ethomaz
Banned
The ideia of HBCC in a single memory pool dumbs me lolAs I've said, HBCC is most certainly not in PS4Pro - and it would be pretty much useless there since this is a fixed h/w platform anyway.
The ideia of HBCC in a single memory pool dumbs me lolAs I've said, HBCC is most certainly not in PS4Pro - and it would be pretty much useless there since this is a fixed h/w platform anyway.
The ideia of HBCC in a single memory pool dumbs me lol
There seem to be quite a few people in this tread convinced that the benefits from RPM will be small, but Cerny very specifically said radically, which implies substation/large benefits not small ones. Call me crazy but I'll take Cerny's word over anyone's in this thread.
Cerny doesn't have a history of hyperbole or spouting marketing BS and the key word he uses here is radically. Not 'a little' or 'marginally' or any other adjective he could have used. He specifically said radically and if he says radically he probably means radically.
The "supercharged PC architecture," that the team has come up with -- to use Cerny's term -- is designed to offer significant gains the PC can't, while still offering a familiar technological environment for engineers.
Eh...
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php
I've yet to see what is supercharged about the PS4 so I'd rather wait for actual results. I certainly take any promises made by AMD about their hardware with a pinch of salt since what usually follows is disappointment.
GPGPU! They make up for the shitty processors. Or something like that. Just shift your workload over, it's as easy as that.
so this only pertains to consoles?...does this also mean the games will be AMD sponsored?
I've yet to see what is supercharged about the PS4 so I'd rather wait for actual results. I certainly take any promises made by AMD about their hardware with a pinch of salt since what usually follows is disappointment.
so this only pertains to consoles?...does this also mean the games will be AMD sponsored?
Irony is cool and all, but isn't that exactly what Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted Lost Legacy do? I don't understand the skepticism, especially in 2017. Would they have the same graphics/physics with no GPGPU usage?GPGPU! They make up for the shitty processors. Or something like that. Just shift your workload over, it's as easy as that.
UMA 8GBs of very fast GDDR5 memory can be considered so when comparing to PC split RAM/VRAM pools with RAM pools generally being several times slower than what PS4 has. This is less of an advantage now though, with PC videocards reaching above 8GB of VRAM alone.
Irony is cool and all, but isn't that exactly what Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted Lost Legacy do?
Did it ever lead to any meaningful difference in performance though?
It's not just performance, but also memory savings.Did it ever lead to any meaningful difference in performance though?
Sure, feel free to ask this guy. He knows his job better than all of us.I don't know. Can you point me to official slides that show how they used GPGPU?
These slides?I don't know. Can you point me to official slides that show how they used GPGPU?
It's not just performance, but also memory savings.
GPGPU in a discrete memory setup (99% of PCs) requires copying data from the main RAM to the VRAM and vice versa. This means that you need double the amount of memory for certain data sets and you're also bottlenecked by PCI-e (consoles have custom buses for the CPU-GPU interconnection).
When people say that consoles punch above their weight, they mean that it's hard to buy a similar PC for the same price. PS4 Slim already costs 199 in certain retailers and 299 PCs have 4GB DDR3 with crappy IGPs. You pay 50% more and you'll never have the same gaming performance.
Scorpio costs 499 and you'll probably need a much more expensive PC to compete with it.
Soldering everything (APU, DRAM chips) onto the same motherboard and introducing certain hardware optimizations (semi-custom APUs) makes consoles more competitive than equivalent PCs with upgradable sockets and DIMM slots. It's a trade-off, if you will.
Sure, feel free to ask this guy. He knows his job better than all of us.
And this one regarding Horizon:
http://wccftech.com/horizon-zero-dawn-gpu-based-procedural-tech/
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1350648
You're welcome bro.Thanks guys, didn't know that.
There seem to be quite a few people in this tread convinced that the benefits from RPM will be small, but Cerny very specifically said radically, which implies substation/large benefits not small ones. Call me crazy but I'll take Cerny's word over anyone's in this thread.
There seem to be quite a few people in this tread convinced that the benefits from RPM will be small, but Cerny very specifically said radically, which implies substation/large benefits not small ones. Call me crazy but I'll take Cerny's word over anyone's in this thread.
The other keyword is "potential" which is true it has the potential to boost the performance a lot we already seen the Mass Effect slide that said they go a boost of 30% from using fp16 & we have seen games go from 1080p on PS4 to native 4K on PS4 Pro.
When people say that consoles punch above their weight, they mean that it's hard to buy a similar PC for the same price. PS4 Slim already costs 199 in certain retailers and 299 PCs have 4GB DDR3 with crappy IGPs. You pay 50% more and you'll never have the same gaming performance.
