eSRAM the reason Xbox One struggles with 1080p?

Status
Not open for further replies.
n111ck said:
Yet last time it was ok to go on endlessly about the 360 being more powerful etc etc...... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:confused:

No one did

If anything it was complaints that the more expensive and powerful PS3 wasn't beating a 360 or sometimes not even equalling it


Very different this time round!
 
Last edited:
Psycho Sonny said:
that's because they are very inefficient compared to consoles.

you cannot compare pc's and consoles like that.

put a £400 GPU in a PS4 and a £250 GPU in the PS4 and i guarantee you the difference wont be 10-15 fps because when developers design for a console they are designing for 1 specific set of hardware.

on the pc they are designing for 100,000,000 different combinations of hardware.
Click to expand...

I don't get that inefficiency stuff tbh, it's no where near as bad now unless the game is a really bad port, like GTA 4. A 7850 in a PC can run BF4 at 50-60fps if using the same type of settings as the consoles, no AA, medium everything etc etc.
 
Johnnytoxic said:
The GPU differences below will never change. This is most likely why we are seeing differences rather than the slower memory / esram.

X1 GPU:
768 Shaders
48 Texture units
16 ROPS
2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4 GPU:
1152 Shaders +50%
72 Texture units +50%
32 ROPS + 100%
8 ACE/64 queues +400%
Click to expand...

It should be pointed out that the entire 8GB of system ram in the PS4 also has more bandwidth than the 32mb Esram of the Xbox.
 
Suarez7 said:
I don't get that inefficiency stuff tbh, it's no where near as bad now unless the game is a really bad port, like GTA 4. A 7850 in a PC can run BF4 at 50-60fps if using the same type of settings as the consoles, no AA, medium everything etc etc.
Click to expand...

DirectX is extremely inefficient. Decades of bloat and trying to provide a one shoe size fits all approach to hundreds if not thousands of different hardware configurations will do that.
 
n111ck said:
Yet last time it was ok to go on endlessly about the 360 being more powerful etc etc...... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That never happened to the extent it is now, so keep your roll eyes to yourself. This forum was very much populated with more 360 owners compared to PS3 owners, but I don't recall the 360 users delighting in pointing out how much better the games were on the 360.
 
kitch9 said:
DirectX is extremely inefficient. Decades of bloat and trying to provide a one shoe size fits all approach to hundreds if not thousands of different hardware configurations will do that.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem that inefficient to me when a 2 year old <£150 card can run it at 60fps on better settings than a console.
 
Suarez7 said:
I don't get that inefficiency stuff tbh, it's no where near as bad now unless the game is a really bad port, like GTA 4. A 7850 in a PC can run BF4 at 50-60fps if using the same type of settings as the consoles, no AA, medium everything etc etc.
Click to expand...

The inefficiency is certainly true. It's because of a few different reasons, but the main ones are working with fixed hardware without any variation on what power you might have available, and having a much more direct route to the hardware without going through multiple software layers that gets in the way of out and out performance.

Additionally, it's quite relevant to this point for me to point out that games aren't "ported", so "a bad port" is never the reason for poor performance in a game.

As for BF4, there are a lot more variables there than simply the GPU used, the chances are someone playing BF4 on a PC will have a CPU that has much higher per core performance than the CPUs in the Xbox One and PS4.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
That never happened to the extent it is now, so keep your roll eyes to yourself. This forum was very much populated with more 360 owners compared to PS3 owners, but I don't recall the 360 users delighting in pointing out how much better the games were on the 360.
Click to expand...

It's just people being stupid and not being able to accept that their choice isn't the best objectively from a purely hardware perspective.

As much as I like to discuss the performance of the latest consoles, I don't actually *care* which is more powerful. I have/had a PS3 last round and no Xbox 360, and I was aware and had no issue acknowledging that the Xbox 360 was the more powerful out of the 2, with multi-platform titles often looking noticeably better on the 360, and having decent levels of AA.
 
^^^
I thought consoles don't need fast CPU's? Like how battlefield can run fast on really slow CPU's if it's running Mantle due to the massive reduction in drawcalls?
 
An Exception said:
^^^
I thought consoles don't need fast CPUs? Like how battlefield can run fast on really slow CPUs if it's running Mantle due to the massive reduction in drawcalls?
Click to expand...

That was the point I was making, that the overhead is there plainly to see when you factor in the wildly different CPUs being used.
 
Consoles make better use of their hardware because games are coded specifically for that one set of hardware. It was amazing what they could squeeze out of the 360 towards the end.

PC games are developed & have to work on so many hardware variations. Imagine what games would look like if they were made specifically for top end PC hardware & nothing else!?
 
jimferno said:
PC games are developed & have to work on so many hardware variations. Imagine what games would look like if they were made specifically for top end PC hardware & nothing else!?
Click to expand...

Need a company to bring out an elite level console that costs as much as a high end PC :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom