Support NeoGAF

[BrainZEROX]

I was wondering. Considering how close both architectures are, what would happen if a developer said "fuck ESRAM, I have no time to deal with it by launch day" and slapped PS4 code in XB1, resolving the calls to whatever API Sony uses with whatever Microsoft uses and only made it work within DDR3? Could it explain the unexpected difference in rendering we see in COD Ghost (in non final code, more than twice the XB1 graphic output for PS4 instead of 40~50% more)?

 

[viveks86]

Jack_AG
Banned
(Today, 09:11 AM)

Now you see him, now you don't! RIP

 

[kitch9]

I was wondering. Considering how close both architectures are, what would happen if a developer said "fuck ESRAM, I have no time to deal with it by launch day" and slapped PS4 code in XB1, resolving the calls to whatever API Sony uses with whatever Microsoft uses and only made it work within DDR3? Could it explain the unexpected difference in rendering we see in COD Ghost (in non final code, more than twice the XB1 graphic output for PS4 instead of 40~50% more)?

No.

That's not how it works.

 

[JackAubrey]

I personally am pretty shocked none of the podcasts I listen to made anything of this issue really. Keep hearing the same shit - it's early, it's not a huge difference, the majority of gamers won't care. Really disappointing to hear. IT COSTS MORE AND DELIVERS LESS FOLKS.

It costs more because you are also buying Kinect. You may not want a Kinect, but that's the price difference.

 

[BrainZEROX]

No.

That's not how it works.

Why wouldn't it? Dice said that its BF4 code is mostly identical from one platform to another. Only very specific part are different.

 

[StealthGoblin]

It costs more because you are also buying Kinect. You may not want a Kinect, but that's the price difference.

Even without Kinect its weaker hardware.

 

[JackAubrey]

Even without Kinect its weaker hardware.

True. But that doesn't mean it necessarily costs less to make than PS4. You're not charged per pixel.

 

[ambar_hitman]

What if they upscale to 4K and then downscale to 1080p? Then they can say "it's running on 4K but your tv suck"

This made me LOL.

And yeah, someone mentioned Bethesda. It will be really interesting when they release their first next gen game. They were really lazy when it comes to PS3. Fallout NV and Skyrim were terrible on PS3.

 

[Feorax]

True. But that doesn't mean it necessarily costs less to make than PS4. You're not charged per pixel.

Which is fine, but since MS flat out refuses to release a Kinectless version right now, you're still paying $100 more for a less powerful machine.

Unless you're buying the machine with the express intention of using Kinect, the value proposition of the XBO is dogshit, and lets be honest, MS has yet to show anything to justify kinect 2.0's existence, let alone why it should be a pack in.

 

[Alchemy]

Funny thing is the Studio that worries me the most is Bethesda, I LOVE their RPG's, but they don't seem to want to mess around with exotic programming to get out performance as evidenced by their half-assed PS3 efforts, something tells me THIS generation the XBO is going to get the PS3 treatment.

Their problem is mostly RAM, something the PS3 had a really awkward set up for (split RAM, and how the Cell accessed the memory). Both systems have 5GB free, which should be more than enough for Bethesda either way.

 

[Bossofman]

Which is fine, but since MS flat out refuses to release a Kinectless version right now, you're still paying $100 more for a less powerful machine.

Unless you're buying the machine with the express intention of using Kinect, the value proposition of the XBO is dogshit, and lets be honest, MS has yet to show anything to justify kinect 2.0's existence, let alone why it should be a pack in.

Absolutely, you force this thing and don't even have a couple AMAZING games to show it off? It should come with a great Kinect pack in game at the very least.

 

[Nymphae]

It costs more because you are also buying Kinect. You may not want a Kinect, but that's the price difference.

Sure. Still costs more and isn't as powerful. If it cost the same and wasn't as powerful, I'd still expect the press to acknowledge this, rather than simply downplay it as meaningless to anyone outside of Gaf.

 

[JackAubrey]

Which is fine, but since MS flat out refuses to release a Kinectless version right now, you're still paying $100 more for a less powerful machine.

Unless you're buying the machine with the express intention of using Kinect, the value proposition of the XBO is dogshit, and lets be honest, MS has yet to show anything to justify kinect 2.0's existence, let alone why it should be a pack in.

I don't dispute any of that. My point was more about the price difference ignoring the cost of Kinect, not whether it was a good move on the part of Microsoft. I expect the profit margins both systems is similar.

 

[CoG]

It costs more because you are also buying Kinect. You may not want a Kinect, but that's the price difference.

They stand a chance if they release a $349 version without Kinect. Right now they are kind of screwed. Pre-order number are tilting heavily towards the PS4 -- and that's in the US. Without FIFA in the EU they would be doomed.

And if anyone is having a hard time believing a product as strong as the Xbox could be botched and that it's not going to hurt the brand just remember Vista. Before it launched Microsoft fanboys were giving the same smug arguments as to why it would not be a failure (strong brand name, loyalty, ecosystem).

 

[marc^o^]

Even without Kinect its weaker hardware.

This is what I don't get: knowing PS4 is basically a rather simple PC design, why didn't MS engineers match it? Did their insiders/hardware partners provided wrong informations on what Sony was cooking?

 

[Alchemy]

I don't dispute any of that. My point was more about the price difference ignoring the cost of Kinect, not whether it was a good move on the part of Microsoft. I expect the profit margins both systems is similar.

Isn't Sony losing about $60 on each PS4 sold? I believe Microsoft was trying really hard to sell the Xbone at a profit since this generation is all about avoiding losing tons of money like the Original Xbox or early years of the 360.

 

[spwolf]

True. But that doesn't mean it necessarily costs less to make than PS4. You're not charged per pixel.

right, so MS made bad technological decisions which have led them to this position now - they have $100 higher price for hardware that PS4 outperforms by up to 125%.

I dont think we as customers should worry about big corporation profit margins, so I dont really care what they produce them at - I care how much I pay for it and what I get for my money.

 

[JackAubrey]

This is what I don't get: knowing PS4 is basically a rather simple PC design, why didn't MS engineers match it? Did their insiders/hardware partners provided wrong informations on what Sony was cooking?

I don't understand this either. I get the whole memory thing - Sony took a gamble on the memory which luckily paid off. But I don't know why the Xbox graphics processor couldn't be as powerful, unless the die size is limited due to other systems. I wonder what the performence of a 4GB PS4 would have been compared to Xbox One.

 

[CoG]

This is what I don't get: knowing PS4 is basically a rather simple PC design, why didn't MS engineers match it? Did their insiders/hardware partners provided wrong informations on what Sony was cooking?

It all goes back the the DDR3. Microsoft wanted a system with 8GB. At the time GDDR5 was a huge risk, so they designed a system around DDR3 and had to dedicate a huge chunk of their SOC to the ESRAM. The ESRAM size cut into their GPU die budget so they had to design a weaker GPU with less shaders, texture units, ROPs, and ACEs. They also could not put more then 32MB of ESRAM in or even more GPU components would need to be cut. Then theirs the OS overhead with 10% of the GPU being allocated to non-gaming features like Snap.

I think MS were bamboozled into thinking the PS4 would ship with either 4GB of DDR3 or something like 2GB DDR3 and 2GB of GDDR5 so they felt confident in their design. If Sony went with either design it would be a lot more like this gen with the difference between consoles being a few thousand pixels output delta on cross-platform games and a few frames advantage here and there. As it stands the initial speculation is correct. The PS4 is ~50% more capable.

 

[DBT85]

I don't understand this either. I get the whole memory thing - Sony took a gamble on the memory which luckily paid off. But I don't know why the Xbox graphics processor couldn't be as powerful, unless the die size is limited due to other systems. I wonder what the performence of a 4GB PS4 would have been compared to Xbox One.