+30% in a relatively simple and short checkerboarding resolve shader which probably takes less than 5% of total frame rendering time. Thus the resulting influence on final performance from this is likely less than 2%.
why would they even waste their time talking about a 2% gain?
That's not what they said that's what people came up with in their heads the slide only mentions that it was used in checkerboard rendering resolve because the slide is about checkerboard rendering & when they said 30% performance improvement they was talking about overall. why would they even waste their time talking about a 2% gain?
That's not what they said that's what people came up with in their heads the slide only mentions that it was used in checkerboard rendering resolve because the slide is about checkerboard rendering & when they said 30% performance improvement they was talking about overall. why would they even waste their time talking about a 2% gain?
I don't understand the disagreement here.Ok, this is going to besomewhat ofa long post because the misuse of such terms in gaming discussions is a pet peeve of mine. When people say "consoles punch above their weight" it used to mean that developers could take advantage of the fixed specs of game consoles, lower overhead due to the slimmed down OS and closer-to-the-metal access and experience with the hardware over time to deliver performance and visuals that were unattainable on comparable PC hardware. It wasn't a cost argument, it was a performance argument. Conventional wisdom in gamer circles said that you needed significantly more powerful PC hardware to match console performance. For example, if a console's GPU is 1 Teraflop then you as a PC gamer would need a 1.8-Teraflop or even a 2-Teraflop card to match the console's performance.
Using "consoles punch above their weight" as a cost argument is wrong, in my opinion, because it doesn't take into account the different business models that the PC and console industries employ. In my mind it's as weird as saying something like "Clash of Clans punches above its weight compared to Skyrim because Clash of Clans is free and Skyrim is $60." PC hardware manufacturers make their profit from the initial sale, console manufacturers aim to earn most of their profit from game sales and online subscriptions .
Determining if consoles punch above their weight compared to PC requires a comparison based on hardware and relative performance. Determining if a console is better value compared to PC, a different argument than the weight-punching one, requires the study of a whole lot of variables connected to a person's gaming and buying habits so it's a very personal decision.
Now, on the topic of Xbox One X's 6-Teraflop GPU versus PS4 Pro's 4.2-Teraflop-but-with-rapid-packed-math GPU: One could make the argument that PS4 Pro's GPU technology allows it to exceed its on-paper Teraflop rating in games that support Rapid Packed Math, therefore PS4 Pro will be punching above its weight. It is absolutely true that, unless XB1X has GPU customizations that will help it exceeed its teraflop rating and depending on the amount of performance increase that Rapid Packed Math can achieve, the difference in performance between PS4 Pro and XB1X in games that support RPM will be less than the difference suggested by raw teraflop numbers.
That said, in my opinion it's still wrong to say that PS4 Pro will be punching above its weight. PS4 Pro's support for RPM is a hardware feature. The system was designed that way and it will be punching exactly at its weight in games that support RPM. It will actually be punching below its weight in games that won't support RPM because a hardware feature of the GPU will be going unused. Using only the number of teraflops isn't enough to determine if a piece of hardware is punching above its weight because if it was enough then the undisputed king of punching above one's weight is... Nvidia! The RX 480 is 5.8 Teraflops and the GTX 1060 is 4.4 Teraflops yet the Nvidia card matches the Radeon's performance.
This is why there is only one reliable way of measuring and comparing console and PC GPU performance: Real-world testing in actual games. Numbers and hardware specs give us a ballpark figure of performance but almost never tell the whole story. Interestingly enough, they did tell the whole story for the original PS4 and Xbox One because those two systems were so similar in hardware that the power difference on paper ended up being confirmed in the real world.
I don't understand the disagreement here.
Can you buy a $199 PC that runs Uncharted Lost Legacy/Horizon Zero Dawn? How can the PS4 do that while being so cheap?
How many nVidia teraflops would you need to run these games on PC?
Would you surprised if they needed a minimum of GTX 970 (2x flops) to cover various overheads?
A pet peeve of mine is when people claim that nVidia flops are always so much better, without using the proper context.
No offense, but I'll take a (skilled) programmer's word over anyone else's.
I think you misunderstood my post in this part because I 100% agree. I never said that Nvidia flops are better, in fact my main point of contention with OnQ123 is that he is quoting specs without the proper context. So just to be clear, the only thing that ultimately matters is real-world performance. Everything else is just speculation and theories until real benchmarks appear.
Do you wake up with me on your mind or something? I always have context with my post you just seem to have a hard time understanding for some reason.