Or maybe he can play some games while Merlin knock one off. I'm really sure Durango will have some great games, and they will not have "50%" less fun than another consoles.
Maybe he is hee because he is interested in Durango, and magic or not, he will enjoy it, maybe he is not here because he want the most powerful console.
He's right about real world performance. Xbox ran circles around PS2 in real world performance.
I also love your campaigning how embedded RAM in Durango doesn't matter yet now you are providing figures including embedded RAM for PS2.
Look at this fanboy spin.
PS2:
System RAM: 32MB @ 3.2 GB/s
GPU eDRAM: 4MB @ 48 GB/s
Xbox:
Shared RAM: 64MB @ 6.4 GB/s
Let's look at Durango and Orbis.
Durango:
System RAM: 8GB @ 68 GB/s
GPU eSRAM: 32MB @ 102 GB/s
Orbis:
Shared RAM: 4GB @ 176 GB/s
Xbox couldn't compete with PS2 in some aspects BECAUSE the PS2's bandwidth was unrivaled for over a decade. PS3 and 360 only had half of that bandwidth, and that's why ZOE HD collections don't run at 60 fps like the PS2 versions do.
Look at this fanboy spin.
PS2:
System RAM: 32MB @ 3.2 GB/s
GPU eDRAM: 4MB @ 48 GB/s
Xbox:
Shared RAM: 64MB @ 6.4 GB/s
Let's look at Durango and Orbis.
Durango:
System RAM: 8GB @ 68 GB/s
GPU eSRAM: 32MB @ 102 GB/s
Orbis:
Shared RAM: 4GB @ 176 GB/s
Xbox couldn't compete with PS2 in some aspects BECAUSE the PS2's bandwidth was unrivaled for over a decade. PS3 and 360 only had half of that bandwidth, and that's why ZOE HD collections don't run at 60 fps like the PS2 versions do.
dat kutaragi wizard magic
Look at this fanboy spin.
PS2:
System RAM: 32MB @ 3.2 GB/s
GPU eDRAM: 4MB @ 48 GB/s
Xbox:
Shared RAM: 64MB @ 6.4 GB/s
Let's look at Durango and Orbis.
Durango:
System RAM: 8GB @ 68 GB/s
GPU eSRAM: 32MB @ 102 GB/s
Orbis:
Shared RAM: 4GB @ 176 GB/s
Xbox couldn't compete with PS2 in some aspects BECAUSE the PS2's bandwidth was unrivaled for over a decade. PS3 and 360 only had half of that bandwidth, and that's why ZOE HD collections don't run at 60 fps like the PS2 versions do.
Look at this fanboy spin.
PS2:
System RAM: 32MB @ 3.2 GB/s
GPU eDRAM: 4MB @ 48 GB/s
Xbox:
Shared RAM: 64MB @ 6.4 GB/s
Let's look at Durango and Orbis.
Durango:
System RAM: 8GB @ 68 GB/s
GPU eSRAM: 32MB @ 102 GB/s
Orbis:
Shared RAM: 4GB @ 176 GB/s
Xbox couldn't compete with PS2 in some aspects BECAUSE the PS2's bandwidth was unrivaled for over a decade. PS3 and 360 only had half of that bandwidth, and that's why ZOE HD collections don't run at 60 fps like the PS2 versions do.
So in the last couple pages has it been determined that speculating further is pointless since we have leaked specs?
Just like Nintendo believes in low latency, Sony believes in high bandwidth. They complained about the "low" bandwidth of the PS3 for years. The 360's eDRAM (even at only 10mb) still gave noticeable edge over PS3. Even in this day, multiplats run better on 360 because of the eDRAM.
Look at this fanboy spin.
PS2:
System RAM: 32MB @ 3.2 GB/s
GPU eDRAM: 4MB @ 48 GB/s
Xbox:
Shared RAM: 64MB @ 6.4 GB/s
Let's look at Durango and Orbis.
