A GDC benchmark by Ubisoft- PS4 vs Xbone

They got the bone with a tiny lead on CPU and PS4 at nearly double the GPU.

http://gdcvault.com/play/1020939/Efficient-Usage-of-Compute-Shaders

99% of SW will not get what the **** is going on here but will continue on regardless!

did they test the Cloud though?

@lostrib: Da clOud is limitle5s! It would be unfair for them to use it in this comparison.

But..... does it use teh cloud and the new sdks?!

they need to make sure to unlock the stacked GPU first

900p 30fps

as you can read they was only testing ps4 gpu compute also as I was saying all alone Xbox CPU>PS4 cpu

Why porting a cloth simulation to the GPU?

Because we fuckin wanted to.

Well, the PS4 hardware advantage confirmed by Ubisoft...this is surprising news. Finally an answer we can all agree upon here in SW coming directly from Ubisoft (<----Sarcasm).

For their next AC they are striving for parity on Xbone/PS4 "to avoid debates and stuff" so there is no point in Ubisoft comparing hardware based on their current generation goals nor Ubi's years long last generation examplse from ALL last gen looking at their AC games. If there is extra power under the hood, Ubisoft aren't apparently interested (unless the extra power is easy to tap, which even then they seem to be shifting gears).

Side note, boy the PS3 (105) maintained a sizable CPU advantage over the 360 (34) according to Ubisoft. You would never know it though if you played their games all generation. A shame 3rd party devs had to work too hard to tap that extra PS3 Cell power due to the infmaous Krazy Ken Architecture making tapping the Cell power not worth the effort and in the end the publishers still got $$$ sales. BTW: Yes, I'm well aware of the GPU differences in those old machines as well, but this posted Ubisoft pic is about CPU's apparently.

Sony learned their lesson this gen. No point in making a powerful machine if publishers have no financial incentive to tap that extra power, especially if that extra power is expensive and troublesome to tap. Sony designed the PS4 to be a very easy machine to work with with extra power as well so we'll see in a few years if that worked, or if politics/profits play into parity as it seems to be right now with Last Gen ports, Bungie, and now Ubisoft.

The Bonus round picture from Ubisoft is intriguing since Ubi aren't going to be utilizing that extra PS4 power for their next AC. "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff," Assassin's Creed Senior Producer Vincent Pontbriand. The message I've been reading from Ubisoft is that there is extra power that is easily tapped, they are currently confirming with this current comparison information, but Ubisoft don't need to use that extra juice to sell copies of their cookie cutter, paint by numbers ANNUAL game design.

the main problem was the weak sauce GPU in the Ps3 and less useable RAM than the 360 had, the CELL could have been a real powerhouse if you didn't have to use 4 of the SPE's to support the GPU just to match the Xenos in the 360.

A lower operating system overhead would have helped because as it stands the 360 had 18MB more useable RAM than the PS3, it may not sound a lot but when you add the 10 MB edram that gives the 360 an extra 28MB of RAM over the Ps3 which for 512MB machines is quite large.

Throw in Unified shader architecture in teh Xbox 360 which Halves the resources needed for shader operations and you can see why they ended up roughly equal

Like the original Xbox the gen before that SONY where really shafted by Nvidia and i feel really bad for SONY because of that.

@delta3074 said:

@SolidTy said:

Well, the PS4 hardware advantage confirmed by Ubisoft...this is surprising news. Finally an answer we can all agree upon here in SW coming directly from Ubisoft (<----Sarcasm).

For their next AC they are striving for parity on Xbone/PS4 "to avoid debates and stuff" so there is no point in Ubisoft comparing hardware based on their current generation goals nor Ubi's years long last generation examplse from ALL last gen looking at their AC games. If there is extra power under the hood, Ubisoft aren't apparently interested (unless the extra power is easy to tap, which even then they seem to be shifting gears).

---

Side note,

boy the PS3 (105) maintained a sizable CPU advantage over the 360 (34) according to Ubisoft. You would never know it though if you played their games all generation. A shame 3rd party devs had to work too hard to tap that extra PS3 Cell power due to the infmaous Krazy Ken Architecture making tapping the Cell power not worth the effort and in the end the publishers still got $$$ sales.

BTW:

Yes, I'm well aware of the GPU differences in those old machines as well, but this posted Ubisoft pic is about CPU's apparently.

