Xbox One and PS4 are a generation ahead of the best PC, says EA CTO
275 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40753669]An 8-core CPU is not twice as fast as a 4-core CPU in practice.[/QUOTE]
If it's a good processor and the content is made to support all 8 cores, it can be.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;40754072]If it's a good processor and the content is made to support all 8 cores, it can be.[/QUOTE]
So devs will now start making games that need 8 cores all of a sudden? What are they going to do? Turn the consoles into video editing boxes?
[QUOTE=whatthe;40752891]They cannot be compared. Completely different architecture and uses.
I'm sure PC's have a disadvantage to a certain degree by coping with a larger variety of different processing uses, whilst this "unified" type of architecture in consoles will trump an equal PC, especially as it is designed for games, no?
Although I think haveing a PC equivilent of the specs would be inseperable, and I think PC's could support better hardware.[/QUOTE]
PS4 is x86 now, so if someone manages to do what they did with the PS3 and get the hash for level 0 access, you could possibly windows programs using WINE on it
[QUOTE=itisjuly;40753630]Does everyone here have 8core cpus or what? Because I'm getting such impression.[/QUOTE]
Uhh, both PS4 and Xbox one CPUs are going to be using low power cores that were originally designed to be used in netbooks, supposedly running at 1.6GHz. It's not hard to imagine that the per core performance will be pretty terrible, so they just stuck 8 of them together in order to get a decent performance out of it when they're utilised well. I'd be willing to bet even a quadcore Piledriver could easily compete with this kind of a CPU, while an 8-core version or a quad Ivy Bridge would completely dominate it.
Sadly people will believe him. :(
[QUOTE=whatthe;40752923]
x86 doesn't mean 32bit. Please people, get your facts straight![/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that he's talking about the architecture, not the fact that it's "32-bit". In the case of consoles it makes sense using a different architecture, as they can be more efficient at some tasks. I don't think x86-64 was a bad choice, though - it makes it a lot easier to port stuff and so on.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;40754072]If it's a good processor and the content is made to support all 8 cores, it can be.[/QUOTE]
Making content to support all 8 cores is quite an issue in itself. Is it realistic in practice? In addition, not all parts of a program can be parallelized. Some parts of a program simply cannot be made to run in parallel through distribution across multiple processor cores, and thus adding more cores will do nothing to improve the speed of those parts. And the "goodness" of the processor has nothing to do with this. Any program that contains non-parallelizable parts can only be sped up through additional cores up to a certain point. This is why I'm a bit skeptical towards lots of cores.
[QUOTE=proch;40753872]What's it with EA not knowing what the fuck they're talking about recently?[/QUOTE]
This was a post from the CTO, nobody else. EA, unlike facepuch, is not a hivemind.
EA CTO hasn't a god damn clue that PC's can change parts and you can just buy a computer custom with better specs.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40753012]The Xbox 360 performed comparably with capable, dedicated gaming PCs, using only half a gig of RAM, a slow tri-core processor, and a graphics card comparable to a Radeon x1800. The key is in optimization of the system, both on a software level and on a hardware level. Consoles are designed from the ground up to play games.
Or do you think a PC from Best Buy with those specs would be able to run Crysis?
With a given set of hardware specs, the console will perform far better than a comparable PC. This isn't rocket science here. Given that the specs on these new consoles are comparable to a high-end PC right now, I think it's safe to say that they'll be better at playing games than almost all gaming computers currently out there.[/QUOTE]
lol yep
and then I simply say the magic word "custom build"
XBox 360 has been far beyond being able to even be optimized to pc specs for a very long time now
[QUOTE=J!NX;40754386]EA CTO hasn't a god damn clue that PC's can change parts and you can just buy a computer custom with better specs.
lol yep
and then I simply say the magic word "custom build"
XBox 360 has been far beyond being able to even be optimized to pc specs for a very long time now[/QUOTE]
yeah. it's really evident when you see examples of games being limited grossly. ie halo 4 used a single lightmap per level in multiplayer.
[QUOTE=pebkac;40754231]Uhh, both PS4 and Xbox one CPUs are going to be using low power cores that were originally designed to be used in netbooks, supposedly running at 1.6GHz. It's not hard to imagine that the per core performance will be pretty terrible, so they just stuck 8 of them together in order to get a decent performance out of it when they're utilised well. I'd be willing to bet even a quadcore Piledriver could easily compete with this kind of a CPU, while an 8-core version or a quad Ivy Bridge would completely dominate it.[/QUOTE]Source? Cause if so, ugh. Sounds like a stupid decision then because:
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40754294]Making content to support all 8 cores is quite an issue in itself. Is it realistic in practice? In addition, not all parts of a program can be parallelized. Some parts of a program simply cannot be made to run in parallel through distribution across multiple processor cores, and thus adding more cores will do nothing to improve the speed of those parts. And the "goodness" of the processor has nothing to do with this. Any program that contains non-parallelizable parts can only be sped up through additional cores up to a certain point. This is why I'm a bit skeptical towards lots of cores.[/QUOTE]It's true but many tasks can still be distributed or offloaded to other core. Though if cpus are as bad as pebkac said, then yeah this is useless.
oh yea just like the xbox 360 and ps3 were?
Another thing you guys gotta realize is that it's infinitely easier to optimize a game if you're working with a SINGLE, UNIFORM set of hardware. Literally impossible to do that with PCs because there are countless combinations hardware and software that are impossible to take into account.
An average high-spec gaming PC may be superior to the XB1 in terms of hardware, but not everyone has the same computer as you, and the developers aren't optimizing and squeezing every bit of juice out of YOUR unique system.
[QUOTE=Xonax;40752829]Oh you EA.
Also I hate how people ignore the Wii-U, it is a next generation console.[/QUOTE]
And just like the wii back when it was released it's still really freaking late when it comes to performance and hardware.
This whole focusing on gimmicks policy of nintendo is really going to be trouble for them in the long run.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40754484]Another thing you guys gotta realize is that it's infinitely easier to optimize a game if you're working with a SINGLE, UNIFORM set of hardware. Literally impossible to do that with PCs because there are countless combinations hardware and software that are impossible to take into account.
An average high-spec gaming PC may be superior to the XB1 in terms of hardware, but not everyone has the same computer as you, and the developers aren't optimizing and squeezing every bit of juice out of YOUR unique system.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't aware that having an optimized game was the same as having a high end system.
[QUOTE=megafat;40754537]I wasn't aware that having an optimized game was the same as having a high end system.[/QUOTE]
Think for a moment. What game will have the capacity for better graphics/tech?
The one that has to run on every machine that has at least 2gb of ram, 1.4 ghz CPU speed, a 500mb VRAM card, on windows XP, or the game that ONLY has to run on the XB1's hardware?
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40754484]Another thing you guys gotta realize is that it's infinitely easier to optimize a game if you're working with a SINGLE, UNIFORM set of hardware. Literally impossible to do that with PCs because there are countless combinations hardware and software that are impossible to take into account.
An average high-spec gaming PC may be superior to the XB1 in terms of hardware, but not everyone has the same computer as you, and the developers aren't optimizing and squeezing every bit of juice out of YOUR unique system.[/QUOTE]
I bet you that my 570 will be able to run every single xboned and ps4 launch title better than the consoles
[QUOTE=megafat;40754537]I wasn't aware that having an optimized game was the same as having a high end system.[/QUOTE]
in terms of practical end results, it might as well be
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40754598]Think for a moment. What game will have the capacity for better graphics/tech?
The one that has to run on every machine that has at least 2gb of ram, 1.4 ghz CPU speed, a 500mb VRAM card, on windows XP, or the game that ONLY has to run on the XB1's hardware?[/QUOTE]
The one with the most graphics tweaking options? :v:
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40754737]The one with the most graphics tweaking options? :v:[/QUOTE]
no because then you have to account for the lowest hardware
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;40754598]Think for a moment. What game will have the capacity for better graphics/tech?
The one that has to run on every machine that has at least 2gb of ram, 1.4 ghz CPU speed, a 500mb VRAM card, on windows XP, or the game that ONLY has to run on the XB1's hardware?[/QUOTE]
While it does make a difference, it isn't the 8-10x increase in power this guy is claiming.
