• 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”

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.

That's not actually what I agreed about.

Also, I've never said anything to the contrary of the common narrative that the PS4 is more powerful than the Bone.

Poor attempt at snark and humor aside, the second half of your last comment is something I actually agree with 100%. We'll know by November how that power is being used initially, but it will take years (and probably Naughty Dog + Sony Santa Monica + Polyphony) to fully resolve the differences, just like it did this generation.
 

kitch9

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?

GDDR5 only gets used on PC video cards which doesn't need a latency tight memory controller.
 
I'm looking for a general source about transistor counts leading to a more complicated chip which is harder to manufacture, and resulting in a lower yield. You know something written by an industrial/computer hardware engineer.

There are masses of whitepapers written about the subject.

But really, all you need is basic knowledge of the fabrication process and common sense. It's an indisputable fact.

Here's a really basic rundown.

Many many transistors make up a chip design. At any given process size, the more transistors you add to a design, the larger the total area of the design must be. This total area is called the DIE SIZE. Many many of these dies are manufactured at a time, on a silicon disc called a WAFER.

Here's what a wafer looks like:

ikBswOp38EOdE.jpg

(The dies printed on the edges of the wafer are partial, and are almost always discarded.) That is expected, and pre-calculated, and those partials do not count agains yield percentages as a defect.)

So, Here's an example of two identical 300mm wafers -- one with a die size of 15mm x 15mm:


...and the other with a die size of 20mm x 20mm:


At 100% yield (no errors) the wafer with the smaller 15mm x 15mm die would be capable of producing 256 Die Per Wafer (DPW) The same sized wafer used to fabricate a larger 20mm x 20mm die would only be capable of producing 140 DPW at 100%.

So that right there shows you a rather massive drop in yield per wafer simply due to increased die size.

...

That doesn't even take in the complexity problem, which is real, and significant. The more complicated parts you add to any machine, the more likely you are to have a failed part which in turn makes the machine fail.

Here's a PPT that explains some of these issues in more detail, like error distribution, which also has a terrible impact on the yield numbers of larger die size IC designs:

Powerpoint slides on die yield - Mercury.pr.erau.edu
 
That's not actually what I agreed about.

Also, I've never said anything to the contrary of the common narrative that the PS4 is more powerful than the Bone.

Poor attempt at snark and humor aside, the second half of your last comment is something I actually agree with 100%. We'll know by November how that power is being used initially, but it will take years (and probably Naughty Dog + Sony Santa Monica + Polyphony) to fully resolve the differences, just like it did this generation.

It took years for this gens power difference to show because the ps3 and its cell architecture was hard as hell to program for.
 

CLEEK

Member
Yes, it's a common practice to improve yields. I'm surprised you didn't know.

No it isn't. You don't get redundant components in home consoles. Disabling cores to get better yields is not in any way similar to just having inactive cores for hardware redundancy. Nor that disabled cores be turned on at a latter date for all consoles.

Disabled cores would mean in some chips, the cores are faulty, in others they're ok. But you need consistency over every console, so the good chips are purposefully gimped to match the bad chips.
 

RetroStu

Banned
One thing i did like was when he said people don't have a real clue what they are talking about. Everyone on here seems to be hardware experts but i wonder how many of them actually know what they are talking about.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
One thing i did like was when he said people don't have a real clue what they are talking about.

I love how he blames people for talking about things they don't know about, but at the same time he (a) admits that he is not the PS4's architect and (b) knows that the PS4 is only built from off-the-shelf-parts, not as optimized, and that the published numbers are meaningless.
 
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.

This is pure conjecture... Look at the equivalent cards in the PC space, there is a verifiable difference. Sure, it is not massive by any means but it is significant, certainly more so than this gen. To deny there is a difference, and it will show, is just as disingeneous as to say that the gulf will show a difference across all games. There were many games on PS2 that flat out smoked some xbox games. FFXII>>>>>>Azurik say. To expect differences to manifest across all games is not going to happen. Differences will most likely appear in multiplats, were is should be easy to optimize because of the similarities in architecture, and major first party stuff. Of course, games are going to a nice step up from current gen anyway, so superior tech is not going to be the only deciding factor in visual comparisons. Art + tech is where it is at.
 

wavtor

Neo Member
Am not shock that someone from microsoft said that comparing consoles is meaningless if I had a sub standard system compared to another one I would have all my PR people saying the same thing.

They may as well come out and say dont look at our system in to much detail you will find more things that people wont like and that in turn would affect sales
 
I don't know if it was smart for anyone at MS to comment like this at all. Everyone knows that when you know your hardware is inferior, you start talking about how meaningless it is and how only the games matter. By saying this at all, it's a tacit admission of inferiority. They should have just shut up about hardware completely between now and launch.
 

expletive

Member
No it isn't. You don't get redundant components in home consoles. Disabling cores to get better yields is not in any way similar to just having inactive cores for hardware redundancy. Nor that disabled cores be turned on at a latter date for all consoles.

Disabled cores would mean in some chips, the cores are faulty, in others they're ok. But you need consistency over every console, so the good chips are purposefully gimped to match the bad chips.

That's right so in this case ms could only use the chips in which all CUs are functional. The result would be a lower yield of usable chips, which would in turn increase their "cost per chip". I never said it would be free.
 
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF
 
I'd say that too if the hardware I'm trying to sell is inferior.

I don't know if it was smart for anyone at MS to comment like this at all. Everyone knows that when you know your hardware is inferior, you start talking about how meaningless it is and how only the games matter. By saying this at all, it's a tacit admission of inferiority. They should have just shut up about hardware completely between now and launch.

.
 
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF
Look I'm not an expert by any means that is some bottom of the barrel bullshit right there. If you're being serious of course, because I can't imagine you are...
 

Freki

Member
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF

I think amongst all the non-sense you post in hw threads this post takes the cake...

edit: and just to inform my fellow gaffers - specialguy is suspected to be Rangers from B3D
 

Hydrargyrus

Member
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF


WTF??

This is nonsense
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Talking up faked numbers was kind of stupid if they're then going to turn around later and claim that specs are meaningless, but I don't really see what they could have done better. Why should they have to stand up on a soapbox in public and announce to the world that they have a weaker console? Buncha concern trolls up in here claiming that they 'just want to know what they're buying'. No you don't, you're not buying it, you just want something else to kiki over. At least admit that the only reason you're interested is for a pat on the back about your faves.
 

benny_a

extra source of jiggaflops
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF

What sucks for you is that everyone knows your alternative names on other forums.

Tyrone on Opa-Ages
Rangers on Beyond3D

So we know when you talk shit on here while simultaneously having been part of the discussion on another forum you're being deliberately disingenuous.
 

Demon Ice

Banned
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF

You didn't expect anybody to actually believe that, did you?
 

Ushae

Banned
I love how he blames people for talking about things they don't know about, but at the same time he (a) admits that he is not the PS4's architect and (b) knows that the PS4 is only built from off-the-shelf-parts, not as optimized, and that the published numbers are meaningless.

And how well do we know about it's optimizations? We don't really, no substantial reports to speak of. In my opinion the multiplats will tell the story well, and I suspect this 'gulf' in power won't be as huge as most make it out to be. Why? Dat power in either system will take a few years to fully harness. There's so much bloody RAM in these systems, most devs don't know what to do with it haha.
 

Ocelott

Member
That's not actually what I agreed about.

Also, I've never said anything to the contrary of the common narrative that the PS4 is more powerful than the Bone.

Poor attempt at snark and humor aside, the second half of your last comment is something I actually agree with 100%. We'll know by November how that power is being used initially, but it will take years (and probably Naughty Dog + Sony Santa Monica + Polyphony) to fully resolve the differences, just like it did this generation.
With the Simple tools i think it will be achieved faster because that dang Cell was so hard to get the full potential out
 

nib95

Banned
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF

For only 32mb lol. I like how you conveniently left that part out.

Don't you ever get tired Rangers/Tyrone/Specialguy?
 
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF

Too much Rangers/specialguy!

You should have stopped at, "So..."
 

Riky

$MSFT
Has anyone got to the bottom of the GPU having access to the Esram and the DDR3 at the same time yet?
 

Flatline

Banned
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF


Incorrect, Sony's engineers copied Microsoft and just discovered the new super process of magical simultaneous read/writes that lets them double the speed so 176 * 2 = 352 GB/s

352 + 1.8TF = 353.8

353.8 is double of 260 or 200% + 50% better GPU = 300% stronger

Math don't lie, PS4 is clearly 470% powerfuler.
 

badb0y

Member
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF
This is not how bandwidth works....
 
