Discrete GPU equivalent to PS4?

[galego]

I would like to obtain an estimation of the PC equivalent to the graphic capabilities of the PS4. I don't wait exact number but only rough estimations or orders of magnitude.

PC and console are very different despite the PS4 using PC-like hardware. Therefore here goes some background:

1. We have the overhead associated to Microsoft DirectX APIs on Windows 7/8. Some game developers like Carmack claim that the overhead is at least 2x over console-APIs. Other report larger overheads of up to 10x.
2. The PS4 will have possibility to be coded at metal level which will generate another amount of extra performance over DirectX.
3. We have the APU-HSA design on the PS4. This implies that the CPU can help to the GPU in situations of extreme load, unlike what happens in the PC where CPU and GPU work separately and can bottleneck the other.
4. Finally we have the unified GDDR5 memory design, which avoids the bottlenecks associated to the PCI and DDR3.

Combining all of the above, I think that the effective graphics performance of the PS4 would be about 5x the base 1.84 TFLOP.

This gives a theoretical value of 9.2 TFLOP for a discrete graphics card in the PC side, which is superior to what can offer the newest HD 7990 and far beyond the GTX titan.

Even if we take only the conservative 2x value given by Carmack and ignore the rest of the hardware benefits (points 2 to 4), this would give an effective performance of 3.68 TFLOP, which is slightly superior to what offers a GTX-680.

It is interesting that early demos of the PS4 are comparing it to a i7 + 16 GB RAM + GTX-680. This cannot be a causality!

So far as I know those early demos are fast PC ports which were made in weeks, without further optimization to the PS4 hardware.

I know that increased gaming performance on the PC is forced via introduction of fastest cards. However, the hardware in consoles is fixed within a given generation, and performance only can be obtained via optimization.

My first estimation is that early-games for the PS4 will require of something like a GTX-680 for gaming them in the PC, whereas latter, optimized, games will require of something like a HD 7990 for gaming them in the PC.

There are other points to consider such as the PS4 coming with 8 GB GDDR5 whereas many GTXs only have 1 or 2 GB, which means that even if the GPU card had power enough, it would lack memory to play some titles doing extensive use of it.

 

[Fx1]

i think your assuming way to much with the 5x 1.84 TFLOP

If this PS4 setup was so good then BF4 wouldnt be 60 FPS at 720p

 

[Stuka87]

The GPU in the PS4 is pretty similar to that used in an HD7850.

 

[Redmenace]

Here is an article that talks about PC components that would be equivalent to next gen consoles http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

 

[blastingcap]

The closest thing SHOULD be the 7850, but the memory bandwidth may not be as high considering the APU nature of the PS4 chip, IIRC. However, gamedevs can program to the metal, so the actual performance may well rival a HD7850 anyway, as there is no DirectX overhead.

 

[alcoholbob]

The games currently in development have been developed on the early dev kits, which according to Epic only had 1.5GB of RAM and they are only using about 27-29% of the capability of the final PS4 specs so far.

What they should be able to push in few years or so should on the PS4 likely can't be matched with top end PC hardware today.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Seriously????

This PC vs PS4 argument has been discussed endlessly in multiple threads already. And bottom line, after all this, despite all the glowing statements and speculation, is that nobody really knows until the console comes out and can finally be tested by objective review sites.

 

[blastingcap]

I tend to play older games that don't even stress my current hardware, like Team Fortress 2. So by the time I get around to playing, say, Crysis 3, I'll probably be running a Core i5-5500K or something that easily wallops the PS4 anyway.

 

[Riceninja]

Here is an article that talks about PC components that would be equivalent to next gen consoles http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

great article, very informative

"Replicating the 8GB unified ram of the Sony console will be impossible," another well-placed source tells us.

"The problem with Windows is that there is always a DirectX type 'layer' between the game and the actual hardware. This marshals and controls the movement of textures/shaders/vertices from the main PC memory to the memory on the GPU. Unless PC games programmers get direct control of the hardware (very unlikely), you will always be fighting against this issue. You never know where your textures are and when they will be uploaded to the GPU, which can cause stalls or micro-stutters in a frame as resources are shunted between the memory types."

While we can talk about PlayStation 4 as a mid-range PC in a miniature box, to comprehensively best the console's most powerful elements, once again it seems likely that PC owners will need to brute-force their way through to improved performance.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I forget who said it but there are usually two options to problems with computing speed. Write better software or throw more power at it and it's always a better option to throw more power at it. That's just what we are doing with SLI and overclocked 4.5Ghz+ quad core CPUs.

 

[blastingcap]

I forget who said it but there are usually two options to problems with computing speed. Write better software or throw more power at it and it's always a better option to throw more power at it. That's just what we are doing with SLI and overclocked 4.5Ghz+ quad core CPUs.

Wtf...

 

[cmdrdredd]

Wtf...

Ever hear of money? It's that thing that we spend more on to write code than to buy a faster CPU and GPU and fix it that way.

 

[Cloudfire777]

Its equal to HD 7860 (better than 7850 and slower than 7870)

 

[alcoholbob]

Wtf...

It's better because trying to hiring a genius who can think outside the box costs more than buying a stack of K20 Teslas.

 

[blastingcap]

Ever hear of money? It's that thing that we spend more on to write code than to buy a faster CPU and GPU and fix it that way.

Oh I'm aware of the sentiment, all right, but "always" is pushing it.

For laughs: http://thedailywtf.com/

 

[cmdrdredd]

Oh I'm aware of the sentiment, all right, but "always" is pushing it.

For laughs: http://thedailywtf.com/

I can't find the exact quote. could have been almost always or something. Really the same overall idea. Trying to write better code for higher efficiency is more costly than getting better processors to do the work faster.

