Is it any more aggressive than 4 GB Gddr5 or stacked Ddr4?
They'll both be SoCs I reckon. It's just Sony makes hardware, you know? Big territorial advantage.
Is it any more aggressive than 4 GB Gddr5 or stacked Ddr4?
Thats nice and all, but when it comes to accessibility to developers, ease of use and current use Direct3D destroys OpenGL.
DirectX is currently the Graphic standard by which the consumer Graphics Industry measures itself. Every single box you will find a DirectX compatibility rating.
Theses are great.
People assuming simpler hardware is de facto yielding better result should think twice. And for some, they should also remember how they were defending the PS3 architecture.
Extreme case of special hardware, nowhere near what Durango is shaping into, but look at what ND or Santa Monica is doing with theses SPE.
It is likely that the ESRAM+move engine route was expansive, and thus a matured choice. They could have gone for GDDR5 too but haven't, and I do not think price is the only explanation.
Bandwidth is a (important) thing, but i'm sure the setup Microsoft engineers went with have an advantage over GDRR5 somewhere. The ability to transfer data while GPU is busy points in that direction i suppose.
My x360 doesn't do this.![]()
No. In layman's terms it's basically this (according to my interpretation):
You're moving to a new house, packing up everything you own and making a few trips to the new place to get it all moved.
With the PS4's solution, DDR5, you basically have a box truck that drives 70 mph everywhere all the time and can hold 4,000 pounds of your shit in a trip. When you get to your destination you need to unpack all of this shit too, at 1.8 tons an hour.
With the Xbox 720 you have a big box truck that can carry 8,000 pounds of your shit but it only drives at 28 mph. You also have a car that can carry 320 pounds of your shit and can drive at 41 mph. Once you get to your destination you have to unpack all your shit at only 1.2 tons an hour, but thankfully when you go to unpack your shit is already being sorted for you by a friend outside, helping to organize how you're receiving the stuff you unpack inside.
The Move Engines are that friend. They aren't going to do any of the unpacking (read: processing). They aren't going to carry any of your shit to the new place (read: memory). They just make everything run more smoothly, helping to reduce snags and bottlenecks.
If you were very diligent in how you packed either box truck you reduce the need for such a friend, but it's sure nice to have them no matter what. Chances are the PS4 will have some level of this same concept as well, though likely not to the same extent that MS is incorporating, since MS needs some way to get over the DDR3 bottleneck.
I'd say it's a further complication resulting from MS wanting 8 GB of memory and therefore going with clearly too slow DDR3. Move Engines, ESRam, etc. are all attempts to patch over that deficiency. This is also likely why MS is running them pre-programmed, because making developers have to manage this to avoid a bottleneck the PS4 doesn't have would be a pain in the ass.
It doesn't mean developers like the high DirectX overhead. Many of the PC devs that push their games to the edge start on OpenGL and then port over to DirectX.
I don't see it, Sony doesn't know more about hardware than IBM, AMD etc
Which is where MS hired people from. And are the companies Sony is working with to develop their console.
They'll both be SoCs I reckon. It's just Sony makes hardware, you know? Big territorial advantage.
Theses are great.
People assuming simpler hardware is de facto yielding better result should think twice. And for some, they should also remember how they were defending the PS3 architecture.
Extreme case of special hardware, nowhere near what Durango is shaping into, but look at what ND or Santa Monica is doing with theses SPE.
It is likely that the ESRAM+move engine route was expansive, and thus a matured choice. They could have gone for GDDR5 too but haven't, and I do not think price is the only explanation.
Bandwidth is a (important) thing, but i'm sure the setup Microsoft engineers went with have an advantage over GDRR5 somewhere. The ability to transfer data while GPU is busy points in that direction i suppose.
So, it looks like these fixed function parts will work in parallel to ease the burden on GPU meaning gain in efficiency. That said, this "secret sauce" does not sound like the great "equalizer". Amazing what proelite sold us on.
