Jump to content



Photo

Why is there a performance gap between the X1 + PS4....


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,882 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 27 January 2014 - 15:58

I want this to be a proper discussion not the usually gamer rubbish that wouldnt know the difference between a CPU and a cracker that only spouts out the same stuff without knowing a single thing about any of it.

Ive bin thinking about recently with the state of x1 vs PS4 1080p 60fps stuff is why the gap can be biggish at times. All people spout out is better GPU and GDDR5 thats all my mate says at work but if i put a few mints in his hand and said theres a bunch of GDDR5 chips looks cool dunnit he'd believe me(exaggeration obviously) but solidifies the truth that a lot of gamers who spout these facts hav'nt got a clue about the tech inside either system.

 

Sonys is vastly different to MS's approach, there is a straightforward HSA implementation using fairly standard APU from AMD although the GPU has bin enhanced cus you dont usually get all the extra ROP's and stuff on a GPU that has 1152 cores on it, also theres system architecture tweaks which i reckon AMD helped alot with seeing as its in AMD's interest to use sonys money to guinea pig a HSA implementation and to tweak anything for there own chips which are coming out this year and should be fairly simple to code a game to id imagine.  MS, well the jurys out whether this was the system architecture from the start or if its because they didnt predict that GDDR5 would be economically viable so they decided to go a different route and work around it possibly making the architecture a bit of a nightmare to code for/get the best out of.

 

What i want to see is figures on bandwith throughput of both consoles memory subsystems (its thats right word) want to see throughtput between the ddr3 to controller to GPU or to esram to GPU (theres a 1000GB+/sec memory link 1024bit for all the eSRAM caches, 4x 256bit linked to 1x 1024bit link being pumped back into the GPU/framebuffer ) thats got to be used for something or why bother or maybe its there to ensure theres no bottleneck. Without knowing this its impossible to tell if either console will improve much. I can imagine the X1 being not that optimised internally considering it was supposed to be released 2014 not November 2013 and with the changes to DRM they had alot of work cut out for them.  Also i think MS might be relying to heavily on Tile Based Rendering and PRT which is what the system seems to be based around which is why they added it to dx 11.2.

 

So in short is there anyway to see whats going on in the memory in terms of how saturated its getting so we could see if theres room on a hardware level to improve?? of course the OS, drivers etc need to be optimised well cus we all know how much of a difference there is between a bad driver and a good one in performance terms. maybe devkits can see? of course the game needs be optimised as well to but in terms of the X1 definately this would be good as it seems alot harder to get the best out of the X1 with its architecture.  On a personal note whether the 2 consoles are alot weaker than PC's doesnt matter, the technology and architecture inside is quite incredible and a big technical leap.

 

If this post is full of rubbish and doesnt seem relevant just say and ill get it closed cus i dont want it to turn into another X1 vs PS4 framerate, resolution flame war cus its pointless without knowing these facts.




#2 Brendeth

Brendeth

    Neowinian

  • 516 posts
  • Joined: 10-March 10
  • Location: Qld, Australia

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:15

In truth I doubt anyone here could provide a decent explanation about this and that isn't just down to waiting for further games or anything. That is just purely because I don't think we have anyone here working as a Programmer for Sony\Microsoft or as a developer working on both platforms to properly discuss this, and unless we have people with that experience or knowledge we only have speculation and rumors.



#3 Digitalfox

Digitalfox

    Catch the fox, if you can...

  • 1,002 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: iPhone

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:17

psionicinversion

Thank you. Why do I thank you?

 

I don't know the answer to your question, but finally someone who actually want's to discuss the xbox one performance vs ps4 without resorting to stupid arguments.

 

I trully hope some really knowledge people reply on this topic and avoid the usual talk.



#4 mastercoms

mastercoms

    Expert Microsoft Fanboy & C# Coder

  • 1,160 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 13
  • Location: Marietta, Georgia
  • OS: W10 + Fedora 21
  • Phone: Lumia 928 WP8.1U1 Black

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:18

Please be aware that I have a lot of homework and can't fully explain this now, so most of what I am saying is wrong for the sake of brevity.

Anyway, all I know is that GDDR5, which is vRAM, shouldn't be used for system memory, and that unified memory isn't all that. Plus, Sony has less memory modules, while X1 has basically more memory modules, all used for different things. If a game is optimized for the X1, which only Forza has been, the bandwidth for the X1 would be higher. Also, with DirectX 11.2, I believe they can store 2GB  worth of textures without DX11.2 in 32MB, hence why the ESRAM is 32MB I think. Having more than memory module also means that the X1 can perform simultaneous read and writes on 2 different RAM modules (DRR3, and ESRAM).

