Rumor: ESRAM always be bottleneck, no chance for PS4 parity

Poor I_can_haz, how does it feel to be stupid and blind to see that the prototype 7850 with 12 CU @ 860Mhz will not exceed the retail 7850 with 16 CU @ 860Mhz?

What defeat is there when the prototype 7850 with 12 CU @ 860Mhz will not exceed the retail 7850 with 16 CU @ 860Mhz?

That feeling you get when you find out BF looks the same on both XB1 and PS4 (in some cases, better on PS4; but in others better on XboxOne), and you remember you made (or respond in agreement to) threads like these...

HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Hey hey hey.. I always said that ESRAM was just a bandwidth patch too.

It only looks better if you like high contrast, high sharpness images. If you do just set your contrast and sharpness to 100 on your TV and enjoy that style of image at 900p with more AA, high frame rates and less aliasing.

My posts about the prototype 7850 with 12 CUs has a double edge to it i.e. it cuts both ways. With the same memory bandwidth, 7850 with 12 CUs will not exceed the retail 7850 with 16 CUs and PS4's GCN is faster on both CU's TFLOPS and memory bandwidth.

But the difference between your prototype 7850 and the 16 CU 7850 was much less than what the estimated difference was between the X1 and the PS4. Infact the actual difference between 720p and 900p is much larger than what I was expecting, especially as the game is running with HBAO and still getting more FPS on the PS4 version.

In terms of predictions Tormentos and I who were saying there would be a 40-50% raw performance advantage were correct, infact it shows that when the ESRAM is not fully utilised the performance difference between the two consoles is even greater than my predictions, although I always said that my predictions were based on the ESRAM being fully utilised.

@-Damien-: They can't address every single rumor of every single day.

@lhughey:

He's upset about the 6 WWE 2k14 got on here. Wrestling fell off in the damn 90s

Its Neogaf, a huge gaming forum where a ton of insiders and industry people post. I call it Sonygaf based on my opinion that its overwhelmingly pro-Sony and anti-MS. But not everyone see its that way. shrugs. I prefer this forum. Now I did get banned over there, lol. So I will admit that, lol. But oh well. Personally, if you're curious go there and judge for yourself.

+1

Well, that's not what other people are saying. Regardless, "teh 50% more powah" has, for now, kind of been busted, no?

butthurt name calling from lems because its a big gaming site that tend to analyze consoles and have found that xbone is terrible compared to ps4 so as one of the many excuses lems on this site use, "they are biased if they dont support the xbone"

yeah, 720p vs 900p, terrible draw distance on xbone, no anti aliasing no ambient occlussion, frame drops, sure they are the same champ.

to me you said almost the exact same thing i said.... except I didn't account for CUs

the only difference is you used small car park space vs a lane that can only take one car at a time

if you count passengers as the data being moved then its exactly the same

but either way anyone with basic comp sci knowledge would know that esram is a mess to program for and it is very unlikely that the xbone one would match the ps4 in power other than in some super/small specialized tasks

just doing regular optimization with regards pushing things to memory is difficult enough as it is. Let alone accounting for 2 channels of memory of different speeds and sizes.

although I have to say I am happy I don't need to deal with this crap since I only have to code in c# and VB at work

So that leaves lemmings with....? Kinect. LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Stop crying now lemming.

HA HA HA HA!!! DICE already said the release version fixes the anti-aliasing issues on the XB1 version. Those other issues are minor at best. Plus, the XB1 version has it's own advantages.

Face it man, "teh 50% more powah" was Sony weak-sauce that you gobbled up without question.

I'm right here. Where are you, Tormentos? Gone into hiding now that "teh 50% more powah" has all but proven to be weak-sauce?

I told you that multi-plats would look about the same... how many times? LOL!!!!

@StormyJoe: well with what was tested we have 720p vs 900p which is 56.5% more pixels + HBAO + AA + higher frame rates. To do all of that actually requires more than a 50% difference in raw power so obviously something *cough* ESRAM *cough* is limiting the x1 more than just the slower GPU.

