I quoted what the source says ("50%"), instead of stating an arbitrary figure that isn't part of the article. Thats my issue.
The DF article specifically says:
Still don't know where 33% number is coming from. Please link me to the corresponding tech analysis that has a different figure than this one.
I quoted what the source says ("50%"), instead of stating an arbitrary figure that isn't part of the article. Thats my issue.
The DF article specifically says:
Still don't know where 33% number is coming from. Please link me to the corresponding tech analysis that has a different figure than this one.
Even if Sony lost and reserved 1 GB of RAM for the OS. I would still think the PS4 would be a more appealing machine. I have no idea what MS is thinking.What an epic gamble that was.
Framerate and Image quality is important for gameplay.Gameplay > marginal difference in graphics.
Man, the 26 people who will be able to afford a ps4 at launch will sure be lording it over the XBox fans
Jokes aside, what do we reckon the price difference will be, if any, between the two?
Would you rather have:
- Excessive powah for more £/$
- Less powah for less £/$?
Bearing in mind the actual practical difference between the the projected TFLOPpage?
Calm down dude. I can also make a new thread with this if that fits better in your opinion.
Gameplay > marginal difference in graphics.
I think people are overestimating the difference we'll see in the end products though.
This isn't going to create games that are light years different. It's like comparing a 660 Ti to a 670. The differences tech wise look/sound much better, but in the end are marginal...maybe a slight AA bump and small frame-rate advantage.
Gameplay > marginal difference in graphics.
More fun, click link belowI can't believe the 50% / 33% discussion is still a thing. It's hilariously sad.
I can!I can't believe this post :lol
Gameplay > marginal difference in graphics.
Since when has 33% been marginal?!
I quoted what the source says ("50%"), instead of stating an arbitrary figure that isn't part of the article. Thats my issue.
The DF article specifically says:
Still don't know where 33% number is coming from. Please link me to the corresponding tech analysis that has a different figure than this one.
What do we know? The article says the silicon budgets are similar, which means the prices should be similar. The PS4 has GDDR5 which is more expensive, as well as an additional chip for video streaming/encoding. The XBOne has Kinect. These latter components are what is going to influence the price difference. My guess? The prices will be similar.
The secret sauce?
I agree, but then MS would've had the talking point of having "twice as much RAM", and you know the mainstream press eats that shit up.Even if Sony lost and reserved 1 GB of RAM for the OS. I would still think the PS4 would be a more appealing machine. I have no idea what MS is thinking.
Since when has 33% been marginal?!
Since when has 33% been marginal?!
This is sort of like saying "I'd like one reason why a 'core' gamer would even consider a PS3 over an Xbox 360" the day after the PS3's E3 2006 conference.
I don't think that correlates to 33% more fun.
Combined with the 2GB of RAM, it seems there's a Wii U of difference between the PS4 and the Xbone.
Combined with the 2GB of RAM, it seems there's a Wii U of difference between the PS4 and the Xbone.
I don't think that correlates to 33% more fun.
OrPS4: 1.84TF
XO: 1.23TF
1.84 is 50% greater than 1.23
1.23 is 33% less than 1.84
Basically... math.
Let's put the beating in % form.
wat
Man, i just saw, and understand:
If DF is specifically saying that, then i'm going with that instead of doing math.
edit: title has been modded. Fine, whatever lets you sleep at night.
Ah, i just got it!
Its the "50% less powerful" bit i mis-quoted, when i should have copy&pasted the article's "50 per cent more raw power" quote. I see now.
Sorry all, mis-wording on my part. Carry on.
Heh, poignant.Combined with the 2GB of RAM, it seems there's a Wii U of difference between the PS4 and the Xbone.
Combined with the 2GB of RAM, it seems there's a Wii U of difference between the PS4 and the Xbone.
I don't think that correlates to 33% more fun.
Snapping over to sports/Skype > gameplay/graphics.Gameplay > marginal difference in graphics.
People who think 1/3 is not significant please look at this chart
That's significant.
Look, it's not hard.
It's PS4-X1, or 4-1. You get 3. That's one third. Put two together and you get 33%.
Math.
That's right, it's a logarithmic curve.I don't think that correlates to 33% more fun.
Re. the thread title:
PS4's GPU is 50% more powerful than Xbox's.
Xbox's GPU is 33% less powerful than PS4's.
With the law of diminishing returns, the Xbox One doesn't have to be as powerful. Developers code for the lowest common denominator up. Where was Cell's amazing power advantage for PS3? Nowhere to be seen in apart from Naughty Dog's games. If MS use their cash on exclusives to lock out PS4 and launch at a decent undercut in price, say £50 / $100 cheaper, bye bye PS4.
Sony's internal studios will produce some amazing stuff. Third parties will be held back by the architecture of the XBone, and games will suffer as a result.
How is this good news?
Sony's internal studios will produce some amazing stuff. Third parties will be held back by the architecture of the XBone, and games will suffer as a result.
How is this good news?