PS4 neo slideshow leaked

And i quoted Jonh Carmack word i would take over MS any day.

DX12 on XBO and PC is not the same code stated by a developers who worked on both platforms,DX12 is an API use to make games on UWP fool.

I don't have to find me a PC which allow me to install XBO games on it...

Then you have a point,you are spinning badly,trying to prove that Neo is the same shit as the UWP,Steam will never be on UWP because steam is a store that compete dirrectly with MS store,is like saying PSN store will be on Live..lol

The PS4 and Neo even use the same memory and CPU and GPU from the same architecture GCN in its latest form..lol

What have you this butthurt is that you can't prove your point because again i can run COD on PS4 and latter on Neo but you would not do that on PC and XBO,the real winner here is PC who get your xbox exclusives while you get shit from PC..lol

Saying PS4 games are not exclusives is like saying PC games are not exclusive because a PC with a 7850 is not the same PC as one with a 680GTX....lol

Run-time certificate is the real issue for running XBO games on PC.

Windows 10 PC doesn't have XBO's ESRAM APIs, but that can be remapped.

Windows 10 PC with AMD GPUs wouldn't have a problem for GCN's hit-the-metal intrinsic functions, but Windows 10 PC with NVIDIA/Intel GPUs will have a problem. A generic (other PC GPUs) and NVIDIA specific code path has to be created for optimal performance.

The question isn't if the eSRAM offered a performance increase over the PS4's GDDR5 and extra CU, it's if it offered a better solution than the extra CU and only having DDR3 RAM. It did.

Of course it works out great when you just make up the numbers, but let's do math. The eSRAM practical bandwidth is roughly 140 Gbps, or 70 each way. Scorpio's 320 Gbps at roughly 75% effectiveness is ~240 Gbps. Now, there will be other calls for this, so to make it simple, let's say a generous 210 Gbps just for the relocated eSRAM calls giving the Scorpio three times the bandwidth. Common latency figures have remained fairly consistent since 2005, so here's a list.

 1 ns L1 cache
 3 ns Branch mispredict
 4 ns L2 cache
 17 ns Mutex lock/unlock
 100 ns Main memory (RAM)

 So with the eSRAM at L2 latency, that's 25 times the latency for going off-die. So let's revisit your example and set the base of 1 unit of data per 1 nanosecond for the eSRAM and triple that for GDDR5 (just to make the math easier and reduce rounding errors).
 eSRAM
 100 nanoseconds of latency wastage
 900 ns of 900 units of data

 So for every 9 units of data, there 1 ns wasted time. GDDR5 has triple the data rate, so the same data takes 1/3 the time but also 20 times the waste. So this becomes,

 GDDR5 2500 ns of latency waste
 900 ns of 2700 units of data 
 Normalized to 1000 ns;
 735 ns of latency waste
 265 ns of 795 units of data

 Not quite there. This also doesn't cover added latency for dependencies which would make it even worse. MS may not have a choice. Besides, with the smaller process, the area taken is cut down to at least a quarter of the original size.

 1 ns L1 cache 3 ns Branch mispredict 4 ns L2 cache 17 ns Mutex lock/unlock 100 ns Main memory (RAM) So with the eSRAM at L2 latency, that's 25 times the latency for going off-die. So let's revisit your example and set the base of 1 unit of data per 1 nanosecond for the eSRAM and triple that for GDDR5 (just to make the math easier and reduce rounding errors). eSRAM 100 nanoseconds of latency wastage 900 ns of 900 units of data So for every 9 units of data, there 1 ns wasted time. GDDR5 has triple the data rate, so the same data takes 1/3 the time but also 20 times the waste. So this becomes, GDDR5 2500 ns of latency waste 900 ns of 2700 units of data Normalized to 1000 ns; 735 ns of latency waste 265 ns of 795 units of data Not quite there. This also doesn't cover added latency for dependencies which would make it even worse. MS may not have a choice. 

You didn't factor AMD's implementation for the connection chain between XBO's ESRAM to the "Host Guest GPU MMU".

For 1 second time period, ESRAM delivers 140-to-150GB of effective memory bandwidth from theoretical 204 GB which includes all the memory bandwidth's overheads e.g. latency, Host Guest GPU MMU and 'etc'. MS has stated 140-to-150 GB/s of effective memory bandwidth for their ESRAM.

XBO's ESRAM is located beyond the "Host Guest GPU MMU" block.

XBO's ESRAM effective memory bandwidth is 73 percent.

RX-480's effective memory bandwidth is 75 percent.

PS4's effective memory bandwidth 135 GB/s from theoretical 176 GB/s is 76 percent efficient.

AMD's memory bandwidth efficiency is very consistent.

XBO's ESRAM wasn't native to Bonaire GCN design and it shows with 73 percent efficiency.

While Scorpio's 320 GB/s at roughly 75% effectiveness** is ~240 GB/s, you must factor in Polaris's 1.36X memory compression booster.

When Polaris's 1.36X memory compression booster is applied, 240 GB/s gets boosted into 326.4 GB/s.

**Based from RX-480.

RX-480's 1.36X memory compression booster that yields 264 GB/s and it's rivals R9-290X's 263 GB/s. RX-480's general frame rate performance is around R9-290X/R9-390/R9-390X level.

