Xbox One vs PS4 vs Mobile GPUs

Starting a new thread to continue the discussion between the performance of the Xbox One, PS4 and mobile graphic card/processor setup.

Not intended for what is fanboism or the battle of which is better, mainly for comparisons between hardware and software (since there is a lot of cross platform).

Have fun.

 

There is no discussion, the PS4 GPU is MUCH faster, enough that any of the new graphically demanding games tends to run at lower resolution, lower details and lower framerate on the XBone than on the PS4.

This is something pretty much anyone can agree on.

The XBone could have some advantages on the particle effects side of the equation, or anything that could make use of the fast ESRAM that nobody is bothering to code for at the moment.

 

I think he means discussing what the true notebook equivalents of PS4/XB1 are and not a PS4 vs XB1 thread.

 

Considering there are huge differences between games at Windows, Linux and Apple OS X, I believe it's pretty hard to compare consoles GPUs to PC GPUs in a apples to apples comparison as consoles will most likely have far more optimization than other operating systems. I believe in the vast majority of the games you will need a GPU with better hardware to match those of the consoles.

 

PC hardware is stronger in theory, but handicapped by the OS and lack of optimisation.

Also, since many games start their life on the consoles, you get some bad solutions when they arrive on PC. The menu system of Skyrim for example.

That being said, I find there are more interesting, intelligent, challenging and nieche games available for PC, especially strategy games.

 

I will answer some of the unaswered questions from the other post

First statement is correct, but not the second one, as i already said, is a nerfed 7870 and in the end is at the level of the 7850

Of course there is not exact match because the Xbox One GPU is a nerfed 7790 that performs like a 7770 (because of the slower clock rate), the same happens with the PS4 GPU, but the 7770 and 7850 are the closest ones that we have in PC

Not at all, most of them are 1080p, only BF4 is 900p

List of known resolutions for next-gen games - NeoGAF

860m is a 750 ti wich performs similar to the a 7850/265 wich is at the same level as the PS4 GPU

But you are right about the CPU, even with 8 cores that CPU is awful because his low speed and architechture, in fact as i said in the other post digital foundry made a frame rate test comparing the 260x with the Xbox and PS4, with the PC settings at the same level as the PS4, and it turns out that in real life the PS4 performs similar to a 260x cause of the bottleneck

 

Games on both PS4 and Xbox One is gonna be pretty limited a couple of years down the line. Can`t even imagine how that Xbox1 will survive once the newer more demanding games come pouring in and people start to see the real hardware difference between PS4 and Xbox One. Good luck with that 32MB eSRAM is all I can say...

When PS3 came out it had a really good CPU and a mid-high end GPU while Xbox 360 had high end GPU and midrange CPU. PS4 have a midrange GPU and a low end CPU while Xbox One have a low end GPU and low end CPU.

 

Actually 360's GPU was better that PS3's RSX, not much really but had unified shaders (which helped a lot in optimization)

And PS3's CPU was in fact also worst than 360's CPU for "gaming tasks" (360's CPU was better on Mips and Ps3's CPU was better on Gflops, but for the most part Mips is more importante for a gaming CPU)

 

Who cares. Next-gen consoles launched half a year ago. Way too late to the party. This topic has been beaten to death already.

 

I just said that Xbox360 GPU was better.
PS3`s Cell CPU was far better than 360`s CPU. In the early days it was worse because it was a different architecture than the traditional x86 and the developers had little knowledge of how to code efficiently for it, but I think they straighten that out later on though.

 

Sorry, i don´t know why i read mid end when you talk about 360's GPU, XD

As i said, PS3's CPU was better but only in Gflops, in the other hand 360's CPU was better on MIPS (what it is mostly required for games), but you have part of truth on that statement.

PS3's is close on MIPS to 360 when correctly programmed, but that doesn´t happen often. Better Glops on PS3's CPU only makes a difference on some exclusives where they use that power to help on some minor graphical effects

 

Clearly mobile gaming is where emphasis is on the development side of things. I think what is very interesting and something I have mentioned a long time ago is the trend for tablet/phone GPU to take a lot of priority. The pace at which those mobile platforms are advancing is actually too fast to really be an enthusiast about it. The PS Vita came with a GPU more powerful than the best phone offerings and sadly, even if the Vita was a hit, the GPU is very dated now. The advancement in mobile phones and tablets with the VR SGX and Adreno GPUs are just amazing.