Haha, Proelite was really trolling both sides. I am sure he is very happy with what he accomplished.
No. In layman's terms it's basically this (according to my interpretation):
You're moving to a new house, packing up everything you own and making a few trips to the new place to get it all moved.
With the PS4's solution, DDR5, you basically have a box truck that drives 70 mph everywhere all the time and can hold 4,000 pounds of your shit in a trip. When you get to your destination you need to unpack all of this shit too, at 1.8 tons an hour.
With the Xbox 360 you have a big box truck that can carry 8,000 pounds of your shit but it only drives at 28 mph. You also have a car that can carry 320 pounds of your shit and can drive at 41 mph. Once you get to your destination you have to unpack all your shit at only 1.2 tons an hour, but thankfully when you go to unpack your shit is already being sorted for you by a friend outside, helping to organize how you're receiving the stuff you unpack inside.
The Move Engines are that friend. They aren't going to do any of the unpacking (read: processing). They aren't going to carry any of your shit to the new place (read: memory). They just make everything run more smoothly, helping to reduce snags and bottlenecks.
If you were very diligent in how you packed either box truck you reduce the need for such a friend, but it's sure nice to have them no matter what. Chances are the PS4 will have some level of this same concept as well, though likely not to the same extent that MS is incorporating, since MS needs some way to get over the DDR3 bottleneck.
I'd say it's a further complication resulting from MS wanting 8 GB of memory and therefore going with clearly too slow DDR3. Move Engines, ESRam, etc. are all attempts to patch over that deficiency. This is also likely why MS is running them pre-programmed, because making developers have to manage this to avoid a bottleneck the PS4 doesn't have would be a pain in the ass.
I've read on several places that Sony's tools are on par with Microsoft ones and that the old adage of Microsoft having vastly better tools has been invalid for some time now.
There is no way that Sony will just drop PS4 into developer's lap and say "deal with it" (like they did with PS3).
In a way I'm starting to think that Durango has become PS3 of next gen - developers could quickly become annoyed with its complexity. Of course if Microsoft documents everything well (they will) some annoyance could be alleviated but not all. I guess time will tell.
Any sources on these evidences?
As far as i have heard dx 10 fixed most of dx9 and previous overheads bringing it close to OpenGL.
Partners are good sure. See Google getting galaxy nexus from Samsung, versus Apple, Sony, Samsung doing their own thing.
I'd say it's a further complication resulting from MS wanting 8 GB of memory and therefore going with clearly too slow DDR3. Move Engines, ESRam, etc. are all attempts to patch over that deficiency. This is also likely why MS is running them pre-programmed, because making developers have to manage this to avoid a bottleneck the PS4 doesn't have would be a pain in the ass.
I don't see it, Sony doesn't know more about hardware than IBM, AMD etc
The Cell has a DMA engine for each SPU and the main PPE core. It did help the PS3 make better use of it's given bandwidth. But I don't recall anyone trying to sell it as a ground breaking feature or anything. It was just a way to keep the CPU fed with data more efficiently. But no one way saying PS3 had more bandwidth because of DMA engines. But all of a sudden now...
A byproduct advantage is that the GPU/CPU have access to a small chunk of lower latency memory, ex-cache. And that can be useful in some situations, if you're juggling your data well.
But there is zero doubt in mind that having a large amount of memory was the starting point that informed so much of the rest of the design. And - yes - the cost of a simpler, faster memory setup with that amount of memory would be a pretty big deal.
Perhaps not in chip design specifically, but in overall product design and component efficiently, Sony know their shit.
No. In layman's terms it's basically this (according to my interpretation):
You're moving to a new house, packing up everything you own and making a few trips to the new place to get it all moved.
With the PS4's solution, DDR5, you basically have a box truck that drives 70 mph everywhere all the time and can hold 4,000 pounds of your shit in a trip. When you get to your destination you need to unpack all of this shit too, at 1.8 tons an hour.
