Neo Blaster
Member
Really? Are you going to throw a bunch of small(one new) studios against Sony's far more experienced ones?
-
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.
Is the Console GPU FLOPs era going the way of the Bit era? I for one welcome our new GB/s marketing overlord
- Thread starter onQ123
- Start date
Clintizzle
Lord of Edge.
Its true. TFLOPS are a stupid metric. SSD's don't matter. Exclusives don't matter either.
> Release info about console
> see how many likes it gets on MySpace
> Company with most likes wins your money.
You may not like it but this is the future. Mark my words. I read a book (half) once.
> Release info about console
> see how many likes it gets on MySpace
> Company with most likes wins your money.
You may not like it but this is the future. Mark my words. I read a book (half) once.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
The "bit" rating for graphics just didn't have much direct bearing on performance, thus wasn't very useful. You could technically make a 32-bit machine today that would be much more capable than a PS1, as a serious boost in texture memory and polygon counts would do a world of good. This resulted in systems with the same "bit" level varying greatly in performance, from the Jaguar to PS1 or Dreamcast to Xbox.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Neo Blaster
Member
Feeling is mutual.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
The same can be said with FLOPs you can make a new GPU with lower FLOPs than a GPU from 10 years ago but it will be better than the GPU from 10 years ago because of the advancements elsewhere on the GPU.
DaGwaphics
Member
The difference is that FLOPs are relevant at the time of release for parts in the same arch, "bits" never were (the Xbox and GCube launched at the same time and were the same "bit" level). GPUs are parallel compute units at this point, thus theoretical max compute is a decent metric, at least for the GPU alone (assuming both cards are from the same product line).
Neo Blaster
Member
Im a fanboy for just stating the facts....
Neo Blaster
Member
I think you misunderstood what I said, I was calling him an Xbox fanboy. Or you replied to the wrong person.
Alphagear
Member
Im a fanboy for just stating the facts....
You were stating your opinion.
Facts? Thats debatable.
Microsoft Game studios have as much experience as Sony Game Studios?
Please.
Alphagear
Member
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Well the person i was replying was saying that xbox has no games, when xgs are bigger then wws, it makes that statement rediculous.
Game quality is subjective so i dont even know why "games" were being bought into the conversation in the first place.
Last edited:
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Alphagear
Member
XGS is bigger than WWS?
What in number of studios? Most have just been acquired and are yet to produce any games.
Secondly a Game Studio can come in many sizes.
Some number a few people only capable of producing a single game every gen and others number in the hundreds producing several AAA games a generation.
Last edited:
Neo Blaster
Member
XGS bigger than SWWS? Oh, boy...
Why games are being brought to conversation? Are you serious? I thought we were talking about game consoles, without them all this power conversation is merely fanboy wanking.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Err, we are in a power thread....
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Can we agree on that both teams have a large collection of first party devs. With both organisations having lots of talent. I dont deny that wws edge out xgs, but that was never the premise of the debate in the first place.
Alphagear
Member
Anyway back to topic.
TFLOPs matter only because consoles use the same architecture and the same manufacturer. In this case the XSX is more powerful easily. Otherwise its not the best indicator of power if you put Nvidia into the equation.
Would love to see what happens IF one console maker switches to Nvidia.
Nvidia TFLOPS are usually lower than their AMD equivalents.
TFLOPs matter only because consoles use the same architecture and the same manufacturer. In this case the XSX is more powerful easily. Otherwise its not the best indicator of power if you put Nvidia into the equation.
Would love to see what happens IF one console maker switches to Nvidia.
Nvidia TFLOPS are usually lower than their AMD equivalents.
Last edited:
ZywyPL
Banned
What if people will? Enjoy playing games. Just because they are fun to play. What an abstract thought, isn't it?
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
This has been the case for last 20yrs, ps2 flops are not equal to ps3 flops and ps4 flops are not equal to ps3 flops and yet people are now all of a sudden are acting like this is suddenly a new thing.
The only issue that might arise from all this is that casuals may think stadia is more powerful then PS5 or PS5 is just bit more then twice as powerful as a ps4 pro or they may think the xsx is twice as powerful as a x1x ( which is not that bad)
12gcn tflops was still at the higher end of peoples hopes and dreams for a very long time.
Last edited:
Neo Blaster
Member
Yes, and all this began when I stated how Xbox fanboys are fiercely attached to TF and power narrative while MS is lacking on quality games. But let's not start it all over again.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Yes I guess you are entitled to your own imaginary narratives.
I mean back in 2013 you could just reverse everything you said there, would it still be true to you then?
Alphagear
Member
Yes its so true.
XSX is in fact more than twice the power of Xbox One X.
Same as PS5 is more than 2.5x the power of Ps4 pro.
GCN TFLOPS is weaker than RDNA2 Tflops.
In the case of next gen its relevant because both consoles are AMD and RDNA2 and so can be compared fairly.
Last edited:
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Not console warring, its just the truth.
The reason why MS bought many of those studios was primarily to support GamePass with a steady stream of new product. It sure as hell wasn't for their stellar record of retail sales or their deep stockpile of proven IP. Most of all though it had nothing to do with relative console power.
In case you hadn't noticed, a commonality with most (if not all, thinking about it) of the studios MS purchased was that they have a track record developing for PC as much as console. This again is a big indicator of MS overall plan; to be Netflix they need a reliable flow of unique product.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Well thats an interesting take.
But I disagree.
I mean whats the difference between "game pass filler" and retail filler?
What is the criteria for a "filler" game?
Sony have just announced a $10 million indie fund, or to you is that sonys $10 million filler fund?
Fbh
Member
This will entirely depend on how well games end up performing on Ps5.
If what some people are saying about the Ps5 SSD is true and it will allow it to no just make up for the GPU/CPU difference with the Series X but actually allow it to outperform it. Then sure, GB/s is going to be a new metric to be used in marketing.
But if it doesn't and most games simply look and/or run better on the series X then I don't think so.
If what some people are saying about the Ps5 SSD is true and it will allow it to no just make up for the GPU/CPU difference with the Series X but actually allow it to outperform it. Then sure, GB/s is going to be a new metric to be used in marketing.
But if it doesn't and most games simply look and/or run better on the series X then I don't think so.
Neo Blaster
Member
Yep, Sony had a slow start this gen, I'll give it to you. But Sony sold lots of PS4 due to a combination of power and price, not just power alone. Wonder if MS could do the same, and I'm not talking about XSX and Lockart.
Last edited:
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
I never said it was about power alone.
Its like
Poster a: xsx is more powerful
Poster b: but, it wont sell more cos it has no games etc etc
People need to relax no one is saying its going to win ms the console war.
A flop is the same whatever the architecture; there is no weaker flop. GPU designers advertise the theoretical maximum flop operations per second but in reality it may be impacted by the driver, the pipeline, the memory, the heat (Thermal throttling), ...
Let's say that a GPU has 1000 compute units, each being able to execute two instructions per cycle and that GPU has a clock speed of 1000 mhz.
cycles per second (hertz):
instructions per cycle (IPC):
instructions per second (IPS/FLOPS):
But in reality, a compute unit has to fetch the instruction and the operands (data) from the memory then send back the result which make an instruction being executed in actually 4 or 5 cycles (a.k.a instruction latency)
Let's say that a GPU has 1000 compute units, each being able to execute two instructions per cycle and that GPU has a clock speed of 1000 mhz.
cycles per second (hertz):
1000 mhz * 1 000 000 = 1 000 000 000 hertzinstructions per cycle (IPC):
1000 compute units * 2 instructions = 2 000 instructionsinstructions per second (IPS/FLOPS):
hertz * IPC = 2 000 000 000 000 flops (2 tflops).But in reality, a compute unit has to fetch the instruction and the operands (data) from the memory then send back the result which make an instruction being executed in actually 4 or 5 cycles (a.k.a instruction latency)
And cache or eSRAM is faster than RAM is his point but we don't get that speed because of budget.
That's actually a good analogy. It's like using bhp to compare cars. It isn't just about bhp just like in the past everyone was talking about 'bits' when it wasn't just about bits.I know OP is being facetious but only a nut job would relate SSD speeds to the Performance of a console.
Its like using the size of your gas tank to prove your car is more performant than another one.
Arkam
Member
If we are talking performance a transaxle would be more apt IMO. As it is how power is transfered from the engine to the wheels. The gas tank anaology only works if you are talking storage amount (or battery life)
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
It was just a comeback to your comment about how many first-party studios Xbox has. My point being its all very well having the manpower, but how that manpower is utilized is a very big deal. Again my sense is that they are going for a volume approach as it best suits their business plan vis-a-vis GamePass.
I'm pointing this out because there are two very distinct marketing and biz-dev angles MS is pushing; one is platform based (the power of the Series X), and the other is ecosystem based (XCloud and GamePass) and its important to understand which is which, because they are addressing different market segments and there's less overlap than is immediately apparent.
joe_zazen
Member
this.
there must be a ‘life satisfaction’ index, i.e. a number to tell you how much better this product/app/person/univerisity/holdiay/console will make your life. Facebook could have a little number by our names to show the world how much life satisfaction we have bought. It will be nice to have a numerical comparison instead having to look at all these selfies to know whether you are living a better live than your feed people.
IIRC the PS3 was 230 or so GFLOPS and the Switch is 384. The Switch is WAY more powerful.
Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
Lol so dodging my question, by saying it was just a comeback, like that nullifies what you said, thats pretty bad faith debating, but whatever.
However I disagree, ms will have a similar number of AAA games next gen, dont forget that sony also makes a fare few smaller titles for PSVR and titles like concrete genie.
Infact Phil has talked about this, he said theres no mandate form ms to what scale of game a dev has to make, but rather what dictates the size of a game is the dev and what they want to do.
For example hellblade 1 was made for $10 million, now if MS provides $30 million for hellblade2 that is small in AAA terms but would make a significant difference into hb2's design.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
It can be like that Nosedive episode of Black Mirror.
On the other hand even most non gamers managed to understand a doubling in graphical bit rate meant better graphics and far more power - a symptom of being stuck with the NES for over 10 years.
This term was also a boon to everyone's imagination - I tell you all one thing - people sat around and discussed things with much brighter imaginations. Nowadays after wading through countless forums nearly all most only talk about larger open worlds and more realism. People then had a huge fondness of talking about the possibility of 1028bit graphics and and flaunting their imagination by describing games that featured massive seamless universes tied together by technology that allowed different games to intertwine and instead of asking what next gen graphics might looked like, actually described new IPS they wanted to see because of next gen performance.
People do not harness the same amount of imagination on gaming forums any longer nor do as I've only tragically today realized - do they have the same love for staple gaming terminology.
DaGwaphics
Member
I hear you. A lot of it is the ballooning budgets involved with game development. The market as a whole is in desperate need of a more synergistic approach to development that can bring more new ideas to life. I think end-users would regain some of that imaginative spark if they weren't fed a steady stream of derivative content.
For PS4 people made a bigger deal of the 8GB of GDDR5 but it did start the console fans talking about GPU FLOPs but it was PS4 Pro & Xbox One X that had the warriors talking about FLOPs on the level of the Bit wars from back in the day.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll