Support NeoGAF

[JCizzle]

I wish the consoles were more powerful. But isn't that what most people want?

The more the baseline is moved forward the better for everyone, I think.

I want a super powerful console too... but I also want a console I can afford . Those two concepts are always at odds.

 

[artist]

Interesting post, but if anything it seems to underscore that there are big differences to me. Also, the graphs don't take into account that the 360 GPU's unified shader architecture was pretty far ahead of it's time. Consumer cards didn't adopt it till 2007, also when PC GPUs really leaped out ahead of console GPUs.

Serious question though, How much difference did the architecture make? That part I don't totally understand.

Another question, how fill rate limited are we at 1080P?

I'm skeptical here, but I'd love to learn more.

The USA of the Xenos was an enigma at that time and is the main reason why it's still remembered in such high regard. Having said that, the USA most likely got better utilization out of the silicon, game code which was more texture heavy code or pixel heavy and could distribute the load dynamically versus a GPU that had 24 fixed pixel pipelines and 16 texture pipelines.

But the PS4/Durango could also have architectures that probably wont be seen on PC GPUs any time soon? It's still an unknown quantity.

I think you can't just talk about the GPU without considering how efficiently its power can be utilized by the system. The PS4 uses an HSA-based architecture, which should allow optimal data sharing between CPU and GPU, meaning that you should be able to get the most out of the GPU. On Pc we won't see HSA before 2014, accoring to AMD. Yes, on PC you can buy a 4TF GPU, but it won't make the PCIe bus any faster.

A valid point but the bottleneck isnt not as big a factor when we're talking pure raw power.

Yup. I applaud the OP's effort, but the comparison is a bit flawed in that in doesn't take into account factors such as the eDRAM or the unified shader architecture of the Xenos chip.

So, not only was the Xenos chip competing in terms of FLOPS with the high end of PC graphics, it was also ahead in architecture. The PS4 GPU competes with last year's mid-range cards and it's nothing special techwise.

A little bit early for that.

 

[stryke]

I have to ask, what is usually the "good" tdp range for a console?

 

[artist]

I have to ask, what is usually the "good" tdp range for a console?

For the entire console or just the GPU of the console? It depends on who are you asking; MS/Sony/Nintendo ..

 

[stryke]

For the entire console or just the GPU of the console?

Hmm, for the sake of completion how about both...

It depends on who are you asking; MS/Sony/Nintendo ..

Obviously more interested about MS/Sony at this point.

 

[SSM25]

Console tech is about doing the best with the few resources you can get, it's basically the definition of efficiency. I've seen people here draming of a 7970/GTX 680/Titan (lol) class hardware inside a next gen console, I laugh every time.

 

[mrklaw]

If consoles start leveraging that 8GB, then even powerful PCs may struggle if they only have 1-2GB GPUs.

This might actually throw a bone to AMd and Nvidia. If 2014 is a drift year, with no major new cards coming out, they can repackage current cards with more memory and a name tweak.

 

[Krabardaf]

Great post.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone can be upset by the PS4 tech. This is a very elegant machine with a extremely capable hardware. It's not only a huge leap compared to the last generation (and that wasn't guaranteed), but also enough to push the bar of what we've seen, even on PC, so far.

People need to better understand the constraints of a consoles, namely, price and TDP.
A very high end GPU generally cost more than the whole system, you can't decently expect that. And that wouldn't necessarily be the smartest solution anyway.

Secondly, PS4 features an architecture we haven't seen on PC yet(except for a few laptops yes). And it's a gaming machine. Everything is designed to run games efficiently. It has small and bigger things like an audio DSP, a compression/decompression chip, a customized GPU, unified memory, that altogether maximize the performances in games.

No PC is truly a gaming machine, no matter how many 1000$ Titan you'll fit in it.

 

[specialguy]

Xenos was close to as powerful as any PC GPU at the time of 360's release.

The equivalent would be the PS4/720 launching with 7970/680. Instead, we are getting a 7850 and a 7770.

