Here's his list of specific points:
18 CU's vs. 12 CU's =/= 50% more performance. Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU's, so it's simply incorrect to say 50% more GPU.
12CUs is no small amount of graphics cores either, and is subject to inefficiency as well. Even if it shakes out to 40% more GPU in the end due to rising inefficiency, its still much more capacity.
Adding to that, each of our CU's is running 6% faster. It's not simply a 6% clock speed increase overall.
Doesnt even come close to closing the gap.
We have more memory bandwidth. 176gb/sec is peak on paper for GDDR5. Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM). ESRAM can do read/write cycles simultaneously so I see this number mis-quoted.
That's just as much of a theoretical paper spec as Sony's number, with one massive distinction being that Sony's number applies to the entire 8GB bank of memory, while MS's applies to a measly 32MB esram cache.
We have at least 10% more CPU. Not only a faster processor, but a better audio chip also offloading CPU cycles.
The CPU is becoming more and more irrelevant as each day goes by, and unlike graphics, you can't scale a game engine easily to use more CPU time. So Sony's slower CPU will force devs to aim for the lowest common denominator on the CPU, whereas it's a piece of cake to turn up the resolution or certain effects up a notch and soak up all of the PS4's extra GPU capacity.
We understand GPGPU and its importance very well. Microsoft invented Direct Compute, and have been using GPGPU in a shipping product since 2010 - it's called Kinect.
I guess the implication here is that no one else in the world understands GPGPU? Kind of a crazy statement to make.
Speaking of GPGPU - we have 3X the coherent bandwidth for GPGPU at 30gb/sec which significantly improves our ability for the CPU to efficiently read data generated by the GPU.
And they've got 50% less GPU capacity to actually run the GPGPU code....so big whoop.
Even taken all together, it's not enough to overcome the sheer brute force advantage that the PS4 has. He's treating it like it's some sort of victory that there isn't a 50% gap, like a 30% gap is some sort of win.
Whether or not that advantage results in a difference you'll care about is a whole other debate, but he should let the games do the talking, because he's only making things worse. Games will still look great on the Xbox One, and honestly a LOT of people simply arent going to notice or care about the difference. All he's doing is reminding them that it exists.
Edited by bd2003 - 9/9/13 at 9:14pm