Well, now that the PS4 is on its way to our living rooms pretty soon. I want to speak about the specs for both systems.
Edge released an article stating the PS4's specs a week before the system was announced and they were dead-on. They also released some specs on the next Xbox system. So do you think it's true or not?
@Mike W
Did Edge get the 8Gb of memory for the PS4 right?
NextBox specs are a bit muddier and probably more tightly held down. Some rumours suggest the currently accepted info is out of date and the system is more powerful.
I've also seen some reasonably well argued reasons for the currently expected situation of the PS4 looking a little more powerful. This post of GAF for example ... http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=48506608&postcount=155 ... it's not just spouting info, but providing decent reasoning behind decisions and timing context.
"Both PS4 and the next Xbox are based on the same identical AMD APU technology.
All the differences so far depend on a single element: the memory system.
Microsoft wanted to have a lot of memory capacity for their non gaming ambitions and in the design stage they thought they could only achieve that with DDR3. Sony initially settled with a lower capacity thinking that bandwidth was more important for games and 4GB was enough so they designed the system around GDDR5.
To overcome the bandwidth limitations of DDR3 while keeping the die size of the APU the same, Microsoft had to swap a few compute units and ROPs in the GPU for 32MB of embedded memory.
For all the other purposes it's absolutely realistic to think that AMD is providing the same APU.
Honestly I think that Microsoft might be a bit angry and frustrated internally at the moment for the fact that right at the last minute thanks to the introduction of 4Gbit GDDR5 modules, 8 GB of GDRR5 have become feasible at a reasonable cost, so this fact has a bit invalidated their design approach.
But at this stage there's nothing they can do if they want to release their product in 2013, still they'll enjoy a cheaper BOM because of DDR3 vs GDDDR5 and that could offset the financial burden of the inclusion of Kinect 2 in every console."
On the flip-side there are also rumours of the NextBox using Bulldozer cores instead of Jaguar ones, or being clocked at a higher rate. Whether these are well grounded or wishful thinking is another question.
Most rumours from devs seem to suggest reasonable parity (which would be a good thing I think) - though whether that was before or after the memory was upped in PS3 is another thing too. One final point on the memory. The rumours were MS had 8GB but wanted to reserve 3GB for the OS. Sony were 4GB but with 0.5-1GB reserved for the OS. Sony going for 8GB doesn't just provide parity in terms of amount, but the PS4 would potentially have more (and faster memory) for games to use.
@2
"Did Edge get the 8Gb of memory for the PS4 right?"
Yea they did.
Check out this article:
@Mike W
Ah yes, I did remember reading somewhere prior to the event that Sony were apparently pushing for more memory, I just ignored it as I thought it would be nice but unlikely. It was there that I read it :)
@DrDamn
No worries bro, it just got me thinking that Edge might be on to something. But I think both systems will be evenly matched this time around.
@Mike W
Yeah I think it would be difficult for them to not be reasonably evenly matched. Even if they aren't GPU wise then the actual differences are going to be less than this time around for all but avid Digital Foundry followers.
They will both be going for similar target prices, similar manufacturing costs. MS have Kinect to factor in, but Sony have a touchpad and PS Eye too. So barring any cunning design choices the end result will be similar. Unless MS have something extra planned - like a screened controller - then the differentiators will be more services and exclusives.
You are all crazy. 8Gb Of GDDR5 does not make a system. It's the cheapest hardware thing on the PC's, consoles, smartphones.. everywhere.
So far PS4 GPU will have only access to 2 GB OF GDDR5.
What makes a console is CPU and GPU. That is important.
@Erth
The 8Gb is unified - i.e. all not required by the OS is available for the GPU. Not just 2Gb.
I wonder if SuperDae (before he was busted) was correct about the next xbox. He indicated that the specs were old when they first talked about the next xbox compared to the PS4's released specs. As he was absolutely correct on the PS4 specs, Im interested to see if his knowledge was correct on the next xbox as well. His story on Kotaku made for every interesting reading...
"So far PS4 GPU will have only access to 2 GB OF GDDR5" I haven't read that is the case, where did you read that Erth? Not that it matters anyway, 2GB is the same that is in my video card currently, that's a ton of video ram for a console GPU. it cannot compare to my 16GB of system memory but thinking of what a console can do with 5 to 6GB of memory plus 2GB of video memory is nice.
I hope MS doesn't disappoint, but I have been betting that MS was not going for the most powerful as they have really focused on non gaming stuff the last 3 years or so. We shall see I guess.
Don't get too hung up about RAM, DDR3 or DRR5 or whatever, in PC gaming, RAM isn't an issue and VRAM isn't that scary, either. CPU and GPU are on the ropes long before RAM or VRAM make any effect on gameplay, generally speaking.
Makes me lulz that both systmes are going to be working on current tech AMD architecture and so will be lagging way behind PC poke the moment they are released.
