While the article is interesting I don't quite have quite the same verdict.
How can you say such GPU is performing better using 2 games locked at 30fps? You can't use neither AC4 nor NFS because we will never know at which framerate those game reach on average on consoles. What was the point?
I don't recall anyone saying the 260 performed better. I said it provides a "very comparable" experience. The same graphics, resolution and frame rate in those two games is very comparable is it not?
Then we have 1 CPU bound game and 1 GPU bound game.
With BF4 (CPU bound game confirmed by devs) a 2TF GPU with a hexa core CPU at 3.5GHz performs roughly the same as the PS4 GPU (1.84TF GPU and 1.6ghz hexa core CPU).
First of all, it's a console game so there's no such thing as CPU or GPU bound. The CPU may be whats's providing the hard limit on performance but the GPU will still be pushed to it's full potential by the simple additions of graphical effects - or even more basic; resolution. The PS4 version runs at 900p. If there were any more performance left in the GPU it would run at 1080p.
So this isn't a simple matter of ignoring the GPU and focusing on the CPU. The GPU in the PS4 is clearly be pushed to it's limits to achieve the sub 1080p resolution or it would run higher (or match the PC's high graphical effects). The 260x is matching that as demonstrated in the i7 benchmarks. The AMD CPU brings performance down meaning that at least on the PC side, with that CPU there is an element of CPU bottleneck being incurred. And yes, in that circumstance the AMD CPU seems to be performing similarly to the PS4 CPU. No doubt hobbled by the DX11 overhead. I'm sure we'd see a very different picture with Mantle since the PC CPU is obviously a lot more potent.
And just for the record, I don't see the value in claiming the 260 is a 2TF GPU while ignoring it's other specs. It's as if you're trying to show that even with more power the PC GPU can only just keep up whereas in reality, the PC GPU while (almost) 2TF actually only has 70% of the PS4's fill rate and 60% of it's memory bandwidth so getting as close as it does it a big achievement.
With COD (GPU bound game), a 2TF GPU doesn't not even compete at 720p with the X1 1.2TF GPU (and X1 GPU has less bandwidth than the 2TF GPU on PC).
Umm, this is flat out wrong. I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from but the 260 has only
38% of the X1's bandwidth when you include the eSRAM which you obviously must. So while the 260 is a much more powerful GPU than the one in the X1, it's clearly strangled by a lack of bandwidth and that could easily account for the difference in framerate - which incidentally at 720p (same res as X1) is only about 10fps.
Again, to come that close in performance with only a little over 1/3rd of the bandwidth is a great achievement.
I would conclude that, if you only wanted to compare the GPUs; the GPU on consoles could already perform almost twice better than an equivalent GPU on PC and that using the console with theorically bad drivers which will be as much updated than the drivers on PC.
And what a bizarre conclusion that would be given the available evidence.
