PS4 & XONE CPU Architectures & Models Examined

[Foxi4]

Isn't it errr PS4 50% more powerful for GPU alone? Only Xbox can be 33% less powerful.

I was comparing peak shader throughput, which is 1.23 TFLOPS on the XBox One and 1.84 TFLOPS on the PS4 (0.61TFLOPS difference), but your approach works as well I suppose.

I'm basing what I said on what I found on AnandTech:

Microsoft can’t make up the difference in clock speed alone (AMD’s GCN seems to top out around 1GHz on 28nm), and based on current leaks it looks like both MS and Sony are running their GPUs at the same 800MHz clock. The result is a 33% reduction in compute power, from 1.84 TFLOPs in the PS4 to 1.23 TFLOPs in the Xbox One.

...although now that I think about it, I phrased it in a somewhat misfortunate manner.

 

[heartgold]

I was comparing peak shader throughput, which is 1.23 TFLOPS on the XBox One and 1.84 TFLOPS on the PS4 (0.61TFLOPS difference), but your approach works as well I suppose.

I'm basing what I said on what I found on AnandTech:


...although now that I think about it, I phrased it in a somewhat misfortunate manner.

No worries. The end result is Xone's inferior. Multiplats, PS4 games could run at higher framerates and its exclusives is where it will really shine.

 

[Foxi4]

No worries. The end result is Xone's inferior. Multiplats, PS4 games could run at higher framerates and its exclusives is where it will really shine.

I'd like to add that the XBox One also runs three OS'es (one of'em being a cut-down Windows kernel, and we all know how "efficient" that system is with limited resources) at the same time - the PS4 runs just one.

...I'm sure that won't impact performance at all.

 

[heartgold]

I'd like to add that the XBox One also runs three OS'es (one of'em being a cut-down Windows kernel, and we all know how "efficient" that system is with limited resources) at the same time - the PS4 runs just one.

...I'm sure that won't impact performance at all.

Only 2 cores, 3GB RAM and 10% of your GPU resources thankyou.

 

[Rydian]

I'd like to add that the XBox One also runs three OS'es (one of'em being a cut-down Windows kernel, and we all know how "efficient" that system is with limited resources) at the same time - the PS4 runs just one.

...I'm sure that won't impact performance at all.

Dreamcast ran NT.

Also source for them running at once?

 

[Foxi4]

Dreamcast ran NT.

Also source for them running at once?

Dreamcast "ran" Windows CE, and that's not even entirely true - it only ran Windows CE modules that were embedded on the game discs, never the entire OS. Windows CE isn't embedded in the actual console, which is why it says "Windows CE-Compatible". To my knowledge, it physically couldn't run NT - it was based on an SH4 chipset. Feel free to correct me though if you have some data on the subject.

As for the source for running them all at once... uhm... the presentation itself? It was clearly stated.

 

[Rydian]

Yeah CE, my bad.

And link to the section of the presentation? I don't watch those since they tend to have too much fluff, but I want to see the wording. A device being able to use three OSes at once doesn't mean all three are loaded in the same instant.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah CE, my bad.

And link to the section of the presentation? I don't watch those since they tend to have too much fluff, but I want to see the wording. A device being able to use three OSes at once doesn't mean all three are loaded in the same instant.

I'm looking for a video right now, but it went along the lines of "The system runs a Windows kernel, the XBox kernel and a third kernel that manages the former two". From what I gathered, the Windows kernel takes care of all the Snap-on and Metro-like functionality, the XBox kernel is concerned strictly with games and the supervisor kernel allows the system to put content from both kernels on one screen, zoom and re-arrange things.

 

[chartube12]

IMO, Microsoft is misleading people. It is probably 3 different kernels running at the same time but really one OS unless they are 3 mini size OSs like the Wii's IOSs

 

[JoostinOnline]

IMO, Microsoft is misleading people. It is probably 3 different kernels running at the same time but really one OS unless they are mini size OSs like the Wii's IOSs

An IOS isn't a "mini OS". It's firmware. The Wii doesn't have an OS. The Wii U has the same thing, but with an OS between the firmware (IOS) and running title.

 

[Deleted_171835]

Isn't it errr PS4 50% more powerful for GPU alone? Only Xbox can be 33% less powerful.

The way numbers work, example.

PS4 = 150
Xone = 100

150 is 150% of 100.
100 is 66.6% of 150.

Anyhow this indicates PS4's GPU is 66% more powerful, we don't know if PS4 will reverse too. Either way 50% is a significant leap.

According to Kotaku, the Xbox One can only access 90% of the GPU ressources for games. (1.107 TFLOPS).

http://kotaku.com/the-five-possible-states-of-xbox-one-games-are-strangel-509597078

Also you are looking at 5GB RAM and 6 core use for games. PS4 has superior RAM type and more for gaming use about 7GB of it.

Lets not forget it is only 16 ROPS against PS4's 32 ROPs. 1.1Tflops up against 1.8 Tflops!!!

