• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Xbox boss says hardware analysis between consoles is “meaningless”

aronmayo2

Banned
Dude, we're already past that point. You don't just 'ship' a console the day before it is available to buy. Both MS and Sony have been churning out finished console for a while now. The only thing that either party can do is tweak the clocks, or disable cores if yields require it. So downgrade, not upgrade.

And you think the the Xbox One has some inactive CUs in there for hardware redundancy? That's... well, I don't know what that it, but it's not based in reality.

The Xbox One is what it is. It's not getting a major hardware bump. Any fundamental hardware changes would have to have been set in stone at the end of last year to make a holiday 2013 launch a possibility.

But they could overclock it with a firmware update. It works both ways. If the cooling system really is very efficient (jugding by console size and space + fan size it looks to be) I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen...considering how many people do it on PC without any issues.
 

CLEEK

Member
But they could overclock it with a firmware update. It works both ways. If the cooling system really is very efficient (jugding by console size and space + fan size it looks to be) I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen...considering how many people do it on PC without any issues.

No they couldn't. Not unless every single APU comes off the production line and successfully tests to run at the higher clock rate. And they also test the cooling to guarantee it copes with the extra heat from the higher clock. And that they don't exceed their TDP. A small clock increase can see a disproportional increase in power usage.

Overclocking in the consumer space only works on a per-chip basis. Some can overclock, and some overclock higher than others. A console is a fixed platform, where this variation isn't acceptable*.

* Apart from in the final 1.6 revision of the original Xbox, where MS did a RAM speed test during start up. As they started to source RAM of different quality from different vendors, so you had some Xboxes with faster RAM than others. A couple of my friend who were living together each had Xboxes. One friend's Xbox always seemed to take far longer to load games than the others. The actual RAM inside must have been the cause.
 

Duxxy3

Member
But they could overclock it with a firmware update. It works both ways. If the cooling system really is very efficient (jugding by console size and space + fan size it looks to be) I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen...considering how many people do it on PC without any issues.

So the firmware update fries a whole bunch of xbox ones?

Console makers have one shot to get it right.
 

I2amza

Member
But they could overclock it with a firmware update. It works both ways. If the cooling system really is very efficient (jugding by console size and space + fan size it looks to be) I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen...considering how many people do it on PC without any issues.

Please stahp.. They can't just overclock after shipping the consoles just because they feel like it. Too many variables to take into consideration for this to even happen, and with so many variables it's impossible to make sure each variable passes the test.
 

FINALBOSS

Banned
All hardware has bottlenecks, even the PS4 hardware, as much as people might want to believe otherwise. Also not sure where you got this PS4 CPU being 2GHZ by time for launch business from... That's not going to happen.

The Xbox One also has a unified pool of DDR3, which is better than GDDR5 memory for the kinds of multi-tasking tasks you're probably referring to. You also have to keep in mind that Microsoft is apparently reserving upwards of 3GB for that OS, whereas right now Sony is apparently reserving 1GB, plus DDR3 has superior latency than GDDR5. People have been trying to suggest otherwise, but DDR3 simply has better latency than GDDR5 from what I know. Then when you factor in the Display planes on the Xbox One, which decouples OS rendering from game rendering, that makes it even less likely that the PS4 will somehow be a better multi-tasker than the XB1. Then again, we're just making assumptions here based on what we think we know, but I suppose we'll see.

You have great tech knowledge, but everyone post I've read from you has been in 100% FULL defense of Microsoft.

As for your claim of latency being better than GDDR5 that has already been proven as a myth and 100% wrong in the DF thread.
 

I2amza

Member
You have great tech knowledge, but everyone post I've read from you has been in 100% FULL defense of Microsoft.

As for your claim of latency being better than GDDR5 that has already been proven as a myth and 100% wrong in the DF thread.

I thought GDDR5 did have higher latency not because of clocks or nanoseconds, but because of the memory controller. Don't think there is a GDDR5 memory controller that is low on latency.

Am I wrong here?
 

FINALBOSS

Banned
I thought GDDR5 did have higher latency not because of clocks or nanoseconds, but because of the memory controller. Don't think there is a GDDR5 memory controller that is low on latency.

Am I wrong here?

Asking the wrong dude tbh man. I read the entire DF thread just for shits and giggles and it was like reading advanced calculus.

