If they are CPU bound why would Sony spend money on GPU resources that can't be accessed? I agree they have the same CPU but they don't have the same bandwidth and I think that is key to understanding the engineering decisions regarding the GPU.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
If they are CPU bound why would Sony spend money on GPU resources that can't be accessed? I agree they have the same CPU but they don't have the same bandwidth and I think that is key to understanding the engineering decisions regarding the GPU.
You don't know that is a free statement with next to no ground / a generalization of some more specific comments made by some members as ERP (among others).
The One should shine in sound processing, the features set is not the same imo, the One seems to offer more than PS4 outside of gaming.
Well the situation is not the same at all what remains the same is people biases we have 2 systems (unreleased on top of that), that are different and already it seems that only parity is acceptable, imo that is not rational.
upnorthsox
Veteran
Well that could be for 360 XBL, XB1 XBL could be another charge.
Or XBL could go up to say $120/yr which cuts your years in half or more or leave you owing every year with a disconnect and loss if you don't.
Are you really listing things like jack and Dexter collection, little big planet karting, ratchet and clank collection as part of Sony's superior first party publishing? PlayStation move heroes? Hahaha. I've seen it all. Half the games on your list go into the bargain bins at retailers upon release.
Ridiculous.
I took that as a desperate attempt at holding on to the possibility that the performance difference might not be as bad as the numbers suggest. As I pointed out, the numbers do not take in consideration other factors where MS is restricting their machine beyond what Sony are at the moment (ram usage, cpu usage, VM, no low level access, etc)
Like I said, it all boils down to MS wanting to branch out (which is fine), but sacrificing the gaming hardware to get there.
Another reason that MS' stance WRT hardware design pisses me off:
This past gen we saw many good developers die off due to rising dev costs. A good chunk of that is taking time to find workarounds for fx and lighting and fit them into the processing budget.
With more powerful hardware, devs can focus more on content, less on crunching their vision to the machine and actually decrease dev costs.
voxel lighting anyone?
If a city only has a 1000 cars max just because you raise the speed limit and widen the freeway doesn't mean you improved the commute. Maybe 4 lanes was enough and 8 is overkill.
If the highway system were altogether redesigned to funnel only necessary traffic onto certain roads and reduce the amount of cars on the main highway, you also don't need to widen the highway. The amount of cars are static either way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Betanumerical
Veteran
Except on a console theres nothing stopping you from using GPGPU for whatever you feel like? also do you really think Sony hasn't thought about this and you are the only one to catch it? they employ people who's literal job is to make this design.
And have said as much before in other threads. Sony knew about the cpu limitation thus was being floated the whole 4cu's for compute semi rumor.
Do you think Ms didn't have the same information and was comfortable with their design choice? MS has more money than Sony and AMD... they could have easily built a "better gpu". But the apu also has a cpu which is identical to the competitions. That is probably the main limiting factor on both machine outside of a robust gpgpu implementation..
I think this list speaks for itself, and not necessarily in a good way. And Killzone trilogy, Ratchet and Clank collection, Jak and Daxter collection, same, is obviously not new. Then take Move games out...
If Microsoft was the one prone to HD collections, I can just imagine all the whining "oh no not more of this regurgitated crap, F U Microsoft" and "this is why you took out BC just so you could sell us the same old crap again, why dont you make a new IP Microsoft"
Also, ahh yes listing PSN only games like Journey/Unfinished Swan (I wasn't aware that game actually came out, shrug). XBLA has tons and tons and tons of exclusives. Summer of Arcade had 4 big ones in a row.
I would say exclusive and/or first party title for title Sony doesn't have NEAR the lead people act like. It's usually maybe a difference of 1-3 triple A games per year if that.
People just dont give MS any credit. MS had a better exclusives year in 2010 nobody talked about it. But 2011 just got hammered with the message "MS sucks no games". Then sony completely abandoning the second half of 2012 was also not criticized.
But this argument assumes that with a given information available to both Sony and MS, MS made a better decision whereas Sony did not. It doesnt sound very reasonable to me unless Sony is incompetent.
Its more likely that both had different reasons for choosing their hardware.
There is some evidence that Nintendo, Sony, MS, all can be incompetent...I dont want to troll but particularly Nintendo recently.
In this case the incompetence is more likely on MS part for not splurging for 2-6 more CU's.
Betanumerical
Veteran
So now 4cu compute is a semi rumour? what?. Sony pointing out that you can use 4 CU for compute and 14 for Graphics shouldn't be surprising to anyone.
Microsoft went for a cheaper machine which would cost less over its life time then Sony did. You are suggesting that Sony is so incompetent that they ignored the feedback they would have gotten from game developers during the machines growth when things could of actually changed, not only this, but Sony knows so little about console design and are so new to the idea that they cannot even reasonably estimate that a CPU is going to be 'major limitation' of the console they are designing.
My I ask you why you think that the CPU is going to be a limitation, because as you should know the driver for consoles is much thinner and thus probably takes up much less CPU time.
Sony would really have to be in the pits to be bested by a random fourmnite on their own console design.
What? With the silicon budget and DDR3 choice early on they had no way to put a better GPU when you needed ESRAM to fit there
hunh? ESRAM was part of the engineering decision when looking at the cost of RAM. Its like either expand the highway or create a metro transit rail. People still get downtown but you alleviate/eliminate pressure on one mode of transportation for whatever reasons exist (cost, engineering, space).