So yeah, there's a big difference.

And comparing Xenos BW is pointless since the very point of the EDRAM made that comparison worthless.

RSX/PS3 was a bit different, it was in Xenos class, but came out a year later, so 8800GTX that was a generation above had released at that time.

I dont think the GPU in PS4 or even Durango is terrible, I think they will put out much better gfx than people think, and I have fully defended them at times. The key here is the leap from the last consoles should be satisfactory (since we waited 8 years not 5), not the comparison to top PC GPU's.

but I could have hoped for more.

 

[Durante]

The graphs in the OP are insufficiently labeled. Both "Tahiti" and "Kepler" are families of GPUs, and then are compared at metrics that are only fixed in a specific incarnation as a particular graphics card. Which cards were actually compared?

 

[Krabardaf]

Xenos was close to as powerful as any PC GPU at the time of 360's release.

The equivalent would be the PS4/720 launching with 7970/680. Instead, we are getting a 7850 and a 7770.

So yeah, there's a big difference.

And comparing Xenos BW is pointless since the very point of the EDRAM made that comparison worthless.

RSX/PS3 was a bit different, it was in Xenos class, but came out a year later, so 8800GTX that was a generation above had released at that time.

I dont think the GPU in PS4 or even Durango is terrible, I think they will put out much better gfx than people think, and I have fully defended them at times. The key here is the leap from the last consoles should be satisfactory (since we waited 8 years not 5), not the comparison to top PC GPU's.

but I could have hoped for more.

I think you missed the point. The keyword here is efficiency.

Xenos was more efficient at running games than a modern PC GPU of the times. But it wasn't more powerful. This is thanks to unified shaders and EDRAM notably.

It is certain that the PS4 will be far more efficient than any PC at playing games. What we don't know yet is in which measure that will impact the graphic fidelity, and how the PS4 will be able to compare to PCs.

My take is that we'll see a leap visually but that high end PC will be able to follow without too much trouble, at least at launch. Any PC tends to gets worse with time, while a console gets better.


An other thing that bother me is how some PC gamers seem to see "the PC" as "the most advanced PC you can build now".
If you have a GTX 680, well it's cool for you, but your are a tiny tiny portion of the PC gamers. PS4 will probably easily outperforms the average gaming PC we have today.

 

[specialguy]

I think you missed the point. The keyword here is efficiency.

Xenos was more efficient at running games than a modern PC GPU of the times. But it wasn't more powerful. This is thanks to unified shaders and EDRAM notably.

It is certain that the PS4 will be far more efficient than any PC at playing games. What we don't know yet is in which measure that will impact the graphic fidelity, and how the PS4 will be able to compare to PCs.

Huh? i'm not talking about console optimization, you seem to be mixing concepts here. I'm focusing on compute units, regardless of optimization which existed in 2005 just as it does now.

Xenos had in the same class of as many compute units/shader power as the best PC GPU's of it's quarter. The PS4/Durango GPU simply does not, nore close. The PS4 is supposedly the better GPU, and it's essentially a HD7850, which is a mid range PC GPU of today.

PS4 games will certainly look better than a PC equipped with a 7850. But they would look even better if PS4 had a 7970...

aND AGAIN, I'm not in the doom and gloom next gen consoles suck crowd. Not at all, mostly the contrary. Just looking at it factually.

 

[Strife91]

Too bad, but that's not necessary to produce wonderful graphics anyway.
And most importantly, we can kiss 720p goodbye this generation.

1080p for the win.

In 3 years you will be complaining about how low-res 1080p is and how 4k should be standard.

 

[Nachtmaer]

An other thing that bother me is how some PC gamers seem to see "the PC" as "the most advanced PC you can build now".
If you have a GTX 680, well it's cool for you, but your are a tiny tiny portion of the PC gamers. PS4 will probably easily outperforms the average gaming PC we have today.

