Meanwhile, in the real world, this just came on sale.
So thanks EA, I'm now dumber for reading this.
So thanks EA, I'm now dumber for reading this.
EA Exec: Xbox One and PS4 Are "A Generation Ahead" Of PC
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I'll try to explain. There is no performance hit due to data transfer because the data in the memory can be manipulated by either the CPU or the GPU. There is no copying of data between the CPU and the GPU in the PS4. They use the same memory space. That's why it's called unified memory. The memory itself wouldn't be as impressive if it weren't for the AMD's APU.The Comfy Chair said:
A standard PC setup handles it like this:
1. CPU explicitly copies the data to GPU memory
2. GPU completes the computation
3. CPU explicitly copies the result back to the CPU
And here is how the PS4 unified architecture works:
1. CPU simply passes the point to the GPU
2. GPU completes the computation
3. CPU can read it instantly. There is no copying back to the CPU.
They don't need FTL communications.
I think a good analogy would be talking to someone via e-mail instead of talking in person. When you send an e-mail you have to wait for the other person to read it and respond back to you. And then you have to read it even though it already arrived. But when you're talking to someone in person you can hear the response immediately. Assuming that they know the answer. And in this analogy they always know the answer.
Don't worry. Unified APU architecture is coming to PC soon. But this is why PS4 truly is next gen and current PC's aren't. From a purely technological point of view, this EA guy is not wrong at all. And if the new Xbox is also using unified memory then it is also ahead of the PC for now. But I don't remember Microsoft saying anything about unified memory.The Comfy Chair said:
But if we're talking about raw power then fuck this guy. Right?
I'm not so sure about this, because he's talking about both the Xbox1 and the PS4. And if there's anything Sony or Microsoft hate more than PC gaming, it's each other, so neither one of them would give a bribe which also promotes the competitor's console. To me this reeks more of in-house marketing, whereby EA is trying to push its own games on the new consoles, since console copies are far more expensive than those for the PC, but production costs are roughly equivalent.Diablo1099 said:
Whatever the case, Chalk is right when he says that you shouldn't trust someone on the basis of credentials alone, not if they don't then produce hard evidence to support their claims.
Guys, guys, relax. You all need to actually read the words in front of you. And the journalist who wrote this escapist piece, who presumably actually read said article carefully and in detail, needs to go back to school and learn how to read because the sensationalist title is completely misrepresenting what was actually said (probably on purpose too).
"...[have] electronics and an integrated systems-on-a -chip (soc) architecture that unleashes magnitudes more compute and graphics power than the current generation of consoles"
What this means: these consoles are an order of magnitude faster and more efficient than current consoles because they're more efficient and better designed.
What this does not mean: these consoles are faster and more efficient than any PC ever.
"these architectures are a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market and their unique design of the hardware
What this means: the architecture design is innovative even compared to the latest PCs because of that efficient design
What this means: if you take any PC with similar specs the console will have better measured performance when playing the same game
What this does not mean: if you compare it to the best possible PC you could build the console will have better measured performance
Pretty sure there's nothing disingenuous about claiming the architecture and design of the hardware is cutting edge and that both consoles can get a lot more out of what hardware they have then comparable PCs. That's already somewhat true of consoles because they're more specialized and have less overhead in terms of how much RAM and CPU power is needed during regular idling.
He's not saying that they have more power, he's clearly saying they use what they have better thanks to superior design and architecture that's a "generation ahead" of PC design.
Comparing the manufacturers oft-quoted PC specs (CPU processing speed & number of cores, GPU processing speed, RAM size, etc.) doesn't even make sense for a PC to PC comparison, let alone a PC to console comparison. This is because computer architecture can be designed around performing certain calculations or functions as efficiently as possible so as to make running certain applications more efficient. The more specialized the intended use of the device is, the more specialized you can make the hardware. Oh and it's also true because manufacturers like to inflate specs by measuring them only under best-case scenarios.
