|
|
| Page 63 of 158 |
mug2k
Posts: 698
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
 Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 17:40 Post subject: |
|
|
I'll try to minimise the technical stuff 
So, you know how there's this whole debate of GDDR5 in the PS4 versus the Xbox's DDR3 + eSRAM? To quickly explain the difference; GDDR5 is based off DDR3 and has double the bandwidth, but also has higher latencies has a drawback. So MS claim to battle their lack of bandwidth with the eSRAM, which is only 32 megabytes but capable of very high bandwidths.
Well, what wasn't known before and is seeping out of PS4 documentation now, is that Sony have a bunch of other things that reduce the impact of that higher latency. For example, there's an extra bus that allows the GPU to bypass the L1/L2 caches (this is where commands are stored, more or less) for some things (like GPGPU). The L2 cache itself also has some extra bits developers can set to make it possible to use the cache simultaneously for rendering and GPGPU. I won't bore you with the tech stuff, but basically they can skip certain steps and/or push through GPGPU and rendering tasks at the same time, which doesn't make access to the GDDR5 quicker, but does make the whole procedure quicker.
Then there's the fact that the PS4 has a unified memory architecture (like the Xbox 360, for the record). In the PS4, both the CPU and GPU can access the same memory pages. Basically that means that the CPU can put stuff in there for the GPU to work off and the GPU can deal with it from there straight away. That goes for both rendering and GPGPU. The Xbox on the other hand only has very, very limited access to the eSRAM from the CPU and the DDR3 is locked. So the CPU has to finish writing its data, then the GPU has to *copy* that memory page into another page before it can do shit with it. What that means is that whatever latency Sony has extra in the GDDR5 itself, they save by saving that whole copy operation.
And because the DDR3 is such low bandwidth, ultimately large data -textures- is limited by that 68 GB/s. That same data won't even fit in the eSRAM a lot of the time, so they don't have that bandwidth to begin with. That eSRAM is useful as a cache for some things, but it is not a general-purpose high-bandwidth memory pool.
Overall, Sony simply has more bandwidth, period. There's no way around that, that's the way it is. But MS don't actually have a huge latency advantage, because they need more steps just to get the data across from CPU to GPU. And when you throw the eSRAM into the mix, while that has a lot of bandwidth it also adds ANOTHER step to the whole pipeline. Ultimately, the high bandwidth is more important for rendering, as there are a lot of things when rendering that aren't time sensitive but are huge in size.
And then I haven't even touched on the other things Sony have taken from what developers want (that L2 cache stuff for example is something a lot of devs are happy about). The GPGPU side of it for example is much, much more flexible. Rather than just 2 compute queues like on the desktop in the 7970, there's *64* of them. Simplified, that means developers have much more control over resources and can do a lot more things in parallel. That means, lots of physics
The main difference is that the PS4's configuration is *entirely* aimed at games. The Xbox is just more aimed at other things too, which is why they went for DDR3, as those low latencies are more important for non-gaming stuff. And to make matters worse for MS, even if they had gone for GDDR5, the actual GPU is just so much weaker that it can never make up for that difference. No matter what MS say, there is no chip they can have on their package that makes up for that. Even if they have a dedicated physics chip, only 4 of the PS4's CUs can be used for GPGPU and then they still have 2 more CUs available for rendering over the Xbox's 12. Had it at least had a similar GPU, the difference would be minor (although a good developer would still be able to squeeze more out of the PS4 than the One) - but as it stands, it's pretty huge.
And to touch on your last "hope": PS4's architected towards that more than the other one - GPGPU basically will be used primarily for that 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mug2k
Posts: 698
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 18:06 Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for that, the PS4 seems like it's going to be faster and just more efficient at getting tasks done and more developer friendly because it's been well publicised that the PS3 had a high learning curve. I also never knew they had different GPU's, what gets me me though is that the PS4 is clearly the more powerful machine but that'll most likely only show through on 1st party titles. Am I right in thinking just because both of these consoles are coming out at the same time and direct competitors, 3rd party multiplatorm games will intentionally be made to perform/look the same because neither company will want to be shown to be clearly weaker (Microsoft).
