-
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.
Bink 2 runs faster on PS4 GPU than XB1 GPU, but same on either CPU
- Thread starter Insane Metal
- Start date
RedAssedApe
Banned
On Tuesday, it's supposed to be cloudy. Maybe they should benchmark the Xbone then?
Who's post is this?
Its not a post baby, its a thread.
Well who's thread is this?
Thread's dead baby, threads dead.
dragonbane
Member
Well, this would mean that both have the same CPU clock if they just use 4 cores to do this test on PS4/XB1.
travisbickle
Member
Probably won't see developers take advantage of that extra power till a couple of years into the generation, might even only see first parties use it ...
by the way I just woke up from a coma I was in since Oct 2013, what did I miss?
There's no way Microsoft would give Sony that kind of advantage.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
but teh tiled resources!!!!
teh 6 gigs of teh textures in teh 32mb of esram!
teh 6 gigs of teh textures in teh 32mb of esram!
Joke post. IIRC Major Nelson made the stupid analogy.
If these benchmarks are anything to go by, the CPUs are the same.
famousmortimer
Banned
Microsoft is sitting on billions of dollars. They will pay off everyone. There's no way something like call of duty would be 720p on the xbox and 1080p on the ps4. Microsoft would just throw money at them until they forced parity.
Still cracks me up that people were sooooooo paranoid about this before launch
Working man graphics are best graphics you plebs. lol
dragonbane
Member
No, it wasn't. The article on the RAD website still has this paragraph:
"It is really fast - it can play 4K video frames (3840x2160) in 4 ms on PCs and 11 ms on Sony PS4 or Xbox One using the CPU only (or 1.4 ms and 2.3 ms using GPU acceleration)!"
http://www.radgametools.com/bnkmain.htm
but hey
maybe amazon will chuck that money out there to get parity for the xbone!
Metalingus5150
Member
You'd be surprised at how many times this is actually brought up in other places but here.
lol
Wasn't it your rumor that MS paid 3rd parties at e3 to not show or mention the ps4 version? Sorry if I'm mixing you up with someone else.
Penguins&PolarBears
Member
1.4ms to 2.3ms doesn't sound like a very big difference. PC to console sounds like a very big difference though (4ms to 11ms).
So far the only benefit PS4 seems to be getting out of the hardware difference is higher native resolution which is a somewhat minimized benefit by things like upscaling, the fact that console gamers sit much further from their TVs than PC gamers, and the fact that some people only have 1080i/720p displays (especially under 32"). In terms of geometry, texture quality, lighting, shadows there doesn't at this point seem to be any significant difference of the two consoles. If you put the best looking XBO exclusives up against the best looking PS4 exclusives it would be very hard for the average person to tell which platform is more powerful.
This difference in power is not like PS2 vs. Xbox yet it is getting far more hype/attention (at least in core gamer forums).
Unknown Soldier
Member
Of course not. They invented DirectX! What has Sony ever invented?
Xbone + Cloud = Super Perfect Cell
You forgot to factor in 8% gpu unlock + mature development tools + direct x inventor.
Once you add all those up then it'll become super buu(gohan included).
no, it was him
SneakyStephan
Banned
I don't see where it compares the ps4 and the xbox, it only lists numbers for ps4 and pc?
Anyhow why would you need a benchmark to compare them? same exact architecture one has 12 cus the other 18, the numbers for fillrate and rops are known as well and they run at almost identical clockspeeds, you can't get a more straightforward comparison than that
Anyhow why would you need a benchmark to compare them? same exact architecture one has 12 cus the other 18, the numbers for fillrate and rops are known as well and they run at almost identical clockspeeds, you can't get a more straightforward comparison than that
To be fair 360 multi-platform titles looked better than PS3 counterparts at launch. It's obvious PS4 is much more powerful but games looking better on one system than another at launch isn't always an indication. If it makes you feel any better I have no vested interest in either and know for a fact PS4 is more powerful.
Prototype Viktor
Member
5.3 million PS4 sales, some gif's and Ellen Page coming out
that was because not even the guys who made the cell knew how to use the bloody thing
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
trust, I know. While I expect interesting things from tiled resources from MS first party, doubt it will make much difference in multiplats.
