Terbinator
Member
Do you prefer framerate or IQ?
The PS4 has to use the ~176GB/s of bandwidth for normal RAM usage as well. AF is, for all intent and purposes, an expensive operation in consoles.
-
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.
Digital Foundry: Perfomance of Dying Light [PS4 1080p/XO 1080pr]
- Thread starter Turkoop
- Start date
Do you prefer framerate or IQ?
I'd prefer both TBH!!, it's a bit of a pisser to have to choose.
It really does depend on your specs. The idea if AF having zero effect on performance is a myth. The framerate of Source based games on my Macbook Pro drops noticeably above 2x AF.
bananafactory
Banned
This may be of interest
http://gamingbolt.com/ps4-ice-team-...16xaf-new-asm-for-faster-offline-asset-baking
http://gamingbolt.com/ps4-ice-team-...16xaf-new-asm-for-faster-offline-asset-baking
X1's cpu is 150mhz faster per core. That's total 900mhz for 6 cores(useable for games).
And X1 can utilize up to 7 cores compared to PS4's 6 cores.
This is akin to Goku going from Kaioken 1x to 3x to beat PS4.. I mean Vegeta.
SEGAvangelist
Member
The IQ choice isn't obvious, though. Some may prefer the higher resolution (PS4), and others may prefer the slight lower resolution with AF (XB1). FPS is a clear winner on PS4, though.
Expensive in consoles it may be but it also improves the visuals significantly so it's worth it IMO.
The impact of AF (16 samples) is negligible in 99% of cases on PC GPUs with weaker bandwith than the PS4.
This is on a Geforce 560.
dr_rus
Member
No it's not. It's the exact same operation as on the same architecture GPUs on PC. All AF queries are completely cached on chip nowadays - this is why several generations of GPU architectures do not show big drops in performance.
The only explanation for this is a bug in PS4 SDK or a lack of clear requirement for AF to be enabled on such surfaces.
This is beyond stupid really. Having a +50% GPU and loosing in AF.
Thanks for coming into a DF thread and telling us you think it looks great.
It's good to know you think it looks great.
If it was missing in every single PS4 game running at 1080p, one would suspect tech limitations...
It's not the case, thus one should probably look at the devs and their priorities ...
That's not how it works lol.
Pestilence11
Member
Somebody in the know (works on PS4 titles) really needs to explain the Anisotropic Filtering issue.
As mentioned before, this may be a bandwidth issue. Modenr PC GPU's have gobs of bandwidth that is only used by the GPU.
On consoles, with a unified memory architecture, that bandwidth is in demand from both GPU and CPU.
Sounds like him.
Question: is AF available on X1 version or absent too like PS4?
Ahh ok thanks! Just missed it
Dictator93
Member
scroll up a bit or read the article.
I have to explain to you again why xbone it less capable of ps4 to hit 1080p? Or you just deliberately trolling? Not sure why you feel so hurt from something explained tons of times. Xbone had 16 ROPS, esram bottleneck. The only games with full 1080p coming from the ps360 generation.
Duxxy3
Member
Seriously. It costs so little on PC cards, so why does it seem to cost so much on consoles? Particularly the PS4 for some reason.
You can't just say the XB1 can ONLY do 1080p with sacrifices and then think this doesn't apply to the PS4 as well. There is no weaseling out of this.
I would say almost 100% no. They are completely unrelated tech-wise.
Backfoggen
Banned
No.
DirgeExtinction
Member
Yeah, it's a bit odd. It does make sense what he said when you consider FC4(a big open world game) had AF.
A 560 has more bandwidth relative to its innards than PS4's GPU (especially considering the reduced contention since there's no CPU fighting for BW on the 560!), in addition to banks of I/O blocks (TMUs&ROPs) which are also bigger relative to its processing innards than those on PS4's GPU. Hence although the PS4 should have generally better performance, I/O is much more likely to be a bottleneck.The impact of AF (16 samples) is negligible in 99% of cases on PC GPUs with weaker bandwith than the PS4.
This is on a Geforce 560.
I'm not saying that that's necessarily what's going on, but the example of the 560 doesn't really prove anything.
Which should work great, as long as everything is always sitting comfortably in cache and no external accesses have to be made. Caching will hide costs up to a point, after which you start having to pay real penalties. AF requires that larger MIP levels reside in the cache, so high AF should be harder on your cache when rendering surfaces at oblique angles.
The question would be how quickly this becomes an issue on PS4.
Come on now. You are trying really hard there. So because I said xbone require more sacrifice than ps4, you think my thoughts about ps4 it's to be unlimited powerful to hit 1080p ? Lol.
The CPU - GDDR5 bus tops out at 20GB/s that leaves 156GB/s available for the GPU - GDDR5 connection. That is more than a 7870 or a 7850 and for the class of card in the PS4 it is enough.
AF is not expensive, why people say it is I have no clue, perhaps some specific implementations are expensive but in general it is not that expensive to add.
In this particular game though it has AF on the Xbox One version, considering the frame buffer size I doubt they are using the ESRAM for anything other than render targets which means the AF has to go through the DDR3 at 68 GB/s, which if the CPU is using its 30GB/s allocation means the AF is working when the bandwidth is only 38GB/s
There is no technical reason why it is not on the PS4 version other then dev oversight.
Terbinator
Member
You decided to not answer to my questions, that's ok
it isn't about being hurt, it's questioning some posts. If you state something, people will ask you to argue for your statements.hammertomb
Banned
Thank you.
The 560 has 128GB/s of memory bandwidth, this is less than the PS4 even after taking the maximum allocation for the CPU off.
It will be the same as it is on the 7850, which has no issues with AF.
What exactly was your question? I though you are asking just about the reason why we can't be surprise if xbone can't handle full 1080p like ps4.You decided to not answer to my questions, that's ok
Dictator93
Member
Wouldn't it be funny if it was default 8x on xb1, but it was default 1x on PS4? As in... to turn it up you have to manually configure it on PS4... to turn it off on xb1 you need to manually configure it...
Looking at those shots, and some of the same area with the same view direction posted in the PC performance thread, it seems like the draw distance on both consoles is equal or lower than the "25%" setting on PC.
(Just noting this since someone asked earlier in the thread)
It would be funny but also concerning if after years of development, devs would just forget to tick a case.
Dictator93
Member
I didn't say it was bigger, I said it was bigger relative to the innards of the GPU it was feeding, and it's thus less likely for I/O to be a bottleneck.
Hyperbolic example:
2GB/s is more than 1GB/s, but a 2GB/s bus would be much more of a bottleneck on a modern desktop CPU than a 1GB/s bus would be on a 32kHz PIC16.
This is a more meaningful question, since the GPU's configuration and circumstances start to look vaguely like-for-like.
The Xbox One and the PS4 have identical 8-core CPUs. The Xbox One runs at a clock speed that is 9.4% faster than the one in the PS4.
Saying that the Xbox One has a "900mhz faster" CPU just demonstrates that you're not very good at math.
All PS4 games should have AF at this point, definitely if it's a multiplat that the X1 does.
They should at least fix this shit with a patch. But it's never happened before, why?
GhostTrick
Banned
I don't see any superior image quality in outside comparison in Xbone favor. Except that noticeable AF. And i noticed worse AA on Xbone screenshot ( pipe, fence )
This post it's really... illogical.