How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

[Blitzvogel]

Just because an environment is larger doesn't make it more demanding. Lighting, shadows, high-res textures, and so on can easily make a smaller indoor environment just as demanding as an expansive outdoor environment.

And I don't see why a console exclusive would have better or more "diverse" (seriously, heo does diversity impact performance?) textures than any other game (especially things that originate for PC, like the Witcher).

I was referring to memory impact for most of the post. And texture diversity isn't about performance hit as much as it's about art and using your texturing capabilities effectively. While a PC developer may get away with using a single very high res texture repetitively in a low end game, it makes for a bland environment that does a poor job of replicating the environment. While I certainly prefer PC gaming as a whole, the general standards of console gaming are much higher, simply because the risk is greater and devs have to meet them. Both BF2 and Rainbow Six Vegas can both run in a 128 MB VRAM footprint. R6V is certainly a much better looking game though.

 

[Sleepingforest]

I was referring to memory impact for most of the post. And texture diversity isn't about performance hit as much as it's about art and using your texturing capabilities effectively. While a PC developer may get away with using a single very high res texture repetitively in a low end game, it makes for a bland environment that does a poor job of replicating the environment. While I certainly prefer PC gaming as a whole, the general standards of console gaming are much higher, simply because the risk is greater and devs have to meet them. Both BF2 and Rainbow Six Vegas can both run in a 128 MB VRAM footprint. R6V is certainly a much better looking game though.

I do understand what you mean, especially since the PC scene is a little more indie friendly (although Mount and Blade isn't the best example since a beta was available since 2004 and the original released 5 years ago; the newest one is 2 years old). It's just that in general, cross platform games, which are far more common than exclusives, probably have equally good textures and art direction.

 

[Blitzvogel]

I do understand what you mean, especially since the PC scene is a little more indie friendly (although Mount and Blade isn't the best example since a beta was available since 2004 and the original released 5 years ago; the newest one is 2 years old). It's just that in general, cross platform games, which are far more common than exclusives, probably have equally good textures and art direction.

I would agree, PC versions will tend to have the higher end textures that the artists will reduce into the lower res version for the console version. I just think too many devs have forgotten that art is more important than sheer texture resolution.

 

[Sleepingforest]

I would agree, PC versions will tend to have the higher end textures that the artists will reduce into the lower res version for the console version. I just think too many devs have forgotten that art is more important than sheer texture resolution.

I suppose you are right, but maybe you've just only remembered the well-drawn games of the past? There are lots of games with excellent art direction: Borderlands 2, Bioshock Infinite, and Witcher 2 are a few games that come to mind for "beautiful" or "well-done" (well, Borderlands can be pretty subjective).

 

[galego]

And how does the bloat-ness affect game performance if the machine you're running the game and OS has more than enough system memory?

By definition a bloated OS runs the same task using more resources. The machine having enough system memory does not change what I am discussing here: the CPU on the PS4 will run games more faster than the same CPU on a PC with Windows7/8 installed.

I'm guessing you think that's relevant because that claim you made - that PC ports of ps4 games will need n fold more memory (can't be bothered to go back and check, but it was a relatively large number. And you're basing that on the fact that ps3 ports need far less memory than their pc counterparts? Toward the end of the ps3's life cycle? Is that correct?

PS3 and Xbox 360 have only 512 MB RAM. Evidently a port of crysis 2 from PC has to be heavily cut down to fit into memory because optimization on consoles cannot do miracles (a gaming PC can have 32x more system memory than the PS3!!!).

The situation for the PS4 is different. Similar games will require more memory on the PC because:

• Windows is bloated
• The PC lacks hUMA and a copy of VRAM memory has to be stored on RAM (either compressed or uncompressed).

You think that PC had 16 gb because it needed to? You understand that ddr3 is cheap, especially for a developer showcasing a demo, right?

As said I don't know, because they gave no data about that. In fact, I clearly said that I lacked info and was only a suspicion and I wrote the word in italics for emphasizing (maybe next time I will use bold for stronger emphasis).

Your argument about cheapiness does not explain why they did not select 24 Gb or 32 Gb.

The question has never been weather or not consoles - the ps4 in particular -use hardware more efficiently than a PC, but how much more efficiently

Ok, it must be not between us. But some posters have tried to convince me of the contrary for weeks.

