Xbox One’s Driver Update To Bring 10% Performance Boost Read

Oh Thuway - an insider who regularly posts bad info. No, there is no major performance update coming right now. It would take a major, NXE-style update for this. In fact, where would this 10% be applicable? The OS? Games?

As someone who works closely with both MS and on their console, I know for a fact this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Oh Thuway - an insider who regularly posts bad info. No, there is no major performance update coming right now. It would take a major, NXE-style update for this. In fact, where would this 10% be applicable? The OS? Games?

As someone who works closely with both MS and on their console, I know for a fact this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

10% of shit is still shit.

Does it crush your spirit to know Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, Adam Sessler, GameTrailers, Rev3gaming, Digital Foundry, Game informer and others (ALL the top gaming website experts) award Ryse as "having hands down the best graphics of next gen."?

Even your own poll says Ryse. Your console is weak and worthless.... I know, I own a PS4, its a POS

"DirectX 11.X's superset features supports most of AMD Radeon HD "Graphics Core Next" and it's 32MB eSRAM features and it still waiting for the driver update to support it's ACE units(ref 2).”

Move engines: Only the the Xbox One has one and it has a total of 4 move engine processors. Move engines greatly reduce the overhead of transporting data between the CPU and the GPU, freeing up clock cycles for more important things (improving CPU and GPU performance). It also helps transfer data to the SRAM.

You are right, there is only 32mb that can be used. Thank you for clearing that up.

The RAM and cache situation is a bit more complicated than you would like to lead people to believe. First off, CPUs love low latency and GPUs love high bandwidth. Because of this Sony has crippled the PS4's CPU with DDR5 and Microsoft has crippled the Xbox One's GPU with DDR3. What does this mean? This means better CPU performance in the Xbox One and better GPU performance in the PS4. But...

The Xbox One has a higher CPU and GPU clock speed than the PS4 and it's higher GPU speed actually makes it perform better than if they had just unlocked it's two additional compute units due to additional CUs not adding performance linearly (decreasing reward for additional CUs). As everyone should know GPU's, ESPECIALLY AMD's, are highly CPU dependent (this is why high end i7s are used for GPU benchmarks, to eliminate CPU bottlenecks) which means that the PS4's GPU may turn out to be bottlenecked by it's CPU. As for Microsoft's bandwidth problem, they added the high speed SRAM as a cache to help solve this and the GPU can actually access data from both the SRAM and the DDR3 at the same time making it's total accessible bandwidth larger than either of them separately. The Xbox One's total bandwidth is estimated to be near (still below possibly )that of the PS4.

....(cut for space)

On the PS4 is faster comparison...... Calculating speedup when comparing two machines is incredibly complex and takes into factor alot of things which is why the actual speedup is currently unknown but tech sites are calling it close to a wash (based on how current x86 PC machines work).

Peace bro.

Like to hear more from you :)

Does it crush your spirit to know Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, Adam Sessler, GameTrailers, Rev3gaming, Digital Foundry, Game informer and others (ALL the top gaming website experts) award Ryse as "having hands down the best graphics of next gen."?

Even your own poll says Ryse. Your console is weak and worthless.... I know, I own a PS4, its a POS

@tormentos: http://kotaku.com/xbox-one-call-of-duty-offers-better-framerate-than-ps4-1463163114

COD:Ghosts was running at a steady 60fps. Read what I have written.

Don’t bring BF4 in here. That is the worst optimized multi-platform game I’ve seen. Even the PC version has problems. This is because of EA’s greediness. Everyone knows that. I can’t even play that game anymore.

I claimed it theoretically. I didn’t say it was 218GB/s. But theoretically.

"DirectX 11.X's superset features supports most of AMD Radeon HD "Graphics Core Next" and it's 32MB eSRAM features and it still waiting for the driver update to support it's ACE units(ref 2).”

Move engines: Only the the Xbox One has one and it has a total of 4 move engine processors. Move engines greatly reduce the overhead of transporting data between the CPU and the GPU, freeing up clock cycles for more important things (improving CPU and GPU performance). It also helps transfer data to the SRAM.

You are right, there is only 32mb that can be used. Thank you for clearing that up.

The RAM and cache situation is a bit more complicated than you would like to lead people to believe. First off, CPUs love low latency and GPUs love high bandwidth. Because of this Sony has crippled the PS4's CPU with DDR5 and Microsoft has crippled the Xbox One's GPU with DDR3. What does this mean? This means better CPU performance in the Xbox One and better GPU performance in the PS4. But...