Anyway I'm not even bothered about buying a next gen console at launch because I haven't been impressed with the launch titles thus far. I'll most likely grab a PS4 around march time because the more interesting titles are coming out around the then (Infamous Second Son, The Division etc). That and maybe it'll be a tad cheaper plus my dad gets a 10% discount at Asda (like Walmart).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 18:13 Post subject: |
|
|
The GPU in both comes from the same basic architecture (the same one we get in the HD 7000 series on the PC), but yes, they are different. In size, configuration and even in features.
Multiplatforms will likely run better on the PS4. Even without taking advantage of specific features of either, the PS4 is still the more powerful one. Kind of like a mid-range PC versus a high-end PC. You can do the same on both, one's just gonna either do it faster, or at the same speed with more details.
You're right in assuming that first party titles will be the ones showing either console's power off though. Like I said, Naughty Dog and Quantic Dream are the ones who'll show some stunning stuff first on the PS4. The other games are still going to look way better than anything on PS360, but those 2 will likely really squeeze everything out of the PS4.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 18:36 Post subject: |
|
|
the different is not that great,it's not the gap that was with Xbox and PS2,and probably we won't see one again (not from Sony/MS at least),in short: we will see the different from exclusive games, and 3rd parties in mid to late gen,and even that,it will be most likely FPS/Graphics,I don't think any game that can come to PS4 can't come to Xbox one with that gap and the opposite,strong hardware it's not enough to win console Gen,beside hardware advantage,we won't see exclusives that we saw in PS2 era,unless one the the consoles will sell SIGNIFY better,so far PS4 for example rely on More consoles exclusives then real ones,which most you can play on PC anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_4_games
"Fuck Denuvo"
Your personal opinions != the rest of the forum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 20:03 Post subject: |
|
|
You're wrong Jack, the difference *is* that big. Just because you're not into hardware, does not mean everyone else isn't. I and with me a lot of people who actually work in the games industry or in the hardware industry, can all look past the bullshit.
Most of the above is either from the documentation or from what Sony and MS have publicly confirmed. It's not speculation, they're facts.
Once again: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/777?vs=778
7770 = Xbox One
7850 = Playstation 4
That is how big the difference is going to be at least. Everything else aside, if you look purely at the GPU, that comparison is the exact difference between the two consoles. No matter how much your crystal ball says otherwise, those are the facts. The second factor after GPU (CPU) is nearly identical between the two consoles. The only thing that is really different is the way memory is handled and about that we can deduce a lot. Plus, there's another thing about the memory.
Funny you should mention the original Xbox and PS2. Because guess what? Exact same thing. Xbox was the one with the better graphics (technically that is, PS2 still had the better games with better design ). Here's a comparison:
- Xbox had *twice* the bandwidth of the PS2 - just like the PS4 has a lot more than Xbox One
- Xbox had a MUCH more powerful GPU than the PS2 (PS2 could do it all, but it had to do it in software); just like the PS4 does over Xbox One
- PS2 tried to compensate for the lack of bandwidth with eDRAM on a high-speed bus; just like the Xbox One tries to compensate with the eSRAM
Do you see the similarities yet?
And we know Sony are all about the games with this one, just like they were with PS2. So unlike then, this time they have the superior platform *and* will most likely still have the games. Xbox One we don't know, since they're not showing any bloody games 
Purely technically speaking however, the PS4 is to the Xbox One what the Xbox was to the PS2. The only reason games can look/run worse on the PS4 is if developers fuck up. Or if MS steps in with a bag of money to make it so.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 20:35 Post subject: |
|
|
Off topic but funny Werelds, I thought your Location was just bullshit, but I converted it to ascii and it's not 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 20:44 Post subject: |
|
|
sigh with Werelds,how what I said is wrong? even the opposite,you even strengthen what I think.
here what I said:
| Quote: | | we will see the different from exclusive games, and 3rd parties in mid to late gen,and even that,it will be most likely FPS/Graphics,I don't think any game that can come to PS4 can't come to Xbox one with that gap and the opposite,strong hardware it's not enough to win console Gen |
now,where is your proof that games won't come to xbone because it will be to weak to handle?
the xbox was few times better then PS2 in terms of hardware/grpahics,
the different between the 7770 and 7850 is not even 1.5 times of FPS/performance in most cases.
the PS2 and Xbox was a GEN different,in all terms,not just GPU,and CPU...
here the main different is the Ram,and Video Cards,which it's not that great.
now I will said what I said again:
sure,the top graphics games that will Squeeze the hardware will see the different,but like I said,it's not that gap that they can't come to the other consoles like
the case with Xbox PS2 with games like Far Cry,Riddick,Doom HL2 etc... ,the engine will be supported,but the graphics and FPS will be lower.
