PS4 GPGPU Doubles XB1 GPGPU In Ubisoft Test

A test run by Ubisoft on cloth simulation shows PlayStation 4 GPGPU doubling the numbers of Xbox One GPGPU. Both have massive gains over their CPUs.

[Neonridr]

I understand you don't put out many Wii U games Ubisoft, but it would have been interesting to see where it resided in the charts..

[darthv72]

Yeah, the wiiu could have been tested as well. But perhaps they were strictly going for a previous gen vs current gen comparison between the two platforms.

on a side note...the GDDR5 and the 'GPU' in the PS4 were meant for each other. The DDR3 and the XB1 'CPU' were meant for each other. That is why there is such a disparity between the tests in regards to the two scores.

Sony developed a system geared towards more graphic intensive applications (ie: games 1st, workflow 2nd). MS designed a system geared towards more rounded applications (ie: workflow 1st, games 2nd).

Both are significantly more robust than their previous efforts and both will offer a satisfying approach to entertainment in the years to come.

[stuna1]

Well said! I think it's a fair assumption to make that they are both respectively more powerful than their predecessors, as well as having their strengths and weaknesses. The truth is none can be the all inclusive package! Especially at the current asking price.

[mixolydian_id]

I agree mostly.
But disagree with the generalised drivel "console does this because of gddr5/ddr3"

Anyone with half a tech-savvy mind would notice that the drivel plastered across the web smells fishy. Firstly the, people who regurgitate information from other unreliable sources solely because its what they want to see. Secondly because the majority actually haven't a clue.

Don't believe the hype train, don't even bother researching it because it's likely the information you'll find is spawned by some adolescent idiot who in the real world, words wouldn't be worth more then a primary school grade.

[Eonjay]

For the technically minded, this is far worse than anyone could have imagined. Ten times so because this is coming from Ubisoft. In short, they are showing that CPU tasks such as cloth manipulation, can be handled by the GPU, and they present a full proof showing that the PS4 GPU is demonstrability stronger and even go as far as to give advice about programming it. They even give timing results. They are basically saying that the CPU is not a bottleneck because we can use the GPU.

I feel ill. Did they really present evidence against their own claim? Why is this happening. At this point I am angry that they are such bad liars. No one is making them do this to themselves. I'm going to lay down.

The proof is even running against assets in AC: Unity... oh God.

[Oner]

Completely agree Eonjay ~ It's so obvious, but tbh that kind of critical thinking is lost on some...which speaks VOLUMES if you ask me.

[starchild]

Of course the PS4 could handle this game at 1080p, so could the XB1, it's simply a matter of how much they would have to cut back other aspects of the graphics. It's always a trade off.

They probably decided that 900p was a resolution that would give enough clarity for the long draw distances, but would also allow the PS4 version to be able to keep all of the core visual design elements they wanted for the game.

The Xbox One version will probably be pared back in a few areas compared to the PS4 version in order to achieve the same resolution and there may be performance differences as well.

Both versions are CPU bound. It's not like everything can be done with GPGPU. There are definite limitations. If that weren't the case, we could just do away with the CPU and run everything off the GPU with GPGPU. In this case they are using GPGPU to run the cloth simulation, but that doesn't mean everything can run on GPGPU efficiently.

Here is what this Ubisoft dev said:

"Our producer (Vincent) saying we’re bound with AI by the CPU is right, but not entirely. Consider this, they started this game so early for next gen, MS and Sony wanted to push graphics first, so that’s what we did. I believe 50% of the CPU is dedicated to helping the rendering by processing pre-packaged information, and in our case, much like Unreal 4, baked global illumination lighting. The result is amazing graphically, the depth of field and lighting effects are beyond anything you’ve seen on the market"

So, if the CPUs are carrying that much of the load and helping out that much on rendering tasks and AI it's no wonder that both consoles are going to be similarly limited overall.

Now, of course the PS4 will still have a few extra graphics resources that will likely be used for other graphical enhancements over the XB1 version.

They almost certainly won't be graphically identical and the PS4 likely has the better performance as well. This is what I predict we will see when the game is released and analyzed.

[BallsEye]

@Eonjay

If you would be technically minded you would know that pure GPU test doesn't mean that much when it comes to running a full game. Once you need to offload more things than dancers on both GPU and CPU it doesn't work quite as well. Not to mention XBO have few additional smaller dedicated computer units that do GPU's work, move engines. It's same as showing how randon mediacore graphic card is better than ones in both ps4 and xo but in real game situation it will actually be behind, because of dedicated architecture in consoles.

Still waiting for a game on ps4 with atleast 20-30 active NPC's on screen. XO have games with few hundred of them at once with unique ai, looks and physics.

