PlayStation 4 General DiscussionPS4

[Luminis]

Dice is hardly the top game developer when it comes to getting the most out of consoles. I'll be far more interested in what developers like Kojima Productions and Naughty Dog will be capable off with the PS4.

And as for the PS4 not being ahead of the current best PC tech. I assume that is due to pricing, and Sony (and perhaps MS as well) not seeing the reason to go out of their way in the specs department, considering the rather small graphical difference between a high-end PC and next gen consoles, compared to 5-10 years ago.

Meh, I wouldn't be suprised if DICE isn't even trying... EA isn't exactly known for quality, is it?

Anyways, the reason MS and Sony are not going for powerful hardware is pretty simple, I guess: They don't need it. They don't even need games that look good. As long as there's enough of an audience that doesn't care about such stuff, they'll be all good. And let's be honest, I'd assume that nine out of ten people buy consoles because they're relatively cheap and get a lot of media coverage/advertisement. Those folks likely wouldn't even care if MS and Sony sold them utter crap as long as it's affordable and plays the next Call of Duty. That's my take on it, at least.

 

[Jawehawk]

Those folks likely wouldn't even care if MS and Sony sold them utter crap as long as it's affordable and plays the next Call of Duty. That's my take on it, at least.

There is that too... The sad truth.

Personally, I don't think the graphics need to improve all that much. I'd muhc prefere if more focus was given to story, character development and gameplay. Innovation seems to largely be a thing of the past. Which is why I like the Playstation brand, as Sony usually has a couple of unique and innovative exclusives. Mainly using my PC for RTS games, and if my PC can handle it, then multi platform games as well.

 

[Luminis]

I'll be honest, the most innovative games I've seen over the last couple of years were usually indy titles... Well, not strictly "innovative", but just all around focused on gameplay, mostly. Sure, there's your odd Journey, but aside from that.. Not much.

Which might be why I'm so fixated on good hardware. I don't expect to be wow'ed by the gameplay of upcoming titles, so what else is there to look forward to?

 

[Jawehawk]

I'll be honest, the most innovative games I've seen over the last couple of years were usually indy titles... Well, not strictly "innovative", but just all around focused on gameplay, mostly. Sure, there's your odd Journey, but aside from that.. Not much.

Which might be why I'm so fixated on good hardware. I don't expect to be wow'ed by the gameplay of upcoming titles, so what else is there to look forward to?

Demon's Souls was quite innovative, and I'd give a nod to Little Big Planet as well. Aside from those two and Journey, you're right on the money on the lack of innovation. You could argue that Uncahrted and MGS4, each in their own way, brought innovation to their respective genres. Although in a rather limited fashion. Sadly, Naughty Dog decided not to put any effort into U3, but at least they seem to be bringing something new to the table with The Last of Us.

In any case. I hope the new console generation will result in developers spending less time on graphics (due to it being easier to make things look good), and more time on the previously mentioned criterias.

 

[Earth]

And dispite all of that (which is obviously true), BF4 is already said to not run in Full HD on the next gen consoles. There's only so much you can get out of mid-range hardware, optimisation or not.

Its early in the life of next gen consoles, and PC is the #1 platform for DICE. So the lack of full HD isn't too surprising, especially since the game will run at 60fps while featuring full maps and player count. And if it can run at 60fps on the Xbox 720, then surely theres room for improvement on the PS4.

Wikipedia lists the 7850 as a high end card, which I tend to agree with. It outperforms the mid-range GTX460 by a large margin. It also outperforms the High End GTX 470.

Also the PS4 will have likely twice as much memory (perhaps up to 7GBs) available for games as the 3GB Radeon 7970, and of course much more then the 2GB 7850 cards. More and faster memory really helps at Full HD resolutions, so 1080p visuals should become a specialty of the PS4. Killzone Shadowfall looks great, and runs at 1080p/30fps, all the while being a launch game that was reportedly built on 2.2GB PS4 dev kits.

As for the CPU, consoles have never had or needed them to be really fast. The PS2's CPU was 300mhz, which was way behind desktop CPUs of 2000, but it was plenty for the system. 8 cores running at possibly 2.0ghz will be plenty

 

[Lion-Face]

And even if they didn't, that point would remain the same. When the PS2 launched, it was ahead of the PC tech. When the PS3 launched, it was ahead of the PC tech. And even now, before launch and even when you're not taking the 5.1 TFLOPS GTX Titan into account, the PS4 would be behind PC tech. Where the PS3 was ahead of the Geforce 7800, the PS4 is behind the GTX 680.

