PSM: PS4 specs more powerful than Xbox 720

Status
Not open for further replies.
cyberheater said:
From a pure games machine perspective, they would have been better of with a much cheaper and faster DVD drive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, very much so. Maybe there is some advantage to having already got that out of the way this generation so when next-gen comes it's not an issue or something, but I don't think so.

Sony were bottlenecked by MS's use of a DVD drive even if they didn't directly, and it even had worse loading. It seems like it was a terrible business decision.
 
This is serious journalism ?
KuGsj.gif
 
Metalmurphy said:
You mean just like textures/normal maps/etc also get "mixed" despite being streamed? Have you ever bothered to look how big some of the sound files, specially the sound track, and the insane amount of sound effects used in a single level? There would be literally no space for anything else, or even enough for just all the sound effects.
Click to expand...

Tons of sounds get streamed. Like ambiance, music, conversation etc.(but they still need to fit in a ram buffer somewhere otherwise it can't be processed) Not the whole music clip but part of it. Well that's how streaming works. I won't give a CS course :)

Lots of other sounds are stored in ram completely. player sounds like, weapons, footsteps. Stuff that can't wait a couple of frames to play, that need to synch with visuals cannot be stream for a super slow bluray or DVD. (most of the install on ps3 are sounds. like in MGS because streaming on the disc drives is too slow).
 
StuBurns said:
Yeah, very much so. Maybe there is some advantage to having already got that out of the way this generation so when next-gen comes it's not an issue or something, but I don't think so.

Sony were bottlenecked by MS's use of a DVD drive even if they didn't directly, and it even had worse loading. It seems like it was a terrible business decision.
Click to expand...

Using expensive CPU and memory was a bad business decision; using Blu-ray was not. A ton of people bought a PS3 because of Blu-ray.
 
brain_stew said:
Microsoft ended up with a console with better looking games despite launching a year earlier, at lower cost and without all the massive R & D expensive of coming up with a new CPU architecture. It was a horribly misguided investment for Sony.
Click to expand...

400 mil is not that big especially when you consider it was split between three companies. And I would say the latter first party performance more than made up for MS's visual dominance early.

My claim is that OoO CPUs are readily available. That's not an assumption. And how Cell is implemented by IBM is irrelevant if they are in different future products. An OoO Cell is different architecture compared to what Cell is now and would have to be built from the ground up. And yes GPGPUs have shortcomings, but they aren't on the same level as what Cell brought to the table.

But this debate is pretty pointless IMO anyway. Don't get your hopes up for Cell being in PS4.
Click to expand...
See know you are losing me. Changing the instruction cycle and updating the CU is hardly building from the ground up. IBM isn't new at this. Sure there would also be other changes but that hardly falls outside the range of "customizing" an off-the-shelf part.
 
bgassassin said:
That's also an end of 2004 decision with a pre-delay 2005 launch target. That's why I called it "last minute". They just benefited from shortages in other areas. I also feel kinda bad that you gave a great detailed post on stuff I was already familiar with, but I did take a couple new things from it.

That said I definitely agree that PS4 will be more competitive right off the bat.
Click to expand...


The actual press release says they had already been collaborating on it. The decision to use an Nvidia GPU had to have been made long before the day of the official announcement.

As far as I can tell, the fact that RSX is weaker than Xenos had nothing to do with the original dual Cell idea.

Late 2004, about a year before original launch, only months before starting production on retail systems would be too late to make fundamental decisions such as whether the final hardware design would need a conventional GPU or to go with dual Cells. With the way the system turned out, it's plain to see they planned to allow Cell and a GPU to work together.

As I see it, the idea that because Sony originally didn't want to use a regular GPU, and because of that had to go with RSX at the last minute as a band aid, is wrong. At the time, that was an easy way to explain why the PS3 wasn't significantly more powerful than X360 despite arriving a year later with a more expensive retail price. But it's more believable to think Sony abandoned the dual Cell idea for their next PS2 successor system in around the 2002 or 2003 time frame, after the first DX9 GPUs arrived on the market.

There is no way RSX or an equivalent "generic PC GPU" was put into the mix only a year before PS3 was first supposed to launch. I think that's a misperception.
 
iamshadowlark said:
LOL what don't I know now? Theres no documentation on the incredibly high instruction latency of GPGPUs when performing GP calculations? No documentation on the small ass local memory stores? No documentation on the piss-poor thread management performance? No documentation on how poor they are at code with a lot of jumps? Think you could try to run a game loop on a GPGPU? How big of a data set would you expect a GPGPU to be able to handle?
Click to expand...

you obviously didnt get the memo that GPGPUs are thousand time faster than cpus?
Memory schmemory.
 
dragonelite said:
Makes me wonder if next gen is good enough we dont need prerendered cutscenes anymore and can get by with realtime rendered cutscenes.
Click to expand...