I think everyone knows there is ALWAYS a market for desktop enthusiast gaming but a lot of the PC gaming sales are being bought by notebook enthusiasts as well. When I bought my XPS in 2004 with the ATI MR9800 with 8 pixel pipleines, notebook gaming was growing quickly but still very niche. A lot has changed with so many different mainstream makers putting out very good mobile solutions with powerful GPUs. I think the gap between desktop and notebook will further blur as mobile solutions may begin to take priority and even release before powerful desktop GPUs just due to demand.

Back to the topic. The video above shows pretty clearly it isn't just about specs but optimization and what the human eye really perceives. The XB1 is definitely weaker than the PS4. In time, the difference will be more apparent but not as bad as what the "paper numbers" would indicate. Much of this is simply because 60 Vs 40 FPS is still a good gaming experience as long as there are not huge FPS spikes/drops. Similarly, slightly lower resolution isn't that big of a deal either as was clearly the case when comparing the BF4 games. PS4 will have the better visual fidelity but only really appreciated (or cared about) from videophiles.

Now the GPU needed to have a comparable gaming experience on the PC gets muddier to figure out. Right now, a similar GPU in a notebook will yield a similar result. However as the console developers get much more familiar with the hardware and the coding tricks, coupled with the priority they will get in development over the PC counterpart, the rushed ports will require more power to play. I think the whole "consoles don't have a huge OS to account for" and "console optimization" is grossly overrated. I think it's just lazy porting that is the problem. PCs have so much ram that the OS has practically no bearing on the actual outcome.

So I think in a few years, when BF "X" or COD "X" or whatever game comes out, the 'old' cards of today just will be plain outdated. Sure the games will play fine but not at the fidelity of the consoles. I don't believe Nvidia or AMD are in the business of having PC gamers get a lot of ROI, so there is no doubt we are victim of something rarely talked about in these discussions:
Forced obsolescence-They want to sell new GPUs and what better way then give newer technology and make sure the drivers mainly support the new games. OR..just make games and put a lot of stuff in there that makes running it very difficult (i.e. Crysis 2 rendering water beneath the surface of the level).

I think when GTA 5 hits PS4, XB1 and PC...it will take more than a 7850 to play at comparable settings. Whenever GTA 6 hits....a 7850 probably won't even run it!

Just my .002

 

Sorry but there is no "we don´t know the hardware" excuse this time, they are not more than closed PC, there is nothing to squeeze

Even equivalent GPUs to PS3 and 360 can run the games at the same quality level today, and that generation there were more to squeeze, truth is that there is not optimization in multiplatform games, only on exclusives

 

Did you read what I wrote? I clearly stated that console optimization is vastly overrated. I don't understand what you are disagreeing with then? My point is that more powerful GPUs are needed due to forced obsolescence and poor porting. It's about money and frankly, consoles will still get priority. I clearly said that optimization has little to do with it now..it's just poor porting.

 

Sorry about that, i skipped the mid part to be honest XD

Anyway, as i said, a similar GPU to consoles will be able to run the games with the same settings as them, now and until the end of the generation, many people claim that there are lazy ports, but except rare cases like Dark Souls there are no problems with performance. The only problem is that for a PC that kind of graphics look outdated by the end of generation

 

If you're looking for direct gpu equivalents, the Xbox One's is around a 7770 and the ps4 around a 7850. But it's not as clear-cut as that since code is generally more efficient on consoles, OS overhead is lower, and available a VRAM is faster (at least for the ps4) -- consoles are generally squeeze more out of their available horsepower and resources than PCs. If I were to be forced to state an equivalent PC GPU to PS4s insofar as how "pretty" and performant it is, I'd say around a 780m.

 

PS and Xbox 1 both target 720p 60FPS as ideal with 30 fps as a fall back. That's all you really need to know.

