AnandTech: Xbox One vs. PS4 - Hardware comparison

[Noir Angel]

There is no VRAM, its shared memory architecture, Microsoft went with a SoC style build with Xbox 360. They did lots of things learning from the 360.

Heat was a problem, so they may have eliminated some brute force power that wasn't necessary. They may have also optimized the performance of the GPU so they could achieve the rates they need at the performance they needed.

While there is a lot in common between PS4 and ONE, the numbers aren't 1:1 comparisons, there are engineering differences that don't make it so easy to compare.

If you step back and read the entire article though, even Anand points this out.. PS4 has more specs on top, but until we know the engineering differences and how developers embrace the platform, specs haven't really done anyone any better before now have they?

All that you've really done is underlined the ineptitude of their designers. The way to avoid heat buildup is to design your product to dissipate heat better, not to dumb it's hardware down. Accept it or not it's fact. Hardware power makes a MASSIVE difference to gaming. Under the same circumstances the hardware in the PS4 will absolutely cream the hardware in the Xbox (and the hardware in a high end PC will cream them both).

If Sony's engineers can manage the heat, why can't Microsoft's?

[Luc2k]

make what faster though?

All Microsoft had to do was put enough out there to lock in 1080p/60.. anything more.. and you just have more heat and more idle processing.

Or you know, better looking games..

This is pointless, there's no convincing you that no amount of memory speed is going to offset the raw processing power unless there's some magical bottleneck built into the PS4 by the Xbox team.

[Som]

wasn't the playstation 3 more powerful than the xbox360, look how that turned out.... wait there is DDR5? what happened to DD4... I want

[Andre S. Veteran]

make what faster though?

All Microsoft had to do was put enough out there to lock in 1080p/60.. anything more.. and you just have more heat and more idle processing.

... rendering? For the same resolution and framerate, faster hardware can render more objects, at a higher level detail, perform additional post-processing... or for the same level of detail, render it at 60fps instead of 30.

Heck even the current-gen hardware can do 1080p/60 if all you ask it to do is render a rotating teapot. There's more to rendering than resolution and framerate...

[BajiRav]

All that you've really done is underlined the ineptitude of their designers. The way to avoid heat buildup is to design your product to dissipate heat better, not to dumb it's hardware down. Accept it or not it's fact. Hardware power makes a MASSIVE difference to gaming. Under the same circumstances the hardware in the PS4 will absolutely cream the hardware in the Xbox (and the hardware in a high end PC will cream them both).

If Sony's engineers can manage the heat, why can't Microsoft's?

I think his point is that since both are targeting the same output resolution (1080p @ 60fps), Sony went with the less complex route but it will cost them in heat, power consumption and cost whereas Microsoft went with a more complex route that will benefit from lower power/heat and cost that will eventually go down much faster than Sony.

The overall effect on graphics quality will depend on how developers use both GPUs and can end up being comparable (as per Anand's article).

[Noir Angel]

make what faster though?

All Microsoft had to do was put enough out there to lock in 1080p/60.. anything more.. and you just have more heat and more idle processing.

Complete falsehood. A GPU with 1536 shaders will actually produce about the same amount of heat as one with 768. Generation after generation the processing power of our GPU's increases exponentially and their power usage drops. In fact due to the shrink in transistor size I would wager a modern GPU would actually be a lot more heat efficient than those in the current consoles.

I think his point is that since both are targeting the same output resolution (1080p @ 60fps), Sony went with the less complex route but it will cost them in heat, power consumption and cost whereas Microsoft went with a more complex route that will benefit from lower power/heat and cost that will eventually go down much faster than Sony.

The overall effect on graphics quality will depend on how developers use both GPUs and can end up being comparable (as per Anand's article).

Faster memory and a better GPU doesn't mean more heat if they design the console properly.

[threetonesun]

make what faster though?

All Microsoft had to do was put enough out there to lock in 1080p/60.. anything more.. and you just have more heat and more idle processing.

Yes, 1080p at 60 fps for the next 8 years. :laugh:

[Blackhearted]

... rendering? For the same resolution and framerate, faster hardware can render more objects, at a higher level detail, perform additional post-processing... or for the same level of detail, render it at 60fps instead of 30.

Heck even the current-gen hardware can do 1080p/60 if all you ask it to do is render a rotating teapot. There's more to rendering than resolution and framerate...

That's something this guy everyone is arguing with can't seem to grasp.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Under the same circumstances the hardware in the PS4 will absolutely cream the hardware in the Xbox (and the hardware in a high end PC will cream them both).

It's impossible to have a rational discussion if you guys keep stating extremes. The Xbox One and PS4 are very similar hardware. There's more shader power and memory bandwidth on PS4, partially offset by SRAM on Xbox One. Overall the PS4 has the edge but it's nowhere near absolutely creaming the other system or such nonsense. For all we know, cross-platforms titles will probably end up looking mostly identical just like they did on the current generation, despite the two current contenders being much more different.

[Athernar]

make what faster though?

All Microsoft had to do was put enough out there to lock in 1080p/60.. anything more.. and you just have more heat and more idle processing.

You have a model mesh, you have to load that.

You have a diffuse map, you have to load that.

You add a normal map to improve the graphics, you have to load that.

Add a specular map, a phong map, parallax, height?

You were saying about looking things up?

[Noir Angel]

It's impossible to have a rational discussion if you guys keep stating extremes. The Xbox One and PS4 are very similar hardware. There's more shader power and memory bandwidth on PS4, partially offset by SRAM on Xbox One. Overall the PS4 has the edge but it's nowhere near absolutely creaming the other system or such nonsense. For all we know, cross-platforms titles will probably end up looking mostly identical just like they did on the current generation, despite the two current contenders being much more different.

DOUBLE the shader power... whatever way you look at it that's a pretty big difference ;)

[spudtrooper]

@spudtrooper

I'm very curious as to what point your really trying to make in saying that GDDR5 is unnecessary?

Easy, GDDDR has more throughput, but throughput isn't a problem with GDDR3 on 1080p/60 displays. Do the math.. I'm not a politician.

Regarding memory the data has to be processed, so the faster the ram is the faster the data can be read/saved from/to memory from the CPU/GPU.

Also the latency doesn't determine how fast the data is transferred only how quick the memory responds to requests, therefore the latency may be the same for GDDR3/5 but the speed of data transferred is not. (assuming the bus width is the same)

Another benefit of GDDR5 over 3 is it generally consumes less power.

GDDR5 has more throughput but for 1080p displays, the throughput of GDDR3 is fast enough. Is that really that hard to comprehend?

[threetonesun]

It's impossible to have a rational discussion if you guys keep stating extremes. The Xbox One and PS4 are very similar hardware. There's more shader power and memory bandwidth on PS4, partially offset by SRAM on Xbox One. Overall the PS4 has the edge but it's nowhere near absolutely creaming the other system or such nonsense. For all we know, cross-platforms titles will probably end up looking mostly identical just like they did on the current generation, despite the two current contenders being much more different.

Right, this will come down to something like the difference between GT 5 and Forza 4, where GT5 had better mirrors.

Neither of these are going to push 4k resolutions, neither are going to rely on cloud computing, neither of these are going to get some exclusive that's not simply due to contracts, not hardware (minus Kinect exclusives).

[Andre S. Veteran]

DOUBLE the shader power... whatever way you look at it that's a pretty big difference ;)

"50% more" is not double, and shader power is just one factor in overall performance.

[Noir Angel]

Oops, my bad I was looking at the wrong stat. Even said, 50% is still a very large margin in a world in which performance matters.

[spudtrooper]

Or you know, better looking games..

This is pointless, there's no convincing you that no amount of memory speed is going to offset the raw processing power unless there's some magical bottleneck built into the PS4 by the Xbox team.

more hardware doesn't make better looking games if all the hardware can push the same 1080p displays. a GeForce 680 pushing a 1080p display would be a GeForce 680 wasting a lot of resources. In order to get higher fidelity and better picture and more "info" in the screen you would need MORE resolution.. Then that video card could really shine. Of course that 680 could probably do 400fps at 1920x1080, but so what, your tv is ignoring every frame it can't process at its refresh rate anyway.

yes, its cool to see sony just throwing hardware out there. awesome! win! great! but for what?

if Microsoft DOESN'T make it work, it will get stomped.. but I we shall see!

[Blackhearted]

Chances are the other parts of the gpu that factor into its performance, the texture units and rops, will be cut down as well.

[Andre S. Veteran]

Easy, GDDDR has more throughput, but throughput isn't a problem with GDDR3 on 1080p/60 displays. Do the math.. I'm not a politician.

GDDR5 has more throughput but for 1080p displays, the throughput of GDDR3 is fast enough. Is that really that hard to comprehend?

You keep stating that simplistic reasoning as if rendering video games was the equivalent of presenting a movie. It's not just pushing pixels to an output, it's actually calculating what the pixels are. The calculation is what requires most of the bandwidth, and the more calculation you can do, the more detailed and refined your image is.

[Noir Angel]

more hardware doesn't make better looking games if all the hardware can push the same 1080p displays. a GeForce 680 pushing a 1080p display would be a GeForce 680 wasting a lot of resources. In order to get higher fidelity and better picture and more "info" in the screen you would need MORE resolution.. Then that video card could really shine. Of course that 680 could probably do 400fps at 1920x1080, but so what, your tv is ignoring every frame it can't process at its refresh rate anyway.

yes, its cool to see sony just throwing hardware out there. awesome! win! great! but for what?

Rendering isn't just about the resolution of the image, it's about the enhancements you can make to improve it's quality.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

The gddr5 can hurt Sony . IT can make the system a lot more expensive then the xbox one and can cause manufacturing delays. I would think it will be awfully hard to get that much gddr5 ram. remember not a single video card contains that much.

If the xbox is say $100 cheaper then the ps4 that can cause a big jump in sales for the xbox. Its not always the most powerfull that wins. I would have thought hardcore gamers would know that by now.

This.

As I read it, the PS4 has somewhat beefier hardware in certain, limited areas (mainly, it's believed to have more GPU horsepower). In most or many ways, they're evenly matched. There may be a few cases where the X1 can pull off an advantage (i.e. by making particularly effective use of its ESRAM or other unique customizations). In general though, I suspect you'll be very hard pressed to discern a difference.

On the other hand, the PS4 may be more at risk for supply chain issues and manufacturing delays. The console will likely cost more to make. If I had to guess, we'll see similar price points but with the Xbox sporting an included Kinect sensor and possibly a larger hard drive. It may also end up being quieter and smaller.

In the end, I think the Xbox sounds like the better deal (and plan).

[Noir Angel]

I'd completely disagree with that. Higher price and better quality wins over cheap every time.

[spudtrooper]

I think his point is that since both are targeting the same output resolution (1080p @ 60fps), Sony went with the less complex route but it will cost them in heat, power consumption and cost whereas Microsoft went with a more complex route that will benefit from lower power/heat and cost that will eventually go down much faster than Sony.

The overall effect on graphics quality will depend on how developers use both GPUs and can end up being comparable (as per Anand's article).

exactly!

different engineering tactics for the same end goal.. Microsoft lost 2 billion dollars + to heat problems, not graphics fidelity or benchmark issues, but to heat problems. I applaud them for making difficult engineering choices (and maybe some awesome engineering breakthroughs) to make the Xbox One happen

if I was gaming on my 30" IPS display at 2560x1600 or whatever insane resolution I wanted to play at, I would need those extra processing units, I don't doubt that.

[Noir Angel]

Microsoft lost that money due to poor product design, it was nothing to do with using overly powered components. Powerful components do not destroy computers that have been properly designed.

[spudtrooper]

Rendering isn't just about the resolution of the image, it's about the enhancements you can make to improve it's quality.

These enhancements can all be done to your textures in advance because you optimize for single resolutions and the scaling can be done on the fly pretty easily. There is enough "improvement quality" processing power to handle doing the same improvements to every pixel in order to do 1080p on both platforms.

[xirtam]

Easy, GDDDR has more throughput, but throughput isn't a problem with GDDR3 on 1080p/60 displays. Do the math.. I'm not a politician.

GDDR5 has more throughput but for 1080p displays, the throughput of GDDR3 is fast enough. Is that really that hard to comprehend?

So basically your just trying to say its perfectly fine for the Xbox One on @ 1080p/60 therefor the PS4 is overkill?