Some games (like Uncharted for example) don't use prerendered cutscenes to show what wouldn't be possible to achieve with real time graphics - they use it to quietly load the game in the background. In other cases (that was the case with Alan Wake) it's easier to do prerendered cut-scenes and slap some postprocessing effects on it than to implement those effects into the engine.
 
Massa said:
Using expensive CPU and memory was a bad business decision; using Blu-ray was not. A ton of people bought a PS3 because of Blu-ray.
Click to expand...

If Sony had ditched the bluray, backward compatibility hardware and had a cheaper, smaller HDD and have launched at $399 then I think they would have got a lot more sales then including an ultimately doomed media format.
 
cyberheater said:
If Sony had ditched the bluray, backward compatibility hardware and had a cheaper, smaller HDD and have launched at $399 then I think they would have got a lot more sales then including an ultimately doomed media format.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but those sales and earlier launch date would have made the PS3 a larger focus for third parties, so instead of the difficult CPU resulting in shitty 360 ports (as it did), it most likely would have pushed third parties to lead on PS3, which would have been advantageous throughout the generation.

In a way, it's amazing PS3 has done as well at it has, it's really had a lot against it, at least untill the Silm revision when they really got the price down to a reasonable level, but even then, it's still the weaker for third party SKUs 95% of the time.
 
Forsete said:
Sony could dump BD for PS4 and go with DVD single layer.. Less expensive that way.
Click to expand...

That is the dumbest idea ever.

Things are going to get bigger and better next gen, time for the rest of the industry to move on to a not so restrictive format.

Hell, let's go flash cards ! They're small, and can store a whole ton of info. I've seen flash drives as big as 512 GB >_>
 
StuBurns said:
Not only that, but those sales and earlier launch date would have made the PS3 a larger focus for third parties, so instead of the difficult CPU resulting in shitty 360 ports (as it did), it most likely would have pushed third parties to lead on PS3, which would have been advantageous throughout the generation.

In a way, it's amazing PS3 has done as well at it has, it's really had a lot against it, at least untill the Silm revision when they really got the price down to a reasonable level, but even then, it's still the weaker for third party SKUs 95% of the time.
Click to expand...

I agree. Considering how successful PS2 was, it's hard to imagine how Sony could have messed PS3 up more. They are lucky that they've got such a loyal fanbase.
 
AngelSoldier said:
That is the dumbest idea ever.

Things are going to get bigger and better next gen, time for the rest of the industry to move on to a not so restrictive format.

Hell, let's go flash cards ! They're small, and can store a whole ton of info. I've seen flash drives as big as 512 GB >_>
Click to expand...

Too expensive bro. DVD is the de facto standard.
No DD either, bandwidth costs. :/

We have to be conservative!
 
badcrumble said:
If it's not backwards compatible with my PS3 game collection, no, I won't. It's almost like backwards compatibility sells consoles during the launch period.
Click to expand...

When the launch line-up is shit, sure. If the Vita is anything to go by that won't be the case for PS4, specially if GG, ND and SSM are already working on it.
 
Maybe it's some big technical issue, but I think no-BC for PS4 would be a very poor decision. You've spent all this money on PSN, it should all work on the next system I think.
 
Combichristoffersen said:
We need to go deeper.

Cassette tapes.
Click to expand...

Supply the code on paper (recycled of course), type the code by yourself. It HAS to be the cheapest way.

StuBurns said:
Because being extravagant worked so awesome for them this time around.
Click to expand...

I think they have slimmed the PS3 down to a great system, they never needed those card readers and rotating PS-symbol. And Vita shows they will use more "off the shelf" parts for the future (I think). If PS4 turns out the same but with equally beefy hardware by 2013-14 standards I will be happy.



AngelSoldier said:
Ah, I see.

I'm really bad at detecting sarcasm over the web. ~(T_T)~
Click to expand...

No prob. :P
 
badcrumble said:
If it's not backwards compatible with my PS3 game collection, no, I won't. It's almost like backwards compatibility sells consoles during the launch period.
Click to expand...

With the shear amount of games that came out between this gen and the next, I too am hoping for some backwards compatibility.

I'm pretty confident PS4 will have BC, There's no reason for Sony to drop Blu-ray because it still doo-doo's all over DVD, and if Cell has really advanced as far as they claim, then there's no reason to drop that either.