@nollie4545
I don't think there ever was a console which didn't lag behind the best PCs specs at launch. They never were going to better them. What consoles are good at is providing a fixed platform for developers to work on and optimise for. Hence they will always get more out of it than an equivalent PC.
The same goes for memory. 8 GB would never have been such an issue in PC gaming as it is not a standard config. There is a huge amount more a dev can think about doing when they know each and every machine that their game runs on will have it.
@DrDamn, Mr amateur, that does not mean anything. GPU has it's own limits to it's access. If GPU will have limits up to 2 GB you can't use more then 2 GB. End of story.
Unified memory means that you can have access to other hardware and that means nothing. Absolutely nothing except tht you can use it for whatever reasons you want. The real effect of this "Unified bollocks" you will see only by the end of the generation when games will require all of the memory.
Memory is just a bunch of shit like "better storage for textures" and other primitive stuff for developers. Good developers that have a lot of experience does not require a lot of memory.
@fearmonkey, They are going to use Southern Islands GPU for the PS4 which says a lot.
Lol AMD GPUs aren't all that hot. Whatever lead they might have on hardware, is usually cut off at the knees by their software. Personally I think the game landscape will changed when Maxwell arrives. Graphics cards running their own on board CPU, now that is something.
As for VRAM or RAM, its generally not an issue. A graphics card will normally be stuffed by lack of shader or core potency long before the amount of VRAM it has is chock full. At the resolutions your average console lives at, it won't be a problem. Same goes for RAM. Whilst neither RAM or CPU are particularly killed by games these days, its the CPU which will create the bottleneck, not the RAM- generally gamers see no performance difference from installing more or faster RAM than someone running 4-8GB of 1333mhz stuff.
Don't kid yourselves, anyway: the reason AMD is supplying the guts of these systems is because they were cheaper than intel or Nvidia.
*If* ... you aren't providing any proof here. "except tht you can use it for whatever reasons you want." ... Ummm right, do you need any more bullets or is your foot completely gone already?
Please don't get hung up about a console allegedly having 'only' 2GB of Video RAM. Seriously, it won't limit the console or its potential, as someone else mentioned, the VRAM limit in PCs (typically 1/1.5-2GB) is generally not exceeded that often until you bring in X4 or even X8 MSAA (antialiasing) and lots of high resolution textures etc, usually at the 1920 x 1080 slot and above. Once you reach this kind of performance and quality setting, the GPU core has run out of steam and just can't dish out frames fast enough so you could have any amount of VRAM and it won't make any difference.
System RAM is also largely irrelevant; consoles do not have to load an OS as hefty as Windows 7, they won't have to run AV software, they don't have to load half a dozen drivers to operate, (its all on the motherboard ROM I guess) so they don't need 16GB of RAM to run one game at a time.
Personally I would be far more interested to know what on board storage each respective device will have, will they have a solid state drive each, and if so, whose drive, whose controller and what kind of capacity? At present my PC now boots faster than my 360 and can load games faster even when games are installed to mechanical drives on each machine.
Far too early to start writing off a console vs another when we haven't even seen them in the flesh.
SuperDae said 'If you only knew #laughedsohard' in reply to someone claiming on his Twitter that PS4 was more powerful. He also claimed that the leaked durango specs were old. I have spoken to someone on another forum, dude claims he has old co-workers now working at MS and they told him that ever since the durango leak MS put everything on lock-down so no leaks could easily happen. Apparently the durango specs are 1,5 years old and the latest specs are much better. Claims there are three devkits, all with different ram and what not. I wonder if he's being trolled or not, i do not believe he's trolling me though. So who knows.
Lately i've been visiting the TeamXbox forum a lot and a certain dude, who used to talk in favor a lot for all things MS did a 180 and now says this:
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.php?p=13906949&postcount=3950
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showpost.php?p=13907656&postcount=4122
I wonder what he's heard and if that stuff is even true. Getting really tired of all the rumours, all the he said/she said stuff. It's time for facts.
I DID find out something nice though, i for one was skeptical about MS bringing new IPs to the table. But yesterday i checked out a thread on NeoGAF and this poster called TheOddOne found lots of interesting bits of information on people MS hired for new core IPs in the RPG, Action/adventure, FPS and Racing genre. People from big companies like Rockstar, EA, Ubi, Naughty Dog, Sucker Punch, Relic, Volition and so on were hired by MS for these projects. The new Black Tusk Studio's project is sounding better and better too. A game with the scope of a Halo and Gears, takes place in space, FPS with platforming sections and horror elements. Rare has been removed from Kinect Sports and seems to be making a racing game, cause they have been hiring a shitload of people from Codemasters and Evolution Studios and Big Park is now making the games Rare used to make for Kinect. This is also interesting:
http://i.imgur.com/2wQC8h3.jpg
I wonder what the question mark is.
@nollie4545
I think the ram will make a difference, but in a way that's a bit more meaningful than Erth understands. It's not about pushing more polys, shaders or XYZAA. It's about making games better experiences. The crucial factor is actually that devs themselves asked for this and are excited about having it. So while Erth can dismiss it all as inconsequential I'll take the opinion of those who actually make games over his any day :).
@moonwalker1982 and fearmonkey
vgleaks have said their info was reasonably current. So old or not from SuperDae they think it's current.
I knw DrDamn. But i still believe in the possibility that MS put everything on lock-down and that its the reason no more updated specs have leaked. I can hope, right? :)
I would find it incredibly weird if MS comes with a significantly weaker console, i mean..what about Epic? I bet they have had some input in the new Xbox and i doubt they would like this one bit. Also multiplatform titles, if people in due time have both consoles and multiplatform titles and they look a lot better and perform a lot better on PS4, that can't be good for PS4. Cause even me, who really prefers Xbox will buy it for the PS4 then. That can't be what MS wants. Unless they can tweak the specs in a way that the difference is very slim.
@Moonwalker1982
I think this time around both systems are going to be evenly matched. There's not going to be a huge difference between multiplatform titles, just like there's not a huge difference now.
@DrDamn
I still think MS has time to upgrade it's ram right? Or is that too late? I think MS is heading in a different direction this time around, they want to be the ultimate entertainment center.
'You want to watch ESPN?' Check
'You want to watch HBO and Showtime?' Check
'You want to watch movies and shows on your Netflix and Hulu Plus? Check
'And if you want to play games, we got that too' Check
I don't think they're focus on games as much as they use to be when they first enter the market. Seeing how much money they generated from Xbox Live and Kinect, they figured they can make another Halo game or exclusive DLC from some third party developer to throw us a bone to shut us up for while. But we will see.
Erthazus proves for the hundredth time that he doesn’t know anything about system architecture or how games work. Not a single thing.
Here’s a few ways in which more memory can improve game performance and image quality:
1) Assets that would have been streamed in a memory-tight system can be memory-resident, which means vastly lower latency before they can be fetched for use in rendering, eliminating pop-up.
Streaming requires 4 things: Memory bus bandwidth to transfer the compressed package from disk to decompression buffer, a decompression buffer, a processor core (or a time-slice of one) to perform the decompression, and the memory bandwidth required to read the compressed file and write the decompressed assets. All these actions impact the performance of the machine as a whole.
2) Having the memory to retain high resolution geometry and shader buffers allows for higher precision geometry-based antialiasing instead of relying on post-render edge smoothing algorithms.
3) Not having to scrub the geometry buffers also means easier and more accurate stereoscopic 3D rendering. The ‘cheat’ 3D techniques of Trivioz, et al. evolved out of a need for dual-view rendering without access to a full depth buffer.
4) More frames of animation can be stored in memory, meaning not only higher quality animations but less need to interpolate frames, which takes up processor and memory bandwidth.
5) Many other real-time calculations that are currently performed can be tabulated if there is memory to spare. Look-up tables have been a staple in increasing performance since day one. It’s an oldie but goodie: The SIN/COS lookup table was the holy grail of circle rendering back in the day. The principle remains.
On the GPU access to 2Gb rumour: That would only really make sense if it was a discrete GPU. The GPU in the PS4 (correct me if I’m wrong here folks) is built into the CPU die as part of an APU, and so it’s access to RAM would be through the same built-in memory controller as the CPU cores as there is effectively no Northbridge.
@Moonwalker1982 - I'm right there hoping with you! :)
I have been afraid MS was going to go the less powerful route trying to be the media box that plays games. I worry that MS has lost sight of what made the Xbox cool in the first place, which was a powerful system that plays amazing games. Many rumors have pointed to MS releasing a console/DVR and I could care less about that.
However, I have also heard what you mentioned about there being different versions of Durango, and even that the last dev kit with the latest specs was no longer even called Durango internally. I admit I am most concerned about the Kinect 2. I play on a 27inch monitor most of the time which is also connected to my computer. I don't have room for Kinect use and if Kinect is mandatory I would not be able to play as I like. I hope they have really shortened the distance the kinect needs as well as I never got a Kinect because of the way my living room is.
I agree I am really tired of the rumors, and I hope MS really wows us. IF not I may favor PS4 this generation since it appears that they have a powerful system and the Move and camera arent required.
You guys are getting hung up about figures which essentially mean nothing.. PCs need a fair amount of RAM, circa 4GB to function well, consoles will not, as I said, there is no anti virus suite to run, no windows, no dozens of drivers or processes in the background, and since you won't intrinsically need to be able to multi task on a console, besides maybe download a game whilst play another, you will not need huge amounts of system RAM.