The Xbone APU had to include the large chunk of ESRAM, which took away from the GPU. It's quite literally that simple. They had other options, but as soon as they were sure of on APU ESRAM, the GPU was going to get gimped to accommodate it.

 

[BrainZEROX]

I don't understand this either. I get the whole memory thing - Sony took a gamble on the memory which luckily paid off. But I don't know why the Xbox graphics processor couldn't be as powerful, unless the die size is limited due to other systems. I wonder what the performence of a 4GB PS4 would have been compared to Xbox One.

The die size is limited. The problem for MS is that they had to move ESRAM into the APU, eating in the transistor budget they could allocate to the GPU. Sony didn't have to do that, hence a bigger GPU because they had a bigger share of transistors available for it (basically).

-> M-M-M-Muuuuulti-burnt ***Unreal Tournament voiceover***

 

[JackAubrey]

Thanks for the almost identical replies.

So do we think a 4GB PS4 would have had similar performance to XB1 despite their different er... balance?

 

[DBT85]

Thanks for the almost identical replies.

So do we think a 4GB PS4 would have had similar performance to XB1 despite their different er... balance?

Was debated heavily for some time. I think the final answer was, we don't know

Though with the ESRAM seemingly a fat chunk of the Xbones issues, it possible the SP4 might still have edged it, but with less ram to use it might have caused issues.

 

[Biker19]

This is what I don't get: knowing PS4 is basically a rather simple PC design, why didn't MS engineers match it? Did their insiders/hardware partners provided wrong informations on what Sony was cooking?

They were more concerned about trying to be an "All-in-One entertainment/media hub/Kinect 2 box" more so than trying to have better specs.

Because of that, it's gonna wind up biting them in the rear in future multiplat titles in comparison to PS4's.

 

[Bossofman]

Thanks for the almost identical replies.

So do we think a 4GB PS4 would have had similar performance to XB1 despite their different er... balance?

I think an 8gb XBO would have stacked up nicely, especially later in the gen when they could leverage the ram advantage.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Thanks for the almost identical replies.

So do we think a 4GB PS4 would have had similar performance to XB1 despite their different er... balance?

If everything being equal, the overall performance would still be more powerful than the One at 4GB, that's just memory set-up, and not the GPU processing power. In fact the original 4GB GDDR5 version of the PS4 had even faster bandwidth than it does now.

Going 8GB meant MS had to use a good chunk of chip space for the ESRAM giving up GPU horse power.

 

[JackAubrey]

I think an 8gb XBO would have stacked up nicely, especially later in the gen when they could leverage the ram advantage.

Probably right. To me XB1 seems like a good machine seen in isolation. Alas for MS not the machine mmany gamers wanted, and Sony obliged there. It's going to be a very interesting year.

I've got both preordered in any case.

 

[Bossofman]

Probably right. To me XB1 seems like a good machine seen in isolation. Alas for MS not the machine mmany gamers wanted, and Sony obliged there. It's going to be a very interesting year.

I've got both preordered in any case.

Yup don't forget in a case between a 4gb PS4 vs 8gb XBO, what it really would be is a 3gb vs 6gb system once you account for OS overhead. you could do more services with that extra gig, plus I can see games in the future needing say more then three but less then six gigs for max performance. Alas, this is a moot point.

 

[Halvie]

It all goes back the the DDR3. Microsoft wanted a system with 8GB. At the time GDDR5 was a huge risk, so they designed a system around DDR3 and had to dedicate a huge chunk of their SOC to the ESRAM. The ESRAM size cut into their GPU die budget so they had to design a weaker GPU with less shaders, texture units, ROPs, and ACEs. They also could not put more then 32MB of ESRAM in or even more GPU components would need to be cut. Then theirs the OS overhead with 10% of the GPU being allocated to non-gaming features like Snap.

I think MS were bamboozled into thinking the PS4 would ship with either 4GB of DDR3 or something like 2GB DDR3 and 2GB of GDDR5 so they felt confident in their design. If Sony went with either design it would be a lot more like this gen with the difference between consoles being a few thousand pixels output delta on cross-platform games and a few frames advantage here and there. As it stands the initial speculation is correct. The PS4 is ~50% more capable.