 

It doesn't matter, what matters is the games. The consoles are optimized well enough that they can play games at good fidelity on the typical HDTV. PCs can obviously brute force better graphics, but platform vs platform is a moot argument. They are all great gaming platforms and have their audience and reasons for existence. I like all three simply because I tend to end up wanting some of the exclusives on the consoles, and they are just better suited for easy living room placement.

There's no correct answer, only the correct answer for you.

Comparing GPU vs GPU vs GPU is missing the point.

 

Yea I want to get infamous second son

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

Me too, that game looks crazy good. By the time I flip for a PS4 there's going to be a sizable stable of great games. I'm hearing rumors there's going to be a reveal for The Last Guardian finally at E3.

 

I'm waiting for watch dogs benchmarks, as its the first game designed to be ' next gen first '.
With that, and witcher 3 , we will have a clear-ish idea what it will take for a GPU to last this generation.

 

I don't know about that. Usually first release games are horribly optimized and only improve over time.

On another note considering the system requirements for Watch Dogs I expect to be blown away by the game either in graphics fidelity or overall gameplay mechanics.

 

Going to be fun seeing a 2000$ laptop only play witcher 3 at low-med settings 30-40fps 1080p. Least it's better than consoles 720p/30fps ultra low settings.

 

There hasn't yet been a game released on the PS4, which runs at 720p ,

 

The graphics from the pc version look absolutely amazing

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

I'm talking about the nvidia trailer in particular

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

I know that wasn't your quote, but there's no way the 860m is equal to the Xbox One or PS4.. It's got to be way more powerful. Most console versions of games are what you would see on LOW settings on PC. 860m can play a ton of titles at ultra settings at 60 fps.. and if Ultra doesn't well, Medium is fine and blows away consoles. Heck even a 850m will destroy the PS4/XBONE

 

Honestly, owning both systems I can say that I haven't been let down in visual department on either system. While I do consider myself a videophile, I'm not at the level that detect the difference between 30fps-60fps or other settings outside of texture detail. That said, I have decided that the PS4 will be my main system of choice for the living room because it does have the better hardware (and I'm still a lil bitter over MS mucking up their brand this time out).

If the 860M performs at PS4 level, then I'll be happy with that in a laptop to last me for a few years.

 

Ok 1080p 30hz and 900p 60hz are also fall back options.

 

I'm always quite amused at these discussions because there can never really be any sort of fair, apples-to-apples type comparison. It's comparing two totally different things that just happen to have the same function.

My only hope is that since the new gameboxstation toys have GPU's based on true PC architecture, ports should be better optimized and have shorter release windows. I won't hold my breath though.

 

Whatever. At least the console devs know how to do proper antialiasing, something which the PC guys don't seem to know how to do anymore...

 

Console Devs: "Great! I only have to worry about 1 set of hardware!"
PC Devs: "Great... I have to worry about everyone's hardware..."

Stolen from a saying about sons/daughters.

 

As i already said, that "optimization in consoles is better" is a false myth, as only exclusives are really optimized. You can play games with a Nvidia 79xx, 8600/9500 or similar at the same quality level of a PS3 or 360 and they are equivalent graphics, i have a laptop with a 9650m gt (desktop 9500 gt, and i know that i am talking about)

Nearly al new games are desgined to be "next gen", as they have very scalable engines

I bet that a 860m can run it at the same level of the consoles, you only have to see benchmarks of that GPU at that settings when the game comes out

No, PS3 and 360 are the ones that right now are equivalent to low settings, but not PS4 or Xbox One, in most games they are equivalent to high settings

At lest it should, only thing is that as generation moves on we would probably start to see more games at 900p on PS4

 

Surely what will happen is the real world equivalent of the console gpu's will change over time as the hardware and coding for the consoles becomes better understood by dev's

 

Not so much this time around because new consoles are more or less pc hardware.

Beamed from my G2 Tricorder

 

Although it wont be as much should be interesting to see how they pull ever ounce of power out of them and how much they do, we might be surprised

 

First it what HTWingNut says

Second, a equivalent PC to PS3/360 can still play te games at same quality as them, even the new ones, there is not that mucho optimization in consoles, is more a myth, that is only true in exclusive games

 

To be fair a 7xxx series from nvidia would struggle.

 

Not the ones that are equal to PS3

 

Yes, yes it would. Partly it lacks the shaders required for them for a start.