Your argument wouldn't win against the effective memory bandwidth end result within and equal to 1 second time period.

For AMD GPUs, CU's Local Data Storage(LDS), CU's texture cache(TMU), ROPS cache and L2 cache attempts to hide the GDDR5's memory latency issues i.e. while GDDR5 prepares for transfer data, LDS/texture cache/ROPS cache/L2 cache buffers memory access request and once GDDR5 is ready to transfer data, the actual data transfer can proceed.

The net result is the effective memory bandwidth benchmark numbers.

@ronvalencia said:

@asylumni said:

@ronvalencia said:

Within a given time, a delay reduces the time for actual data transfer hence less effective memory bandwidth.

The new box could have higher latency with higher memory bandwidth that can nullify the old box's lower latency advantage.

An example with 1000 ns budget

Old machine

100 ns total latency wastage

900 ns 1000 units of actual data transfer

New machine

300 ns total latency wastage

700 ns 2500 units of actual data transfer

The new machine has the advantage.

Another problem is with AMD's memory controllers that connects the GPU and ESRAM i.e. it's memory bandwidth efficiency seems on par with other PC GPUs.

XBO's GPU wasn't specifically designed for ESRAM since it's attached outside of CU blocks (which contains L1 caches and local data store SRAM storage).

Also, XBO's ESRAM wasn't attached to L2 cache (ESRAM) i.e. it's treated like an external VRAM.

I don't view XBO's ESRAM as L2 cache level quality i.e. it's implementation is poor and has disappointed MS.

SRAM in ESRAM is a load of **** i.e. it didn't deliver substantial performance increase over PS4's GDDR5 setup.

Even with the larger 363 mm^2 size chip, 32 MB ESRAM's chip budget consumption has lead to XBO losing the game console power war i.e. 363 mm^2 size chip could have two 14 CU GPUs which is 28 CU GPU in-place of 32 MB ESRAM.

PS4 has a smaller 348 mm^2 size chip.

Microsoft will NOT build another Xbox One memory setup for Scorpio.

The question isn't if the eSRAM offered a performance increase over the PS4's GDDR5 and extra CU, it's if it offered a better solution than the extra CU and only having DDR3 RAM. It did.

Of course it works out great when you just make up the numbers, but let's do math. The eSRAM practical bandwidth is roughly 140 Gbps, or 70 each way. Scorpio's 320 Gbps at roughly 75% effectiveness is ~240 Gbps. Now, there will be other calls for this, so to make it simple, let's say a generous 210 Gbps just for the relocated eSRAM calls giving the Scorpio three times the bandwidth. Common latency figures have remained fairly consistent since 2005, so here's a list.

 1 ns L1 cache 3 ns Branch mispredict 4 ns L2 cache 17 ns Mutex lock/unlock 100 ns Main memory (RAM) So with the eSRAM at L2 latency, that's 25 times the latency for going off-die. So let's revisit your example and set the base of 1 unit of data per 1 nanosecond for the eSRAM and triple that for GDDR5 (just to make the math easier and reduce rounding errors). eSRAM 100 nanoseconds of latency wastage 900 ns of 900 units of data So for every 9 units of data, there 1 ns wasted time. GDDR5 has triple the data rate, so the same data takes 1/3 the time but also 20 times the waste. So this becomes, GDDR5 2500 ns of latency waste 900 ns of 2700 units of data Normalized to 1000 ns; 735 ns of latency waste 265 ns of 795 units of data Not quite there. This also doesn't cover added latency for dependencies which would make it even worse. MS may not have a choice. 

You didn't factor AMD's implementation for the connection chain between XBO's ESRAM to the "Host Guest GPU MMU".

For 1 second time period, ESRAM delivers 140-to-150GB of effective memory bandwidth from theoretical 204 GB which includes all the memory bandwidth's overheads e.g. latency, Host Guest GPU MMU and 'etc'. MS has stated 140-to-150 GB/s of effective memory bandwidth for their ESRAM.

XBO's ESRAM is located beyond the "Host Guest GPU MMU" block.

XBO's ESRAM effective memory bandwidth is 73 percent.

RX-480's effective memory bandwidth is 75 percent.

PS4's effective memory bandwidth 135 GB/s from theoretical 176 GB/s is 76 percent efficient.

AMD's memory bandwidth efficiency is very consistent.

XBO's ESRAM wasn't native to Bonaire GCN design and it shows with 73 percent efficiency.

While Scorpio's 320 GB/s at roughly 75% effectiveness** is ~240 GB/s, you must factor in Polaris's 1.36X memory compression booster.

When Polaris's 1.36X memory compression booster is applied, 240 GB/s gets boosted into 326.4 GB/s.

**Based from RX-480.

RX-480's 1.36X memory compression booster that yields 264 GB/s and it's rivals R9-290X's 263 GB/s. RX-480's general frame rate performance is around R9-290X/R9-390/R9-390X level.

Your argument wouldn't win against the effective memory bandwidth end result within and equal to 1 second time period.