----

Sony learned their lesson this gen. No point in making a powerful machine if publishers have no financial incentive to tap that extra power, especially if that extra power is expensive and troublesome to tap. Sony designed the PS4 to be a very easy machine to work with with extra power as well so we'll see in a few years if that worked, or if politics/profits play into parity as it seems to be right now with Last Gen ports, Bungie, and now Ubisoft.

The Bonus round picture from Ubisoft is intriguing since Ubi aren't going to be utilizing that extra PS4 power for their next AC. "We decided to lock them at the same specs to avoid all the debates and stuff," Assassin's Creed Senior Producer Vincent Pontbriand. The message I've been reading from Ubisoft is that there is extra power that is easily tapped, they are currently confirming with this current comparison information, but Ubisoft don't need to use that extra juice to sell copies of their cookie cutter, paint by numbers game design.

the main problem was the weak sauce GPU in the Ps3 and less useable RAM than the 360 had, the CELL could have been a real powerhouse if you didn't have to use 4 of the SPE's to support the GPU just to match the Xenos in the 360.

A lower operating system overhead would have helped because as it stands the 360 had 18MB more useable RAM than the PS3, it may not sound a lot but when you add the 10 MB edram that gives the 360 an extra 28MB of RAM over the Ps3 which for 512MB machines is quite large.

Throw in Unified shader architecture in teh Xbox 360 which Halves the resources needed for shader operations and you can see why they ended up roughly equal

Like the original Xbox the gen before that SONY where really shafted by Nvidia and i feel really bad for SONY because of that.

Thanks for the reply, however I did want to politely point out that if you noticed my "BTW" and "Side Note"?

I don't want to discuss PS360 stuff in 2014, but I guess I didn't make that perfectly clear. I started with "Side Note" in the section you were interested in speaking about so as to address that wasn't the main point of my post, but rather a side observation. That's why I was very careful to include that "BTW" and "Side Note" to avoid this type of PS3 Reply/quote/reply/quote as in my long time here I know these PS360 discussions can go off the rails and get out of hand (with 1st party comparisons, 3rd party, opinions, specs, and lots of pics)...and others usually join in as well (a mix of informed users and trolls).

I've done that PS360 discussion 1000x and I'm not interested in that discussion anymore since It got really tiring from 2005-2008, then various other same discussions again surfaced from 2009-2012. I just don't have it in me to say anything new on the topic. So I made sure to include that BTW and Side Note. It just goes back and forth and back and forth, I list links and explain way too much and it's not worth it in the end. Hell, I may have discussed this with you over the years as I've had the discussion way too many times, no joke. No offense of course. As for me, the PS360 discussion is just far too redundant on my end. I'm not disagreeing with you and your post was fine, it's just not the main reason for my post, it's more of a side note since Ubisoft made that picture.

I actually posted to discuss Ubisoft's interest in exposing the power differences of the PS4/Xbone but then posting they aren't willing to exploit the power differences a week or so ago with regards to the next annual AC game due to most likely profits but some would point to politics. I found that a bit interesting that this power comparison is Ubisoft's, but not a big deal. That PS360 screenshot caught my eye for a sec though.

Thanks for taking the time to post though. I'm thankful in the interest and I have a great week. :)

You got your wish @super600

Talk about NOTHING NEW. Only Idiot bonehead lemmings ever denied it

I said all last gen that PS3 was indeed more powerful, it just has a weird RAM structure and weak GPU.

PS4 on the other hand, cremates the Xbone as WE CAN ALL SEE. Had to take a dev to teach lemrods though

@SolidTy: the only thing thats says is they are SHOWING PS4 GPU RESULTS ONLY the only tested Async Compute using ps4 hardware there are no xbox one test only CPU results.

The benchmark also showed the test results with the PS4 and X1 cpu and x1 cpu is faster. Which means cpu bottleneck is an issue with game engines that put all normal cpu tasks on the cpu.

Does that mean the PS3 cpu is better then the PS4s? Devs had said otherwise. Or is this just comparing gpu functions for the processors?

the ps3 cpu is better for certain flop heavy tasks yes

No the PS3's cpu is not better for normal cpu tasks then PS4. This test is for parallel workloads which works best with many processors like "gpus".The Cell's SPE's were originally designed for parallel workloads aka gpu functions. That is why the PS3's Cell does so well with this test. If they were using the PPE "cpu" portion of the Cell it would be slower then a Pentium 3...

Killed it! 10/10 would read again.

Then don't bring it up to begin with, genius.

Side Note: You're very.....out there.

Yeah, if someone was dumb enough to render all the things from CPU on both machines. That doesn't mean the XBone CPU is superior. In the real world, the PS4 APU is superior to the XBone because it can reference the same memory addresses as the GPU portion. How many times do I have to call you out on this? You just keep peddling the same bullshit.

The PS4s compute power and the XBone's compute power are apples and oranges. Without the extra clocks on the CPU in the XBone, it would be radically behind the PS4. Moreso than it already is.

the majority of cpu code isnt flop heavy dummy

Actually the xbox one is barely faster on THIS engine which is heavily done for DX apparently,HLSL port to PSSL.? Rather than done from scratch for the PS4.?

Dude 2 MS of GPU compute time on PS4 will produce 6 times more dancers than 5% of the xbox one CPU.

So compute is really big on PS4.

It means the PS4 will have to render 98 dancers instead of the xbox one 113 using the exact same CPU time,but that affect the resolution in no way because the resolution is handle by the GPU,so the excuse UBI gave was bogus,specially when you see the huge disparity GPU wise.

So yeah the PS4 could render 98dancers using the same CPU time as the xbox one but can render them in 1080p,oh that is if GPU compute isn't use.

Are you not seeing the 1600 vs 830.? Yeah that is the number of dancers both GPU produce based on certain GPU time,the PS4 destroy the xbox one GPU almost doubling it,while the xbox one CPU was marginally ahead of the PS4 one.

On a side note boy Cell completely destroyed the Xenon,wow 104 dancers vs 34 is not even close it 3 times as much performance...

But but but Cell sucks,sony make a mistake dropping cell.

The majority of gaming code kinda is. Cell zigged while the market zagged. GPus do all the heavy lifting and parallelization whereas Cell tried to bring that under the umbrella of the CPU. In fact, originally, the PS3 was going to be two Cells working in tandem instead of having an NVidia GPU on the board. Somehow, someone talked at least some sanity into Kuturagi before that happened.

nothing we didn't already know

I remember hearing that the PS3 was originally not going to have any dedicated GPU and instead would have the Cell handle all the tasks.....

Calling someone a dummy is actually quite funny when yourself are one.... Things like physics is parallel in nature and do require more processing power. Heck even doing Ai and npcs require quite abit of processing power based on numbers and advancement of use. In the last few years they have been looking into using gpgpu based Ai making gaming much more dynamic.

Yep originally the cell was suppose to be their all in one processor able to handle cpu and gpu functions sorta like the precursor to APU's.

and the tiny gap the Xbone's cpu has over the PS4 will be gone once devs finally start using the 4 compute units for GPGPU. And yeah, the Xbone can do GPGPU too but it does not have the CUs to spare because the space was taken by the pointless ESram because M$ wanted to cheap out on Ram because they thought the PS4 was only gonna have 4GB. That's what happens when you don't do your own thing and are instead spying on the competition to make your console around their specs. They did the same with the X360, that's why for these past 2 gens both PlayStation and Xbox have been so similar on so many aspects from set-up to performance.

Xbone is bandwidth limited as they're using main RAM for this, they could use ESRAM to do it to give better results but that might come at the expense of reducing graphics settings and details.

Xbones main RAM is also lower latency then PS4's GDDR4 which would play a part in Xbones slightly higher CPU results.

lol, Xbone is such a trainwreck of a console.

You replied with ad hominems and were completely off topic in this thread to merely quote my incredibly polite post with another user by stating the obvious? I guess I should flattered by your actions...once again, as that was your modus operandi in previous years to quote me and others and derail topics to chat about me/others. I guess I still got the midas touch with my posts.

Side Note: Thanks, I pride myself on being unique.

bbbbut dx 12 and teh cloud

All dat power, and only good enough for parity.

wow do you even know wtf a flop is? the majority of code a cpu will crunch through on virtually any game is not flop heavy code and maps TERRIBLY to a gpu

PS3 CPU has better peak performance in a narrow set of scenarios (like this one) but the PS4 and Xbox One CPU has better general performance and almost the same peak performance. They are a lot, lot faster overall.

This just shows that in specific scenarios the Xbox API and PS4 API have the similar CPU overhead, this is where DX12 will help Xbox One in terms of CPU overhead when issuing rendering tasks and other things like that. What is strange though is the PS4 CPU has 91.4% of the clock speed compared to the XBox One CPU but in this scenario it is only performing at 86.72% of the Xbox One CPU. Either the Xbox One API is fractionally better in this specific circumstance or the extra 10GB/s of memory bandwidth actually helps. How that will relate to an overall performance profile when you actually have to render the scene with all the background effects and main character and so on will be interesting as you would be less likely to be able to utilise the whole 30GB/s allowance without slowing down the GPU bandwidth too much.