[gootimes]

@Eonjay

Well said!

[n4rc]

I don't fully understand the concept..

But offloading tasks to the GPU would only work if the GPU has the resources to spare. Am I correct?

So If you are taxing the GPU, you can't use it for CPU tasks as well..

[awi5951]

Don't argue gpu benchmarks for consoles go buy a gaming pc. With the Bitcoin farming craze over the bitcoin farmers are dropping practically brand new cards for 160 bucks. Buy 2 Amd R9 280x cards on ebay and kick any games butt. For example 1 R9 280x maxes BF4 64 multiplayer at ultra preset @ 1080P at 80+ fps

[Volkama]

These results really shouldn't come as a shock. In fact the difference is smaller than expected.

The XBox has 2 ACEs. The PS4 has 8 ACEs (same as the R9 290 series). So that's 4x more ACEs handling GPU Compute functions.

However the XBox ACEs have 16 queues each, the PS4s have 8 queues each, so the total number of queues is double as per the results. So it seems those extra queues are 100% efficient, at least in benchmarks.

Now let's see some devs really utilise it.

[marcofdeath]

1. They did not use ESRAM to GPU.
2. GPGPU = the 14 + 4 of the vgleaks.
3. Test was versus DX 11.1

AS some think but as i said 3 mouths ago this is wrong. "B3D"
"18CU x 64ALU = 1152 ALU/SP"
AMD 153.6GB/s (maximum) is from the HD7870. On PS4's APU the more CPU the more bandwidth is taking away from the GPU. 140GB/s effective.

we start here once again page 53:
http://develop.scee.net/fil...

This page shows that the GPU is idol.

page 54

This shows the GPU filling it's ALUs with work.
You can see that all the alus are not used (PCs also waste ALUs at any given time).

Alus sitting idle 199.

Page 55

Now we start to fill the unused ALU with jobs.
this also gives consols a advantage of the previously talked about from me 2X close box performance increase.
Page 56

So we regain 104ALU from GPGPU. leaving 95ALU unused.

199ALU / 64 per CU = 3.1CUs used for GPGPU

14.9CU x 64ALU x 800MHZ x 2MADD = 1.5TF GPU
When you use GPGPU this is what you will have left for your graphics rendering. It will be interesting to see how this is handled because a lot of your exclusive PS4 first party games are using all GPU for graphics rendering and therefore there will be a balancing act graphics end versus GPGPU use.

[UltimateMaster]

This chart kinda proves that if they used the GPGPU correctly, they could easily get it to 1080p on BOTH console.

[kaiserfranz]

Probably the WiiU CPU is slightly below PS3. Thing is, it doesn't have a GPU with Compute Units...

[Qrphe]

True, CPU would be even below the 360 even, but as a GPGPU unit it would surpass both 360 and PS3.

[UltraNova]

Still at 10 years of age the CELL is holding its own...I can only imagine what an up to date 16 core CELL could achieve!

Well all hail the lazy developers for killing Cell's potential.

[nitus10]

Unfortunately for the PS3 it was initially expensive to build and therefore the cost to the purchaser was allot higher than the competition.

I think if they had put in at least 1GB or 2GB of memory the machine would still be very competitive today, but putting in that extra memory would have caused even more losses for Sony at that moment in time which they could ill afford.

[hollabox]

Wow, I can recall saying Sony downgraded their CPU while MS upgraded over a year ago. Of course lovely idiots jumped on me trying to argue basic specs in regards to the CPU.

Like I said then, both next gen system put way too much stock in the GPU. When the GPU is maxed out developers can't expect much from the CPU to push the boundaries a little bit further. Developers already started complaining about next gen CPUs not being up to par.
On other hand, kudos to Sony for at least putting a decent GPU in their system along with fast GDDR 5 RAM. MS gambled too much on Kinect. Don M. copied Nintendo one too many times, his lack of clarity is going to cost MS this generation.

[killacal13]

Ubisoft are retards that don't know how to properly promote their games on the wii u, and still expect it to sell, and then they get upset with the bad sales when all they do is $hi# ports. Not going to get any of their games on my Ps4 because of this attitude with the Wii U and the downgrading on the Ps4 games with all the parity bull$#it.

[Fatal-Aim]

"This is another proof that Compute, and specifically Async Compute is the future of next generation and particularly PlayStation 4, as stated by Sucker Punch and Zombie Studios, while Q-Games is already using it on The Tomorrow Children.

<Many games on PlayStation 4> Xbox One <don’t even use this properly, but they will soon>"

yet, I have been saying this BS the whole time which fanboys seem to forget right away when they see a PS4 game performing on the same level as a XB1 game. PS4 has yet to show it's true muscle, and its going to take more than a few launch titles or even the first year before we even see this, which fanboys are eager to jump on when comparing the total performance of the console to XB1's first year titles.

mark cerny tells you right here (back in june of 2013 before the console ever launched) that compute is the PS4's muscle for the long haul. http://www.gamasutra.com/vi...

" And the timeframe in which people will use these features fully is 2015? 2017?" said Cerny."

you eager fanboys will have your time to compare these two consoles....but not now. I just hope you all are ready as this generation ticks on.

[2cents]

I have to say it.

I would love to see this run on... 'The Cloud' Aaaarrggghhh... oh no I said it!!!

[Volkama]

Cloth simulation wouldn't really be a great candidate for cloud processing.

The AI that is apparently responsible for so much CPU resource use in this game would be a great candidate for offloading, and that would be of more benefit.

[n4rc]

And that'll be the "parity" hurdles for Xbox owners... Could use azure but 3rd parties won't..

[rarity]

"easy to develop for,hard to master"

-mark cerny

@ kaiserfranz no the CPU isn't inferior to ps3's it just has a slower clock speed it would be inferior if they both had the same CPU which they don't the ps4 has the stronger CPU.

[purp13m0nk3y]

"PS4 has the stronger CPU"

False! In terms of Raw theoretical flops (floating point calculations) the Cell is more powerful than the Xbox1/PS4 CPU.

The difference being that the Cell is very good at very specific tasks. While the Xbox1/PS4 CPU is much better as a general purpose processor and in real world performance achieves much better results.

[I_am_Batman]

It's important to note that the PS3 was mostly reliant on the cell processor with the RSX supporting it as opposed to the PS4 which is mostly reliant on the GPU with the CPU idially only doing what can't be done via general purpose computation on the GPU.

The PS3 originally wasn't even going to have a dedicated GPU at all. It was supposed to run games sololy on the Cell.

[mixolydian_id]

Yeah,
In real world performance, that much better?

Paper is one thing...

It's like when a company says "get this router, you'll get 300mb/s wifi speeds"

That is:

A) at 100%

B) your adaptor can support the "standard".

C) when you realise you have 50%-60% wifi connectivity. Which isn't as secure as wired

D) then realise that 1 MB/s is equal to 8Mb/s... And a wired connection is still 6x better.

It's marketting, they make you think it's good for the wrong reasons. Commercialism prevails, more sheep are provided.

[jhoward585]

Aren't we forgetting something here. cache

The PS4 has better/more cache shared between the CPU/GPU while the PS3 less cache.

The eight cores are capable of running eight hardware threads, with each core using a 32KiB L1 I-cache and D-cache, and each four-core group sharing 2MiB of L2 Cache. The processor will be able to handle things like atomics, threads, fibers, and ULTs, with out-of-order execution and advanced ISA.

As for the PS3, the "Processing Element" of the Cell is a 3.2-GHz PowerPC core equipped with 512 KB of L2 cache.

So this means the PS4 CPU would process information more efficiently than the PS3's CPU even with 7(I think) SPEs, which each come loaded with 256 KB SRAM. The fact the PS4 memory cache are divided with in the hardware,the cores compute processes information better throughout the hardware.

http://electronics.howstuff...

http://arstechnica.com/gami...

[kaiserfranz]

Wow, I didn't really expect the PS4 CPU to be inferior to PS3! Now I'm starting to think Microsoft and Sony could have put some more technological effort in their consoles...

[ziggurcat]

someone doesn't understand technology...

[Pogmathoin]

You do not need to understand technology, just say Sony are wonderful, that will cover you.

[Alexious]

It certainly isn't great to see PS3 beat PS4, even if it's just a specific benchmark. Truth is, these CPUs are good for a laptop, and a budget one.

Clearly both Microsoft and Sony cheaped out on CPU. Luckily at least Sony managed to have GDDR5 and added a few more Compute Units to its GPU.

[johndoe11211]

@Pogmathoin

The bitterness and complete idiocy in your comments are not just getting worse but they're getting pretty darn tiresome now. What the hell was the point of your comment? you are no better than the people you seem to despise and criticize. Your comment was absolutely senseless, uncalled for, irrelevant and added nothing to the discussion. All for the sake of moaning and pouting like a 12 year old school girl. If you have a problem with the "so called" sony bias on this site as you claim there is, then what the hell are you doing here commenting. mrxmedia is always looking for followers.

@kaiserfranz

What I do know is this, the ps3's cell processor was a little ahead of it's time. People seriously underestimated the power of that thing. The problem with the cell was that it was a nightmare to develop for.