For AMD GPUs, CU's Local Data Storage(LDS), CU's texture cache(TMU), ROPS cache and L2 cache attempts to hide the GDDR5's memory latency issues i.e. while GDDR5 prepares for transfer data, LDS/texture cache/ROPS cache/L2 cache buffers memory access request and once GDDR5 is ready to transfer data, the actual data transfer can proceed.

The net result is the effective memory bandwidth benchmark numbers.

Seriously? I gave the GDDR5 the advantage at every turn. Instead of using theoreticals, which would make the bandwidth 1.5 to 1, I used the actual low end 140 GBps, cut in half to mirror the full duplex GDDR5, giving the GDDR5 a 3:1 ratio. I also didn't account for the very nature of eSRAM; that it's a very small pool and the best usage would be data that would be needed immediately or repeatedly, increasing the number of calls and instances of latency compared to the volume of data. It's only with larger data transfers that higher bandwidth can make up for increased latency. Think of two water hoses, one three times as wide but 25 times as long. If you turn them on at the same time, the shorter one will deliver more water much faster at first, but the wider one will eventually catch up and pass it as the total volume put through the hoses increases. But if the total volume to put through is small, the larger hose will never catch up.

I also deducted a conservative 30 GBps for what would be the DDR3 usage from the GPU and the CPU. But now you want me to apply the compression ratio as if every bit of data that was sent or retrieved with the eSRAM was a solid black texture? 25 times the latency can not be erased by 3 times the bandwidth.

**** me, this thread still going with tormantos still running around in circles

@tormentos: seek help

Neo, the 4K slideshow machine......

Buuuhahahahahaha :P

GDDR5 timings as provided by Hynix datasheet: CAS = 10.6ns tRCD = 12ns tRP = 12ns tRAS = 28 ns tRC = 40ns

You blown up GDDR5's latency to suit your argument.

L3 cache has larger latency than L2 cache and both are SRAM.

For AMD Phenom DDR3@1600

Core + System Request Interface: outbound: ~9 ns Cache Coherence Probes: (~17 ns) — smaller than the memory access path, so probably completely overlapped Memory Access Asynchronous interface crossings: ~21 ns DRAM CAS latency: 11.25 ns Core data forwarding: ~1.5 ns Total non-overlapped: ~43 ns Measured latency: 51.6 ns Unaccounted: ~9 ns = 18 memory controller clock cycles (assuming 2.0 GHz). 

To hide memory latencies,

1. you are not factoring overlapping memory access tactics.

2. you are not factoring L1, LDS and L2 cache.

When you have multiple small memory request, you batch these small request e.g. L2 cache's role i.e. collect multiple small water cups into a small bucket, when the small bucket is filled, flush the entire bucket into the larger pool.

The very nature for XBO's ESRAM is a big waste of time, the main contribution for losing the console war by consuming large area of silicon and it's implementation is subpar.

Real workload examples for XBO's ESRAM

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-microsoft-to-unlock-more-gpu-power-for-xbox-one-developers

"For example, consider a typical game scenario where the render target is 32bpp [bits per pixel] and blending is disabled, and the depth/stencil surface is 32bpp with Z [depth] enabled. That amount to 12 bytes of bandwidth needed per pixel drawn (eight bytes write, four bytes read). At our peak fill-rate of 13.65GPixels/s that adds up to 164GB/s of real bandwidth that is needed which pretty much saturates our ESRAM bandwidth.

This is for ROPS workload. The workload is large i.e. streaming.

Microsoft is again repeating 140-150GB/s effective memory bandwidth for ESRAM.

Notice ESRAM's theoretical write memory bandwidth is only 109 GB/s.

Both GDDR5 and ESRAM are full duplex memory solutions i.e. supports concurrent read and write modes.

Split render mode attempts to increase memory bandwidth for write mode by combining DDR3 and ESRAM memory pools.

If Scorpio has 32 MB ESRAM,

SoC: 362 mm^2

---------------------------

GPU: 232 mm^2 e.g. RX-480 already has 5.83 TFLOPS.

ESRAM: 60 mm^2

CPU/NB/SB: 70 mm^2 which not enough for 8 core ZEN+NB+SB+128bit MCH.

8 core Jaguar is not VR Oculus capable. It was stated Scorpio has the power to run PC's Fallout 4 VR. During E3, MS stated 8 CPU cores for Scorpio.

The issue here is not latency, it's throughput.

The architects said with ~145GB/s scenario with the eSRAM by measuring real games. This is not some benchmark test to max out the bandwidth by using some bogus code.

The Math

For GDDR5-5500 (PS4)

1 sec = 1,000,000,000 ns

5500Mhz = 5,500,000,000 Hz

1 sec / 5500Mhz (via quad pumped) gives, 0.181 ns a cycle

------

For GDDR5-7000 (NEO)

1 sec = 1,000,000,000 ns

5500Mhz = 7,000,000,000 Hz

1 sec / 7000Mhz (via quad pumped) gives, 0.142 ns a cycle

------

For GDDR5-6700 (Scorpio)

1 sec = 1,000,000,000 ns

6700Mhz = 6,700,000,000 Hz

1 sec / 5500Mhz (via quad pumped) gives, 0.149 ns a cycle

-----

For ESRAM (Xbox One)

1 sec = 1,000,000,000 ns

853 Mhz = 853,000,000 Hz

1 sec / 853 Mhz gives, 1.172 ns a cycle

Xbox One's ESRAM cycle time is a f**king joke.

