Friday, May 24th 2013
Xbox One Chip Slower Than PlayStation 4
After bagging chip supply deals for all three new-generation consoles -- Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and Wii U, things are looking up for AMD. While Wii U uses older-generation hardware technologies, Xbox One and PlayStation 4 use the very latest AMD has to offer -- "Jaguar" 64-bit x86 CPU micro-architecture, and Graphics CoreNext GPU architecture. Chips that run the two consoles have a lot in common, but also a few less-than-subtle differences.
PlayStation 4 chip, which came to light this February, is truly an engineer's fantasy. It combines eight "Jaguar" 64-bit x86 cores clocked at 1.60 GHz, with a fairly well spec'd Radeon GPU, which features 1,156 stream processors, 32 ROPs; and a 256-bit wide unified GDDR5 memory interface, clocked at 5.50 GHz. At these speeds, the system gets a memory bandwidth of 176 GB/s. Memory isn't handled like UMA (unified memory architecture), there's no partition between system- and graphics-memory. The two are treated as items on the same 8 GB of memory, and either can use up a majority of it.
Xbox One chip is a slightly different beast. It uses the same eight "Jaguar" 1.60 GHz cores, but a slightly smaller Radeon GPU that packs 768 stream processors, and a quad-channel DDR3-2133 MHz memory interface, which offers a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, and holding 8 GB of memory. Memory between the two subsystems are shared in a similar way to PlayStation 4, with one small difference. Xbox One chip uses a large 32 MB SRAM cache, which operates at 102 GB/s, but at infinitesimally lower latency than GDDR5. This cache cushions data-transfers for the GPU. Microsoft engineers are spinning this off as "200 GB/s of memory bandwidth," by somehow clubbing bandwidths of the various memory types in the system.
The two consoles also differ with software. While PlayStation 4 runs a Unix-derived operating system with OpenGL 4.2 API, Xbox One uses software developers are more familiar with -- a 64-bit Windows NT 6.x kernel-based operating system, running DirectX 11 API. Despite these differences, the chips on the two consoles should greatly reduce multi-platform production costs for game studios, as the two consoles together have a lot in common with PC.
Source:
Heise.de
PlayStation 4 chip, which came to light this February, is truly an engineer's fantasy. It combines eight "Jaguar" 64-bit x86 cores clocked at 1.60 GHz, with a fairly well spec'd Radeon GPU, which features 1,156 stream processors, 32 ROPs; and a 256-bit wide unified GDDR5 memory interface, clocked at 5.50 GHz. At these speeds, the system gets a memory bandwidth of 176 GB/s. Memory isn't handled like UMA (unified memory architecture), there's no partition between system- and graphics-memory. The two are treated as items on the same 8 GB of memory, and either can use up a majority of it.
The two consoles also differ with software. While PlayStation 4 runs a Unix-derived operating system with OpenGL 4.2 API, Xbox One uses software developers are more familiar with -- a 64-bit Windows NT 6.x kernel-based operating system, running DirectX 11 API. Despite these differences, the chips on the two consoles should greatly reduce multi-platform production costs for game studios, as the two consoles together have a lot in common with PC.
148 Comments on Xbox One Chip Slower Than PlayStation 4
Both the PS4 and the Xbox One have an 8-core Jaguar.
We've only seen 2-core variants of the new Kabini architecture, but the IPC should be around 1/2 that of Ivy Bridge.
So, essentially, it's a 4-core i3-3120U or a 2-core i3-2100, or half the overall performance of a stock 2600k.
Not to mention that it's split up into 8 cores, which is less of a problem when you're coding the games directly for the specific CPU.
Now, the Xbox One has an underclocked (850Mhz -> 800Mhz) HD 6770 inside and the PS4 has an underclocked (900Mhz -> 800Mhz) HD 6870. The memory bandwidth appears to be accurate for both examples.
All in all, it's an Entry-Point/Mid-Range computer.
I hope that means better game ports for all PC systems - Windoze, Half-eaten Apples[3] and Leen0x. I really do hope so.
...Please say it will be so. Please...? :ohwell:
[1]D3D11 - Direct3D 11
[2]OGL4.2 - OpenGL 4.2
[3]Well, really - macs have essentially PC hardware these days. Hence listing under "PC systems"
I only bought PS3 to play GT5! :roll:Sony isn't Asus! :laugh:
Also, keep in mind that Xbox One will have an advantage of using DirectX over OpenGL. DirectX sets the hardware requirements and OpenGL adapts them. Less is more when efficiency makes up the difference.
Games other than Civ 5, Starcraft II and other CPU intensive RTS games (most of these never come to consoles anyway) barely use processors. It has been proven time again that a low-midrange cpu can drive a flagship single gpu card and get comparatively good frame results when compared to a high end CPU. CPU is only important for multi GPU setups and RTS games.
Also, DirectX is a major disadvantage. It's much less adaptive, more bloated, generally slower, higher level and requires entire engine rewrites to make use of new API features (in OpenGL games or programs you just add them on). Oh, and OpenGL's latest spec has a more expansive feature set than DX, they're ahead now, not behind. Made worse is the fact that MS this time around seem to be really pushing developers towards using DirectX exclusively as opposed to programming direct to metal as much as they can (which practically all blockbuster titles for both PS3 and XB360 did after the first gen or two) ... I very much doubt Sony is being so mindlessly dogmatic.
Never directly compare to the normal PC hardware. A thing to remember here is that if you optimize a game for a certain architecture you get much much better results.
Hell I'll be playing BF4 on PC anyway. :D
So say all you want, all I want are ports that are as good as the real thing because the hardware is the same. Nothing but good things can come out of this for PC gaming IMHO. Sony and MS are killing two birds with one stone and it's a smart move.
With the current economy both companies need to price their consoles "right," especially with what I think are toned-down next gen specs.
Not to mention the removal of Other OS which was used by a lot of people.
Pricing hasn't been revealed, correct me if I am wrong. I don't see Sony pulling for msrp $599 at launch; MS may offer an optional subsidized plan. I just think the upcoming Xbox1/PS4 could have been more powerful if the lagging economy, i.e. reduced discretionary spending, didn't matter so much. Can you honestly say the CPU or GPU in both machines equal at least a current midrange Intel x86 chip or 7870/660? I *know* that midrange can vary to some.
The only advertisement for SACD support was on the box itself, and it was only on boxes for units that had it.
OtherOS was never advertised, it was talked about in some of the presentations, but never advertised. I even have a launch PS3 and OtherOS isn't even mentioned on the box. It is a bonus that they decided to remove, it was never an advertised feature.