The GPU compute numbers are also interesting in that the PS4 is way beyond what the on paper spec sheet suggests should be possible. This will be down to the extra ACE units and / or the enhanced bandwidth of the GDDR5. I would have though the bulk of the difference will be the extra bandwidth available with the ACE units playing a small part. I would like to see the CPU utilisation information when the GPU is doing compute because the PS4 should be able to offload more of that to the ACE units freeing up CPU runtime for other tasks and making up for the slower clock speed.

Finally it also shows the advantage of PS4 because in the scenario where they set the GPU compute requirements to 400 Gflops the Xbox One would have around 900 Gflops left for rendering but the PS4 would still have 1400 Gflops left for rendering. That is saying that even when doing 400 Gflops of compute the PS4 still has more rendering performance left than the Xbox One started with.

The XBox One CPU has 30GB/s of bandwidth from the DDR3 but the PS4 CPU has 20GB/s of bandwidth, that could help explain the above clockspeed difference you see between the CPUs. It could also be slightly lower overhead in the API or perhaps the bandwidth is actually hiding some overhead from the hyper-v the Xbox One uses.

Nothing points to the PS4 having more latency in this scenario and this would probably be a latency and bandwidth sensitive test but that is a bit of a guess as we do not know the conditions of the test.

Was DX12 taken into account? Cuz if not then multiply X1 numbers by at least x2. X1 is a powerhouse.

more like 1080p 100fps

look at all that cloud and dx12 power!

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/07/02/microsoft-japan-counts-on-the-power-of-xbox-ones-cloud-says-that-it-can-actually-render-graphics/

Multiply the X1's numbers by 3 and optimize it with DX12 features and then the graphs should look much closer. At least on paper.

How about we all just play the games we want to play and shut up about the constant GPU/CPU BS!!! Are going to have to endure this conversation this entire generation? It became a dead horse about 9 months ago!!

yes we will and now stop crying because you would be one of the people repeating this if it was on favor of xbone (insert excuse here for "i am not an xbot!!!"), also no, it is still current.

@tormentos: Do you see where IT SAY AGENDA ON THE FIRST SCREEN and WHAT VERSION? THE PS4 version thats and hardware not xbox one final Async Compute yes its at 1600 and I cant wait to they start using it more but you to say what you said is ridiculous.

Yeah that is something i notice to 1600 vs 830 that is basically a 100% gap in performance,and more aces and command as well as volatile bit the added most really do wonders for the PS4.

Apparently what Mark Cerny say was right compute will be big in some years,and the PS4 will greatly outperform the xbox one on it.

Is a win win for the PS4 in that regard having 18 CU really help unlike MS claimed the whole diminishing returns,400+Gflops for compute in some task would greatly out perform the xbox one CPU,look at it 5ms on the CPU produce 113 dancer on xbox one,while 2ms on the GPU were able to produce 640 dancers that is 6 times as many dancers while taking just 2ms.

And this is early and from Ubi which isn't basically interested in pushing the PS4 to the max,you have to wonder how much better it will get in a year or 2 and how well sony will exploit it as well as developer who really want their version of their game to shine.

Are you for real.?

DX11 on the xbox one is DX11X is the same on PC but more streamline.

Second the game been on PC DX11 mean the porting of the game to XBO make things even easier for the xbox one,PSSL is not the same exact language as HLSL so porting from PC to PS4 is more difficult not the contrary like you say,PSSL is a similar but not equal language to HLSL.

In fact the CPU side on the xbox one is faster,but on the GPU is obviously that the PS4 destroy the xbox one,the PS4 was modify for compute heavily,and you people think it is nothing no is not.

Look how on compute the PS4 basically double the xbox one power wise,which is beyond the spec they both have.

8 Aces 64 commands volatile bit,the xbox one has 2 aces 16 commands.

Also it say on page 5 DX11 FOR PC,the coma xbox one PS4 so unless you want to believe that the PS4 has DX11 it is clear they mean PC,but either way porting DX11 from PC to XBO will be easier than to PS4 PSSL.

The xbox one uses DX11X is a special version which has the same things as PC + the gains of DX12.

hahahaa they are using on Japan the same crap they already use in US and EU..hahha

MS has no shame..lol

You are a newbie here right.? Because last gen lemming could not get enough of DF and the superior xbox 360 versions..hahaahaa