Codeblew
Member
360 isn't twice as powerful as PS3 yet it happened that way last gen.
-
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.
VGLeaks - Orbis GPU Detailed - compute, queues and pipelines
- Thread starter artist
- Start date
360 isn't twice as powerful as PS3 yet it happened that way last gen.
Ironchef3500
Banned
I really hope this isn't the case. If I am following this line of thought correctly, you guys are saying multi-plats will flat out ignore the possible ps4 advantage.....
Ironchef3500
Banned
My thoughts too.
Sure didn't stop FFXIII or LA Noire looking better on the PS3, FFXIII considerably so in fact.
Ironchef3500
Banned
I thought everyone keeps saying the cpu performance isn't that "big" of a deal anymore. So if that's the case, who cares if the cpu on Durango is twice as powerful? I thought it was all about the gpu this generation with (I hate using it) GPGPU and such...
I was just doing a hypothetical, but your reply has shown that it's not feasible and not even worth discussing.
I'm just curious how these things work.
Thanks for answering me. I'm aware that closed platforms can optimize for the one technical spec that all consoles share.
I was specifically interested in the ability of the CPU<->GDDR5<->GPU bandwidth and what kind of impact it would have on games.
I'm raising this question because the lack of the PCI-E bus could be a big benefit of Orbis compared to my own PC and I want to understand if I'm wrong for believing that. Not just reaching the GDDR5 parity which has been a standard in PC graphics cards for a long time.
How so, please explain.
Gorgon
Member
Some people talk utter fucking nonsense.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Yes, this is what worries me the most. The only slight difference here is that 1st party devs are going to stretch that gap even wider and I doubt that 3rd party devs are going to like that. Some devs will think 'to hell with it' and actually code PS4 to the metal this time around. But that is entirely down to how well the PS4 does out of the gate IMO... it is worrisome though.
seventynine
Member
Can you imagine Microsoft saying no to EA (or any other major publisher) because one of their internal teams has a few extra wizz-bangs on the PS4 version of a multiplat? Not a chance.
Indie's and smaller publishers are easier to bully though.
BibiMaghoo
Member
My thoughts aswell.
MS and Sony NEED publishers, otherwise they have no product. They have a console without software. MS would not turn away games from third parties (which they rely on more than Sony) over a few graphical differences.
Well, since from architectural point of view PS4, Durango and PC are much closer to each other than they've ever been, I'm hoping that this time around multi-plat engines will be easily adjusted to specs of host platform and just like you can twaek various effects / quality in PC games, devs will be able to do the same between PS4 and Durango.
This is interesting.
What made you change your ming Reiko?
Going from past threads you were always pretty skeptic on most Durango leaks until now. Including leaks from GAF insiders that suggested that the Durango's specs were a little bit lower than Orbis.
I'm asking this because while I know that the probability is really low I was still hoping for some bump in performance besides clock speeds and DDR3 RAM amount.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
Anyone care to prove that ms has that policy? This is also a new gen, so they could always change their terms and remove that stipulation if true.
If they do indeed require it then it doesn't striae me that ms is doing something anti-developer.
If they do indeed require it then it doesn't striae me that ms is doing something anti-developer.
Well MS and AMD engineers care enough to do so. I am sure they are not dumb. I can even speculate on why they are increasing the cpu performance but I would rather not because you can as well say who cares after I state it so why bother.....
Angelus Errare
Banned
Mandates are real, but that particular one isn't really true.
Even though it's old, you can read MS's 2009 TCR for 360 here (Google webcache)
In the beginning there WAS a mandate that all 360 games had to be 720p 4xMSAA. MS dropped it to keep visual parity between PS3/360.
phosphor112
Banned
That poster got it wrong, it's content, not quality. But still not far-fetched.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112562-Microsoft-Doesnt-Want-Sonys-Sloppy-Seconds
Which is really funny because there are virtually no games that hit those targets.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
You believe this? Oh boy.
phosphor112
Banned
Erm.. you ARE claiming otherwise. We have specs released for PS4, and rumored ones for Durango, which are undoubtedly worse. Unless you know otherwise, you can't claim "we don't know that." The burden of proof is on you.