I do remember the post about the latency issue being a myth and the dude had cited sources and everything. Not only that but I also saw in the thread that the PS4 added another zero-latency bus to combat the issue (I think that's the right wording)
 

Eusis

Member
Please stahp.. They can't just overclock after shipping the consoles just because they feel like it. Too many variables to take into consideration for this to even happen, and with so many variables it's impossible to make sure each variable passes the test.
Yeah, the closest we'll ever see are CPUs all reliably built for one speed, but downclocked not for reliability but for battery usage, as we saw with PSP and as Apple frequently does. No other way do I see us getting a system just going faster later on.
 

Shayan

Banned
You have great tech knowledge, but everyone post I've read from you has been in 100% FULL defense of Microsoft.

As for your claim of latency being better than GDDR5 that has already been proven as a myth and 100% wrong in the DF thread.

that is absolute BS . Dont listen to any of that BS that guy says. For 8 g GDDR5 latency is no issue. I repeat 100% null issue. DDR3 runs at 1.25 - 1.6V vs 1V for GDDR5 so chances of overheating are there for Xbone since we are also talking 5 B transistors. There could have been an issue with GDDR5 had SONY included lets say 2g of it. Then SONY could have toned its blazing speed to mitigate for low latency

That slow DDR3 ram even in plentiful supply will not rival anything that could be possible with GDDR5
 

I2amza

Member
Asking the wrong dude tbh man. I read the entire DF thread just for shits and giggles and it was like reading advanced calculus.

I do remember the post about the latency issue being a myth and the dude had cited sources and everything. Not only that but I also saw in the thread that the PS4 added another zero-latency bus to combat the issue (I think that's the right wording)

Yeah I know latency is not an issue on the PS4 due to the modifications they did to the PS4 such as the different buses and the CPU is an OOO CPU, so latency shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Just wondering about memory controllers. That's it. :)
 

prwxv3

Member
it is pretty entertaining to see posters that believe the cloud computing stuff (not senjutsu) bring up the GDDR5 latency issue.
 

gemoran4

Member
To be honest, i agree with the point he's making. Unless the gap is large enough to create big disparity between two consoles (like the wii vs ps3/360), it isn't very meaningful. The PS4 is stronger than the Xbox One, but most multiplats will likely look the same between the two consoles, with the exclusives only really differentiating in terms of visuals (and im not even convinced its gonna be all that much, or enough that i personally will care).


That being said, im not getting either console initially, and when i do buy one its likely going to be the PS4
 

Duxxy3

Member
To be honest, i agree with the point he's making. Unless the gap is large enough to create big disparity between two consoles (like the wii vs ps3/360), it isn't very meaningful. The PS4 is stronger than the Xbox One, but most multiplats will likely look the same between the two consoles, with the exclusives only really differentiating in terms of visuals (and im not even convinced its gonna be all that much, or enough that i personally will care).


That being said, im not getting either console initially, and when i do buy one its likely going to be the PS4

That's what we thought would happen with the PS3 and 360. That didn't really happen.
 

Zee-Row

Banned
I think there's a small chance that if the XBO is truly more powerful, or if MS has upped the specs, that there is no point in them making that public now or explaining it at all. They have nothing to gain by doing so, the console will sell out for months regardless. Once both are shipping and have reached the point of no return, that's when I would start bragging about a hardware advantage.

Sony has already shown a willingness to make last minute changes and spend more money to have the more powerful box, if MS spills the beans now Sony could react by upping clock speeds or activating dormant CUs for Redundancy which would negate the advantage.

If there really is something to the Penello's comment, its best to sit on that information as long as possible...

The retail consoles for both are already being made as we speak though. No way to change anything now.
 

Zimbardo

Member
its only 'meaningless' when you're on the shit end of the stick.

if microsoft had the more powerful console, they'd be bragging their ass off about how much more power it has over sony's offering.
 

Shayan

Banned
To be honest, i agree with the point he's making. Unless the gap is large enough to create big disparity between two consoles (like the wii vs ps3/360), it isn't very meaningful. The PS4 is stronger than the Xbox One, but most multiplats will likely look the same between the two consoles, with the exclusives only really differentiating in terms of visuals (and im not even convinced its gonna be all that much, or enough that i personally will care).


That being said, im not getting either console initially, and when i do buy one its likely going to be the PS4

Most multiplats wont look the same . There is a significant disparity in the power of the 2 consoles which are based on same PC based architecture . Also many people are not saying this but DDR3 has overheating issues as it runs on a much higher voltage . The consoles are such that anyone can extract their full powers since they are virtually that easy to code for. Unless devs willingly make multiplats look equal , there will noticeable differences. This is not PS3 vs xbox 360 scenario , where only first party devs went extra mile to make ps3 games stand out from competition, as ps3 was a pain to code for .

