cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
If Xbox One doesn't have HUMA then how does the CPU and GPU share the same memory pool. If not HUMA then surely a veriation if it.
If Xbox One doesn't have HUMA then how does the CPU and GPU share the same memory pool. If not HUMA then surely a veriation if it.
I'm a hardware newbie but this is one of the reasons that makes me want to wait before upgrading my PC. I am intrigued by both AMD's APU's and the deals they've worked with software companies (both gaming and non).
Don't worry guys, the Xbox has cloud processing that will make AI 600% better
But in all seriousness, I don't think it will matter much. Most games will look and feel very similar on both platforms and only a handful or two of titles will be able to take full advantage of whatever slight differences there are.
In a few ways the Playstation 3 was a technically superior console. Did that get them anywhere? Besides the Uncharteds, Last of Us, Killzone... were there really that many games that took full advantage of the hardware?
It's not irrelevant to understand how consoles work and their development benefits, if you are a developer, but for consumers it won't matter much. All that will matter is what games end up in the shelves and how good of a product the company provides.
If Xbox One doesn't have HUMA then how does the CPU and GPU share the same memory pool. If not HUMA then surely a veriation if it.
So, my guess is that Sony paid AMD to integrate this feature into PS4 while Microsoft didn't.
These are launch games, I suspect the differences will begin to become more noticeable around this time next year
In a few ways the Playstation 3 was a technically superior console. Did that get them anywhere? Besides the Uncharteds, Last of Us, Killzone... were there really that many games that took full advantage of the hardware?
I think it's more likely that Microsoft just didn't get developer input on the hardware. Oh and Sony got lucky that they got a GDDR5 vendor that could deliver a crapload of RAM in time. If the supply chain didn't fall in place Sony would've been screwed.
While diminishing returns are in play, the PS4 having both raw and architectural advantages along with a cheaper price will come into play when people decide which console has the better multi-plats. The 360 owes much of its success to having the superior versions of games through much of the generation. If hUMA extends this advantage and/or negates any of the X1's quirks, this is bad news for MS.I didn't say otherwise; I said that the gap is not close to Xbox vs Dreamcast.
To put my point another way, the Xbox had around 7 GFLOPS of computing power, the Dreamcast 1.5 GFLOPS. If you think that hUMA will turn the 50% computational improvement of the PS4 over the Xbone into a ~450% improvement, you're probably buying into the same 'secret sauce' wet dreams that some of our Xbox system warriors seem to believe in.
And again; look at the games. Look at Driveclub vs Forza 5. Driveclub clearly looks better even at a casual glance but the gap is not huge. As a reminder, even of the gap between Xbox and PS2, watch this, then tell me: is the gap between Driveclub and Forza this large? Does the gap between Driveclub and Forza give us good reason to believe the gap will ever be this large? I think the answer has to be a pretty well unqualified 'no'.
First GDDR5, now hUMA. Modern times bits and blast processing.
Can someone of TechGAF explain what is the true advantage of this technology?
what is the difference between hUMA and normal Unified memory? and how this impact in PS4 and X1 architecture?
Even with the integration of GPUs and CPUs into the same chip, GPGPU is quite awkward for software developers. The CPU and GPU have their own pools of memory. Physically, these might use the same chips on the motherboard (as most integrated GPUs carve off a portion of system memory for their own purposes). From a software perspective, however, these are completely separate.
This means that whenever a CPU program wants to do some computation on the GPU, it has to copy all the data from the CPU's memory into the GPU's memory. When the GPU computation is finished, all the data has to be copied back. This need to copy back and forth wastes time and makes it difficult to mix and match code that runs on the CPU and code that runs on the GPU.
The need to copy data also means that the GPU can't use the same data structures that the CPU is using. While the exact terminology varies from programming language to programming language, CPU data structures make extensive use of pointers: essentially, memory addresses that refer (or, indeed, point) to other pieces of data. These structures can't simply be copied into GPU memory, because CPU pointers refer to locations in CPU memory. Since GPU memory is separate, these locations would be all wrong when copied.
hUMA is the way AMD proposes to solve this problem. With hUMA, the CPU and GPU share a single memory space. The GPU can directly access CPU memory addresses, allowing it to both read and write data that the CPU is also reading and writing.
hUMA is a cache coherent system, meaning that the CPU and GPU will always see a consistent view of data in memory. If one processor makes a change then the other processor will see that changed data, even if the old value was being cached.
Gotta wonder then what they did target. That money hat isn't endless. What's their plan for 2-3 years out when specs have progressed?They don't care. They said so themselves they purposesly didn't target the highest performance
AMD really pimping out hUMA and their APUs. We'll see how they stack up, but AMD are notorious for overselling and underdelivering.
