Technical Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Is multitasking really that important?
If you're done with a game, reboot into some UI so you can watch media?
Just make the booting faster. That way, games can have more dedicated resources. I don't want the ability to switch to Netflix without rebooting to draw resources from the games.
Make it an appliance which can run apps. or games but games get the whole machine when you're running games. Well some ancillary services like messaging could be run with the game instance or within it.
If you're done with a game, reboot into some UI so you can watch media?
Just make the booting faster. That way, games can have more dedicated resources. I don't want the ability to switch to Netflix without rebooting to draw resources from the games.
Make it an appliance which can run apps. or games but games get the whole machine when you're running games. Well some ancillary services like messaging could be run with the game instance or within it.
Orion
Regular
I asked this in the other thread but it got locked, not sure if it's been asked here:
Anandtech and engadget say the xbox one apu is 28nm
Polygon and wired say it's 40nm.
But Who's wrong?
If it's 40nm with 5b transistors there might be problem matching the 28nm ps4's general launch date and quantity of units.
Anandtech and engadget say the xbox one apu is 28nm
Polygon and wired say it's 40nm.
But Who's wrong?
If it's 40nm with 5b transistors there might be problem matching the 28nm ps4's general launch date and quantity of units.
Bagel seed
Veteran
Imagine a PC game on medium setting and high setting. That's basically what we can, and what I think will have. The outliers will be the 1st party and odd 3rd party that goes full retard on the ~7GB and 176GB/s.
You'll have the Hypervisor which then loads the Windows VM and Game VMs. The Hypervisor is still an OS but specific to the tasks needed to manage the Xbox One hardware at a low level. It would be very small and very light. Likely to be done this way for security as well as maintainability.
If Windows was controlling all of the Xbox then security flaws in Windows could have very large consequences, such as allowing complete control of the machine. Windows Kernel is huge, hard to secure and know that you're secure. A small hypervisor on the other hand will be a lot easier to secure. Windows doesn't need to be fully trusted.
Xbox One hardware, if the leaked specs are correct, has a some exotic hardware aspects. If Windows needs to arbitrate access to these resources than likely kernel modifications would be needed. Ideally as few as possible (i.e. no) Windows Kernel modifications should be done so updates from the Windows Kernel team are easier to integrate.
djskribbles
Legend
I wonder if they will lead on the lowest common denominator, or the most powerful system this generation? Last generation there was a shift from using the 360 as the lead platform to the PS3 because of how complex it was to develop for. This generation the two systems have very similar hardware. Would it be easier to lead on XBone then scale up, or lead on PC/PS4 and scale down?
I also wonder if the visual gap between them will become more pronounced as the generation goes on?
Forgive me if these are dumb thoughts... I'm probably one of the least technically inclined here when it comes to this stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
(((interference)))
Veteran
I'm guessing the differences will be like some of the current gen multiplats that run worse on PS3 (eg BLOPS, GTA4, RDR etc).
The differences will be there, but still recognisably the same game.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are probably multiple solutions to the multitasking problem.
It’s hard to argue “more layers" as a solution to QoS. The hardware partitions still need to contend and route requests in and out of the VM.
I think the VM approach opens other avenues for Microsoft. Besides security, also portability to PC/HTPC. So gamers who are concerned with performance can play Xbox One games on their Windows 8.1 boxes.
It allows them to run games on other companies’ hardware. A year ago, didn’t someone hint that one of the big 3s will stop making hardware ?
The VM image is also a convenient way for managing deployment and avoiding software conflicts (but people have done it via install bundles).
The Xbox was alot more powerful than the PS2. Fafalada also said that the Xbox was like 2x more powerful than the GC and of course the GC was more powerful than PS2. The difference between this two systems will never be as obvious as most people seem to expect. What I expect is that some effects might be pared back or run at a lesser fidelity. I don't expect a 1080p vs 720p difference, ditto 60 vs 30 fps, the difference is not enough to warrant it. Sure, the PS4 would probably have a more stable framerate and might maintain a more fixed resolution in games that are designed with temporal resolution in mind. The main area where this might show is in exclusives but, as we have seen with the current generation and even in the xbox/ps2/gc era, the talent and the artstyle that is employed will have alot to say about this than any flops difference.
Well, the thing is during and after the PS2 era, Naughty Dog happened. MS is building up internal dev capabilities too. They will try to make their consoles shine.
As for third parties, they will follow suit to stay competitive. They would have highly detailed assets from their PC versions anyway.
This is assuming the platform holders don’t interfere.
I suspect as long as enough paying consumers remain enthusiastic about pristine game visuals, the developers will have no choice but to deliver.
Even though I’m not really into home consoles anymore, I’m still throwing my $$$ just to see what the developers can come up with.
As for third parties, they will follow suit to stay competitive. They would have highly detailed assets from their PC versions anyway.
This is assuming the platform holders don’t interfere.
I suspect as long as enough paying consumers remain enthusiastic about pristine game visuals, the developers will have no choice but to deliver.
Even though I’m not really into home consoles anymore, I’m still throwing my $$$ just to see what the developers can come up with.