The Xbox One has a higher CPU and GPU clock speed than the PS4 and it's higher GPU speed actually makes it perform better than if they had just unlocked it's two additional compute units due to additional CUs not adding performance linearly (decreasing reward for additional CUs). As everyone should know GPU's, ESPECIALLY AMD's, are highly CPU dependent (this is why high end i7s are used for GPU benchmarks, to eliminate CPU bottlenecks) which means that the PS4's GPU may turn out to be bottlenecked by it's CPU. As for Microsoft's bandwidth problem, they added the high speed SRAM as a cache to help solve this and the GPU can actually access data from both the SRAM and the DDR3 at the same time making it's total accessible bandwidth larger than either of them separately. The Xbox One's total bandwidth is estimated to be near (still below possibly )that of the PS4.

MS did not have the same luxury. They did not have the access to mass quantities of DDR5, and that forced them into ESRAM, which took up most of the GPU space. The largest GPU to fit, was the smaller 7790 comparable. MS was forced to have to add other methods and means to, essentially, fake-widen their highway (think, a bypass on the highway that allows cars to, well, bypass the highway) and assist the GPU. These are in the form of 4, smaller command processors (compute processors and 2 graphics processors) of Microsoft custom design, which allows faster, light/ medium work to be offloaded too, allowing the GPU to do the heavy hitting. "Tricks..." that's all this game is. Now, it may not mean they can hit harder than the much more direct PS4 approach, but it certainly means much, much more than just a mere 7790. It's all about how you distribute the data.

Ignorant kids automatically consider the PS4's 50% faster performance ( just as with PS3) to be endgame in the contest. Not even close. That 50% performance boost (actually, slightly less, since, Microsoft's speed boost), could work out to serve as a mere portion of headroom.

Sony or Microsoft might one day choose to enable the CUs in future console versions. This is unknown, typically console manufacturers don’t update core specs post-launch, but consoles have been trending towards greater upgradeability over the past two generations. It’s not impossible that this could change.

Resolution: PS4 doesn't even run BF4 at 1080p60, it runs at 900p60. I guess that means that the PS4 sucks too huh? Or maybe, just maybe it's like the last generation and it will take time for the devs to figure things out. LOGIC EXPLAINS.

Things like tiled resources were a Microsoft thing first, stolen and implemented by OpenGL coders for fame, standardized later, and then (and this is the important part) never incorporated into hardware-compatible solutions. In DirectX 11.1/11.2 all of these features are either directly processed on dedicated graphics hardware or have the ability to be easily loaded into hardware compute systems with little loss in efficiency.

It is claimed DX11.2, will come very close to writing to metal, that would be a huge advantage, unless, Sony opted to use Mantel.

I don’t know why you are going crazy with your swearing.

If there is something wrong with what I have said then I would like to know why and then I will change it in the future.

I’m not biased. I am open-minded. Open to both sides.

Please, you don’t know me.

Don’t state something that is completely irrelevant.

So if I would say something like “ the Xbox One has a custom gaming audio block capable of 512 audio channels whereas The PS4 on the other hand has an audio block capable of only 200 channels, Games hardly ever use more than 100 channels at the same time, and they're usually mixed within the game engine into a single channel for the soundcard. It's a nice feat but I doubt it makes much meaningful difference.” So this would make me a Sony fanboy ? Cause’ this is true in terms of audio the Xbox One blows the PS4 out of the ground but it’s irrelevant because games barely use 100 audio channels. I have a PS4 and an Xbox One. I do not choose sides but choose the facts.

I’m just stating facts. If your facts shows differently then I would take them warm-heartedly.

On the PS4 is faster comparison...... Calculating speedup when comparing two machines is incredibly complex and takes into factor alot of things which is why the actual speedup is currently unknown but tech sites are calling it close to a wash (based on how current x86 PC machines work).

Peace bro.

Like to hear more from you :)

5-Totally irrelevant again the PS4 CPU is proving to have an edge on the xbox one CPU,even with the speed bump.

http://gamingbolt.com/substance-engine-increases-ps4-xbox-one-texture-generation-speed-to-14-mbs-12-mbs-respectively

Thunder/Freedomfree and Brofists/Battlefieldfan should be locked in a closet together and find out which one comes out alive.

@tormentos said:

5-Totally irrelevant again the PS4 CPU is proving to have an edge on the xbox one CPU,even with the speed bump.

http://gamingbolt.com/substance-engine-increases-ps4-xbox-one-texture-generation-speed-to-14-mbs-12-mbs-respectively

A single core CPU test... LOL... Have you realize PS4's CPU to main memory connection is around peak 20 GB/s while X1 has about 55 GB/s (from peak 68 GB/s)?

If you combine peak 20 GB/s (main memory write) + 10 GB/s (onion/onion+ link write direction to GPU) is still inferior to X1's CPU memory writes.

On multi-CPU core texture generation, X1 would be faster. Your cited benchmark can backfire on you.

On gaming PC and PS4, texture generation should be done on the GpGPU where it's linked to higher memory bandwidth and higher CU count.

A single core CPU test... LOL... Have you realize PS4's CPU to main memory connection is around peak 20 GB/s while X1 has about 55 GB/s (from peak 68 GB/s)?

If you combine peak 20 GB/s (main memory write) + 10 GB/s (onion/onion+ link write direction to GPU) is still inferior to X1's CPU memory writes.

Lying filth. Get out of here with your POS console that can't run COD and BF4 in 720p without frame drops.

"b..bu...bu..but teh 10% boost!!!1"

Not lying..... Enjoy second rate graphics LOL.

B..bu...bu...bu....bu but all that power tho and nothing to sho fo it!

@tormentos: LOL,

I don’t respect anything from you tormentos. You go around calling anyone a lem when they are trying to speak what they’ve heard and read. You clearly have no friends that have an Xbox. I can tell you that I friends on both consoles. WHY ? Cause I don’t hate on something that someone else has. Probably, because I have PC, Xbox One, PS4. Playing Metro: Last Light on PC atm. :P

The way you said, " BF4 is 900p on PS4 sure but it also runs 10 FPS faster than the xbox one version,so not only has a 50% pixel advantage it also has 10 FPS more.MrXboxOne just destroyed you. Anyway, you calling me an Xbox One fan when I also enjoy playing my PS4. “ Basic math ? 900p is not 50% more than 720p. Plus calling me an Xbox One fan. PFFT. You clearly don’t know me. I know what I have heard and read. So I will simply state it in my opinion. You sir, are hardcore Sony fan and I’m pretty sure that you hate seeing good things happen to the Xbox One. All in all, the industry is entirely dependent on ALL THREE NEXT GEN CONSOLES. Personally, I think you would be terrible at attracting people to your console to someone who doesn’t have it. I luckily have it and I know how awesome the PS4 is. You are repulsive and a disgrace to the Sony race.

I clearly don’t know anything by your standards. -_-.

ALSO:

The thing is ...... I didn’t ignore your link to the speed test. In fact, I told you that, " Calculating speedup when comparing two machines is incredibly complex and takes into factor alot of things which is why the actual speedup is currently unknown but tech sites are calling it close to a wash (based on how current x86 PC machines work)."

Here is more to our debate............................

In a game whenever a textured object is displayed, like say a high resolution brick texture, the entire texture is compressed and stored in RAM and takes up its respective size of RAM. Textures are the greediest RAM consumers by far compared to everything else that needs to be stored in RAM. With partial resident textures, or tiled resources, the texture is split up into smaller tiles allowing you to load only the tiles necessary to be displayed at a particular detail level.

While texture tiling has been done in software before, it had certain limitations. By moving it to hardware the limitations were removed. The benefits of removing these limitations are impressive enough that it allows developers to store texture data sizes that previously took up 3GB of RAM in only 16Mb of RAM! Not only does it offer a drastic reduction in size, but it can also allow more detailed worlds than before since now developers have a lot more texture storage available.

In addition to textures, and presumably the reason Microsoft prefers to call this partial resident resources, is because this technique can also be applied to other areas such as shadows through shadow mapping.

For the XboxOne this is particularly important since using this technique the 32Mb of eSRAM can theoretically be capable of storing up to 6GB worth of tiled textures going by those numbers. Couple the eSRAM's ultra fast bandwidth with tiled texture streaming middleware tools like Granite, and the eSRAM just became orders of magnitute more important for your next gen gaming. Between software developments such as this and the implications of the data move engines with LZ encode/decode compression capabilities on making cloud gaming practical on common broadband connections, Microsoft's design choice of going with embedded eSRAM for the Xbox One is beginning to make a lot more sense. Pretty amazing. huh ?

So yeah 100gb on broadband connections will take insanely long, your fricken right.

BUT STILL NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AND WHAT WAS IMPORTANT. SADLY, YOU COULDN’T FIGURE IT OUT.

Direct X 11.2 is the first DirectX to support hardware-based tiled resources.

The Xbox One’s ESRAM does go straight to the GPU. MS has actually been using this type of EDRAM/eSRAM approach since the Xbox 360. For example, beginning with titles as early as Kameo, it used the 360's EDRAM and GPUONLY for particle effects without ever touching the CPU. This frees up the CPU and CPU/RAM/GPU bandwidth to do other processes. BAM.

The way it works is that it needs to spit out unused tiles and re-load them as needed or quickly replacing lower res tiles with higher res tiles and vice versa, very fast. The eSRAM is basically a scratchpad for this, built on chip, so the big advantage is that you don't have to deal with the latency issues of GPU/RAM access or tie up resources when going back and forth. You also don't have to deal with the bottlenecks of the software implementation. It doesn't suck up additional resources from your CPU. I think the point you are missing here is that there's no need for your GPU to go back to your ram pool if you can do this within the confines of the eSRAM. The eSRAM is the dedicated hardware for tiled resources and DirectX 11.2 contains the APIs to take advantage of it. This technique is a perfect fit to leverage the 32Mb of on-chip eSRAM. There is a difference versus storing your tiles in RAM and on-chip eSRAM.

It's a big deal and a real "game changer" I believe. I think given the chance, most developers would highly prefer tile rendering then what we use today. The problem with tile rendering, there wasn't any hardware support for it.

The hardware level implementation of this functionality is not in the memory controller; which is unique to the Xbox One due to it's ram configuration; but the main APU itself (according to AMD's talk on Jaguar based APUs), which is shared between the PS4 and Xbox One. Microsoft has implemented API calls in DirectX to utilize this hardware directly, skipping overhead for developers that they have had to do within DX10 and DX11 as opposed to other APIs (OpenGL)

In terms of Cloud gaming, Developers are probably not ready yet to require online connectivity for their non-MP focused games, but remote cloud storage and potential processing is great for the entire industry.

THE MOVE ENGINES :

The Data Move Engines on the Xbox One differ from the DMA on the PS4. For one the Xbox One has four of them, each one with slightly different capabilities, as noted in the diagram. The thing is that the PS4's DMA doesn't support compression capabilities. Just decompression. This makes a difference when you're talking about two way transferring and compression capabilities and an important distinction especially if you plan on doing real time offloading to and from a server.

While the PS4 has its own advantages with additional CUs, and raw horsepower, it can't possibly emulate a missing slab of silicone memory, missing hardware compression capabilities built into the silicone, or a different hardware configuration to match some of the unique advantages the Xbox One has. They both have their advantages. Sony gave the PS4 more raw power and more programmable compute units, but their functions are different. It's going to have to rely on some software emulation, whether by tasking the CPU or dedicating some of its CUs to it(which would naturally take away from its GPU capabilities) if developers want to match some of the capabilities of the X1 that will be a result of relying on the on-chip eSRAM and its dedicated compression capabilities. The Xbox One has dedicated hardware for specific applications and vice versa.

So it seems like Microsoft did it's homework on all things graphics and built a great console.

Xbox One's architectural design is built for tile rendering and surprisingly for cloud computing. PS4 is simply built for raw power and seems as if that was Sony's only answer, which Microsoft could have pulled off if that was the only option.

You said it your self, MS is rich.

Maybe they didn’t choose GDDR5 for a reason. ( funny how you took my sarcasm. In my previous post. )

Interestingly there's an interview with Hihopgamer and Chris Doran regarding the Xbox One and PS4 and apparently both consoles start to chug when using 5-6GB of RAM at 60fps. So developers have no trouble filling up that RAM. So yeah MS did do it’s homework and just like the 360 they're using the eSRAM to address some of the most common bottlenecks in game development.

If Epic decides to marry its streaming tech along with supporting MS's hardware-based implementations of partial resident textures not only it should save a lot of that ram, bandwidth and CPU, but probably fix some of the issues that plagued the Unreal 3 engine.

I think both the PS4 and XBOX ONE’s builds will work fine. The battle is all in YOUR head.

The thing is, I don’t give a crap about these specs because I would choose gameplay over graphics any day.

If you would choose graphics over gameplay then buy yourself a 3000$ gaming rig.

@farrell2k: why because you can't understand the tools devs have at their disposal with cloud tech. Ask yourself why is Sony trying to desperately use cloud as well? Sadly they don't have the money that MS has to truly implement it.

Talk about mediocre engineers. Wasn't this Cerny fellow the one responsible for Knack?

@tormentos: LOL,

I don’t respect anything from you tormentos. You go around calling anyone a lem when they are trying to speak what they’ve heard and read. You clearly have no friends that have an Xbox. I can tell you that I friends on both consoles. WHY ? Cause I don’t hate on something that someone else has. Probably, because I have PC, Xbox One, PS4. Playing Metro: Last Light on PC atm. :P

The way you said, " BF4 is 900p on PS4 sure but it also runs 10 FPS faster than the xbox one version,so not only has a 50% pixel advantage it also has 10 FPS more.MrXboxOne just destroyed you. Anyway, you calling me an Xbox One fan when I also enjoy playing my PS4. “ Basic math ? 900p is not 50% more than 720p. Plus calling me an Xbox One fan. PFFT. You clearly don’t know me. I know what I have heard and read. So I will simply state it in my opinion. You sir, are hardcore Sony fan and I’m pretty sure that you hate seeing good things happen to the Xbox One. All in all, the industry is entirely dependent on ALL THREE NEXT GEN CONSOLES. Personally, I think you would be terrible at attracting people to your console to someone who doesn’t have it. I luckily have it and I know how awesome the PS4 is. You are repulsive and a disgrace to the Sony race.

I clearly don’t know anything by your standards. -_-.

ALSO:

The thing is ...... I didn’t ignore your link to the speed test. In fact, I told you that, " Calculating speedup when comparing two machines is incredibly complex and takes into factor alot of things which is why the actual speedup is currently unknown but tech sites are calling it close to a wash (based on how current x86 PC machines work)."

Here is more to our debate............................

In a game whenever a textured object is displayed, like say a high resolution brick texture, the entire texture is compressed and stored in RAM and takes up its respective size of RAM. Textures are the greediest RAM consumers by far compared to everything else that needs to be stored in RAM. With partial resident textures, or tiled resources, the texture is split up into smaller tiles allowing you to load only the tiles necessary to be displayed at a particular detail level.

While texture tiling has been done in software before, it had certain limitations. By moving it to hardware the limitations were removed. The benefits of removing these limitations are impressive enough that it allows developers to store texture data sizes that previously took up 3GB of RAM in only 16Mb of RAM! Not only does it offer a drastic reduction in size, but it can also allow more detailed worlds than before since now developers have a lot more texture storage available.

In addition to textures, and presumably the reason Microsoft prefers to call this partial resident resources, is because this technique can also be applied to other areas such as shadows through shadow mapping.

For the XboxOne this is particularly important since using this technique the 32Mb of eSRAM can theoretically be capable of storing up to 6GB worth of tiled textures going by those numbers. Couple the eSRAM's ultra fast bandwidth with tiled texture streaming middleware tools like Granite, and the eSRAM just became orders of magnitute more important for your next gen gaming. Between software developments such as this and the implications of the data move engines with LZ encode/decode compression capabilities on making cloud gaming practical on common broadband connections, Microsoft's design choice of going with embedded eSRAM for the Xbox One is beginning to make a lot more sense. Pretty amazing. huh ?

So yeah 100gb on broadband connections will take insanely long, your fricken right.

BUT STILL NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AND WHAT WAS IMPORTANT. SADLY, YOU COULDN’T FIGURE IT OUT.

Direct X 11.2 is the first DirectX to support hardware-based tiled resources.

The Xbox One’s ESRAM does go straight to the GPU. MS has actually been using this type of EDRAM/eSRAM approach since the Xbox 360. For example, beginning with titles as early as Kameo, it used the 360's EDRAM and GPUONLY for particle effects without ever touching the CPU. This frees up the CPU and CPU/RAM/GPU bandwidth to do other processes. BAM.

The way it works is that it needs to spit out unused tiles and re-load them as needed or quickly replacing lower res tiles with higher res tiles and vice versa, very fast. The eSRAM is basically a scratchpad for this, built on chip, so the big advantage is that you don't have to deal with the latency issues of GPU/RAM access or tie up resources when going back and forth. You also don't have to deal with the bottlenecks of the software implementation. It doesn't suck up additional resources from your CPU. I think the point you are missing here is that there's no need for your GPU to go back to your ram pool if you can do this within the confines of the eSRAM. The eSRAM is the dedicated hardware for tiled resources and DirectX 11.2 contains the APIs to take advantage of it. This technique is a perfect fit to leverage the 32Mb of on-chip eSRAM. There is a difference versus storing your tiles in RAM and on-chip eSRAM.

It's a big deal and a real "game changer" I believe. I think given the chance, most developers would highly prefer tile rendering then what we use today. The problem with tile rendering, there wasn't any hardware support for it.

The hardware level implementation of this functionality is not in the memory controller; which is unique to the Xbox One due to it's ram configuration; but the main APU itself (according to AMD's talk on Jaguar based APUs), which is shared between the PS4 and Xbox One. Microsoft has implemented API calls in DirectX to utilize this hardware directly, skipping overhead for developers that they have had to do within DX10 and DX11 as opposed to other APIs (OpenGL)

In terms of Cloud gaming, Developers are probably not ready yet to require online connectivity for their non-MP focused games, but remote cloud storage and potential processing is great for the entire industry.

THE MOVE ENGINES :

The Data Move Engines on the Xbox One differ from the DMA on the PS4. For one the Xbox One has four of them, each one with slightly different capabilities, as noted in the diagram. The thing is that the PS4's DMA doesn't support compression capabilities. Just decompression. This makes a difference when you're talking about two way transferring and compression capabilities and an important distinction especially if you plan on doing real time offloading to and from a server.

