AnandTech: Xbox One vs. PS4 - Hardware comparison

[Graimer]

But ffs. The specs DOESN'T matter, because 90% of the multi-platform games will be pretty much equal since they make them for the weakest machine. And you can only buy an exclusive PS4 or One game on that specific console, so who the f*ck cares about the specs? It's the experience and the games that matter. If you want a "supercomputer", buy a workstation/desktop. The 360 does fine with it's limited resources, and while One may(probably) have less power then PS4, it will still do good for years.

[TheLegendOfMart]

unlikely based on what? compute units doesn't tell you anything at all. its all architecture. how much work is being done per clock cycle. you can have half the compute units but do twice the work per clock cycle, and in the end you have two similar performing devices. we've seen Microsoft use some custom logic in their previous gpu, what makes you think its unlikely they would do more of the same?

They are both using AMD GCN architecture as stated by the guys that worked on both APUs, the are the same architecture.

Microsoft in their architectural briefing after their reveal said that the Xbone GPU can do 768 operations per clock and since we know that each GCN CU can do 64 ops per clock we can deduce that 768 / 64 = 12 CUs. We know from the Playstation meeting that the PS4 has 18CUs so we can deduce that 18 * 64 means it has 1152 shaders which means 1152 ops per clock.

The difference in shaders is the difference between 1080p30 and 1080p60 fps at the same detail level which means the PS4 can have better graphics at the same framerate.

This is ignoring the work Sony did with AMD to improve the compute aspect of the GPU, the ALUs. Currently desktop GPU can either do graphics or compute at once, they have to wait for one thread to finish before they can start on another, I forget the specifics but Sony have increased it so that their GPU can do both graphics and compute in parallel and they have increased the power of the ALU so it can do more compute threads per clock than a regular desktop GPU.

The ESRAM will help the Xbone GPU with compute processing but it in NO WAY makes up for the missing 384 shaders and beefed up ALUs the PS4 has.

[BajiRav]

We know they're both using amd's current gcn architecture(used in the desktop radeon 7700-7900). Which means their abilities can be directly compared without issue. And since they're of the same architecture, with the one's variant being an even more cut down one than the ps4's, there's basically no chance of what you describe happening(twice as much done per clock).

With the architectures being the same that leaves the only noticeable difference the two consoles being the esram. And no matter what you want to believe, that simply wont make up for the difference. It may help in some ways, but it wont make them equal.

I didn't say it was a complete non-issue, i said it was less of one.

I've also seen post-aa @ 1080p quite a bit. I usually find that texture blur is quite hard to spot unless i'm actively looking for it.

I am going to say right off the bat that I don't understand one bit how the GPUs of both systems stack up and how video games are optimized. Having said that, I remember reading about some "move engines" that X1 has in addition to the esram.

I wonder if that will help the X1 somewhat (in the absence of the cloud stuff that MS mentioned - which wouldn't make much difference graphics wise AFAIK). I wish there was a proper technical analysis somewhere but both companies have guarded their specs like anything. I am surprised how Microsoft ended up this under spec-ed (ignoring RAM part) on the GPU front. I am sure they had a hint of what Sony was doing (industrial espionage and what not).

[TheLegendOfMart]

They have underspecced it to keep the price down so they can include kinect in every box and not have it cost more than PS4.

[vcfan]

They are both using AMD GCN architecture as stated by the guys that worked on both APUs, the are the same architecture.

Microsoft in their architectural briefing after their reveal said that the Xbone GPU can do 768 operations per clock and since we know that each GCN CU can do 64 ops per clock we can deduce that 768 / 64 = 12 CUs. We know from the Playstation meeting that the PS4 has 18CUs so we can deduce that 18 * 64 means it has 1152 shaders which means 1152 ops per clock.

The difference in shaders is the difference between 1080p30 and 1080p60 fps at the same detail level which means the PS4 can have better graphics at the same framerate.

This is ignoring the work Sony did with AMD to improve the compute aspect of the GPU, the ALUs. Currently desktop GPU can either do graphics or compute at once, they have to wait for one thread to finish before they can start on another, I forget the specifics but Sony have increased it so that their GPU can do both graphics and compute in parallel and they have increased the power of the ALU so it can do more compute threads per clock than a regular desktop GPU.

The ESRAM will help the Xbone GPU with compute processing but it in NO WAY makes up for the missing 384 shaders and beefed up ALUs the PS4 has.

oh,so sony improved the compute aspect, but Microsoft couldn't possibly do anything to make the chip run faster. Do you see how hypocritical you sound?

And about architecture, I do know they both run on the same base architecture, but customizations with some extra logic can take some of these computations away from the shaders. like my example above with the xbox360, and how it had penalty free msaa,zbuffering and alpha blending. I showed you some benchmarks between postAA and MSAA performances on the GPU which halved the performance,all because of some custom logic.

I'll give you an example. I have a 300Mhz embedded CPU that has some custom logic to do some HD video decoding at 30fps. If I compare it to another embedded CPU that's 1Ghz without this extra decoding logic, it struggle and skips frames. I can go on and tell you the great customizations done to the 1Ghz chip which made it faster all I want, but the custom logic made the performance much better than the faster chip.

Final performance conclusions based on compute units is not always correct.

[Athernar]

Having free MSAA won't do you much good when a lot of engines are going down the deferred rendering route which generally precludes the use of MSAA.

That's not to say it's completely impossible, but in all likelihood developers will just stick to using the techniques they already use like FXAA/MLAA/SPAA rather than invest more into getting MSAA to work on one platform.

[TheLegendOfMart]

oh,so sony improved the compute aspect, but Microsoft couldn't possibly do anything to make the chip run faster. Do you see how hypocritical you sound?

And about architecture, I do know they both run on the same base architecture, but customizations with some extra logic can take some of these computations away from the shaders. like my example above with the xbox360, and how it had penalty free msaa,zbuffering and alpha blending. I showed you some benchmarks between postAA and MSAA performances on the GPU which halved the performance,all because of some custom logic.

I'll give you an example. I have a 300Mhz embedded CPU that has some custom logic to do some HD video decoding at 30fps. If I compare it to another embedded CPU that's 1Ghz without this extra decoding logic, it struggle and skips frames. I can go on and tell you the great customizations done to the 1Ghz chip which made it faster all I want, but the custom logic made the performance much better than the faster chip.

Final performance conclusions based on compute units is not always correct.

From the leaks a few months ago which are 99.9% correct and what Microsoft said at the Architectural Briefing and Sony said at the Playstation Meeting both consoles have pretty much bog standard AMD APU, 2x4 Jaguar Cores, AMD 7000 series GPU.

What Microsoft has that Sony doesn't is the ESRAM and the Move Engines which go some way into making up for the lack of compute that Sony did with the ALUs but you are talking like the ESRAM is some magic chip that is going to make up the difference, the only reason it's there is to make up the bandwidth deficiency that the DDR3 RAM has. The Data Move Engines are exactly what the name implies, it to courier data around the system to avoid the bottleneck of the DDR3 RAM.

Both Sony and Microsoft had the same silicon budget for the APU (the physical amount of space), Sony spent it by beefing up the GPU with 4 extra GPU CUs and double the amount of ROPS, even with the ROPS the PS4 can write double the amount of pixel data per second than the Xbone, as well as beefing up the ALUs on the GPU so graphics and compute can run parallel. Microsoft spent the space by including ESRAM and the Move Engines which are only there because they went for cheaper memory with less bandwidth.

There is no magically optimised architecture, the PS4 has a GPU that has 1152 Shaders, 32 ROPS and is clocked at 800MHz, the Xbone has a GPU that has 768 Shaders, 16 ROPS and is clocked at 800MHz+

The closest we can get to a comparison is 7770 (Xbone) and 7850 (PS4) http://www.anandtech...duct/777?vs=778

The Xbone is 33% slower than the PS4 and that makes me sad because multiplatform developers can't make use of the extra power because the Xbone is dragging the graphical fidelity down and there would be a sh*tstorm if PS4 games looked noticeably better and ran smoother than Xbone.

[vcfan]

From the leaks a few months ago which are 99.9% correct and what Microsoft said at the Architectural Briefing and Sony said at the Playstation Meeting both consoles have pretty much bog standard AMD APU, 2x4 Jaguar Cores, AMD 7000 series GPU.