That's not actually what I agreed about.

Also, I've never said anything to the contrary of the common narrative that the PS4 is more powerful than the Bone.

Poor attempt at snark and humor aside, the second half of your last comment is something I actually agree with 100%. We'll know by November how that power is being used initially, but it will take years (and probably Naughty Dog + Sony Santa Monica + Polyphony) to fully resolve the differences, just like it did this generation.


I'm assuming they have already done this to an extent,but that is why Sony needs to add some members to its tech team in order to get first and third party studios up to speed faster. They really need to make an investment there and get their internal staff on par with Microsoft.
 
There are masses of whitepapers written about the subject.

But really, all you need is basic knowledge of the fabrication process and common sense. It's an indisputable fact.

Here's a really basic rundown.

Many many transistors make up a chip design. At any given process size, the more transistors you add to a design, the larger the total area of the design must be. This total area is called the DIE SIZE. Many many of these dies are manufactured at a time, on a silicon disc called a WAFER.

Here's what a wafer looks like:



(The dies printed on the edges of the wafer are partial, and are almost always discarded.) That is expected, and pre-calculated, and those partials do not count agains yield percentages as a defect.)

So, Here's an example of two identical 300mm wafers -- one with a die size of 15mm x 15mm:



...and the other with a die size of 20mm x 20mm:



At 100% yield (no errors) the wafer with the smaller 15mm x 15mm die would be capable of producing 256 Die Per Wafer (DPW) The same sized wafer used to fabricate a larger 20mm x 20mm die would only be capable of producing 140 DPW at 100%.

So that right there shows you a rather massive drop in yield per wafer simply due to increased die size.

...

That doesn't even take in the complexity problem, which is real, and significant. The more complicated parts you add to any machine, the more likely you are to have a failed part which in turn makes the machine fail.

Here's a PPT that explains some of these issues in more detail, like error distribution, which also has a terrible impact on the yield numbers of larger die size IC designs:

Powerpoint slides on die yield - Mercury.pr.erau.edu




Dumb question here but why do wafers have to be round? Wouldn't a square or rectangular wafer spare them from printing partial dies?
 

Oemenia

Banned
Whats the opinion on the GPUs of both system. So it seems the X1's is less powerful but just how good is the PS4's? Given that the PS3 had a GPU that wasnt on the market when it was announced and the 360's incorporated future features, these two seem a little disappointing.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Whats the opinion on the GPUs of both system. So it seems the X1's is less powerful but just how good is the PS4's? Given that the PS3 had a GPU that wasnt on the market when it was announced and the 360's incorporated future features, these two seem a little disappointing.

Good luck buying either PS4 or Xbone's APU right now.
 

stryke

Member
Whats the opinion on the GPUs of both system. So it seems the X1's is less powerful but just how good is the PS4's? Given that the PS3 had a GPU that wasnt on the market when it was announced and the 360's incorporated future features, these two seem a little disappointing.

The only thing I can think of that could probably be construed as "futuristic" is the extra asynchronous compute engines that Cerny has talked about in order to facilitate GPGPU. It may be a while yet to see any substantial use out of them since it looks like the algorithms to use them is the first place is difficult to make.
 

LAUGHTREY

Modesty becomes a woman
What sucks for you is that everyone knows your alternative names on other forums.

Tyrone on Opa-Ages
Rangers on Beyond3D

So we know when you talk shit on here while simultaneously having been part of the discussion on another forum you're being deliberately disingenuous.

lol le epic trole guy 2013 xDxDxD he got u
 
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.

Aye, such a missed opportunity for MS to go 180 with DRM before launch. I was looking forward to the grand spectacle just for the shits and giggles.
 
So if the ESRAM BW is now 192 GB/s, at times XB1 has 260 GB/s BW feeding 1.2 TF.

When you compare that to 176 GB/s feeding 1.8 TF, the XB1 can have more than double the bandwidth per flop as PS4...

XB1=260 GB/s/1.2 teraflops= 216 GB/s/TF

PS4=176/1.8=98 GB/s/TF
Wow, you really are a special little guy, aren't you?
 
Top Bottom