Plus, the ps4 is capable of it also haha.
SwiftDeath
Member
The Xbox came out approximately 18 months after the PS2, the PS4 came out a week before the XB1
The OG Xbox was priced higher on its release then the PS2 was priced at the time whereas the XB1 is priced higher than the PS4 was at its release
It's a very different situation
The Cowboy
Member
Strider has a bug on the PS4 that affects anisotropic texture filtering.
That last sentence is so goddamn funny.
The CPU being exactly the same on both cases is interesting since before it sounded like XBO had a slightly higher clock speed. I wonder if AMD upped the clocks of both and Sony just didn't find it necessary to tell the public since they were staying quiet on the CPU. Either that or it's just plain close enough to not make any difference.
For some reason Strider has no AF on PS4 but does on XBO. Probably a bug.
The CPU being exactly the same on both cases is interesting since before it sounded like XBO had a slightly higher clock speed. I wonder if AMD upped the clocks of both and Sony just didn't find it necessary to tell the public since they were staying quiet on the CPU. Either that or it's just plain close enough to not make any difference.
For some reason Strider has no AF on PS4 but does on XBO. Probably a bug.
ps4 version doesn't have texture filtering
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
But misterxmedia said xbox is gonna have a new wave of dev tools that unlock the power and have ray tracing in games.
In the US, at least, the PS2 and Xbox were both $299 when the Xbox came out. The PS2 dropped to $199 about 6 months later and the Xbox followed suit.
Ricerocket
Member
Double Helix forgot to turn on AF for PS4 version of Strider so textures look smeared out of existence.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
Is it November 2013 again?
You don't even want to know how many people believe this shit.
On reddit there are loads of people who think every game will be 1080p60 after this new magical SDK hits.
It's quite sad to watch.
SneakyStephan
Banned
The ps3 gpu was no more powerful than the xbox 360 one and noone knew how to use the cpu
There's things the ps3 can do better because of the spus and there's things the xbox 360 can do better due to the memory setup
There is nothing the xbox one can do better and it is significantly less powerful as well as having a really big bottleneck in the memory set up
There really is nothing more to it, ps4 hardware isn't anything amazing, the xbone is just much weaker
SwiftDeath
Member
I may have been thinking of European prices then. My memory for launch prices isn't so good to be honest
Did Strider's devs ever get around to explaining how such a thing is possible?bah ps4 cannot even run strider as well as xbone.
Isn't that just saying that it'll do 4 ms/11 ms on PC versus PS4/Xbox One using CPU or 1.4/2.3 using GPU on PC versus PS4/Xbox One?
Unknown Soldier
Member
There isn't any for the PS4 and Xbone, both of which have AMD GPUs which have an integrated H.264 hardware decoder. Bink is shit and should have died a very long ago but game devs keep using it and I wish they would stop.
Tesseract
Banned
xbone overheats, ps3 teleports it to ken kutaragi
That PC comparison is between the CPU. With the benchmark limited to 4 cores. No shit Sherlock: when you limit core usage, it won't win again Intel in a IPC contest.
Penguins&PolarBears
Member
That's fine, but the issue is really then the price, not the power.
Point being, it wouldn't matter what price the Wii U was because at any price the hardware is too weak to run games that are competitive or comparable to PS4. If you want PS4/XBO quality of games/graphics you're not going to buy a Wii U. This issue of graphics disparity doesn't apply to the XBO. Let's keep in mind there were exaggerated reports prior to launch that XBO was closer to a Wii U competitor than a PS4 competitor. At this point some would even say the exclusive games on XBO look slightly better than PS4.
BTW, Xbox price was dropped a few months after launch to match PS2.
Historically speaking consumers have always gone for the system with the better exclusives not the system with the better graphics anyway. You cannot fault MS for following historically proven strategy of games over graphics. After getting crushed by the Wii and PS2 in two generations, the lesson they should've learned is graphics are important, but games matter more than graphics.
I think 99% of everyone here at Gaf knows the PS4 GPU is not slightly more powerful but a LOT more powerful.
hehe