Furthermore, if the consoles both sport on die GPUs then VRAM will be almost irrelevant, because you won't have the graphics power to push a lot of frames at high resolutions, triple buffer them or have lots of anti aliasing- the GPU and CPU will be on their knees long before you run out of VRAM.
It is this simple. If you continue to think one console is automatically better than the other because it has greater RAM or VRAM inside it, you are on the wrong path.
@Nollie4545 - More ram means bigger worlds with less loading, better animations, more on screen objects, not just graphic items like lighting, textures, and polygon density.
"If you continue to think one console is automatically better than the other because it has greater RAM or VRAM inside it, you are on the wrong path."
I think of the PS2's 4mb of vram compared to the Xbox's 64mb of unified ram, and the demo of having one leaf that had a 4mb texture that the PS2 couldn't display. I don't see how you can argue that 8gb of memory isn't a godsend, that is so much more of a jump than I expected for this gen.
@Moonwalker1982 - I mean to mention this before, but do you remember when Mark Rein from Epic was banging the drums about next gen needing the ram and power to run next gen games. I always thought he was doing that as MS/Sony were waffling (or maybe he was just afraid they were waffling) on how powerful the next gen would be. I bet at one time MS and Sony were thinking of Nintendo as an example, a moderately more powerful box, and as the Wii started dying they thought better of that.
@nollie4545
I mentioned it above. The memory, this is something devs asked for in the designs of both consoles. There are plenty of uses for lots of ram. Its also not about numbers and consoles being better than others or whatever, its what can be practically done with this? What impact can it have game wise? That's what we care about. If devas want it then they have plans for it and uses for it.
On the point of OS requirements MS are rumoured to be reserving 3GB of the 8 for the OS. They have some big plans in there... Either than or they've shoe horned in Windows 8. :/
Guys, seriously, you are on the wrong path. More RAM does not mean bigger worlds- there are a trillion PCs with RAM of 8GB and above yet typical game usage is rarely more than 1GB, in fact I can only think of one game which really uses 4GB total.
Don't get excited about RAM or VRAM. It has not historically been a limiting factor in PC games. CPU and GPU horsepower is what counts and it is those that mean crazy looking graphics AND usable FPS.
Theres no way Microsoft will release a less powerful console than the PS4 now. The new specs have to be at least comparable. Never underestimate your enemy/competitor.
@nollie4545
"it is those that mean crazy looking graphics AND usable FPS."
Completely. Missed. The. Point.
"More RAM does not mean bigger worlds- there are a trillion PCs with RAM of 8GB and above yet typical game usage is rarely more than 1GB, in fact I can only think of one game which really uses 4GB total."
The reason is that most games are console limited, meaning they were created on console and ported to PC, or developed on PC but need to be as similar as possible on consoles. An example would be Skyrim. It runs on the 360 fine, but the Steam version has the high res texture packs and modders have created even higher res packs, and those need that extra ram. With all my expansions and texture packs I think the game takes between 5 to 6GB of my 16GB memory (not to mention my video card itself has 2GB)
It just isnt about crazy looking graphics and high framerates, it's about all the things that make up a game taking more memory. Consoles (and midrange PC's) have held back games on PC, as the biggest publishers and developers make games on both. Most people don't have uber gaming machines so 4GB was a sweet spot many shot for. with a new console generation that has a ton of memory, this will spur more games that require the extra memory.
How many times have you noticed beautiful backgrounds that really arent rendered but just a texture or picture. With the extra memory, that could be rendered as texture memory could be increased (Most background renders are fairly low polygon and that could be increased as well, objects on screen take up memory too) Animation is a big one, motion capture is great but most characters walking around in cities have limited animations. That could be majorly increased. its not just about graphic fidelity its also about scene complexity.
I think 2 to 3 years from now, you will understand what I mean when games really start using the hardware. First gen games on next gen systems usually dont take advantage of the hardware, though some first party games get that luxury,
Dude, you're talking about filling that memory with a sh1t load of rendered assets yet if the specs and conjecture are anything to go by, these consoles will only have an on board GPU. That means you're going to struggle with a lot of high res textures and destroy it if you bring AA into the picture.
You can bang the RAM drum all you like but sooner or later it all comes down to clock cycles and grunt. The limiting factor to how big your worlds are and how much texture you bring in will be getting an acceptable and playable number of frames going.
There are PC only games which had access to all the RAM resources a Dev could ever want, RAM is dirt cheap, the physically cheapest thing you could put in a system.
The point with PC's being able to have 16Gb+ of memory is that games still need to be developed with minimum specs in mind and that is often 3, 2 or 1 Gb - before OS overhead is taken into account. So how a PC game can use 8Gb is severely hampered by having to also allow for the machines having a lot less than that too. That restricts your game design straight away as you have to think about how it can scale not how you can fully utilise all you have available.
You must log in to post.
© videogaming247 Ltd.
