing something that's already contained with the cache.
So, basically adding memory bandwidths makes no logical sense. It was a PR trick by Microsoft to pretend their memory bandwidth is the same as the PS4. Except RAM doesn't work that way. Unfortunately, people who don't know any better keep going on about the eSRAM. That's because they don't know any better. It's obviously useful, but it's not equal alternative to GDDR5. The RAM in the PS4 is MUCH better for many graphical purposes.
Really Joel?? Really? Lame Ass Article.. Congrats Fanboy!
Zohak Diaz
Lol. Switching to the xb1 now. Lol. Xb rules.
lol lol lol lololol wait, what are we talking about? Oh, PCs are better. Kthx bai! Sorry, just trying out your vernacular.
Ray C
Why do we keep getting articles like this. Whomever buys whichever console will be happy with their purchase as long as not too many "experts" try to convince them otherwise
yep i was extremely happy to bring my first xbox 360 console home. well until 3 days later getting E79 error and having to send it in. then 2 months after getting it back getting the RROD, send it in again got it back and it was still RROD on arrival after waiting 2 weeks to get it back. I was sooooo happy with my purchase from MS.
It also made me sooo happy when i upgraded blindly to windows 8 to be told that in order to have normal desktop function like a "start button" i would have to wait for it to come out in an update, or buy 3rd party software to put it back myself. i was sooooo happy with my purchase from MS.
so i guess we could buy the ms xbone and we can watch tv on it, and maybe later on if MS decides to let us have it they will make a few hardware revisions that will allow us to game on the machine as well. I guess thats only gonna happen if they dont decide to bring the DRM requirement s back in at a later date after everyone has purchase there consoles.
Do you realize that I can say the same thing about the PS3 when I got the Blue Light of Death? I mean it just looks like we both drew the bad end of the card.
Oh man, I replaced so many PS2s as well. I actually bought my first one on warranty, it wouldn't read dvds, took it back, that one wouldn't read games with certain paint codes on the disc. Took that one back. The third one stayed up! Mostly, I had to take it apart and blow air off the laser every couple years or it would just quit reading.
It's a well documented fact that xbox 360, as a percentage of units sold, has the highest number of warranty claims of any consumer gaming device in the last decade. Search online and you can get the numbers.
Matthew Bryant
36% within 2 years according to Squaretrade, and it could easily be much higher since those were only the consoles reported to Squaretrade, there were likely many more that were reported directly to Microsoft. Squaretrade said that it could be as high as 54%. That's pretty terrible. So terrible that a class action lawsuit was required in order for Microsoft to finally extend the warranty. It was definitely not XBox's finest hour.
It's a well documented fact that xbox 360, as a percentage of units sold, has the highest number of warranty claims of any consumer gaming device in the last decade. Search online and you can get the numbers.
oh im not praising sony on anything they have done either. im just saying if everyone would just say screw it and take a break from console and go to something other than the 2 main competitors then in the end everyone would profit. they would be forced to either give us stuff thats worth a damn or just stop making consoles. I know this wont happen though cause come christmas time everyone will flock to the stores grab the next gen consoles and then in 2014 when all the new game engines popup everywhere the xbone and ps4 wont have hardware that can keep up with the changes in the games. therefore buying a nextgen console will be completely and totally out of date within one year.
Also im pretty sure cod has already stated that there will be big graphics differences and other changes that are going to be better off on pc. Soi that statement alone should show everyone that the nextgen consoles arent so next-gen. more like old hardwware in shiny newer cases with the abillity to check your facebook and watch tv.
oh im not praising sony on anything they have done either. im just saying if everyone would just say screw it and take a break from console and go to something other than the 2 main competitors then in the end everyone would profit. they would be forced to either give us stuff thats worth a damn or just stop making consoles. I know this wont happen though cause come christmas time everyone will flock to the stores grab the next gen consoles and then in 2014 when all the new game engines popup everywhere the xbone and ps4 wont have hardware that can keep up with the changes in the games. therefore buying a nextgen console will be completely and totally out of date within one year.
Also im pretty sure cod has already stated that there will be big graphics differences and other changes that are going to be better off on pc. Soi that statement alone should show everyone that the nextgen consoles arent so next-gen. more like old hardwware in shiny newer cases with the abillity to check your facebook and watch tv.
Joel Hruska
The RROD failures were an enormous problem for MS. My understanding is that failure rates for both consoles were fine (and approximately equal) in the years following, but there's no denying MS took a hefty whack on that issue.
I went through 3 YLOD's (PS3) myself. Luckily I knew to get the Gamestop quick replace insurance prior. Its smart to do that with any regular use device.
And I'll do the same with my X1 and PS4 :)
Matthew Bryant
Then you got extremely unlucky. More likely, you're lying. 10% failure rate with 3 YLODs would you had about a 1/1000 chance of that happening to you (assuming each console lasted 2 years or less). I'm gonna go ahead and call shenanigans. I had a fat 40 GB for 5 years before replacing it with a slim. It still worked and I traded it into Gamestop because they were offering an additional $50 on console trade ins at the time (which made the new PS3 cost half the price). I have multiple friends with PS3s. I've only heard of one failing, and he bought it used. Pretending it happens often is nonsense. It doesn't.
Joel Hruska
The RROD failures were an enormous problem for MS. My understanding is that failure rates for both consoles were fine (and approximately equal) in the years following, but there's no denying MS took a hefty whack on that issue.
Matthew Bryant
It's YLOD and you're comparing a 10% 2 year failure rate to a 36%+ 2 year failure rate. Since the PS3 was 5% below the standard failure rate and the XBox 360 was 21% over the standard failure rate for electronic devices during the first 2 years I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this logically. You're using a fallacy of false analogy to pretend that the YLOD was as large of a problem as the RROD, and that's complete fanboy crap. Try again.
Now, the PS2 had some pretty major issues. Then again, the original XBox had some pretty major issues too when it came to the laser eye. I'm pretty sure the PS2 was considerably worse, but we have no failure rate data that I know of so I couldn't tell you for sure. Regardless, thankfully disc reading is much less of an issue with current consoles.