Remember, sony originally wanted to have the cell do all the work and not include a GPU in the ps3 but they were strongly advised against it by their internal studios. Their first party studios were worried, and rightly so, about the added difficulty of designing games using the cell alone. That alone shows what the cell is capable of.

[Qrphe]

The PS2 has a higher fill rate than the PS3, Sony should have put effort with the PS3 in the first place it seems.

[kneon]

it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

I'm expect they are using the entire cell in this benchmark, PPU+SPUs. If it was strictly CPU(PPU) vs CPU I expect the PS4 would come out ahead despite the lower clock due to the multiple cores. Of course the requires that you have tasks that can be easily spread across multiple cores.

[Ju]

I would rather think it is...else it would be quite surprising the 360 is so far behind. 1 core vs. 3 and yet slower, while single core performance is about the same. If the PS3 is beating it that handily this is with SPU optimization to the max. Raw per core performance on the PPU is still faster than the Jaguar, though. Doesn't help that the PS3 only has one - a nightmare running multiple threads.

[ProjectVulcan]

"I didn't really expect the PS4 CPU to be inferior to PS3!"

.....at highly parallelised tasks such as this exact thing demonstrated, yes, it likely is. The more relevant thing I saw there with the old hardware is that PS3's CPU is 3x the performance of 360's at this kind of task.

PS3's CELL was extremely good (for it's time, it's design is at least a decade old) at compute. It was stupendously good at it for a CPU because it wasn't a conventional x86 CPU like the ones now in the consoles. This is pretty much what the SPEs were intended to do, chaining together loads of the same basic operations and doing them real fast.

However, we are now in 2014 where GPUs have evolved since Direct3D 10 arriving with shader model 4.0 in late 2006. From fairly crude general purpose compute designs, to the modern ones in the consoles (especially PS4) which are highly optimised for compute performance.

CELL's architecture and design was generally made obsolete by newer GPGPU technology so was never going to be repurposed in PS4. Hence the shift to a more versatile x86 CPU and a powerful compute oriented GPU is the makeup of ALL the fastest games machines (new consoles, PC with DX11+) etc

The path has now converged. Xbox One/PS4 and PC are so highly similar architecturally in concept it's come full circle from the early days of home gaming when specialised console hardware first split from home computers.

Interesting, no?

[Alexious]

Agreed, the CELL was meant for very different tasks than today's CPUs.

[Geekman]

First you say you think the PS3 has a higher CPU than the Wii U, then you say you thought it was also higher than the Ps4.

O__O

[Oner]

The PS4 CPU @ 98 vs the XB1 CPU @ 113 proves that the "higher clock speed" of the XB1 is completely negligible. The PS4 GPGPU and just overall throughput of the PS4 says ALOT when it comes to the performance capabilities between the two (a fact known to those who understand hardware/tech).

@ kaiserfranz ~ I agree to an extent (i.e. putting a slightly better CPU in both consoles) but not fully as a system is more than just the CPU, it's the culmination of it's parts that should be weighed/looked at properly.

[Kayant]

While it actually isn't anymore(In this case at least) because http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

Which basically says that the updates to XB1's drivers/SDK now actually allows the clock speed difference to show because he is agreeing with these posts. http://www.neogaf.com/forum...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

Matt was the dev that confirmed a while ago this benchmark
http://gamingbolt.com/subst...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

Just like the difference is shown in CPU now the GPU difference is shown and is a much larger margin.

[Alexious]

Yeah, it seems like there is a small CPU advantage by Xbox One, but the GPU advantage of PS4 is far more significant.

[Oner]

@ Kayant & Alexious ~ Exactly my point (albeit less confusing). I think people mistook my point simply because the XB1 CPU is shown to be capable of doing "more" in a 1 : 1 basis versus the PS4 (in this example referenced in the article)...but when you factor in the rest of the whole system the output of the PS4 is MUCH larger/greater (and by FAR too) which is vastly more important.

[SliceOfTruth888]

good lord people are still on this....If you care about rez/fps BUY A PC!

[MRMagoo123]

If you dont care about res/fps at all dont bother gaming

[darthv72]

Well that is rather disheartening magoo. I have been gaming for 30+ years and never cared about res/fps.

Should I stop now because you say so? "If you dont care about res/fps at all dont bother gaming"

[garrettbobbyferguson]

20 years of gaming here. Resolution/FPS have been important to me for at least the last 5. Why? Because it's easily done now, and should be a standard. Not only do games look better, but they're a lot smoother too.

[MRMagoo123]

@darth

I am pointing out a fact that saying "If you care about rez/fps BUY A PC" is stupid, PC gaming is not for everyone...but having a say about what res or fps you are happy with is for everyone because its up to them to decide.