We all know that latency is not important in GPU workloads.

Please enlighten me on why I should spend $800 to build a PC? (Ignoring the fact that an $800 will perform way better than the XB1)

@tushar172787: Your reading comprehension needs enlightening..

Really didn't want to waste more time in this thread with someone who will never concede (antwan), but realistically, any prebuilt pc will come to around $800, and building a pc will give you better parts for the same prices. Taking an existing prebuilt pc in the last 2 years, and upgrading the ram and graphics card will easily make it gaming ready to XB1 levels.

But you are discussing with someone who thinks that because a PC uses windows 10, it is an XBox, and therefore all PC games are XBox games, and all exclusives are now XBox exclusives.

As of now, XB1 has no future exclusives, and all of what, 3 current exclusives? Lemmings are grasping at straws to make their console seem relevant in system wars.

The PS and XB have lost all their exclusives now that they have gone multiplatform. #dealwithit

lol poor exclusiveless lemms.

Agreed. I feel bad for the lems and cows.

@bloodlust_101: And at the end of the day, $800 is much more than $299..

Plus, answer the simple question: Do console gamers exist?..

After you give the obvious answer of "yes", then my point is made.. A $299 console is still available for those gamers instead of spending $800 on a PC and potentially still spending more on RAM and a GPU.. Of course, that set up will be more powerful than a console but you're side-stepping the question: Why would console gamers spend over $800 on building a PC when they can spend $299 on exactly what they want? A CONSOLE..

And i guess your reading comprehension must be lacking as well.. The fact remains, if you want to play these exclusives (Gears 4, Forza Horizon 3, and more) that the Xbox One has "lost" to PC, you'll be buying them from the Microsoft's Windows Store and playing via Xbox Live.. PERIOD.. So please tell me again how Microsoft and the Xbox platform has lost exclusives at that point?..

While you're at it, please tell me how Microsoft doesn't benefit from the added install base and support for their Windows Store (across both PC and consoles) and how Xbox gamers don't benefit from the larger pool of players and support for Xbox Live (across PC and consoles)?..

What's your Xbox Live gamertag so we can play some Gears of War 4 co-op once you buy it from the Windows Store?..

@Antwan3K:

I haven't logged on my XBL in so long I wouldn't remember my credentials. Additionally, I am running Windows 7. Further to this, games like Gears have no interest to me, even if given to me for free it would just sit there like many other free steam games I own.
You can upgrade a typical home pc with $250-$300 worth of equipment and run games better than XB1, bringing in $800 to this discussion makes you look foolish. And the fact that there is a massive choice difference between PC and a Console ENFORCES that they are completely different systems, and games are multiplat between them. This is completely different from 2 different SKU's of the same console, just like 3Ds and New 3Ds, PS3Fat and PS3Slim, and XB1 and XB1s.

Lemmings can't grasp the difference between 'exclusive' and 'multiplat'.

Define typical... Steam's typical PCs are dual core CPU setups.

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/rx-480-in-6-year-old-amd-and-intel-cpus-and-game-c-33296972/#10

Both 1060 and RX-480 are reaching GPU levels that needs substantial CPU upgrades.

@bloodlust_101: Let me make this real simple:

1) as a console gamer on a budget, if I wanted to play Titanfall 2, Forza Horizon 3, Final Fantasy XV, Gears of War 4, and Dead Rising 4 this fall, what would you recommend me buying?..

2) Xbox Play Anywhere games can only be downloaded from one store (Windows Store), for one platform (Windows 10), and for one online service (Xbox Live).. If that doesn't equate to "exclusive" to you, then oh well.. If you were interested in any of those games that the Xbox One supposedly "lost" to PC, you'd better dust off that Xbox Live account because you're gonna need it.. So at the end of the day, no matter what hardware device you use, PC or console, Microsoft still gets a sale and Xbox Live still gets another user.. What was "lost" exactly?..

A $399 PC blast the xbox one to hell and beyond a $800 one beat scorpio to.

Hell even cutting DVD and amd corners you can hit low $300 and still beat the xbox one,which is easier to beat of the 2 consoles.

A cheap PC will do if you make one and you save $6o instantly from not having to pay for xbox live,and next year is another $60 you save and so on.

You do not need a $800 PC to beat the xbox one,unless you want to pulverise it.

2nd PC and consoles are different platforms having a few games from MS on its stores mean shit,it doesn´t make the xbox a PC nor make PC and xbox.

Neo is a PS4 PERIOD and unlike PC which is 99.999999999999999999 incompatible with XBO PS4 and Neo are 100% backward compatible and forward compatible exactly as a PC is,windows stores is nothing more than MS way to deliver multiple versions of the same game on different platforms.

Mangy, MS and Scorpio has Sony and their loyal minions filled with fear and desperation, well, I guess more accurately, more fear and desperation than usual. lol :P

Them cows be tippin' yo, as we would say here in good ol' Weesconsin. I have to wonder how they even sleep at night. Oh that's right...standing up. Dem cows.

@kvally:

Literally laughed out loud at that last part.

If you ain't tippin, you be trippin. :P

Hell yeah! :)

From the home of beer and cheese!

@kvally: Lmao nice

Build a PC that matches Xbox One S with 500 GB HDD, UHD Blu-ray drive, 4K H.265 10bit, HDMI 2.0b HDR and Windows 10 Home for $299.

Xbox Live Gold is a paid subscription service for the Xbox community. Signing up to Xbox Live is free, but in order to play online and access some core services, a periodic fee is required. Features that require a Gold subscription include online gaming, matchmaking/smartmatch, private chat, party chat and in-game voice communication. Other features, such as game recording and media sharing also necessitate Gold membership.

On May 13, 2014, Microsoft announced changes to the Xbox Live Gold membership that would allow subscribers to access available apps such as Netflix, Twitch, MBL.tv, etc. without a Gold membership on both Xbox One and Xbox 360 consoles, though various rental or subscription fees still apply. Microsoft would be offering pro-rated refunds for the service for requests up until August 31, 2014. The company also announced "Games with Gold" that would give subscribers free games on both Xbox 360 and Xbox One with one single membership, and "Deals with Gold" for exclusive discounts for Xbox One games at the Xbox store.

.-----------------------

Cheaper 12 month Xbox Live Gold with $51, $42 and $32 cost.

($32 x 4 years Xbox Live Gold) + $299 Xbox One S with 500 GB HDD = $427 would be the target price with online play.

The reason for 4 years is due to hardware upgrades.

PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/TzrrVY

Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/list/TzrrVY/by_merchant/

CPU: AMD FX-4350 4.2GHz Quad-Core Processor ($74.99 @ Newegg)

Motherboard: MSI 760GMA-P34(FX) Micro ATX AM3+ Motherboard ($36.98 @ Newegg)

Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws X Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-2133 Memory ($37.98 @ Newegg)

Storage: Hitachi Ultrastar 500GB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($35.75 @ Amazon)

Video Card: Sapphire Radeon R7 360 2GB NITRO Video Card ($77.99 @ Newegg)

Case: HEC Voyager ATX Mid Tower Case ($22.98 @ Newegg)

Power Supply: EVGA 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($18.98 @ Newegg)

Optical Drive: LG UH12NS30 Blu-Ray Reader, DVD/CD Writer ($45.88 @ OutletPC)

Operating System: Microsoft Windows 10 Home OEM 64-bit ($83.89 @ OutletPC)

Software: Cyberlink PowerDVD 15 Ultra Software ($126.39 @ Amazon)

Total: $561.81 or $435.42 without blu-ray video play back.

Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available

The PC box doesn't have H.265 10bit and HDMI 2.0b HDR. Waiting for RX-460...

I didn't select DirectX12 Feature Level 11_0/11_1 GPUs (e.g. 750 Ti) since they don't support the incoming Shader Model 6.0.

@ronvalencia: Don't waste your time on Tormentos.. He thinks a console gamer should pay $399 towards a PC build in order to play Xbox platform exclusives instead of paying $299 for a Xbox console.. He also thinks DirectX12 is the same thing as UWP.. He also didn't realize the Surface line of PCs are full Windows 10 PCs..

He's a moron.. Please don't do what I did and waste your valuable time responding to a blind fanboy..

With HDMI 2.0b HDR and Shader model 6.0 support, RX-460 would cost about $99. It would be higher than $435.42 without blu-ray video play back.

NEO for $399 with HDMI 2.0b HDR + UHD blue-ray would be pretty good deal i.e. better than my proposed PC box with RX-460. NEO is close to RX-470.

For the majority of Steam PCs with dual core CPUs, RX-470 level GPUs would also need CPU upgrades.

So instead of quoting the MORON and liar who claim you need a $800 PC to match the shitty XBO S go ahead and quote me and try to make a damn argument in favor of the shitty xbox like you always do,but you some are not a deluded freaking lemming right.?

You don't need a blu-ray drive or DVD drive to watch HD content on PC,4k netflix is there so are other services as well,so kill that UHD blu-ray drive from that PC list.

Worse since my argument wasn't about movies but about games,you would look even worse as that 360 beat the crap out of the XBOS easy gaming wise.

XBL is $60 you can find a deal both you can't walk into gamespot and buy it for $35 and since the official price is $60 even on MS own page.

So $60 X 4 = $240 which you save on PC and can use to get even stronger hardware.

You don't even need 8GB of memory for windows my PC has 4 and kick the xbox one shitty ass and i am running windows 10.

You are even counting Power DVD.? Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Do i need any more proof that you are a biased lemming.?

The fun thing is that on 2016 some one like you has to hide on UHD blu-ray and movies,the first xbox 360 models didn't even have HDMI and you people didn't care..

And now HDMI 2.0 is important oh yeah for 4k movies because the shitty XBO can't run games on 4k unless upscale that should look great..lol

The fact that you claim you need $800 for a PC or more to compete with the shitty XBO S says it all,some of you are down right delusional,a $800 PC destroy the xbox one S and even beat scorpio to....

