I was banned for complaining about people complaining about deep down. Not for this thread
EDGE: "Power struggle: the real differences between PS4 and Xbox One performance"
- Thread starter Musiol
- Start date
I was banned for complaining about people complaining about deep down. Not for this thread
Report your complaints directly to mods. Don't clog up threats with complaints if it derails the thread.
SwiftDeath
Member
Madden 08' says hi
He just clarified that he wasn't banned for what people here thought
Not for being banned in the first place
It's not really derailing anything
Nobody said RSX was hard to work with. Actually I think they mostly complimented Sony's decision to use a powerful off the shelf PC part that they had experience with. They were critical of Sony's choice to use Cell instead of a straightforward CPU.
Did nobody buy a PS2?
gaming_noob
Member
Weird. Being a junior member means first ban = perm ban...and yet you're back.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Can we let this fallacy die already? Is the PS4 launching 18 months after the Xbox One? No? Then this is a terrible argument. The console war was already decided by the time the OG Xbox launched. PS2 had all the mind share, exclusives, and a huge library of games. No one else could compete.
Chobel
Member
So you weren't perma banned even though you were a junior?
SwiftDeath
Member
Plus the xbox brand had no history behind it while the PS2 came after the PS1 which was rather well received I thought?
gundamkyoukai
Member
The PS1 is what really help gaming turn main stream .
It was also the best selling console compare to consoles of the past by a fair amount .
It's not a fallacy. The Xbox One will live or die based on its ecosystem, games, and messaging.
The XBox one has a lot of problems, but this power gap that the internet won't shut the fuck up about isn't really one of them. The DS annihilated the PSP. the 3DS is annihilating the Vita. Power gaps mean very little in the console game. Much larger gaps than we're going to see here have been rendered moot by messaging, mindshare and content.
When the Xbox One flops (and I suspect it will), it will be because they fucked up in their business model and messaging, not a power gap that only matters to about 0.1% of the gaming populace. A small percentage that happens to include me, for what it's worth, but the people who genuinely buy the better version of multiplats and don't just boast on the internet when their "team" has a perceived power advantage is a tiny, tiny, portion of the game-buying public. A portion that has about as much sway in the console war as hardcore turn-based strategy fans.
There are circumstances where a mod can ban a Junior member for a set amount of time and let them come back depending on the situation.
He is a full member with over a thousand posts and has been here for over three months.
The guy has over 1K posts... He's obviously a member who has his thread posting privileges revoked and not a true "junior"
gioGAF
Member
The power gap is more relevant this time:
DS $150 vs. PSP $250
3DS $200 vs Vita $300
Xbone $500 vs PS4 $400
This would mark the first time the more powerful system is actually CHEAPER.
SwiftDeath
Member
The comparison is a fallacy as there are too many variables to account for
That being said the power arguement only matters to hardcore fans for sure
Price matters to everyone of course
I strongly agree if/when the XB1 flops (or does poorly) if will be due to the terrible messaging and price point
The power gap is part of the messaging. The power gap will ensure that most of the highest ARPU hardcore will buy multiplatforms on the PS4, this will absolutely gut the Bone's attach rate and crater the potential revenue of the platform. Microsoft can buy as many exclusives as it wants (they won't since they want to make a good margin) but that will pale in comparison with the number of multiplatform titles.
Sony learnt hard the lessons of the network effect on the market from the enthusiast eventually filtering out to the mainstream. This is why the console is so enthusiast focused in the first place.
It was something minor.
I didnt know that, i only got 1 week, maybe because it something really minor?
That's true, but many complained about how much RSX sucked in comparison to "modern" GPUs like Xenos. That it turn made it hard to work with since the bar was raised from what high end PCs circa 2005 were delivering.
As for Cell, straightforward or not there weren't any suitable alternatives at the time, especially none that could have overcome the GPU disparity like Cell did.
You need 3 months and a something amount of posts to become member:
My Join Date: 08-06-2013
Glorified G
Member
Then why did Larry Hyrb and Albert Penello sign up on GAF leading up to launch to spin their console on such a small gaming populace? Fact is a $500 console, especially early on in a lifecycle appeals to a certain audience. An audience that would be a little more educated on what is these machines and have certain priorities that is different than the mass audience.
And your PSP-DS comparison is almost as dumb as your "Did nobody buy a PS2?" argument. DS, just like the PS2 was coming off a console dominating majority of the market, and just like PSP and the OG Xbox, both were new entries into each console/handheld space with no prior userbase. PS2 and DS were going to annihilate the completion regardless.
It's not necessarily about being more powerful, but things like that become known to casuals, they'll here rumors that their cousin Skeff or that bloke Brashnir that their mom works with said it so it must be true. Considering this it would not matter if it is not the most powerful console, only that it shows these people if you pay less, your not getting a sub par system.
It's less to do with being stronger and more to do with not being weaker.
The DS to PSP, or 3DS to Vita, or even PS2 to Xbox aren't relevant comparisons, because they had largely divergent libraries.
PS4 and XBO will have almost the same software, performance still isn't that big of a deal, price is a bigger one, but it's more meaningful now than ever.
PS4 and XBO will have almost the same software, performance still isn't that big of a deal, price is a bigger one, but it's more meaningful now than ever.
I have one question. Can someone tell me the what is the difference between 900p with 2 MSAA and with some graphics details and 1080p with no AA and minor details? Let's say how is the difference in Battlefield 3 and Crysis 3. If someone put screenshots from BF3 or Crysis 3 with 900p and 1080p comparison and some graphics details i mentioned before, i will be greatful.
bigboss370
Member
I can't make threads (*cries) but thought I would post here:
PS4′s second screen functionality trounces Xbox One’s SmartGlass
most interesting part to me:
PS4′s second screen functionality trounces Xbox One’s SmartGlass
most interesting part to me:
I really don't get this point of view. Of course there are many factors that will decide the fate of a console, but to dismiss the power of the console as being one of them seems odd to me. I mean, it is right that a console may have other selling points that in the end make its power disadvantage irrelevant, but it seems way too early to make that judgment.
The market isn't really that clear cut. People may be convinced to buy a product for different reasons. Some people might buy an Xbox One simply because they bought a 360 and liked the features and games for that console. There may be others, however, that are undecided and want a clear picture of the features of each console before making a decision. As each console is very similar in terms of features, the choice may boil down to the specs of the console. It's a selling point, plain and simple. It always has been. When the PS2 was first revealed, they went to great lengths to showcase the console's power -- even to the point of exaggerating what the console could do.
It may not be the sole reason for a console's success -- if they fuck up in other areas it may be costly -- but it could certainly end up being a contributing factor.
SwiftDeath
Member
MS to develop Xbox Handheld confirmed
Some one made a thread for it. Thanks
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=84795097&posted=1#post84795097
The difference is that Vita and 3DS do not share 95% of their library like Xbone and PS4.
Well, he is equating the handheld console space, with the home console space. What people are looking for in a handheld might not be the same as what they are looking for in a home console though. The PSP and Vita are very much marketed as a home console experience that you can play on the go. Maybe that isn't what a lot of gamers that buy handhelds are looking for.
It's interesting that we tended to compare the 360 with the PS3, as they were both 'hardcore' gaming machines. Microsoft and Sony were both going after the same market, where as Nintendo were looking for a new one. Of course Nintendo had a console that was, in terms of specs, much weaker than the other two, but it had mass market appeal. They achieved this with a combination of a lower price point, and the gimmick of motion controls. Now though, the mass market has moved on, and Nintendo have found themselves directly fighting against the other two for the same market. Now all of a sudden power matters again.
While the price of the next-gen consoles are high, not only the games, but the features of those consoles will matter that little bit more. They are going after a market that is interested in getting a 'hardcore' gaming machine. It doesn't necessarily mean that the PS4 will ultimately come out on top, but they know that having the best console on the market both in power and value may help them in achieving their goal.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
It really is underestimating Joe Punter.
Sword Of Doom
Member
See I don't know about that. Haven't seen actual gameplay from Quantum Break but am I the only person who doesn't find Ryse all that impressive?
Sword Of Doom
Member
It matters or else MS wouldn't be trying so hard to convince us that there is no gap. These aren't handhelds. Since i remember the 8-bit NES days we were all so excited as kids when we learned about 16-bit. We didn't know wtf 16-bit was but we knew that it made games look better and we wanted it. More people care about how games look than you think. So MS is really concerned about this power gap because how us early adopters feel will find itself into the mainstream and it will make the Xbone less attractive than it already is to the average consumer. In the end everything matters. It all adds up to a console that is either desirable or undesirable.
Edit: Sorry about double post
SwiftDeath
Member
Sword Of Doom
Member
Of course it does. That's why Sony goes out of their way to mention it every time they talk about anything. Even if it has nothing to do with the conversation they have to throw in the mandatory "the most powerful console ever" lol
Mr Moose
Member
I'm with you on this, it doesn't look good to me (or play good? I don't know about the latter, but that GIF with the "press A" was funny as hell).
Crimson_Gold
Member
Eye candy for sure. I worry about the gameplay.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Yeah the fighting looks weird. As if there are like 8 motions they "recorded" and it cuts between them. Not fluid at all
Beerman462
Member
Xbone fans hoping for forced equality, are pathetic. For one developers have never forced parity.
Bububut MS has all the money and would never let Sony have better specs and will buy every third party exclusive.
Sword Of Doom
Member
What kind of asshole would hope for gimped games on any console?
I'll never get those people, or those that wish for games to be bad. If a game winds up being bad then I won't wish it success but actively hoping it sucks in one way is a whole other matter. I like games, I want them all to be good.
Sylonious
Member
tthomas4155
Neo Member
I know it's somewhat silly since these console will be out in about a month or so but for those of us that enjoy the speculation, I think the PC performance of the BF4 beta may give some insight into the performance difference between the consoles. My reference article is the Tom's Hardware Graphic Card Comparison: Tom's Hardware Graphic Card Comparison.
A couple of things to keep in mind for the purposes of my comparison:
So will next gen versions be able to hit the 1080p/60fps mark? Well if this is anything to go by, we can see that the 7870 is pretty averaging 60fps with the high settings @ the full 1080p. Taking into account that this is a beta and the retail performance on the PC should be even better in addition to the fixed nature of the console allowing for better optimization, I think it reasonable to say that it is possible for the PS4 version to hit the 60fps mark at the full 1080p with at least High preset. However, the 7790 is only averaging just above 40fps. Furthermore, if you actually read the article on Tom's Hardware, you'll note that the framerate variance is particularly high on the 7790 at this setting indicating that the GPU isn't really "comfortable" (i.e. stable) with 41.5fps at those settings. Thus, to get the game to run on a 7790 @1080p/High preset, a console dev would likely opt to lock the fps at 30. There is very little chance of getting that card to run the game comfortably @ 60fps and 1080p with high presets.
So what would it take for the 7790 (Xbox One) to run the game @ 60fps? Clearly, either the resolution would need to be reduced and/or the setting dropped. Tom's Hardware noted that the medium preset did not offer much of a difference in performance from the High preset. So that may not help much in this case. But what about resolution?
Dropping the resolution to 1680x1050 and keeping the settings to High increased the 7790 performance by about 20% but it is still a long way from 60fps on average. So either the resolution would need to be dropped further to 720p or so while keeping the high settings or the settings would need to drop some. In other words, it's up to DICE to make the tradeoff: the graphics details vs. the resolution.
So what did we learn:
No this is not the bible and it is not fact. I'm making educated guesses based on real world data that may be completely different for the retail console versions. This is all in fun, but I think that the deduction is reasonable and matches what we have been hearing from devs and "insiders" over the past few months all along. We'll find out soon enough
A couple of things to keep in mind for the purposes of my comparison:
- The PS4 GPU is assumed to be roughly equal to the 7870 GPU
- The Xbox One GPU is assumed to be roughly equal to the 7790 GPU ( The difference in ROPS and CUs between these PC cards are the same as the delta in the consoles)
- According to DICE 60fps is the target for the game and resolution/settings are the variables
So will next gen versions be able to hit the 1080p/60fps mark? Well if this is anything to go by, we can see that the 7870 is pretty averaging 60fps with the high settings @ the full 1080p. Taking into account that this is a beta and the retail performance on the PC should be even better in addition to the fixed nature of the console allowing for better optimization, I think it reasonable to say that it is possible for the PS4 version to hit the 60fps mark at the full 1080p with at least High preset. However, the 7790 is only averaging just above 40fps. Furthermore, if you actually read the article on Tom's Hardware, you'll note that the framerate variance is particularly high on the 7790 at this setting indicating that the GPU isn't really "comfortable" (i.e. stable) with 41.5fps at those settings. Thus, to get the game to run on a 7790 @1080p/High preset, a console dev would likely opt to lock the fps at 30. There is very little chance of getting that card to run the game comfortably @ 60fps and 1080p with high presets.