With the Xbox 360 you have a big box truck that can carry 8,000 pounds of your shit but it only drives at 28 mph. You also have a car that can carry 320 pounds of your shit and can drive at 41 mph. Once you get to your destination you have to unpack all your shit at only 1.2 tons an hour, but thankfully when you go to unpack your shit is already being sorted for you by a friend outside, helping to organize how you're receiving the stuff you unpack inside.
The Move Engines are that friend. They aren't going to do any of the unpacking (read: processing). They aren't going to carry any of your shit to the new place (read: memory). They just make everything run more smoothly, helping to reduce snags and bottlenecks.
If you were very diligent in how you packed either box truck you reduce the need for such a friend, but it's sure nice to have them no matter what. Chances are the PS4 will have some level of this same concept as well, though likely not to the same extent that MS is incorporating, since MS needs some way to get over the DDR3 bottleneck.
I'd say it's a further complication resulting from MS wanting 8 GB of memory and therefore going with clearly too slow DDR3. Move Engines, ESRam, etc. are all attempts to patch over that deficiency. This is also likely why MS is running them pre-programmed, because making developers have to manage this to avoid a bottleneck the PS4 doesn't have would be a pain in the ass.
No. In layman's terms it's basically this (according to my interpretation):
You're moving to a new house, packing up everything you own and making a few trips to the new place to get it all moved.
With the PS4's solution, DDR5, you basically have a box truck that drives 70 mph everywhere all the time and can hold 4,000 pounds of your shit in a trip. When you get to your destination you need to unpack all of this shit too, at 1.8 tons an hour.
With the Xbox 360 you have a big box truck that can carry 8,000 pounds of your shit but it only drives at 28 mph. You also have a car that can carry 320 pounds of your shit and can drive at 41 mph. Once you get to your destination you have to unpack all your shit at only 1.2 tons an hour, but thankfully when you go to unpack your shit is already being sorted for you by a friend outside, helping to organize how you're receiving the stuff you unpack inside.
The Move Engines are that friend. They aren't going to do any of the unpacking (read: processing). They aren't going to carry any of your shit to the new place (read: memory). They just make everything run more smoothly, helping to reduce snags and bottlenecks.
If you were very diligent in how you packed either box truck you reduce the need for such a friend, but it's sure nice to have them no matter what. Chances are the PS4 will have some level of this same concept as well, though likely not to the same extent that MS is incorporating, since MS needs some way to get over the DDR3 bottleneck.
I'd say it's a further complication resulting from MS wanting 8 GB of memory and therefore going with clearly too slow DDR3. Move Engines, ESRam, etc. are all attempts to patch over that deficiency. This is also likely why MS is running them pre-programmed, because making developers have to manage this to avoid a bottleneck the PS4 doesn't have would be a pain in the ass.
Seemed more like Aegies and he didn't understand what they were reading. At least Aegies was upfront about it.
I wonder if this partially makes up for the DDR3? If it can encode and decode the information with zero hit to the processor or GPU, theoretically it can do more than the bandwidth would imply, right?
Off the top of my head, Valve does this with all of their releases. Hell, run their game in DirectX then in OpenGL. 9 times out of 10, it'll run better in Open. Carmack and iD have openly endorsed OpenGL over DirectX as well.
Anyway this is off topic.
What is the basis for this?
Nintendo is the one who is all about component efficiency, not Sony. I just think it's weird people start making judgement like this based on the simple theory that "Sony makes TVs and Phones, MS doesn't so Sony is just much better at making hardware for gaming purposes".
It's like saying, because MS is a software company then the software in Durango will just be way better, and the tools and etc.
It doesn't quite work like that.
Bah. See, this is why I hate the Xbox 360 > Xbox 720 naming system.
I really hope they call it Xbox 8, but with a snazy power on logo where the 8 rotates into an infinity symbol.
First thing I saw when I google John Carmack directx vs opengl:
Carmack: Direct3D Now Better Than OpenGL
No. In layman's terms it's basically this (according to my interpretation):
You're moving to a new house, packing up everything you own and making a few trips to the new place to get it all moved.