DX12 is what it is use to make UWP games you walking pancake,i know surface are full windows PC but with a weak GPU and 1GB of Vram you are not running Quantum Break any day soon even less Gears unless you get a extremely water down version,which again will not be the exact same version you are running on PC or either XBO which again make my point all the sweeter UWP is nothing more than MS glorified cross buy program on PC,surface and xbox which doesn't cover all games on xbox,or PC..

Hey Ronvalencia so tell me why do i need $800 for a PC to beat the xbox one..lol

You don't need $800 to beat a piece of shit PS4, NEO or Xbox One in performance. You can beat those POS's for half that. The PSbore is embarrassingly under-powered.

@tormentos:

My post shows a PC less than $800 i.e. it's called continuing the argument thread. Follow on posts can be supportive or not supportive i.e. read the post.

My comparison is for feature to feature.

Btw, Xbox Live Gold subscription is not required for Halo 5's multiplayer co-op. http://za.ign.com/halo-5/91405/news/xbox-live-gold-not-required-for-halo-5-online-co-op

Optical drive enables console games that was supplied on physical disc to be traded i.e. it has it's own advantages.

My argument is also applicable for PS4 NEO, hence it's not just Xbox hardware i.e. my views are the real middle ground.

My proposed PC without optical drive is $389.12. Note why I supplied breakdown cost.

When RX-460's estimated $99 price is used, the propose PC is priced at $410.12

XBox One S has faster CPU and GPU when compared to the original Xbox One e.g. staying longer in 1920x1080 resolution mode in Gears 4.

The reason I didn't select 750 Ti is due to it's lack of incoming Shader Model 6.0 support (limited to Feature Level 11_0) and it cost more than R7-360.

Shader Model 6.0 support is like Shader Model 5's shift from Shader Model 4.1/4.0 which renders older GPUs feature obsolete.

It's bring Directx12 to metal as SM6's wavefront compute wouldn't be able to hide wavefront/warp hardware differences between AMD and NVidia GPUs.

You are a hypocrite to the maximum level so you want to compare feature for feature a PC vs the XBO S.?

OK i game..

So how can i do my taxes with the XBO S.? How can i do a photo shop work on the XBOS.? Show me the XBO S app that allow me to boot into linux ? And run linux code on it.

Feature for feature a PC destroy the xbox one and its incredibly limited windows 10,the windows 10 you get on xbox one is not the one on PC which allow you to do what ever you want,and the xbox is not a PC which allow me to run what ever OS i want.

Which mean total crap as Halo 5 doesn't = 100% of the xbox one library.

Yeah and PC games tend to be cheaper that is one advantage of PC as well,that without taking into consideration many free mods and upgrade that some companies on PC still give gamers when on consoles mostly is all microtransactions.

Yes and you also account a software for it power dvd,but then again just by saving on live you are able to spend a little more on PC and top the xbox one quite easy.

You can't beat Neo with $400 PC...lol

But then again we already establish that you are an idiot and a MS suck up...lol

Tax has nothing to do with entertainment features and there are on-line web based accounting and office software.

If non-entertainment activity is included...

In some countries, work related PCs can be deducted from personal income tax and why I should buy a desktop PC when I can buy Windows tablet hybrid with better mobility?

Have you realized laptop PCs has exceeded desktop PC in unit sales?

With income tax deduction, have you realized MS Windows Surface tablet deals comes with Xbox One?

https://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html

well, the point that tormentos and other cows are missing is that a console gamer is typically going to pick the console over a PC anyway.. especially if the price of the PC is higher.. if a console gamer on a budget wants to play Windows Store exclusives, a $250 Xbox One is more attractive than building a PC.. it doesn't matter if it's a $800 PC build vs a $250 Xbox One, a $600 PC build vs a $250 Xbox One, or a $400 PC build vs a $250 Xbox One.. as long as there is a console market, there will be console gamers.. and console gamers will likely choose the cheaper and easier option of a Xbox One console versus potentially paying a higher price to build something they don't even prefer..

Somehow cows only remember there's a healthy console market when it comes to the PlayStation.. When it comes to Xbox, every gamer on the planet is all of a sudden a PC gamer..

Now granted, I plan to buy a new laptop at some point to take advantage of Xbox Play Anywhere.. but I have a measure of disposable income and I've already bought my Xbox One first.. anything extra I buy beyond that is exact that: extra .. But this idea that console-only gamers are going to flock to building PCs all of a sudden is ridiculous.. and even if they did, as long as they plan to buy Xbox Play Anywhere titles, they're still supporting Microsoft and they're still supporting Xbox Live.. so even this "worst case scenario" that cows are trying to elude to is still a win for Xbox gamers as a whole..

cows really have been running in circles since E3 and it's hilarious.. Xbox Play Anywhere and Project Scorpio really did a number on them, not to mention the Xbox One S..

@tormentos: easily ROFL. PCs are already beyond NEO. Now we know you are delirious.

@tormentos: actually it is the same Windows 10. They are hiding the desktop UI. That is why Phil said the apps will be universal if the developer chooses. And why they are adding app support for keyboard and mouse.

Do you always talk out of your ass?

Lems new term, Windows Store Exclusive, LOL! So basically, No Exclusives.

Same problem for PS4 and NEO when measured to your "exclusive" standards.

@ronvalencia said:

@asylumni said:

Seriously? I gave the GDDR5 the advantage at every turn. Instead of using theoreticals, which would make the bandwidth 1.5 to 1, I used the actual low end 140 GBps, cut in half to mirror the full duplex GDDR5, giving the GDDR5 a 3:1 ratio. I also didn't account for the very nature of eSRAM; that it's a very small pool and the best usage would be data that would be needed immediately or repeatedly, increasing the number of calls and instances of latency compared to the volume of data. It's only with larger data transfers that higher bandwidth can make up for increased latency. Think of two water hoses, one three times as wide but 25 times as long. If you turn them on at the same time, the shorter one will deliver more water much faster at first, but the wider one will eventually catch up and pass it as the total volume put through the hoses increases. But if the total volume to put through is small, the larger hose will never catch up.

I also deducted a conservative 30 GBps for what would be the DDR3 usage from the GPU and the CPU. But now you want me to apply the compression ratio as if every bit of data that was sent or retrieved with the eSRAM was a solid black texture? 25 times the latency can not be erased by 3 times the bandwidth.

GDDR5 timings as provided by Hynix datasheet: CAS = 10.6ns tRCD = 12ns tRP = 12ns tRAS = 28 ns tRC = 40ns

You blown up GDDR5's latency to suit your argument.

L3 cache has larger latency than L2 cache and both are SRAM.

For AMD Phenom DDR3@1600

Core + System Request Interface: outbound: ~9 ns Cache Coherence Probes: (~17 ns) — smaller than the memory access path, so probably completely overlapped Memory Access Asynchronous interface crossings: ~21 ns DRAM CAS latency: 11.25 ns Core data forwarding: ~1.5 ns Total non-overlapped: ~43 ns Measured latency: 51.6 ns Unaccounted: ~9 ns = 18 memory controller clock cycles (assuming 2.0 GHz). 

To hide memory latencies,

1. you are not factoring overlapping memory access tactics.

2. you are not factoring L1, LDS and L2 cache.

When you have multiple small memory request, you batch these small request e.g. L2 cache's role i.e. collect multiple small water cups into a small bucket, when the small bucket is filled, flush the entire bucket into the larger pool.

The very nature for XBO's ESRAM is a big waste of time, the main contribution for losing the console war by consuming large area of silicon and it's implementation is subpar.

Real workload examples for XBO's ESRAM

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-microsoft-to-unlock-more-gpu-power-for-xbox-one-developers

"For example, consider a typical game scenario where the render target is 32bpp [bits per pixel] and blending is disabled, and the depth/stencil surface is 32bpp with Z [depth] enabled. That amount to 12 bytes of bandwidth needed per pixel drawn (eight bytes write, four bytes read). At our peak fill-rate of 13.65GPixels/s that adds up to 164GB/s of real bandwidth that is needed which pretty much saturates our ESRAM bandwidth.

This is for ROPS workload. The workload is large i.e. streaming.

Microsoft is again repeating 140-150GB/s effective memory bandwidth for ESRAM.

Notice ESRAM's theoretical write memory bandwidth is only 109 GB/s.

Both GDDR5 and ESRAM are full duplex memory solutions i.e. supports concurrent read and write modes.

Split render mode attempts to increase memory bandwidth for write mode by combining DDR3 and ESRAM memory pools.

If Scorpio has 32 MB ESRAM,

SoC: 362 mm^2

---------------------------

GPU: 232 mm^2 e.g. RX-480 already has 5.83 TFLOPS.

ESRAM: 60 mm^2

CPU/NB/SB: 70 mm^2 which not enough for 8 core ZEN+NB+SB+128bit MCH.

8 core Jaguar is not VR Oculus capable. It was stated Scorpio has the power to run PC's Fallout 4 VR. During E3, MS stated 8 CPU cores for Scorpio.

The issue here is not latency, it's throughput.

The architects said with ~145GB/s scenario with the eSRAM by measuring real games. This is not some benchmark test to max out the bandwidth by using some bogus code.

The Math

For GDDR5-5500 (PS4)

1 sec = 1,000,000,000 ns

5500Mhz = 5,500,000,000 Hz

1 sec / 5500Mhz (via quad pumped) gives, 0.181 ns a cycle

------

For GDDR5-7000 (NEO)

1 sec = 1,000,000,000 ns

5500Mhz = 7,000,000,000 Hz

1 sec / 7000Mhz (via quad pumped) gives, 0.142 ns a cycle

------

For GDDR5-6700 (Scorpio)

1 sec = 1,000,000,000 ns

6700Mhz = 6,700,000,000 Hz

1 sec / 5500Mhz (via quad pumped) gives, 0.149 ns a cycle

-----

For ESRAM (Xbox One)

1 sec = 1,000,000,000 ns

853 Mhz = 853,000,000 Hz

1 sec / 853 Mhz gives, 1.172 ns a cycle

Xbox One's ESRAM cycle time is a f**king joke.

We all know that latency is not important in GPU workloads.

So your Hynex data looks in line with mine. Second, 13.65 GPixels/s is the GPU limit not something that's done for the full second. 1080P at 60 FPS is 124.4 MPixels/s. Thirdly, these games were programmed for 32MB eSRAM and I really doubt anyone is going back to re-batch the calls. But, actually, batching is more a CPU thing, specifically batching draw calls to the GPU due to limited draw calls available (mostly on PC). I've never heard of batching between the GPU and RAM and see no benefit in leaving the data bus idle when there's data that needs moved. And yes, shorter cycles are better, but fewer cycles and immediacy are even better still.

Anyways, without real information from MS, this is all just speculation, anyways. Guess we'll have to wait a year and change to see how this shakes out. Could be interesting.

Strange, I could've sworn I've seen the pre-order for some of these games available on amazon...

Movies have nothing to do with games regardless of being entertaiment,again you just using what serve you best feature wise PC blow both the PS4 and XBO S out of the water you can do a truck load of stuff which you can´t do on XBO S or PS4.

Can you install emulators on your XBO S.?

The XBO at $250 is while stock last,that is not the normal price of the XBO S nor it will be.

Oh i see you slashed now $200 from your PC and now claim $600..lol

There is a healthy console market no one is saying other wise,but since exclusives games is the driving force to chose one platform over the other why in hell would i chose an XBO which will charge me $60 each year when on PC i save that and from the go can inject it for a better PC.?

XBL on PC is free you don't pay shit so i am not supporting MS if i use live on PC,the only thing they get money is games,but then again so does any developer selling me a game so what would be the issue.? The point here is not about MS making money on their store the point is i don't need an shitty XBO for gears as i already have a capable PC....

So this mean 1 XBO less sold.

Many are in this position,since many PC gamers were also xbox gamers,but this gen many haven't make the jump,so why buy an XBO when on PC you get it and with superior graphics and free online play is a win win scenario for PC gamers.

Yes they are a $400 one however is not which is what you imply.lol

Nice spin...lol

If it was the same i would have one now and full of emulators just like i did with the OG xbox.

Is not and you can't run all PC apps on XBO not even close,and any app need to be certify for XBO before it can be use on XBO because everything on xbox has a signature,it is the reason why you can't install PC games on xbox period,is not like windows 10.

So the one talking out of its ass is you fool.

NO...

Neo is a stronger PS4,same OS,same PSN,same saves,all games work forward and backward with just 1 version.

That is now what you get on xbox,PC and surface,what you get is 3 different version for 3 devices and some times less as Surface is getting the short end of the stick for obvious reasons.

You can't install the PC version on XBO or the XBO version on PC,what MS is offering is multiple versions of the same game under 1 price,a cheap cross buy app is what UWP is.is nothing like Neo and the PS4 were all games are backward and forward compatible on PS4.

You should stop defending the xbox one so fiercely man,even more with those pathetic arguments.

@ronvalencia: yup now that all games are going multiplatform on PlayStation the cows are getting all worked up and freaking out.

@kvally: Lol yea exactly.. According to cows, somehow the new God of War for the Playstation platform is still an exclusive across different hardware devices since it's still using the same core OS, both device types can play the same game, and it's tied to the same online account.. But amazingly, Gears of War 4 for the Xbox platform isn't an exclusive across different hardware devices despite the fact that it's also using the same core OS, both device types can play the same game, and it's tied to the same online account..

The cows spin cycle is definitely in full effect on this one lol..

Multiplats,just like on the X1?

@EducatingU_PCMR

Nope not going to happen the Scorpio is upgrade verison of Xbox one

@MonsieurX: exactly

@Antwan3K: indeed the cows are in full denial now. It's understandable.

The core issue with game exclusivity is the software run-time platform to run the particular game.

MS's "Xbox Anywhere" is designed to gimp solutions like WINE or any legacy Windows API clones (ReactOS) i.e. Xbox Anywhere" games only runs on MS's Windows 10 hence these games are exclusive to Microsoft's software run-time platforms.

"Xbox Anywhere" are protected by Windows Store online activation, DMCA laws and other technical measures to block unauthorized usage.

To run PS4 games, the end user needs to buy/rent Sony's software run-time platforms e.g. PS4 or PS4 NEO.

@tormentos:

Movies have nothing to do with games regardless of being entertaiment,again you just using what serve you best feature wise PC blow both the PS4 and XBO S out of the water you can do a truck load of stuff which you can´t do on XBO S or PS4.

Can you install emulators on your XBO S.?

There are web based emulators, but like local installed software emulators, they have legality issues. XBO, XBO S and Xbox Scorpio has Xbox 360 emulator.

XBO's Internet Explorer is compliant for MS Office 365 i.e. web based MS Office.

https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Office-Online-browser-support-AD1303E0-A318-47AA-B409-D3A5EB44E452

Your cow brain hasn't registered Windows 10 is Microsoft's software run-time platform. The core issue with game exclusivity is the software run-time platform to run the particular game.

Minus Xbox S's HDMI 2.0b HDR and UHD Blue-ray, the original XBO's price tag is reduced to about $249.

Build a PC box with $249 price tag with R7-360 GPU.