I think there's a small chance that if the XBO is truly more powerful, or if MS has upped the specs, that there is no point in them making that public now or explaining it at all. ..

dude are you joking? Both consoles are being mass produced in limited quantities as we speak
 

aronmayo2

Banned
Please stahp.. They can't just overclock after shipping the consoles just because they feel like it. Too many variables to take into consideration for this to even happen, and with so many variables it's impossible to make sure each variable passes the test.

If that was the case then why does it work successfully like 90% of the time on PCs?
I'm not an expert on overclocking but it seems possible - hasn't this been done on consoles before...PSP or DS? Either way it's not going to make the Xbox One more powerful than the PS4 :p
 

Demon Ice

Banned
its only 'meaningless' when you're on the shit end of the stick.

if microsoft had the more powerful console, they'd be bragging their ass off about how much more power it has over sony's offering.

Yep, exactly. Call me when Sony says the hardware analysis is meaningless. Also, lol at this little bit of hypocrisy:

“The problem is that Sony decided to go out and publish a bunch of numbers, which are in some ways meaningless,” he said. “Because this isn’t like 1990, when it was 16-bit versus 32-bit.

Says the guy working for the company that proudly reported the transistor count of the APU but won't reveal the actual clock speed of the GPU.
 
If that was the case then why does it work successfully like 90% of the time on PCs?
I'm not an expert on overclocking but it seems possible - hasn't this been done on consoles before...PSP or DS? Either way it's not going to make the Xbox One more powerful than the PS4 :p

For one each chip has different requirements. Produce different heat, need different electricity to achieve such overclock...and some don't even overclock at all.

So you just created a situations where
10% Won't work
5% burn out the power supplies
20% have overheating problems

Now how do you figure what is the right amount of watts for each chip to achieve said overclock.

It's just not worth it.
 

abadguy

Banned
It is substantially weaker than the PS4.
A GPU with 1.2 TFLOPS is not that much in this day and age (very much so for a system that is meant to be sold for many years).

Deal with it.

Calm down, warrior. I'm getting both consoles so i don't have to "deal with" shit. Frankly i haven't seen anything that look substantially worse than what was shown on the PS4 at E3.
 

Aaron

Member
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't a large transistor count bad since it makes the APU more complicated
The more complicated, the more likely the chip is to fail in manufacturing, thus leading to low yields like there have been rumors of for the XB1 chip.

Calm down, warrior. I'm getting both consoles so i don't have to "deal with" shit. Frankly i haven't seen anything that look substantially worse than what was shown on the PS4 at E3.
None of the launch window games were developed with the finalized hardware in mind. If there is a difference, we won't be seeing it until at least a year out from console launch.
 

I2amza

Member
If that was the case then why does it work successfully like 90% of the time on PCs?
I'm not an expert on overclocking but it seems possible - hasn't this been done on consoles before...PSP or DS? Either way it's not going to make the Xbox One more powerful than the PS4 :p

PSP is the only one that was overclocked, and that was because before shipping they downclocked due to battery life. But each piece of the PSP was created for it's original clock speed, that's why sony let devs overclock the PSP right back to it's original intended clock.

That means that the PSP is NOT an overclock at all, but a return to original intended clock speed.

Also locked down consoles != PCs because PCs are open platform and each owner of one has access and control of all parts of the PC. That's not the case for consoles.
 
“The box is going to be awesome. The games are going to be awesome. I heard this exact same argument last generation and it’s a pointless argument, because people are debating things which they don’t know about. They’re not [head silicon engineer] Nick Baker or [corporate vice president of IEB hardware Todd Holmdahl], and I’m not [lead PS4 architect] Mark Cerny, so why are we having this discussion?”

What about the people debating who do know what they're talking about?
 

seanoff

Member
Do you have a source for this?

http://www.zdnet.com/inside-ibms-300mm-chip-fab-photos_p2-7000008903/

The East Fishkill fab turns out the company's 32nm Power7 chips. Such is their complexity, they require 1,200 separate steps to make, and have a yield of around 50-60 percent, according to Arthur. "The size and complexity of the chip generally dictates the yield," he explains. "A smaller chip with less function will yield higher, a more complex chip with more function will generally yield less. Some of our OEM chips have yields that are in the 90s."

so a really complex, x billions transistor SOC will yield?
 