According to that Nvidia graph, when PS3 launched it wasn't ahead of the PC tech of the time. Nvidia are also just comparing graphics card vs graphics card, and not a system on the whole, which there is more to a PC or Console than just a graphics card. Referring to the Nvidia graph again, it appears as though PC tech was well ahead of console tech even shortly after PS3 launch, yet it was a few years later that graphical differences were meaningful.

And dispite all of that (which is obviously true), BF4 is already said to not run in Full HD on the next gen consoles. There's only so much you can get out of mid-range hardware, optimization or not.

Resolution means little when you aren't sitting 2 feet from the screen. I'd rather games ran at 720p and had better everything else than using up horsepower for something that gains me little.

 

[sesselpupser]

Its early in the life of next gen consoles, and PC is the #1 platform for DICE. So the lack of full HD isn't too surprising, especially since the game will run at 60fps while featuring full maps and player count. And if it can run at 60fps on the Xbox 720, then surely theres room for improvement on the PS4.

Early in the life of an x86 system is not the same as early in the life of a bespoke system no one has ever coded on before. If you're expecting the performance of PS4 games to improve over the years to the same extent as PS3 games did you'll probably want to re-evaluate your position. I'm not saying the performance will never improve, but the gap between Resistance and, I don't know, let's say BF3 on PS3 was massive, like a generation within a generation, because developers had to learn the PS3's hardware. With an x86 architecture they'll be able to hit the ground running much faster than last time, so we'll see the console's limitations much sooner than we did with the PS3.

Wikipedia lists the 7850 as a high end card, which I tend to agree with. It outperforms the mid-range GTX460 by a large margin. It also outperforms the High End GTX 470.

As well it should, since the 400 series is two generations old and the GTX 460 was a couple of tiers below it anyway. Did you mean GTX 660 and 670?

Also the PS4 will have likely twice as much memory (perhaps up to 7GBs) available for games as the 3GB Radeon 7970, and of course much more then the 2GB 7850 cards. More and faster memory really helps at Full HD resolutions, so 1080p visuals should become a specialty of the PS4. Killzone Shadowfall looks great, and runs at 1080p/30fps, all the while being a launch game that was reportedly built on 2.2GB PS4 dev kits.

No, they won't. 8GB of GDDR5 unified memory means the APU and GPU are sharing the same RAM chips, and 1080p doesn't take up even 1.5GB RAM in most current PC games. The memory isn't faster than what's in a 7850, either. But in any case, 7GB of the 8 dedicated to graphics means 1GB for the OS and game itself, which is not going to happen.

As for the CPU, consoles have never had or needed them to be really fast. The PS2's CPU was 300mhz, which was way behind desktop CPUs of 2000, but it was plenty for the system. 8 cores running at possibly 2.0ghz will be plenty

Of course it will, the software will be designed for the hardware. But, the same as what happened with the PS2, there will be a difference between what a PC can do and what a PS4 can do (note: not the same as what the PC and PS4 will do, since it's dependent on the software being written to take advantage of the increased performance) even at the beginning of the PS4's life. However, I'm sure it will perform admirably anyway.

 

[Earth]

Early in the life of an x86 system is not the same as early in the life of a bespoke system no one has ever coded on before. If you're expecting the performance of PS4 games to improve over the years to the same extent as PS3 games did you'll probably want to re-evaluate your position. I'm not saying the performance will never improve, but the gap between Resistance and, I don't know, let's say BF3 on PS3 was massive, like a generation within a generation, because developers had to learn the PS3's hardware. With an x86 architecture they'll be able to hit the ground running much faster than last time, so we'll see the console's limitations much sooner than we did with the PS3.

Great, PS4 games will look better faster.

 

[sesselpupser]

Great, PS4 games will look better faster.

But they won't look 1080p 60fps good.

 

[thelvynau]

But they won't look 1080p 60fps good.

Is that confirmed that 1080p 60fps won't happen?

 

[sesselpupser]

Is that confirmed that 1080p 60fps won't happen?

Well, I mean if 720p/60 for BF4 is accurate, I'd be astonished if, by the end of the PS4's life, AAA shooters on BF4's scale run at 1080p/60.