I do understand that for a console there are power, heat, and cost limits on the hardware end. So that's why games can cost upwards of $100million to make. You not only make it look good, but have to write code specifically catered to the hardware which takes time and expertise which isn't cheap.

 

[blastingcap]

I can't find the exact quote. could have been almost always or something. Really the same overall idea. Trying to write better code for higher efficiency is more costly than getting better processors to do the work faster.

I do understand that for a console there are power, heat, and cost limits on the hardware end. So that's why games can cost upwards of $100million to make. You not only make it look good, but have to write code specifically catered to the hardware which takes time and expertise which isn't cheap.

As I said, I'm aware of the argument and it's apparently why CUDA has more of a following than OpenCL, among other things. For labs and businesses, it's probably easier to throw more Intel hardware at a problem than try to rewrite stuff intended for x86, something ARM will have to overcome.

 

[galego]

Here is an article that talks about PC components that would be equivalent to next gen consoles http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-future-proofing-your-pc-for-next-gen

The part about the CPU is clear. The part about the GPU is not.

They start from the 1.84 GFLOP of the GPU and ignore the points 1 to 4 in the above background. They conclude that the equivalent is about a 7850 or a 7870.

Next discuss the advantages developers have in addressing the technology more directly in a fixed architecture (point 2?) and move to the GTX 660 Ti and the HD 7950.

Next they discuss the PS4 unified memory and move to the HD 7990 and the GTX Titan to "comprehensively address this issue completely".

Latter they consider point 4 and the article finish with an

It takes time to get the most out of console hardware, and in the meantime we fully expect enthusiast PCs to continue to deliver the goods. However, equally it's fair to say that your current gaming computer that runs existing titles at 1080p60 or higher may well have problems equalling that level of performance once the next-gen era kicks in at full force.

Their analysis is somewhat different to mine, but they seem to be recommending the HD 7990 as the most safe equivalent to the PS4.

 

[galego]

The games currently in development have been developed on the early dev kits, which according to Epic only had 1.5GB of RAM and they are only using about 27-29% of the capability of the final PS4 specs so far.

What they should be able to push in few years or so should on the PS4 likely can't be matched with top end PC hardware today.

This is very very interesting info!

Using the minimal 2x estimation I got the GTX 680 equivalence and this was just the card used by Epic at GDC when compared with PC hardware.

Now my more powerful estimation was 5x. The 2x estimation would be a 40% of capability of the PS4 and you give about a 27--29%, which is very close.

If I use your 27--29% instead of my previous 40% then I would change my previous 5x estimation to about a 6.8--7.4x which means about 12.9 TFLOP. This is the equivalent to a dual 7990 configuration! I only can say WOW!

Could you provide some link to Epic giving the 27--29% percentages please?

 

[futurefields]

it's like a mobile version of a 7870 in a ps4. it's all relatively low power components tied together via a fast unified memory system right?

i bought my 7950 with an eye on keeping up with PS4-spec multiplatform titles @ 1080p, i'd like to continue to be able to run them on high settings.

it'll be interesting to see if PS4 games actually render native 1080p, i'm guessing we'll see a lot of native 1600x900 so they can maximize fx.

it'll be a real bummer if Battlefield 4 really is 720p on PS4... cause 720p looks like ass on a 1080p TV in my opinion and it also means to have that image quality at 1080p on PC will probably require an overclocked 7970 or 680, or multiple weaker gpu's. because if they are limiting to 720p on PS4 they are no doubt doing so to really pump up the shader fx.

 

[desura]

7860 seems way underpowered.

typically, when these consoles launch, don't they eclipse the high end pc segment? Or at least provide like 90% of the power for 30% of the cost? So I'd expect Nvidia Titan-rivaling performance for the low price point of like $400.

Then again, seeing how the PS3 ended up using SPU's for graphical processing elements, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that happen here.

 

[StinkyPinky]

I'm pleasantly surprised by the power of the PS4 GPU. I thought they would do a Nintendo and do some weak ass one, but the PS4's GPU will power games nicely and should allow for some excellent graphical improvements imo

 

[alcoholbob]

7860 seems way underpowered.

typically, when these consoles launch, don't they eclipse the high end pc segment? Or at least provide like 90% of the power for 30% of the cost? So I'd expect Nvidia Titan-rivaling performance for the low price point of like $400.

Then again, seeing how the PS3 ended up using SPU's for graphical processing elements, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that happen here.

8800 GTX was out when the PS3 was released, and its GPU was roughly a 7800-7900 series. If you look at the Voodoo Power thread, a 8800 GTX is about 2.3 times faster than a 7900 GTX.

Compare that to a GTX 680 and a 7850, which has a 1.66 speed difference.

So its not a big deal.

 

[desura]

8800 GTX was out when the PS3 was released, and its GPU was roughly a 7800-7900 series. If you look at the Voodoo Power thread, a 8800 GTX is about 2.3 times faster than a 7900 GTX.

Compare that to a GTX 680 and a 7850, which has a 1.66 speed difference.

So its not a big deal.

well, by the time the PS4 is released, we'll have another gen of cards out right? or even two-gens. So that it's equivalent to a mid-range card today does seem underpowered.

 

[Attic]

I will be underwhelmed if the PS4 can't render it's AAA titles at 1080P. I had planned to get a PS4 or XBOXnext instead of chasing graphics tch going forward via PC gaming.

900p or worse 720p rendering on the next gen consoles would make me stick with PC, I'm not a graphics whore but I do like a nice crisp 1080P screen. Dark Souls hammered home this point before and after DSFIX being used. Internal render at 1080P even on a game not oozing graphics made a substantial difference in immersion for me.