All I was trying to explain to IKROWNI, was that I got the YLOD on the PS3, and how we just drew the bad end of the card.
Matthew Bryant
If you're trying to pretend that nobody cares about the potential of each system and how that could compare to the competitor after a few years, then you're ridiculously wrong. The only one who's scared of more knowledge is the person who 's afraid of what they might learn. Knowledge is never a bad thing. Knowing the XBox One has less memory functionality than the PS4 is just a piece of information. It's neither good or bad, it just is. If this doesn't bother you, then feel free to buy a XBox One. Some people will be influenced by this. What does it matter? Should we just stop learning things about the consoles so we can all make ignorant decisions? Your logic has an obvious flaw in it.
Besides AMD IS DONE FOR that's FACT!!!!
Face it these chips won't make a difference for AMD!!! AMD is done for because they already ran out of money a long time ago and Now Intel, ARM, and MIPS will CRUSH AMD INTO TINY TINY BITS BWHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
yeah long time ago and they still here, tell us something we don't know
So but AMD won't last much longer!!! They are on their death bed right now!!! They are trying so hard to rise from the ashes of defeat but Intel broadwell will crush any dream of AMD's to rise from defeat!!! GOODBYE AMD!!!!!
Matthew Bryant
Huh What are you talking about?
well looks the author had to change the story after getting a letter from AMD stating the info to be false and they don't comment on either tech.
AMD is finished so it doesn't matter at all!!!! AMD has lost this race with delays and bad execution up the wazoo!!!! Also the fact that AMD puts out the SUCKIEST CHIPS I've seen yet may also have something to do with it!!!!!
You need to troll somewhere else, AMD will still be here long after you have grown gray hair coming out of your ass.
Nope AMD is going to die along M$ in new era of computing!!!!! AMD's death is soon at hand!!!
You will die before MS does.
Nope not going to happen but M$ and AMD are still going to die off!!!!
Joel Hruska
As the author: That's not what I did.
I added AMD's official statement and remarked on some of the exact same trends I've also stated in the comments. AMD is contractually unable to clarify the situation at this point. It is a mutually frustrating situation.
The main points of this topic are moot, because they were debunked by the source. You should put that bit at the end in the BEGINNING of the article. Since it's officially been debunked.
Joel Hruska
The main points of the article:
1.) are the question of whether or not HSA would be beneficial to the PS4 and when that performance might be leveraged,
2). a bit of discussion of Carmack's points on the sameness of the consoles, the relative performance of the PS4 over the Xbox.
3). the question of whether the HSA/hUMA distinction only applies to the PS4.
The last point is inaccurate in an unknown way. Whether that means both consoles have exactly the same features or implement the same concept two different ways, or that the PS4 has more HSA features than the Xbox One, I do not know. But the first two are completely valid.
Go ahead and tell yourself that….yea I messed up but i may be partially right so I win.
To be honest I was enjoying the article until I read that last part from AMD. I really think you should put it at the beginning so gamers don't get so riled up about a rumor that was officially outed by the source.
Matthew Bryant
The info was never stated to be false. They simply said they don't comment on either tech. You're putting words in their mouth.
Well seems Xbox does use hUMA so that would be false
Not you i wouldn't expect a crack reporter like yourself to change. Talking about original article.
direct x 11.2 handles that process for XB1. If this was a big story you think PS wouldn't be yelling it from the roof tops.
Falling Where
Directx has nothing to do with hardware. And btw, opengl is faster and better than directx. Directx is just the standard but it has never been better.
Directx is the DEFACTO standard. Which is to say, people got sick of Opengl's shit somewhere around Doom 3, and largely haven't bothered since. Faster and better how? If it was really better people would be using it. I've read how RECENTLY Opengl is looking less obnoxious to try to code for and how it MIGHT make a comeback. But that's really all dictated by the market.
this is a fail statement Falling Where.
opengl only got popular again because of mobile platforms. That has nothing to do with real gaming, unless your the type that plays on your iphone all day and call yourself a gamer.
DirectX may not have to do with hardware, but it has everything to do with performance. And thats the argument here.
Falling Where
I don't care about popularity. I care about facts.
Opengl is faster and supported by indies for various reasons, read this:
One game running natively in a opengl platform agaisnt directx platform runs at higher frame rates.
As both articles say, DirectX just has a easier to use API.
Facts – then stop pretending OGL is faster and better than DX. Its just not true.
The higher frame rates in that article are moot because it's an isolated case with super low res. DX is meant for newer games, not low res indie stuff. There are plenty of cases where DX outshines OGL, which is why it is used more in non mobile platforms.
DX is easier to use, and is upgraded for X1.
DX11.2 is going to be used on the X1 and will make some very very big differences in next gen.
OGL isn't bad by any means, thats not my point. It just became much more useful in the indie side with low res mobile platforms because its cheaper and there has been so much iteration on mobile in the past years. Still nowhere near the AAA game status.
Well we will have to wait and see, hopefully ET can benchmark both consoles(if its possible)
Hmmmm . . . .
Sounds like someone has caught a bit of the 'Fannyboy' syndrome.
It's ok though, we won't mention any names, right Joel Hruska?
LOL I'll say that was rude
Its OK Joel this is easily fixed here ill help you. I want to apologize for my article posted today. I let my personal emotion get in the way of my journalistic integrity. I will do better in the future to post articles that are both fair and thought provoking. Thank You
wow, i guess extremetech will publish nonsense on the website. I love reading unverified rumors as fact. I will never read this site again. No trust.
Puuuuulease. If you don't know by now that you have to read everything on the internet with a grain of salt, please just log off and go listen to the news on TV. How's the accuracy there? Haha I said log off. I wonder if anyone has logged off the internet anytime recently.
What are you talking about. Its called integrity, if you have none you will lose readers. I dont read sites that have zero integrity. End of story. You cant post rumors as fact. Its poor jornalism. If you accept this as the norm, then it is you are a chump.
That's all journalism these days. Rumor-mongering. Nobody even apologizes anymore. Been to the grocery store recently? Seen what they sell in checkout isles?
This is an article about a theoretical advantage a theoretical device might have over a theoretical competitor using a theoretical software tweak, that, wait for it, IN THEORY, the competitors can't also take advantage of.