Dev said

You quote some parts of what he said, add words that he never said, and ignore relevant parts of what he said, specially the part explaining why both demos cannot be compared visually due to different lighting and cinematics... In fact you pretend to compare both using your eyes LOL

the PS4 lacks the power to render real time lighting.

Another false statement.

Furthermore there are some gaping holes in your "theory" as far as what the system used actually was. First and foremost, the 1.5GB video card. Which video card from AMD's current GCN lineup has 1.5GB?

No. The hardware used in the dev. kits is custom. I have explained to you before that the PS4 is not just a CPU plus some GPU from some PC store, but you still did not get this basic point. The graphic card used in the PS4 dev. kit is a R10xx with special BIOS and 2.2 GB VRAM. Ah and I did not say you that the R10 has 1.5 GB VRAM (you continue misreading), but only that early dev. kits only could access to 1.5 GB of those, like a developer said.

The rest of your posts consists of your usual ad hominem against me plus the occasional rants against AMD... :whiste:

Reading through what you have said here makes me really wonder how ignorent you are to the facts of the matter.

Having a lightweight OS running on sub-par hardware is still going to perform worse than a bloated OS, one which can do so much more - bloated is the wrong term to use, in my option.

You must be using the term bloated with a different meaning. A bloated OS is one that requires more resources for doing the same tasks.

 

[2is]

You quote some parts of what he said, add words that he never said, and ignore relevant parts of what he said, specially the part explaining why both demos cannot be compared visually due to different lighting and cinematics... In fact you pretend to compare both using your eyes LOL

Tell me, how did it feel? The out of body experience you just had when recognizing yourself outside of yourself?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Where is the ignore list?

 

[galego]

Previously, I made some computations on how the PS4 can easily compete with a GTX-680:

PS4-GPU x 2 (API overhead) ~ GTX-680

And how can outperform it

PS4-GPU x 2 (API overhead) + HSA + hUMA + GDDR5 + close-to-metal ~ 9 TFLOP

This is a 5x factor (over the 1.84 TFLOP) and is rather close to the 6-7x factor derived from MikeR (Mark Rein?) leaked details about the elemental demo using less than one third of the AH.

This coincides with many developers (including one developer from Nvidia) claiming that the PS4 performance will be ahead of PCs for years.

I have just found what prominent industry analyst Jon Peddie says about the PS4 in a technical report (emphasis from mine):

The Orbis CPUs will have plenty of headroom for physics and AI, so this machine is not going to get trounced by PCs in three to five years like past consoles. It may not be able to do what $3,000 worth of Titans in a $2,000 PC can do, but then it won’t cost $5,000 either. So on a FLOPS/$ basis, or a FPS/$ basis, this machine is going to look mighty good.

Very interesting because 9 TFLOP is what 2 GTX-Titan on SLI would offer. Therefore anyone with 3 GTX-Titan on SLI would outperform the best possible performance than the PS4 can offer. And his "$3,000 worth of Titans" just implies 3 GTX-Titan!

According to Steam, less than a 5% of gamers have a graphic card with 2 GB VRAM and less than a 0.5% have a graphic card with 4 GB VRAM. I assume that only a 0.1-0.3% of gamers has a GTX-Titan installed.

 

[2is]

You should first try to prove it will outperform a single Titan before you jump to 3 titans

 

[Nintendesert]

Previously, I made some computations on how the PS4 can easily compete with a GTX-680:

PS4-GPU x 2 (API overhead) ~ GTX-680

And how can outperform it

PS4-GPU x 2 (API overhead) + HSA + hUMA + GDDR5 + close-to-metal ~ 9 TFLOP

This is a 5x factor (over the 1.84 TFLOP) and is rather close to the 6-7x factor derived from MikeR (Mark Rein?) leaked details about the elemental demo using less than one third of the AH.

This coincides with many developers (including one developer from Nvidia) claiming that the PS4 performance will be ahead of PCs for years.

I have just found what prominent industry analyst Jon Peddie says about the PS4 in a technical report (emphasis from mine):



Very interesting because 9 TFLOP is what 2 GTX-Titan on SLI would offer. Therefore anyone with 3 GTX-Titan on SLI would outperform the best possible performance than the PS4 can offer. And his "$3,000 worth of Titans" just implies 3 GTX-Titan!