 

[Jawehawk]

But they won't look 1080p 60fps good.

Can I borrow your Tardis? Dice aren't the ones pushing boundaries in graphics or game design.

 

[sesselpupser]

Can I borrow your Tardis? Dice aren't the ones pushing boundaries in graphics or game design.

Game design doesn't come into it, if you mean in the actual ludological sense of the phrase, and BF3 is the only real benchmark for a larger-than-Call of Duty first person shooter that doesn't look terrible on the PS3. I'm sure you'd agree that a Call of Duty-sized shooter would perform better than a BF3-sized one, right? So it makes sense that if you're comparing BF4 to anything in the current gen, it would be BF3.

So, when I say that because the x86 architecture takes away a lot of the mystery around what the hardware is capable of and therefore games won't advance as much on PS4 as they did on PS3 (because the early games were hamstrung by developers' understanding of and experience with the hardware), if BF4 really does run at 720p/60 then I really don't think that same hardware will magically become capable of 1080p/60, running games of the same scale, by the time Sony bring out the new hardware;

As I said in an earlier post, developers will be able to get better results from the PS4 early on than they did from the PS3, and following that logic you can deduce that 720p/60 while running a large multiplayer shooter with 64 players is closer to the limit of what the PS4 can do than Resistance: Fall of Man was to the limit of what the PS3 can do. As such, in my opinion we won't (hypothetically) see BF6 running at 1080p/60 on the PS4.

I should have made it clearer that I'm posting my opinion which is an educated guess based on rumoured information (BF4 running at 720p/60), confirmed information (the PS4's x86 architecture) and history (the PS3's brand new architecture and obfuscation of it's true capability that came as a result) and I'm not trying to pass it off as fact, even though I admit it came across that way.

 

[Earth]

The Xbox 720 is suppose to run the game at 720/60 too. Maybe DICE doesnt have enough experience with the new consoles to bring out the best of the PS4, or maybe Microsoft wont accept their version of the game being inferior

 

[LaBounti]

And even if they didn't, that point would remain the same. When the PS2 launched, it was ahead of the PC tech. When the PS3 launched, it was ahead of the PC tech. And even now, before launch and even when you're not taking the 5.1 TFLOPS GTX Titan into account, the PS4 would be behind PC tech. Where the PS3 was ahead of the Geforce 7800, the PS4 is behind the GTX 680.

Your counter point doesn't have anything to do with my opinion, it was in response to another post. I get the point, it's just not impressive given how much PC graphics are based on brute force more so than technology. Also the PS3 was not more powerful than the 7800GTX.

Is that confirmed that 1080p 60fps won't happen?

Like neema_t said, for BF4 its unknown but I doubt it if KZ Shadow fall is 1080p30. 720p is fine, some don't even have 1080p TV's yet but still game. I know one who still plays in 480i lol.

 

[Eks]

So, when I say that because the x86 architecture takes away a lot of the mystery around what the hardware is capable of and therefore games won't advance as much on PS4 as they did on PS3.

I think that, because of this, console generations will be shorter since consoles will hit their limits even faster.

..or maybe Microsoft wont accept their version of the game being inferior

Sony has dealt with that too much this generation.. #Irrelevant

 

[Sanji Himura]

The Xbox 720 is suppose to run the game at 720/60 too. Maybe DICE doesnt have enough experience with the new consoles to bring out the best of the PS4, or maybe Microsoft wont accept their version of the game being inferior

Maybe it is indeed time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and accept the fact that their consoles are #irrelevant from a technological stand point. They have indeed used the DVD-9 standard in the 360 disk drives, and look where it got them. Yes, if you are looking at sales figures, they did outsell every other console not named Wii this past generation, but if you compare it to a gaming PC, the PC would have smoke the 360 in terms of performance over a span of a year or two.

Sony did offer the more powerful console in terms of CPU, but thanks to policies set by Microsoft, it never had a chance to shine through, and when it did, it was often the first party titles that did.

Every generation there was someone who took their lumps for the sake of customer satisfaction. Three generations ago, it was SEGA, and they caved in. Two generations ago, It was Nintendo. The last generation, it was Sony. I think that if Microsoft doesn't take their lumps now, then they will be the inferior ones down the line.

 

[TheDabbinDave]

Maybe it is indeed time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and accept the fact that their consoles are #irrelevant from a technological stand point. They have indeed used the DVD-9 standard in the 360 disk drives, and look where it got them. Yes, if you are looking at sales figures, they did outsell every other console not named Wii this past generation, but if you compare it to a gaming PC, the PC would have smoke the 360 in terms of performance over a span of a year or two.

Sony did offer the more powerful console in terms of CPU, but thanks to policies set by Microsoft, it never had a chance to shine through, and when it did, it was often the first party titles that did.

Every generation there was someone who took their lumps for the sake of customer satisfaction. Three generations ago, it was SEGA, and they caved in. Two generations ago, It was Nintendo. The last generation, it was Sony. I think that if Microsoft doesn't take their lumps now, then they will be the inferior ones down the line.

4th quarter 2012, PS3 took the lead back from 350.

 

[Samus]

Maybe it is indeed time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and accept the fact that their consoles are #irrelevant from a technological stand point. They have indeed used the DVD-9 standard in the 360 disk drives, and look where it got them. Yes, if you are looking at sales figures, they did outsell every other console not named Wii this past generation, but if you compare it to a gaming PC, the PC would have smoke the 360 in terms of performance over a span of a year or two.

Sony did offer the more powerful console in terms of CPU, but thanks to policies set by Microsoft, it never had a chance to shine through, and when it did, it was often the first party titles that did.

Every generation there was someone who took their lumps for the sake of customer satisfaction. Three generations ago, it was SEGA, and they caved in. Two generations ago, It was Nintendo. The last generation, it was Sony. I think that if Microsoft doesn't take their lumps now, then they will be the inferior ones down the line.

Hilarious.

 

[Luminis]

Your counter point doesn't have anything to do with my opinion, it was in response to another post. I get the point, it's just not impressive given how much PC graphics are based on brute force more so than technology. Also the PS3 was not more powerful than the 7800GTX.

Oh, I'm sorry, the Xbox360 (and thereby the 7th generation of consoles) was ahead of PC tech, at the time it released. There, rephrased it.

Also, yes, the graph shows the PS3 to be ahead of the PS3. Unless the PS3 is actually weaker in terms of processing power than the 360, but I kinda doubt that. They've been pretty much evenly matched, with the PS3 having a slight edge. Either that, or the graph would have to be flawed. So, yeah, my point still stands, even though the PS3 did release after the 7800 - still before the 8800, though.

Sony did offer the more powerful console in terms of CPU, but thanks to policies set by Microsoft, it never had a chance to shine through, and when it did, it was often the first party titles that did.

Would you like a tinfoil hat to go with your conspiracy theories?

Poor Sony, always bullied around by the big companies in the industry - oh gawd, how could a poor indy developer considering of nothing but good people who care only about making great games for their fans stand up to the evil empire that is Microsoft? The evil empire that's only out to force them out of business, so there's nobody to stop them from taking the gamers' money. Luckily, the good people at Sony are putting themselves on the line to save us!

Sony just went with a complicated architecture and it bit them in the arse for a good part of the generation. They didn't need Microsoft for that to happen, be asured of that. They've now learned from that, as we can see.

 

[Earth]

Maybe it is indeed time for Microsoft to bite the bullet and accept the fact that their consoles are #irrelevant from a technological stand point. They have indeed used the DVD-9 standard in the 360 disk drives, and look where it got them. Yes, if you are looking at sales figures, they did outsell every other console not named Wii this past generation, but if you compare it to a gaming PC, the PC would have smoke the 360 in terms of performance over a span of a year or two.

Sony did offer the more powerful console in terms of CPU, but thanks to policies set by Microsoft, it never had a chance to shine through, and when it did, it was often the first party titles that did.

Every generation there was someone who took their lumps for the sake of customer satisfaction. Three generations ago, it was SEGA, and they caved in. Two generations ago, It was Nintendo. The last generation, it was Sony. I think that if Microsoft doesn't take their lumps now, then they will be the inferior ones down the line.

Theres still hope the PS4 version can look considerably better. Both next gen console versions running at 720p/60 doesnt necessarily mean they will look the same. 30fps on a powerful system looks different from 30fps on a weaker system. Perhaps the more powerful system has higher anti-aliasing settings, more particle effects, etc etc

4th quarter 2012, PS3 took the lead back from 350.