People are in denial if they don't think PS4 could blow Xbox away, or they don't understand specs very well.

Once again, talk about hyperbole. Really, having a GPU that is 50% more powerful will allow for better framerates, maybe even a slightly higher resolution and a few more fancy effects but it's nothing "game-changing". I guarantee you that multiplats on the Xbox One and the PS4 will look largely similar with a few differences here and there.

It's not "half a generation" better nor some major significant groundbreaking leap. It's a nice improvement that will allow for better effects and visuals in exclusives but nothing to brag about as some huge advantage over the Xbox One. Stop with the fanboy BS.

And if we're going to use percentages as a gauge for system performance, I'll bring up the fact that the Wii U's GPU is 135% better than the 360's (325GFLOPS vs. 240)! Going by the logic shown here, it completely outclasses it! These percentages and the theoretical peak performance (based on an unconfirmed clock-speed) don't tell us the whole story, we've yet to see how the hardware will fare in real-world applications.

 

[Chary]

It's using a CPU named Jaguar? And both systems are bragging about how powerful they are?

 

[JoostinOnline]

It's using a CPU named Jaguar? And both systems are bragging about how powerful they are?

It still sounds better than "Espresso" lol.

 

[Foxi4]

And link to the section of the presentation? I don't watch those since they tend to have too much fluff, but I want to see the wording. A device being able to use three OSes at once doesn't mean all three are loaded in the same instant.

http://www.xbox.com/pl-PL/hub/

The full presentation is no longer available on the English hub, but it's still on the Polish hub (don't worry, it's in English). The part I'm talking about starts at 19:36. I quote:

"But, it's how we martial that power, how we create the system that works to deliver the world's greatest games and provide the flexibility to power entirely new, connected experiences. To do this we brought technology from across Microsoft to create an industry first - the soul of the new system is the XBox One Architecture - three operating systems in one. The first is the best of our XBox Operating Systems, made even better by providing deep and instant access to the hardware, so that creators have no limits in harnessing the power of XBox One for cinematic realism. The second is the kernel of Windows, providing consistent access to web-powered applications and experiences. Flexible, powerful, simple. The third connects these two Operating Systems to create instant switching, multitasking and effortless control."

Sounds to me like the three systems work side-by-side at all times and the third delegates how much "attention" they get.

IMO, Microsoft is misleading people. It is probably 3 different kernels running at the same time (...)

That's pretty much what everybody meant. A is a bridge between the machine code and the hardware that performs it - it's the heart of an Operating System, so people commonly just say "OS".

 

[kehkou]

Seriously? Is Solar power, wind or other alternative(s) powering your area? Cause I have never seen electric stay the same despite usage.

Wind, solar, and local domestic coal.

 

[Rydian]

Sounds to me like the three systems work side-by-side at all times and the third delegates how much "attention" they get.

It mentions three portions from three different OSes, but none of those are incompatible or replace each other. The kernel could be Windows, the DE could be Blade or whateverthehell 360's using, etc.

 

[Foxi4]

It mentions three portions from three different OSes, but none of those are incompatible or replace each other. The kernel could be Windows, the DE could be Blade or whateverthehell 360's using, etc.

I'm just parroting what the feller said - three kernels, each with its own individual functions working under one architecture. The fact that the third kernel's job is the job of a supervisor with a side dish of visual flair and the mention of multitasking leads me to believe that the other two have to work at the same time.

 

[Rydian]

Either it's virtualization (the ultimate sandbox, eh?), or he was using the wrong terms.

 

[Coto]

Buuut, Dreamcast's windows CE (sh4 cpu) had games running through modules ran on Windows CE (through directx)

 

[Foxi4]

Either it's virtualization (the ultimate sandbox, eh?), or he was using the wrong terms.

I'm sure things will be cleared up during E3. If it is an overseeer OS running two kernels via virtualization, it's not so bad. There will be some performance loss, yeah, but they still get full hardware access and it gives you the added benefit of doing fancy stuff with'em on-screen.

I'm just wondering why they didn't go "all the way" and just made it Windows-based - the Windows kernel is perfectly capable of running games - strip the unnecessary functionality out and bang, you got yourself some embedded gaming Windows (and loads of security concerns with it, but that's besides the point).

Buuut, Dreamcast's windows CE (sh4 cpu) had games running through modules ran on Windows CE (through directx)

Like I said, the Dreamcast as a system had no Windows CE components embedded into it - the hardware was Windows CE-Compatible and some games (not all) which used Windows CE features had their own own distribution of the kernel with all the modules they needed.

With Sega's machine, no operating system resides in the device until it is loaded in on a disc with each game. The advantage, Sega executives say, is that developers can always ship products that use the version of an operating system with the newest features and performance enhancements. The operating system used by some Dreamcast titles was developed by Microsoft after two years of work with Sega. It was an optimized version of Windows CE supporting DirectX. According to Richard Doherty, president of Envisioneering Group, "Microsoft had initially wanted Windows CE to be Dreamcast's main operating system. It isn't." ~Wikipedia