Xbox One in trouble.

B3ns said:
All this tech talk, just read this link

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4

The hardware professionals explain it exactly how it is. All the facts are there.
Click to expand...

From said article, this is why I think all this tech talk is mute
The funny thing about game consoles is that it’s usually the lowest common denominator that determines the bulk of the experience across all platforms.
Click to expand...

Most developers will aim for the lowest one and port to the other, in doing so gets more bang for your bucks. We have seen this with all the Console games that made it to the PC. Most of them had the same ****ty FX sa the consoles, even when PC's could out perform them, esp in this the later years with DX11
 
AlphaJohn said:
Most developers will aim for the lowest one and port to the other, in doing so gets more bang for your bucks. We have seen this with all the Console games that made it to the PC. Most of them had the same ****ty FX sa the consoles, even when PC's could out perform them, esp in this the later years with DX11
Click to expand...

The PS3 and 360 don't have DX11 though. They were stuck on DX9.

This generation will be better with regards to ports as DX11 is a lot more scalable with very little extra work being done.
 
Swa said:
5GB non-system memory is shared. 3GB is reserved for system (usually CPU work) exclusively. In case YOU haven't noticed AMD has stated the PS4 architecture would not come to pc's or laptops because GDDR5 is terrible for CPU intensive work.
Click to expand...

Oh lookie here, AMD's next gen APU will have a GDDR5 compatible memory controller - what were you saying about it being terrible for CPU work?

Let me explain this to you. Latency depends on time. Take 10ms (0.01s) latency with a clock of 1000Hz. It will take 10 cycles to make up that latency. Latency measured in time units stay the same so if you double the clockspeed to 2000Hz it will take 20 cycles. If you don't believe that take a look at the latency figures for DDR3 and think why that is the case. Sometimes if you overclock you can trim it closer because latency doesn't make up full clock cycles. So back to the example if latency is actually 9.4ms it will be 10 cycles for 1000Hz because each cycle is 1ms. For 2000Hz it will be 19 cycles because each cycle is 0.5ms.
Click to expand...

Latency does not depend on time, latency IS time. Latency is a measure of time. It DEPENDS upon the number of cycles and the time each cycle takes.

That link you posted actually illustrates my point - tell me what the numbers in the timing column mean, in your own words.

It's not so simple. The CPU is the same but on the PS4 it will be constrained by the higher latency. You keep ignoring the impact of the CPU and only take the GPU into account. The XB1 also has the eSRAM that will improve latency for repetitive memory access so for those cases it may in fact be more powerful. Which one will be better at games? It depends on whether it's CPU (XBox) or GPU (PS) intensive. I don't know why this logic needs to be rehashed.
Click to expand...

Because both CPUs have L1 and L2 cache in any case, just like every single other CPU. Look at CPUs that have L3 cache vs those that dont - having L3 cache does not guarantee that a partiular CPU will be better at games. Look at an Ivy Bridge based Celeron or Pentium vs a Phenom II with L3 cache - which is faster for games? Normally the Intel, of course.

Both CPUs have L1 and L2 cache, and the XBO CPU has the ESRAM which is NOT as low latency as a cache (else they would just call it L3 cache). We know that L3 cache does not guarantee that a CPU will be faster.

And then the PS4 has a whopping 50% more shader power. 50%. It probably also has more TMUs and ROPs.
 
Chevron said:
The PS3 and 360 don't have DX11 though. They were stuck on DX9.

This generation will be better with regards to ports as DX11 is a lot more scalable with very little extra work being done.
Click to expand...

My point exactly, so many games that still had DX9 FX even when you turned on DX11. Very few games had actual FX enhancements that DX11 is capable of.
 
Ancalagon said:
Oh lookie here, AMD's next gen APU will have a GDDR5 compatible memory controller - what were you saying about it being terrible for CPU work?
Click to expand...
LOL. I never said it wouldn't - it's the reason Sony can use it fgs. But just because it will doesn't make it a good idea to install GDDR5 on a pc. Support means nothing wrt performance, that article is also stuck on the GPU only angle. Here is the update to it and if you still think GDDR5 is so good for computing then suggest that Intel's DDR3 "APUs" will be inferior among a bunch of Intel fanbois and see the derision you will rightfully get from them.

Ancalagon said:
Latency does not depend on time, latency IS time. Latency is a measure of time. It DEPENDS upon the number of cycles and the time each cycle takes.

That link you posted actually illustrates my point - tell me what the numbers in the timing column mean, in your own words.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I said where you said it depends on clock cycles. No it doesn't, it depends on time. When a data segment is accessed it takes a certain length of time to fetch and deliver. That time is the same regardless of the clock cycles so if you speed them up it will take up more clock cycles. No that table doesn't illustrate your point it seems you don't understand why the numbers in the table increase as the clock speed increases. The only thing that can improve latency is changing the voltage.

Ancalagon said:
Because both CPUs have L1 and L2 cache in any case, just like every single other CPU. Look at CPUs that have L3 cache vs those that dont - having L3 cache does not guarantee that a partiular CPU will be better at games. Look at an Ivy Bridge based Celeron or Pentium vs a Phenom II with L3 cache - which is faster for games? Normally the Intel, of course.

Both CPUs have L1 and L2 cache, and the XBO CPU has the ESRAM which is NOT as low latency as a cache (else they would just call it L3 cache). We know that L3 cache does not guarantee that a CPU will be faster.

And then the PS4 has a whopping 50% more shader power. 50%. It probably also has more TMUs and ROPs.
Click to expand...
This is falling on deaf ears. :whistle: You can't make a comparison between completely different architectures, and a current gen one with one from years ago at that. It's like comparing apples and oranges. L3 cache does improve memory performance and processors that have it will perform better than the same processor that doesn't. It's limited or left out of budget processors because you get what you pay for lol.

They have basically the same CPU so eSRAM will make a difference and it IS cache. The reason they call it eSRAM is because it's embedded and not on-die. It's still faster than main memory and 32MB is anything but little if managed correctly. Shaders are not everything without the ability to keep them all occupied.
 
Swa said:
LOL. I never said it wouldn't - it's the reason Sony can use it fgs. But just because it will doesn't make it a good idea to install GDDR5 on a pc. Support means nothing wrt performance, that article is also stuck on the GPU only angle. Here is the update to it and if you still think GDDR5 is so good for computing then suggest that Intel's DDR3 "APUs" will be inferior among a bunch of Intel fanbois and see the derision you will rightfully get from them.


That is exactly what I said where you said it depends on clock cycles. No it doesn't, it depends on time. When a data segment is accessed it takes a certain length of time to fetch and deliver. That time is the same regardless of the clock cycles so if you speed them up it will take up more clock cycles. No that table doesn't illustrate your point it seems you don't understand why the numbers in the table increase as the clock speed increases. The only thing that can improve latency is changing the voltage.


This is falling on deaf ears. :whistle: You can't make a comparison between completely different architectures, and a current gen one with one from years ago at that. It's like comparing apples and oranges. L3 cache does improve memory performance and processors that have it will perform better than the same processor that doesn't. It's limited or left out of budget processors because you get what you pay for lol.

They have basically the same CPU so eSRAM will make a difference and it IS cache. The reason they call it eSRAM is because it's embedded and not on-die. It's still faster than main memory and 32MB is anything but little if managed correctly. Shaders are not everything without the ability to keep them all occupied.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say, but all your "facts" are meaningless. I have "faith" the PS4 is the more powerful console and that's all that matters. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X