According to Steam, less than a 5% of gamers have a graphic card with 2 GB VRAM and less than a 0.5% have a graphic card with 4 GB VRAM. I assume that only a 0.1-0.3% of gamers has a GTX-Titan installed.

Here's my issue with that quote, he quantifies it by bringing up costs. He may very well be correct when comparing a $500 PC vs. a PS4. I for run run a $2000 PC like most everyone else in this forum. So for us the PS4 won't beat it out graphically on technical terms. Price vs. Performance is something else entirely though.

I'm more excited for the PS4 due to the large amounts of RAM and the multithreading along with x86 architecture. I'm hoping it raises the bar for all these games coming out. Console market still primarily drives gaming right now in most genres.

 

[-Slacker-]

By definition a bloated OS runs the same task using more resources. The machine having enough system memory does not change what I am discussing here: the CPU on the PS4 will run games more faster than the same CPU on a PC with Windows7/8 installed.

Not sure if there really is a definition for what a "bloated os"is, but it is apparent that you don't really know what memory is, like the other guy said.

The PS4's CPU will run games faster than the same CPU on a PC could because it doesn't have to process driver calls and high lever API calss (or any API calls at all in some cases but, to my understanding, devs rarely ever use assembly anymore). Basically, the PS4's cpu doesn't have to do as much work.

It has nothing to do with os memory loads that are just sitting there, idling.

PS3 and Xbox 360 have only 512 MB RAM. Evidently a port of crysis 2 from PC has to be heavily cut down to fit into memory because optimization on consoles cannot do miracles (a gaming PC can have 32x more system memory than the PS3!!!).

Yes, a gaming pc can have 32x more memory that a ps3, the vast majority of which it won't use for gaming. That's my point. Weather you have an OS that eats 1 gb of ram, or 1 megabyte of ram, it won't matter, because you'll already have a lot more memory where that came from.

The situation for the PS4 is different. Similar games will require more memory on the PC because:

• Windows is bloated
• The PC lacks hUMA and a copy of VRAM memory has to be stored on RAM (either compressed or uncompressed).

Which doesn't matter now, didn't matter before, and won't matter the next time you inevitably post something to the same effect.


We keep trying to tell you it's not about memory usage.

As said I don't know, because they gave no data about that. In fact, I clearly said that I lacked info and was only a suspicion and I wrote the word in italics for emphasizing (maybe next time I will use bold for stronger emphasis).

Ah I C what you did there. Putting emphasis on the fact that you don't know something is not the same as putting emphasis on a demonstrable fact, like the ddr3 thing. The simple solution is to simply not bring something into the discussion if you have no meaningful knowledge about it.

Your argument about cheapiness does not explain why they did not select 24 Gb or 32 Gb.

Nor does it have to, in any way, shape, or form. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they needed 16 gigs.

 

[Enigmoid]

In know this threads about the ps4 but the next xbox is rumored to be running a light version of windows 8. (Seems to be a very similar API).

 

[galego]

Here's my issue with that quote, he quantifies it by bringing up costs. He may very well be correct when comparing a $500 PC vs. a PS4. I for run run a $2000 PC like most everyone else in this forum. So for us the PS4 won't beat it out graphically on technical terms. Price vs. Performance is something else entirely though.

I'm more excited for the PS4 due to the large amounts of RAM and the multithreading along with x86 architecture. I'm hoping it raises the bar for all these games coming out. Console market still primarily drives gaming right now in most genres.

He first talks about performance and then try to quantify what kind of PC will outperform the PS4. He does not compare the PS4 to a $500 PC but to a $5000 PC.

Not sure if there really is a definition for what a "bloated os"is, but it is apparent that you don't really know what memory is, like the other guy said.

There are definitions of bloated software and we know what OSs are bloated and which are not. He has a tendency to misread/misunderstand my posts.

The PS4's CPU will run games faster than the same CPU on a PC could because it doesn't have to process driver calls and high lever API calss (or any API calls at all in some cases but, to my understanding, devs rarely ever use assembly anymore). Basically, the PS4's cpu doesn't have to do as much work.