How big of a risk was it really?

 

[BigDug13]

It all goes back the the DDR3. Microsoft wanted a system with 8GB. At the time GDDR5 was a huge risk, so they designed a system around DDR3 and had to dedicate a huge chunk of their SOC to the ESRAM. The ESRAM size cut into their GPU die budget so they had to design a weaker GPU with less shaders, texture units, ROPs, and ACEs. They also could not put more then 32MB of ESRAM in or even more GPU components would need to be cut. Then theirs the OS overhead with 10% of the GPU being allocated to non-gaming features like Snap.

I think MS were bamboozled into thinking the PS4 would ship with either 4GB of DDR3 or something like 2GB DDR3 and 2GB of GDDR5 so they felt confident in their design. If Sony went with either design it would be a lot more like this gen with the difference between consoles being a few thousand pixels output delta on cross-platform games and a few frames advantage here and there. As it stands the initial speculation is correct. The PS4 is ~50% more capable.

Unified memory is great, but it seems like 8GB unified DDR3 with ESRAM is inferior to even 4GB DDR3 for CPU and 4GB GDDR5 for GPU design.

The higher resolutions basically scream for something faster than DDR3.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Really?

They acknowledge that the ps3 version has some kind of crap post processing.

They discover that deleting the 1.02 update removes the blurriness.

New update rolls out that removes the blurriness. Moving from 360 to ps3 is "still like wiping away grease"

Since there is no post processing going on when the update was posted, and the ps3 version still looked "greasy", the only thing they were reffering to was the resolution.

I disagree with you. I think in the IGN multiplayer comparisons you can see a big difference when the game is actually running. The aliasing for me is such a turn off in the XB1 version. And I'm not talking about power lines. I'm talking about edges of boxes, buildings, etc.

 

[Jedi2016]

The higher resolutions basically scream for something faster than DDR3.

And they've got it... a jaw-dropping 32MB of screaming fast ESRAM. More than enough to do... I dunno... um... fish?

My TV's got a hell of a scaler in it... everything's 1080p now, right? brb, gonna go play some PS1 games at 1080p.

 

[kaching]

How big of a risk was it really?

You know, that's actually a great question, considering that all signs right now point to MS not really being all that ready for a 2013 launch.

 

[DBT85]

You know, that's actually a great question, considering that all signs right now point to MS not really being all that ready for a 2013 launch.

But also that Sony may have been helping out with getting 4gb GDDR5 chips going.

MS may well have just not seen a world where those existed prior to the Xbone launching.

 

[Kalren]

How big of a risk was it really?

The cost risk was big enough that Microsoft didn't go with it. Their own price forecasts anticipated that the costs wouldn't drop fast enough to allow 8GB at a reasonable cost. Even Sony was only going to have 4 GB of GDDR5 up until the last minute. When Sony announce 8 GB of GDDR5, it was a stunner to developers who were working in anticipation of a 4GB limit. This included Sony 1st party.

 

[Halvie]

You know, that's actually a great question, considering that all signs right now point to MS not really being all that ready for a 2013 launch.

Price of memory over the life of a console vs what seems to be them risking the entire brand.

Doesn't actually seem like much of a risk. If PS4 is profitable day 1, it actually seems like a joke.

I sort of want to cancel both preorders.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

Isn't Sony losing about $60 on each PS4 sold? I believe Microsoft was trying really hard to sell the Xbone at a profit since this generation is all about avoiding losing tons of money like the Original Xbox or early years of the 360.

I guess the Xbox has to make up for the money MS loses on other devices like surface and I believe even bing which is a huge loss. Correct me if I'm wrong please

 

[Sean*O]

It all goes back the the DDR3. Microsoft wanted a system with 8GB. At the time GDDR5 was a huge risk, so they designed a system around DDR3 and had to dedicate a huge chunk of their SOC to the ESRAM. The ESRAM size cut into their GPU die budget so they had to design a weaker GPU with less shaders, texture units, ROPs, and ACEs. They also could not put more then 32MB of ESRAM in or even more GPU components would need to be cut. Then theirs the OS overhead with 10% of the GPU being allocated to non-gaming features like Snap.

I think MS were bamboozled into thinking the PS4 would ship with either 4GB of DDR3 or something like 2GB DDR3 and 2GB of GDDR5 so they felt confident in their design. If Sony went with either design it would be a lot more like this gen with the difference between consoles being a few thousand pixels output delta on cross-platform games and a few frames advantage here and there. As it stands the initial speculation is correct. The PS4 is ~50% more capable.

Good explanation, and it seems that power gap translates to an even larger real world gap since we will be seeing resolution differences of ~125% in favor of the PS4 while still running more effects and AA. The 32MB ESRAM is not going to be enough it seems. The PS4 really has the xbone over a barrel from just about every possible angle.

 

[vcc]

How big of a risk was it really?

Most people including Sony first parties thought the Ps4 would only have 4GB. Not sure how that boils down to odds but while planning he XB1 they made 8GB a high priority.

 

[Halvie]

Most people including Sony first parties thought the Ps4 would only have 4GB. Not sure how that boils down to odds but while planning he XB1 they made 8GB a high priority.

I get that. Don't really care. 720p COD after an 8 year cycle just isn't acceptable.

Spoiler

ps4 preorder canceled. still have xbox preordered, but decent change that will also get canceled.

 

[Curufinwe]

It all goes back the the DDR3. Microsoft wanted a system with 8GB. At the time GDDR5 was a huge risk, so they designed a system around DDR3 and had to dedicate a huge chunk of their SOC to the ESRAM. The ESRAM size cut into their GPU die budget so they had to design a weaker GPU with less shaders, texture units, ROPs, and ACEs. They also could not put more then 32MB of ESRAM in or even more GPU components would need to be cut. Then theirs the OS overhead with 10% of the GPU being allocated to non-gaming features like Snap.

I think MS were bamboozled into thinking the PS4 would ship with either 4GB of DDR3 or something like 2GB DDR3 and 2GB of GDDR5 so they felt confident in their design. If Sony went with either design it would be a lot more like this gen with the difference between consoles being a few thousand pixels output delta on cross-platform games and a few frames advantage here and there. As it stands the initial speculation is correct. The PS4 is ~50% more capable.

This is a good summation of what we gave known for more than six months, even as most of the press persisted with with the almost identical narrative.

 

[vcc]

I get that. Don't really care. 720p COD after an 8 year cycle just isn't acceptable.

Spoiler

ps4 preorder canceled. still have xbox preordered, but decent change that will also get canceled.

I don't get that logic (PS4 CoD is 1080p). but sure if that's what you want roll with it. I'm sure you'll be happy with your XB1 just as much as I will be with my PS4. Games will be better than this gen on both and they both have their own flavor of game ecosystems.

 

[Halvie]

I don't get that logic (PS4 CoD is 1080p). but sure if that's what you want roll with it. I'm sure you'll be happy with your XB1 just as much as I will be with my PS4. Games will be better than this gen on both and they both have their own flavor of game ecosystems.

The PS4 launch lineup is terrible. Killzone does look amazing, as pretty much all of them have, but I don't find them fun to play. I'll probably pick one up later when there are more games out.

Couldn't care less about COD or BF. My problem is that COD looks current gen. If they can't even get 1080p out of a game that ugly, I feel like they shouldn't get my money. This small of a performance jump after 8 years feels like a slap in the face.

 

[IdiotMyshkin]

Sure. Still costs more and isn't as powerful. If it cost the same and wasn't as powerful, I'd still expect the press to acknowledge this, rather than simply downplay it as meaningless to anyone outside of Gaf.

