Foren Aktuelles Erstellen Mitglieder Anmelden

Allerlei Technikdiskussionen

Benutzer, welche sich diesen Thread anschauen:

Die neue Grafikkartengeneration von AMD wird doch nix fundamental neues bieten, selbst wenn die X1 (und vielleicht auch die PS4) GPU das also alles schon hat (was schon durchaus möglich ist) bringt das ja kaum was. Da sind ein paar Detailverbesserungen drin, aber nichts fundamentales.
 
Es stimmt schon das AMD am 25.9 ihre PK haben.. aber darauf wollte ich eigentlich gar nicht hinaus...

MS gibt am 26(!). September im Rahmen der Eurogamer EXPO 2013 eine weitere PK und auf das bezog sich das Datum.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-09-05-xbox-one-and-games-playable-at-eurogamer-expo-2013

Not only that, but Microsoft corporate vice president Phil Harrison will present an exclusive Xbox One presentation, kicking off the Eurogamer Expo developer session schedule at 12pm BST on Thursday 26th September. The session will also be streamed online on the Eurogamer YouTube channel.
 
Und du glaubst, dass sie spätestens dann die "Hosen völlig runterlassen" und ihre eigenen Angaben nach oben revidieren?

Nach ihrem letzten Tech-Speek bin ich echt gespannt, ob Penello noch irgendwas "geheimes" nachschiessen kann, sonst läuft er auf ziemlich glatten Glatteis.
 
Zimtzicke schrieb:
Und du glaubst, dass sie spätestens dann die "Hosen völlig runterlassen" und ihre eigenen Angaben nach oben revidieren?

Nach ihrem letzten Tech-Speek bin ich echt gespannt, ob Penello noch irgendwas "geheimes" nachschiessen kann, sonst läuft er auf ziemlich glatten Glatteis.

Klär uns doch mal auf :)
 
Zimtzicke schrieb:
Und du glaubst, dass sie spätestens dann die "Hosen völlig runterlassen" und ihre eigenen Angaben nach oben revidieren?

Nach ihrem letzten Tech-Speek bin ich echt gespannt, ob Penello noch irgendwas "geheimes" nachschiessen kann, sonst läuft er auf ziemlich glatten Glatteis.

Ka was uns da erwartet.. finde das Datum nur höchst interessant so knapp nach AMD.

Egal was da kommt.. ich hoffe einfach das wir endlich Ingame Material von diversen Spielen sehen. Keiner weiß zb bis heute wie BF auf der XBOX One aussieht...

PS: weils mich interessieren würde: (und weil wo anders schon mal die Frage gestellt wurde ob das mit 1.3 TF überhaupt möglich ist): wir kennen ja alle dieses Leak Video vom Dashboard. Was mich besonders beeindruckt hat ist die Tatsache, dass es einfach so möglich ist zb Ryse im Hintergrund weiterlaufen zu lassen (im kleinen Fenster) und sonst im Dashboard zu sein. Kostet das nicht unheimlich viel Rechenpower?
 
Da gibt es nicht viel aufzuklären. Du hast die beiden langen Posts von Penello und seinen Tweet von heute sicher auch gelesen.

@ satzi

Das hat mehr mit dem RAM zu tun als mit der CPU/GPU. Das Spiel hat seine 5GB RAM, das OS 3GB, beide laufen parallel. Das Dash beansprucht die GPU ja kaum.
 
Ich empfehle diese drei Artikel für alle die sich etwas genauer für die Architektur der X1 interessieren. Bin bisher über keinen Artikel gestolpert der den Hot Chips Strip genauer unter die Lupe genommen hat und das sind bisher die umfangreichsten Informationen die wir zur X1 haben. Recht viel weiter kann man fast nicht mehr abtauchen, ohne empfindliche Firmengeheimnisse zu offenbaren, die kein Hersteller/Architekt gerne vor der Konkurrenz preisgibt.

Microsoft hat wirklich die Hosen runtergelassen. Sowas würde ich mir von Sony auch noch gerne wünschen. Die haben uns zuvor zwar schon einige wichtige Kern-Daten geliefert (GPU Eckdaten und ein kleiner Überblick zum Memory Management), aber sind dabei halt nicht so ins Detail bei ihrer Architektur gegangen wie MS es auf der Hot Chips getan hat.

A deep dive into Microsoft’s XBox One’s architecture

A deep dive in to Microsoft’s XBox One GPU and on-die memory

XBox One’s sound block is much more than audio

Das Fazit nach diesem Drei-Teiler...
The XBox One SoC and package

All of the major units are coherent with each other but the GPU has a direct non-coherent path that is basically AMD’s Garlic bus to main memory as well, a must for any modern CPU+GPU/APU/SoC. (Note: There isn’t a direct equivalent to Onion in the XBO SoC, that functionality is done with Microsoft’s IP) More interestingly is that while the 32MB of onboard memory is coherent with the CPU there is not a direct link between the two. How badly the added latency, if any, will hurt CPU code using this cache is not public but should make for some interesting arguments. In any case every block is coherent with every memory space and the system MMUs can make it all look seamless even if on-die and off-die memories are in different address spaces.

The system as a whole has a massive chunk of hardware devoted to AV tasks, enough to make background encoding, decoding, playback, scaling, and the rest about as seamless as possible to the gamer. AV should just work and gaming should just work regardless of what the other is doing, something the PS4 should do as well but in a very different way. Then again the majority of this functionality is available in a <$100 Android box so it isn’t a standout feature if you follow tech at all.

Then there are the GPUs themselves, the Achilles heel of the XBox One. While there is nothing wrong with them per se, they are a slightly older revision than used in the PS4 but the differences are small enough to be ignorable. What does matter is that the PS4 has about 50% more units at roughly the same clocks, 1152 at ~800MHz vs 768 at 853MHz, a massive difference. Couple this with the vastly more user-friendly 8GB GDDR5 memory design and you have a clean kill for Sony on performance.

Microsoft made a really impressive SoC that is a multimedia monster with a bit of gaming ability, technically speaking it is quite impressive that they pulled it off. Not to take anything away from the hardware designers but Microsoft management simply aimed wrong. Sony made a gaming machine, Microsoft did not. Sony made a clean design for coders, Microsoft did not. Microsoft made a complex technical masterpiece that is in a no-mans land between a far <$100 Android media center and the PS4. Sony just did right for gamers and won the battle.
 
Microsoft made a really impressive SoC that is a multimedia monster with a bit of gaming ability, technically speaking it is quite impressive that they pulled it off. Not to take anything away from the hardware designers but Microsoft management simply aimed wrong. Sony made a gaming machine, Microsoft did not. Sony made a clean design for coders, Microsoft did not. Microsoft made a complex technical masterpiece that is in a no-mans land between a far <$100 Android media center and the PS4. Sony just did right for gamers and won the battle.


Alles wie gedacht. :kaffee:
 
Albert Penello schrieb:
I see my statements the other day caused more of a stir than I had intended. I saw threads locking down as fast as they pop up, so I apologize for the delayed response.

I was hoping my comments would lead the discussion to be more about the games (and the fact that games on both systems look great) as a sign of my point about performance, but unfortunately I saw more discussion of my credibility.

So I thought I would add more detail to what I said the other day, that perhaps people can debate those individual merits instead of making personal attacks. This should hopefully dismiss the notion I'm simply creating FUD or spin.

I do want to be super clear: I'm not disparaging Sony. I'm not trying to diminish them, or their launch or what they have said. But I do need to draw comparisons since I am trying to explain that the way people are calculating the differences between the two machines isn't completely accurate. I think I've been upfront I have nothing but respect for those guys, but I'm not a fan of the mis-information about our performance.

So, here are couple of points about some of the individual parts for people to consider:

• 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.
• Adding to that, each of our CU's is running 6% faster. It's not simply a 6% clock speed increase overall.
• 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.
• We have at least 10% more CPU. Not only a faster processor, but a better audio chip also offloading CPU cycles.
• 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.
• 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.

Hopefully with some of those more specific points people will understand where we have reduced bottlenecks in the system. I'm sure this will get debated endlessly but at least you can see I'm backing up my points.

I still I believe that we get little credit for the fact that, as a SW company, the people designing our system are some of the smartest graphics engineers around – they understand how to architect and balance a system for graphics performance. Each company has their strengths, and I feel that our strength is overlooked when evaluating both boxes.

Given this continued belief of a significant gap, we're working with our most senior graphics and silicon engineers to get into more depth on this topic. They will be more credible then I am, and can talk in detail about some of the benchmarking we've done and how we balanced our system.

Thanks again for letting my participate. Hope this gives people more background on my claims.

neogaf.com

Darf jeder draus ableiten, was er will.

Dass eine GPU aber immer uneffizienter wird, je mehr CUs sie hat, das halte ich für eine gewagte These. ;)

Und die RAM-Geschichte...
 
Im Endeffekt ist alles wie gehabt und bekannt: die einzige Sache die mich etwas stutzig macht ist die GPU und die 6% Steigerung nicht im Gesamten sondern pro CU = 12 CU * 6%?

Ps: naja die Ram Geschichte ist ja auch so eine Sache: es ist schon klar das der ESRAM sehr schnell ist, aber dafür ist er ja auch nur 32 MB groß..
 
Seine Aussage mit dem RAM sollte man eigentlich gar nicht kommentieren. Bandbreiten einfach zusammenrechnen (noch dazu mit der theoretischten Spitze des eSRAM), hatten wir diesen PR Fail nicht schon einmal? :lol:


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.

Damit verdreht er etwas ziemlich. Das Äquivalent zu dem 30 GB/s Bus der X1 ist eher der ~20 GB/s Bus der PS4 und nicht das Onion+ System der PS4. Das SoC der X1 hat dazu kein Äquivalent, wie wir von der Hot Chips wissen. Sollen wir nun also Mr. Panello oder den MS Techis der Hot Chips glauben?


Adding to that, each of our CU's is running 6% faster. It's not simply a 6% clock speed increase overall.

Das ergibt...keinen Sinn. :ulgy:


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.

Das ist mir jetzt vollkommen neu? Ist auch entgegen dem Trend der beiden Big-Player am GPU Markt (AMD und nVidia).
Was ist mit den anderen Unterschieden beim GPU? TMUs? Den ROPs, die noch mehr ausmachen? Die Shader Cores? Da hatte er nun keine Geschichte parat.

Fake-Edit: Im GAF hats jemand erläutert, wie Panello wohl auf die Aussage bezüglich der CUs kam...

Yes.

Referring to "inherent inefficiencies" that come with an increasing number of parallel processors usually refers to Amdahl's law [1], which states that the potential performance gain from an increased number of parallel processors is limited by the longest sequence of necessarily serial instructions.

However, GPU workloads operate with many independent SIMD-based [2] wavefronts on vast homogeneous data sets and, thus, scale nicely with an increased number of processors.

Apples and oranges.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIMD





Ehrlich, den Post hätte er sich sparen können.
 
Albert Penello:

At Microsoft, we have a position called a "Technical Fellow" These are engineers across disciplines at Microsoft that are basically at the highest stage of technical knowledge. There are very few across the company, so it's a rare and respected position.

We are lucky to have a small handful working on Xbox.

I've spent several hours over the last few weeks with the Technical Fellow working on our graphics engines. He was also one of the guys that worked most closely with the silicon team developing the actual architecture of our machine, and knows how and why it works better than anyone.

So while I appreciate the technical acumen of folks on this board - you should know that every single thing I posted, I reviewed with him for accuracy. I wanted to make sure I was stating things factually, and accurately.

So if you're saying you can't add bandwidth - you can. If you want to dispute that ESRAM has simultaneous read/write cycles - it does.

I know this forum demands accuracy, which is why I fact checked my points with a guy who helped design the machine.

This is the same guy, by the way, that jumps on a plane when developers want more detail and hands-on review of code and how to extract the maximum performance from our box. He has heard first-hand from developers exactly how our boxes compare, which has only proven our belief that they are nearly the same in real-world situations. If he wasn't coming back smiling, I certainly wouldn't be so bullish dismissing these claims.

I'm going to take his word (we just spoke this AM, so his data is about as fresh as possible) versus statements by developers speaking anonymously, and also potentially from several months ago before we had stable drivers and development environments
 
Dann kommt zum Schluss nochmal PR Geblubber:

1. Personally, I've seen both systems and games live at E3, Gamescom, and PAX. Played a little bit of PS4 games at PAX. There are great looking games on both systems. Ryse looks great, Forza is fantastic. I think Killzone looks awesome, and honestly have not been impressed with DriveClub (although it came a LONG way since E3). I really would like to see Infamous in person, but it hasn't been shown that I've seen. However, any difference between those games is subjective of course and subject to viewer bias, but looking at both systems it's hard to substantiate any claims around 40% - 50%

2. We're in the final stages of game and SW development now. We're working closely with 3rd parties as we approach launch. Reports we're hearing back from developers consistently are confirming that cross-plat games are running the same on both platforms.

I believe there is a point back near E3 where developers would have said their games were running better on PS4. I think Marc Whitten made the point that we'd just completed some driver work about a month ago just before Gamescom. And look at the frame-rate improvements in DR3 between Gamescom and PAX. We're making huge strides in our SW stability, and again, we have customized and balanced the system to reduce bottlenecks and optimize performance, in ways that aren't seen in the published specs.

As to the follow-up questions; I posted earlier I'm working with the engineers directly who I think (and you guys think) will be more credible than I am. I did say that I went to them for some supporting points which I posted here - so at this point it's probably best to let them speak on it. I'm not sure when, but more detail will show up.
 
Ja, grundsätzlich reines PR Geblubber, ohne wirkliche Aussagekraft. Kann man streichen.

Die Specs sprechen einfach eiskalt gegen die X1, da kann nichts mehr schönreden.

Allerdings gibts hier eine sehr schöne Aussage eines Creativ Directors (Adrian Chmielarz, People Can Fly), die ich für verdammt treffend halte...

Think about it this way. X360 is faster than PS3. Not just easier to program on, it's faster overall (although PS is faster/better in SOME areas). And yet no exclusive on X360 looks like The Last of Us. Halo 4 looks great. Gears blew my mind in 2006. And still, the best looking AAA game of this generation belongs to the supposedly weaker platform.

Das volle Ding gibts hier zu lesen: http://www.konsolentreff.net/showthread.php?tid=20593&pid=2466055#pid2466055

Es kommt in Endeffekt darauf an, was die Entwickler aus den Kisten herausholen. Sony hat dieses Mal das bessere Rüstzeug und jene fähigen Entwickler die bereits ihre PS3 ans absolute Limit trieben.
 
satzberger schrieb:
Albert Penello:

At Microsoft, we have a position called a "Technical Fellow" These are engineers across disciplines at Microsoft that are basically at the highest stage of technical knowledge. There are very few across the company, so it's a rare and respected position.

We are lucky to have a small handful working on Xbox.

The Fellowship of the Ring sozusagen.
41801_269848423762_6125192_q.jpg
;)
Nur Spaß, kein Bash - bot sich einfach an...
 
Zurück
Oben