It has nothing to do with os memory loads that are just sitting there, idling.

I have been saying for weeks the API overhead issue, nothing new here. I have no idea of what do you refer by "os memory loads".

We keep trying to tell you it's not about memory usage.

I again fail to see your point. It seems you are trying to reply something I never said, but I am not sure what is your point and cannot confirm.

Nor does it have to, in any way, shape, or form. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they needed 16 gigs.

Nope, because I was not trying to demonstrate anything. I merely mentioned the RAM they used and then wrote some speculation about why they chose 16 Gb, always emphasizing that was a speculation.

In know this threads about the ps4 but the next xbox is rumored to be running a light version of windows 8. (Seems to be a very similar API).

Yes, and it will use a special custom version of DirectX, which will be not available for PCs. Moreover, Sony has also announced something for tomorrow

 

[Aikouka]

By definition a bloated OS runs the same task using more resources. The machine having enough system memory does not change what I am discussing here: the CPU on the PS4 will run games more faster than the same CPU on a PC with Windows7/8 installed.

Since you seem to be so darned definitive in calling Windows bloated, how many resources does it use strictly for executing a game? You said it's for running the same task, but you completely ignored how I said that Windows is a general-purpose operating system. In case you don't get it, that means it's executing multiple tasks at once, so just looking at the used memory is not correct.

I have just found what prominent industry analyst Jon Peddie says about the PS4 in a technical report (emphasis from mine):

Oh Heaven help us... he's quoting analysts now as definitive sources!

I'm more excited for the PS4 due to the large amounts of RAM

I'd be pretty happy if the extra memory pushes developers toward using higher-resolution textures, and that benefit ends up leaking over to the PC side as well. Some developers are good about giving us the better textures that work just fine with our existing memory capabilities, but others just don't seem to care. It is an extra expense after all.

 

[galego]

Since you seem to be so darned definitive in calling Windows bloated, how many resources does it use strictly for executing a game? You said it's for running the same task, but you completely ignored how I said that Windows is a general-purpose operating system. In case you don't get it, that means it's executing multiple tasks at once, so just looking at the used memory is not correct.

Yes. Windows is a bloated operative system. This is not "hot news".

There is no specific answer to your question, because depends of the system and game. One of the first things that Valve noted when they moved away from a bloated Window 7 to a slightly less bloated OS (but still bloated) was that games run faster on the same hardware.

I ignored your "Windows is a general-purpose operating system", because is irrelevant: there are lightweight general-purpose operating systems...

Oh Heaven help us... he's quoting analysts now as definitive sources!

Analysts? Definitive Sources?

 

[hans030390]

I for one run a $2000 PC like most everyone else in this forum.

Can't tell if this is a joke or if you're being serious...

 

[showb1z]

galego, you don't happen to actually be an analyst?
If not, you should consider applying somewhere, you'd be awesome at it. Be sure to add this thread to your resume, this is exactly the stuff they're looking for.

 

[rgallant]

lots of talk of windows chewing up vram/overhead vs consoles
so can anyone expand how Metro LL looks so good and using 900mb's.@ 2560x1440 using windows btw.

-could it be the coding was done by pc programers ,instead of the 3rd party programers used for many console to pc ports we have been quoting in this thread ? -seems most in house programers can't do both.

-window xx is software just like games,
-maybe with the new consoles x86 , the ports can be done in house by people that can be fired.

 

[Sleepingforest]

I'm personally unsure as to how exactly the OS impacts performance. RAM usage, which seems to be galego's favored means of testing bloat, is a yes/no question on computers: either you have enough or you don't, and if you don't, the swap file comes into play. Having extra RAM does not improve performance at a single task.

The PS4 is rumored to only have access to 7GB of it's RAM; the rest goes to the operating system and background tasks. This makes a fair amount of sense; the Wii U, for example, loses about 1GB of RAM to it's OS and background tasks. If true, that means that the PS4 has rough parity with current high-end gaming systems in terms of RAM available; 4GB of RAM for CPU processes (roughly what is available to a 32-bit game) and 3GB of VRAM (on higher end cards like the 7950 and 7970). It'll be interesting to see how devs actually allocate the RAM usage.