"Fuck Denuvo"
Your personal opinions != the rest of the forum
Last edited by JackQ on Sat, 7th Sep 2013 22:58; edited 3 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 20:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| cyclonefr wrote: | | Off topic but funny Werelds, I thought your Location was just bullshit, but I converted it to ascii and it's not |
You're the second person who figured it out, haha
| JackQ wrote: | sigh with Werelds,how what I said is wrong? even the opposite,you even strengthen what I think:
here what I said:
| Quote: | | we will see the different from exclusive games, and 3rd parties in mid to late gen,and even that,it will be most likely FPS/Graphics,I don't think any game that can come to PS4 can't come to Xbox one with that gap and the opposite,strong hardware it's not enough to win console Gen |
now,where is your proof that games won't come to xbone because it will be to weak to handle?
the xbox was few times better then PS2 in terms of hardware/grpahics,
here it not,here it's more of FPS/performance,the PS2 and Xbox was a gen different.
sure,the the top graphics games that will Squeeze the hardware will see the different,but like I said,it's not that gap that they can't come to the other consoles,the engine will be supported,but the graphics and FPS will be lower.
it was like that with Xbox PS2 with games like Far Cry,Riddick,Doom HL2 etc... |
Sorry, I misunderstood the point of your post. You're still wrong when you say the difference is not that big though.
However, I have never said that games will not come to the Xbox One, so I'm not sure why you threw that in as a reply to begin with? What I've said is that the Xbox One *will* struggle running games like BF4 at 1080p60. And it will.
Edit @ your edit:
| JackQ wrote: | | the different between the 7770 and 7850 is not even 1.5 times of FPS/performance. |
Did you even click the damn link above?
Either you didn't or your math fails, because it is 1.5 times as fast in a lot of cases. It very rarely drops below the 40% pure peak performance difference; and depending on the game the difference can be even bigger.
DiRT: Showdown
1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + 4x MSAA + Adv. Lighting
51.5 / 37.4 = 1.38
DiRT: Showdown
1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + 4xMSAA
81.5 / 57.9 = 1.41
Crysis: Warhead
1920x1080 - E Shaders/G Quality
65.5 / 39.3 = 1.67 (take note of this result!)
Battlefield 3
1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + FXAA-High
64.2 / 41.4 = 1.55 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 21:11 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: |
Once again: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/777?vs=778
7770 = Xbox One
7850 = Playstation 4
That is how big the difference is going to be at least. Everything else aside, if you look purely at the GPU, that comparison is the exact difference between the two consoles. |
omg i can't believe what i am reading. you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously after posting such utter nonsense? don't get me wrong, i prefer PS4 but your posts are filled with so much speculation and for some reason you present it as hard facts
| Werelds wrote: | | You're wrong Jack, the difference *is* that big. |
you don't have a single shred of proof to back this claim up. like i said above, your are just speculating.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 21:26 Post subject: |
|
|
@Werelds
even if the video cards compression is true what it is on PC equivalent
"in most cases",that I edited before you added your response . which I still stand on what I said and the numbers still mostly below 1.5 in the majority of games there ,even close equal in some cases.
"Fuck Denuvo"
Your personal opinions != the rest of the forum
Last edited by JackQ on Sat, 7th Sep 2013 21:43; edited 3 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 21:37 Post subject: |
|
|
| rgb#000 wrote: | | you don't have a single shred of proof to back this claim up. like i said above, your are just speculating. |
Oh, am I now? Did you watch any interviews? Conferences? Read articles?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6770/sony-announces-playstation-4-pc-hardware-inside
The following numbers are confirmed, by MS and Sony and I'm just going to repeat myself:
XBO: 12 CU/768 SP AMD GCN GPU at 1.31 TFLOPS
PS4: 18 CU/1152 SP AMD GCN GPU at 1.83 TFLOPS
The TFLOPS were shown on 40 foot slides during conferences and MS' updated TFLOPS to 1.31 was in their press statement a couple of weeks ago.
Further confirmed is that the PS4 indeed has 72 TU as I laid out in one of my earlier posts. So, following that, they each have 64 SP per CU, exactly like all of AMD's 7000 series. Furthermore, the PS4 has indeed 4 TU per CU, exactly like all of AMD's 7000 series.
Now, let me give you the specs for the 7770 and 7850, which you can find on any tech site or Wikipedia:
7770: 10 CU/640 SP/40 TU/1.28 TFLOPS - that's 64 SP per CU, 4 TU per CU
7850: 16 CU/1024 SP/64 TU/1.76 TFLOPS - that's 64 SP per CU, 4 TU per CU
See any similarities yet? So the Xbox One is a 7770 + 2 CU, PS4 is a 7850 + 2 CU. The difference in TFLOPS comes from the slightly different clockspeeds.
Those numbers are confirmed facts, period. Same with the figures about the CPU. And from there, sure, I'm speculating when it comes to the memory. But that statement you quoted there, looking purely at the GPU it is not speculation. We know the specs, we know that they're almost identical to the mentioned videocards.
The only difference is the memory access, but given the fact that you are an avid PC gamer yourself, you damn well know that memory overclocks (which increases bandwidth) or lower CAS latencies have very little effect on gaming performance. Even if I'm wrong about the Xbox One's crippled bandwidth being an issue when it comes to textures, that still doesn't mean shit, the latencies aren't going to affect gaming performance. From a pure hardware point of view, the PS4 just is better. Please though, provide some facts showing otherwise. I've never said that the PS4's actually gonna get better games, that heavily depends on how good the SDK is and whether developers optimise properly. I'm just saying that it is capable of much more.
Oh well, I thought this thread was meant to have a discussion, but I guess neither of you is interested in that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 21:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| Werelds wrote: |
Oh well, I thought this thread was meant to have a discussion, but I guess neither of you is interested in that. |
I think I actually responded decently to what you said about the differences of the consoles,you said things based what the facts you provided so far,I just don't find them contradict what I said how it will be in the end.
"Fuck Denuvo"
Your personal opinions != the rest of the forum
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 21:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Well your reply to me was completely irrelevant. I was talking about the hardware, you're talking about game availability.
Again, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your reply, but it wasn't a direct reply to anything I was saying.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
Bottom line PS4 is more powerful even if it's debateable by how much, (although Werelds is making a convincing argument that it's quite a bit) and it is $100 cheaper. Completely unacceptable on Microsofts part. The bells and whistles such as Kinect do not justify the extra cost at least to me. I didn't want Kinect on Xbox 360 and I have no interest in it on Xbox One.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 22:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Werelds, all these direct comparisons in speeds at TFLOPS and such are "almost" meaningless at this stage. Very obvious they were cough up by PC enthusiasts, who usually have very limited knowledge on consoles. YOU CAN NEVER directly compare consoles like that and it's a big mistake people do every new generation, and most importantly you can never directly compare consoles to PC with same hardware.
Take PS3 for example, it is in theory more powerful than 360, and it does have a handful of games that look so great no 360 game comes even close, but that's not a very good trade off when 95% of multiplats run and look like shit on PS3.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 22:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh gee, MS people saying the difference is not that big
As for DigitalFoundry's attempt, nice try, but they themselves also say exactly what I've said several times now:
| Quote: | Even if the additional rendering power of the PS4's graphics chip isn't quite as pronounced as the raw numbers suggest, lack of bandwidth can be an absolute killer to performance - and that's a big worry for the Xbox One architecture. You can see this by checking out the following video, where we compare the Radeon HD 7790 with the Radeon HD 7850. What's interesting about this comparison is that while the HD 7790 has fewer compute units than the HD 7850 (14 vs. 16), it's clocked higher, to the point where the raw compute potential of both is virtually identical at around 1.8 teraflops - PS4 territory. The difference comes down to bandwidth. The 256-bit memory bus of the HD 7850 offers a massive 60 per cent advantage over the 128-bit HD 7790 interface.
Three games are covered here: Crysis 3, Skyrim and Battlefield 3. The first two games reveal anything up to a 20 per cent performance improvement owing to the additional bandwidth available, but DICE's BF3 reflects the parity in compute power, offering virtually identical performance, suggesting that sans MSAA, the tech isn't hugely reliant on bandwidth. Transplanting those findings across to the next-gen consoles, developers for the Microsoft console have their work cut-out in utilising the DDR3 and ESRAM effectively in matching the sheer throughput of the PS4's memory bus. Getting good performance from the ESRAM is key in ensuring that Xbox One is competitive with the PS4. |
This is exactly what I said. The bandwidth MS lose is a far bigger issue than any latency the PS4 might have; latency very rarely is an issue for graphics rendering, that's why GDDR exists in the first place.
