• 136 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

Source

So it looks like MS did the math wrong and their system is more powerful then they stated before. Quote

"data throughput levels up to 88 per cent higher in the final hardware."

I wonder if this has ANY merit it at all. Even if it is true its not near the GDDR5 the PS4 has.

Also if this is true I hope it does not spiral down the path of causing consoles to over heat.

So what do you all think? Truth, or more fake boasting? *I do not really think its as big of a leap as they say"

When it boils down to it, it just seems MS is trying to close the gap with the PS4. Which has stronger insides no matter how you cut it.

Edit. How the hell do you not know the specs of the damn system you are making?

#2 Posted by Hunkulese (2525 posts) -

They're creating brand new tech so it's not that hard to believe that they wouldn't know the exact throughput before they were finished and it's far better to make a conservative estimate and over deliver than to not meet the performance you'd promised.

#3 Posted by Morningstar (2042 posts) -

I won't care about this until November.

#4 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

They're creating brand new tech so it's not that hard to believe that they wouldn't know the exact throughput before they were finished and it's far better to make a conservative estimate and over deliver than to not meet the performance you'd promised.

It kinda reads like MS was doing all their info off the dev kits they made and where surprised final versions where better?

#5 Edited by jimmyfenix (3679 posts) -

To be honest no game is going to utilize both systems hardware to the fullest in the 1st year or 2 but its great Xbone is more powerful then they first thought"I hope its not talking about the cloud"

#6 Posted by Pop (2530 posts) -

If you read that entire thing, it says later that:

"Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations. Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4)."

So it won't be a 88% increase, more like 40%, I'm guessing the engineers are messing more with the hardware, and they're discovering different ways to use the memory, so if they use different transparency blending they get faster memory, I don't know how this shit works, I'm just guessing here.

#7 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@pop said:

If you read that entire thing, it says later that:

"Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations. Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4)."

So it won't be a 88% increase, more like 40%, I'm guessing the engineers are messing more with the hardware, and they're discovering different ways to use the memory, so if they use different transparency blending they get faster memory, I don't know how this shit works, I'm just guessing here.

So "Theoretical" Means exclusive games and "Real life" means multiplat.

#8 Posted by Daneian (1171 posts) -

I have no idea what to make of the One at this point.

I'm not sure what its capable of, what its policies are or what features it will utilize. Will it harness the power of the 'cloud' or was that bull the entire time?

MS wasn't exactly communicating properly out of the gate and their changes only make their stance and strengths more murky.

#9 Posted by onarum (1945 posts) -

I'm still not getting one

#10 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@onarum said:

I'm still not getting one

There is also a rumor the clock speed or PS4 has been upped to 1.8Ghz. So what ever you get youll have fun.

#11 Edited by Winsord (1066 posts) -

I don't know much about lower-level coding, but isn't ESRAM more difficult to code for? I was under the impression that you could get more out of it, but it's harder to to actually make use of. The 360 has EDRAM, so it's certainly functional (significantly easier than coding for something like the PS3's cell), but I imagine given the choice most developers would take Sony's side on this one.

Looking at a quote from Cerny back in April,

"One thing we could have done is drop it down to 128-bit bus, which would drop the bandwidth to 88 gigabytes per second, and then have eDRAM on chip to bring the performance back up again," said Cerny. While that solution initially looked appealing to the team due to its ease of manufacturability, it was abandoned thanks to the complexity it would add for developers. "We did not want to create some kind of puzzle that the development community would have to solve in order to create their games. And so we stayed true to the philosophy of unified memory."

It also seems important to note:

Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4).

Online
#12 Posted by EXTomar (4121 posts) -

Data throughput is not a meaningless but it is nebulous. It is easy to get hit "peak" throughput if the data is a certain size where it will fall out of peak when configured another way. The trick is how "useful" is that "size" to sustain "peak". Ultimately no one knows until software starts putting the hardware through the paces with stuff more complex than trivial tests.

ps. I would say the same thing if Sony made a similar claim about the PS4.

#13 Posted by shinjin977 (701 posts) -

This was in the DF piece today I believe. They got their info from Microsoft and "inside sources". While I trust DF to a degree, I would take this with some salt. This is only little better than a rumor. But if true, good.

#14 Posted by DeF (4689 posts) -

why does anyone care about these numbers?

#15 Posted by Veektarius (4137 posts) -

@daneian: Even if the cloud wasn't bull, it might be now that they can't rely upon it for all users. That's what I really want to hear explained.

#16 Posted by Humanity (7940 posts) -

At some point it is really funny how they keep finding out stuff about their own platform. Soon we'll learn that it actually IS backwards compatible, they just never tried until yesterday.

#17 Posted by davidwitten22 (1701 posts) -

Microsoft seems to have no clue what the hell they are doing with their new console. I'll wait til the Fall to start forming opinions since we don't know what may change on Microsoft's end by then.

#18 Posted by Darji (5295 posts) -

They're creating brand new tech so it's not that hard to believe that they wouldn't know the exact throughput before they were finished and it's far better to make a conservative estimate and over deliver than to not meet the performance you'd promised.

No just no. If you develop a new console you should know about this stuff from the begining. There is no wonder or secret sauce you can unlock.

@the_laughing_man Yeah and Kinect also can steer 300k asteroids... There are also a lot of rumors about downsizing the clockspeed

#19 Posted by JasonR86 (9372 posts) -

lol

#20 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@humanity said:

At some point it is really funny how they keep finding out stuff about their own platform. Soon we'll learn that it actually IS backwards compatible, they just never tried until yesterday.

Hey uhh guys..did anyone try putting a 360 disk in? No? Cause Jimmy just did and it started up and well. He is like playing it now and the buttons and stuff is working. What? Ok ya. Jimmy says its cool.

#21 Posted by Scrawnto (2411 posts) -

@pop said:

If you read that entire thing, it says later that:

"Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations. Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4)."

So it won't be a 88% increase, more like 40%, I'm guessing the engineers are messing more with the hardware, and they're discovering different ways to use the memory, so if they use different transparency blending they get faster memory, I don't know how this shit works, I'm just guessing here.

That's not what that means. It just means that under normal circumstances it wouldn't be possible to generate 133 GB/s of data and have it in the right place to move through. They're saying Microsoft used a particular algorithm, one used for alpha transparency blending, for their synthetic bandwidth benchmark. It's not saying that using transparency blending will speed up memory for any other purpose.

#22 Posted by matti00 (663 posts) -

Whatever, if this thing doesn't have at least 4 billion transistors then it's basically garbage.

#23 Edited by Residentrevil2 (415 posts) -

Sounds good. It's nice to see that games on both platforms will look close in parity.

I'm getting both consoles so lucky me.

#24 Posted by iAmJohn (6091 posts) -

Blast processing, son.

#25 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
#26 Posted by PillClinton (3284 posts) -

Oh, alpha transparency blending operations, fucking DUH.

#27 Posted by Sogeman (851 posts) -
#28 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -
#29 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (4423 posts) -

They thought they had 5 billion transistors, they actually had 10.

#30 Posted by rebgav (1429 posts) -

Has anyone at Microsoft tried unplugging the Kinect?

#31 Edited by Seppli (9734 posts) -

Sounds to me like Microsoft is providing the straws, for those diehard Xbox fans grasping for straws. Eversince the initial PS4 announcement, the Xbox team has been trying to spin Xbox One into something it can market against the PS4.

In all likelihood Microsoft has the more expensive box in production, whilst only getting 3/4th of the PS4's power out of their architecture, ontop of having set aside a much larger chunk of its overall ressources for multimedia applications - such as Kinect and god knows what they're doing with TV.

#32 Posted by Demoskinos (13837 posts) -

The XBOX ONE IS MADE WITH MAGIC!

#33 Edited by Brendan (7511 posts) -

@humanity: "Fucking GameCube games work on this thing!? Call the press!!"

#34 Posted by Damodar (1155 posts) -

My first thought was "How do you not know what the machine you built is capable of" but then I remembered how... I think it was Ready At Dawn discovered a way to have the PSP clock run stably at 333mHz instead of the standard 222mHz and took advantage of that in their PSP games.

Anyway, if true, this has to be good news for developers if it's not too difficult or destructive trying to implement use of it. It would be good for multi platform stuff if they can design with a higher memory bandwidth in mind.

#35 Posted by Max_Cherry (1111 posts) -

Good. Hopefully, Sony will respond in kind and up their cpu speed.

