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
Add your own comment

148 Comments on Xbox One Chip Slower Than PlayStation 4

#1
Jacez
So, if I'm getting this right..

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.
Posted on Reply
#3
Vinska
Hmmmm... Dee Three Dee Eleven[1] on a Windoze kernel for the Xbone && Oh Gee El Four Point Two[2] on a *nix for the PSfour.
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"
Posted on Reply
#4
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
What I am most intersted in is how devs are going to use the computational power they have in Azure for The Xbox One.
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: btarunr
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.
This is actually the most exciting bit of this news to me. I hope this means that games coming over to the PC will be better than the really bad ports we've seen in the past, and I also hope the PS4 running on a Unix/OpenGL base means we will see more hit games make it to the Linux/OSX side of PCs.

by: Easy Rhino
the worst thing about the playstation 4 is that it is made by sony. don't buy it for its advertised features because they will just come up with a way to legally remove those features.
And what advertised feature has sony removed in the past?
Posted on Reply
#6
m1dg3t
Both look good, on paper, but still sticking to PC & PS3 :o

I only bought PS3 to play GT5! :roll:

by: Easy Rhino
the worst thing about the playstation 4 is that it is made by sony. don't buy it for its advertised features because they will just come up with a way to legally remove those features.
Sony isn't Asus! :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#7
midnightoil
by: Jacez
So, if I'm getting this right..

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.
The PS4 chip is most closely related to a 7850, I can't speak about the XB1's as I don't know for sure. Anyway, both will have more than enough oomph for GPU related tasks for the first couple of generations of games that would constrain no PC (even something with dual or triple Titans). On the other hand, the XB1 is going to suffer badly from memory bandwidth issues for anything that relies on the CPU compute performance ... plus, due to its tripartite (windows based) operating system there's going to be a much higher baseline CPU overhead on the XB1 than the PS4.
Posted on Reply
#8
SeventhReign
by: Lionheart
They look like pretty good specs too me for next gen console's but I was hoping a higher clock speed for the CPU:ohwell: At least around the 2Ghz mark :toast:
Not much of a gamer are you? Higher CPU clock speeds have been proven time and time again, to have zero effect on gaming, after a certain point. It is the GPU that you want to be faster, not the CPU.
Posted on Reply
#9
SeventhReign
by: Jacez
So, if I'm getting this right..

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.
Those numbers are wayyyyy off. Go do some homework.
Posted on Reply
#10
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Remember that the advantage of consoles isn't in the hardware but being a one-size-fits-all platform. When developing software for Windows, the operating system assumes control over most of the micromanagement. On consoles, developers have control over virtually all the hardware. Think of it like a TV's electronics: it like old cellphones (non-smartphones). They had a fraction of the computing power as modern smartphones but did their jobs exceptionally well because they were designed for that specific task--not generalities like smartphones do.

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.
Posted on Reply
#11
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
by: SeventhReign
Not much of a gamer are you? Higher CPU clock speeds have been proven time and time again, to have zero effect on gaming, after a certain point. It is the GPU that you want to be faster, not the CPU.
This doesnt get ephasized enough.
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.
Posted on Reply
#12
midnightoil
by: FordGT90Concept
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.
This is completely wrong. AMD and NVIDIA come up with features in concert with software developers, then publish what they're doing and MS and Khronos come up with DirectX and OpenGL specs respectively.

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.
Posted on Reply
#13
repman244
by: Jacez
So, if I'm getting this right..

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.
You didn't get it right.

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.
Posted on Reply
#14
Hilux SSRG
Looking at these specs just makes me not want to buy any next gen console. Maybe waiting two years to see how developers make use of the hardware is the way to go.

Hell I'll be playing BF4 on PC anyway. :D
Posted on Reply
#15
Fourstaff
So can we install Windows 7 (not 8)?
Posted on Reply
#16
ManofGod
by: lZKoce
I already saw the early reactions after the MS's press-conference late at night. ;) :D
Got 3 words into that video and realized he had absolutely nothing worth listening to. :slap: Clicked the X and moved on, not even worth reading the comments.
Posted on Reply
#17
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Hilux SSRG
Looking at these specs just makes me not want to buy any next gen console. Maybe waiting two years to see how developers make use of the hardware is the way to go.
Even though I agree with you, there were some pretty good games for PS3 and the processor in that thing was powerful but no one knew how to use it correctly. X86 on the other hand is a much different animal which has a lot of maturity behind it. I suspect that any issues that arise will be from making games multi-threaded. I think this is the push the gaming industry needs though if we want to see games scaling better on CPUs with more than 4 core or logical threads. X86, DX, and OpenGL are going to make games port between consoles and PCs very easy and that's the real added advantage. I would rather see the console gaming market get absorbed into the PC gaming market, not the other way around.

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.
Posted on Reply
#18
Hilux SSRG
by: Aquinus
X86, DX, and OpenGL are going to make games port between consoles and PCs very easy and that's the real added advantage.
I wonder if Sony is making a play for more FPS games on the PS4 with their support of OpenGL. Xbox 360 had some heavy hitters in the FPS category, which really sold that console.

With the current economy both companies need to price their consoles "right," especially with what I think are toned-down next gen specs.
Posted on Reply
#19
midnightoil
by: Hilux SSRG
I wonder if Sony is making a play for more FPS games on the PS4 with their support of OpenGL. Xbox 360 had some heavy hitters in the FPS category, which really sold that console.
what on earth are you talking about?
Posted on Reply
#20
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Hilux SSRG
With the current economy both companies need to price their consoles "right," especially with what I think are toned-down next gen specs.
That's why they're going to cost more than the 360 and PS3 costed? I don't think so, it's not all that toned down imho.

by: midnightoil
what on earth are you talking about?
I agree, in general, what API is used has little to do with what kinds of games developers are going to make. I'm not sure where he is going with this.
Posted on Reply
#21
chr0nos
by: newtekie1
This is actually the most exciting bit of this news to me. I hope this means that games coming over to the PC will be better than the really bad ports we've seen in the past, and I also hope the PS4 running on a Unix/OpenGL base means we will see more hit games make it to the Linux/OSX side of PCs.



And what advertised feature has sony removed in the past?
Well the first PS3 had SACD playback, PS1/PS2 backward compatibility, More USB ports and Flash memory card readers.

Not to mention the removal of Other OS which was used by a lot of people.
Posted on Reply
#22
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: newtekie1
This is actually the most exciting bit of this news to me. I hope this means that games coming over to the PC will be better than the really bad ports we've seen in the past, and I also hope the PS4 running on a Unix/OpenGL base means we will see more hit games make it to the Linux/OSX side of PCs.

And what advertised feature has sony removed in the past?
+1 on the first statement, the second part I'm thinking the backwards compatibility thing maybe? It was a selling point when it was first launched.
Posted on Reply
#23
AlienIsGOD
the xbox one's GPU should be somewhere between a 7770 and a 7790 based on GCN core count, performance wise remains to be seen what magic devs can cook up. Regardless the new gen consoles will look pretty gfx wise with Dx11 and OpenGL 4.2
Posted on Reply
#24
Hilux SSRG
by: midnightoil
what on earth are you talking about?
Care to elaborate your thoughts further?



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.
Posted on Reply
#25
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: chr0nos
Well the first PS3 had SACD playback, PS1/PS2 backward compatibility, More USB ports and Flash memory card readers.

Not to mention the removal of Other OS which was used by a lot of people.
by: Frick
+1 on the first statement, the second part I'm thinking the backwards compatibility thing maybe? It was a selling point when it was first launched.
And backwards compatibility was in the consoles it was advertised for, when backwards compatibility was removed so was the advertising. In fact the advertising had ended way before they removed PS2 backwards compatibility from the console.

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.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment