-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Xbox One December SDK Update brings better eSRAM performance.
- Thread starter ShamePain
- Start date
- Status
Some of the unintentionally comedic posts in here make me think it's time for a reminder:
Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues
PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +300%
That is the gap. It doesn't get smaller.
Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues
PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +300%
That is the gap. It doesn't get smaller.
I just explained to you how works. In your previous post you persisted to say how much close they are where it's not true at all. Because it's not matter of the simple gpu difference. xbone ram it's an incredibly mess, the whole architecture unbalanced, I did it not surely for my obsession to prove ps4 it's more powerful, but just to answer to you. But whatever you like.
MeachTheMonster
Banned
Yes Xbone is a mess. PS4 is super.
Which games/hardware are you developing/engineering?
Sir Abacus
Member
Forward+ seems to be great for point lights and simple geometry, not so great when dealing with other sorts of lights and lots of geometry. Two extra passes of the scene when doing its light culling isn't that crash hot either. But it seems to get a lot of the taking advantages of both forward and deferred.
Deferred you read from the depth buffer and the normal buffer. Those extra reads add up. The key is to gain more than you use. Will you reclaim a lot of shader power by doing this? Less draw calls from less passes? Are you memory bandwidth limited already?
When you hit a transparent material you fall back to Forward, Forward+ or whatever you want to use for dealing with transparent objects. You might also fall back if you know an object is only lit by one light and therefore will most certainly only need one pass. Ryze for example uses deferred shading for a lot of its rendering paths and falls back to Forward+ where it needs to.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Numbers aren't everything. Real world performance is vastly more important and it's not a happy coincidence that games are not only matching the PS4, but in some cases are offering the superior experience.
My fear is that they saw the Nintendo side of things where raw power doesn't mean anything. That and their initial obsession over TV.
So you try to downplay what I said because I'm not a developer? Very mature. Not need to be developer to know such things.
It's truly hilarious how every time MS or someone puts out a statement about improving their SDK, people think that Sony isn't also improving their SDK and that it suddenly and automatically negates the set hardware differences.
We could have much better discussions about this stuff if people would take 30 minutes to educate themselves about the hardware.
I believe it mainly had to do with wanting a media player first, game console second mentality. That meant having 8 gbs of RAM no matter what, and there was no guarantee that GDDR5 would be available in large enough quantities, which then led to the need for ESRAM to make up for the slow speed of DDR3, which, finally, resulted in significantly less available space for the GPU on the APU and a much weaker GPU overall. If they had planned for it to be a game system first and foremost we wouldn't have any of these problems.
In some cases? You mean ONE case in ACU in which the devs explicitly stated they were going to gimp the PS4 version. You're right, it isn't a coincidence. Because when games are the same on both, it's because devs CHOOSE to make them the same. If you honestly think that there's some kind of huge SDK advantage and that's the reason some games look the same on both, then all I can say is that you're incredibly delusional.
MeachTheMonster
Banned
Who said this?
How do you come to 1.18 TF for the Xbox One for games while giving the PS4 the full 1.84 TF for games?
Caayn
Member
SEGAvangelist
Member
But that isn't really going on in this thread. There are way more people complaining about that happening than people actually doing it.
MeachTheMonster
Banned
No. I'm saying to make the definite assertions you are about how the hardware works with software, it would seem you should have some experience working on them
Uh you?
That's absurd. Not needs even so much knowledge you supposed. It's simple logic and elementary math. And faster, unified RAM it's simply better without something of alternative in the other hardware.
Xbox One is 1.31 TFLOPS. It got back to its theoretical max with Kinect's death. Which is what these SDK improvements are doing; letting the system get closer to its theoretical max performance.
luca_29_bg
Member
nope, they already said that can have the game running in full 1920x1080p but with less msaa or dropped completely, i don't remember correctly here, and some time ago Andrea Pessino stated also that 1920x1080 is less demanding that 1920x800 with 4xmsaa. So no it's still not true
So now we've moved from "Da CPU Boost" to straight up denial since evey other magic sauce has failed.
luca_29_bg
Member
re-wrong.
MeachTheMonster
Banned
No that's what you guys hear, cause your so concerned with proving Playstation superiority.
Saying the perfromance gap is closing. Which is demonstrably true by comparing launch games to recent games.
Is not the same as saying the hardware gap has been negated due to software changes.
Two totally different concepts.
kingwingin
Member
The better the performance the happier I am, I want halo 5 and gears of war to look as good as possible.
Please tell me you're not using a game that was a part of a big marketing deal with Xbox One to come to that conclusion.