#36 Posted by shinjin977 (701 posts) -
#37 Posted by theveej (791 posts) -

I have talked to few of my friends who do software engineering and they all say that unless Xbox One's multitasking OS fails hard and uses too much processing power, both systems will be identical tech wise for games. In their words, the difference in specs will be meaningless for games since developers will optimize games easily for each systems.

But I have no clue about any of this stuff, I'll wait till both of them comes out and people actually have hand on time with the consoles and the games.

#38 Edited by AnalogVinyl (17 posts) -

@seppli said:

In all likelihood Microsoft has the more expensive box in production, whilst only getting 3/4th of the PS4's power out of their architecture, ontop of having set aside a much larger chunk of its overall ressources for multimedia applications - such as Kinect and god knows what they're doing with TV.

The XBone's power will probably be similar to the PS4... but with all the extra things like always-on kinect, TV, twitch and skype integration, and 3 operating systems running at the same time, I am wondering if they reduced their performance to maintain these integral parts of the system and coming up with the 'cloud computing' idea as a way to offset their performance loss. How much HDD space and RAM will all of these extras take up? Now with the ability to be offline, we will see the performance boosts from the cloud in time.

But, discussing MS making a profit, they learned from the 360 and won't be selling at a loss initially, or at least that's what I heard.

In the end it is way too early to talk about performance because nobody has a final product yet, not even the manufacturers. Wait until there is a final product and real world tests are done. Until then we are really grasping at straws.

#39 Posted by Jimbo (9708 posts) -

that's billion transistors.

#40 Posted by MonkeyKing1969 (2259 posts) -

They two system as going to output about the same thing because their hardware specifications are so close as to matter very little. It is a little pointless to say, "This is more powerful than that." because so much depended on factors besides hardware. You can spout all the hardware statistics you want and it won't tell you anything unless you talk about the software and the player too. To talk about complex interactions of systems you have to discuss "ALL" the variables accurately at which point the discussion has to be about a REAL game, on a REAL system, being played by a REAL person. None, of that can happen until November.

#41 Posted by spraynardtatum (2118 posts) -

I have no idea how the final product is going to perform considering we still have 5 months until release. We also have years before anyone really uses them to their full potential.

#42 Posted by sup909 (159 posts) -

@daneian said:

I have no idea what to make of the One at this point.

I'm not sure what its capable of, what its policies are or what features it will utilize. Will it harness the power of the 'cloud' or was that bull the entire time?

MS wasn't exactly communicating properly out of the gate and their changes only make their stance and strengths more murky.

That is the problem isn't it. Just a big mess of haze around the whole device.

#43 Posted by jimmy_p (278 posts) -

Prepare for a whole new generation of RROD

#44 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4027 posts) -

I'm sure it could do blue just fine.

#45 Posted by kagato (862 posts) -

@seppli said:

Sounds to me like Microsoft is providing the straws, for those diehard Xbox fans grasping for straws. Eversince the initial PS4 announcement, the Xbox team has been trying to spin Xbox One into something it can market against the PS4.

In all likelihood Microsoft has the more expensive box in production, whilst only getting 3/4th of the PS4's power out of their architecture, ontop of having set aside a much larger chunk of its overall ressources for multimedia applications - such as Kinect and god knows what they're doing with TV.

Agreed, if Microsoft got rid of all that TV garbage and pointless picture in picture stuff (i mean who is really going to use that?) then im sure they could get a massive boost for the thing it was originally meant to be for...you know, games? In the end what do i know...im just one gamer whos jumped the sinking ship, im sure there are plenty of people left...right?

#46 Posted by tourgen (4228 posts) -

@monkeyking1969: Their hardware specs aren't actually that comparable. The Ps4 is easily 33% stronger and easier to optimize for.

What MS did was show one particular algorithm plays nice with their 32mb cache. Most code will not. Devs will have to puzzle out tricks to organize their code and data throughput timing to avoid cache hits on the Xbone. Some shops just won't bother and the Xbone port will just run at a lower frame rate.

#47 Posted by geirr (2375 posts) -

BLAST PROCESSING!

#48 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2460 posts) -

*than

#49 Posted by Gargantuan (1877 posts) -
#50 Posted by McGhee (6091 posts) -

Microsoft looking for more knives to bring to the fight. Too late, you done been shanked, son.