BigMack70+1 to the # of people who don't understand my point has nothing to do with hardware

You have to churn out ~4x the pixels at 1080p60 as you do at 720p30. That's basic math.

Now, I understand (and have stated from very early on in this argument) that when you actually go look at how things perform in the real world, this breaks down and is not linear. But there's all sorts of various reasons for that and none of them have to do with the fact that you're putting out a different ratio of pixels at 1080p60 vs 720p30 than ~4x.

Why does it take dozens of posts to explain such a stupidly over-simple point? Go read the thread - I was making a picky point because of a lack of clarity in one of mailman's posts, and you guys have taken it to a whole other level.

Wow.

That's because it isn't as basic as you claim it to be and what you're describing is completely false. Just stop posting before you make yourself look more like a fool than you already have. What you're talking about isn't the performance of this custom APU for Sony's new console, but rather how GPUs work.

4x as many pixels doesn't imply 4x more work. Just stop posting, because how 3D is rendered is clearly beyond you and you're not willing to do the research and change your stance based on the information provided.

BigMack70You REALLY haven't read the thread, have you? Multiple times, even beginning in post #19, I've stated we will find out i.e. "know" in a year or two, when the hardware is released, what it can do.

i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm288/larryo340/Funny%20gifs/7c35013f.gif

:shadedshu

That isn't what you've been talking about for the majority of your posts...

BigMack70Mathematical proof (for like the 4th time):

(1920*1080)/(1280*720) = 2.25
60/30 = 2

Put them together... 2.25*2 = 4.5

Hence, 1080p60 is ~4x as demanding as 720p30.

That's not a point about hardware. In fact, strictly speaking my point here has nothing to do with hardware. It's a point about math which is apparently too simple for many of the elite minds in this thread to grasp. :shadedshu

With the resolution of my monitor I'm a shade under 3 times the resolution of 1080p, with 1 gtx 570 in pretty much every game I could get 60 fps. Now 1 570 doesn't power the new monitor quite so well.. Do I need 3 570s to get 60fps? Nope, in fact i only need 2 570s but I get stutter due to running out of vram. So I need nearly 3x the power to run the resolution at 60fps, why does only boosting my power by under 2x work fine??

BigMack70You REALLY haven't read the thread, have you? Multiple times, even beginning in post #19, I've stated we will find out i.e. "know" in a year or two, when the hardware is released, what it can do.

:shadedshu

Fair enough. Then wait 2 years and bump the thread.

You, if your post was complete in #19, why are we still having this debate at post #254?

BigMack70+1 to the # of people who don't understand my point has nothing to do with hardware

You have to churn out ~4x the pixels at 1080p60 as you do at 720p30. That's basic math.

I'm not disputing the increase in pixels won't increase processing requirements, I'm disputing that 4x pixels translate to a 4x powerful GPU in the real world.

For example, a GPU 1 is 4x more powerful than GPU 2.

GPU 1 has access to 512MB of dedicated, 1GB of system memory
GPU 2 has access to 2GB of dedicated, 8GB of system memory

Despite, GPU 1 having increase clock speeds, higher shader count, wider memory bus it only gets only gets 20FPS in Crysis @ 1080p

However the slower GPU 2, gets 35FPS in Crysis @ 1080p due to having access to a more lucrative memory reserve thus helping it outperform the faster GPU at a higher resolution.

So this whole argument started because some nab doesn't think the PS4 with APU will run all of it's games at 1080p @ 60fps?

Dent1Despite, GPU 1 having increase clock speeds, higher shader count, wider memory bus it only gets only gets 20FPS in Crysis @ 1080p

However the slower GPU 2, gets 35FPS in Crysis @ 1080p due to having access to a more lucrative memory reserve thus helping it outperform the faster GPU at a higher resolution.

+1 (kind of): Actually the performance hit from running out of memory is much more steep than that, but it's an accurate representation.

hoojSo this whole argument started because some nab doesn't think the PS4 with APU will run all of it's games at 1080p @ 60fps?

Yes,

And the crazy thing is Sony never said it would run all games at 1080p @ 60fps.

The other crazy thing is we don't know what the specification of the GPU portion of the APU is.

We don't even know if the games lined up on PS4 are intensive.

We know nothing. #11 pages of argument based on little data. ahhhhh.

Dent1Yes,

And the crazy thing is Sony never said it would run all games at 1080p @ 60fps.

The other crazy thing is we don't know what the specification of the GPU portion of the APU is.

We don't even know if the games lined up on PS4 are intensive.

We know nothing. #11 pages of argument based on little data. ahhhhh.

Well as long as the games that need 60fps get 60fps then well it doesn't matter because i'm still buying one!:roll:

DAYUM, been away from the forums for one day and this thread has already over 250 posts! :eek:

Reading the past couple of pages it seems to me most of the posts seem to be about the hardware of the "PS4" not being able to run games @ 60fps 1080p 3D. I don't think the majority of console gamers will really care or even notice the performance increase or the fact that not EVERY game will run @ 60fps 1080p 3D.

I'm sure that most people that are that concerned about this issue could just go out and buy a decent computer to run most of the games and be happy that way.

Dent1We don't even know if the games lined up on PS4 are intensive.

Sony hasn't used the term PS4 yet, so I'm reluctant to call it a PS4. It's possible that their next gaming console will not be named PlayStation. Sony might be trying to re-brand it and shift the audience for this console. It's looking more like a HTPC than a console so far, and that definitely intrigues me.

AquinusThat isn't what you've been talking about for the majority of your posts...

The majority of my posts have been spent explaining basic math to people like yourself who don't understand I'm not talking about real world hardware/software. You said it yourself. It's 4x more pixels. That's my point. Right there. End of story. It was never a major point until a dozen people started failing to read and/or do math.

Dent1I'm not disputing the increase in pixels won't increase processing requirements, I'm disputing that 4x pixels translate to a 4x powerful GPU in the real world.

I am not and never was talking about the real world. How many times do I have to explain this? 50? 100? I made a nit-picky post about how many pixels have to get crunched out at 1080p60 vs 720p30, due to a lack of clarity in another post, in order to be facetious, and it apparently went about a mile over the heads of all the brainiacs in here.

Here, since you all are so good at reading, let me just take the time to say that again:

I am not and never was talking about the real world. It was a nit picky-post about how many more pixels have to get crunched out at 1080p60 vs 720p30, and it was in response to another post which could have been more clear (and which the author did later clarify).

Maybe I'll say it a third time, just to be sure?

I am not and never was talking about a real world performance scenario. I made a nit picky post about how many more pixels need to be output at 1080p60 vs 720p30 in response to another poster.

Now, there are implications there for how much more powerful your hardware needs to be, and if I implied it's as simple as "your GPU needs to be 4x better", then I apologize - I know that's a horrid oversimplification. I thought that was clear from one of my early posts about how non-linearity related to the argument I was trying to make. You DO need 4x more pixel crunching power, but that doesn't necessarily have to come from a 4x more powerful GPU - you could have 2x better software optimization + 2x better GPU, etc.

Now, if YOU read my posts and implied "oh he's arguing that the PS4 needs to be 4x more powerful than the PS3" or something like that, then that's YOUR problem with reading comprehension, and I don't apologize.

BigMack70The majority of my posts have been spent explaining basic math to people like yourself who don't understand I'm not talking about real world hardware/software. You said it yourself. It's 4x more pixels. That's my point. Right there. End of story. It was never a major point until a dozen people started failing to read and/or do math.



I am not and never was talking about the real world. How many times do I have to explain this? 50? 100? I made a nit-picky post about how many pixels have to get crunched out at 1080p60 vs 720p30, due to a lack of clarity in another post, in order to be facetious, and it apparently went about a mile over the heads of all the brainiacs in here.

Here, since you all are so good at reading, let me just take the time to say that again:

I am not and never was talking about the real world. It was a nit picky-post about how many more pixels have to get crunched out at 1080p60 vs 720p30, and it was in response to another post which could have been more clear (and which the author did later clarify).

Maybe I'll say it a third time, just to be sure?

I am not and never was talking about a real world performance scenario. I made a nit picky post about how many more pixels need to be output at 1080p60 vs 720p30 in response to another poster.

Now, there are implications there for how much more powerful your hardware needs to be, and if I implied it's as simple as 4x, then I apologize - I know that's a horrid oversimplification. I thought that was clear from one of my early posts about how non-linearity related to the argument I was trying to make.

You keep talking about "reading". But I don't see anyone disputing the math or anyone disputing that there isn't a 4x pixel difference between 720p and 1080p. If somebody said on the contrary quote it for all to see. So you are arguing a point which we are not disputing, this isn't good use of your time.

In conclusion,

Given what is known about Orbis, Sony's goals (resolution/fps, lost cost) are very possible.

/thread

AquinusSony hasn't used the term PS4 yet, so I'm reluctant to call it a PS4. It's possible that their next gaming console will not be named PlayStation. Sony might be trying to re-brand it and shift the audience for this console. It's looking more like a HTPC than a console so far, and that definitely intrigues me.