 

Please wait for a more detailed post later, too busy for that right now. Sorry.



#5 OP psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,882 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:25

Yah its ok another thing ive bin thinking aboutn theres 4x 2GB DDR3 modules (to equal 8GB) and 4X 8MB Esram (to make 32MB) makes me think this setup isnt random, maybe say a single DDR3 mudule has 63GB linked to the controller then linked through TBR/PRT to a 8MB esram bank speeding it up to 200+GB/sec cus we know the console is designed around tile based rendering, and just incase they get to the point that all 4x 256bit 8MB esram is in use at the same time, the 1024 bit memory link is capable of 1000+GB/sec so enough bandwidth to pump all 4 esram modules at maxiumum speed, it wont be to the GPU cus no single GPU has the power to process that but maybe pumping it directly to the framebuffer byp[assing the gpu 



#6 OP psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,882 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:36

Please be aware that I have a lot of homework and can't fully explain this now, so most of what I am saying is wrong for the sake of brevity.

Anyway, all I know is that GDDR5, which is vRAM, shouldn't be used for system memory, and that unified memory isn't all that. Plus, Sony has less memory modules, while X1 has basically more memory modules, all used for different things. If a game is optimized for the X1, which only Forza has been, the bandwidth for the X1 would be higher. Also, with DirectX 11.2, I believe they can store 2GB  worth of textures without DX11.2 in 32MB, hence why the ESRAM is 32MB I think. Having more than memory module also means that the X1 can perform simultaneous read and writes on 2 different RAM modules (DRR3, and ESRAM).

 

Please wait for a more detailed post later, too busy for that right now. Sorry.

 

ill wait im more inetereste din the technical aspects of the architectue and why MS chose this route and if you can provide a mor clear answer that would be absolutley brilliant... from a person whose obviously studtying system architecture



#7 Wapoz

Wapoz

    Neowinian

  • 220 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 13

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:48

It's still extremely early in both consoles life cycle.  I don't get why people are flipping out so much over this lol.  It's the same thing every new console generation.

 

I remember back when the PS2 and the original Xbox were released, there was a pretty big difference in the level of graphic detail and gameplay available.  The xbox on paper had better hardware and overall offered better graphics and unique features in some games at release compared to most PS2 games in that same period.  One game in particular, "Binx the Timesweeper", allowed the player to "manipulate" time within the game (pause enemies, rewind enemies, record yourself doing an action, etc.), which seemed impossible to do on the PS2 due to it's lack of hard drive.  Eventually as time went on, and developers got used to the PS2's hardware and found out how to push it's limits.   PS2 games began to rival the xbox in graphic quality, and even offer the same gameplay mechanics (The rebooted Prince of Persia series offered the same "time manipulation" without the use of a hard drive on the PS2).

 

Point is, all this handwringing and fanboy wars over console performance and graphics is just S.S.D.D.- Same ######, different day.  The only *real* thing that should matter when picking a console is 1.) "does it have the games you want to play?", and 2.) "Will you have fun with it and enjoy your purchase?"

Back then I bought a PS2 and Xbox at the time, but eventually I sold my xbox back to gamestop (big mistake selling to those scammers, but that's another story) and kept the PS2 due to the fact that it had all the franchises I wanted to play (Final Fantasy, twisted metal, Xenosaga, etc.) and the graphical difference wasn't enough to justify holding on to the xbox when In reality I didn't play it much other than to play halo with my younger brother.

 

TLDR:  Both consoles suck, The XB1 sucks slightly more, but given time both will improve drastically and be on equal footing as developers get their ###### together.



#8 blerk

blerk

    Banned User

  • 734 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:50

ill wait im more inetereste din the technical aspects of the architectue and why MS chose this route and if you can provide a mor clear answer that would be absolutley brilliant... from a person whose obviously studtying system architecture

 

 

Unless more MS and Sony devs speak up about their systems (for instance at GDC), or more multiplatform devs come forward to speak, discussions on this subject do not bring anything new and the discussion generally devolves into tedious arguments based on speculation, rumours and half-truths....



#9 OP psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,882 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 28 January 2014 - 00:58

It's still extremely early in both consoles life cycle.  I don't get why people are flipping out so much over this lol.  It's the same thing every new console generation.

 

I remember back when the PS2 and the original Xbox were released, there was a pretty big difference in the level of graphic detail and gameplay available.  The xbox on paper had better hardware and overall offered better graphics and unique features in some games at release compared to most PS2 games in that same period.  One game in particular, "Binx the Timesweeper", allowed the player to "manipulate" time within the game (pause enemies, rewind enemies, record yourself doing an action, etc.), which seemed impossible to do on the PS2 due to it's lack of hard drive.  Eventually as time went on, and developers got used to the PS2's hardware and found out how to push it's limits.   PS2 games began to rival the xbox in graphic quality, and even offer the same gameplay mechanics (The rebooted Prince of Persia series offered the same "time manipulation" without the use of a hard drive on the PS2).

 

Point is, all this handwringing and fanboy wars over console performance and graphics is just S.S.D.D.- Same ****, different day.  The only *real* thing that should matter when picking a console is 1.) "does it have the games you want to play?", and 2.) "Will you have fun with it and enjoy your purchase?"

Back then I bought a PS2 and Xbox at the time, but eventually I sold my xbox back to gamestop (big mistake selling to those scammers, but that's another story) and kept the PS2 due to the fact that it had all the franchises I wanted to play (Final Fantasy, twisted metal, Xenosaga, etc.) and the graphical difference wasn't enough to justify holding on to the xbox when In reality I didn't play it much other than to play halo with my younger brother.

 

TLDR:  Both consoles suck, The XB1 sucks slightly more, but given time both will improve drastically and be on equal footing as developers get their **** together.

 

You dont get it im not a fanboy of eithet... im insterested in the architecture behind either console and i dont give a crap what developer pushes what out i want know everything about there implementsion etc, but im more interested in the X1, if i wanted find out about sonys HSA implenttion ill follow the kaveri APU line... MS is radically different. itll neve be mass prduced cus its not really technically effective IMO but at the moe its something to think about



#10 mastercoms

mastercoms

    Expert Microsoft Fanboy & C# Coder

  • 1,160 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 13
  • Location: Marietta, Georgia
  • OS: W10 + Fedora 21
  • Phone: Lumia 928 WP8.1U1 Black

Posted 28 January 2014 - 01:02

Sorry psionic, but I guess I will have to wait until tomorrow to explain everything.



#11 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,152 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 28 January 2014 - 01:03

Seriously, bottom line is that both Companies rushed their product to market earlier than it should have been, and was intended. You know who lost in that whole thing?

 

The consumers.

 

Both consoles are powerful, and while Sony is banking on raw power and forcing the hardware to brute the current barely next gen graphics, MS is taking the optimize and software approach on their console. It isn't that hard to figure out, nor understand - both devices are not fully optimized or complete in terms of features and software.

 

I like both systems, but truth be told, I bank more on software touches then the sheer hardware. If coded right, the amount of stuff that can take advantage of the 'next gen' hardware is immense.



#12 OP psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,882 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 28 January 2014 - 01:10

Oh get off your elitist high horse, just because nobody bit at your flamebait!

 

Ermmm the kaveri line of APU's from AMD are the first properly functional HSA implementation where it uses DDR3 for system ram + gpu memory (i think at least) im sure it is. thats is a HSA so high horse about what??

 

also every one agrees the performance advantages are really good



#13 Wapoz

Wapoz

    Neowinian

  • 220 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 13

Posted 28 January 2014 - 01:14

You dont get it im not a fanboy of eithet... im insterested in the architecture behind either console and i dont give a crap what developer pushes what out i want know everything about there implementsion etc, but im more interested in the X1, if i wanted find out about sonys HSA implenttion ill follow the kaveri APU line... MS is radically different. itll neve be mass prduced cus its not really technically effective IMO but at the moe its something to think about

 

give these a read:

 

http://arstechnica.c...in-the-details/

 

http://arstechnica.c...esolution-wars/



#14 OP psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,882 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 28 January 2014 - 01:24

im here trying to understand the difference im not here to argue, if you want to give me a run down on the architecture, explain it to me without links to what other people have said?

 

you know its hard already to try get a good conversation... if you understood what the sites were going on about you could condense it and tell me in bullet points and i think id mostly understand. If you cant do that your just another spouting off facts ya know nothing about person, but i hope you arent



#15 OP psionicinversion

psionicinversion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 1,882 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 05

Posted 28 January 2014 - 01:28

oh yeah read my post above