[Harold_Finch]

If you care about res/fps at all, don't bother gaming. It makes gamers look bad.

[nitus10]

***If you dont care about res/fps at all dont bother gaming***

Rubbish! If you care about gaming you care if the game is fun to play. Yes Resolution and FPS can add to the enjoyment of the game but they are not the main criteria that make a good game.

[Muzikguy]

That's not a very good slice of truth. I care about res because I have an HDTV. Why would I want to play Wii games on it? I don't. The industry pushes it too, kind of forcing people to want res/FPS upgrades. Also, for many generations that's what the new gen brought.... Graphics and resolution

[nitus10]

I have a 55" 3D HDTV and I still, on the odd occasion play Gamecube games on it. I can even play my original PS1 and PS2 games via my FAT PS3.

As far as I am concerned if the game is fun to play even if the resolution and frame rate is sub par compared to today's "standards" then I will enjoy playing that game. Admittedly a higher resolution and frame-rate game may be more attractive but if it's not fun then IMHO it is not worth playing.

[Spotie]

I get it. If I care about performance, I should just get a Lamborghini. If I care about movies I should just buy a theater. If I care about making music I should just buy a studio.

To hell with budgets and preferences. If I care even a little, I should just go all out, right?

Man, I'm so glad you cleared that up.

[mkis007]

Love it! well done. Exactly what I needed someone to say!

[Why o why]

Trust me, that 'buy a pc' misses so many points on so many levels. Its a weak cop out for some of the console pacifists who must have selective memories. I owned an atari st but the amiga graphics were better. Do you think I was the only kid who cared about graphics even back then. ...c'mon now. Pcs aren't able to replace or replicate the fundamental features of consoles. Despite that console owners want the best they can get for their investment.

[zerog]

Wow your're still trolling...if you only care about pc stay off the console articals

[Festano]

I honestly do not think that xbox one is more powerful than PS4, but now xbox is releasing one of the games that have nothing to envy to the PS4. We will see in the future how it will.

[lemoncake]

Are these graphics cards even powerful enougth to be able to do the graphics processor work along side other stuff like physics without compromising the actual graphics side? These test are interesting and all but in a real gaming situation there's so much more going on.

[hkgamer]

well, these are just purely for the sake of benchmark tests.

the gpu on these consoles seems to be a generation aboce the cpu so freeing up resources on the cpu would be a great advantage.

last gen the ps3 graphics card was in a sense pretty pathetic so the cell processor helped out a lot.

[Manic2014]

I wonder what the difference would be with the Last gen GPGU vs Current gen.

[Mornzie]

Not surprising in the slightest.

[quenomamen]

Yea well what the H does Ubi know they're only one of top Devs out there.

[I_AM_ CANADIAN_1989]

What are you on lol ubi are rubbish devs can't optimize worth crap and still rely heavily on cpu instead of putting everything into the gpu hence why getting a ubi game to run on a pc is like getting a enema with boiling water.

[starchild]

Eh I run most Ubisoft games just fine on my PC. And many of their games are some of the best looking games around. I'd say they know a lot about what they are doing.

[XtraTrstrL]

Wow, the PS4 jumps to over 16x the amount of dancers, while the X1 jumps to just over 7x the amount when both are moved from CPU to GPU.

[Saithraphim]

What caught my attention were the ps3 numbers. I'm shocked it could do so well against the ps4 and xbone.

[ThatOneGuyThere]

the cell processor is running @ 3.2ghz and excels at floating point calculations. Even on paper its a beast. Thats why people were sad last gen when 3rd party devs werent using the cell properly and making crappy ports.

[LamerTamer]

The issue is the whole system. The GPU in the PS3 wasn't great and the amount of RAM at 2 banks of 256 mb was pathetic. Even when these came out I was surprised they didn't put 1 gig in them.

[mysteryraz11]

why put such weak cpus in them?

[HighResHero]

One of the reasons is that devs werent efficiently optimizing for powerful multi-core PC processors anyway(see Planetside 2 a year or so ago)
Many times there was very uneven core distribution. This can be seen in all sorts of other software(music production etc.) that use old code bases.
8 cores at around 1.8 Ghz or whatever they are clocked at will go along way it used properly.
This will benefit us on PC as well as future console gens.
This gen will end up being very much about efficiency and games like Uncharted 4 will show that those "weak cpus" are not that weak after all.

[lemoncake]

Stronger ones would have cost more both in terms of the chip and also from providing an adequate quiet cooling system for them.

[mushroomwig]

Price, obviously. Sony realised that people aren't willing to pay $599 for another PlayStation console, and Microsoft realised that and opted for something cheaper so they could compete.