 

Do you really think the gtx850m has more gpu power than a ps4 and xbox one? What makes you think this? Also why did you return your ASUS NX550JK? I just picked one up. I hope it runs good for me.

 

I think he is right and thanks to this the games in the next 5 years will run very well on current and future hardware.

 

all of which are american dreams... sorry listening too ratm

anywho resolution isnt everything, graphics are'not everything....games games games

pc>xbox>ps4>everything else

when you look at exclusives I choose xbox, when I look for an actual library I choose PC...can I play aoe3 on xbox....no can I play crysis one.......no ect... buy all three if you can afford to buy a pc or gaming laptop and all the games then surely you can afford all three and be unstoppable in your gaming nerdiness

 

Wow, talk about necro thread revival =O. Anyway, it's really simple on how to find out whether a 850M compares to PS4 or Xbox 1.

Xbox 1 is approximately 72% as strong as a STOCK AMD 7970M.
PS4 is approximately 85% as strong as a STOCK AMD 7970M.

Take 7970M benchmarks on notebookcheck or whatever, multiple by 0.72 for X1 or by 0.85 for PS4. Then compare with 850M benchmarks.

My guess? 860M rips X1 to shreds, is closer to PS4. OC'd 860M rips both to shreds.

Xbox 1 is very weak. PS4, not as weak, but still within the class of the Fermi flagship GPUs. If your GPU beats a GTX 580, you beat a PS4. If your GPU is a 680M, 780M, 870M, 970M or 980M, it beats all the consoles. By orders of magnitude, especially starting from stock 780M and going up. I didn't include 880M because it's a broken pile of goat faeces.

 

850m ddr3 performs similar to Xbox One, 850m gddr5 and 860m to PS4

 

Xbox One:
1.3GFlops

PS4 GPU:
1.84GFlops

GTX 850M:
1.2GFlops

GTX 860M Maxwell:
1.3GFlops

GTX 860M Kepler:
1.8GFlops

This is compute performance. It would reflect gaming performance difference roughly if all were made by Nvidia. But the PS4 and Xbox One is AMD APUs.

But with the optimizations they do on consoles, I`m pretty sure PS4 beats GTX 860M. Xbox One however, probably a little slower than Kepler GTX 860M. All GPUs above 860M should beat the consoles (2.5GFlops and beyond)

 

I bought an XBOX One recently. Bought it because practically everyone I know has XBOX - the community is great. (And it was a great deal.) I didn't buy a console for ultimate performance and detail. I bought a console to have fun and play with friends who can't afford [or are unwilling] to purchase an expensive PC. :thumbsup:

As for performance versus PS4: Not a big deal... The games are designed especially well and run great. It's not like we're benchmarking these consoles.

 

So yeah... 850m at stock is not better than a newer console GPU... (refer to cloud's post) the thing is, most people will OC it to at least 860 clocks and if it has GDDR5, it will meet or exceed 860m stock. If it does that, it is better. (You cannot OC the console.)

Don't forget the CPU... the XBone and PS4 have Tablet-level cpus which are easily outgunned by even the lowliest of value CPUs.

A reminder that the "console advantage" has been pretty much debunked. PCs with similar hardware to the Xbox360 have pretty much the same fps plus or minus a few either way. Windows does have overhead, but pretty much all of that is absorbed by the insanely better hardware found in even laptop PCs.

We all know how A10-infused laptops with 7970m are horrendously gimped in comparison to intel-based mobile cpus... and those A10s are head-and-shoulders better than anything the 8-core jaguar can do. Even though the xbone and ps4 have decent gpus, they are held back by their weak cpu. This is why they struggle at 720 or 900p at 30fps (xbone) or 1080p at 30fps (ps4).

Xbox community is legendary... in the negative. A reminder that consoles' main targeted market are tween boys. Sony is slightly, but not much better in my experience. Again, tween boys are the main market. I'm not sure what people were expecting. PC communities run the gamut from mature gaming communities (Lineage2) to almost as bad as xbox (Diablo3).

 

This is all theoretical since it isn't factoring in things like bottlenecks or even software optimization.

 

What isn't theoretical is that PCs (including laptops) can and do handle 1080p gaming above 30fps.