SummitAve

Banned
http://www.zdnet.com/inside-ibms-300mm-chip-fab-photos_p2-7000008903/

The East Fishkill fab turns out the company's 32nm Power7 chips. Such is their complexity, they require 1,200 separate steps to make, and have a yield of around 50-60 percent, according to Arthur. "The size and complexity of the chip generally dictates the yield," he explains. "A smaller chip with less function will yield higher, a more complex chip with more function will generally yield less. Some of our OEM chips have yields that are in the 90s."

so a really complex, x billions transistor SOC will yield?

Thank you, but that is just a paragraph from a popular press source in which transistor counts isn't mentioned.
 

eastmen

Banned
Dude, we're already past that point. You don't just 'ship' a console the day before it is available to buy. Both MS and Sony have been churning out finished console for a while now. The only thing that either party can do is tweak the clocks, or disable cores if yields require it. So downgrade, not upgrade.

And you think that consoles have some inactive CUs in there for hardware redundancy? That's... well, I don't know what that it, but it's not based in reality.

The Xbox One is what it is. It's not getting a major hardware bump. Any fundamental hardware changes would have to have been set in stone at the end of last year to make a holiday 2013 launch a possibility.

Sony has specificly stated they are not in volume production yet. For both consoles with a nov launch date they most likely wont hit production until the end of august/ early sept for the chips. Delay that a few weeks for the first chips to hit the assembly line for the finished console.
 
I thought "Experience" is all what matters. Are we moving to Application now ?

My point was simple - all that ultimately matters is how people take advantage of the power. Power for power's sake is pointless.

Between you Microsoft defending here and in the hardware thread don't you get tired?

If power doesn't matter let this discussion run for people who care about power.

Is it that black and white? You're either 100% against the Bone or you're branded as a defender? This reminds me of growing up in Birmingham, Alabama and then moving into my professional career. I grew up being called a city boy by my family from small town North Alabama but when I started my career in business consulting, I was essentially called a country boy.

The same is true here. In my real life where I have a lot of Xbox-preferring friends, I've been warning them about the consumer unfriendly policies (among other things) of the Bone and have been pushing the PS4 as a viable replacement. However, when posting on a forum that is overwhelmingly pro-PS4, I get labeled a Bone defender because I'm not 100% against. It's all a matter of perspective I suppose.

While I did prefer the 360 last time, my preferences are ever changing. I've gotten every major system (including handhelds) at launch (with the exception of Saturn and Wii U) since 1991 when I got my SNES. My preferences have gone NES > SNES > PS1 > DC > PS2 > 360 in that order over the years (and even within certain generations, I've had some very specific loves that almost swayed the whole generation for me like Goldeneye and Halo). I just love games and I already have both new systems preordered.

It's terrible that people have to qualify themselves when giving opinions to avoid stupid labels. Is that what we want this forum to become?

As to your second point, there are plenty of other threads about pure power. I thought the whole point of this thread variant was to have a slightly different discussion that is NOT just about pure power.
 

seanoff

Member
Thank you, but that is just a paragraph from a popular press source in which transistor counts isn't mentioned.

really are you that desperate to defend MS? that is a direct quote from an IBM fab, they just make shit up in advance to make MS look bad.

a 32nm power 7 runs to about 2.1billion transistors. you can work out that if that is a complex chip, imagine a 5 billion transistor chip.
 

Demon Ice

Banned
Thank you, but that is just a paragraph from a popular press source in which transistor counts isn't mentioned.

He mentions size and complexity of the chip. More transistors = larger and more complex chip. Larger and more complex chip = lower yields. These are basic concepts that hold true for any company's chip design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count

Transistor count is the most common measure of integrated circuit complexity.
 

I2amza

Member
My point was simple - all that ultimately matters is how people take advantage of the power. Power for power's sake is pointless.

I agree with this, but you also have to agree that more power allows people to do more stuff compared to less power.

And since both consoles seem to be optimized for higher throughput to their theoretical power, I am static to see how devs use them.
 

CLEEK

Member
Sony has specificly stated they are not in volume production yet. For both consoles with a nov launch date they most likely wont hit production until the end of august/ early sept for the chips. Delay that a few weeks for the first chips to hit the assembly line for the finished console.

But they are in limited production. Final silicon is being made, and has been for some time (how else could E3 games be seen running on PS4 hardware?). The manufacturing process will be in-progress to maximise yields, but the actual APU design will be set in stone. Neither MS or Sony are in a position to make hardware changes (more CUs, more CPU core etc) at this stage. Which was the point I was replying to.

