Digital Foundry discusses how Xbox One/S performance is degrading over time, PS4 SDK is a lot better than Xbox SDK, etc.

[lynux3 2,054]

This is just a bunch of slides outlining the architecture of Jaguar and Polaris, off the shelf components, tweaked by the customer. This is nothing special. The biggest part you love to ignore is "Developed in partnership with AMD." How many times do I need to reiterate "Both companies tweaked, tested and sent revisions to AMD to perform the work, it's literally that simple"? This is about as relevant as Sony showing off their technical slides of the Cell processor... seriously.

Edited January 6, 2019 by lynux3

[lynux3 2,054]

Hold on, found some slides based on PS4's APU, now it proves that Sony engineered these off the shelf parts significantly, fuck AMD.  What a fuckin' feat!

 

 

You're a fuckin' fool and the worst kind too. Fooled by Microsoft PR.

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

2 hours ago, lynux3 said:

Hold on, found some slides based on PS4's APU, now it proves that Sony engineered these off the shelf parts significantly, fuck AMD.  What a fuckin' feat!

 

 

 

 

You're a fuckin' fool and the worst kind too. Fooled by Microsoft PR.

The MS slides account for part of the whole, they list some of the extra work they put into the CPU and GPU and they go into more detail about the command processors elsewhere. Also those slides from Sony come with no extenuating information because nothing was done by them and they're incomplete.

 

[Goukosan 2,250]

It took MS 4 years (2017) into the Gen to actually engineer a console better than what Sony put out at the beginning of the gen (2013).....

 

 

That's a MS engineering victory guiz.. right guiz 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

25 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

It took MS 4 years (2017) into the Gen to actually engineer a console better than what Sony put out at the beginning of the gen (2013).....

 

 

That's a MS engineering victory guiz.. right guiz 

Xbox One X has been something the team has been discussing and planning for since late 2012. Our goal was always to get existing Xbox One engines running in 4K with higher-resolution textures used on the PC. All of our modeling was done to determine the precise specifications needed, so every part of the spec was derived from those goals. As you know, we announced those specs back in E3 2016 so they were locked in some time ago.

 

-Kevin Gammill 

 

This thing was probably engineered at least in rough spec in 2014-2015 with different iterations and conceptual prototypes. The date of release doesn't play a factor in the engineering side of things. If you look at their development kits and the work they've done there, the improvements and modifications done to the hardware, the technology they've invented to manage the thermal output and power profiles; it's clearly something that was years in the making. The release of the system was likely more in part to being cost prohibitive than anything else. I mean if you look back at E3 2016 what they show there coincides with the final system exactly as stated, even the shrouded layout of the exterior design.

 

The mainboard renders were identical, the specifications were identical, the exterior layout was identical. The system was already done at E3.  It was probably done in early 2016 or maybe even before that just waiting for costs to fall before entering manufacturing stages. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Goukosan 2,250]

2 hours ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Xbox One X has been something the team has been discussing and planning for since late 2012. Our goal was always to get existing Xbox One engines running in 4K with higher-resolution textures used on the PC. All of our modeling was done to determine the precise specifications needed, so every part of the spec was derived from those goals. As you know, we announced those specs back in E3 2016 so they were locked in some time ago.

 

-Kevin Gammill 

 

This thing was probably engineered at least in rough spec in 2014-2015 with different iterations and conceptual prototypes. The date of release doesn't play a factor in the engineering side of things. If you look at their development kits and the work they've done there, the improvements and modifications done to the hardware, the technology they've invented to manage the thermal output and power profiles; it's clearly something that was years in the making. The release of the system was likely more in part to being cost prohibitive than anything else. I mean if you look back at E3 2016 what they show there coincides with the final system exactly as stated, even the shrouded layout of the exterior design.

 

The mainboard renders were identical, the specifications were identical, the exterior layout was identical. The system was already done at E3.  It was probably done in early 2016 or maybe even before that just waiting for costs to fall before entering manufacturing stages. 

Point is... Sony out engineered them out of the gate.  If we include engineering dates... Sony's will still be ahead because PS4 obviously started its hardware development years before 2012.

 

You yourself said earlier that MS went with the same design philosophy for OG Xbox1 as they did with 360.     That right there was a mistake and they got out engineered by Sony. 

 

Point blank. 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, Goukosan said:

Point is... Sony out engineered them out of the gate.  If we include engineering dates... Sony's will still be ahead because PS4 obviously started its hardware development years before 2012.

 

You yourself said earlier that MS went with the same design philosophy for OG Xbox1 as they did with 360.     That right there was a mistake and they got out engineered by Sony. 

 

Point blank. 

While this is true that's the only instance of Sony engineering a better console than them out of four examples which is a bit ironic seeing as Sony is know for hardware and Microsoft is known for software. The Xbox launched after the PlayStation 2 and it was a superior device, the Xbox 360 launched before the PlayStation 3 and it was a superior device, the Xbox One X launched after the PlayStation 4 Pro and it was a superior device.

 

In general Microsoft's hardware engineering has produced better consoles than Sony regardless of pre or post release launches. The strange thing is what Sony did with the Pro which leads me to believe the base PlayStation 4 was a one off fluke. While they retained the same pool of memory as the PlayStation 4 they introduced the same bottleneck afflicting the base Xbox One, memory limitation. It's really strange after getting that system so right that they fumbled this one so much.  

[lynux3 2,054]

The ironic bit is that Sony continually out engineers Microsoft in software too, not just hardware.

Edited January 6, 2019 by lynux3

[Goukosan 2,250]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

While this is true

Ok.. stop right there...no need to go off on tangents. 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

3 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

Ok.. stop right there...no need to go off on tangents. 

It's not a tangent, it's very relative and you simply don't want to address it because it's true.

 

In terms of engineering you could easily assert that Sony's engineering success with the PlayStation 4 was a one off fluke, you can equally assert that Microsoft's engineering failure with the Xbox One was as well. 

 

Sony is batting 1:4, Microsoft is batting 3:4. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Goukosan 2,250]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

It's not a tangent, it's very relative and you simply don't want to address it because it's true.

 

In terms of engineering you could easily assert that Sony's engineering success with the PlayStation 4 was a one off fluke, you can equally assert that Microsoft's engineering failure with the Xbox One was as well. 

Autistic Cop... my discussion was about Xbox1, 1S and PS4..... you know... the topic of the thread.... 

 

We already discussed the topic and you agreed they got out engineered in that instance....   

 

We already know OG Xbox was more powerful than PS2. 

 

We already know 360 was weaker but better and easier to develop for than PS3. 

 

 

 

 

 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

1 minute ago, Goukosan said:

Autistic Cop... my discussion was about Xbox1, 1S and PS4..... you know... the topic of the thread.... 

 

We already discussed the topic and you agreed they got out engineered in that instance....   

 

We already know OG Xbox was more powerful than PS2. 

 

We already know 360 was weaker but better and easier to develop for than PS3. 

 

 

 

 

 

Weaker? It had higher floating point performance, and more RAM.

[Goukosan 2,250]

1 minute ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Weaker? It had higher floating point performance, and more RAM.

It had some strengths against the PS3.... 360 was also easier to develop for. 

 

But... games built from the ground up on PS3 were ahead of anything on 360.  PS3 was more powerful but a pain to develop for. 

 

MS gets a win for 360 too.... they out engineered Sony by delivering a more efficient system..... but the PS3 was more powerful. 

 

You do know that both can be true at the same time right? 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

11 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

It had some strengths against the PS3.... 360 was also easier to develop for. 

 

But... games built from the ground up on PS3 were ahead of anything on 360.  PS3 was more powerful but a pain to develop for. 

 

MS gets a win for 360 too.... they out engineered Sony by delivering a more efficient system..... but the PS3 was more powerful. 

 

You do know that both can be true at the same time right? 

The only thing that could objectively be said is that the PS3 had a better CPU but that didn't really matter, just like it doesn't matter that the base Xbox One has a better CPU than the PlayStation 4. In terms of GPU compute it was still behind the Xbox 360, and at this period in time Nvidia's architecture scaled almost identically with ATI's in terms of floating point results. 

 

It had a better CPU but it also had a worse GPU with half the RAM. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Goukosan 2,250]

5 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

The only thing that could objectively be said is that the PS3 had a better CPU but that didn't really matter, just like it doesn't matter that the base Xbox One has a better CPU than the PlayStation 4.

last gen games were  CPU intensive and games were designed and developed to be very CPU centric.   So yes a more powerful CPU did matter last gen... 

 

anyways... like I said earlier.   The topic was about this gen.   Not going back and forth with your delusional ass about PS3 not being more powerful than 360 

 

MS got out engineered out of the gate this gen. Point blank...point of this thread. 

[JonDnD 2,613]

Games last gen were cpu instensive ? 

 

Having a better cpu makes a console more powerful with a weaker gpu and less ram ? 

 

Interesting 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

3 minutes ago, Jon2B said:

Games last gen were cpu instensive ? 

 

Having a better cpu makes a console more powerful with a weaker gpu and less ram ? 

 

Interesting 

Of course they weren't and the baseline was the same as it is now, 30 FPS with oddball 60 FPS titles here and there. The CPU was hardly a factor because the baseline for performance wasn't different; the guy's just dancing around it because he's wrong. The fact of the matter is the biggest differences between the 360 and PS3 ended up being graphical and resolution related which is directly hamstringed to the GPU and memory interface. The GPU in the PS3 was the Nvidia G70, hardly something obscure to get graphical and resolution results out of. The simple reality is regardless of whatever was going on with the Cell the GPU and memory subsystem was inferior to the Xbox 360. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Goukosan 2,250]

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop! said:

Weaker? It had higher floating point performance, and more RAM.

Last time going over this with you. 

 

CPU

 

"The two CPU chips run at the same GHz speed, but the PS3's seven individual cores beat out the Xbox's three dual-threaded cores. And in terms of performance measured in gigaflops, the PS3 tops out at nearly three times that of the Xbox." 

 

 

RAM

 

"the Xbox's total amount of RAM is slightly misleading, as the system RAM and video RAM are shared. The PS3's XDR RAM is also far more fast and efficient than the Xbox's GDDR3 RAM, running at a speed of 3.2 GHz compared to 700 MHz." 

 

 

 

GPU

 

Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 rely on custom-designed graphics cards. The Xbox's Xenos card features more video RAM, but this RAM is shared with the console's system RAM. The PS3 has 256 MB of dedicated video RAM in addition to being able to share up to an additional 224 MB from the system RAM.

 

In terms of bandwidth, the PS3 slightly edges out the Xbox. However, the Xbox has the advantage of 10 MB of eDRAM. When relying on the eDRAM, system bandwidth jumps up to 256 GBps.

 

Ultimately, while the PS3 GPU shows higher general performance numbers, we're inclined to give this category to the Xbox based on the peak performance of the eDRAM and the general versatility of this setup.

 

CPU - PS3

RAM - PS3

GPU - 360 because of a better design with edram (even though PS3's GPU has higher general performance) 

 

Verdict -  from a technical standpoint, the PS3 has more horsepower. 

 

 

The end! 

[DynamiteCop 2,085]

2 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

Last time going over this with you. 

 

CPU

 

"The two CPU chips run at the same GHz speed, but the PS3's seven individual cores beat out the Xbox's three dual-threaded cores. And in terms of performance measured in gigaflops, the PS3 tops out at nearly three times that of the Xbox." 

 

 

RAM

 

"the Xbox's total amount of RAM is slightly misleading, as the system RAM and video RAM are shared. The PS3's XDR RAM is also far more fast and efficient than the Xbox's GDDR3 RAM, running at a speed of 3.2 GHz compared to 700 MHz." 

 

 

 

GPU

 

Both the Xbox 360 and PS3 rely on custom-designed graphics cards. The Xbox's Xenos card features more video RAM, but this RAM is shared with the console's system RAM. The PS3 has 256 MB of dedicated video RAM in addition to being able to share up to an additional 224 MB from the system RAM.

 

In terms of bandwidth, the PS3 slightly edges out the Xbox. However, the Xbox has the advantage of 10 MB of eDRAM. When relying on the eDRAM, system bandwidth jumps up to 256 GBps.

 

Ultimately, while the PS3 GPU shows higher general performance numbers, we're inclined to give this category to the Xbox based on the peak performance of the eDRAM and the general versatility of this setup.

 

 

CPU - PS3

RAM - PS3

GPU - 360 because of a better design with edram (even though PS3's GPU has higher general performance) 

 

Verdict -  from a technical standpoint, the PS3 has more horsepower. 

 

 

The end! 

Well you're not really going over anything because unlike me you just copy and paste shit and don't actually know what you're talking about. 

 

Again the CPU doesn't really matter because the application and use case for it never materialized even with Sony's own games, even they couldn't work it out not to mention if it did the result would have been higher performance, nothing graphically related.

 

In terms of RAM for the 360 it didn't matter because the system used very little for background operation, useable capacitive RAM on the 360 when gaming was higher.  On top of this you can't compare the operating frequency of two intrinsically different kinds of RAM and expect it to mean anything, are you fucking retarded? The result of 3.2Ghz XDR landed the PlayStation 3 with just over 22 GB/s of bandwidth, that was its ceiling. That 700Mhz of GDDR3 landed the 360 at just above 21 GB/s.... BUT the 360 had 10mb's of eDRAM which was capable of 256 GB/s for alleviating bottlenecks in the frame buffer so its useable bandwidth shat all over the PS3.

 

Unlike that shit IGN article you're citing the practical use case in games never showed the PS3 to be advantageous in rendering over the 360. Them saying "while the PS3 GPU shows higher general performance numbers" is based upon nothing. What performance numbers? It not only had lower floating point performance, its games generally looked slightly worse, operated at lower resolution or a combination of the two. It was an inferior graphics subsystem with a lesser memory interface to drive it.

 

You're a dumbshit. 

 

 

[lynux3 2,054]

You don't even need specs to realize that PS3 is a more powerful box than Xbox 360 despite difficult development and that base PS4 is more powerful than Xbox One / S in every aspect. The real difference maker is the software and Sony is on another level whether it be their first party titles or their first party services. Microsoft basically took Sony's strategy and attempting to run with it.