AnandTech: Xbox One vs. PS4 - Hardware comparison


Recommended Posts

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?

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.

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...

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).

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.

... 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.

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.

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?

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

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?

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).

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!

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I grew up a Star Trek fan and never watched Star Wars movies. To this days I've not watched most Star Wras movies. As a result I rarely get these references, I have no idea what this post means. Given the popular reactions these get I have to accept I missed out.  
    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!