That's what I'm thinking. And on top of that, wasn't the PS3 more powerful than the 360? But most multi platform games were developed on the 360 and ported to PS3, right? So at the end of the day rarely did a PS3 multi platform game look better than the 360 version. In fact, a lot of times I believe the 360 version looked better!!
Digital Foundry articles will be interesting, they have been dismissed by some of late on here, bias and so forth. Lets see the response to their verdicts this coming gen.
They don't even have to bother making any face-offs if this is true.
Too bad hUMA is not going to affect how games look. At all.
AMD really pimping out hUMA and their APUs. We'll see how they stack up, but AMD are notorious for overselling and underdelivering.
Well, the situation with the PS4 and X1 is somewhat different. The PS3 has more grunt than its Microsoft counterpart thanks to its CPU, which picked up the slack left by the crippled RSX GPU, however the esoteric design of the former saw many developers take years to even approach parity with the X360, let alone develop a PS3 build that was superior; this time around, however, the architecture of the CPU and GPU are identical and the PS4 has the better memory setup.
You're saying these things as though I disagree with them...I was replying specifically to the comment that the gap will be akin to Xbox vs Dreamcast.While diminishing returns are in play, the PS4 having both raw and architectural advantages along with a cheaper price will come into play when people decide which console has the better multi-plats. The 360 owes much of its success to having the superior versions of games through much of the generation. If hUMA extends this advantage and/or negates any of the X1's quirks, this is bad news for MS.
Elaborate, please.
Can someone of TechGAF explain what is the true advantage of this technology?
what is the difference between hUMA and normal Unified memory? and how this impact in PS4 and X1 architecture?
"Huma combo processors no longer distinguish between the CPU and GPU memory areas"
I added a quote from the extensive article at ArsTechnica to the OP.
http://arstechnica.com/information-...orm-memory-access-coming-this-year-in-kaveri/
"Next gen doesn't start until we say it does."
Dark Sorcerer level graphics for all future PS4 games confirmed.
Sony Santa Monica and Naughty God's unnanounced games more real than life itself. Eyeballs implode worldwide.
Well, the situation with the PS4 and X1 is somewhat different. The PS3 has more grunt than its Microsoft counterpart thanks to its CPU, which picked up the slack left by the crippled RSX GPU, however the esoteric design of the former saw many developers take years to even approach parity with the X360, let alone develop a PS3 build that was superior; this time around, however, the architecture of the CPU and GPU are identical and the PS4 has the better memory setup.
But wouldn't it make sense for developers to develop games for the weaker hardware? If the architectures are identical it should be easy to port games, right? So I would imagine they would develop for the xbone and port. So for third party games at least I don't imagine seeing significant improvements on the ps4 version. With development costs the way they are I can't see developers spending significantly more time on the ps4 version to improve visuals.
40 x HumA
But wouldn't it make sense for developers to develop games for the weaker hardware? If the architectures are identical it should be easy to port games, right? So I would imagine they would develop for the xbone and port. So for third party games at least I don't imagine seeing significant improvements on the ps4 version. With development costs the way they are I can't see developers spending significantly more time on the ps4 version to improve visuals.
These consoles use Jaguar CPUs and GCN GPUs. Jaguar + GCN APUs (Temash, Kabini, Kyoto) don't have hUMA.
HUMA is a feature that will debut on PC in 2014 (Kaveri). So, my guess is that Sony paid AMD to integrate this feature into PS4 while Microsoft didn't.
Can someone of TechGAF explain what is the true advantage of this technology?
what is the difference between hUMA and normal Unified memory? and how this impact in PS4 and X1 architecture?
And again; look at the games. Look at Driveclub vs Forza 5. Driveclub clearly looks better even at a casual glance but the gap is not huge.
But wouldn't it make sense for developers to develop games for the weaker hardware? If the architectures are identical it should be easy to port games, right? So I would imagine they would develop for the xbone and port. So for third party games at least I don't imagine seeing significant improvements on the ps4 version. With development costs the way they are I can't see developers spending significantly more time on the ps4 version to improve visuals.
There's nothing in the hUMA outlines I've seen that indicates any sort of 3D performance increase. It's all to do with making GPGPU calculations easier.
The CPU can directly share instructions and calculations with the GPU.
But the new Gamescom build of DriveClub looks much better than the E3 build. And it's still only deemed as an alpha build.We're not going to know from these launch titles, because most of them are being rushed. Also, weird example, because at E3 DriveClub < Forza 5 = GT6.