What Microsoft has that Sony doesn't is the ESRAM and the Move Engines which go some way into making up for the lack of compute that Sony did with the ALUs but you are talking like the ESRAM is some magic chip that is going to make up the difference, the only reason it's there is to make up the bandwidth deficiency that the DDR3 RAM has. The Data Move Engines are exactly what the name implies, it to courier data around the system to avoid the bottleneck of the DDR3 RAM.

Both Sony and Microsoft had the same silicon budget for the APU (the physical amount of space), Sony spent it by beefing up the GPU with 4 extra GPU CUs and double the amount of ROPS, even with the ROPS the PS4 can write double the amount of pixel data per second than the Xbone, as well as beefing up the ALUs on the GPU so graphics and compute can run parallel. Microsoft spent the space by including ESRAM and the Move Engines which are only there because they went for cheaper memory with less bandwidth.

the esram isn't necessarily on the same die. look at the xenos gpu, the esram was not integrated on the same die,it was just on the same BGA carrier.

There is no magically optimised architecture, the PS4 has a GPU that has 1152 Shaders, 32 ROPS and is clocked at 800MHz, the Xbone has a GPU that has 768 Shaders, 16 ROPS and is clocked at 800MHz+

The closest we can get to a comparison is 7770 (Xbone) and 7850 (PS4) http://www.anandtech...duct/777?vs=778

The Xbone is 33% slower than the PS4 and that makes me sad because multiplatform developers can't make use of the extra power because the Xbone is dragging the graphical fidelity down and there would be a sh*tstorm if PS4 games looked noticeably better and ran smoother than Xbone.

the edram ASIC on the xbox360 xenos chip was a SEPARATE die on the same BGA carrier. it doesn't matter if sony and Microsoft have the same die space on the APU, what makes you think the esram will not be external to the die? that not only leaves plenty of room on the APU die, but the extra die can have a lot of custom logic that could give penalty free functions,like the xenos did.

we'll have to wait and see,but the point im trying to make here is that some of you guys jump to conclusions based on a spec number,which doesn't tell you the whole story,and I've given you an example on how some side logic can make a huge performance difference. it just isn't that clear cut. is there a reason Microsoft went with ddr3,esram,data move? if you think they went with ddr3 because its cheaper, do you know that sram is expensive? and creating all this glue logic to reduce bandwidth is way more expensive and time consuming than just using gddr5.

[TheLegendOfMart]

They are going for SoC which means the ESRAM is integrated into the die. Microsoft spent die space on ESRAM and Move Engines, Sony spent it on a more beefy GPU. Anandtech has a great writeup and yes I do believe they went with cheap DDR3 and then ESRAM to make up the deficiency, I'm not saying that's all the ESRAM is for but from what Microsoft are saying its not some magic bullet.

It is that clear cut, we know they are the same architecture and the specs of the GPUs, it is THAT easy to do a comparison.

[Blackhearted]

the edram ASIC on the xbox360 xenos chip was a SEPARATE die on the same BGA carrier. it doesn't matter if sony and Microsoft have the same die space on the APU, what makes you think the esram will not be external to the die? that not only leaves plenty of room on the APU die, but the extra die can have a lot of custom logic that could give penalty free functions,like the xenos did.

we'll have to wait and see,but the point im trying to make here is that some of you guys jump to conclusions based on a spec number,which doesn't tell you the whole story,and I've given you an example on how some side logic can make a huge performance difference. it just isn't that clear cut. is there a reason Microsoft went with ddr3,esram,data move? if you think they went with ddr3 because its cheaper, do you know that sram is expensive? and creating all this glue logic to reduce bandwidth is way more expensive and time consuming than just using gddr5.

Why are you so insistent that the x1 has a bunch of magical custom logic that'll help it overcome a very significant 50% power disadvantage?

[Graimer]

Why are you so insistent that the x1 has a bunch of magical custom logic that'll help it overcome a very significant 50% power disadvantage?

and why do you all care about the hardware? the ps3 was better then the 360, but the multi-platform games was in my experience usually better on the 360, and they didn't s*ck even though the 360 was "holding the games back".