Rebrand the playstation? LMAO Nah it's PS4.

I really don't understand why a person in this thread is arguing about this :rolleyes:

Consoles have always been closed platforms that are optimized to do one thing and one thing only - Play Games.

Being a closed platform in the hardware sense, developers can maximize optimization for said platform since they are developing for one set of hardware and one set of hardware alone. I really don't see why the PS4 can't deliver 1080p24 for movies and 1080p60 for video games. Same for the Xbox 720 that should be pushed out around the same time.

If they are using a GPU built into a modified APU, I'm willing to be Sony will muck it up by using really slow RAM so the GPU runs much worse than it should...

Dent1So you are arguing a point which we are not disputing, this isn't good use of your time.

So why are you arguing with my posts, again? Is it a good use of your time?

I've been trying to explain for a while that people are responding like I'm making an argument that I'm not making, hence my repeated calls to actually read.

The appropriate response to my initial post, if someone had taken the time to read + think (and mailman & others at the time got this fairly quickly), would have been "OK fine there's 4x the pixels that need to get crunched out but there's a more than one way to get that".

It was never a big deal until people started trying to put a straw man argument in my mouth and I had to clarify (over and over and over).

BigMack70The majority of my posts have been spent explaining basic math to people like yourself who don't understand I'm not talking about real world hardware/software. You said it yourself. It's 4x more pixels. That's my point. Right there. End of story. It was never a major point until a dozen people started failing to read and/or do math.



I am not and never was talking about the real world. How many times do I have to explain this? 50? 100? I made a nit-picky post about how many pixels have to get crunched out at 1080p60 vs 720p30, due to a lack of clarity in another post, in order to be facetious, and it apparently went about a mile over the heads of all the brainiacs in here.

Here, since you all are so good at reading, let me just take the time to say that again:

I am not and never was talking about the real world. It was a nit picky-post about how many more pixels have to get crunched out at 1080p60 vs 720p30, and it was in response to another post which could have been more clear (and which the author did later clarify).

Maybe I'll say it a third time, just to be sure?

I am not and never was talking about a real world performance scenario. I made a nit picky post about how many more pixels need to be output at 1080p60 vs 720p30 in response to another poster.

Now, there are implications there for how much more powerful your hardware needs to be, and if I implied it's as simple as "your GPU needs to be 4x better", then I apologize - I know that's a horrid oversimplification. I thought that was clear from one of my early posts about how non-linearity related to the argument I was trying to make. You DO need 4x more pixel crunching power, but that doesn't necessarily have to come from a 4x more powerful GPU - you could have 2x better software optimization + 2x better GPU, etc.

Now, if YOU read my posts and implied "oh he's arguing that the PS4 needs to be 4x more powerful than the PS3" or something like that, then that's YOUR problem with reading comprehension, and I don't apologize.

I have a degree in Computer Science. I have a job as a System Administrator and Developer and I contribute occasionally to open source projects in my free time so I like to think I know what I'm talking about you twit. As far as "this is what I actually was saying," you're full of shit. You did mention hardware, and you did say it requires 4x more power. Stop changing your story and stop posting because it's very obvious that just about everyone here is frustrated with your lack of common sense and education. You're overbearing, ignorant, and think that you know your shit when you really do not.

Let me quote you:

BigMack70Hence, 1080p60 is ~4x as demanding as 720p30.

Stop being a fucking tool and realize that people who actually work in the field and work on software for a living are telling you that you're wrong. So unless you're in the same position I am and work with computers professionally from a management and development standpoint, then you really need to stop spewing out all this garbage that you think is correct.

Now I recommend that you drop it and and stop defending your flawed position because at this point you're just making an ass out of yourself and obviously pissing people off in this thread.

BigMack70So why are you arguing with my posts, again? Is it a good use of your time?

I've been trying to explain for a while that people are responding like I'm making an argument that I'm not making, hence my repeated calls to actually read.

The appropriate response to my initial post, if someone had taken the time to read + think (and mailman & others at the time got this fairly quickly), would have been "OK fine there's 4x the pixels that need to get crunched out but there's a more than one way to get that".

It was never a big deal until people started trying to put a straw man argument in my mouth and I had to clarify (over and over and over).

It's because you're a liar and dent is doing the right thing by calling you out.

xenocideIf they are using a GPU built into a modified APU, I'm willing to be Sony will muck it up by using really slow RAM so the GPU runs much worse than it should...

Depends. PS1~3 development Sony was heavy handed in picking which parts that they wanted. This time around kind of sounds like AMD has the reigns on the main components on the cpu/gpu.