They very clearly say that their performance comparison is off because of that.
They say the same thing I've been saying: with its higher raw computational performance and bandwidth, the PS4 has a very clear advantage. And what I said initially, they also say: MSAA has a major impact on that small amount of bandwidth, it just can't handle it.
Keep in mind that their FPS comparison at the top is with full bandwidth for both cards - my example of 7770 versus 7850 is much closer. The bandwidth difference between the 7770 and 7850 is the same as between XBO and PS4.
| JackQ wrote: | | and the numbers still mostly below 1.5 in the majority of games there ,even close equal in some cases. |
Uh, no 
From a friend of mine who's an even bigger asshole than me () and put Anand's data into a spreadsheet:
| Code: |
Game Settings 7770/XBO 7850/PS4 PS4 over XBO
DiRT: Showdown 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + 4x MSAA + Adv. Lighting 37.4 51.5 37.70%
DiRT: Showdown 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + 4xMSAA 57.9 81.5 40.76%
DiRT: Showdown 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality 64 86.1 34.53%
Total War: Shogun 2 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality 20.3 29.2 43.84%
Total War: Shogun 2 1920x1080 - Very High Quality 53 80.7 52.26%
Hitman: Absolution 1920x1080 - High + 16xAF 33.2 55.7 67.77%
Hitman: Absolution 1920x1080 - Medium + Tess + 16xAF 46.3 77.7 67.82%
Sleeping Dogs 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + High AA 33.7 53.4 58.46%
Sleeping Dogs 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + Normal AA 54.5 84.3 54.68%
Crysis: Warhead 1920x1080 - Enthusiast Quality + 4x MSAA 23 38.9 69.13%
Crysis: Warhead 1920x1080 - E Shaders/G Quality 39.3 65.5 66.67%
Far Cry 3 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality 26 39.1 50.38%
Far Cry 3 1920x1080 - Med-High Quality 44 65.9 49.77%
Battlefield 3 1920x1080 - Ultra Quality + FXAA-High 41.4 64.2 55.07%
Battlefield 3 1920x1080 - Medium Quality 50 77.7 55.40%
Civilization V 1920x1080 - Maximum Quality + 4x MSAA 37.7 58.3 54.64%
|
So that's 5 tests in Anand's list which are below 50%; one of them being only 0.23% below it (if you round to full numbers, it's 50%). So the majority does in fact run 1.5 times faster
| rgb#000 wrote: | Werelds, all these direct comparisons in speeds at TFLOPS and such are "almost" meaningless at this stage. Very obvious they were cough up by PC enthusiasts, who usually have very limited knowledge on consoles. YOU CAN NEVER directly compare consoles like that and it's a big mistake people do every new generation, and most importantly you can never directly compare consoles to PC with same hardware.
Take PS3 for example, it is in theory more powerful than 360, and it does have a handful of games that look so great no 360 game comes even close, but that's not a very good trade off when 95% of multiplats run and look like shit on PS3. |
I know that.
The reason for that is also very well known though: the architectural difference between 360 and PS3 are huge - PS3 requires taking advantage of the SPEs in Cell by hand, there's no automatic mechanism for that. If you don't do that, RDR is the result.
Here however we've got confirmed that it's the same CPU, same GPU architecture. The only differing factor is the memory and latencies quite simply aren't that important for graphics. And given what we know, the tables are turned this time; on the XBO developers will need to explicitly take care of sending shit to the eSRAM.
So where the PS3 last time had the better hardware, they had the more complicated platform. This time, the XBO has the worse hardware *AND* the more complicated platform. Because memory aside, they are identical as far as architecture is concerned.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 23:12 Post subject: |
|
|
| JackQ wrote: | | Werelds wrote: |
| JackQ wrote: | | and the numbers still mostly below 1.5 in the majority of games there ,even close equal in some cases. |
Uh, no
|
and i's still not majority of games been tested .opps
and here is a bigger comparison,not just selective titles: |
That list above IS from Anandtech, which is what you copy pasted. But without the Minimum Framerate ones included (can ask him to include those, I'm too lazy to set up my own spreadsheet) and without the compute benchmarks. You included everything, my friend only included the ACTUAL GAMES and AVERAGE FRAMERATES  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 23:15 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 23:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| JackQ wrote: | i'm sorry Werelds,but as for the info as I can find so far,from internet sites 7770 vs 7780 performance there is not above 1.5 different in most games at least,which it will be nice if you can test more.
| Quote: | | . You included everything, my friend only included the ACTUAL GAMES and AVERAGE FRAMERATES Neutral |
which Average from few titles he tested ,isn't it?
what about all the titles I posted  |
What the fuck are you even trying to say here?
Your list is the list from Anandtech. The list from my friend is the list from Anandtech - except for the minimum framerates, synthetics and compute ones. Your list includes: Dirt, TW, Hitman, Sleeping Dogs, Crysis: Warhead, FC3, BF3, Civ V. Now scroll up and check the list I posted, that is the exact same fucking list of games.
Everything else on your list are compute and/or synthetic benchmarks, or noise/power/temperature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 23:43 Post subject: |
|
|
I posted another comparison in my edit with few titles,the FPS still not above 1.5 times for most games/settings excpet for the highest settings for battlefield 3,but ho well,I find this pointless,we are talking about Xbone/PS4 videos card don't we?
lets just wait for more news about the xbone/PS4 hardware,and enough with the speculation
Edit:
after checking a bit,it seems the 7850 advantage above 1.5 is more noticeable in relativy new games like Skyrim and Broadlands 2 then older games like Dirt 3,and ARMA2 ,that's interesting,but it doesn't mean the gap will be that way in consoles.
"Fuck Denuvo"
Your personal opinions != the rest of the forum
Last edited by JackQ on Sun, 8th Sep 2013 00:03; edited 2 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 7th Sep 2013 23:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Sun, 8th Sep 2013 00:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| JackQ wrote: | Edit:
after checking a bit,it seems the 7850 advantage above 1.5 is more noticeable in relativy new games like Skyrim and Broadlands 2 then older games like Dirt 3,and ARMA2 ,that's interesting,but it doesn't mean the gap will be that way in consoles. |
Allow me to rephrase that for you: in games that are not CPU limited, in the way that ArmA 2 and Dirt are, where the GPU is actually properly stressed and shows its true power, there's a clear 50% advantage.
Because that's what it is Jack. And for any game that attempts to look good, it will be like that. If a game is CPU limited, it means one of two things:
- The game requires an obscene amount of CPU power (that's ArmA) per frame
- The game isn't graphically challenging: that's Dirt. Because it is not a very pretty game to look at if you compare it to Shift, pCARS or from what I gather, Forza. Because it is not very challenging (it's a little graphically challenged though  ) the CPU usage ramps up rapidly because it has to push too many frames to the GPU. This sounds strange, but besides this the game uses quite a lot of CPU power anyway, it also does a lot of Tessellation (which doesn't eat up shaders, but does eat up scheduling time within the GPU), it also has a small DirectCompute footprint and you get a game that's constrained more by the CPU and schedulers than actual shader or GPGPU power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 8th Sep 2013 00:27 Post subject: |
|
|
That even a small difference in HW can matter quite a lot (depending on game) was clearly shown by the PS3 and Xbox360. I've witnessed several times myself how a game looked and ran better on the Xbox360, even though the difference in HW isn't that big. So yeah, PS4 wins easily. It doesn't matter much untill the best games hit the platforms imo, only in the last stages a console shows its true power since devs squeeze every drop out of it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JackQ
Non-expret in Derps lagunge
Posts: 14181
Location: Kibbutznik, Israel
|
| Posted: Sun, 8th Sep 2013 00:51 Post subject: |
|
|
video game performance/looking is also depends on how it optimized for the hardware and others usages beside the video card. it's just it's obvious,there is nothing to "rephrase" me about.
,even if the gap is like 7770 and 7850,which also depends on the game. there is no guarantee that the gap between the consoles will be like the gap in newest games on PC,there are other factors to take.
and so far the gap been estimated to be around 30%-50%,and it's not 100% yet,but it's speculation to decide the video cards are 100% like their "equivalent" on PC.
"Fuck Denuvo"
Your personal opinions != the rest of the forum
Last edited by JackQ on Sun, 8th Sep 2013 02:32; edited 4 times in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 63 of 158 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