While the PS4 has its own advantages with additional CUs, and raw horsepower, it can't possibly emulate a missing slab of silicone memory, missing hardware compression capabilities built into the silicone, or a different hardware configuration to match some of the unique advantages the Xbox One has. They both have their advantages. Sony gave the PS4 more raw power and more programmable compute units, but their functions are different. It's going to have to rely on some software emulation, whether by tasking the CPU or dedicating some of its CUs to it(which would naturally take away from its GPU capabilities) if developers want to match some of the capabilities of the X1 that will be a result of relying on the on-chip eSRAM and its dedicated compression capabilities. The Xbox One has dedicated hardware for specific applications and vice versa.

So it seems like Microsoft did it's homework on all things graphics and built a great console.

Xbox One's architectural design is built for tile rendering and surprisingly for cloud computing. PS4 is simply built for raw power and seems as if that was Sony's only answer, which Microsoft could have pulled off if that was the only option.

You said it your self, MS is rich.

Maybe they didn’t choose GDDR5 for a reason. ( funny how you took my sarcasm. In my previous post. )

Interestingly there's an interview with Hihopgamer and Chris Doran regarding the Xbox One and PS4 and apparently both consoles start to chug when using 5-6GB of RAM at 60fps. So developers have no trouble filling up that RAM. So yeah MS did do it’s homework and just like the 360 they're using the eSRAM to address some of the most common bottlenecks in game development.

If Epic decides to marry its streaming tech along with supporting MS's hardware-based implementations of partial resident textures not only it should save a lot of that ram, bandwidth and CPU, but probably fix some of the issues that plagued the Unreal 3 engine.

I think both the PS4 and XBOX ONE’s builds will work fine. The battle is all in YOUR head.

The thing is, I don’t give a crap about these specs because I would choose gameplay over graphics any day.

If you would choose graphics over gameplay then buy yourself a 3000$ gaming rig.

@mrxboxone said:

Not lying..... Enjoy second rate graphics LOL.

B..bu...bu...bu....bu but all that power tho and nothing to sho fo it!

Is it me or you have there more PS4 games than xbox one games.?

@mrxboxone: PS4 has "nothing to sho fo it" and yet you have more PS4 games than XBone games. Hahahahaha, you just selfowned yourself idiot.

@acp_45: Thank you Ive been trying to tell this guy TORM for the longest that he needs to read more. Hopefully he will shut up and read outside of system wars.

Those are blurays dumbass. So delusional you are.

Does it crush your spirit to know Gamespot, IGN, Eurogamer, Adam Sessler, GameTrailers, Rev3gaming, Digital Foundry, Game informer and others (ALL the top gaming website experts), all award Ryse as "having hands down the best graphics of next gen."?

Even your own poll says Ryse. Your console is weak and worthless....

@tormentos: LOL,

I don’t respect anything from you tormentos. You go around calling anyone a lem when they are trying to speak what they’ve heard and read. You clearly have no friends that have an Xbox. I can tell you that I friends on both consoles. WHY ? Cause I don’t hate on something that someone else has. Probably, because I have PC, Xbox One, PS4. Playing Metro: Last Light on PC atm. :P

The way you said, " BF4 is 900p on PS4 sure but it also runs 10 FPS faster than the xbox one version,so not only has a 50% pixel advantage it also has 10 FPS more.MrXboxOne just destroyed you. Anyway, you calling me an Xbox One fan when I also enjoy playing my PS4. “ Basic math ? 900p is not 50% more than 720p. Plus calling me an Xbox One fan. PFFT. You clearly don’t know me. I know what I have heard and read. So I will simply state it in my opinion. You sir, are hardcore Sony fan and I’m pretty sure that you hate seeing good things happen to the Xbox One. All in all, the industry is entirely dependent on ALL THREE NEXT GEN CONSOLES. Personally, I think you would be terrible at attracting people to your console to someone who doesn’t have it. I luckily have it and I know how awesome the PS4 is. You are repulsive and a disgrace to the Sony race.

I clearly don’t know anything by your standards. -_-.

ALSO:

The thing is ...... I didn’t ignore your link to the speed test. In fact, I told you that, " Calculating speedup when comparing two machines is incredibly complex and takes into factor alot of things which is why the actual speedup is currently unknown but tech sites are calling it close to a wash (based on how current x86 PC machines work)."

Here is more to our debate............................

In a game whenever a textured object is displayed, like say a high resolution brick texture, the entire texture is compressed and stored in RAM and takes up its respective size of RAM. Textures are the greediest RAM consumers by far compared to everything else that needs to be stored in RAM. With partial resident textures, or tiled resources, the texture is split up into smaller tiles allowing you to load only the tiles necessary to be displayed at a particular detail level.

While texture tiling has been done in software before, it had certain limitations. By moving it to hardware the limitations were removed. The benefits of removing these limitations are impressive enough that it allows developers to store texture data sizes that previously took up 3GB of RAM in only 16Mb of RAM! Not only does it offer a drastic reduction in size, but it can also allow more detailed worlds than before since now developers have a lot more texture storage available.

In addition to textures, and presumably the reason Microsoft prefers to call this partial resident resources, is because this technique can also be applied to other areas such as shadows through shadow mapping.

For the XboxOne this is particularly important since using this technique the 32Mb of eSRAM can theoretically be capable of storing up to 6GB worth of tiled textures going by those numbers. Couple the eSRAM's ultra fast bandwidth with tiled texture streaming middleware tools like Granite, and the eSRAM just became orders of magnitute more important for your next gen gaming. Between software developments such as this and the implications of the data move engines with LZ encode/decode compression capabilities on making cloud gaming practical on common broadband connections, Microsoft's design choice of going with embedded eSRAM for the Xbox One is beginning to make a lot more sense. Pretty amazing. huh ?

So yeah 100gb on broadband connections will take insanely long, your fricken right.

BUT STILL NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I HAVE TO SAY AND WHAT WAS IMPORTANT. SADLY, YOU COULDN’T FIGURE IT OUT.

Direct X 11.2 is the first DirectX to support hardware-based tiled resources.

The Xbox One’s ESRAM does go straight to the GPU. MS has actually been using this type of EDRAM/eSRAM approach since the Xbox 360. For example, beginning with titles as early as Kameo, it used the 360's EDRAM and GPUONLY for particle effects without ever touching the CPU. This frees up the CPU and CPU/RAM/GPU bandwidth to do other processes. BAM.

The way it works is that it needs to spit out unused tiles and re-load them as needed or quickly replacing lower res tiles with higher res tiles and vice versa, very fast. The eSRAM is basically a scratchpad for this, built on chip, so the big advantage is that you don't have to deal with the latency issues of GPU/RAM access or tie up resources when going back and forth. You also don't have to deal with the bottlenecks of the software implementation. It doesn't suck up additional resources from your CPU. I think the point you are missing here is that there's no need for your GPU to go back to your ram pool if you can do this within the confines of the eSRAM. The eSRAM is the dedicated hardware for tiled resources and DirectX 11.2 contains the APIs to take advantage of it. This technique is a perfect fit to leverage the 32Mb of on-chip eSRAM. There is a difference versus storing your tiles in RAM and on-chip eSRAM.

It's a big deal and a real "game changer" I believe. I think given the chance, most developers would highly prefer tile rendering then what we use today. The problem with tile rendering, there wasn't any hardware support for it.

The hardware level implementation of this functionality is not in the memory controller; which is unique to the Xbox One due to it's ram configuration; but the main APU itself (according to AMD's talk on Jaguar based APUs), which is shared between the PS4 and Xbox One. Microsoft has implemented API calls in DirectX to utilize this hardware directly, skipping overhead for developers that they have had to do within DX10 and DX11 as opposed to other APIs (OpenGL)

In terms of Cloud gaming, Developers are probably not ready yet to require online connectivity for their non-MP focused games, but remote cloud storage and potential processing is great for the entire industry.

THE MOVE ENGINES :

The Data Move Engines on the Xbox One differ from the DMA on the PS4. For one the Xbox One has four of them, each one with slightly different capabilities, as noted in the diagram. The thing is that the PS4's DMA doesn't support compression capabilities. Just decompression. This makes a difference when you're talking about two way transferring and compression capabilities and an important distinction especially if you plan on doing real time offloading to and from a server.

While the PS4 has its own advantages with additional CUs, and raw horsepower, it can't possibly emulate a missing slab of silicone memory, missing hardware compression capabilities built into the silicone, or a different hardware configuration to match some of the unique advantages the Xbox One has. They both have their advantages. Sony gave the PS4 more raw power and more programmable compute units, but their functions are different. It's going to have to rely on some software emulation, whether by tasking the CPU or dedicating some of its CUs to it(which would naturally take away from its GPU capabilities) if developers want to match some of the capabilities of the X1 that will be a result of relying on the on-chip eSRAM and its dedicated compression capabilities. The Xbox One has dedicated hardware for specific applications and vice versa.

So it seems like Microsoft did it's homework on all things graphics and built a great console.

Xbox One's architectural design is built for tile rendering and surprisingly for cloud computing. PS4 is simply built for raw power and seems as if that was Sony's only answer, which Microsoft could have pulled off if that was the only option.