PS3 will outsell the 360 comfortably in the end, based on Microsoft dropping console support quickly in the past and the likelyhood they will do it again. Afterall the system pretty much has no big exclusives coming out for the rest of the year.

Oh, I'm sorry, the Xbox360 (and thereby the 7th generation of consoles) was ahead of PC tech, at the time it released. There, rephrased it.

Also, yes, the graph shows the PS3 to be ahead of the PS3. Unless the PS3 is actually weaker in terms of processing power than the 360, but I kinda doubt that. They've been pretty much evenly matched, with the PS3 having a slight edge. Either that, or the graph would have to be flawed. So, yeah, my point still stands, even though the PS3 did release after the 7800 - still before the 8800, though.

I think the whole issue about the PS4 not being as comparable to contemporary PCs as the PS3 was is overblown.

For starters, the PS4 will be much easier to develop for then the PS3, allowing more of its power to be tapped faster and more efficiently. We didnt see all that potential of the PS3 for years because it was difficult to work with. PS4 has 8GBs of GDDR5, which is superior to most PCs today. The PS3's 512mbs of total memory was decent, but nothing special at the time. Its going to be a while before a PC card under $500 gets 8GBs of GDDR5

Also, are we comparing the consoles to high end cards of the time, or enthusiast cards? If we're going to compare the PS4 to a GTX 680 or a Radeon 7970, then we'll have to compare the PS3 to a geForce 7950, and it gets blown away.

Finally, as Labounti said somewhere else PS4 will be multiple times more powerful then the PS3, and thats all that really matters. It will also likely be much more affordable then the PS3.

Looks like developers are happy with the PS4. Remember some were saying the PS3 should be 'recalled' or something similiar

An Epic Games exec has compared the PlayStation 4 to "a really perfect gaming PC," citing the console's combination of "phenomenal" hardware and convenient user experience.

Speaking to CVG in a recent interview, VP Mark Rein called Sony's decision to incorporate off-the-shelf PC components in PS4 "very smart," because in his opinion it will allow many developers to hit the ground running with their next-gen game development.

He also pointed to the memory limitations of the 32-bit versions of Windows as an example of how PS4 titles could even surpass what "most PCs" can do.

"I think it's a very smart move on Sony's behalf to build this sort of enhanced PC architecture and then put so much in it," he said.

"Let's not forget it has 16 times the memory we had in PlayStation 3 - that's not insignificant. Knowing that every machine has that... we can do crazy, ridiculous stuff with that."The other exciting thing is that... when you think about Windows, even Windows for most people is tied to about 2GB of addressable memory space. This really opens up beyond what most PCs can do, because most PCs are running a 32-bit version of Windows.

"It's like giving you the world's best PC," he added, pointing to Sony's introduction of "super convenient" features such as the ability to play games while they're downloading and perform background updates.

"The kind of stuff that they announced that they're doing, the level of convenience and things like that... they're making a really perfect gaming PC," he added.

"I've always said that the things in the next-generation that aren't just brute force hardware are all about the service and simplicity of the experience - the things that make it as fun and easy to get a PS4 game as it is to get a game on your iPad."

Commenting on Microsoft's next-gen console plans, Rein said he was confident the Xbox firm will also be doing something 'along the lines' of PS4

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/398813/ps4-is-like-a-really-perfect-gaming-pc-says-epic-vp/

 

[Eks]

PS4 = More powerful than PS3.

That's all I care about.

 

[CAM]

Has anything major surfaced since the Feb. 20th conference? I haven't kept up.

 

[Samus]

Has anything major surfaced since the Feb. 20th conference? I haven't kept up.

In a word, no. Few screenshots, few details about the controller and that's about it. They'll have a blowout of info and show the console at E3 in June I should imagine.

 

[CAM]

Good to know. Thanks Simon 👍.

 

[Luminis]

For starters, the PS4 will be much easier to develop for then the PS3, allowing more of its power to be tapped faster and more efficiently. We didnt see all that potential of the PS3 for years because it was difficult to work with.

Which also means that there will be less improvement over what we're seeing upon release. The PS3 took years to get into gear and we won't be seeing similar advancements during the generation itself.

PS4 has 8GBs of GDDR5, which is superior to most PCs today. The PS3's 512mbs of total memory was decent, but nothing special at the time. Its going to be a while before a PC card under $500 gets 8GBs of GDDR5

First off, what good are 8GB of GDDR5 VRAM when the GPU is too weak to comfortably make use of it? Second, PCs generally don't use a unified RAM system and sport so,ething like 2GB of GDDR5 VRAM and 8GB DDR3 RAM.

