Will an Android gaming console be cheaper than Xbox One and PS4?
Yes. But that is like thinking that discovering a 5lb chunk of iron costs less then 5lb chunk 24k of gold is also newsworthy.
And yet, that notion is more or less an actual headline I've seen repeated about 20x when I search out recent Xbox One articles. Out of sheer curiosity I decided to compare the GPU processing power between a modern console and a modern Android cell phone. Because honestly, at best this thing will run top of the line Android hardware (because there will be no Android games built expecting anything more powerful than that).
Now, the Tegra 3 may not be the most powerful processor on the market for Android phones any longer. But I think it is definitely fair to call it the current standard/mainstream... and I think that is actually being quite generous. But in case you think I'm intentionally weighing this in favor of the consoles here is another article with some performance metrics for a theoretically maxed spec'd Tegra 4 processor. And honestly, real world devices never max out the specs on these things.
So, what does all of that mean? Well, between the first 2 sets of candidates we have fill rates. Fill rate basically determines how complex a rendered scene can be. Resolution doesn't usually affect performance of things related to fill rate, so I like this metric better than some others. Here, the Nexus 7 with the Tegra 3 clocks in at (rounded up) 468 Mega Texels/s or 468 million texels per second. The lesser of the two consoles on this point is the Xbox One with 12.8 Giga Texels/s. Which is 12 BILLION texels per second. That is TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE! And the PS4 is even higher than that. In terms of graphical resource saturation and complexity, for an Android based console to deliver the same performance dollar for dollar it would need to be 100x cheaper than the Xbox One. Or $5. THAT is what people SHOULD expect an Android gaming console to cost if based on that tech. I think we all know it won't give you the same value for the dollar spent. But that is a good reason to expect it would cost less.
So, how did the Tegra 4 stand up? Well, we don't have the fill rate, but we do have the raw processing power of the GPU in terms of floating point operations per second (FLOPS). The Tegra 4 clocks in 74.8 gigaflops. Which is 74.8 billion floating point ops per second. Sounds good right? Well, it isn't bad, but the Xbox One, again the weaker of the two, delivers 1.23 teraflops or 1.23 trillion floating ops per second. So, even with this newer beefier chip maxed out the raw processing power is still 2 orders of magnitude worse.
So, even another generation newer on a different metric we arrive at a GPU that to deliver the same performance value per dollar spent would need to cost $5 or less.
And honestly, it is like this across the board. Mobile processors are geared for low profile, low heat and low power consumption. Consoles don't mind raping your electricity, pumping out loads of hot air and being the size of a VCR. So, unsurprisingly, the hardware crammed into consoles naturally devastates the hardware in phones and tablets.
I admitted in a prior article that there is likely no technical reason why they couldn't opt for "console grade" hardware. But, in that same argument I also mentioned that it would be a waste up front for the simple reason that independent development studios don't care about hardware beyond which specs they need to accommodate to reach the best balance of performance and user base.
I read that Amazon may be pumping loads of money to get premium titles which might mean some actual launch games that make use of the extra power. But that, I think will drive an even bigger nail in the coffin. A premium game title requires a lot more funding than a traditional mobile app, and developers need to charge appreciably more money than a traditional app costs to fund that development. But, when people see a $59.99 game on the Google Play store they are going to shit their pants. And when a 1st party funded launch game can't break even it is going to drive every other studio away.
And yet, that notion is more or less an actual headline I've seen repeated about 20x when I search out recent Xbox One articles. Out of sheer curiosity I decided to compare the GPU processing power between a modern console and a modern Android cell phone. Because honestly, at best this thing will run top of the line Android hardware (because there will be no Android games built expecting anything more powerful than that).
Now, the Tegra 3 may not be the most powerful processor on the market for Android phones any longer. But I think it is definitely fair to call it the current standard/mainstream... and I think that is actually being quite generous. But in case you think I'm intentionally weighing this in favor of the consoles here is another article with some performance metrics for a theoretically maxed spec'd Tegra 4 processor. And honestly, real world devices never max out the specs on these things.
So, what does all of that mean? Well, between the first 2 sets of candidates we have fill rates. Fill rate basically determines how complex a rendered scene can be. Resolution doesn't usually affect performance of things related to fill rate, so I like this metric better than some others. Here, the Nexus 7 with the Tegra 3 clocks in at (rounded up) 468 Mega Texels/s or 468 million texels per second. The lesser of the two consoles on this point is the Xbox One with 12.8 Giga Texels/s. Which is 12 BILLION texels per second. That is TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE! And the PS4 is even higher than that. In terms of graphical resource saturation and complexity, for an Android based console to deliver the same performance dollar for dollar it would need to be 100x cheaper than the Xbox One. Or $5. THAT is what people SHOULD expect an Android gaming console to cost if based on that tech. I think we all know it won't give you the same value for the dollar spent. But that is a good reason to expect it would cost less.
So, how did the Tegra 4 stand up? Well, we don't have the fill rate, but we do have the raw processing power of the GPU in terms of floating point operations per second (FLOPS). The Tegra 4 clocks in 74.8 gigaflops. Which is 74.8 billion floating point ops per second. Sounds good right? Well, it isn't bad, but the Xbox One, again the weaker of the two, delivers 1.23 teraflops or 1.23 trillion floating ops per second. So, even with this newer beefier chip maxed out the raw processing power is still 2 orders of magnitude worse.
So, even another generation newer on a different metric we arrive at a GPU that to deliver the same performance value per dollar spent would need to cost $5 or less.
And honestly, it is like this across the board. Mobile processors are geared for low profile, low heat and low power consumption. Consoles don't mind raping your electricity, pumping out loads of hot air and being the size of a VCR. So, unsurprisingly, the hardware crammed into consoles naturally devastates the hardware in phones and tablets.
I admitted in a prior article that there is likely no technical reason why they couldn't opt for "console grade" hardware. But, in that same argument I also mentioned that it would be a waste up front for the simple reason that independent development studios don't care about hardware beyond which specs they need to accommodate to reach the best balance of performance and user base.
I read that Amazon may be pumping loads of money to get premium titles which might mean some actual launch games that make use of the extra power. But that, I think will drive an even bigger nail in the coffin. A premium game title requires a lot more funding than a traditional mobile app, and developers need to charge appreciably more money than a traditional app costs to fund that development. But, when people see a $59.99 game on the Google Play store they are going to shit their pants. And when a 1st party funded launch game can't break even it is going to drive every other studio away.
Comments
Post a Comment