NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*

[Shifty Geezer]

The Durango suffers in the long term as a consequence of Sony's lies and deceit. It's just not fair.

Nice, unfounded, wishful-thinking conspiracy theory there. Do you really believe that Sony's approach to dealing with its professional partners in the games industry is sending them fake devkits to trick the opposition? And now MS have been duped and, the fools, under spec'd their machine because their entire business strategy was 'ask our mates at Activision what Sony are doing and up the specs a bit,' and now gamers the world over suffer?

 

[Love_In_Rio]

Sony greatly deceived 3rd parties this time around. Supposedly Ubisoft and Activision, as well as others were led to believe that the PS4 would be a low power A10 equivalent, that had access to 2GB of unified DDR3 ram.
Microsoft probably developed the Durango to exceed that.

I just think that this is not fair, even if Ubisoft and Activision were leaking information to MS, Sony should have been more honest. I expect the next Ubisoft and Activision titles to not use any additional PS4 processing power at all because of this. They were played hard.
The Durango suffers in the long term as a consequence of Sony's lies and deceit. It's just not fair.

Sure they must have been think it would be DDR3 all the time, when the 192GBs bandwitdth was in the target specs since middle of 2011. Quite the contrary, at least, the bandwitdh has been downgraded to 176GBs.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Nice, unfounded, wishful-thinking conspiracy theory there. Do you really believe that Sony's approach to dealing with its professional partners in the games industry is sending them fake devkits to trick the opposition? And now MS have been duped and, the fools, under spec'd their machine because their entire business strategy was 'ask our mates at Activision what Sony are doing and up the specs a bit,' and now gamers the world over suffer?

Actually, I could see it happening. We've done the same thing at work. Put out word that weird developing x and deliver 2x instead. The situation is a little different, but this is not totally unbelievable.

 

[babybumb]

32 vs 16 ROPS?

 

[McHuj]

32 vs 16 ROPS?

I'm going to guess that with either 68 (or only 102 GB/sec from embedded RAM), more ROPs wouldn't really buy you anything?

 

[sir doris]

Sony greatly deceived 3rd parties this time around. Supposedly Ubisoft and Activision, as well as others were led to believe that the PS4 would be a low power A10 equivalent, that had access to 2GB of unified DDR3 ram.
Microsoft probably developed the Durango to exceed that.

I just think that this is not fair, even if Ubisoft and Activision were leaking information to MS, Sony should have been more honest. I expect the next Ubisoft and Activision titles to not use any additional PS4 processing power at all because of this. They were played hard.
The Durango suffers in the long term as a consequence of Sony's lies and deceit. It's just not fair.

Early dev kits are not about final performance but getting things running, look at the posts talking about the revisions the 360 dev kits went through, ATi 9800Pro, Ati X800 then finally the real X360 GPU.

 

[Love_In_Rio]

32 vs 16 ROPS?

yes.

 

[stofcri]

So you really believe that MS knew about it, and still designed the Durango the way it is?
Now I believe that you must be joking.
MS would have never given up VRAM bandwidth advantage, believe that.

SONY doesn't have anything to do with MS choices.MS wants to conquer the casual market with kinect 2.0 as Nintendo did in 2007,but what they don't know(MS) is that this market is already conquered by one manufacturer ,MS has a mature image not a childish one like Nintendo with their Zelda,Mario,Luigi and Donkey Kong games.

 

[Bagel seed]

If the notion that MS was tricked into lowering their spec to match a fake (or maybe just interim) Orbis kit is true, that would be the greatest troll of all time.

I think both happened to have similar targets as seen from the rumors. Whether or not either company has revealed all its cards yet is another thing.

 

[deanos]

50% less FLOPS and half the number of ROPS.
what the hell?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

50% less FLOPS and half the number of ROPS.
what the hell?

What's 50% out of 1.84TF?

 

[function]

50% less FLOPS

Where are you getting this from?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Where are you getting this from?

He simply doesn't know how to calculate percentages. One of many

 

[deanos]

my bad O_O

 

[DuckThor Evil]

my bad O_O

Well no worries, the difference is significant anyway.

 

[function]

ROPS and render BW are one area where the Durango might actually have some SS to help mitigate the less ripped hardware:

Durango has no video memory (VRAM) in the traditional sense, but the GPU does contain 32 MB of fast embedded SRAM (ESRAM). ESRAM on Durango is free from many of the restrictions that affect EDRAM on Xbox 360. Durango supports the following scenarios:

Texturing from ESRAM
Rendering to surfaces in main RAM
Read back from render targets without performing a resolve (in certain cases)



The difference in throughput between ESRAM and main RAM is moderate: 102.4 GB/sec versus 68 GB/sec. The advantages of ESRAM are lower latency and lack of contention from other memory clients—for instance the CPU, I/O, and display output. Low latency is particularly important for sustaining peak performance of the color blocks (CBs) and depth blocks (DBs).

So it looks like the esram is intended (or at least suggested) for buffers, and the low latency nature of it should help with effective fill. Also:

Antialiasing

The Durango GPU supports 2x, 4x, and 8x MSAA levels. It also implements a modified type of MSAA known as compressed AA. Compressed AA decouples two notions of sample:

Coverage sample–One of several screenspace positions generated by rasterization of one pixel
Surface sample– One of several entries representing a single pixel in a color or depth/stencil surface



Traditionally, coverage samples and surface samples match up one to one. In standard 4xMSAA, for example, a triangle may cover from zero to four samples of any given pixel, and a depth and a color are recorded for each covered sample.

Under compressed AA, there can be more coverage samples than surface samples. In other words, a triangle may still cover several screenspace locations per pixel, but the GPU does not allocate enough render target space to store a unique depth and color for each location. Hardware logic determines how to combine data from multiple coverage samples. In areas of the screen with extensive subpixel detail, this data reduction process is lossy, but the errors are generally unobjectionable. Compressed AA combines most of the quality benefits of high MSAA levels with the relaxed space requirements of lower MSAA levels.

Hooray! Subsamples live on, even if in a bastardised form! Take that pixel popping post process AA!

Of course, maybe the PS4 will have this too ...

 

[Arwin]

So you really believe that MS knew about it, and still designed the Durango the way it is?
Now I believe that you must be joking.
MS would have never given up VRAM bandwidth advantage, believe that.

Not even if a primary concern would be making backward compatibility easier?

 

[AlNom]

ROPS

...

Hooray! Subsamples live on, even if in a bastardised form! Take that pixel popping post process AA!

Of course, maybe the PS4 will have this too ...

It's just bog standard Radeon capabilities.

 

[patsu]

I know this has been answered before. With next gen starting, is there any way to remove shader alias, like the distracting shimmering in GT5, completely ?

 

[Prophecy2k]

Hooray! Subsamples live on, even if in a bastardised form! Take that pixel popping post process AA!

Of course, maybe the PS4 will have this too ...

Does this exist in any current AMD GPUs?

If not I would assume this may indeed be one of Durango's Secret Sauces - Debunk'd (see above)
Edit:

Thanks AlStrong for clearing that one up real quick ;-)