Exactly. If you take a look at Steam's hardware survey, which I know doesn't represent the entire market, none of the GPUs in the top 15 come even close to the PS4's GPU. I also know the comparison doesn't really work but it's an interesting thought.

 

[Eideka]

In 3 years you will be complaining about how low-res 1080p is and how 4k should be standard.

That's possible, 4K is not that far away for PC gaming.

But for the time being 1080p is fine for me, I don't feel the need to move on from that just yet.

 

[GenericUserName]

If you take a look at Steam's hardware survey, which I know doesn't represent the entire market, none of the GPUs in the top 15 come even close to the PS4's GPU.

This is a point with quite a bit of weight. If the regular non-enthusiast but still pseudo-core gamer has a system which sits squarely in the mid (even low-mid) range, the PS4's hardware will be a considerable upgrade, at a good price (for the base SKU).

 

[Krabardaf]

Huh? i'm not talking about console optimization, you seem to be mixing concepts here. I'm focusing on compute units, regardless of optimization which existed in 2005 just as it does now.

Xenos had in the same class of as many compute units/shader power as the best PC GPU's of it's quarter. The PS4/Durango GPU simply does not, nore close. The PS4 is supposedly the better GPU, and it's essentially a HD7850, which is a mid range PC GPU of today.

PS4 games will certainly look better than a PC equipped with a 7850. But they would look even better if PS4 had a 7970...

aND AGAIN, I'm not in the doom and gloom next gen consoles suck crowd. Not at all, mostly the contrary. Just looking at it factually.

What i'm saying is pure computing power comparison is irrelevant. You can't compare PS4 GPU with a 7850 and assume same performance.

OP tried to demonstrate how Xenos yielded great results despite not being the fastest GPU of its time, and how the situation we're facing now with the PS4 is similar. You basically answered by saying "but a 7850 is slow". That's why I said you missed the point.

Now maybe you're saying OP is wrong, and Xenos was actually one of the fastest GPU of its time. Unlike the PS4 GPU obviously. On that matter I haven't done sufficient researches myself, so to me it's his word against yours. I don't have the actual facts here.

 

[Durante]

If you have a GTX 680, well it's cool for you, but your are a tiny tiny portion of the PC gamers. PS4 will probably easily outperforms the average gaming PC we have today.

This is probably true. At the same time, it is certainly true that the installed base of PC gamers with a system more powerful than PS4 is larger than the installed base of PS4 owners right now.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

didn't the 360 gpu have a tessellation and a bsic compute shader instruction set.

You can't just take raw numbers and brute power and compare.

 

[i-Lo]

It is but given the customizations to make the GPU more flexible for GPGPU usage and increasing its efficiency to be able to perform close to its theoretical (flop) limit, I would say it may punch well above its weight. So a direct comparison would be somewhat inconclusive.

 

[artist]

Hmm, for the sake of completion how about both...

Obviously more interested about MS/Sony at this point.

Probably 75W max for the GPU and 200W max total.

Xenos was close to as powerful as any PC GPU at the time of 360's release.

The equivalent would be the PS4/720 launching with 7970/680. Instead, we are getting a 7850 and a 7770.

So yeah, there's a big difference.

And comparing Xenos BW is pointless since the very point of the EDRAM made that comparison worthless.

RSX/PS3 was a bit different, it was in Xenos class, but came out a year later, so 8800GTX that was a generation above had released at that time.

I dont think the GPU in PS4 or even Durango is terrible, I think they will put out much better gfx than people think, and I have fully defended them at times. The key here is the leap from the last consoles should be satisfactory (since we waited 8 years not 5), not the comparison to top PC GPU's.

but I could have hoped for more.

Based on what exactly? Flops? Because we know the way Flops were calculated back then was a bit different than we do now (Xbox 360 = 1TFlop!, PS3 = 2TFlops!!!).

