The PlayStation 4 GPU is 4.5x more powerful than the PS3 GPU, and 7.5x more powerful than the Xbox 360 GPU.
Funny, not to flame or anything however I thought the 360 had a faster GPU than the PS3 or is that a common misconception?
Xbox 360 had special 32 MB of dedicated RAM, which gave it more possibilities.
a whole 32MB of awesome possibilities I bet.
Actually it's only 10MB of EDRAM, and 512MB of main system unified RAM in 360. The NextBox is rumored to have 32mb of EDRAM. On 360, the 10mb EDRAM did indeed enable some possibilities, like "free" anti-aliasing to smooth jaggies, however it also served as a bottleneck since you could not fit a 1080p frame into the 10mb frame buffer (the EDRAM was also it's frame buffer). This made 1080p and 3D difficult, among other things. 10MB wasn't quite enough. As for 360's GPU, while it had a slightly lower clock speed, it was in many ways more advanced than PS3's GPU. However, Cell was able to lend a hand to RSX, which helped PS3 bridge that gap nicely (much of why Uncharted 3, GOW3, etc look so nice). PS4's GPU is considerably more powerful. the CPU is more powerful as well, with each of the 8 cores being far more powerful than the SPU's in CELL. It also sports a mind blowing 16 times more RAM. This has to be the biggest RAM increase in console history. That's not even getting into how much more bandwidth all these devices have to talk to each other.
The PS3 was handicapped this gen with its inferior RAM, I'm glad to see Sony rectifying the issue.
and yet none of 360 games came close to Uncharted
"a whole 32MB of awesome possibilities I bet." It did make a difference and you could tell by how the PS3 lacked cross game chat. http://gematsu.com/2011/08/... I for one am pleased they are coming out with a whopping 8GB of RAM. That is unheard of for a game console. Plus it's GDDR5 not 3 which the Wii U uses and only has 2GB of it.
@ TheThirdMan The Xbox 1 destroyed the Ps2 in the graphics department , and i wouldn't say a game like Halo 4 was completely destroyed by Uncharted 2 or 3 they may have looked better but they way you're making it out... . A ps2 vs xbox video , feel free to watch http://www.youtube.com/watc...
This article makes the strange assumption that gigaflops are the ONLY measure of graphics 'power'. That's like saying a car will win a race because it has the highest top speed, while failing to take into account acceleration, cornering, braking, traction, shifting, etc.
@fr0sty: Actually 16x increase is the norm. PS1: 2MB PS2: 32MB PS3: 512MB PS4: 8GB
@Hydrolex not sure if trolling, or actually serious (and retarded at that) wow, just wow. Ooookay buddy
@NeverEnding1989: The PS3 wasn't really anymore handicapped in regards to Ram than the 360 was, it was just more difficult to code for because of the way it was arranged. With most games being made for the 360s unified Ram first then ported to the PS3, it was usually too much cost and effort to properly code the game for the PS3s split Ram. The 360 really only has 18MB more usable Ram than the PS3. The PS3 uses 50MB total Ram for the OS, 43MB of the XDR & 7MB of DDR3. The rest is fully accessible by Cell for use in games. The 360 uses 32MB.
Yes, the FLOP count of RSX was bogus. Its 200GFLOP chip, and PS4 is around 8 times that.
If i'm correct, the xbox does have a more powerful graphics card with more ram, but the ps3 has the cell which is more powerful then the xbox360s cpu. So the ps3's graphics might look slightly better, but it seems like only exclusive games look best. Since its harder to develop for, developers made lazy ports at first. It seems like it took them forever for multiplatform games to match xbox 360s graphics.
As stated above the GPU's were different at performing task, but similar in overall performance. The 360 had 10MB of eDRAM and 512MB of unified RAM, vs. PS3's split RAM 256MB games and almost 256MB for Console (a small portion was saved for something else, I believe the dormant SPU). That's why framerates were slightly better on 360, but the Cell is why PS3 games had more graphic quality.
It's so hard to compare graphics wise when you're talking first party games. Everything on both PS3 and Xbox 360 sort of have their own graphics style and direction. For example, it seems silly to compare Halo graphics to Killzone because its meant to be pretty much ALL OUT super realistic graphics but yet a more Gears of War style colour palette of greys and such, whereas Halo was never about pushing the Xbox 360 to the limit up until Halo 4 which even then, I think due to the style of how Halo is presented isn't an attempt at ultra realism. I don't know haha, sorry I kind of rambled a bit but I hope you all see my point. Not really defending the Xbox 360 at all just kinda showing that it's not really the same. I'd say the head to head comparisons of Crysis 2 back when it came out is a good representation of how the consoles differ. Don't have a link at the moment but it should be easy to dig up.
The common misconception is trying to compare the two systems to each other since the PS3's architecture was extremely and arguably too complex. But yes the 360 on paper based on developer comments had the more powerful GPU. Lines get blurred though because the actual RSX specs were NEVER released. There is a reason for that. Sony had to develop the GPU to work in cohesion with the Cell processor because it will not work like a traditional PC, hence the split 256MB of RAM for the System and faster 256MB of RAM for the RSX GPU. It is confusing and is not something that typical developers are used to work with. Sony put their eggs into the Cell Basket. They wanted developers to leverage the SPUs or "Pow3r of th3 C3LL" to help offload work from the GPU. Some developers creatively were able to do it like Naughty Dog and Sony Santa Monica. But obviously we learned from this generation that most developers could not come to gripes with it, hence all the development headache from many 3rd party studios. Heck, there were even some chatter about how they only used 256MB of RAM from the GPU without even touching the other 256MB, essentially gimping the game. We all saw that with poor X360 ports which is why the X360 version had higher resolutions and more Anti-aliasing.
Yes, he's got them mixed up. That, plus just north of 400 Gflops is what the PS3's total processing power was capable of, so PS4 is about 5 times more powerful than the entire ps3, and the GPU is 9 times more powerful than PS3's GPU. The PS3 was capable of more flops than the Xbox360 total power, I want to say between 50-100 Gflops but I don't remember. Obviously the difficult programming environment of the PS3 is what held it back. Anyway, being 5 times more powerful along with the greatly improved efficiency of the architecture and the hardware, should be fun :)
and my $300 Radeon 7950 is 2.87 TFLOPS, so PS4 GPU is about 65% as powerful.
It's going to be expensive i can already tell -.-.
Hopefully not 4.5 times more expensive than PS3 was.
$399 - $499 is a reasonable price (more likely around $499). A subscription based model would help ease the pain, $299 w. a 2 year contract to PS+ @ $10 / month ($539 over 2 year period).
That is about right. Except you will never see 100% usage in your CPU doing other things that the GPU can't do. Console developers, are going to max out everything they can do with the CPU and GPU and have a much more balanced yet powerful system.
You know whats scary? all those games you saw at the sony press conference was only using 4 gig of the Gddr5, because at first sony told the developers they was only going to use 4 gig of memory but something changed their mind and its for the better.... Just wait until Naughty Dog drop their project then ppl will see true next gen game i know they have a corner to corner grin on their face right now graphics sluts lol
That doesn't make sense. The 360 had a better gpu in in than the PS3.
It's amazing how biased the people on this site are. The gpu in the 360 is well known to be more powerfull that the one in the ps3. Also, if the specs released by sony are true, the PS4 gpu should be at least 8 times more powerfull.
It doesn't have to make sense and it never does when it comes to new Playstation hardware and the stories and articles that follow, not to mention Sony themselves. Who cares about 360 and 720 all you need to know is that MSFT wants to make the 720 6 to 8 times morepowerful than 360. Lets wait.
yeah it doesn't make sense like most of the idiots that post on here - Sony actually lists the RSX as being able to produce 1.8 teraFlops - which was a joke. Any intelligent engineer and enthusiast knows that the Xbox gpu was a superior and more modern design. Also, the PS3 Cell @ 218 gflops would seem superior to the PS4 cpu @ 102.4 gflops; however, the PS4 x86-64 cpu has 8 out-of-order fully functional CPU cores allowing far more flexibility and efficiency than the PS3's cell. To finish things off, if we pay attention to Flops, then we would conclude the PS3 is still superior to the PS4 because Sony Lists the PS3 with a total output of 2 TeraFlops! http://playstation.about.co...
There's got to be at least SOME 1080p native games, then. Can't wait!