1080p vs. 900p is 42% more pixels, not to mention that KZ:SF multiplayer is 60fps which is 100% more frames, so it's actually pushing 188% more pixels per second as well as IMO looking better.
-
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.
EuroGamer: More details on the BALANCE of XB1
- Thread starter artist
- Start date
1080p vs. 900p is 42% more pixels, not to mention that KZ:SF multiplayer is 60fps which is 100% more frames, so it's actually pushing 188% more pixels per second as well as IMO looking better.
It's all of no use when Penello and others (even some PC gamers) cant tell the difference, tell this to Sony.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
So Kilzone looks 188% better than Ryse? Thanks for setting me straight. I didn't know that. I'll exit this thread now. I need to process what I just learned.
How good looking games are is a pretty bad way to determine hardware performance. Before Halo 4, you'd have been pretty safe in assuming the PS3 was a much more capable machine. The best of 360 had been consistently outclassed by Sony. But Halo 4 was a huge step up from anything on the system.
Just because a system is more powerful, doesn't mean the results will show it. I think Killzone looks much better than Ryse, but even if it didn't, it wouldn't say anything about their respective capabilities.
Just because a system is more powerful, doesn't mean the results will show it. I think Killzone looks much better than Ryse, but even if it didn't, it wouldn't say anything about their respective capabilities.
Chobel
Member
What about Kagari? What about the guy who said that DF article is wrong and have the numbers to prove it, and didn't get banned by Bish?
Thanks, you'll be doing everyone a favour. You wanted a quantifyable reason that Killzone looks44% better than Ryse, I over delivered on your 44% figure.
And Verendus...
He said 188% / times better than RYSE?
Well then we both saw two different posts, as it seems.
He's talking about % more pixels.
Stop spreading FUD with your damage control.
And stop talking about launch games and the power-difference at the same time.
As we have already said several times: You won't see "super differences" in launch games.
The developers are happy to release their games on time/launch.
Wait for the second wave of games (to see bigger differences).
And don't forget what a lot of devs said in the last couple of months.
50% faster (EDGE, former People can Fly dev, etc.)
I don't know but you're only supposed to use it horizontally so it doesn't fall over.
Nightengale
Member
Did you even bother reading people's reply? He never said it look 188% better, he said KZ looks better (in his opinion) even while pushing 188% ( most likely less, since 60fps isn't locked yet, closer to 45-50~) more pixels per second comparatively.
Killzone is TARGETING 60fps. I've been gaming long enough to know that you shouldn't count any chickens until they are hatched. Right now no one has seen any Killzone mode at a steady 60fps so until they do, it can't be taken to be the case. I'm not being unbalanced here, I have the same approach to every game on every platform. Dead Rising 3 is a broken game frame rate wise, until they show me footage that proves otherwise.
900p on Ryse and 1080p on Killzone is certainly an indication of PS4s power gap, but we play games, we don't play numbers. If you game on a TV from a sofa a few feet away, it will be impossible to tell. I know this as I did a test on myself to see. With a 42inch TV from 180cm away (probably closer but those were my conditions) they look identical.
The Omega Man
Member
you so snarky and mad, 100% cool, keep fighting the good fight.
Hey OP awesome read BTW
Where you using per-pixel mapping?
Is it a balanced caramel frappe?
EventHorizon
Member
No I believe that Microsoft was pushing the idea that the GPU really doesn't matter because the CPU is the bottleneck. That is their whole 'balance' argument. They admit that Sony has a better GPU, but say that extra power is wasted because it can't be used.
So my question still stands. Are games really more limited by the CPU than the GPU as Microsoft is proposing? Or is true only for the XB1 because Microsoft is trying to always run Kinect in the background and have the ability to 'snap' other apps to the side while playing games?
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Hey look! A spec related thread going in circles.
Right know, KILLZONE: Shadow Fall's multi-player is 60fps.
Which is 100% BS!
I hope the whipped cream count was decreased by 2 for more yield and the mixer was used at 6% faster rpm.
Unless you are talking about Senju's posts, we've covered some good ground here.
What's going in circles?
Seems like the majority of people in this thread are on the same page:
Microsoft tried to say their system is balanced, people argued that they inadvertently revealed that this isn't the case.
LukasTaves
Member
So I was right
Dunno about GPGPU in games, but on academic researches, maximum GPGPU performance is by far and away much more dependent on memory access than ALU resources... It's pretty common to see double or 3 times the ALU counts giving marginal performance improvements while an improved memory access yields 10 to 100 fold times the performance.
However, that only speaks about the difficult to get GPGPU up and running at a decent speed, assuming optimal memory access, more ALU count will provide more performance.
That was merely a showcase of unconventionally large textures in a system with limited memory. It does not make a case for better performance in a system with asymmetric memory pools.
Sure, you can fit 3GB into the ESRAM in 32mb tiles, but the ESRAM will not receive each tile faster than the source of the texture, i.e. the DDR3, or worse yet, the HDD. 3GB of data will not somehow fly through the ESRAM faster than 68gb/s, no matter how hard you tile. That is just physics.
There is a reason why you can't just have 1 byte of memory with 1000gb/s bandwidth and pretend it's better, like what Microsoft is doing.
It's all made up. End of story, indeed.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Launch games (especially multi-platform games) will not be an indicator or PS4's HW advantage.
Although the you are seeing some really good looking and 1080p resolution games on PS4. I'd say Ryse is the most impressive just from tech on Xbone but that 900p hurts its credibility when trying to compare it to KZ or Infamous.
Unoptimized could be, however these machines have dedicated processors to deal with a lot of this, also the GPU in the PS4 is designed to be able to do GPGPU with very little performance cost to the graphics, So by increasing the power of the GPU, you are also increasing the ability to do GPGPU and therefore decreasing the chance of a CPU bottleneck.
You are also right in the sense of "snap" using CPU and GPU resources as well as the Kinect, but we simply don't know how much this is. It is likely that the talk of the CPU upclock giving such great results is likely just Marketing. There will be a small benefit, but not to really make a real difference.
LukasTaves
Member
That's why multiplatform games are a much better base to draw comparisons. It's certainly much better than trying to compare two games that have completely different design goals...
Nightengale
Member
By the way, what happened to the 218/204 ESRAM stuff that Albert supposedly re- clarified with his colleagues?
Because based off this article, the 218GB/s number that he supposedly got corrected by GAF/colleagues is not true, and they're still basing off the 204GB/s number off Hotchips, which is now taking known limitations into account.
Because based off this article, the 218GB/s number that he supposedly got corrected by GAF/colleagues is not true, and they're still basing off the 204GB/s number off Hotchips, which is now taking known limitations into account.
They're also a crap way to compare. Is the 360 better because Bayonetta is much better on there? Is the PS3 better because FFXIII is better on there?
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Seems like the same ground that's been covered for a while. Even the EG article doesn't cover much that wasn't already gone over in past threads.
It seems some of Alberts numbers were wrong, and I doubt it as just this number hehe.
Well..you would figure editor of supposed tech analysis site under eurogamer would at least insert his comment on 14+4 being proven false a few months ago.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
So has this article clarified anything?
brain_stew
Member
I'd still put Sony way out in front, but there could have potentially been areas of games and especially the OS (assuming the 512MB reservation stood) where MS could show an advantage. Launch titles would have been unaffected IMO.
The way I see it, 8GB was the icing on the cake, it wasn't a critical requirement which was why they were prepared to launch with 4GB.
They're not saying that. That would be nonsense.
And saying the CPU often helps avoid sudden drops due to CPU activity isn't the same as saying the game is typically CPU bound. Maybe, for microsecond the CPU might become a bound if it's doing something suddenly intensive. Their comment elsewhere indicates a bound in software residing elsewhere typically - in the GPU, somewhere other than CUs.
LukasTaves
Member
On the other hand the highest char poly count in Ryse is almost 4 times the one in KZ and there are more characters on screen as well. And Ryse lighting is 100% dynamic even their GI, which is pre baked on KZ...
I could go on and on, but my points is: You are constraining your comparison into a single spec, but there are lots of aspects where the goals and technologies from these two games differ, which means your performance compared is flawed because you are assuming everything they are doing is the same.
KaiserBecks
Member
Let's hope the input lag stays under 188ms then.
Nightengale
Member
That MS is relying on information proven false ( 14+4) to make comparisons, and this wasn't a deep dive at all, since they glossed over some stuff.
Technical fellows don't know bout maths
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
And guess who's doing the spinning more? We've had some well rounded discussion and then we've had some almost hypothetical downplaying of the HW advantage of PS4 even by the article itself.
We got the configuration of the GPU, reasoning for upclock, ESRAM, clarity on it's functionality etc.
Unfortunately the article could've been a lot better only if it was some one else asking more tough questions.
Green Yoshi
Member
When you see actual footage of Dead Rising 3, it's hard to belive that the Xbox One is a powerful console. Even Ryse by Crytek looks not very impressive.
No! It's just more MS spin.
"Balance" is their new keyword now.
Chobel
Member
It explained where did the number 204GB/s come from.
Microsoft's approach to GPGPU is somewhat different to Sony, but not explained in this article, maybe in the future.
Other than that, I guess nothing.
brain_stew
Member
Please don't ever bring this stupid argument into a tech thread. Having poor eyesight or a crappy setup doesn't negate a significant objective difference.
vpance
Member
brain_stew
Member
MS may have inadvertently confirmed that they're a lot more fill limited than most of us had assumed which is very troubling news for anyone planning to buy an Xbone.
I don't really think it is going in circles. It always seems, actually, to head in one particular direction.
Nah you can never compare two exclusives only multiplat from the same dev. Even if both were thrown together quickly the best hardware that's the easiest to program for will show itself just fine.
Similar threads
- Poll