I was referring to people exactly like you when I wrote this;

So there is a common misconception here on GAF (and probably else where too) that the previous generation of consoles were some sort of super-duper computers or power houses of some sort compared to their PC brethren

The graphs in the OP are insufficiently labeled. Both "Tahiti" and "Kepler" are families of GPUs, and then are compared at metrics that are only fixed in a specific incarnation as a particular graphics card. Which cards were actually compared?

7970/Titan.

didn't the 360 gpu have a tessellation and a bsic compute shader instruction set.

You can't just take raw numbers and brute power and compare.

ATI had tessellation (truform) since 2001. Besides that the PS4 GPU is most likely going to have the equal number of tessellators as 7970 (or more if they beefed them up when they added the ACEs).

 

[artist]

Stop with this topic. I've already told You at least twice that it doesnt include CPUs.
You want to use it, update it with CPU data, because now its just stupid and inaccurate.

:lol

Spoiler

Context is only from a GPU persepctive.

By your own charts (which have some errors still in them such as Tahiti's memory amount) 360 had Unified shader architecture 1 YEAR before PC and 10MB on board eDram whilst still having the same raw FLOPS as the most expensive chip at the time.

If that isn't "more powerful" then I don't know what is. Whereas now PS4 is 40% the flops and no before their time changes except 4Gb GDDR5 chips.

I don't know how you got PS4's tdp numbers but I see how you jumped from GT200 to Titan and missed out the entire generations of card in particular the GTX 680 which has a 195W TDP which is less than it's your quoted ~240W for GT200 which goes against your claim that PC GPU's keep getting more power hungry per year.

I've already addressed most of them right in the OP, but I'll respond to each of your points again.

1. I'm only considering the launch/stock configuration. If I start including every custom super duper nitro-cooled configuration out there, it would be incredibly hard to follow. Tahiti in it's stock configuration comes with 3GB, just like Titan comes with 6GB.
2. Xenos having USA (Unified arch) is already mentioned in the OP, including the EDRAM. We dont know what customization the PS4 and Durango GPUs have and when it will make it's way to the PC market.
3. Flops, as a comparison metric was really an inaccurate metric to compare the previous cycle. This has already been pointed out way too many times but some people still like to push this idea, obviously they're on an agenda. Plus it doesnt help when companies like Nvidia also use it to push their own agenda :lol
4. I dont know the TDP of PS4 GPU, just basing it on the average of 7850/7870. We dont know the TDP either, again I said it right in the OP that it was an estimation.
5. As for jumping from GT200 to Titan, I said it in the OP that I didnt take all the major desktop GPUs because there were anomalies. Besides the GTX680 isnt the flagship in the Kepler family.

 

[artist]

<removed>

sorry for the bump, pls ignore.

 

[Interceptor]

As someone who really takes a long time to uprade his pc and even then only on a budget, it took me 5 years after the launch of PS3/360 to get an equally powerful PC. This time i got a more powerful one at the very start of the gen for the same price. I would say yes, definetly yes.

 

[RedSwirl]

So basically it's what some people have been saying for a while -- the main thing holding back consoles are wattage and heat. And the main reason for PC GPUs being so far ahead is because they got so big you ca't fit a straight-up PC GPU in a console-sized box anymore.

 

[Vanillalite]

No they just unlucky with the timing. They waited to long to get new boxes out so they couldn't wait any longer. Yet now is the time where we are really seeing mid to high range gpus getting a refresh downward on the PC side in terms of the same or slightly better performance at a cheaper price point with lower wattage.

If you look at it from sort of this tick tock perspective the tick is the new arch the tock is a smaller more efficient version before it ticks again. In theory consoles want to hit with a tock not a tick as they have stricter TDP requirements to not end up with a 360 situation all over again.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense.

 

[UnrealEck]

I think (at least in the case of the PS4) for the size of the chasis, it's got a fair bit of power to it. Same goes for the price. In fact even moreso for the price.
If the consoles were to house more powerful hardware they would become too large and too expensive and would stray further from being what people tend to expect from a console.