I've been seeing some downplaying as well, mostly of the specs of these two machines, from a number of American outlets stating that the specs are "the same". Even pre 180 I saw a lot of hyping up of those systems from us/uk press playing up how tv is the future. Sigh, I suspect it's the outlets trying to be "balanced" rather than objective (and also trying to not isolate xbox players and lower their hits). What sucks is that the WiiU Wii and ps3 didn't seem to get the same treatment (from the scattered articles and podcasts I've ingested over the years). Beyond that however, I suspect it may be a little subconscious nationalism a la the automobile marketplace (I live in Detroit, and can't go a week without someone telling me that I shouldn't be a capitalist and buy the inferior American equivalent so the person berating me can continue getting overpaid). The one thing I doubt it is however is moneyhats. Just Americans being Americans (IE not discerning)

 

[jryi]

The cost risk was big enough that Microsoft didn't go with it.

I bet Sony's original budget counted on only 4GB being possible, and they are taking a hit for that 8G. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was in some of their calculation, and they were going to produce the most future proof solution regardless of initial cost.

The bigger risk was that when design work for PS4 was started, it was technologically impossible to have more than 2GB in the console, so there was a slight (OK, virtually non existent) risk, that they wouldn't have been able to have even 4 gigs.

Sony has been smart, but they have also been incredibly lucky.

I have a theory ("it must be bunnies") that Sony made the decision to go public with PS4 pretty much the minute when they realized that they could include 8 gigs of memory in the console. I mean, Kutaragi (or was it Yoshida who said so) must have really thought that they'd let Microsoft show their cards first. But maybe they thought that the memory amount would leak sooner or later, so they decided to control the publicity.

 

[Popup]

Try thinking of it this way instead as far as the differences go, in a gamers way...

 

[IdiotMyshkin]

Try thinking of it this way instead as far as the differences go, in a gamers way...

Gamers notice a difference in specs, whether it be in character builds, or in HW. Sure a casual might think that these two start with the same number of points to attribite, but casuals also take notice of price now, don't they?

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I bet Sony's original budget counted on only 4GB being possible, and they are taking a hit for that 8G. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was in some of their calculation, and they were going to produce the most future proof solution regardless of initial cost.

The bigger risk was that when design work for PS4 was started, it was technologically impossible to have more than 2GB in the console, so there was a slight (OK, virtually non existent) risk, that they wouldn't have been able to have even 4 gigs.

Sony has been smart, but they have also been incredibly lucky.

I have a theory ("it must be bunnies") that Sony made the decision to go public with PS4 pretty much the minute when they realized that they could include 8 gigs of memory in the console. I mean, Kutaragi (or was it Yoshida who said so) must have really thought that they'd let Microsoft show their cards first. But maybe they thought that the memory amount would leak sooner or later, so they decided to control the publicity.

GopherD confirmed that 8 GB of GDDR5 wasnt really luck. Sony was working with vendors and giving them everything they needed to make it a reality.

Search his post history and you'll find it.

 

[jryi]

GopherD confirmed that 8 GB of GDDR5 wasnt really luck. Sony was working with vendors and giving them everything they needed to make it a reality.

OK. But I thought that some soft of technological breakthrough was required, and it wasn't really set in stone that that was going to happen, no matter what.

Regardless, I can be happy with Mark Cerny just being a modern day Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

[Mercury Land-Snake]

One of the things that people don't talk about a lot is that MS ESRAM solution means that a big chunk of the SOC die is taken up by it, Sony's solution of using GDDR5 allowed them to include a stronger SOC since they didn't have to worry about embedded ram on the SOC. Any way you slice it, Sony made the more powerful and easier to dev for console. It's super straightforward to any dev that has developed for PC (which is everyone really). It's going to take better tools and dev time work around Xbox One's deficiencies, and even then the small bit of embedded ram is going to be a bottleneck for 1080p going forward as well as the weaker GPU that will struggle to keep up with PS4's GPU.

MS trying to spin these indisputable facts is hilarious to someone like me that knows the truth and incredibly disrespectful to potential buyers that aren't tuned into this type of stuff.