If we are looking at 30% power difference, 2GB usable Ram difference, more complex memory system, Xbox One having a larger install base. We could see a situation similar to ps2->xbox. Multiplats would be developed first on the One as lead due to limitations, then up ported. But it depends on where the market is. If ps4 does not sell well because its expensive or Sony has production issues or is just less popular, thanexpect lots of 'lazy ports' similar to what the original xbox got from the ps2. Good enough ports.
And they will deliver it. Just don't be surprised if said pristine game visual is the same on the other system albeit a bit less pristine.
Also, the system reserve for PS4 is not known yet, but from the Killzone papers and from information on gaf, the PS4 is reserving 2 cores and 2gb of RAM for its OS and other services function. If this is true then that's almost the same but if it is less, then the difference might be more evident. Personally I believe the will reserve something like this and this is based, not on some need to make sure they are reserving the same as MS, but because they need it to accomplish the other services that the PS4 will provide.
Last edited by a moderator:
If developers use that strategy, then they need to come up with a new compelling home console experience one way or another. Otherwise iOS/Android and 3DS/Vita gaming is it. There are already very playable and addictive games there.
I don’t see app switching as a compelling gaming experience. I don’t see sharing media as a must have too. The games themselves need to be good. If there’re first party titles to compare with, we can tell if developers are making a good port effort.
Oh wait, this is a tech thread. Sorry Shifty ! I’ll pipe down now. ^_^
What's the basis for DF and Anandtech's assumption that the Z1's clock speeds are 1.6GHz and 800MHz for the CPU/GPU? Their entire set of conclusions regarding performance seems premised on that assumption...but MS never actually disclosed that. It's a bit strange they didn't disclose it too imho.
After all, they made a point to highlight every other area of their specs that was at parity with PS4 in an effort to draw parallels there instead of contrasts. So...why wouldn't they want to likewise include the (assumed) fact that their processors ran at the same clock?
Scott mentioned it briefly, but if MS actually did improve the bandwidth to the GPU ("almost 200GB/s" as per MS) then surely that, in conjunction with their avoidance of clock speed info, might indicate the extra data flow would be going into a GPU with slightly higher clocks than the leaks suggest?
After all, they made a point to highlight every other area of their specs that was at parity with PS4 in an effort to draw parallels there instead of contrasts. So...why wouldn't they want to likewise include the (assumed) fact that their processors ran at the same clock?
Scott mentioned it briefly, but if MS actually did improve the bandwidth to the GPU ("almost 200GB/s" as per MS) then surely that, in conjunction with their avoidance of clock speed info, might indicate the extra data flow would be going into a GPU with slightly higher clocks than the leaks suggest?
i'm thinking the ps4 may have it's own problems sourcing those cutting edge 4gb gddr5 chips they're using. could cause shortages i'm thinking.
Betanumerical
Veteran
They are assuming it due to the fact that if Microsoft had any perceived advantage they would be waving it in the air as high as they could (like last gen with the bandwidth post by major nelson
). They didn't, instead they kept it all to themselves this can be a pretty good indicator that they have the same clock speeds. I think its safe to assume they met there targets and those targets where the vgleaks specs. The 200GB/s comes from some very creative maths they are counting the eSRAM (102GB/s) the DDR3 (68GB/s) and also the CPU<->GPU interconnect (30GB/s) this adds up to more then 200GB/s.
at is just assuming vgleaks is correct. since they've proved out on everything else (which some of us knew the specs weeks before vgleaks and nobody believed us).
most people are accusing ms of fudging the bw numbers inappropriately to get from 170 to 200 gb/s. there's not really any proof of this that i know of just people saying it and the fact there's a 30gb number somewhere in the system that makes easy sense 170+30=200. kind of flimsy.
however sadly it truly seems like ms isn't caring too much about performance, and if the chip is as big as it may be and concerns about heat i'd be kind of surprised if they bothered with any overclocking. pathetically they seem in play it safe dont care about performance mode.
They are assuming it due to the fact that if Microsoft had any perceived advantage they would be waving it in the air as high as they could (like last gen with the bandwidth post by major nelson
again, i'm expecting 800mhz. but they would not have any advantage they would still be behind on flops, so your logic there isn't sound. you dont trumpet "hey, now we're behind by less!!" when you dont have to admit you're behind at all. Remember I'm speaking here of the masses that matter, not us boardies. The average person who may have heard about the xbone probably doesn't really comprehend that the XBox One is less powerful than the PS4. MS is behind so the more they can keep it a mysterious unknown black box of vague power capability (is it better than PS4? Worse? We dont know!) the better off they are. It's also possible overclocks are still in the works but not nailed down yet.
Oh and I just realized another thing, Sony never publicly stated clocks either! Only us irrelevant boardies derived them from CU's/flops. So again MS would not be trumpeting an advantage in anything, even if they had higher clocks, since there are no official PS4 clocks released to the public (and remember last gen when they downgraded the RSX+memory speed and never spoke of PS3 clocks again from that point since they didn't want to admit it).
stating as fact you know how they derived that number is just disingenuous, since you dont.
- Status
Similar threads