You said it your self, MS is rich.

Maybe they didn’t choose GDDR5 for a reason. ( funny how you took my sarcasm. In my previous post. )

Interestingly there's an interview with Hihopgamer and Chris Doran regarding the Xbox One and PS4 and apparently both consoles start to chug when using 5-6GB of RAM at 60fps. So developers have no trouble filling up that RAM. So yeah MS did do it’s homework and just like the 360 they're using the eSRAM to address some of the most common bottlenecks in game development.

If Epic decides to marry its streaming tech along with supporting MS's hardware-based implementations of partial resident textures not only it should save a lot of that ram, bandwidth and CPU, but probably fix some of the issues that plagued the Unreal 3 engine.

I think both the PS4 and XBOX ONE’s builds will work fine. The battle is all in YOUR head.

The thing is, I don’t give a crap about these specs because I would choose gameplay over graphics any day.

If you would choose graphics over gameplay then buy yourself a 3000$ gaming rig.

Oh dude Shut up,you ride secrete sauce like any other moron here,where in hell do you think MS will get 10% power from a damn drive update.? Well i guess sony can get the same 10% from a drive update since both are the same GPU family.

This will be nothing 10% will not even help the xbox one close the 1080p -720p gap,is funny how some of you downplay the 40% power advantage or more the PS4 has,yet want to believe that 10% of the xbox one total power mean anything.

Yeah because you will not hide your games and set up the picture like you wanted it to look right.?

Does it crush you that the xbox one has 19 games and that they are lower rated over all vs the 29 games the PS4 has.?

Not only the PS4 has more games they are also higher rated..hahaha

The xbox has no games...ll

@ronvalencia said:

@tormentos said:

5-Totally irrelevant again the PS4 CPU is proving to have an edge on the xbox one CPU,even with the speed bump.

http://gamingbolt.com/substance-engine-increases-ps4-xbox-one-texture-generation-speed-to-14-mbs-12-mbs-respectively

A single core CPU test... LOL... Have you realize PS4's CPU to main memory connection is around peak 20 GB/s while X1 has about 55 GB/s (from peak 68 GB/s)?

If you combine peak 20 GB/s (main memory write) + 10 GB/s (onion/onion+ link write direction to GPU) is still inferior to X1's CPU memory writes.

On multi-CPU core texture generation, X1 would be faster. Your cited benchmark can backfire on you.

On gaming PC and PS4, texture generation should be done on the GpGPU where it's linked to higher memory bandwidth and higher CU count.

I have a link with information and test you have only you biased lemming opinion,all the crap you say is useless

Ghost 1080p vs 720p so much for all your crappy secret sauce and theories,but but jit compression,but but Tile resources,but but 133GB/s alpha blending...lol

Quote me again when the xbox one is pulling 1080p in FPS other wise your losing your time.

My link >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your opinion,but but the xbox one is faster,is now showing in that test,

@tormentos said:

5-Totally irrelevant again the PS4 CPU is proving to have an edge on the xbox one CPU,even with the speed bump.

http://gamingbolt.com/substance-engine-increases-ps4-xbox-one-texture-generation-speed-to-14-mbs-12-mbs-respectively

A single core CPU test... LOL... Have you realize PS4's CPU to main memory connection is around peak 20 GB/s while X1 has about 55 GB/s (from peak 68 GB/s)?

If you combine peak 20 GB/s (main memory write) + 10 GB/s (onion/onion+ link write direction to GPU) is still inferior to X1's CPU memory writes.

On multi-CPU core texture generation, X1 would be faster. Your cited benchmark can backfire on you.

On gaming PC and PS4, texture generation should be done on the GpGPU where it's linked to higher memory bandwidth and higher CU count.

@tormentos said:

5-Totally irrelevant again the PS4 CPU is proving to have an edge on the xbox one CPU,even with the speed bump.

http://gamingbolt.com/substance-engine-increases-ps4-xbox-one-texture-generation-speed-to-14-mbs-12-mbs-respectively

A single core CPU test... LOL... Have you realize PS4's CPU to main memory connection is around peak 20 GB/s while X1 has about 55 GB/s (from peak 68 GB/s)?

If you combine peak 20 GB/s (main memory write) + 10 GB/s (onion/onion+ link write direction to GPU) is still inferior to X1's CPU memory writes.

On multi-CPU core texture generation, X1 would be faster. Your cited benchmark can backfire on you.

On gaming PC and PS4, texture generation should be done on the GpGPU where it's linked to higher memory bandwidth and higher CU count.

Great, so it will still be 40% slower than the PS4 and 50 - 60% slower than $400 pc hardware. You XB720 owners got such a wonderful deal. What was it that PT Barnum said about suckers?