[MrSec84]

Because CPU's aren't the be all and end all of modern code processing.
The GPUs in both consoles are perfectly capable of handling the vast majority of code in all situations, CPUs are only really needed as the coordinator within these systems, so that's why they're much smaller.

People need to look at a platform as a whole, not dissect these systems into one or another relatively small part and think that represents the total performance that can be achieved across the whole system.

These benchmarks show that.

[Brazz]

Ya see... From what I'm seeing in this text, I can only conclude that the GAP between the PS4 and the X1 is great and will probably increase in the future.

Of course, the X1 has 15% more CPU performance, but ... see the X360 vs PS3, Ps3 has 200% more performace on the CPU, but if you see multiplatform, there has always been balance between the two. (at the start of the generation X360 had a noticeable advantage during the generation but the advantage decreased / disappeared).

This makes me think that CPU is really a secondary element, GPU the "main player" here, and in this area the PS4 has 100%, according to the tests, more power than X1 ...

I hope this is just a rumor, cuz from what I read, the difference in CPU and negligible, 15% ... (PS3 had 200% more CPU, and never dominated the x360) but the difference in GPU is huge, and that is that is the true weight factor of future games.

[imt558]

Quote :

"Of course, the X1 has 15% more CPU performance, but..."

"..the difference in CPU and negligible, 15%..."

It is even less difference : 9.3%. Do the math.

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

[Brazz]

welll...i taking bases on Ubisoft test.

98 dancers Ps4 CPU VS 113 dancers X1 CPU, something in the line o 15% diference.

The thing about clock speed is another thing, and yeah, it's like 10% (9,3%) as ya said.

[PaleMoonDeath]

Ubisoft aren't exactly faithful, they can throw a game together for sure but the finished products compared to whats advertised is in serious question, Bow to the lowest tech and let the stronger tech be undermined.

Eat the dust Ubisoft.

[hello12]

Finally its shown the x box CPU is faster, i told you guys for months that was the case.

18vs12 Yes 18 CU's can be used for graphics but 14 is the balance because you get minimal graphic improvement after 14CU's Sony leaked document stated that and Microsoft said the same thing too.

http://cdn.vgleaks.netdna-c...

Sony 14+4 setup is better than the 12 CU setup for Microsoft, lets be honest have we seen a 50 per cent difference with games for both platforms? Not yet anyway.

[Mastadope42]

" lets be honest have we seen a 50 per cent difference with games for both platforms? Not yet anyway."

All the games that have been superior on the PS4 at the very least show a difference. Also just because the PS4 is 50% more powerful does not translate into: "50 percent better visual quality". Idk why other console supporters run with that. That was never spouted out, but somehow some "groups" decided to run with that and makes other groups or atleast poorly attempt to make other "groups" look bad...

[mkis007]

You did not tell anyone anything, xbox one having a faster cpu was known, as is how negligible that was. The GPU difference however makes up for that and more in spades in ps4's favor.

[joeorc]

@KNWS

You just cannot freaking help yourself

Here:

According the the outdated Project Cars bench, the PS4 CPU was slightly faster by over 10% boost.  After the boost the PS4 should be equal with the possibility of having an insignficant lead over the Xbox One when the Xbox One uses a combination of Esram/DDR3.  The GPU is over 43.75% faster according to the benchmark.  Please note that this is dealing with 4K video encoding and doesn't take full advantage of the extra GPU features in the PS4 or the AMD R9 290x.  This is inline with what we already have known from the previously leaked Project Cars benchmark.

[Alexious]

The interesting question is, if their motion cloth on PS4 GPGPU runs so well, why there is no difference between Unity on PS4 & XB1? Surely with all those NPCs, it must be heavily used.

[Mastadope42]

Because their engine is CPU bound. Once they update to be around the GPU. GPGPU compute will start showing improvements across the board.

[starchild]

They never said there was no difference between the PS4 and Xb1 versions. Some people just wrongly jumped to that conclusion.

They were talking about the resolution when they were talking about the same spec.

The PS4 version will have other advantages over the XB1 version and might run better too. For all we know the XB1 version may have fewer NPCs on screen as well.

[LamerTamer]

And when they are identical with the exact same graphic quality? Maybe then you will agree they just went for parity to "avoid debates and stuff".

[hkgamer]

its safe to say that ubisoft is going for some sort of parity depending on what company is backing which game.

sony backed watch dogs. xbone version wasnt as good and pc version was gimped.

ms backs unity, xbone version and ps4 version identical.

a rumour floating around from an ubi developer mentions that sony/ms is trying to force ubisoft to cap pc versions of games to 30fps. not sure if i believe thsi though.