 

[galego]

I'm personally unsure as to how exactly the OS impacts performance. RAM usage, which seems to be galego's favored means of testing bloat, is a yes/no question on computers: either you have enough or you don't, and if you don't, the swap file comes into play. Having extra RAM does not improve performance at a single task.

The PS4 is rumored to only have access to 7GB of it's RAM; the rest goes to the operating system and background tasks. This makes a fair amount of sense; the Wii U, for example, loses about 1GB of RAM to it's OS and background tasks. If true, that means that the PS4 has rough parity with current high-end gaming systems in terms of RAM available; 4GB of RAM for CPU processes (roughly what is available to a 32-bit game) and 3GB of VRAM (on higher end cards like the 7950 and 7970). It'll be interesting to see how devs actually allocate the RAM usage.

I did not refer to "RAM usage" but more exactly to memory requirements. Both concepts are very close but are not identical. Neither it is "galego's favored means of testing bloat". It is a well-known fact that memory requirement measures very well OS bloatness. There is almost an one-to-one correspondence.

Finally, bloatness has nothing to do with running out of ram, swap files, or anything like that. All what I said assumed that the system has enough RAM to run the task. If the system lacks enough RAM then it will run slower, but this is unrelated to how bloat or lighweight is the OS.

It is rumoured that only 512 Mb of the reserved 1 GB are for the OS. If that is true then the PS4 OS is so lightweight and fast as an OS using something between a pure WM and a lightweight DE.

Finally, an advantage of PS4 is that memory is unified. Each game can partition memory into RAM and VRAM in function of the needs, unlike what happens in traditional PC architecture of CPU+dGPU.

Apart from that, you cannot equate 7 GB of unified memory to a PC with 4GB of RAM and 3GB of VRAM because a PC with a traditional CPU+dGPU design needs to maintain a copy of VRAM data on system memory, whereas the PS4 allows the CPU and GPU to access to the same pool eliminating data duplicates.

 

[Enigmoid]

I did not refer to "RAM usage" but more exactly to memory requirements. both concepts are close but are different. Neither it is "galego's favored means of testing bloat". It is a well-known fact that memory requirement measures very well OS bloatness. There is almost an one-to-one correspondence.

Finally, bloatness has nothing to do with running out of ram, swap files, or anything like that. All that I said assumed that the system has enough RAM to run the task. If the system lacks enough RAM then will run slower, but this is unrelated to how bloat or lighweight is the OS.

It is rumoured that only 512 kb of the reserved 1 GB are for the OS. If that is true then the PS4 OS is so lightweight and fast as one using between a pure WM or a lightweight DE.

Finally, an advantage of PS4 is that memory is unified. Each game can partition memory into RAM and VRAM in function of the needs. Apart from that, you cannot equate 7 GB of unified memory to a PC with 4GB of RAM and 3GB of VRAM because a PC with a traditional CPU+ dGPU design needs to maintain a copy of VRAM data on system memory, whereas the PS4 allows the CPU and GPU to access to the same pool eliminating data duplicates.

512 kb? Do you perhaps mean MB?

Because I'm pretty sure the OS in my 4 year old ipod nano uses more than 512 KB.

 

[galego]

512 kb? Do you perhaps mean MB?

Because I'm pretty sure the OS in my 4 year old ipod nano uses more than 512 KB.

You are right. Typo corrected. Thanks

 

[Enigmoid]

You are right. Typo corrected. Thanks

Windows 7 starter edition runs fairly well on 1 GB.

Take win 7 and strip out the things that aren't needed for a console and your OS will probably only use 512 MB too.

 

[2is]

I wonder how many more posts before Galego factors in SLI scaling issues and claims you could potentially need 4 Titans to match the magical APU AMD created for the PS4. We're up to 3 as it is.

 

[Erenhardt]

lots of talk of windows chewing up vram/overhead vs consoles
so can anyone expand how Metro LL looks so good and using 900mb's.@ 2560x1440 using windows btw.

Here is how: It can be played with 256MB RAM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyHSzOZ1VOw&list=UU9PBzalIcEQCsiIkq36PyUA&index=1

-could it be the coding was done by pc programers ,instead of the 3rd party programers used for many console to pc ports we have been quoting in this thread ? -seems most in house programers can't do both.

I'm sorry but M:LL is console port.