If there's a lack of solid facts somewhere in that, and you find yourself offended, well go read about something that's already out then.
Why you are apologizing or making excuses for them eludes me, but fact is, the title claims it as fact, and the entire article insinuates these "theory's" as the gospel. Im a PC gamer, so i have no allegiance to PS4. I find this kind of journalism despicable and drags down the credibility of this site.
Go cry about it someplace else, gay
Sanjay Saini
What a terrible article, the Xbox One also uses a unified memory architecture. Though there is an addition eSRAM which combined with the system memory outputs more bandwidth than the ps4.
I have read so many Anti-Xbox-Article it's not even funny. What happen to real Articles that are Neutral?? I am very interested in the exclusives for both consoles, but this generation has become of the of the most SPOILED. I would have died for these consoles back in 1980. Nobody back then gave a rats ass what the specs were for the Atari 2600, or NES. lol
Christopher Cherry
I don't see how this is Anti-Xbox-Article. It seems to me this website is reporting what every other electronics web-site is reporting. That MS screwed up, flip flopped, back tracked and has not been up front. At least when SONY said they were selling the PS3 for 500 and 600 dollars they never flipped and they have sold just as may PS3's as XB360's
Joel Hruska
Unified Memory Architecture is not the same thing as HSA. Cache coherency isn't the same thing as HSA. I/O coherency isn't the same thing as HSA. The ESRAM cache has nothing to do with ANYTHING related to HSA.
That doesn't mean HSA is a killer feature. It doesn't mean the Xbox One automatically lacks HSA-like features. But if you're going to walk in and call something terrible for technical reasons, you really ought to make certain you understand the technical details under discussion in the thread.
Matthew Bryant
GDDR5 is already technically more efficient for texture streaming and mesh rendering than DDR3. There's really no question that the PS4 has better memory for gaming. That's already known beyond a shadow of a doubt to anyone who knows better. DDR3 is pretty terrible for graphic applications. Yes, it is used for texture streaming when necessary on PCs, but removing the necessity will obviously lead to less pop in and much smoother LOD. I just don't understand why anyone would pretend that DDR3 is somehow better for a game console. It's ignorant nonsense. AI and particle effects don't take up that much RAM. Even on PC most system RAM in higher end games goes to texture streaming. The difference is substantial. The PS4 will have better LOD if developers choose to spend any time optimizing games for it. It will also likely have better looking textures in general. Given the bandwidth of the RAM there's no reason it shouldn't.
Joel Hruska
There's nothing inherent to the structure of DDR3 that makes it poorly suited to streaming applications; Microsoft could have done a higher-speed / higher bandwidth DDR3 bus.
Joel Hruska
I should have been more clear on my response to this. GDDR5 is based on DDR3. There is nothing about DDR3 that makes it impossible to build wider buses or run at higher clocks.
But yes, there are changes to GDDR5 that make it run at higher bandwidths.
Sanjay Saini
I am sorry you lost me HSA meaning the CPU and GPU share the same memory pool correct? Therefore the Xbox One uses HSA unified memory based architecture of 8GB DDR3+32mb eSRAM cache. Pretty clear to me thanks for your input!
Joel Hruska
Sharing the same memory pool is not the same as HSA. HSA requires:
1). A shared memory pool. (Xbox One has this)
2). Cache coherency. (Xbox One has this).
3). Shared use of pointers. (PS4 is confirmed as having this, Xbox One is not).
4). HSA requires that #3 be implemented in a particular way, meaning that the PS4 could have all three, but not be HSA-compliant.
None of the claims made for the Xbox One (Cache coherency, I/O coherency, unified memory model) actually mean it's HSA/hUMA capable.
Matthew Bryant
If you don't know what you're talking about, stop posting. Sorry, but you're ignorant. You can't combine memory bandwidth. eSRAM and DDR3 don't unify, they perform separate operations. They don't combine to form Captain Planet. There is 32 MBs of eSRAM that is slightly slower than GDDR5. This can be used for very limited applications. Mostly just free MSAA like eDRAM in the 360 (even then tiling is still necessary, even if DirectX 11.2 makes this easier to implement). To compare 32 MBs of eSRAM that has less bandwidth than 8 GBs of GDDR5 and pretend they're comparable is honestly hilarious. No offense, but stop embarrassing yourself. <3
Eric Wright
"Sony is likely betting on
HSA/hUMA in much the same way that Microsoft is betting on cloud
offloading — as a long-term differentiation mechanism that could offer
gamers unique benefits that the other console can't duplicate."
Maybe this should be rewritten…. who in their right mind would suggest the PS4 can't offer cloud offloading?
It has been said they don't CURRENTLY have a cloud based portfolio, but nothing stops them from such an implementation in the near future. (near relative to the console's suggested lifespan)
Then, given the PC-like nature of both consoles, nothing stops either from building an upgraded model in a year or two that is both backwards compatible and has new features.
As I say so often, only time will tell…
Matthew Bryant
Since NVidia already wrote off cloud offloading of graphics for the foreseeable future, I can't imagine why anyone would suggest that Microsoft can make it work better. Until internet bandwidth increases by 100 fold, cloud computing for graphic applications is a waste of resources. Internet bandwidth > 1-2% increase in GPU performance. It's just PR nonsense. Microsoft knows this, and the only real cloud applications are the same ones the industry has been using for years, but they're trying to pretend there's a huge difference now. It's just PR nonsense that preys on the ignorance of the average consumer. It completely kills any interest I may have had in the Xbox One. Sorry, but Microsoft is being dishonest. Screw them.
Compute on the cloud is very, very real, Orleans and Thunderbolt as testaments to that. I will again, it is not PR nonsense, and I continue to wonder why this is not obvious.
They have been quite clear about it, and there is no dishonesty, latency insensitive compute and graphics rendering with many examples given. With the current and supposed spread of datacenters, then we start to imagine the benefits of this solution.
Andy Stiles
Didn't happen before, won't happen now. User interface and functionality will always be better on Xbox.