I'm not necessarily saying Sony made a bad decision or that they are incompetent. In fact I never referenced them at all. What I did say was you have a limited number of bits in both cases to manipulate. In both cases both companies found ways to manage the exact same number of bits in different ways.
If MS' decisions in terms of bandwidth and RAM and CUs can efficiently handle the total output of the 8 core jaguar then they didnt need to more CUs. Psychologically Sony won the dick measuring contest by making people feel like more = better but thats not necessarily the case.
Xbone has less cu not because of the cpu but because of the early decision to use 8 gb ram and going with esram and move engines to alleviate the bandwidth issue. There apu is already massive in fact maybe to big for the performance you going to get from it.
They chose early to be an all in one box and new they would need 8 gb of ram and they couldn't rely on gddr5 or they were targeting an earlier launch, so they went with ddr3.
Before the ps4 reveal all the so called experts were saying there's no way sony could have 8 gb gddr5.
They chose early to be an all in one box and new they would need 8 gb of ram and they couldn't rely on gddr5 or they were targeting an earlier launch, so they went with ddr3.
Before the ps4 reveal all the so called experts were saying there's no way sony could have 8 gb gddr5.
I believe the ESRAM serves two purposes, It helps with augment the DDR3's lower bandwidth, and also helps keep the CU's more efficiently utilised. Thus whilst it certainly can't make up for the whole deficit, it can be put to good use in making what looks like a chasm between the two look more like a ditch..
Sony have a much more general purpose design which I prefer myself, it just seems easier and more flexible to however you want to approach your game engine, but I also think that MS haven't been totally foolish, they've just gone a step backwards and headed slighlty down the specialisation route (ESRAM/DME/SHAPE/etc).
I will just wait for the games and see with my own eyes, although if any dev working on both wants to share their experiences, that'd work..
I believe the ESRAM serves two purposes, It helps with augment the DDR3's lower bandwidth, and also helps keep the CU's more efficiently utilised. Thus whilst it certainly can't make up for the whole deficit, it can be put to good use in making what looks like a chasm between the two look more like a ditch..
Sony have a much more general purpose design which I prefer myself, it just seems easier and more flexible to however you want to approach your game engine, but I also think that MS haven't been totally foolish, they've just gone a step backwards and headed slighlty down the specialisation route (ESRAM/DME/SHAPE/etc).
I will just wait for the games and see with my own eyes, although if any dev working on both wants to share their experiences, that'd work..
+1 sir
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
I believe the ESRAM serves two purposes, It helps with augment the DDR3's lower bandwidth, and also helps keep the CU's more efficiently utilised. Thus whilst it certainly can't make up for the whole deficit, it can be put to good use in making what looks like a chasm between the two look more like a ditch..
Sony have a much more general purpose design which I prefer myself, it just seems easier and more flexible to however you want to approach your game engine, but I also think that MS haven't been totally foolish, they've just gone a step backwards and headed slighlty down the specialisation route (ESRAM/DME/SHAPE/etc).
I will just wait for the games and see with my own eyes, although if any dev working on both wants to share their experiences, that'd work..
Well, in the end it is still like the Ps4 was a X1 with a Wiiu -or more as i doubt Wiiu has more than 400 GFlops- tapped together for computing.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually, specialization is the only forward direction, according to a number of chip designers. As you reduce transistor size, you get more leakage, which results in cases of not being able to power your entire chip at smaller process levels. Look up "dark silicon". Not saying it applies here, but unless something major changes in chip design in the next few years, we'll be getting systems that contain specialized hardware instead of just more general purpose transistors.
I don't necessarely disagree, just wanted to point out that ESRAM isn't completely trade-off free. It's transistor expensive - transistors that especially could be used for other things, like more CUs like in Sonys case. It's a simple tradeoff. One doesn't balance out the other.
The ESRAM, as good as it is to solve part of the bandwidth requirements, also leaves less room for computational resources.
As others have pointed out - in the design phases, it was more sensible to go with high memory and a ESRAM solution, than to bet on (too) expensive / lower capacity GDDR5 memory that may or may not be available in the timewindow you want to launch. Sony struck gold, because they clearly didn't think they would be anywhere near as close to offer the same amount of memory. How much will the "paper-difference" turn out to be on the screen? Depends on the software IMO - but as always in such cases, a lot will be down to subjectivity and how critical the user will be looking.
The biggest draw-back to launching with less performance is IMO not the fact that you are, but more perhaps in image and how news like this spreads. There is a bit of damage if the general acceptance is that one is "better" than the other in technical terms. I also believe that general consumers are becoming more aware of technical-specs (no matter how ineffective they are at giving a true picture) thanks to an increased interest in tablets and smartphones where specs are thrown around with every new model that comes out. Won't matter to the loyal brand enthusiast but perhaps will sway the one or the other neutral undecided customer if he isn't associated to any specific platform and simply wants the "best" purchase for himself or his kids.
I would also agree though, that features and overall business model would / could have a bigger impact than specs - but this is still yet difficult to assess, since little is known about Sony's features outside of gaming and Microsofts true support to games.