[S2Killinit]

and yet they made Assassin's Creed run on parity with xbone. interesting stuff.

[HaydenJameSmith]

http://www.dualshockers.com...

"I’m happy to enlighten you guys because way too much bullshit about 1080p making a difference is being thrown around. If the game is as pretty and fun as ours will be, who cares? Getting this game to 900p was a BITCH. The game is so huge in terms of rendering that it took months to get it to 720p at 30fps. The game was 9fps 9 months ago."

"We only achieved 900p at 30fps weeks ago. The PS4 couldn’t handle 1080p 30fps for our game, whatever people, or Sony and Microsoft say. Yes, we have a deal with Microsoft, and yes we don’t want people fighting over it, but with all the recent concessions from Microsoft, backing out of CPU reservations not once, but twice, you’re talking about a 1 or 2 fps difference between the two consoles. So yes, locking the framerate is a conscious decision to keep people bullshiting, but that doesn’t seem to have worked in the end. Even if Ubi has deals, the dev team members are proud, and want the best performance out of every console out there. What’s hard is not getting the game to render at this point, it’s making everything else in the game work at the same level of performance we designed from the start for the graphics."

PS4 couldn't handle 1080p!!! in this case. Get over it, this specific controlled test/benchmark doesn't mean anything in regards to AC Unity.

[S2Killinit]

OF COURSE he will say that. Fact of the matter is, PS4 is more powerful, that's the end of that discussion. Now please tell me why is it that given that fact, the two games should be identical? Fine, you want to say that the game is SOOO demanding that the PS4 can't do 1080p. Ok, then it surely has better resolution or frames per second right? well, not according to Ubi. That, is the problem.

Other facts to consider. Ubi has made a deal with MS. They have a contract with them. they are showing the xbone copy in front of the PS4 copy in their advertisements, even though historically Assassin's Creed sells more units on Playstation platform. Secondly, the contract also includes an xbone bundle. Its really easy to fill in the blanks here. The developer can say whatever he wants, people can make their own inferences from the circumstantial facts. Its kind of obvious that one of the provisions in the contract between the developer and MS was the infamous "parity" clause.

[HaydenJameSmith]

Stop making up conspiracies to fuel your own hate-filled agenda against MS, just cause they have a marketing deal doesn't mean they would "gimp" the PS4 version, think what u like but it just make u look foolish. Marketing deal is exactly how it sounds, marketing it on their console, Sony did it with WatchDOgs and Destiny, MS are doing it with CoD AW and AC Unity...

I guess by that logic Sony gimped the X1 versions of WatchDogs and Destiny, guess there going to do it with GTA 5 too seeing as that's been promoted on their console and only been shown on their console just like Destiny and WatchDogs before launch ? Give me a break... do you know how ridiculous that sounds.

There is so much more to take into consideration, just cause the resolution is the same doesn't mean performance, shadow quality, even AA, AO or depth of field will all be the same. Yes PS4 is more powerful but this game and recent games and even more to come will show the power difference isn't huge. If indeed Parity was strived for then there will be equality on every technical level, which there won't be and that will be proved after launch when EuroGamer do their analysis.

Get over it, a small drop in resolution to further improve gameplay and performance is a easy sacrifice... If you can't deal with it get a PC.

[S2Killinit]

I stopped reading after "stop conspiracy". Its not a conspiracy, its business. If you think MS doesnt do business, then we got another problem

[HaydenJameSmith]

You keep thinking what you want then, just makes you look even more foolish. So guess MS does "business" and Sony don't, there just in it for the good will of Gamers ? Right. The fact you accuse MS of malicious intent and excuse Sony even though they're performing just as many marketing deals with publishers as MS. If even you were right, not saying you are, what's to stop Sony doing the same thing your claiming MS are doing...

Do you see how ridiculous you sound... Developers make the games, they decide, not MS or Sony. If you really think MS have so much pull and are willing to throw money away just to make Sony's version on par with X1 ? You are really foolish and clearly don't know good business acumen and even if they were even gonna try something like that, why not make their version better...

You are just ridiculous... Developers aren't stupid enough to alienate the console with the larger install base and MS aren't stupid enough to become more hated after last years DRM reveal, there is good business seeing as you can't seem to understand it.

[Yaay4me]

why don't you read his comment properly before answering? He never said anything about Sony. And stop calling names and being judgmental, you're just making yourself look bad brother. And just FYI, he is right about what he is saying. And of course Sony does "business", but the facts are indicative of Microsoft doing business by means of bullying, as in the infamous Parity clause. (just my opinion, don't start calling me names please)

[Aurenar]

There is no story. PS4 > X1, get over it.

