• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like AMDZone around here...

PS4 will be a good upgrade over current consoles, and a much needed one for PCs.

What it won't be is magic, just like Bulldozer or any other hype train product we've seen before including previous consoles.
 
Rakehellion said:
False. Software is written to run on the hardware that's available, not the other way around.



False. A bus does not run programs, only transmits data.



With or without you.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, this completely irrelevant post isn't quite "witty" enough for your baseless claim to hide behind. you still haven't answered the question. You're saying the data transfer is too slow, yet slowing it by a factor of 50% still maintains damn near 100% of it's performance.

Are you familiar with the Scientific Method? I suggest you work on the Analysis part of it and then come up with a new hypothesis. Because testing shows that the PCIe bus isn't the bottleneck someone somewhere has tricked you into thinking it is.
 
Last edited:
BallaTheFeared said:
Sounds like AMDZone around here...

PS4 will be a good upgrade over current consoles, and a much needed one for PCs.

What it won't be is magic, just like Bulldozer or any other hype train product we've seen before including previous consoles.
Click to expand...

We can be thankful it's currently limited to this thread. I think that's the sole reason it hasn't been locked yet, to keep the crap quarantined here.
 
galego said:
We never move from API overhead (including draw calls) and GPU performance.
Click to expand...

Draw calls are not GPU, they're cpu releated, the 10x thing is draw calls, how many different calls the system can make.

The PS3 and 360 can do more draw calls than the 3960x running 5GHz on every core.

This is the overhead they're talking about, it has nothing to do with gpu performance.
 
PCIe 3.0 16x is available. Lowering it to 8x provides virtually identical performance, lowering it further to 4x still provides for virtually identical performance. (most of the time and with exceptions on multi GPU setups)

No matter how large of a circle you want to speak in, what you're saying isn't adding up. You can toss in all the red herrings, non-sequiturs and strawman's you want and this will remain true.
 
Last edited:
2is said:
PCIe 3.0 16x is available.
Click to expand...

Some people only have PCIe 1.0.

And bus speed doesn't give you a linear scale of performance. At all. If you write a game for PCIe 16x and a user only has 8x, you won't go from 60fps to 30fps, you'll probably go down to 1fps.
 
BallaTheFeared said:
Draw calls are not GPU, they're cpu releated, the 10x thing is draw calls, how many different calls the system can make.

The PS3 and 360 can do more draw calls than the 3960x running 5GHz on every core.
Click to expand...

Which is BS because like I said, console games have more object pop in than anything.

If they are so fast, then why is that? Yet on well optimized DX11 native games like Crysis 3 and BF3, there is practically no object pop in due to DX11 features like command lists.
 
Rakehellion said:
Some people only have PCIe 1.0.

And bus speed doesn't give you a linear scale of performance. At all. If you write a game for PCIe 16x and a user only has 8x, you won't go from 60fps to 30fps, you'll probably go down to 1fps.
Click to expand...

Some people only have HD2000 or worse yet, Intel GMA and Atom processors... Not every game will very well or at all on that... Another circular argument that isn't working out in your favor.

And yes, your second paragraph is exactly what I'm saying so clearly, that isn't the bottleneck you're pretending or have been fooled to believe it is.
 
Carfax83 said:
Which is BS because like I said, console games have more object pop in than anything.

If they are so fast, then why is that? Yet on well optimized DX11 native games like Crysis 3 and BF3, there is practically no object pop in due to DX11 features like command lists.
Click to expand...

Calling Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3 DX11 "native" is a little dubious since those games are designed to run on PS3 and 360.
 
BallaTheFeared said:
I see, I have nothing substantial to go on. However I'm not commenting on the tech, we aren't hearing this from AMD or Sony we're hearing it from forum users who insist on painting draw calls as gpu performance.
Click to expand...

Therefore you move from X said nonsense to AMD said nonsense and now to forum users said nonsense. Except that it is pretty evident that you did not still understand what was really said.
 
galego said:
Therefore you move from X said nonsense to AMD said nonsense and now to forum users said nonsense. Except that it is pretty evident that you did not still understand what was really said.
Click to expand...

Actually it appears you don't hence your need to attack members rather than points.


Figure out where 10x came from, then figure out what draw calls are.

Meet me back here when you're ready.
 
Rakehellion said:
They still have memory for the CPU and GPU separated by a slow bus.
Click to expand...

A slow bus that's clearly not slow enough to cause any bottlenecks considering you can set it to 25% of it's maximum speed and lose almost zero performance.

You failed to prove your case a few minutes ago with the same argument.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Click to expand...
 
Rakehellion said:
Calling Crysis 3 and Battlefield 3 DX11 "native" is a little dubious since those games are designed to run on PS3 and 360.
Click to expand...

Um, both of those games were designed for PC first then down scaled for consoles. Also, the only graphics API they use is DX11, hence why I said they were native DX11.
 
2is said:
A slow bus that's clearly not slow enough to cause any bottlenecks considering you can set it to 25% of it's maximum speed and lose almost zero performance.
Click to expand...

Wow.

Games are written from the ground up not to saturate the bus. Why is that difficult to understand?
 
Carfax83 said:
Um, both of those games were designed for PC first then down scaled for consoles. Also, the only graphics API they use is DX11, hence why I said they were native DX11.
Click to expand...

They were written for PC with the expectation that they'd be scaled down for consoles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top