Also to note, the Wii U which is also another AMD product comes with 2GB of shared ram. I'm sure they won't muck things up for the "higher end" PS4.

Aquinus[sooooooooooooooo ANGRYYYYYYYYYY]

#1) You're taking the internet too seriously. Chill out.

#2) I already apologized if I made statements about precisely how 4x the pixels would need to be applied to a hardware/software solution. All I meant was that somehow you need to get 4x the pixels produced. If I implied that requires a single solution (e.g. a 4x more powerful GPU), then I was wrong. If you took the time to read, maybe you wouldn't be raging so bad. I'm not trying to move the goalposts here - it's quite possible I said something that was poorly worded and wrong or which needed more clarification (I haven't gone back to read all my posts to check).

In fact, given the extent of discussion on this, the post you quoted does need more clarification:

#3) 1080p60 IS 4x more demanding than 720p30, in terms of the requirements of pixel output. That doesn't necessarily mean you need a CPU that's 4x as powerful, or a GPU that's 4x as powerful, or anything else (and I don't think I ever claimed any of those things?). But it does mean that your hardware/software implementation needs to meet 4x the pixel output demand as if it were running at 720p30. Hence, it's not wrong, per-se, to say that 1080p60 is 4x as demanding as 720p30, but perhaps it begs the question "in what respect is it 4x as demanding?".

To be fair, over the course of this thread you've switched your argument to your own convenience when you are losing. Now you are saying you were merely highlighting the pixel count difference, however post #70 you clearly state that 1080p @ 60fps is 4x demanding than 720p @ 60FPS. This is the part most of us, if not all are disputing.

BigMack70: "Also, just to be picky... 1080p 60fps is more than 4x as demanding than what current consoles do, which is ~720p ~30fps."
Post #70: www.techpowerup.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2765070&postcount=70

BigMack70So why are you arguing with my posts, again? Is it a good use of your time?

No, this isn't good use of my time either. I'm man enough to admit that.

BigMack70The appropriate response to my initial post, if someone had taken the time to read + think (and mailman & others at the time got this fairly quickly), would have been "OK fine there's 4x the pixels that need to get crunched out but there's a more than one way to get that".

It was never a big deal until people started trying to put a straw man argument in my mouth and I had to clarify (over and over and over).

Your mistake was keep repeating the same fact and then changing arguments as pointed out above. Mailman and a few others stopped responding, yet you continued.

^^ See clarification #3 above. The claim 1080p60 = ~4x more demanding than 720p30 isn't necessarily wrong. I've clarified what I meant by it, and I don't think I ever implied anything beyond what I've here clarified.

Seriously, guys. Read!

Is this a good use of my time? Probably not. But I'm not going to apologize for defending my arguments against straw man attacks from people who fail to read my posts.

BigMack70Is this a good use of my time? Probably not.

I must say I'm surprised to see that a thread about a console gets this much attention on TPU.

Carry on :laugh:

BigMack70^^ See clarification #3 above. The claim 1080p60 = ~4x more demanding than 720p30 isn't necessarily wrong. I've clarified what I meant by it, and I don't think I ever implied anything beyond what I've here clarified.

Seriously, guys. Read!

Is this a good use of my time? Probably not. But I'm not going to apologize for defending my arguments against straw man attacks from people who fail to read my posts.

Nobody failed to read your posts, so stop saying that.

I was excited to read what a "Tech" forum had to say about this news regarding an APU, but it's come down to 10 pages of "kindergarten" math.

Next time, if you are going to use Kindergarten math as your defense, go troll here instead:

www.nickjr.com/home/messageboard/

BigMack70^^ See clarification #3 above. The claim 1080p60 = ~4x more demanding than 720p30 isn't necessarily wrong. I've clarified what I meant by it, and I don't think I ever implied anything beyond what I've here clarified.

It is wrong. Here you go defending an invalid statement again. What you meant and what you said are two different things.

Your statement implies it requires 4x the horsepower in hardware, thus 4x more powerful CPU, GPU, RAM or subcomponent(s) of either three.

BigMack70^^
Seriously, guys. Read!

You said it yourself, this is a Kindergarten right? If you have graduated leave the forum.

BigMack70^^
But I'm not going to apologize for defending my arguments against straw man attacks from people who fail to read my posts.

Yes but what are you defending?

The 4x the pixel count?

or

4x demanding.

If you was defending one weak statement I would respect your argument. But can't respect somebody that flip flops between two statements at their own convenience.

I happen to have two computers worth of the same hardware for all intents and purposes.


I should play some games at 1080P on the 27" monitors that I ordered with them and see how they do.