[ccgr]

agreed

[denawayne]

Depends on the parameters

[Mister_G]

GPU Compute is the future, luckily Mark Cerny knew this and gave the PS4 more gpu compute units.

[ironmonkey]

lol people remember ms overclocked their cpu sony hasnt with theirs. easily done with a simple update.

[_LarZen_]

With this information known...why is there console parity between the XBO and PS4 version in games like Unity and Farcry 4?

[DJ]

We can thank Mark Cerny for that. He made sure PS4's GPU exceled at GPGPU functions. I think it was something like 32 cores vs. Xbox One' 8 cores. Very forward thinking.

[CoryHG]

Ubisoft is on strike with me. After Watchdogs flop, the catering to parity from a paid off microsoft, and the delay of The Crew, also I wouldn't hold my breath for The Division to meet expectations at this point.

[supergrobi1]

But the XBox One CPU beats the PS4 CPU, this is much more interesting!!

[Mister_G]

4 > 1

[BlissSeeker]

Anyone else getting malicious file attacks whenever they visit N4G?

OT: ...I feel a disturbance in the force...

[Mister_G]

Can't wait for Naughty Dog to show us what this translates to on-screen :D

[cruzngta]

When Ice team does there magic and dx12 comes out it will be interesting to see what gains are made for both and where that will put them respectively performance wise.

[Rhythmattic]

MS made a most needed move..

Before releasing kinect resources and Up clocking, , their CPU would have been 20% (approx- lets not get too technical-mathematical) behind the ball....

Point is , some people on forums think this is an extension of power, but we know its only unlocking access to headroom that was already there...

Not that they need to, but who thinks Sony cant up clock their PS4 ? They did this before with the PSP.

At the temps these systems are running at, its possible both systems get up clocked.

In a way, maybe we are all Beta testers ? ;)

Edit:
To Add , Do these CPU's in X One and PS4 have a type of "turbo" mode like intels ?

[iagainsti120]

Jaguar cores do support turbo core. But I do not know if Sony or Microsoft have it enabled int either PS4 or Xbox One.

[AnotherGamer117]

So many articles about Ubisoft. There is this article:

http://n4g.com/news/1604956...

that claims a ubisoft employee states the PS4 can't do 1080p for AC Unity. But we have the article above saying the PS4 doubles the Xbox One for GPGPU.

I find this all very interesting...

[bleedsoe9mm]

shouldn't the real story be the ps4's cpu performed worse than the ps3 cpu and the xb1 only slightly better , wonder why ubisoft says cpu bound is the problem .

[Visiblemarc]

Will this finally stop the gaming media from referring to a "slight difference in power" that's "negligible really?"

Also will they stop saying the two consoles are "nearly identical?"

Short answer: nope, sadly.

There's a place for all consoles, I just hate the ignorance of looking at two different things and calling them the same. Especially for people *paid* to know better.

[mmj]

"This is particularly true for PS4 GPGPU, which was able to render 1600 dancers, almost doubling XB1 GPGPU (830); this isn’t unexpected, as the primary hardware advantage of PS4 alongside its GDDR5 is having 50% more Compute Units (18 vs 12)."

Rendering is done by the ROP's (Render Output Units) and it's not GPGPU it's just normal graphics rendering.

PS4 - 32 ROP's
Xbone - 16 ROP's.

Which is why the PS4 can render almost twice as much, the reason the Xbone can render slightly more than half of PS4 is because Microsoft overclocked their GPU 50mhz at the last minute in desperation. 30 more dancers when you have an 800 shortfall, why bother?

This is why PS4 is able to push 1080P easily and Xbone is not.

[mmj]

Disagree all you want Microsoft fanboys and paid shills but you can't argue with reality and some simple math...

PS4
32(ROP's) x 800(Mhz) = 25.6 Gpix/s fillrate.

Xbone
16(ROP's) x 850(Mhz) = 13.6 Gpix/s fillrate.

That's nearly 100% advantage which is why PS4 can render 1600 dancers and not just 830 and is the reason why so many PS4 games run at 1080P and not 900P.

[Tzuno]

And yet doesn't double the graphics, hahahahhh a lie at is finest.

[Jaqen_Hghar]

Gee how surprising /s

We all knew PS4 is more powerful since reveal and X1 fanboys continue to deny hard numbers. Only Ubi believe otherwise apparently lol

[marcostalksalot]

Thats a very large gap between PS4 and Xbox in GPU power. Why would they release this info? To troll themselves? They must think everyone without tech knowledge is basically stupid. They just proved the PS4 is massively more powerful than Xbox One. Maybe the forced parity rumors are true?