One should separate capable technical prowess from production values. All Sony exclusives look the way they do because of the amazing amount of funding and time they are given to constantly retool and re-work the games, all for one type of configuration.
You've missed the spirit of the argument. Let's say every game on XB1 is a million times slower at draw calls than PS4*. Does that result in games being one million times slower in their refresh rate? No. So the real question is given a piece of hardware, comparing to-the-metal coding versus fully BC APIs, what is the real cost in game performance on that hardware? If it's 50%, if games run half the speed using an API, then no-one wants it in a console. If it's 15%, some will accept the sacrifice, preferring games to have slightly tuned down effects and features for a persistent library. If it's 1%, there's no reason not to use fat APIs and have your library portable across generations. Even moreso when the BC question affects hardware considerations, and to-the-metal coding gets up maybe +15% performance this gen but -20% next gen because your hardware is having to use legacy features, and then an additional 15% drop in relative performance to the previous generation when you switch to fatter APIs so you don't have that problem next time around...
Indeed. I do believe those older nvidia keplers are likely going to have a trouble keeping up now that games were advancing towards more compute
I don't know when they got async compute running better, but that could be part of the reason.
I am missing the spirit of the discussion, you keep raising questions that the Digital Foundry interview with 4A Games answers so I'll bow out here. There are plenty of technical articles looking at the relative overheads of APIs. Speculation is unnecessary. Sure, APIs have evolved over the last few years, but I've seen nothing to evidence that there has been a radical performance leap ahead of where we were just a few years back.
Doom is not dx12 and on what cpu is it running equally?
Poor yields would be bad for AMD. There is no way that Sony (or Microsoft) do not have a contract clause covering yield/cost ratios. It is also bad for Sony as it may restrict the number of consoles but we've known that for over a month. I wonder would could cause bad yields and given AMD's future tech is predicated on clocking higher, is this issue going to bone all of AMD's future output?
Sort of a variable target though. If you are looking for the cream of the crop chip and not getting as many, you're bound to have poorer yields than a lower binned chip.