What matters is measured clock speeds for your two primary processors (after subtracting overhead from enforced idle, operating systems, background processes, multi-threading, etc.), but more importantly a measured processing rate or time compared to some benchmark. In general, that involves feeding the two computers a list of computations of the kind you expect it to be making in its intended use and seeing which is faster, but you guys might be more familiar with the benchmarking that most PC gamers use which is to just play a computationally intensive snippet of gameplay provided by the developer and measure the recorded framerate.
Now, granted, he may just be completely making up the fact that the PS4 and XBOne are efficiently designed. But I know what SOC architecture (and other designs of the same ilk) is and how it can improve performance, and I know that if the consoles have cutting edge, proprietary architecture, everything he is saying (and not, I might add, what you guys seem to think he is saying) is absolutely true.
"...[have] electronics and an integrated systems-on-a -chip (soc) architecture that unleashes magnitudes more compute and graphics power than the current generation of consoles"
What this means: these consoles are an order of magnitude faster and more efficient than current consoles because they're more efficient and better designed.
What this does not mean: these consoles are faster and more efficient than any PC ever.
"these architectures are a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market and their unique design of the hardware
What this means: the architecture design is innovative even compared to the latest PCs because of that efficient design
What this means: if you take any PC with similar specs the console will have better measured performance when playing the same game
What this does not mean: if you compare it to the best possible PC you could build the console will have better measured performance
Pretty sure there's nothing disingenuous about claiming the architecture and design of the hardware is cutting edge and that both consoles can get a lot more out of what hardware they have then comparable PCs. That's already somewhat true of consoles because they're more specialized and have less overhead in terms of how much RAM and CPU power is needed during regular idling.
He's not saying that they have more power, he's clearly saying they use what they have better thanks to superior design and architecture that's a "generation ahead" of PC design.
Comparing the manufacturers oft-quoted PC specs (CPU processing speed & number of cores, GPU processing speed, RAM size, etc.) doesn't even make sense for a PC to PC comparison, let alone a PC to console comparison. This is because computer architecture can be designed around performing certain calculations or functions as efficiently as possible so as to make running certain applications more efficient. The more specialized the intended use of the device is, the more specialized you can make the hardware. Oh and it's also true because manufacturers like to inflate specs by measuring them only under best-case scenarios.
What matters is measured clock speeds for your two primary processors (after subtracting overhead from enforced idle, operating systems, background processes, multi-threading, etc.), but more importantly a measured processing rate or time compared to some benchmark. In general, that involves feeding the two computers a list of computations of the kind you expect it to be making in its intended use and seeing which is faster, but you guys might be more familiar with the benchmarking that most PC gamers use which is to just play a computationally intensive snippet of gameplay provided by the developer and measure the recorded framerate.
Now, granted, he may just be completely making up the fact that the PS4 and XBOne are efficiently designed. But I know what SOC architecture (and other designs of the same ilk) is and how it can improve performance, and I know that if the consoles have cutting edge, proprietary architecture, everything he is saying (and not, I might add, what you guys seem to think he is saying) is absolutely true.
That's one of the things he could have meant. In the best case scenario he's not just talking about that though.TomWiley said:
Again, all this guy said is that the system architecture (ie, System on Chip architecture) is a generation ahead of PCs. Which isn't entirely true either, since there are some PCs that are approaching that level of chip integration already, but it had nothing to do with performance claims. The only time he mentions power, it's in relation to last-gen consoles.
At no point did he say that the next-gen consoles will be more powerful than PCs.
So really. Stop reacting to sound bytes, start reading source articles, and stop letting "journalists" goad you into a frothing fit to generate page hits.
At no point did he say that the next-gen consoles will be more powerful than PCs.
So really. Stop reacting to sound bytes, start reading source articles, and stop letting "journalists" goad you into a frothing fit to generate page hits.
Not even close.Shoggoth2588 said:
I've semi-expensive, kinda new computer components, so I'm on a high-end machine, but it's still far from the highest tier of gaming hardware. My machine has literally more than twice as much power in almost every manner that matters than both the PS4 and xbox 3. Compared to real high-end machines, the difference is so large that it's not even funny.
But... but... what about Wii U?Leviano said:Just posting to say that this thread seems to have brought together the trifecta of gaming. PC/PS/XB gamers alike are all banding together to call this guy an idiot.
Now we know that all that was needed to bring us together in one big happy family group hug was an EA douche spouting crap.
THANKS EA!xoxox
/CAPTCHA - Fezes are cool ---- Yes....yes they are
Anyway, pre-launch hype and free publicity for EA. Nothing to see here.
So, AAA games are usually $10 more on consoles, and downloadable indies are like $3-5 more? Yeah, we knew that already, it's quite a transparent feature of the market. Consoles themselves are always discounted in price; Sony and MS sell at almost no profit on the consoles and make it up via game sales and pay-to-use features like XBOX Live and Playstation Plus.Ultratwinkie said:
Trying to say consoles have "overhead" is absurd when they're mass-manufactured and sold almost at manufacturing cost.
Well, as you say there's selling the dream and then there's just plain lyingChris Tian said:
it's a little like car manufacturers time traveling, look it's the 2027 edition ford focus with a new sticker and bumper BUY IT YOU FOOLZ!!!!
they're essentially trying to sell you the holodek in a small box that costs less than £1k and that just isn't going to happen..
i'll post a few simple tech specs for those un-initiated, and you can see the utter absurdity..
gpu:
capable of producing 1080p at 30fps, along with the processing overheads required for 3D as well. Rumours of an 7000-series AMD GPU
(does 4k, old rumour is old. )
AMD recently revealed the Radeon HD 7790 graphics card, which is highly likely to form the basis of the next Xbox's GPU. It uses a redesigned chip architecture, something AMD would never normally roll out for a mid-range card half way through its life cycle, and matches many of the leaked specifications mentioned by the Durango development kit documentation
in other-words, it's a mid/high end pc. but it cant be better than enthusiast pc's that have two of these same cards
( in fact they aren't even that good, mine is 4x better in every measurable metric.. ) so on the graphics side, no it's just plain slower, smaller and lower res.
firstly, 30 fps is a joke. 1080p is extremely mainstream. give me 120 hz at 2k and i'll be willing to call it a draw
but in fact pc's are often pushing the 400 mhz limit of dvi cables at 144hz on multiple monitors these days.
#Edit, yes apparently it does have 4k good good. but no word on anything 30+ fps?
a pc can stock 200 gb of ram if someone wants, a console has 8 ( in the case of the ps4, microsoft are too shy to say. )
#Edit, yep ms have the same.
a pc can have 16 full processors running at 5ghz heck, if you really want to spend the megabucks, go buy 2× 16-core AMD Opteron 6272 processors and slot them into a workstation and roflcopter at your 32 cpu cores.. yes.. really.
( or something newer, cant be assed looking it up )
the xbox running an emulator in a software environment to run games on a second environment to translate one half of the operating system to the other... ohmygoodness!?!? frankly i'm confused by the layers of abstraction present in the 'Xbo' it seems excessive and will probably cause latency flicking through them but what do i know? time will tell.
that's the software architecture, and you know how well that worked out for sony's cell system last gen...
I could go on, but the comment is so ludicrous it digs it's own grave, so i'll quit wasting my time.
and yes i know technical ability does not equal gameplay, but this industry troll says it'll 'outgun' high end pc's? not a hope in hell. and consoles have been a generation behind for the last 3 years at least so bs to that too.
and for the future? well a cheap, low power pc is never going to beat an expensive high power pc and if it does there are serious problems. ( ie, deliberate sabotage )
'sigh'
youknow a world with actually REALLY top notch consoles would be fantastic. i'd buy one.
TLDR: pure stupidity, and it's a total lie.
Son of a...
I don't even LIKE the PC Master Race and I know that PCs could kick the crap out of consoles. If not initially, then in a year or so.
I don't even LIKE the PC Master Race and I know that PCs could kick the crap out of consoles. If not initially, then in a year or so.
Reyalsfeihc said:There, fixed that for youDiablo1099 said:
OT: While it's true that these consoles are going to be far more powerful than most people expect... they're probably not going to pass the highest PC's on the market right now.
Yes!, system on chip is a real technology with many real speed benefits but one of those benefits is not quantum computing or even a new performance per watt benchmark ( although it will be very efficient, and run much cooler than previous consoles )
