EA Exec: Xbox One and PS4 Are "A Generation Ahead" Of PC
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
OK. Well. I can't say for sure WTF this EA goon is getting at. However. If the rumored shared memory architecture is what we're talking about, then yes, they could actually be right. Don't get me wrong. I hate consoles. They're DRM in a box. Loathe the glacial hardware cycle that completely ignores Moore's Law, and tries to sell us the cheapest crap for the most money -- They sell "at a loss" but that's just an illusion, they wouldn't do it if you didn't fall for Rent seeking, and inflated hardware prices down the road (not reflecting reduced MFG prices well).
However, I do write code, sometimes for games, and when I want to do crazy stuff, like use very fine structural voxels smoothed with marching cubes and DOF, where each "atomic" unit of the world can have different physical properties, corrosiveness and interactions (don't put out the chem fire with water!), the wall I usually run into is the memory bandwidth. Specifically, shuffling all the data back and forth between main memory and GPU RAM. Oh, I can run the physics, on the GPU with but GPU has no direct way to get control input, GPU RAM is sometimes too valuable to waste on extra collision geometry, and readback buffers are slow -- Triggering sound effects by looking up which pixels in an offscreen texture were updated is uuuuugly, and slow. Doing that with enemy AI and physics to update network states is even worse. Typically the games will have two copies of the geometry in memory. The low res hitboxes and collision geometry in Main RAM, to do physics on the CPU (where the input and sound system are also controlled), and another high quality set of mesh data in the GPU for rendering. Positioned to match the CPU side physics stuff. There's a bit of crossover into GPU with physics, but mostly it's particle systems and effects, not stuff that directly affect gameplay, because, well, you'd have to synch that fine detail over the network for multiplayer, trigger sound effects, react to input, etc. and GPU to CPU memory bandwidth is the pinch point. It's doable, but man it sucks, and if the bottle neck were removed, a lot more cool gameplay stuff can happen.
With a shared memory architecture you might still use the lower res collision geometry as faster approximates the physics, but the physics code can just update anything in RAM, and there's no readback latency. You can avoid transferring data in and out, it makes everything easier, even networking code. It also means you can stream load much easier, and with FAR more data, because you have all of main memory to play in. I can load some new models as I have spare cycles and get them ready for rendering, then BLAM, No slow transfer to the GPU to actually start rendering them. That's one less stage of streaming to perform, and one less copy of data that must exist in RAM at once... The physics code can then be parallelized on the GPU and the CPU code can directly read the results without copying the stuff across the bus.
If that's what they're hinting at, then yeah, most PC hardware today is not as "next gen" as this. However, I'm not aware if that's actually what these consoles will have. I DO KNOW that by the time the consoles come out, my new development PC will have shared memory architecture, and far more RAM to play in. 'Heterogeneous computing' is the future. Right now CPU code uses one FPU for floats. Data is VERY segmented across cores to prevent race conditions, but what would be nice is single threads that can run lots of data through the same instructions: SIMD. The speed increase you get utilizing SIMD techniques on GPU / APU hardware is awesome for nearly all software. It'll be better for everything as the line between GPU and CPU are blurred, and they combine. Shared memory architecture is a key component to this, and so is "integrated" GPU -- WOAH, calm down discrete GPU fans, it'll just mean you upgrade a motherboard or chip instead of a discrete card. It's no big deal, just progress. Prices will adjust, it'll end up about the same.
Being able to rely on this type of stuff standard will be HUGE. It'll be standard on mid to high end PCs soon enough, and even mobiles eventually, it's just so much more efficient. The fragmentation argument against PC isn't really a big issue, That's why we have optional details and minimum system requirements. Fragmentation is much less an issue on PC platforms than across consoles.
What irks me is that these consoles are just neutered 'media center' PCs. What's best for gamers and gamedevs is if all the games run everywhere forever. What's best for console sales is if games run on one device for the shortest period of time tolerable. I have a single cross platform dev chain that lets the same engine code compile across all major PC OSs, even BSD. I have an abstraction layer so my Android games can run on Desktop Java too (why not?). I port games between Linux, Mac, Windows, Mobile, with one line command: "git pull & make release" There's really nothing technical about the hardware that's preventing it from having a common API across the consoles too. No, there's not. The difficulty is due only to Vendor Lock-In and console maker hopes of more exclusivity, by making it harder to port, thus giving them advantage over the others, when no, it's the same thing as the competition or a PC. Console makers are basically exactly opposed to the progress of the game industry, by their very nature. It's dumb. They need to die. They're all just General Purpose Computing devices -- Yes, even mobiles are.
1980's Mk.II feels like it's right around the corner. It gets closer the slower the console hardware cycles.
However, I do write code, sometimes for games, and when I want to do crazy stuff, like use very fine structural voxels smoothed with marching cubes and DOF, where each "atomic" unit of the world can have different physical properties, corrosiveness and interactions (don't put out the chem fire with water!), the wall I usually run into is the memory bandwidth. Specifically, shuffling all the data back and forth between main memory and GPU RAM. Oh, I can run the physics, on the GPU with but GPU has no direct way to get control input, GPU RAM is sometimes too valuable to waste on extra collision geometry, and readback buffers are slow -- Triggering sound effects by looking up which pixels in an offscreen texture were updated is uuuuugly, and slow. Doing that with enemy AI and physics to update network states is even worse. Typically the games will have two copies of the geometry in memory. The low res hitboxes and collision geometry in Main RAM, to do physics on the CPU (where the input and sound system are also controlled), and another high quality set of mesh data in the GPU for rendering. Positioned to match the CPU side physics stuff. There's a bit of crossover into GPU with physics, but mostly it's particle systems and effects, not stuff that directly affect gameplay, because, well, you'd have to synch that fine detail over the network for multiplayer, trigger sound effects, react to input, etc. and GPU to CPU memory bandwidth is the pinch point. It's doable, but man it sucks, and if the bottle neck were removed, a lot more cool gameplay stuff can happen.
With a shared memory architecture you might still use the lower res collision geometry as faster approximates the physics, but the physics code can just update anything in RAM, and there's no readback latency. You can avoid transferring data in and out, it makes everything easier, even networking code. It also means you can stream load much easier, and with FAR more data, because you have all of main memory to play in. I can load some new models as I have spare cycles and get them ready for rendering, then BLAM, No slow transfer to the GPU to actually start rendering them. That's one less stage of streaming to perform, and one less copy of data that must exist in RAM at once... The physics code can then be parallelized on the GPU and the CPU code can directly read the results without copying the stuff across the bus.
If that's what they're hinting at, then yeah, most PC hardware today is not as "next gen" as this. However, I'm not aware if that's actually what these consoles will have. I DO KNOW that by the time the consoles come out, my new development PC will have shared memory architecture, and far more RAM to play in. 'Heterogeneous computing' is the future. Right now CPU code uses one FPU for floats. Data is VERY segmented across cores to prevent race conditions, but what would be nice is single threads that can run lots of data through the same instructions: SIMD. The speed increase you get utilizing SIMD techniques on GPU / APU hardware is awesome for nearly all software. It'll be better for everything as the line between GPU and CPU are blurred, and they combine. Shared memory architecture is a key component to this, and so is "integrated" GPU -- WOAH, calm down discrete GPU fans, it'll just mean you upgrade a motherboard or chip instead of a discrete card. It's no big deal, just progress. Prices will adjust, it'll end up about the same.
Being able to rely on this type of stuff standard will be HUGE. It'll be standard on mid to high end PCs soon enough, and even mobiles eventually, it's just so much more efficient. The fragmentation argument against PC isn't really a big issue, That's why we have optional details and minimum system requirements. Fragmentation is much less an issue on PC platforms than across consoles.
What irks me is that these consoles are just neutered 'media center' PCs. What's best for gamers and gamedevs is if all the games run everywhere forever. What's best for console sales is if games run on one device for the shortest period of time tolerable. I have a single cross platform dev chain that lets the same engine code compile across all major PC OSs, even BSD. I have an abstraction layer so my Android games can run on Desktop Java too (why not?). I port games between Linux, Mac, Windows, Mobile, with one line command: "git pull & make release" There's really nothing technical about the hardware that's preventing it from having a common API across the consoles too. No, there's not. The difficulty is due only to Vendor Lock-In and console maker hopes of more exclusivity, by making it harder to port, thus giving them advantage over the others, when no, it's the same thing as the competition or a PC. Console makers are basically exactly opposed to the progress of the game industry, by their very nature. It's dumb. They need to die. They're all just General Purpose Computing devices -- Yes, even mobiles are.
1980's Mk.II feels like it's right around the corner. It gets closer the slower the console hardware cycles.
Has Kaz Hirai spiked Microsoft and EA's water coolers because their staff are coming out with some absolutely outrageous statements. Have IQs dropped sharply while I was away?
Thank you.TheEvilCheese said:
on topic, he did say the Architecture was a generation ahead of current high-end PCs, I'm at best a rookie when it comes to more advanced knowledge of hardware and its inner-workings, than the basic setup knowledge of how to assemble a desktop, so exactly how much does the architecture affect performance?
with the way he words things it sounds like it affects performance by a considerable amount, though i get the feeling that's wrong and i think the other posts with statistics prove it.
Eh. Whichever you slice this, it's still condescending of EA. It's condescending and it's a little useless. It's been said a hundred times before - yes, the Xbone is one step ahead. *Right now*. It won't be in a year or two. All this is is EA and Microsoft trying to give each other a leg-up in marketing.Gaijud said:
Give it a while and I guarantee we'll start hearing about the frustrating proclivities of the Xbone, and of how the indie scene is desperately struggling to have any sort of presence on that platform.
It's all fine and dandy to talk about ghz and tbs and blah blah blah blah. Listen, these guys are idiots who fired the entire PR department last Friday, but hes got a point. Kind of.
Consoles are dedicated machines... I mean, less so since they're just so massively eager to try to be PCs... but they're still dedicated. They don't have to worry about running unsupported virtual machines or programming software or whatever. They can dedicate more of their hardware to specific functions, so their 8gb can be used more effectively than our 8gb. Hell... probably more effective than our 16gb. I mean, it was impressive what they were pulling off with just mere 512mb of RAM. You try playing Bioshock Infinite on a PC with only 512mb of RAM.
That's why it's even more important for them to be focusing on console gaming and not surfing the web and shit. The guy would've had a point if most of those new 7.5gbs weren't being spent on background nonsense.
Consoles are dedicated machines... I mean, less so since they're just so massively eager to try to be PCs... but they're still dedicated. They don't have to worry about running unsupported virtual machines or programming software or whatever. They can dedicate more of their hardware to specific functions, so their 8gb can be used more effectively than our 8gb. Hell... probably more effective than our 16gb. I mean, it was impressive what they were pulling off with just mere 512mb of RAM. You try playing Bioshock Infinite on a PC with only 512mb of RAM.
That's why it's even more important for them to be focusing on console gaming and not surfing the web and shit. The guy would've had a point if most of those new 7.5gbs weren't being spent on background nonsense.
So the Playstation 4 and the Xbox One are more powerful than any PC currently on the market?
Just wait six months.
Incidentally, when do the PS4 and Xbone arrive in stores?
Just wait six months.
Incidentally, when do the PS4 and Xbone arrive in stores?
My laptop outperforms my sister's 360. And it's older than the 360. And this elected spokes-whore from EA thinks we're gonna believe a word blindly? EA barely knows their asses from their elbows half the time. I'm not gonna feed into this spokesperson song and dance routine and I pray you guys don't either.
Yes... it's true.... I had to admit it...looking from that mighty fine chart, and looking at the average gaming PCs out there... Xbone and PS4 IS GOING TO BE ONE GENERATION ahead of the current PCs.. The way it's made, and how the hardware is dedicated to BEAT YOUR TV, and web browsers (maybe still few generations behind firefox though..) Their hardware capacities EXCEEDS my own PC by far...So... yes Mr. spoksperson is "wright", Xbone is NOT fossil, and PS4 means one up the PCs(AND TVs); They ARE ONE GENERATION ahead...
but PC advances a generation EVERY 6 MONTH!(TAKE THAT)
but PC advances a generation EVERY 6 MONTH!(TAKE THAT)
You can't be "a generation ahead of PC", because "the" PC doesn't exist, it doesn't come out in generations. You can't have better hardware than the technology which is currently available, and if it is available for consoles, you can build a PC with it too.
Also, there's this excellent little feature PC games have. It's called "Settings" or "Options", I believe. I personally think it's some form of witchcraft, but some people would say it renders the point moot.
Also, there's this excellent little feature PC games have. It's called "Settings" or "Options", I believe. I personally think it's some form of witchcraft, but some people would say it renders the point moot.
Blatant lying is blatant. I can guarantee that if they were, then Sony and Microsoft would never shut up about the tech specs of their consoles from the second they announced their console.
I don't care so much that he knowingly lied, though. The part that pisses me off more than anything is that mother fuckers like this will never be taken to task for their bullshit, further propping up a corrupt culture of deceit and condescension towards the consumer base.
I don't care so much that he knowingly lied, though. The part that pisses me off more than anything is that mother fuckers like this will never be taken to task for their bullshit, further propping up a corrupt culture of deceit and condescension towards the consumer base.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
no.
just no.
There are pc's out there with 5-ghz server procecssors, 32gb of ram, and dual gtx 680's.
Just be quiet EA.
no.
just no.
There are pc's out there with 5-ghz server procecssors, 32gb of ram, and dual gtx 680's.
Just be quiet EA.
It would run just fine because the xbox version and the PC version are WILDLY different in terms of coding and optimization.Pebkio said:
Not a single fact to back up a huge statement like that.
EA's pretty much the Fox News of gaming.
EA's pretty much the Fox News of gaming.