If so they just made a fool out of you.
It is a little bit sad that developers have to optimise to get the best from the low amount of esram. Would have been so much nicer if they could have found a way to have enough es/edram to support most developers normal workflows. Perhaps it simply would have meant going to a two chip solution and the cost wasn't something MS would support.
MeachTheMonster
Banned
It happens all the time. That's why people are complaining about it.
Jeez just stop it. You start to be embarrassing. You don't know of what you are talking about most of the time and you suppose only the engineers should talk of tech stuff. So why you are here? Why this thread? If you don't like to read the others opinion stay away to the forum.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
They removed the kinect reserve for the gpu didn't they? should be 1.31tflops.
Windom Earle
Banned
Haha, this thread is fucking terrible!
MeachTheMonster
Banned
You create a new strawman with every post. Are you even reading what I'm typing?
Never said only engineers should talk tech. I said only engineers should state their opinion on tech stuff as irrefutable fact.
Making statements like "the Xbox architecture is an unbalanced mess" I would presume that you actually have some experience working on it.
Even though we can post a list of specs, it doesn't mean we fully understand or even have all the information on the architecture.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
No, it's actually Microsoft launched with incomplete software and tools for developers. They're just playing catch up.
It had no other choice but to end up bad once that guy said
" It seems that with continuous improvements to both consoles, the performance gap is indeed narrowing down."
SEGAvangelist
Member
Find all the times it happened in this thread so you have a reason to complain about it (instead of just derailing the thread). Parody posts don't count.
MY. GOD. I give up people, I'm not an analyst. This is out of my competence. Peace and love.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I think the problem is that the PS4 is a CPU limited platform.
Broken Hope
Member
Due to the performance advantage it wouldn't surprise me if they were spending much less time optimising the PS4 builds of games, since they don't have to due to the better specs, then spend more time optimising the the XB1 build to reach parity.
BRocknRolla
Member
I've thought about posting numerous times, and these are the conclusions I keep coming to. This thread is painful.
These arguments have been going on since launch, and despite the fact that the numbers have been rehashed numerous times, the arguments never end. The players are so often the same, though we have a few new people this go around too. It's always depressing to see what should be a tech thread end up full of feelings and conclusory statements extrapolated from single examples.
I'm consistently baffled that people seem blind to see this very real possibility. Think back to the PS3 and the amount of additional optimization that was required on that platform to get the same games running at 360 levels. This is not an uncommon story. More complex architecture leads to that. If a studio has limited time and resources, they're not going to spend it fiddling with getting the most out of the PS4 if the Xbox One needs more attention.
What is this, I don't even
I believe its a joke
Just a nitpick, but reading that article, the person quoted never said anything about improved esram performance. He just said that they were giving devs more control over how the esram is used, leading to improved performance (for that dev anyway). Not that the esram itself performed any differently, which would be beyond a software update.
That being said, nitpick over. Carry on.
That being said, nitpick over. Carry on.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Good for them. How marginal is this gain?
shadowsdarknes
Member
See the "Meanwhile at Sony" comments.
SDK 2.0 seemed to be a big update to the PS4 SDK for compute & camera functions.
Seems a little weird to see Sony move it's focus towards Camera improvements as MS move it's focus away from Kinect.
They basically talk of more stuff in the esram, but not how much gained in the real world of performance.
Updated specs.
PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs)
PS4: 1152 Shaders
PS4: 72 Texture units
PS4: 32 ROPS
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues
8gb GDDR5 @ 176gb/s
Versus
Xbone: 1.31 TF GPU -29% (12 CUs) -34%
Xbone: 768 Shaders -33%
Xbone: 48 Texture units -33%
Xbone: 16 ROPS -50%
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues -75%
8gb DDR3 @ 69gb/s -61%+ 32MB eSRAM @109gb/s -39%
No idea what the new eSRAM performance is or if the number above already is the theoretical max.
PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs)
PS4: 1152 Shaders
PS4: 72 Texture units
PS4: 32 ROPS
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues
8gb GDDR5 @ 176gb/s
Versus
Xbone: 1.31 TF GPU -29% (12 CUs) -34%
Xbone: 768 Shaders -33%
Xbone: 48 Texture units -33%
Xbone: 16 ROPS -50%
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues -75%
8gb DDR3 @ 69gb/s -61%+ 32MB eSRAM @109gb/s -39%
No idea what the new eSRAM performance is or if the number above already is the theoretical max.
because Microsoft invented DirectX.
- Status