Commenting on something that you don't know about is ignorant
This Article is not bullshit, from what I read an AMD employer was suppose to keep tight lip about the PS4 using HSA, so now AMD is covering for that. If I read about this on Playstation universe.
This Article is not bullshit, from what I read an AMD employer was suppose to keep tight lip about the PS4 using HSA, so now AMD is covering for that. I read about this on Playstation universe.
The fraud goes on…
..More and more marketing lies to sell crap fraud consoles at an high price.
Sanjay Saini
This article is funny, the Xbox One also has unified memory but with addition of eSRAM. Together providing more theoretical peak bandwidth than the ps4. Hardware aside it's the software and driver optimizations are the most important.
Joel Hruska
As has been pointed out by numerous people:
1). Regardless of the benefits of hUMA, a UMA is not the same thing.
2). The ESRAM inside the Xbox One is purpose specific and dedicated to the GPU. You cannot *add* its bandwidth to the DDR3 memory bandwidth and come out with a larger figure as though this is an accurate representation of how the cache is used.
If the PS4 and Xbox One used identical memory architectures, with 100GBps of bandwidth each, it would still be wrong to add ESRAM bandwidth to DDR3 bandwidth and claim an Xbox One advantage.
Sanjay Saini
Joel Hruska
You are misinterpreting the data in that article. Continuing to point to the same article as "evidence" for your viewpoint will not make your misinterpretation correct.
James Tolson
sigh. . . . who cares?
i have said this time and time again..
Year 1, next console take up will be as most will be happy with their 360/ps3's, both sony and Microsoft will have teething troubles with hardware reliabilty and system software features and controversy
year 1 to year 2 – Ps4 will most like be leading the so called "race" as microsoft has shot themselves with the DRM thing
Most games will be EXACT PORTS and will look Completely the SAME, in the first couple of years..
Minority of PS4 game Exclusives may have some features to distinguish them from the Xbone but i really doubt it, as by the time it is ported developers have had time to optimize it for the competitor platform..
year 2 to year 5 – when a sizable customer base of both ps4 and Xbone consoles are in out homes then (especially microsoft) will re introduce the DRM restrictions, sony may or may not do the same
to steal back market share, Microsoft WILL try and merge the windows pc and Xbone into a singular product paradigm, direct x will become Xbox games for Windows, Pc's will be able to play xbox games, and Xbone's will get more PC like features, maybe even a full flavor of Windows 9…
Sony would need to counter with some sort of "desktop" environment choice and supporting apps for PS4 so gamers can use it as a PC like devise (should be freeware) aka word processor and web stuff etc
this will be the last dedicated console generation, as already both ps4 and xbone are branded mini itx pc's.. i hate to say it but i think Microshaft will win out in the end, because if Xbox games for windows takes off then future machines will be licensed to anyone wanting to make a machine to that standard leaving sony out in the cold unless they either do the same sort of thing "a sony gaming api for windows" or cave completely just make sony branded pc's running later iterations of "xbox games for windows", i really believe the PS4 is the the last playstation. and Xbone is the last "hardware" Xbox.. Sony made the mistake of going down the pc like hardware platform..
either way i won't be buying any of them, im happy with my ps3. :-)
What a stupid stupid story you just told. I can't believe you just said word processor for my ps4….sigh man some people are dumb
James Tolson
remember this comment, and i bet in 5 years i see a comment by dirk ill ask for an apology (lol@dumb, i was was using word processor as an euphemism) because im willing to bet im right on most of the stuff i put :-P
Ben Ferguson
Euphemism – a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing. So what you said made a lot of sense.
Lol thank you
Are you willing to bet on your ability to understand what a euphemism is? Ms will try and I integrate all their products only to discourage people from going to Sony. Sony isn't going to try and change the ps4 to a pc hybrid. Don't make yourself sound any more foolish please
Josiah Larsen
Ive thought about this too especially with the way ms is merging tablets with laptops, but I really doubt consoles will ever become too pc like. Im pretty sure its more profitable to sell you a separate box that you need in addition to your pc also Im sure they want to reach the market of people who can only afford a game console but not a full on gaming pc. No there will always be a line between game consoles and PCs.
Michael Barton
This article isn't bias towards the PS4 at all… no way… /sarcasm
Never thought I'd see the day that extremetech would post something like this.
Sanjay Saini
you know whats funny is they said the same thing about the ps3 "oh its gonna destory the 360 its raw power is way better"
well look at that, it didnt destroy it
They did with better games (Sony's exclusives look better than Microsoft's, to say nothing of gameplay), and the PS3 has now outsold the 360. So yeah, what was that you were saying?
See ill say to you what I said to others, when talking about how an exclusive looked graphically on consoles is like comparing apples and oranges. You can't compare because you don't have it to compare anything to. I had both systems and the multiplatform games looked better on 360 again as I said, it didn't destroy it, being over a couple of thousand units is not destroying
Josiah Larsen
you also have to keep in mind that everyone who bought an xbox 360 had to buy 2 or 3 because of rrod for the first few years. And most likely the ps3 wil continue to outsell 360 for the next 6 years just like the ps2 continued to sell while microsoft scrapped the original xbox.
From a report posted today on http://www.videogamer.com, under the title;
"Xbox One has implementation of hUMA memory system, just like PS4, say dev".
A certified Xbox One developer took to Reddit to clear up the situation.
"Somebody had PM'ed me earlier linking to the Ars article on how the PS4 has a big advantage over the Xbox one due to hUMA. This was apparently said by some AMD marketing manager."
"I haven't heard of hUMA until today, so I went to look it up. The way I
understand it is that in addition to having unified memory access
(shared memory between CPU and GPU), which allows the GPU to read CPU
memory, it is also a coherent cache system."
The dev added: "I remember reading something on this when I got my first alpha kit. I
pulled up a couple of our internal white papers and it's pretty clear
that this was the exact implementation in the Xbox One's memory system."
Joel Hruska
Yes. Cache coherency and unified memory are not the same thing as HSA.
Likewise it does not mean XBox One is not HSA-compatible or doesn't have some HSA-like features, hence given your update that acknowledges that fact (which was good to see), I think you can agree that your original headline message that "PS4 will use its unified architecture to pound Xbox One into the dust – eventually", was a case of jumping the gun a little bit :)
I guess we'll have to wait and see once more information has been released (especially after the NDA's have been lifted).