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
Gemüsepizza;48338052 said:
ERP, who works for Sony, has echoed Iherre's statements as recently as a week or so ago... and it's great you've also downplayed Iherre's opinion so even if he wan't being "diplomatic", his opinions now don't count anyway...classy. The real-world difference has been put at around 20-30%, which puts both consoles well within the same ballpark in terms of visual fidelity.
And I say the above things without any intention of buying the next Xbox and completely concede the PS4 is more powerful.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Which part the 720p 4xMSAA? Absolutely, I have a friend who worked for Ruffian (now works for Cisco) for about 9 months and talked about it. In the beginning the mandate was very real, but just as quickly most development companies ignored it, because there was too much of a visual sacrifice to reach such a target with first parties complaining about it MS allowed developers to ignore it and eventually removed it's entry from TCR. The reduction in visual fidelity to reach 720p with 4xMSAA would most definitely put a 360 game at odds visually with the equivalent PS3 game with no such mandate. And it didn't help that UE3 didn't even fully support MSAA.
More likely they dropped it because, as you say, developers were ignoring it; heck even first party studios were ignoring it. It was a stupid mandate anyway because the EDRAM just wasn't big enough to fit in that frame buffer, not without tilling anyway.
I'm under the impression 2/20/2013 acted as some kind of catalysis for idiocy - for all Fanboy camps!
Angelus Errare
Banned
Most definitely, but I'd imagine if they strictly enforced it, they would have dropped it anyway. Not screams inferior like your verison of X game running at 720p, but having less effects present. Because let's face it the average gamer doesn't notice the difference between 720p native and upscaled (as this generation has painfully proven). And I definitely agree it was a stupid mandate, MS convinced themselves that developers would tile and everything would be fine (minus the fact that tiling incurs a performance hit).
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
The CPU's are the same.
It's strange how this CPU rumour is not in a single leak. Anywhere.
But because one guy posted that the Durango has 'increased performance' (he didn't even state increased performance compared to PS4 btw), you are convinced the Durango CPU is twice as powerful?
Come on.
The worst one is Battlefield 3, as it doesn't even fill up my screen lol. The number of people I have shown that too is really funny; they had no idea about it. Well, let us hope that Microsoft have thought the ESRAM a little better this time.
I'm not saying this is going to happen, because the difference between the PS4 and 720 won't be that big.
But imagine if BF4 PS4 runs at 60FPS while on Durango it runs at only 30FPS.
That kind of difference would be prejudicial not only to MS but to EA/Dice as well since there would be a considerable difference between both versions.
It would create direct problems for everyone, except Sony. And even Sony would still be affected indirectly.
That is why most publishers are hoping for a minimum difference in performance.
As thruway said times and times again the difference won't be that big.
If the Durango was not comparable to the PS4 it would be better (from a publisher point of view) if it was closer to the WiiU than if it was on category between both of then.
A clear, three tiered generation would be a nightmare for everyone. PS4 >>> Durango >>> WiiU.
Game development would suffer.
This is why the WiiU is going to suffer, because it is on a different tier than the PS4 and Durango. If hardware makers introduced yet another intermediary tier things would be even worse.
Ironchef3500
Banned
wasnt saying it in a negative way man. Just reiterating what I've read.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Gemüsepizza;48338052 said:
The bandwidth for both consoles still have to be shared with game code, physics, animation, sound, etc. It's not a PC, which doesn't have to share its vram with other game code.
unified ram is great for both consoles and would be great on pc too.
Angelus Errare
Banned
You can already get APU based laptops.
anyone seriously expecting PS4 to have graphics noticeably better to most people's eye (as in wow that looks like a different level of graphics) are going to be SORELY mistaken this gen.
A few games here and there perhaps will highlight some strengths but I am certain MS designed this system to make up for the OMGGDDR5 and most games will be nearly indistinguishable again this gen
Crisis averted
A few games here and there perhaps will highlight some strengths but I am certain MS designed this system to make up for the OMGGDDR5 and most games will be nearly indistinguishable again this gen
Crisis averted
iamshadowlark
Banned
Considering people claim they can't see the jump shown from PS3 to PS4 I'm inclined to believe you. Still doesn't mean the difference isn't there.
BobTheFork
Member
I question how real that mandate is BUT if it came to that you'd have the publishers and MS both bluffing with everything to lose. The publisher may not be able to make back their money if they lose half the users of a multiplatform game and MS may not have a platform if publishers bailed on them.
Of course Microsoft has designed the console to mitigate the lack of bandwidth that DDR3 brings. The question is whether it is enough?
But they weren't.
but not at this level... they are much smaller APUs... making APUs is complicated.
OG_Original Gamer
Member
Then you would have to assume Microsoft, even Nintendo for that matter didn't do the math.
AMD as well would have had to fail them both, technically and financially.
JohnnySasaki86
Member
And yet tons of games do have extra content on PS3. AC3 is one, a bunch of EA and Ubisoft games have exclusive content on PS3. MGR is a good recent example. MS isn't going to tell a publisher like Ubisoft, "You can't release your AAA game on our system, which we know is going to sell 5M copies."
I see it potentially being a bigger difference than this. With one console having twice the framerate, or one being 1080p vs 720p, with one having much better IQ and AF as well. The consoles are much more directly comparable now. It's apples to apples. Its going to be much easier to take advantage of these differences. PS4 is going to be very easy to develop for. Therefor it will take much less time and money from the budget to implement these differences. In the end this is all that really matters. Being a tester for Sony for two years, really opened my eyes to the development process and how everything is so affected by time and money.
edit: btw I would like to add, that saying there wont be any multiplatofrm differences, because MS wont allow it, is such utter BS, and people are really reaching with this argument. Its a new low. It really is nonsense IMO.
Yet we don't really care about the differences in the smaller budget games. These games rarely push the graphical envelope. It's the big AAA big budgeted games that matter when talking about this issue. The Battlefield's, the Assassin Creeds, ect ect.
phosphor112
Banned
You think I don't know that? It has more influence over smaller devs than anything (which are a lot of potential devs...) but I was simply stating a fact.
if all the specs we have now is what's what's going to be in the final hardware this will be a way bigger difference than the PS3 & Xbox 360.
we are looking at
maybe 6 -7GB of ram for games vs maybe 5 - 6GB of ram for games,
176GB/s main ram bandwidth vs 68GB/s main ram bandwidth with 32MB of 100GB/s ESRAM
1.84 TFLOP GPU vs 1.2 TFLOP GPU.
100GFLOPs CPU that can be helped by a 1.8 TFLOP GPGPU that's enhanced for computing vs a rumored 200GLOPs CPU that might be helped by a 1.2TFLOP GPGPU.
PS4 is said to have less than 1 CPU core reserved for the OS & XBOX Next is said to have 2 CPU cores reserved for the OS so that's 12.5GFLOPS for the PS4 OS & 50GFLOPS for the Xbox Next OS.
this is all speculations from the info that we do have so nothing is set in stones but this look like a way bigger differences than PS3 & Xbox 360.
the only place where PS4 & Xbox Next are closer in specs than the PS3 & Xbox 360 is the fact that both will be using Blu-ray this time.
DeFiBkIlLeR
Banned
WTF..where did that come from.?
200Gflops...I'm going to call Bullshit on that, not even the fastest, over-clocked desktop Intel CPU gets 200Gflops, and sure as hell no AMD based CPU is going to get anywhere near that.
JohnnySasaki86
Member
Yea I agree. Not to mention it even bigger because of how similar and comparable the architectures are. It's apples to apples now. I feel like this point can't be stressed enough.
I've been saying for a while now, that one of the main reasons the disparity for the consoles may pushed even farther apart, to the point where it's significant, is because of the OS overhead. The specs don't tell the full story. It may be a PS2 vs Xbox situation, instead of a GC vs Xbox situation, completely because of the OS overhead. The difference this time around may be the fact PS4 wont have such the small market share that Xbox had. If its its the same as this gen, almost 50/50, theres gonna be nothing stopping devs from taking advantage of the extra power in PS4.
This part is what really is still unconfirmed rumors at this point though, more than anything else at least. So it's pure speculation, but it is inline with MS vision for console. Which it being an entertainment system and not a gaming machine. Sony strategy is pretty obvious, their going for the core gamer. Tretton made that clear in that recent interview.