With the PS4's solution, DDR5, you basically have a box truck that drives 70 mph everywhere all the time and can hold 4,000 pounds of your shit in a trip. When you get to your destination you need to unpack all of this shit too, at 1.8 tons an hour.
With the Xbox 360 you have a big box truck that can carry 8,000 pounds of your shit but it only drives at 28 mph. You also have a car that can carry 320 pounds of your shit and can drive at 41 mph. Once you get to your destination you have to unpack all your shit at only 1.2 tons an hour, but thankfully when you go to unpack your shit is already being sorted for you by a friend outside, helping to organize how you're receiving the stuff you unpack inside.
The Move Engines are that friend. They aren't going to do any of the unpacking (read: processing). They aren't going to carry any of your shit to the new place (read: memory). They just make everything run more smoothly, helping to reduce snags and bottlenecks.
If you were very diligent in how you packed either box truck you reduce the need for such a friend, but it's sure nice to have them no matter what. Chances are the PS4 will have some level of this same concept as well, though likely not to the same extent that MS is incorporating, since MS needs some way to get over the DDR3 bottleneck.
I'd say it's a further complication resulting from MS wanting 8 GB of memory and therefore going with clearly too slow DDR3. Move Engines, ESRam, etc. are all attempts to patch over that deficiency. This is also likely why MS is running them pre-programmed, because making developers have to manage this to avoid a bottleneck the PS4 doesn't have would be a pain in the ass.
Partners are good sure. See Google getting galaxy nexus from Samsung, versus Apple, Sony, Samsung doing their own thing.
I don't see how Sony is doing anything different from MS. You have to explain that to me.
They both are using 3rd party base tech. So I don't understand how Google and the whole phone business serves as a parallel here.
I don't think you should use how many pounds the truck could carry. PS4 would be able to carry about twice as much as 720 per load not vice versa. 720s advantage would probably be latency, meaning that maybe they would have a easier road to travel. Idk your alot better with the analogies than I am, but latency means that there is less delay trip-to-trip.
No. In layman's terms it's basically this (according to my interpretation):
You're moving to a new house, packing up everything you own and making a few trips to the new place to get it all moved.
With the PS4's solution, DDR5, you basically have a box truck that drives 70 mph everywhere all the time and can hold 4,000 pounds of your shit in a trip. When you get to your destination you need to unpack all of this shit too, at 1.8 tons an hour.
With the Xbox 360 you have a big box truck that can carry 8,000 pounds of your shit but it only drives at 28 mph. You also have a car that can carry 320 pounds of your shit and can drive at 41 mph. Once you get to your destination you have to unpack all your shit at only 1.2 tons an hour, but thankfully when you go to unpack your shit is already being sorted for you by a friend outside, helping to organize how you're receiving the stuff you unpack inside.
The Move Engines are that friend. They aren't going to do any of the unpacking (read: processing). They aren't going to carry any of your shit to the new place (read: memory). They just make everything run more smoothly, helping to reduce snags and bottlenecks.
If you were very diligent in how you packed either box truck you reduce the need for such a friend, but it's sure nice to have them no matter what. Chances are the PS4 will have some level of this same concept as well, though likely not to the same extent that MS is incorporating, since MS needs some way to get over the DDR3 bottleneck.
I'd say it's a further complication resulting from MS wanting 8 GB of memory and therefore going with clearly too slow DDR3. Move Engines, ESRam, etc. are all attempts to patch over that deficiency. This is also likely why MS is running them pre-programmed, because making developers have to manage this to avoid a bottleneck the PS4 doesn't have would be a pain in the ass.
OpenGL has gotten a lot better since 2011.
http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-opengl-is-faster-than-directx-even-on-windows
Once again though, this is OT, so I probably won't go any further.
You don't see how that example was in support of your argument. i.e. a software company doing well with partners who know the hardware business?