EDIT: Did you guys know that the Wii U is using the latest IBM CELL processor ?
 
badcrumble said:
If it's not backwards compatible with my PS3 game collection, no, I won't. It's almost like backwards compatibility sells consoles during the launch period.
Click to expand...

I want Sony to start off with a clean slate and design the very best system they can without having to worry about tying up extra resource and money to get a high percentage of PS3 games working on a BC engine. It's not worth it.
 
Forsete said:
I think they have slimmed the PS3 down to a great system, they never needed those card readers and rotating PS-symbol. And Vita shows they will use more "off the shelf" parts for the future (I think). If PS4 turns out the same but with equally beefy hardware by 2013-14 standards I will be happy.
Click to expand...
I never thought the PS3 wasn't a great system, although yeah, it had some stuff I never used. My point was, mocking the cost of the bluray drive as if it was trivial is really unjust. It cost a substantial amount of money, and delayed the system release. Obviously a bluray drive would not do that on the next-gen systems. Sony will be more conservative, and they should, they literally can't afford another PS3 type project.
 
Massa said:
When the launch line-up is shit, sure. If the Vita is anything to go by that won't be the case for PS4, specially if GG, ND and SSM are already working on it.
Click to expand...

In Vita's case they released games that looked just slightly less impressive than PS3 after 5 years of PS3.

For PS4 they have a much higher benchmark, which is not bloodly likely that ND or GG will have games ready for launch.
 
gaming_noob said:
In Vita's case they released games that looked just slightly less impressive than PS3 after 5 years of PS3.

For PS4 they have a much higher benchmark, which is not bloodly likely that ND or GG will have games ready for launch.
Click to expand...

It depends how they handle next-gen's launch period development. I think a mistake Sony made this time was leaving huge games on PS2 when ramping up for PS3. SotC and GoW2 should have been on PS3 as well as PS2. I know they are now, but they should have been at the time. If The Last of Us is March '13 and PS4 launches that fall, The Last of Us: HDer Directors Cut etc should be there. It's more important to have great content on there, than new content for the ground up for that system, because that stuff just takes too long to make.
 
StuBurns said:
Well you're in luck, because as 'out of my depth' as you may believe I am, my degree happens to be sound technology. And thru the mostly pointless things you just stated, this is the bit that matters.

For the most part, the source files appear to be exactly the same. Meaning the bluray drive is not assisting with the audio quality. That's even if you (for no great reason) imagine forcing every imaginary non-BR PS3 game on to a single disc, which of course they wouldn't.

Not that it even matters, 'worthless' might have been a bit extreme, and many of the posts before your complaints made it very clear I do see the value of it as a consumer, the point was, it cost Sony massively, and I don't believe the advantages it provides warrant the huge costs it needed. If you do think so, that's fine, but I disagree.
Click to expand...
You have a degree in "sound technology" but don't understand what uncompressed PCM is. Wow, I'd ask for my money back...

And I'm sure BD has nothing to do with audio quality for Sony FP games... I'm positive they don't use the extra space for HQ audio...

Im done on this point now cos just... wow... really, nothing more to be said.

However, sure, just cos you found it worthless doesn't mean the millions who bought PS3 specifically for BD (for a long time it was THE best BD player in the market) will find it worthless. Nor those who are able to enjoy superior audio.

When it's all said and done, I don't care if it cost Sony massively, as a consumer I could not be happier with the sound and for me, that's 50% of the experience.
 
I think the launch line-up will be solid for Sony. I'd say the same for Microsoft but 'out-of-the-box' Kinect 2.0 stuff has me worried.
 
cyberheater said:
I want Sony to start off with a clean slate and design the very best system they can without having to worry about tying up extra resource and money to get a high percentage of PS3 games working on a BC engine. It's not worth it.
Click to expand...

macuser1of5 said:
Sony please ignore this person.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to suspect that a few people who were posting damage control when Sony dropped BC from the PS3 actually started to believe what they were saying.
 
BradleyLove said:
You have a degree in "sound technology" but don't understand what uncompressed PCM is. Wow, I'd ask for my money back...
Click to expand...
I do. I also know it can indeed contain previously lossy compressed audio. Although I knew that without the degree, as do most people.
BradleyLove said:
And I'm sure BD has nothing to do with audio quality for Sony FP games... I'm positive they don't use the extra space for HQ audio...
Click to expand...
It takes a certain mastery of the language to take that from my post, but okay.
BradleyLove said:
Im done on this point now cos just... wow... really, nothing more to be said.
Click to expand...
Excellent.
BradleyLove said:
However, sure, just cos you found it worthless doesn't mean the millions who bought PS3 specifically for BD (for a long time it was THE best BD player in the market) will find it worthless. Nor those who are able to enjoy superior audio.
Click to expand...
Again, you failed to read the post.
BradleyLove said:
When it's all said and done, I don't care if it cost Sony massively, as a consumer I could not be happier with the sound and for me, that's 50% of the experience.
Click to expand...
And finally, another mind blowing misunderstanding of the topic at hand, which is what was better for Sony, not specific consumers.
 
iamshadowlark said:
See know you are losing me. Changing the instruction cycle and updating the CU is hardly building from the ground up. IBM isn't new at this. Sure there would also be other changes but that hardly falls outside the range of "customizing" an off-the-shelf part.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think is all that's needed? There is a reason why Xenon wasn't OoO like MS originally planned and it wasn't that simple or else they wouldn't have settled for in-order PPEs. You need time to build an OoO CPU and MS didn't allow enough time for it to happen. It's not just a mere update like you're trying to pass off. That's a total rebuild.

Death Dealer said:
The actual press release says they had already been collaborating on it. The decision to use an Nvidia GPU had to have been made long before the day of the official announcement.

As far as I can tell, the fact that RSX is weaker than Xenos had nothing to do with the original dual Cell idea.

Late 2004, about a year before original launch, only months before starting production on retail systems would be too late to make fundamental decisions such as whether the final hardware design would need a conventional GPU or to go with dual Cells. With the way the system turned out, it's plain to see they planned to allow Cell and a GPU to work together.

As I see it, the idea that because Sony originally didn't want to use a regular GPU, and because of that had to go with RSX at the last minute as a band aid, is wrong. At the time, that was an easy way to explain why the PS3 wasn't significantly more powerful than X360 despite arriving a year later with a more expensive retail price. But it's more believable to think Sony abandoned the dual Cell idea for their next PS2 successor system in around the 2002 or 2003 time frame, after the first DX9 GPUs arrived on the market.

There is no way RSX or an equivalent "generic PC GPU" was put into the mix only a year before PS3 was first supposed to launch. I think that's a misperception.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as "misperception" looking at the way the whole PS3 development was carried out and for when they actually signed the deal. Now they may have had that as an option for their direction (which they obviously chose), but they still waited till near the end of 2004 to announce the deal had been done. Just because nVidia had been designing it beforehand for a certain amount of time didn't guarantee it was going to be used again considering how late the agreement was signed.

And I wasn't saying the dual cell idea caused that decision. I said the choice of Cell itself caused the decision to go with the RSX. We both agree that "it's plain to see they planned to allow Cell and a GPU to work together". I'm saying that's what made them go with the weaker GPU. The plan was for Cell to do more of the work. We agree on the outcome, but disagree on the path they took to get there it seems.
 
badcrumble said:
I'm starting to suspect that a few people who were posting damage control when Sony dropped BC from the PS3 actually started to believe what they were saying.
Click to expand...

I've never been accused of being pro Sony before 0_o

BTW. I've got a 60Gb launch PS3 that has BC. I've only ever used it once to see if it would work.
 
cyberheater said:
I want Sony to start off with a clean slate and design the very best system they can without having to worry about tying up extra resource and money to get a high percentage of PS3 games working on a BC engine. It's not worth it.
Click to expand...

It may be possible to have both PS3 BC and extremely high performance in PS4. These 2 factors don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

But if PS4 is something else, like an Android tablet, then it's probably better to keep both separate, with an improved PS3 as a home server.
 
Frankfurt said:
Precisely my point. I wanted him to google it.

Some kid tries to make it seem like "so many" of games this gen were below 720p, when in reality it's a miniscule number. Not even 10% of games released on PS360 are below 720p.
Click to expand...

Not even close to 10%, just the PS3 BR list I counted 60 before I got bored. And there aren't 600 games on that list.
 
No way will PS4 use CELL and now way will there be BC.
But I do believe it will have a fantastic launch line-up.
I really do think MS will go a different direction to Sony though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

an xbox 30% more powerful than a playstation, what do you think about that ?
2 3 4 5 6
291
2K
DragonTiger replied
How Come Mini PCs Are Smaller and More Powerful Than Modern Consoles?
2
79
145
SScorpio replied
Battlefield 6 Players on PlayStation Earn More Multiplayer XP Than Xbox & PC
Platform  2
55
176
cormack12 replied
  • Locked
The PS5 Pro is more powerful than my PC
15
2K
poppabk replied
Here's a list of some modern technology equal to/more powerful than the 8th gen gaming systems. (measured by TFLOPs)
6
213
kevboard replied
Top Bottom