[QUOTE=Juniez;40754785]no because then you have to account for the lowest hardware[/QUOTE]
yeah pmuch
you'd sell barely anything if your game could literally not run on lower end systems. you may be able to pull off way better graphics if you have a smaller pool of hardware configurations to work with, but you would lose a shitton customers. with a game on the ecks box or the ps quad, you won't lose any customers because you have a single set of hardware to work on. you do not need to account for different hardware/software configurations, which makes optimization waaaaaay easier.
plus, since the new consoles have specs comparable to a high-end pc, that means we'll get [I]better ports, with better graphics.[/i] so stop all this dumb "haha idiots my gaming pc is way better than ur GAYBOX :^)" stuff because YOU will benefit from the new consoles too.
[QUOTE=Xonax;40752829]Oh you EA.
Also I hate how people ignore the Wii-U, it is a next generation console.[/QUOTE]
I don't give a shit about the shitty Wii-U
lol.
The PS4 and Xbox One are both using AMD's Jaguar architecture. This architecture is a slight improvement on their Bobcat architecture.
Haven't heard of Bobcat? That's because it's a shit-tier processor designed to fail against Intel's Atom processor. When the Bobcat surfaced, so did Bulldozer. All attention was focused on the failure of the Bulldozer and completely overlooked the failure of Bobcat. These shit-tier processors are being made obsolete by ULV i3',s i5's, and i7's (ultra low voltage).
So basically, "next gen" hardware is based off of a 2013 revision on a terrible netbook-class CPU architecture. I'm not saying these are necessarily bad systems - they're just no where near surpassing the top tier PC's of today. In fact, due to the nature of the Jaguar architecture, it is literally impossible.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;40754817]While it does make a difference, it isn't the 8-10x increase in power this guy is claiming.[/QUOTE]
i can't really do much in depth research 'cause i'm at school, but here's the 360's hardware. pulled this shit off of wikipedia.
[quote]
CPU 3.2 GHz PowerPC Tri-Core Xenon
Storage capacity
Storage media[show]
Memory 512 MB of GDDR3 RAM clocked at 700 MHz
Display
Video output formats[show]
Graphics 500 MHz ATI Xenos[/quote]
that's awful, right? but it could pull off some pretty cool looking games because developers didn't have to optimize their games for like, infinity + 1 systems. now compare that shit to the one's hardware.
[quote]- 8-core AMD Jaguar CPU
- 12 CU/768 SP AMD GCN GPU
- 8GB DDR3 system memory
- 500GB HDD
- Blu-ray drive
- 2.4/5.0GHz 802.11 a/b/g/n, multiple radios with WiFi Direct support
- 4K HDMI in/out (for cable TV passthrough)
- USB 3.0[/quote]
waaaaay better, even though the "8 core amd jaguar" and the GPU aren't really that specific. we'll get more in-depth specs in the future, i'm sure. regardless of how awful the specs are, it's clear that the one is like, super good compared to the 360's awful baby-tier hardware. still sucks, but is a definite improvement. if developers could pull off games like crysis 3 and halo 4 on the 360, imagine what they can do on the one.
and now, more importantly, imagine what that will mean for PC gamers. better ports!
[quote]These architectures are a generation ahead of the highest end PC on the market[/quote]
True until Haswell, 700 nvidia series, 8000 AMD series and whatever the next AMD chipset is are out in the coming months..
also excuse my awful sentence structure up there. i'll go back and fix it up if it's too confusing when i get home.
To be honest, because PS4 uses a shared memory for the graphics processor and the central processor (and Xbox likely does too), that gives it a big advantage over the usual PC structure.
Welcome to the x86 console era.
do these guys hire speechwriters to make their press releases sound like they've been penned by massive retards?
that said it's probably a marketing ploy to get people who are like 'well i could buy a console or i could upgrade my PC to play the same games' to reconsider
The new Xbox one's stats are [i]almost[/i] on par with my PC actually....
....but I built it 3 years ago, and it's getting a new gfx card later this year anyways which will make it 5x better than it again. Checkmate, EA.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.