As an example, the 360 launched in November 2005. MS were in full production by July 2005.
 
I agree with this, but you also have to agree that more power allows people to do more stuff compared to less power.

And since both consoles seem to be optimized for higher throughput to their theoretical power, I am static to see how devs use them.

I'm not sure that I ever said or implied otherwise. That's an objectively correct statement when boiled down to what you state.

What will be interesting will be to see if the extra power is such that it allows developers to actually add to the games in some core way or will it just be used for more particles/polys/effects/etc.
 

abic

Banned
I'm not sure that I ever said or implied otherwise. That's an objectively correct statement when boiled down to what you state.

What will be interesting will be to see if the extra power is such that it allows developers to actually add to the games in some core way or will it just be used for more particles/polys/effects/etc.

Great, I'm glad you agree that the Playstation 4 is more powerful than the XBONE.

Now that Couldbeworse agrees that Sony has the more powerful machine, let's wait till the games launch to start the conversation about how the power is used.
 

Canon

Banned
It is meaningless. As much as I don't like the Xbox One, the games are going to look identical. They DID look identical at E3. I have a high-end PC from 2009 and there's nothing I can't run perfectly now, with very few graphical differences. The PS4 and Xbox One are even closer in power than what I have versus PCs nowadays.
 

Spira

Banned
It's meaningless when we already know that the Xbox one is inferior compared to the ps4 in terms of power.
 

eastmen

Banned
But they are in limited production. Final silicon is being made, and has been for some time (how else could E3 games be seen running on PS4 hardware?). The manufacturing process will be in-progress to maximise yields, but the actual APU design will be set in stone. Neither MS or Sony are in a position to make hardware changes (more CUs, more CPU core etc) at this stage. Which was the point I was replying to.

As an example, the 360 launched in November 2005. MS were in full production by July 2005.

This isn't actually true. Chips can be made a long time before release. They have to sample chips and then run them and make sure everything works. Then they will do respins at the metal layer or in really bad cases change design points and start all over again.

Developers may have final chips at this point Or they could simply have chips from earlier in the process. We really don't know. But there is a difference between today and full production mode. Some respins take as little as a month so both companies can still be tweaking things for the best yields / clock speeds.

Also its not impossible that either console gets a bump in ram . Since that wouldn't affect anything for launch games.
 

expletive

Member
SPE said:
And you think that consoles have some inactive CUs in there for hardware redundancy? That's... well, I don't know what that it, but it's not based in reality.
Yes, it's a common practice to improve yields. I'm surprised you didn't know.

dude are you joking? Both consoles are being mass produced in limited quantities as we speak

Mass produced in limited quantities is an oxymoron. Until the boxes are shipped there's always the option to make changes. MS still doesn't have a launch date for the ps4 so I see no reason why Sony couldn't bump up the clocks on July 1st for a late December launch.
 

demolitio

Member
If that was the case then why does it work successfully like 90% of the time on PCs?
I'm not an expert on overclocking but it seems possible - hasn't this been done on consoles before...PSP or DS? Either way it's not going to make the Xbox One more powerful than the PS4 :p

Someone already explained this before your post. Notice how PC gamers talk about how far they can push their overclocks of the same hardware with one being sometimes higher than the other regardless of temperatures? All chips aren't created equal when overclocking and it's a luxury console manufacturers can't afford to do enough to make any sort of difference at all. Even if it worked 90% of the time, that 10% adds up to quite a bit on top of everything else when they're already having to manufacture the consoles in time for the holiday meaning there's little room to work with, especially if MS was having issues to begin with.

You have to have a standardized piece of hardware for console gaming and individually overclocking them all and testing each one out to make sure it can even handle it just adds more time and money to an already tight schedule to get these things ready.

Although similar in architecture, PC's are still different from consoles as they're all individual and treated differently without having to conform to some set standard. I can push my PC all I want, but that's not easy for Microsoft when there's so many other factors to worry about.

But like I said, if they actually did manage, it wouldn't be enough to change anything drastically anyway.

I'm not bashing MS but rather stating it's better to be a little realistic here and don't expect miracles through overclocking just like Sony couldn't do something drastic at this point either. They're getting ready for war right now and the troops are mobilizing already so it's too late to change each soldier's weapon right before battle. :D
 
This is as close to an admission of inferiority as you will ever get. I for one enjoyed it with a chuckle and a sip of my tea. I would post a gif if I had one.
 
Top Bottom