There is more to a console than just a gpu from AMD and ram from Samsung. There were 1700 parts + in the x360 alone.
What I was saying was that Sony as a business is more set up to do this kind of manufacturing, it's their forte, with their contacts, speciality, engineers, at least more than Microsoft. All they can do is throw money at it.
Having said that, Microsoft do have the money, and so can partner up to face up to Sony to some extent. Even so, the ps3 bom went down so much faster than the x360.
Source uses DX8 or 9 right? 2011 and later stuff has nothing to do with those results, lol.
Is the Ps3 a soc by now?
No, still two separate chips. They won't go SoC, we'd likely just see a decrease in size. According to Digital Foundry, Cell is supposed to hit 22nm in the future.
Xbox being a Soc doesn't mean anything really. There are factors that prevent the PS3 from becoming one. Cell is still pretty complex...Well there you go.
Xbox 360 is a SoC on a chip. Does that mean MS knows more about hardware? No, of course not.
Well there you go.
Xbox 360 is a SoC on a chip. Does that mean MS knows more about hardware? No, of course not.
In the same way that Sony has every legitimate chance of delivering great tools and services that are on par with MS, so does the opposite is true in hardware. The key difference comes down to design decisions, made on priorities they had.
Xbox being a Soc doesn't mean anything really. There are factors that prevent the PS3 from becoming one. Cell is still pretty complex...
Yeah, cell itself has to use XDR, which means Sony has to split pools. Among other things like Cell being a defunct design.Interesting enough, the PS3 Super Slim uses less energy than the SoC 360.
The cell itself isn't the hard part at all, it's the memory controller, which just needs a bit of work to fix.
Looks like the DMA units we expected. No more, no less.
Only thing that seems slightly odd is that they can't saturate the system's bandwidth, although I guess the idea is to use them for some copying around of data but not all.
Well there you go.
Xbox 360 is a SoC on a chip.Does that mean MS knows more about hardware? No, of course not.
First thing I saw when I google John Carmack directx vs opengl:
Carmack: Direct3D Now Better Than OpenGL
It doesn't mean developers like the high DirectX overhead. Many of the PC devs that push their games to the edge start on OpenGL and then port over to DirectX.
I see. X360 was a SoC at 45nm in 2011 when pretty much the entire industry was already there for a while now.
What you should be thinking about is that whilst they were doing that Sony were making preparations for stacking in Vita in 2012.
Sony have their own fab. They will along with others spend hundreds of millions on such R&D because they are more dependent on stacking, 2.5d tsv 3d etc. They make everything from smartphones to consoles. It's their bread and butter.
Cell and RSX are quite a bit more complicated to put in a SoC, and last I heard they were rumoured to had skipped a gen and going for 22nm. Will be interesting to see if that is a SoC or not.
I see. X360 was a SoC when at 45nm in 2011 when pretty much the entire industry was already there for a while now.
What you should be thinking about is that whilst they were doing that Sony were making preparations for stacking in Vita in 2012.
Sony have their own fab. They will along with others spend hundreds of millions on such things because they are more dependent on stacking, 2.5d tsv 3d etc. They make everything from smartphones to consoles. It's their bread and butter.
Cell and RSX are quite a bit more complicated to put in a SoC, and last I heard they were rumoured to had skipped a gen and going for 22nm. Will be interesting to see if that is a SoC or not.
I don't think you should use how many pounds the truck could carry. PS4 would be able to carry about twice as much as 720 per load not vice versa. 720s advantage would probably be latency, meaning that maybe they would have a easier road to travel. Idk your alot better with the analogies than I am, but latency means that there is less delay trip-to-trip.
Edit: better yet use the pounds, PS4 8000/720 4000 and get rid of the mph because they arrive at the same time. 720 can leave to get more faster, but they still go the same speed.
Not for this kind of stuff. Sony's fabs are dedicated to image processing chips and image sensors. For general purpose processors Sony have a long term partnership with Toshiba (who make the the Vita SoC as well as 45nm Cell).