I am not sure what you expected from 50% more raw power. I was expecting very high vs high settings and smoother frame rates. I did not expect a 50% resolution gap on top.

explaining something to a lem is a waste of time, lets just laugh at his ignorance, 50%+ more pixels on screen being procesed and having ao + aa while staying with better frames are "small things" LOL

Why are you using a launch game to determine the power of the PS4 and Xbox One? Both consoles will improve in the graphics department eventually especially the xbox one.

I agree.

HOWEVER, it does seriously call into question WHY there is this resolution difference between the two systems. Especially of the COD resolution rumors end up being true.

AFAIK, there are three possible explanations:

1. The hardware gap between the two is really that big... which I personally doubt. There's no reason KI, BF4 or COD should be limited to 720p on that hardware.

2. Using ESRAM as a crutch has made development just that little bit more complex and annoying... which would imply that the Xbox One will forever face the same problems that the PS3 had when it comes to multiplats.

3. The Xbox One's operating system is a half-baked disaster. This is actually the best of the three options, since MS can easily fix it later on. Its way too late to do anything about the physical hardware.

All that, and the games "look the same". In some cases, the XB1 version looks better - and DF didn't even have the production version with AA in it to test.

Weak sauce. That's what the PS4's better specs are - weak sauce. Once devs get a better handle on how to use the ESRAM, it will be super-weak sauce. TCHBO. Just admit it and move on!

better? lol?

900p vs 720p

better ambient occlusion on PS4

both look really good but the PS4 has a slight edge

@PraetorianMan:

They also did the overclocks and rewrote the API, which was allegedly pretty crappy, so they could also be the initial factors. Eventually I can see this being a repeat of last gen in reverse third party games pretty equal with some minor differences that require DF to bring out the zoom functions in their photo shop application to spot differences.

No it doesn't. marginally better textures [if they are even there, just for the sake of argument lets say they are] is NOT an even tradeoff for framerate and resolution. Its not even close. If a game is getting its resolution axed and has less consistent performance, there better be something damn well worth those losses, and the Xbox One version doesn't have anything even remotely close to being worth it.

MS might have gotten away with this if the Xbox One and PS4 were both the same price... but they're not.

HA HA HA HA!!! Whatever, man. Cows have been going on and on since E3 that "teh powah of the PS4" is going to blow the XB1 away. The first actual case where we can all jusdge shows that isn't true.

So, now "bang for your buck" is the new mantra? If that's the case, then I retort: the XB1 is more than a gaming console - that's why it's $100 more. To me, the $100 is worth the media features and dedicated servers you get with the XB1 platform.

What are you looking at that says anything so far looks better on X1? The faulty DF comparison, conveniently omitting the part in that same comparison that make X1 look terrible due to severe crushed blacks? They already admitted the comparison wasn't like to like, and even there most of it favors PS4.

You guys are so self owning. the topic of this thread is "ESRAM always be bottleneck, no chance for PS4 parity", and you are now saying "both look really good but the PS4 has the slight edge". That's your defense now? And, as I already said, DF didn't even have the final XB1 version.

And yes, go look at all the locked threads, in some cases, the XB1 version looked better.

Its not even worth arguing with Lems in this thread. Delusional post after delusional post. All i can say is I can't wait for the 15th :) I'll get an XO as well for Dead Rising and exclusives only. Multiplats won't see the light of day in my XO. Good to see that when it comes to consoles, PS4 will have the definitive versions of games.

It is funny how people still argue with logic that is already known everywhere, GDDR5>DDR3 when it comes to raw power, it is not rocket science but both consoles look poo when compared to the highest crop of GFX cards found on some PCs, so why go bonker over GFX when the gameplay should be the selling point

Wow

First you argue that "Once devs get a better handle on how to use ESRAM..."

And now you're arguing that its "more than a gaming console"

Tell me, were you a Cow back in 2006 and 2007? Because this all sounds VERY familiar.
Just replace ESRAM with CELL, and cram Blu-Ray into the whole "more features" schpeal, and you've basically traveled back in time.

No, I was not. And, I stand by my comments - I have never said the XB1 is more powerful than the PS4. I have always maintained that "games will look about the same on both". I am having a field day right now because, much to cows' displeasure, BF4 proved me right (for now, anyway).

You are the one who brought price into the mix, not me.

Another rushed piece of shit console. No surprise.

There's no need for X1's ESRAM to replace CELL since it just an improved EDRAM from Xbox 360.

@PraetorianMan said:

No it doesn't. marginally better textures [if they are even there, just for the sake of argument lets say they are] is NOT an even tradeoff for framerate and resolution. Its not even close. If a game is getting its resolution axed and has less consistent performance, there better be something damn well worth those losses, and the Xbox One version doesn't have anything even remotely close to being worth it.

MS might have gotten away with this if the Xbox One and PS4 were both the same price... but they're not.

The price gap between the two boxes are dependant on the country or region. Sony is aiming to win USA while there's small price difference in Oz (Australia).

@xboxiphoneps3 said:

better? lol?

900p vs 720p

better ambient occlusion on PS4

both look really good but the PS4 has a slight edge

http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/10/29/battlefield-4s-xbox-one-review-build-was-missing-ambient-occlusion-coming-on-day-one-same-as-ps4pc/

Johan Andersson: "The AO on Xbox One was one of the fixes that didn’t make it into the review copy but will be in day1, same tech as PS4/PC"

For this game, X1 should be able to match 7770 GE's results.

@btk2k2

But the difference between your prototype 7850 and the 16 CU 7850 was much less than what the estimated difference was between the X1 and the PS4. Infact the actual difference between 720p and 900p is much larger than what I was expecting, especially as the game is running with HBAO and still getting more FPS on the PS4 version.

From http://www.dualshockers.com/2013/10/29/battlefield-4s-xbox-one-review-build-was-missing-ambient-occlusion-coming-on-day-one-same-as-ps4pc/

Johan Andersson: "The AO on Xbox One was one of the fixes that didn’t make it into the review copy but will be in day1, same tech as PS4/PC".

X1's BF4 beta result indicates to me that it's not effectively using X1's ESRAM since it's result is similar to 7770 GE or my laptop's 8870M results.

I have stated in the past that X1's ESRAM needs special treatment and it's doesn't have general case performance like the prototype 7850's memory bandwidth.

My laptop's 8870M has 72 GB/s peak memory bandwidth which is similar to X1's 68 GB/s peak memory bandwidth. I'm running Windows 8.1 Pro on my touch capable slim gaming laptop.

It looks like I don't need to update my slim laptop until 2015.

X1's ESRAM has a few advantages e.g. X1 would have a better procedural generation (that doesn't overload it's ALU/TMUs) due to it's higher memory write performance.

From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7P2u6iDF4A

Without AMD Mantle and X1's 32 MB ESRAM, Radeon HD 7770 Ghz Edition OC's BF4 beta at max settings and 1280x720p runs between 40 to 60 fps.

At 1080p, it's around 20-to-30 fps. This 7770 GE is supported by Intel Core i5-3570 at 3.40 Ghz quad-core processor

Anyway, it's a LOL episode that X1's BF4 result is similar to my laptop's 8870M BF4 beta result.

@StormyJoe: If you dont find 900p vs 720p to be a big difference then great for you.

WTF??

Every time tormentos or I mentioned the 7770 as being pretty similar to the X1 GPU you would come in saying a) the triangle setup rate is higher on X1 b) it has ESRAM so comparing the 72GB/s of memory bandwidth is too low as the ESRAM can do 140GB/s with alpha transparancy c) the 7770 has less cache because it only has 10 CUs, d) the X1 has JIT compression. Now that the results are in all of a sudden the 7770 is pretty similar? Well no shit, Tormentos and I said as much months ago but you would not listen and kept insisting it was a poor substitute and your W5000 or 7850 prototype was better. Well guess what, you were wrong.

ladies and gentleman, trolls and fanboys

heeeeeeeeeeeeere comes

(tm) Ronvalencia

1. Your not matching X1's GCN features to PC's GCN features for near to 1:1.

2. Superior triangle engine enables the triangle render stage to contribute less to the total render time.

3. ESRAM's superior bandwidth is available for apps that use it. ESRAM is not for general case workloads and need special treatments. Wake me up when BF4 uses DX11.2 tiled resource.