So what would it take for the 7790 (Xbox One) to run the game @ 60fps? Clearly, either the resolution would need to be reduced and/or the setting dropped. Tom's Hardware noted that the medium preset did not offer much of a difference in performance from the High preset. So that may not help much in this case. But what about resolution?
Dropping the resolution to 1680x1050 and keeping the settings to High increased the 7790 performance by about 20% but it is still a long way from 60fps on average. So either the resolution would need to be dropped further to 720p or so while keeping the high settings or the settings would need to drop some. In other words, it's up to DICE to make the tradeoff: the graphics details vs. the resolution.
So what did we learn:
- BF4 (Beta) is a real world example showing that the 50% increase in shader units and 2x the number of ROPS can actually look like a 50% difference in fps. The 7870's perf @ 1080p/High is over 40% higher than the 7790 (58.7 vs 41.5)
- The PS4 GPU is likely capable of running BF4 @ native 1080p/60fps with the graphics set to at least high
- The Xbox One's GPU is likely NOT capable of running at native 1080p/60fps with the High preset.
- It is reasonable to expect that the resolution and graphical detail will be negatively effected on the Xbox One to achieve the desired 60fps. Expect a 720p/60fps with the same settings as PS4 or something in between 720p and 1080p with noticeably reduced graphics quality.
No this is not the bible and it is not fact. I'm making educated guesses based on real world data that may be completely different for the retail console versions. This is all in fun, but I think that the deduction is reasonable and matches what we have been hearing from devs and "insiders" over the past few months all along. We'll find out soon enough
SwiftDeath
Member
Interesting read for sure
I can't wait to see the first comparisons and see what's up
But that was a good summation and look at BF4 beta
Granted toms hardware did the testing obviously
CadetMahoney
Member
bone fans and MS are going to be consistently upset paying $60 for inferior versions of the same game. I doubt MS will be able to do anything to force parity since virtually every big-budget multi-plat game will be superior on PS4 they can't moneyhat every single developer to gimp the PS4 version which will have superior results in one or more:
Lighting, Textures, Particle Effects, Physics, DoF, Motion Blur, AA, AF, HBAO, Reflections, Animations, Shadows, Scale, Draw Distance, Loading Times, Uber-sampling, 3D, VR, Polygons, decals, hair rendering, subsurface scattering, etc etc etc etc etc.
If anything, tthomas4155 post really showed me how big the expected gap between PS4/X1 would be.
PS4: 1080p/60fps (High settings)
X1; 720p/60fps ( just to maintain the same IQ settings)
damn!
Not to mention that if a big developer gimps the ps4 version of a game in a big way, it's gonna show and they will be called out. These guys are also competing with 1st party titles, so if they have extra headroom to add more stuff, they should do so.
Even though the specs are considerably better on the ps4, I expect the differences to be, mostly, 1080p/locked 30fps (PS4) vs 900p/30fps with dips (X1).
If a certain game is already 1080p/60fps on both, I expect ps4 to have better AA and slightly more pronounced effects. Even though the ps4 has extras CUs to spare for compute, I don't expect them to use them, since the X1 doesn't have them (as far as I know), and that would be the biggest loss. After reading the latest news about the Order, I'm super excited about those new features (dynamic deformation). As usual, the biggest diferences will come from 1st party.
I would love if this was the case, but I have a very weird suspicion that EA will make sure both versions run at 720p, even though the ps4 can wreck it at 1080p.
/tinfoil hat