Should probably put the "oops" we done goofed correction update at the front of the article, not on the second %@ page.
Should probably put the "oops" we done goofed correction update at the front of the article, not on the second %@ page.
Chris Korol
Ps4 Is far more powerful and that bs about both clocking in at the same speed is a huge total lie the ps4 clocks in at a much higher speed. And just wait for the exclusives to hit the ps4 in feb there gonna look far better than be Xbox game will or can look.
Joel Hruska
"huge total lie the ps4 clocks in at a much higher speed."
[citation needed]
Ok, ready for my groundbreaking conclusion to all this? Sony is relying on this talk of raw power to try and give reason for sales of their consoles….well sorry but im buying the one with more launch games first, and guess what? xbox wins, not saying the ps4 wont have any but as of now they have killzone and knack…sorry but i take Dead Rising, Ryse, and Forza over those anyday. oh and Titanfall come spring…so really if you claim yourself a gamer and decide to buy the console with LESS games…well…go show off your power to people in the pc gaming world because here on the console sode of things we look at games and games only…and microsoft as of right now is destroying. And PLEASE dont say titanfall is coming to ps4 because sorry to burst your bubble but it wont…
lol, get worked up much?
I have far more faith in Sony to deliver great games consistently. Microsoft has one or two good looking games more than Sony at launch, but it's incredibly near-sighted to make a decision based on launch games. Sony has a better track record, so Sony will be getting my money.
I know that but by the time those games come out I'll have both consoles. And dont discount microsoft, this time around they wont be selling theor great exclusives to sony. (Bioshock or Mass Effect if you didnt know where exclusives at one point)
Destroying? Easy guy. Look at the sales to see who is destroying cause in this business it's all about money.
Yeah and sorry to burst your bubble but microsoft makes 14 billion dollars annually where sony just turned a profit for the first time since the death of christ…soooo yeah destroying, and in terms of money…very very badly just saying
Not talking about the company talking about ps4 to xb1 and it is not destroying anything except maybe the wii u
this make no sense to me ….i will just wait till it is released
True gamers don't care for graphics. Buy the system that has the games that you like the most. I am buying the Xbox One for Forza and a couple other exclusives. I will be getting the PS4 later this year just to own both, but I personally like the Xbox's games and the ability to have an all-in-one entertainment center. Plus I am also a Call of Duty guy and having first DLC I like, but that's just me. Enough with the arguing, pick a console and be happy with what you picked… and don't go to websites hating on the other one you didn't pick just because you didn't pick it.
True gamers don't care for graphics. Buy the system that has the games that you like the most. I am buying the Xbox One for Forza and a couple other exclusives. I will be getting the PS4 later this year just to own both, but I personally like the Xbox's games and the ability to have an all-in-one entertainment center. Plus I am also a Call of Duty guy and having first DLC I like, but that's just me. Enough with the arguing, pick a console and be happy with what you picked… and don't go to websites hating on the other one you didn't pick just because you didn't pick it.
Shane Hort
Same story as the last consoles. Microsoft knows what they're doing. The specs don't mean much. There are so much more factors, such as the extra esram xbone has, as well they will give more ram to developers out of e 8gb total available. They know how to get more out of the hardware. I'd say they also make much better games
A matter of opinion. Buy the xb1 then and help ms sell more of them like they outsold the ps3 with the 360…. wait that didn't happen
amd who created both sets of hardware says ps4 is more powerful than xboner
Jesus H
I preordered PS4 and as a long time 360 and ps3 player I had a hard time deciding between the two consoles. After E3 it was clear PS4 was the one for me. They were more in line with the hardcore gamers and had good titles at launch. Now that was two months ago and I keep asking if I made the right decision. Here is my dilemma as I see it. First Microsoft is far and away better for online gaming, maintenance schedules and less lag than the PSN. This is a big deal and since I have both running on the same internet connection I can confidently state this. Second along the lines the investment in the 300k servers MS has been able to produce with no talk of PSN going in that direction. I hear that while the PS+ is require to play online and that subscription cost will go to fund servers or server maintenance it has yet to be announced if this is true and fact being how long will it take to get up and running. PSN is known for untimely server issues. So this has me really, really concerned. Finally as a FPS gamer first I enjoy Battlefield immensely and the new Titanfall is rapidly becoming a must have. I haven't wanted to play a game so much since I could remember. Titanfall is console exclusive to Xbox, many say a timed exclusive but unless PSN uses servers for cloud computation than this is just for Xbox. Respawn has stated exactly this. Therefore if this feature can let developers work on games without the overhead of server maintenance fees and other fees associated with optimizing their games then how many smaller studios with talent can produce games like this. It opens a new realm to development. As much as I hate the MS pay wall and the kinect I can't deny the online experience and the ability to play Titanfall. No killzone or any other title PS has put out there has gotten me excited. I'll play BF4 and NBA 2k until TF drops and then I'm taking a week long vacation. I will own both consoles eventually but Titanfall may just be MS way to remarket Xbox one again in February.
Hugo Stiglitz
That is simply not true.
Maybe 5 years ago it were true, PSN had a bit more lag because it had less players but now it has more players, and the lag is even if not in PSN's favor.
The thing you need to realize is that unless you're talking about exclusive titles, there is no lag differential between the 2 networks, because multiplatform games use the same servers for both. BF3, CoD, every multiplatform game you can think of uses the same servers hubs in the same locations for each networks. The networks have no effect on lag.
The only thing XBL had in its favor was party chat, and PS4 has that, so I don't get why it's a hard choice for you to make.
You said it yourself, the PS4 is not only more tailored to hardcore gamers, cheaper, and more powerful, but you had already made up your mind.
Plus, Titanfall can be played on PC and eventually PS4 so it's technically not even exclusive. By february PS4 will have games that blow it out of the water including Killzone and Infamous Second Son.
Patrick Parnin
"Last generation, the Xbox 360 and PS3 were both derived from a common CPU heritage (the Xbox 360 used three of Cell's Power Processor Elements, or PPEs), but had very different GPUs, different requirements for local storage, different storage mediums (dual-layer DVD vs. Blu-ray), and different amounts of RAM available to the CPU. The PS3 implements two blocks of 256MB of RAM for the CPU and GPU individually, while the Xbox 360 dynamically allocates memory."
Dude, do you even have a clue?? The 360 and the PS3 are nothing alike CPU wise. This leads me to believe this article was authored by someone who is either A: clueless , or B: posting what I call "Flamebate" looking for "hits"…
Morris Buel
That's not completely correct. The main CPU of the Cell processor is exactly the same processor that the 360 has 3 of. The difference is in the SPU (vector processing units) that they stuck in the CPU as well.
the PS3 like the PS2 was an architectural nightmare. Yeah it's more powerful than the 360, if you spend a ton more money on development.
The PS4 is *also* more powerful than the XB1. The difference now is that the PS4 was developed with feedback from developers and is *extremely* easy to program for.
Morris Buel
That's not completely correct. The main CPU of the Cell processor is exactly the same processor that the 360 has 3 of. The difference is in the SPU (vector processing units) that they stuck in the CPU as well.
the PS3 like the PS2 was an architectural nightmare. Yeah it's more powerful than the 360, if you spend a ton more money on development.
The PS4 is *also* more powerful than the XB1. The difference now is that the PS4 was developed with feedback from developers and is *extremely* easy to program for.
Here's what I think is the true situation.
The PS4 does have a heterogeneous unified memory system (HUMA) and it's implemented by AMD on their latest chipset for Sony. XB1 uses an older chipset that does not support HUMA so HUMA not implemented by AMD. This info was blabbed and broke an NDA with Microsoft. A retraction was issued claiming the statement was untrue.
The Sony bit will be true but goes back into hiding behind the NDA. It's been proven elsewhere because a dev recently claimed the PS4 unified memory system allows him to assign a pointer to a texture and access it from both the CPU and GPU. That's HUMA. One piece of memory data accessed by multiple processes via pointers. A non HUMA unified memory system without pointers means that data has to be duplicated with every process having his own copy. That slows everything down and is what we have today on all non HUMA systems.
The MS bit is also true, but not quite. True, AMD does not implement HUMA on the XB1 chipset, but also false because I'm thinking MS have customised the memory system when including the eSRAM and move engines so that it does use some form of hetoragenic unified memory access. It maybe just partial with only the eSRAM having heterogeneous unified memory access. The normal DDR3 RAM may remain bog standard non heterogeneous unified memory. But I'm guessing that is what's behind the strange AMD retraction.
AMD were placed in the awkward position that they have nuked one of the their customers, when it is in their interest for the customer to succeed in order to do business with them. Microsoft had to complain because it was damaging. and probably emphasised that they do have a heterogeneous unified emory system in place.
AMD later stated just because the statement was untrue, does not mean the opposite is true. lol …that play on words more or less fits in with my theory above. Whatever the case, it seems clear the PS4 has the real deal system wide and is going to be very powerful as a result.
The XB1 remains veiled in mystery and has everything to prove. There are two ways to look at the XB1 hardware design, it's either very innovative and new, or it's a botch job of patchwork parts trying to emulate the PS4's power on the cheap. The crazy thing about all this is that it's the PS4 that is the cheapest console. Even when you remove Kinect out of the equation, the two are equal price but the PS4 still has more expensive parts. I guess it all boils down to good design on Sony's part, thus saving money elsewhere.
Does all this matter. It's true that content is king and both companies know that, so I expect them both to be equal with quality game content. That brings us right back to hardware again as the deciding factor. Especially when you have 3rd party multi platform games in the mix.
This article is complete trash. Windows has been developing hUMA tech into their OS and software for over 5 years. Can't believe a credible source would be so lazy to post garbage.
Why would MS reinvent the wheel? MS and Sony went with this route so they didn't have to spend to much on Design, they let AMD do most of it. Of course it uses HSA/hUMA its an AMD Jaguar.
Well it appears that MS put a ton of thought into their architecture.
I'm not sure where your going with this reply but they did "put a ton of thought into their architecture", and so did Sony. I'm sure they looked at tons of designs before they decided on this. Overall, for cost effectiveness and long term an APU like this is probably the best solution. My point in my original comment is that once MS decided to use an AMD APU it would make absolutely no sense for them to not go with an HSA/hUMA design.
hUMA memroy? why not HoMo memory? it even implies consolidation and solidarity
Marble Shark
Yes but the XBone ships with Kinect 2.0 – that is a far, far bigger deal than most people realise as Kinect 2.0 is considered *very* special in VR circles (uses 'time of flight'). To buy this on its own for PC is $399 – the XBone version relies on a certain amount of H/W in the console itself, which you will ultimately be able to proxy through the console to the Kinect 2.0 – and then, if you own a PC with an Oculus Rift, there is nothing on this planet the PS4 could do to replicate that potential…
Given Kinect 2.0 costs more than the XBone itself to make, this makes the package as a whole an absolute steal. PS4 IS amazing too, but in raw terms of value for money the XBone has it easily sewn up…
Wow, the PS4 sure is ugly and it sucks.
Eric Wright
Read on and weep, XB1 lovers…
Actual developers HAVE complained about the XB1 for both ease of programming and poor performance compared to the PS4….
I knew I was right to stand behind the better console manufacturer… even if I don't particularly like what's happened to the Sony name in the past 15 years in other market segments (Stereos, TV's, Etc.)
Enjoy the nice article, and all it tells you about the difference in Consoles…
That was an old article and many aspects of those rumors have since been addressed and proven false. For instance, the whole 900p rumor was total bullshit based on the fact that the game "Ryse" was developed as 900p, whereas the XB1 is fully capable of 1080p @ 60fps.
The rest is all speculation and biased opinion. The fact is that neither console has truly been stress-tested or compared side-by-side yet. And one thing I've learned over time is that just because a couple spec appear better on paper does NOT always mean the entire machine will be faster or better overall (ex. "Faster" ram doesn't mean faster console. CPU/GPU speed and the WAY they're set up between each other & RAM is what will determine overall speed). In fact, more recent analysis over specs and design has determined that the overall performance of each will be very similar because their architectures are both use each component slightly differently, yet similarly efficient in final output.
Bottom line:
Each system will ultimately have their strong points but until both are released and fully examined, specs & rumors simply stir up opinion-wars based on speculation. No one, including you and I, TRULY know what the outcome will be. But it's also this is really about preference. You prefer PS and I prefer XB and only personal experiences & opinions can change that. Biased rumors & assumptions aren't helping anyone.
Eric Wright
Show me just 2 reviews of any recent AMD video cards, where there are 50% more cores on board of one of them, even if memory is clocked the same, where it shows they perform even slightly close….
I just asked you for the IMPOSSIBLE.
Within any family of AMD video cards, cores equal performance when all else is the same, and gddr5 is OPTIMIZED for graphics.
While the CPU might see higher latency with gddr5, you can bet games for the PS4 will account for that with preloading and GPU offloading, something good for those extra GPU cores… (the last bit may be speculation, but it makes a great deal of sense)
BOTTOM LINE: The PS4 will kick the snot out of the XBone in more titles than not.
It is not speculation that more GPU cores are better than less in the same family of GPU's… Do a little research, read a few reviews of similar AMD video cards… Learn.
You obviously missed the point.
I was commenting on the bullshit Resolution/FPS rumor along with the fact that faster RAM doesn't necessarily mean faster overall speed. And it's the differences in how each console is set up and utilizes each component that will determine how WELL they run, not necessarily a higher number. And until each console is released and compared in-person, all we have is specs and personal opinion. (Which BTW, the PS4's GPU has about 33% more independent cores, not 50%). But again, until I actually try each, I'm not gonna be too zealous over my own opinion.
But hey, I wasn't trying to have a pointless argument over PS4 vs XB1. If a few bigger numbers on the spec sheet convince you what you needed to know, go for it.
I prefer Xbox now even though I used to be a Playstation user, personal preference. And I'm going to wait until they are released before I make a choice. Higher specs on paper won't change that.
Eric Wright
Show me ONE AMD video card, in the same line of cards, at the same clock speed, that has more cores and less performance in benchmarks….
You are in DENIAL of the facts…
RAM and GPU power together make the PS4 far superior.
Enough to be visually obvious…
Seriously, before typing a reply, go read reviews of AMD graphics cards and find me one that has more cores at the same clock speed that does NOT perform better than the one with less cores..
that is an impossible task… but read and learn anyway.
Usman Khan
to be really honest i haven't seen a ps4 game yet which looks 50% better than xbox. Have u seen Ryse, Forza 5?
Eric Wright
They shouldn't look 50% better.
If you were a PC gamer you would know 50% more cores means about 25-30% better frame rates, or more details at the same frame rate…
Have you seen Assassin's Creed 3 or 4 on PlayStation? How about the exclusives?
I have seen Forza at Game Stop. It sucks, with the same jagged lines that PS3 or 4 will render smooth.
No idea why Microsoft has not fixed it still.. probably a limitation of DirectX… Check out the hood view when a car goes into a corner, look at the straight edge, and as you turn in the camera's view you will see huge jagged lines…
The same views and angles of cars in Gram Tourismo on a PlayStation, even a PS3, render the line smoothly.
This is just the easiest one of many quality issues to point out.
There is no way Microsoft would have issued the video to Game Stop in a XB1 display if it wasn't the best quality they could muster. I expected a better rendering job with this next generation Forza…
As I have said in other comments, i will have both systems, and PCfor PC exclusives and higher quality imagery.
Not a hater.. just observe and report.
I still expect Microsoft was apologizing when they said games would have more access to the GPU in the future..
I do hope that means the Forza sequel, after the launch day one, will indeed have full GPU access.. until then we just have to take what we can get.
I do think Microsoft will be better equipped to port X360 games over, and add high quality textures.. the console differences are smaller for them, between last gen and this gen.
That could mean more playable games for camp X.
Usman Khan
Well… i'll enjoy next gen exclusive games on xbox one, while u have fun comparing games and pointing out issues.
Note : finding jagies in Forza, ryse… will be tough, Good Luck!
Eric Wright
Apparently you forgot to go in to game stop to check out the Microsoft provided videos for their xb1 display..
It may not be an actual xb1, but you can be sure Microsoft would only release the highest quality in game video possible to draw in sales, especially considering the pre-order pounding they are taking.
If you see the video, you would have to actually be blind not to see the jagged hoodlines in Forza… Or maybe a plasma tv would smooth that out….
It is worse at some angles, but it can't be helped when Microsoft has to play memory swapping games to make up for their 4 blocks of 8MB of faster ESRAM.
I will still be able to enjoy the game, but i will be disappointed they could not render smooth diagonal lines like even a PS3 can in an older Gran Turismo game.. you read that right: PS3 could render diagonal lines better in it's better racing games.
You say it will be tough to find jaggies in Forza, yet you ignore where i pointed out you could go to see actual gameplay recordings not over compressed for internet distribution. Microsoft's demo for Game Stop is a professionally authored Blue Ray disc that is not bandwidth limited like You Tube and other sites.
They use a full HD monitor by LG to display their great teaser video. The cinematics are good, but some scenes show the weakness of the system or programers.
Like I said, the games should be enjoyable, though the biggest change will be color depth, palettes, and better possible resolution than the x360.
Eric Wright
xbox1 is already pounded into the sand with a title available on both consoles, and despite some wishing games would all look alike and be coded to the lowest common denominator, that simply isn't the case.
PS4 is far superior and easier to code for.
just try claiming the game company is anti-xbox… we both know they did their best, and it wasn't good enough to get full HD from the new XB1…
Yes, I will still enjoy some XB1 games… but there will have to be some damn compelling games to make me keep my new XB1 after I have played the ones that made me buy my XB1….
So much for Doom experts misquotes… the systems have similar architecture, but not similar performance..
at least Microsoft can make an upgraded model next year, bigger cache and better CPU… MAYBE..
