99% of third party games didn't even use proper bitrate videos on PS3, when they had tons of extra space. Just plop the ones they encoded for 360 and call it a day.
DF: Xbone Specs/Tech Analysis: GPU 33% less powerful than PS4
- Thread starter pelican
- Start date
99% of third party games didn't even use proper bitrate videos on PS3, when they had tons of extra space. Just plop the ones they encoded for 360 and call it a day.
Oh, sorry, I just thought you meant technologically.
Personally, I'm firmly on the side of symmetrical sticks, as our hands are also symmetrical.
You've forgotten to add K (Kinect) to the equation. Clearly that will add at least 71 percent more power. Trust me, I teach math.
Assuming it's exactly 1/3rd then we can measure this entire generation in terms of wiiU's.
WiiU= 1 wiiU
Xbox One = 2 wiiU's
PS4 = 3 wiiU's
According to this logic a PS4 = an ambulance..lol
Stoffinator
Member
Maybe that is why Fifa was shown?
Well (and this is assuming it's actually true), MS were actually in a position to enforce that this/last gen.
toastyToast
Member
I'm wondering with the more common architecture can't devs just slap on some more AA on the PS4 versions of games and call it a day?
Good on Sony for pushing the bar with their console. It's interesting because Microsoft could have had a huge upper hand with their pricing, even with a weaker console, instead they decided to increase their own cost by demanding Kinect to be included.
Not only that but now more than ever I really think the value of XBL and PSN is going to start showing. It's a new gen with both consoles not being backwards compatible, what's tying anyone down to XBL anymore? I've read from a lot of people it was their XBLA and downloadable content. No one wanted to start over. Now nothing is stopping them and their friends from getting free online play.
I'm not counting the Xbox One out, and the 360 was by far my favorite console this gen. I've even been paying for Xbox Live since it came out, and even while having a good gaming PC with Steam, I've never once felt ripped off by it. Now the only thing keeping me tied to the console is where my friends decide to go.
It'll be interesting to see which company's direction pulls through. I think Microsoft went wrong. To me it seems like they put gaming in the back seat. It's an all in one solution, but you still need every single box you have anyways. Sony seems to be pushing towards gaming first, while still having all those nice multimedia apps on it.
Who knows maybe they'll both only stagger along like the WiiU. I don't see it though, gamers have been thirsty for a new machine, and from everything I've heard, Sony seems primed for a big run. As for me, unless the Xbox One wows me in E3, I'll be watching until the dust settles with my trusty PC.
Not only that but now more than ever I really think the value of XBL and PSN is going to start showing. It's a new gen with both consoles not being backwards compatible, what's tying anyone down to XBL anymore? I've read from a lot of people it was their XBLA and downloadable content. No one wanted to start over. Now nothing is stopping them and their friends from getting free online play.
I'm not counting the Xbox One out, and the 360 was by far my favorite console this gen. I've even been paying for Xbox Live since it came out, and even while having a good gaming PC with Steam, I've never once felt ripped off by it. Now the only thing keeping me tied to the console is where my friends decide to go.
It'll be interesting to see which company's direction pulls through. I think Microsoft went wrong. To me it seems like they put gaming in the back seat. It's an all in one solution, but you still need every single box you have anyways. Sony seems to be pushing towards gaming first, while still having all those nice multimedia apps on it.
Who knows maybe they'll both only stagger along like the WiiU. I don't see it though, gamers have been thirsty for a new machine, and from everything I've heard, Sony seems primed for a big run. As for me, unless the Xbox One wows me in E3, I'll be watching until the dust settles with my trusty PC.
Nirvana
Member
I'm getting really sick of companies assuming I want all of my shit in one place, it's bad enough with smart phones trying to cram everything into one piece of tech and sacrificing the actual phone calls.
At the end of the day, if I buy an Xbox, I'm going to use it to play games on, because that's what I assume a console is for. I don't want a system doing a sub-par job of what my PC, TV and phone can do, while also managing to sacrifice the one thing it is supposed to be good at; running games.
Stop clusterfucking our systems with unnecessary vagaries and just put as much energy as possible into facilitating your customers with the highest quality games you can and people will buy it.
We don't want gimmicks and we don't want a jack of all trades and a master of none, a namesake Microsoft is obviously after with the X Bone.
Also, I'm calling it the X Bone from now on, like it evolved from Marowak or some shit.
At the end of the day, if I buy an Xbox, I'm going to use it to play games on, because that's what I assume a console is for. I don't want a system doing a sub-par job of what my PC, TV and phone can do, while also managing to sacrifice the one thing it is supposed to be good at; running games.
Stop clusterfucking our systems with unnecessary vagaries and just put as much energy as possible into facilitating your customers with the highest quality games you can and people will buy it.
We don't want gimmicks and we don't want a jack of all trades and a master of none, a namesake Microsoft is obviously after with the X Bone.
Also, I'm calling it the X Bone from now on, like it evolved from Marowak or some shit.
Like it did last gen? Good deduction there bro.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
If anything now that the console are so similar the games will be identical.
http://www.shacknews.com/article/77584/dead-space-3s-pc-port-defended-by-its-executive-producer
Expect this to be the mantra for 99% of third parties
Beermeister
Banned
You can beat 100%.
PS4 150% confirmed.
PS4 150% confirmed.
Has anyone attempted to show how much the spec of the Xbox One could have been improved if Microsoft had removed the cost of the Kinect 2.0 itself? I'm curious in the end how much sacrifice was made to accommodate that. If Kinect wasn't there could they have gone the GDDR5 route or had a better GPU?
Loading.
Except common sense dictated that Cell would be no cakewalk to code for. Neither console was, but MS had the benefit of better developer tools than Sony. It appears MS and Sony's design decisions have effectively negated that difference this gen.
It was MS's to lose. Unless they recalibrate (which they won't), they're toast this gen IMO. Sony is a struggling CE company. Samsung is cleaning their clock in the CE space. With stouter hardware, MS could've driven a stake into their heart...But, such is not the case. They just gave the PS4 bragging rights. Casuals obviously matter, but core gamers are what drives enthusiam for a platform IMO.
It was MS's to lose. Unless they recalibrate (which they won't), they're toast this gen IMO. Sony is a struggling CE company. Samsung is cleaning their clock in the CE space. With stouter hardware, MS could've driven a stake into their heart...But, such is not the case. They just gave the PS4 bragging rights. Casuals obviously matter, but core gamers are what drives enthusiam for a platform IMO.
You do know its on ps4 and pc too right?.
electricpirate
Member
While the power difference is pretty major on paper, I doubt it's going to have much of an effect in the overall look of games. We've hit such a point of diminishing returns, and we are so constrained by the amount of money thrown at a game, that 50% more power in the GPU is unlikely to have a massive effect on how the games look. I mean, this isn't a generational leap between the two systems.
I'd be more worried about all the extra complexity in the Xbone. How much are devs going to have to finagle with those helpers, and moving things in and out of ESRAM? Is that going to be a major issues (Legitmately, I don't know here) or will they have to rely on higher level libraries to help?
Similarly, the service/featureset of the XBONE looks like a MASSIVE clusterfuck. If the XBone fails, it won't be because of 33% fewer compute units, or lower badwidth RAM.
I'd be more worried about all the extra complexity in the Xbone. How much are devs going to have to finagle with those helpers, and moving things in and out of ESRAM? Is that going to be a major issues (Legitmately, I don't know here) or will they have to rely on higher level libraries to help?
Similarly, the service/featureset of the XBONE looks like a MASSIVE clusterfuck. If the XBone fails, it won't be because of 33% fewer compute units, or lower badwidth RAM.
Dont be silly man, you think they are going to just leave this extra power on the table. Just to make xbox user feel better?.
Xplatformer
Member
Then why not, as an example, simply set the bar with the 360 visually then?
Read the article. This has nothing to do with Kinect. It's because they were creating a multi-media box and targetted 8GB RAM. They didn't think there was anyway that would be possible with DDR5. So they had to go with slower RAM and that meant they allocated a bunch of the die to ESRAM and data move engines instead. Since Sony and MS are both targetting around 100 watts for their budget (and smartly so), this is where the discrepancy came from. MS bet they'd be quite a bit slower, but would have a 8GB vs 2GB RAM edge. This gamble failed when larger DDR5 modules became available to Sony.
I'm not interested in what Microsoft thought, what I'm interested in is if you were to calculate the cost of each Xbox One based on its component parts and then minus out the cost of the new Kinect how much of a difference does that leave over. Once that figure is known how much could the other specs have been improved. If say each GPU cost 100 dollars and the budget left over from the Kinect was 150 does that mean then they could have gone with a GPU at 250 instead?
Angelus Errare
Banned
Every time a gamer says DDR5 God blood sacrifices 72 kittens.
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
Gies is a fraud.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
That article was about Visceral not taking advantage of the extra power that pc provides to make sure DS3 was the same across all platforms so yes they will leave the extra power on the table. If PS4 blows away the X1 in sales, You will see them take more advantage as the stronger platform in the dominate one. Otherwise expect parity.
Interfectum
Member
Fixed.
moniker
Member
You could still play DS3 in higher resolution, with better frame rate and better IQ on PC, could you not?
Right but what about primarily Japanese developers? It seems the Xbox One is aimed at an American audience given its functionality and heavy focus on cable tv integration. Seems like Japan and Europe are being left in the cold. Would that not mean then that PS4 can expect heavier sales in both Europe and Japan thereby making it more attractive to take advantage of a higher powered system rather than seek parity in a lopsided market? I can easily foresee many Japanese and even European game devs developing exclusively on the PS4 since the market will more than likely be heavily slanted towards it.
50% more powerful GPU coupled with a better and faster memory system is not something that won't have an impact especially considering that both consoles are based on the same architecture. This is not something theoretical that is up to developers to use if they're able to harness it, it's concrete as when you have a PC and you decide to upgrade your card and memory bandwidth. You'll immediatly get better performance.
On PS4 you'll get higher frame rates by default, which can be used by developers to increase resolution, improve IQ or simply add more effects.
Of course it won't change the game night and day, but it's enough to ensure that most multiplatform games will run better on PS4.
Then it's on to the exclusives to make the hardware really shine.
You're forgetting about the powerhouse that is the Ouya.
Xplatformer
Member
There was a shit ton of multiplat parity this generation. It didn't stop most developers from making 360 games look and run better because it was easier to do so.
Why shouldn't that trend continue?
That's 22 more kittens than when someone says DDR3.
DS3 looked better on pc by some margin, they will take advantage of the power they will now have pc and ps4 to use the power of, they wont gimp two versions of the game to match xbone.
infinityBCRT
Member
I think the memory bandwidth stuff isn't as big of an issue as the raw compute power being more on the PS4. Disappointing if MS didn't try to make some changes to make it less of a difference.
But I guess it also depends on developers. If they all target the One as the baseline, there might not be a huge difference visually between the two systems, at least for the first few years.
edit (pure uneducated speculation): really doubt the 60 to 30 difference. well, I guess it depends on how they develop. For example, if they target 30 FPS on the One, I could see the PS4 getting more performance, lets say like 45 FPS. But the devs might just lock it for 30 FPS max for both platforms because they don't want to see big swings in performance on the PS4, or they haven't developed it with a higher FPS in mind (I remember reading a Force Unleashed II dev diary which mentioned that targeting 60FPS does lead to a bigger budget being spent on animation).
Whereas, if they target 60 FPS on the PS4, then I could see a situation where the One just can't hold up and they'll have to make visual sacrifices (which is probably more likely), live with the swings in performance on the One, or lock it at 30.
But I guess it also depends on developers. If they all target the One as the baseline, there might not be a huge difference visually between the two systems, at least for the first few years.
edit (pure uneducated speculation): really doubt the 60 to 30 difference. well, I guess it depends on how they develop. For example, if they target 30 FPS on the One, I could see the PS4 getting more performance, lets say like 45 FPS. But the devs might just lock it for 30 FPS max for both platforms because they don't want to see big swings in performance on the PS4, or they haven't developed it with a higher FPS in mind (I remember reading a Force Unleashed II dev diary which mentioned that targeting 60FPS does lead to a bigger budget being spent on animation).
Whereas, if they target 60 FPS on the PS4, then I could see a situation where the One just can't hold up and they'll have to make visual sacrifices (which is probably more likely), live with the swings in performance on the One, or lock it at 30.
The people who come up with interesting game ideas don't even sit in the same room as the people working on a new engine - I know what you're saying, but the game industry isn't really growing that way. It's not a zero sum game.
The only way something like that could happen is if both consoles have V-sync on and PS4 averages 60fps while XBO averages 40 or so, with the sync locking at 30 to avoid tearing.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
The trend shouldn't continue because the cpus are identical, they have the same GCN architecture on both gpus, and they have 8 gigs of unified memory(no more split ram troubles). Unless MS or Sony royally screw up on the dev tools or one console looks washed out because a dev didn't bother to change the color calibration for one of the systems they should run exactly the same.
I fully expect multiplatform titles to take advantage of the extra power: We've had plenty of superior Xbox ports during the Playstation 2s reign, and that was with a much smaller power differential and for a console with a comparatively miniscule market share. They may not use the 50% increase to its fullest extent, but it will allow for some breathing room in terms of image quality or resolution.
360 and PS3 are very similar, but even that tiny edge the 360 often has (less so in recent times) still leads to situation where the perceived performance difference is massive (think of the difference with Black Ops 2 PS3 vs. Xbox 360 alone, for example - or even Far Cry 3)
Xplatformer
Member
There isn't a huge difference between 360 and PS3 multiplats, but it's still a slight advantage that comes up a LOT.
It's a feather in the 360s cap.
It's about to be a PS4 feather.
Nope, it will more be like 1080p to 720p and some IQ/LoD changes + maybe some effects with lower precision etc.
But it's relevant. They wanted 8GB of RAM to fullfill their multi-media vision. They assumed the DDR5 modules were going to be much less dense at launch. So unless they wanted to ring the motherboard with an absurd amount of RAM nodules, they had to go with DDR3. This was a practical decision they made to be able to have 8GB of RAM and have lots of overhead for the OS and multimedia.
That dictated everything. That required them using a bunch of die space to compensate (Of which there is a finite practical limit. Sony and MS are equal in this area. Sony just doesn't have to waste any of it). This isn't about Kinect at all. It's about a huge tactical error that Sony exploited/lucked into big time.
If the real-world difference is actually this big: 720p to 1080p is a massive difference, and should be pretty equal to 30 vs. 60 FPS in terms of processing requirements.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
It sucks that the PS4 is going to be weighed down by the X1 all this gen.
Similar threads
- Locked