[vcfan]

They are going for SoC which means the ESRAM is integrated into the die. Microsoft spent die space on ESRAM and Move Engines, Sony spent it on a more beefy GPU. Anandtech has a great writeup and yes I do believe they went with cheap DDR3 and then ESRAM to make up the deficiency, I'm not saying that's all the ESRAM is for but from what Microsoft are saying its not some magic bullet.

do you even know what a silicon die is? it isn't the plastic epoxy that surrounds the die. ever seen inside one of these things? you can have multiple dice,and they are way smaller than the plastic package. this tells you absolutely nothing about what is buried inside the plastic epoxy.

It is that clear cut, we know they are the same architecture and the specs of the GPUs, it is THAT easy to do a comparison.

these are not clones but one with more compute units,therefore it isn't that clear cut. there are many modifications,added parts, maybe some extra logic. you can keep repeating it until the cows come home, it doesn't make it fact. unless you have some benchmarks, making definite speed claims is ignorant.

Why are you so insistent that the x1 has a bunch of magical custom logic that'll help it overcome a very significant 50% power disadvantage?

because it was done on the previous version,and read above.

[TheLegendOfMart]

and why do you all care about the hardware? the ps3 was better then the 360, but the multi-platform games was in my experience usually better on the 360, and they didn't s*ck even though the 360 was "holding the games back".

The PS3 was better on paper yes but the CPU was a nightmare to work with. This generation they have identical CPUs and architectures and both GPUs are of the same family so its an easy comparison to make.

do you even know what a silicon die is? it isn't the plastic epoxy that surrounds the die. ever seen inside one of these things? you can have multiple dice,and they are way smaller than the plastic package. this tells you absolutely nothing about what is buried inside the plastic epoxy.

Everything is on die is it's a freaking SoC.

these are not clones but one with more compute units,therefore it isn't that clear cut. there are many modifications,added parts, maybe some extra logic. you can keep repeating it until the cows come home, it doesn't make it fact. unless you have some benchmarks, making definite speed claims is ignorant.

They are the same family of GPU, AMD Southern Islands, we know they are using Graphics Core Next architecture, we know it can do 768 operations per clock which was straight from the mouth of Microsoft which means we can deduce that it is using 12 CUs and PS4 18CUs.

You calling me ignorant is the same as you believing there are modifications, added parts or extra logic. The only extra logic that Xbone has over PS4 is the ESRAM and Move Engines. While the Move Engines can take care of some of the missing GPGPU stuff it doesn't make up the 6 missing CUs.

You keep repeating that you think it has "magic extra logic" doesn't mean it is fact either, did you even watch the Microsoft Architectural Briefing?

because it was done on the previous version,and read above.

The first Xbox didn't have EDRAM, so your "they did it on the previous version" assumption is false.

[Graimer]

The PS3 was better on paper yes but the CPU was a nightmare to work with. This generation they have identical CPUs and architectures and both GPUs are of the same family so its an easy comparison to make.

I know the PS4 is more powersfull, but there are no guarantees that the game won't be limited by the "weakest opponent" this time either, and the xbox har DX which most devs prefer and do magic with. Also, the chips aren't identical in the way they work, so you won't know the effect until you try it. Devs are creative people who are usually good at finding workarounds that do wonder. So get the machine with the exclusives you want. Ex. I want Forza, so I only have the choice of One or both. If you want a powerhouse, buy a computer.

No matter which is more powerfull, both will be a great experience to use (if the PS4 triggers and sticks are better then the PS3)

[TheLegendOfMart]

It will be limited by the weakest machine that's why people care. I don't want my PS4 multiplatform games be limited by the competitors weak machine.

The chips are identical................................................... they are both AMD Jaguar APUs with AMD Southern Island GPUs, the only difference are the amount of Compute Units which are modular and identical, the more CUs the faster the GPU just like CPU cores, the more cores the more they can do at once.

[BajiRav]

It will be limited by the weakest machine that's why people care. I don't want my PS4 multiplatform games be limited by the competitors weak machine.

The chips are identical................................................... they are both AMD Jaguar APUs with AMD Southern Island GPUs, the only difference are the amount of Compute Units which are modular and identical, the more CUs the faster the GPU just like CPU cores, the more cores the more they can do at once.

I thought Microsoft had modified the APU as well? at least that was my impression from that Wired article, I might be wrong though. :/

[TheLegendOfMart]

The only modification the APU has is the added ESRAM and Move Engines, they do help but not enough to make the shortfall, a lot of what the Move Engines have the PS4 also has in hardware as well .

[Graimer]

It will be limited by the weakest machine that's why people care. I don't want my PS4 multiplatform games be limited by the competitors weak machine.

The chips are identical................................................... they are both AMD Jaguar APUs with AMD Southern Island GPUs, the only difference are the amount of Compute Units which are modular and identical, the more CUs the faster the GPU just like CPU cores, the more cores the more they can do at once.

But the consoles would NEVER be equal, so who gives a f*ck? Modern consoles use CUSTOM chips. That's kinda the point of being CUSTOM. Someone will always be weaker. You buy a console because of the games and experience, not the specs.

[TheLegendOfMart]

I give a f*ck because I won't be buying both consoles, the whole point of next gen is the spec bump and graphical fidelity that comes with it, I don't want my graphics to look worse than they could be if developers took advantage of the 50% bump in power.

[Graimer]

I give a f*ck because I won't be buying both consoles, the whole point of next gen is the spec bump and graphical fidelity that comes with it, I don't want my graphics to look worse than they could be if developers took advantage of the 50% bump in power.

So buy the PS4. Everyone knows that the PS4 has stronger specs, the question is just how much. and that doesn't really matter at this point. No matter how much people argue in here, the specs for One will remain the same, so get your pre-order in for the PS4. Personally I'm buying the One, because I like Halo, Forza etc. and I won't get that on the PS4 even if they'd upgraded it to a dual-processor system.

[Blackhearted]

and why do you all care about the hardware? the ps3 was better then the 360, but the multi-platform games was in my experience usually better on the 360, and they didn't s*ck even though the 360 was "holding the games back".

The ps3 was capable of more when it came to exclusives, yes, cause you could get more out of the ps3 due to the cell cpu. But with multiplat's you don't do the kind of optimization needed for that kind of advantage. And since the xbox 360 had the (somewhat) better gpu, games that were multiplat had a tendency to be better on the 360.

[TheLegendOfMart]

and I won't get that on the PS4 even if they'd upgraded it to a dual-processor system.

Why dual processor?

They are the exact same AMD Jaguar X86-64 Processors.........

[Graimer]

The ps3 was capable of more when it came to exclusives, yes, cause you could get more out of the ps3 due to the cell cpu. But with multiplat's you don't do the kind of optimization needed for that kind of advantage. And since the xbox 360 had the (somewhat) better gpu, games that were multiplat had a tendency to be better on the 360.

I know that, and that was the point of the message. The thing is that PS4 and One are not the same chips. Same architecture, but both companies made changes to the chip that requires different optimization, so it's still up to the devs to decide which console would give a slightly better experience. That makes the whole discussion here on who's the strongest hardware(PS4) rediculous, since you guys(don't be offended) DON'T MATTER. Buy the console for the features and the exclusives, not for the multi-platform games since they will always do good on both. Focus on the haves, not the have nots.

Why dual processor?

They are the exact same AMD Jaguar X86-64 Processors.........

I said "I won't get that on the PS4 even if".. EVEN IF. Halo and Forza are exclusives. That means you won't get them on the PS4 if you didn't figure it out. It's the features and exclusives that make the console a win or not, not the hardware.

[TheLegendOfMart]

I know that, and that was the point of the message. The thing is that PS4 and One are not the same chips.

For the third and final time, they are both AMD Jaguar CPUs and both have AMD Southern Island GPUs............

It's not like last generation when Xbox 360 had Triple Core PowerPC and PS3 had Single Core with 7 SPUs. They are both 8 core x86-64 CPUs.

[Graimer]

For the third and final time, they are both AMD Jaguar CPUs and both have AMD Southern Island GPUs............

It's not like last generation when Xbox 360 had Triple Core PowerPC and PS3 had Single Core with 7 SPUs. They are both 8 core x86-64 CPUs.

So you're saying that using ex. esRAM won't result in any unique optimization for the One, just like they would optimize the code for the PS4 hardware? If no(they would need some kind of unique optimization to use 100% of the devices potential), then they are actually not the same. They are 90%+ same, but not 100%. And your argument still won't get an xbox exclusive to the ps4 or the other way around.