Usman Khan
no MS don't need hardware it's about games which are better on MS console at launch and will be better through out.
ps2 was far more weaker thn xbox much weaker thn xbox one is from ps4. ps4 launch is flop too lets see how xbox do. but it has already shown pretty graphics aren't everything. killzone 73 in meta lowest for a killzone game and yet it has best graphics. enjoy ur best graphics :).
Eric Wright
Please cite why you think PS4 is a flop..
Apparently you missed the part where nationally PS4 presales were about 7:1 over XB1….
Maybe you missed sales of Killzone will be over Ryse, easily proven by the massive number of PS4 sales over XB1…
If 1 in 8 new consoles is an XB1 and every one of them bought Ryse, that still won't match 20% of PS4 owners buying Killzone…
The Math just isn't favorable for XB1, who has been the real flip flopper this generation.
Eric Wright
They shouldn't look 50% better.
If you were a PC gamer you would know 50% more cores means about 25-30% better frame rates, or more details at the same frame rate…
Have you seen Assassin's Creed 3 or 4 on PlayStation? How about the exclusives?
I have seen Forza at Game Stop. It sucks, with the same jagged lines that PS3 or 4 will render smooth.
No idea why Microsoft has not fixed it still.. probably a limitation of DirectX… Check out the hood view when a car goes into a corner, look at the straight edge, and as you turn in the camera's view you will see huge jagged lines…
The same views and angles of cars in Gram Tourismo on a PlayStation, even a PS3, render the line smoothly.
This is just the easiest one of many quality issues to point out.
There is no way Microsoft would have issued the video to Game Stop in a XB1 display if it wasn't the best quality they could muster. I expected a better rendering job with this next generation Forza…
As I have said in other comments, i will have both systems, and PCfor PC exclusives and higher quality imagery.
Not a hater.. just observe and report.
I still expect Microsoft was apologizing when they said games would have more access to the GPU in the future..
I do hope that means the Forza sequel, after the launch day one, will indeed have full GPU access.. until then we just have to take what we can get.
I do think Microsoft will be better equipped to port X360 games over, and add high quality textures.. the console differences are smaller for them, between last gen and this gen.
That could mean more playable games for camp X.
Eric Wright
nope… 50% more… 1152 vs 768.
768 x 1.5 = 1152…. EXACTLY 50% more…
So, 50% more shader cores, and proven almost 50% faster memory bandwidth from main memory to graphics cores… (The 32MB cache of the XB1 is only fast for the first 32MB, then it has to load from another source… either regular RAM or a HDD or an optical disc)
Name a recent title requiring 700+ shaders that only needs 32MB for textures alone?
That's right… there isn't one.
That means the PS4 will blow the XB1 away…
RAM and GPU are both faster…
AND, since you are talking about paper specs not being valid, let's do a little research…
These systems both use GCN architectures for their GPU's….
Look up PC graphics cards benchmarks for cards clocked the same, even ignore memory differences and say that is equal…
Now tell me, when is a GCN card with 2/3 of the shaders of another GCN card ever scored even close?
Do you get it yet? WE DO KNOW HOW THESE GPU's will compare because they are already on the market in gaming PC's…
Why do so many of you insist that by some miracle of console magic that PC benchmarks for the same GCN chips will somehow no longer matter?
I will be fair and say there might be some optimization due to console OS, that might make a 1 or 2% difference vs. PC counterparts…. but I doubt it…
The GPU's in these consoles are tried and tested and we know how they perform in games already…
XB1 lost this contest already…
The only thing M$ can hope for is that all of their titles have such good game play that people ignore the lower details compared to PS4 releases of the same titles.
Now, in the first year we may see some games that look the same on both consoles, because the game company doesn't want to get stuck with a bunch of unsold games for the losing console…
Later they will tailor newer games for each console's best appearances, or smoothest play…
Look at the Uncharted franchise…. each version got better on the same hardware. (We can blame a complex PS3 for that partially)
Same for Assassin's Creed franchise…
Except we see by AC3 it looks MUCH better on the PS3, and horribly blocky on the 360…
Same thing will happen here with the new consoles… developers want initial sales, and later versions of games will start pushing the consoles, except the PS4 has much more to push with.
Sony still has the option to overclock their CPU like M$ did…
So far they don't need to, because their console already handles about 50% more TFlops/s from the GPU…
Seriously, I'd not be so vocal, except we are not talking close numbers… 5-10% and I would say it's anybody's game… but it isn't.
Please, read graphics card reviews on multiple sites, of the GCN based cards… compare FPS numbers at full HD and above, and consider the number of shaders….
It doesn't take long to see what more shaders means when comparing the same family of GPU's at the same clock speed…
More CORES Wins….
Eric Wright
ready to accept the truth yet?
it should be obvious by now…
if XB1 were near equal to PS4, why can't it render 1080p native resolution in Call of Duty: Ghosts when the PS4 does?
And here I expected the big difference to be in exclusive titles.. can't say it surprises me though..
a full 50% more shaders and over 32MB of fast RAM makes the PS4 more powerful and easier to program for….
Maybe Microsoft will make an XB1.5 or something…
It isn't like the game is over yet, for Microsoft…
it will be a costly game however.
Eric Wright
so, they developed Ruse at 900p when they could have done it at 1080p?
what logical reason is there to develop at a lower resolution, other than a lack of power or ability to delegate programming to the various subprocessors?
look at now released games… like COD ghosts..
do you still believe what you said?
are you not seeing the trend?
nonexclusive game, Call of Duty, should look equal if the consoles were equal…
I am not seeing parity between the two consoles…
Eric Wright
looks like the only way to enjoy Call of Duty: Ghosts rendered at a native 1080p resolution on an XBOX 1 will be playing on a PS4 passing through the XB1…
Infinity Ward's executive producer has confirmed it..
PS4 version renders natively at 1080p…
XB1 is stuck at 720p…
That means an enemy in the distance that is a somewhat recognizable image on PS4, would still be a small blob on the XB1 at the same perceptual distance, with the same overall scene stretched to fullscreen.
Ouch, what a handicap for XB1 players…
David Stanley
HSA will be implemented quickly (universally accepted within 5 years )
due to the fact that it alleviates a lot of headaches for the software companies.
making it much easier to program as well as adds new possibilities .