Also, are we comparing the consoles to high end cards of the time, or enthusiast cards? If we're going to compare the PS4 to a GTX 680 or a Radeon 7970, then we'll have to compare the PS3 to a geForce 7950, and it gets blown away.

Wrong, the 7950 is a dual GPU card. If you wanted to compare the PS3 to that, you'd have to use it's contemporary counterpart, the GTX 690. Geforce 7800 = GTX 680, Geforce 7950 = GTX 690. The PS3 was above the high-end cards and beneath the enthusiast card, the PS4 is below both.

Finally, as Labounti said somewhere else PS4 will be multiple times more powerful then the PS3, and thats all that really matters.

Your car is faster than a Prius. Are you driving a fast cars now?

It will also likely be much more affordable then the PS3.

Yeah, and coupled with not attempting a loss leading strategy makes it basically impossible to come up with anything as powerful, in comparison, as the previous generation of consoles. I can only repeat this, it's a sound business modell. If they're marketing the crap out of their respective console (which they will), Sony and MS are bound to make craploards of cash.

Then again, the same can be said about Call of Duty. Suprisingly enough, that's pretty much how I feel to the "next gen" consoles: They're Call-of-Duty-fied.

Looks like developers are happy with the PS4. Remember some were saying the PS3 should be 'recalled' or something similiar

Given the PS3's architecture, that's not suprising.

I don't quite get why he's rambling on about 32 bit Windows version - or why simplicity makes the PS4 a perfect gaming PC. The iPad, which is used as reference, isn't what I consider a good example of gaming. In fact, if that is where the gaming industry is headed, I'd like to opt out now. If Fruit Ninja is the kind of game that will be prevelant on next-gen consoles due to the "simplicity of the experience"... Well, that's all the more reason to just pass it up.

 

[sesselpupser]

PS4 has 8GBs of GDDR5, which is superior to most PCs today. The PS3's 512mbs of total memory was decent, but nothing special at the time. Its going to be a while before a PC card under $500 gets 8GBs of GDDR5

I have to disagree there. GDDR5 is being used because DDR3, which would be better suited to the APU, would bottleneck the GPU. As the RAM is unified it all has to be either GDDR5 or DDR3, but GDDR5 won't improve the performance of the APU (though it might help the APU's on-chip graphical capability, but it won't help the computational capability) because the APU is the bottleneck, DDR3 is not a bottleneck to current systems. When DDR4 compatible CPUs are released then yeah, DDR3 will bottleneck them, but so would GDDR5. So basically the PS4 GPU needs GDDR5 and would suffer without it, but the APU doesn't need it but doesn't suffer with it.

Also, as has been said before, that 8GB is split between the two processors but in a PC you have 8GB of DDR3 for the CPU in a modern gaming PC and 2-3GB GDDR5 for the GPU. We don't know how much of the 8GB unified memory will be allocated to the PS4's GPU but I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the region of 2GB, because 1080p with current high-end models and textures doesn't use much more than 1.5-1.8GB anyway, I've never seen any game max out my 680's 2GB anyway... Well, possibly DCS World has, but I haven't checked.

Finally, as Labounti said somewhere else PS4 will be multiple times more powerful then the PS3, and thats all that really matters. It will also likely be much more affordable then the PS3.

I think we can all agree on that point, which is why I'm going to stop posting PS4 vs. PC comparisons here.

 

[cuco33]

Dat 8gb gddr5...

My GTX 670 uses 2gb ddr5, and there are models with 4gb ddr5. The Titan is 6gb ddr5. No doubt the PS4 having 8gb ddr5 is a big positive but it isn't the only thing. Processor power is another big one. I'm sure we'll be happy regardless but tech demos are just tech demos. Let's wait until we have full fledged games in our hands.

I still think PC will trump both PS4 and X720 graphically.

 

[Jump_Ace]

I haven't worked extensively on some of these GPU/APU units. I'm assuming that 8GB of GDDR5 is also being shared as system memory too?


Jerome

 

[dice1998]

I haven't worked extensively on some of these GPU/APU units. I'm assuming that 8GB of GDDR5 is also being shared as system memory too?


Jerome

Yeah, the GDDR5 is Unified System Memory.