EA Vice President says PS4 and Xbox One are a generation ahead

MentalIlness

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2009
2,383
11
76
http://www.tweaktown.com/news/30558/ea-vice-president-says-ps4-and-xbox-one-are-a-generation-ahead-of-the-current-fastest-gaming-pc-on-the-market/index.html

The entire world is talking about the upcoming PlayStation 4 and Xbox One at the moment, and rightfully so. It has been many years since we have had a console hardware refresh. Unfortunately some of those involved with the new console seem to have slipped into some sort of false reality

In a comment on LinkedIn, Electronic Art's Vice President and CTO Rajat Teneja said that Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are "a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market." He went on to say "The compute capabilities of these platforms and the data transfer speeds we can now bank on, essentially removes any notion of rationing of systems resources for our game engines. Our benchmarks on just the video and audio performance are 8-10 times superior to the current gen. gaming pc systems."

I am going to speculate that Mr. Teneja was speaking about the semi-custom AMD APU that is running in both systems, and that part of his rationing is based on both chips having Unified Memory Access.

Call me biased if you want, but if he seriously thinks that graphics performance is better on an APU based system compared a PC running an 8-core CPU, 32GB of RAM and NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN, then it may be time for EA to seek out a new Chief Technology Officer.

Read more at http://www.tweaktown.com/news/30558...-on-the-market/index.html#ppTCZTEvmdtjaIPT.99
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
To be fair, when MS switched from MSDOS to Windows, gaming performance dropped because you no longer had direct access to the "metal". In a console, you still have that access. And with the ~5gb worth of ram available for video and system memory, chances are at 1080p they will look pretty good. Ahead of, say a Titan, probably not, but very close I am guessing.
 

American Gunner

Platinum Member
Aug 26, 2010
2,399
0
71
It may look close to mid level PC's at launch, but within a year or two the PC's will look better. It's always been that way, but I don't mind because I like the ease of console gaming.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
A lot of people really misunderstand the level of overhead in DirectX and Windows compared to a console OS. A $3000 desktop gaming computer from 2005 could not run Skyrim or Bioshock Infinite as well as the Xbox 360(frankly it would not be even remotely close). That's going to happen 5 years down the line with this console gen and a GTX Titan equipped computer today.
 

SymphonyX7

Member
Oct 1, 2009
35
0
0
A lot of people really misunderstand the level of overhead in DirectX and Windows compared to a console OS. A $3000 desktop gaming computer from 2005 could not run Skyrim or Bioshock Infinite as well as the Xbox 360(frankly it would not be even remotely close). That's going to happen 5 years down the line with this console gen and a GTX Titan equipped computer today.

I would have to disagree with this. In 2006, I had an OEM of the Alienware M5500, the Uniwill 259EN. It had a Pentium M 750M, a Geforce Go 6600 256 MB and 2 GB of RAM. Oblivion did run quite nicely at moderate settings at roughly WXGA res (my laptop's native res was 1680x1050 and was too high and I was fiddling with resolutions close to WXGA for the "best" scaling). It actually looked better than the Xbox 360 version when hooked to an HDTV imo.

Edit: Oh nevermind. For some reason Oblivion kept popping in my mind, not Skyrim. How careless of me.

Either way, I surmise it's only like that because the software stack becomes outdated with the hardware. That laptop I owned in 2006 would not be able to run the Skyrim as potently not just because of lack of horsepower, but also because the drivers and whatnot will be unoptimized for it.
 
Last edited:

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
So let me guess, in the next breath he will slam PC gamers and say they are only making games for consoles from now on right? I mean..he's flip flopped on that how many times now?
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
He's clueless. The PS4 has a Radeon 7850 class GPU while the Xbox One totes a 7790. These were low to mid range cards in 2012, and these consoles haven't shipped yet.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
Have any of the people who make these claims about how slow the performance on either system is actually used DirectX apis or coded anything using that? Have you also coded anything directly to the GPU (either for console or MSDOS before DirectX)?

The fact is Windows and DirectX (same with OpenGL I believe) saps a lot of performance. Not just some small bit, but a lot. He is stating, bypassing that they are achieving 8x better throughput. That is much better performance. I don't care if you have PCIx9000 and 15 Titans in SLI, you are taking a hit relying on DirectX to interpret your calls to the GPU and Windows to interpret your calls to the CPU.
 

dagamer34

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2005
2,591
0
71
He's clueless. The PS4 has a Radeon 7850 class GPU while the Xbox One totes a 7790. These were low to mid range cards in 2012, and these consoles haven't shipped yet.

I would really like to see you play a modern game even in DX9 mode with a 7900GTX (~PS3) or Radeon X1850 (~360). Oh, and your system can only have 512MB of RAM. :whiste:
 

clok1966

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,395
13
76
His statement is probably quite correct.. its a very broad statement nailing no specifics down.. While he says the ""a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market". he is most likely looking at DELLS top of the line model.. not a GAMERS top of the line model. a Dell with a high end CPU 8 gigs of memory and "Green" hd and a intel integrated graphics.. Yep, the new console might be a generation ahead.. problem is that "high end machine" is not made to play games.. its made to show spreedsheets. Add a REAL video card that can push 5-10X more then the new consoles can.. add 8 gig more memory.. etc..

Consoles use a resolution HIGH END PC gamers left behind 5 years ago.. there is no reason for a console to change.. TV's dont show more.. Memory.. Its so apples to oranges.. We cant (pc gamers) by a machine to just game.. if a PC was purely optiomised to game.. comparing apples to apples on CPU power etc.. PC are vastly faster then game consoles. BUT PC do many things.. they are not "just for games and video" Consoles play games EXCELLENT as they games are made to work with them.. less video resolution, less texture resolution, lower poly counts, etc.. They talior the game to the machine, its a great system.. Telling us your apple tastes better then my orange is silly ( and vis versa, PC are not greater then game consoles in many situations).. PC cost more, are obsoleted quicker, But they do more, can be upgraded, and are not just gaming machines.

getting a new Pissing match going wont help anybody. Consoles are losing market share, when you start to get worried you target other markets.. I think its silly to target PC gamers, we are almost a non existent part of gaming anymore.. why dont they work on handhelds, phones, tablets.. those guys are killing the consoles market share.. not PC gamers? Guess you dont try beat up the new big kid on the block, go for the small fry... problem is the small fry PC market isnt stupid.. Marketing speak (basicly lie or make facts fit) is a waste of time.. we chose PC .. for many reasons.. none where because we got sucked in by marketing lies..
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I would really like to see you play a modern game even in DX9 mode with a 7900GTX (~PS3) or Radeon X1850 (~360). :whiste:

At 540p-720p and 30fps max? Remember that the 360 and PS3 render almost nothing at 1920x1080, almost all games are rendered at low resolution then upscaled.
 

2timer

Golden Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,803
1
0
I'm just wondering if this might be an example of an ASIC console (application specific integrated circuit). I mean if the circuits are designed *just* for gaming, maybe the performance could be much higher?
 

clok1966

Golden Member
Jul 6, 2004
1,395
13
76
At 540p-720p and 30fps max? Remember that the 360 and PS3 render almost nothing at 1920x1080, almost all games are rendered at low resolution then upscaled.

what.. apples to apples comparison? no way :) Quit often PC games use higher res textures etc too. farther draw distances, more objects on screen, etc.. QUITE makin sense.. its crazy talk!
 

AdamantC

Senior member
Apr 19, 2011
478
0
76
At 540p-720p and 30fps max? Remember that the 360 and PS3 render almost nothing at 1920x1080, almost all games are rendered at low resolution then upscaled.

This. 1280x720@30FPS is the norm, not to mention reduced FOV, lower graphics setings, minimal or no AA.

Crysis 2 - 1024x720 and 1152x720 on the PS3 and 360
Alan Wake - 960x544
MGS4 - 1024x768
Metro 2033 - 1200x720 on 360

Yes, the reduced overhead on consoles does help, but it is by no means a miracle. My old S939 Opteron 175 @2.53GHZ and stock 8800GTS could play just about anything on high-mid settings at 1280x960 to 1600x1200.

With the XBO and PS4 using almost the the same hardware porting to other systems should (hopefully) be much easier. And that's good for everyone.

Edit: On snap! clok1966 beat me to it while I was typing.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
what.. apples to apples comparison? no way :) Quit often PC games use higher res textures etc too. farther draw distances, more objects on screen, etc.. QUITE makin sense.. its crazy talk!

Even if you made all the graphics options identical, the Xbox360 and PS3 will outperform hardware from 2005 in modern games. Simple as that. Now, if you find a benchmark for a game like Skyrim that shows a 7900GTX can run the game reasonable similar a console at the same framerate, then you might have an argument.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
I'm just wondering if this might be an example of an ASIC console (application specific integrated circuit). I mean if the circuits are designed *just* for gaming, maybe the performance could be much higher?

Not really, AMD has been making CPU + GPU chips for awhile now. The Xbox one is a little more customized to include the eSRAM to offset the slower DDR3, but AMD did not design a new CPU or GPU just for the consoles.

Here's one of the PC equivalents: (A budget one, with weaker GPU)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6974/amd-kabini-review

And a more general look:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6976/...powering-xbox-one-playstation-4-kabini-temash
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
I would really like to see you play a modern game even in DX9 mode with a 7900GTX (~PS3) or Radeon X1850 (~360). Oh, and your system can only have 512MB of RAM. :whiste:

I find it amusing how the GPUs in the 360 and PS3 got upgraded on Internet forums from what they actually are, a 7800GTX(PS3) and Radeon X1800(X360). The Radeon X1800XT was considered lackluster in its day, the X1900XT refresh brought it up to par.


Even if you made all the graphics options identical, the Xbox360 and PS3 will outperform hardware from 2005 in modern games. Simple as that. Now,

Optimizations will show what these cards can do, no question. But since they aren't starting with top end parts, in 2-3 years it'll take for those optimization to bear fruit, the PC will be even further ahead. Year old PC engines already look better than the demo's for these new consoles. Its almost laughable.


if you find a benchmark for a game like Skyrim that shows a 7900GTX can run the game reasonable similar a console at the same framerate, then you might have an argument.

I'm willing to bet even a 7790 will run Skyrim at 720P at a steady 24fps without much trouble. On by default, on the PC, it has better textures, weather, HDR, facial animations, etc. The gap widens further when through in the slew of visual mods that PC players install.

The better question will be how these new consoles handle next gen engines like CryEngine 3 and Red Engine 3. Pretty sure Frostbite 4 will be toned down to run on these consoles though, since EA and MS are joined at the hip on the Xbox One.


Also, wanted to comment on the Jaguar CPU. I like AMD, I really do. I've had Radeon graphics cards in my systems since the 9600 Pro was released. But Jaguar is the replacement for Bobcat, this is a part that targets the midrange market. And MS and Sony both downclocked it to ~1.6Ghz from the 2Ghz its rated for. When one considers that AMD's fastest currently shipping high end 8 core CPU routinely loses in benches to Intel's low end Ivy i3 based parts, you really need to scratch your head to think how these things are going to last another 10 years.
 
Last edited:

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
A lot of people really misunderstand the level of overhead in DirectX and Windows compared to a console OS. A $3000 desktop gaming computer from 2005 could not run Skyrim or Bioshock Infinite as well as the Xbox 360(frankly it would not be even remotely close). That's going to happen 5 years down the line with this console gen and a GTX Titan equipped computer today.



That had nothing to do with hardware or the OS, it had everything to do with crap programming and crap console ports.
 

AdamantC

Senior member
Apr 19, 2011
478
0
76
Even if you made all the graphics options identical, the Xbox360 and PS3 will outperform hardware from 2005 in modern games. Simple as that. Now, if you find a benchmark for a game like Skyrim that shows a 7900GTX can run the game reasonable similar a console at the same framerate, then you might have an argument.
Yes this is true. But just jump two paltry generations ahead and the gap has been crossed and surpassed. Once again less over head helps a good deal, but it is by no means a walking on water raining fish miracle.


That had nothing to do with hardware or the OS, it had everything to do with crap programming and crap console ports.

It is pretty amazing what you can do if you spend more then five minutes on optimization. Just compare GTA4 and Just Cause 2. JC2 looks and runs so much better then GTA4 it's truly ridiculous.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
Yes this is true. But just jump two paltry generations ahead and the gap has been crossed and surpassed. Once again less over head helps a good deal, but it is by no means a walking on water raining fish miracle.
The point is, he said it is better than the current PC generation. Next gen PC hardware might eclipse the performance lead the consoles have due to straight to metal programming, or it might not. We don't really know.
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
The point is, he said it is better than the current PC generation. Next gen PC hardware might eclipse the performance lead the consoles have due to straight to metal programming, or it might not. We don't really know.

No, the point is that the current PC gen is already ahead of either of these consoles. Highest end PCs blow these consoles out of the water.