Durango:
System RAM: 8GB @ 68 GB/s
GPU eSRAM: 32MB @ 102 GB/s
Orbis:
Shared RAM: 4GB @ 176 GB/s
Xbox couldn't compete with PS2 in some aspects BECAUSE the PS2's bandwidth was unrivaled for over a decade. PS3 and 360 only had half of that bandwidth, and that's why ZOE HD collections don't run at 60 fps like the PS2 versions do.
Just like Nintendo believes in low latency, Sony believes in high bandwidth. They complained about the "low" bandwidth of the PS3 for years. The 360's eDRAM (even at only 10mb) still gave noticeable edge over PS3. Even in this day, multiplats run better on 360 because of the eDRAM.
I'm sure they have a great reason for it, but is that reason tied to video games, or to something else?
First you have to assume they want Kinect available to every game without a performance hit, plus Kinect as an alternative to a traditional remote. That means Kinect needs it's own chunk of memory assigned specifically for it so that you don't see a graphical divide between Kinect and non-Kinect titles.
Second, you have the need to run DVR functionality that has been strongly rumored for a long time. Sony has a very efficient implementation of this on the PS3 already, but there is no guarantee that MS' implementation is as efficient, or that it's just basic DVR service, it could be something with expanded functionality.
Then you get into questions about the OS kernel. At this point I think it's highly likely that it'll be Windows 8 based. Consider MS' current overall corporate direction. Why would they fund Xbox 720 apps that can't also run as Windows 8 apps? Therefore the Xbox 720 needs at least cross compatibility of apps with Windows 8, and emulating that is less efficient than just building the OS off Windows 8. At that point the question is just how much Windows 8 are they putting in the box.
The rumored "display planes" feature also sounds like a real memory hog to me. My interpretation of that is MS' desire to use them for seamless plane switching. For example, you're playing Halo 5 online with your pals and one of them mentions a great new youtube video he saw yesterday. Instead of having to wait to view it after playing you can simply flip to a different, already running, web browsing plane and view the video while waiting for the next round to load.
Or lets say you're watching a blu-ray while your spouse/sibling/etc. wants to watch a video on the DVR. The Xbox 720 can without a hitch stream a pre-scaled version of the DVR'ed media to a compatible Windows 8 device.
The ultimate culmination of this that makes MS need to reserve a lot of assets is the power user. Someone who starts out watching a blu-ray, gets a friends list invite to play Halo 5 online, and during rounds flips over to the live broadcast football game that is running through the Xbox. You don't have to even close the Blu-ray if you buy Halo 5 via Xbox Live Arcade, instead it's progress is paused in the background waiting for you to flip back via a simple Kinect-sensitive snap of the wrist.
Picture the quick flipping you do on a tablet in high resolution with the Xbox 720 keeping all video at the current display setting for your TV regardless of it's native resolution (removing the need for those brief display refreshes), but instead of using a finger you use your hand and instead of flipping to angry birds or a web video that needs to buffer before being ready it's blu-ray movies, digital download movies, your whole music collection, your DVR, and all of your games. Just one flip and everything is there - instant gratification from all of your media.
All of that would eat up a lot of resources, and MS will obviously want some buffer to future proof themselves.
Oh I hear you. I just don't like random rules applied when the entire thing is conjecture. It doesn't make any valid sense at all to discuss leaked data with gaps and then not be able to discuss all the gaps. But I also hear that this same thing happened in other thread, pre release for other systems like the WiiU. So I am just new to all the random caveats about what can and can't be discussed. This thread is still better than most I have seen in a couple days across the INTERNET about this stuff.
It was the new IP thread where it got really bloody!
It is going to be an interesting year wow.
Just like Nintendo believes in low latency, Sony believes in high bandwidth. They complained about the "low" bandwidth of the PS3 for years. The 360's eDRAM (even at only 10mb) still gave noticeable edge over PS3. Even in this day, multiplats run better on 360 because of the eDRAM.
Curious, how much of PS4 available bandwidth would be eaten up by non graphics based code, physics, etc? Sense a lot of the bandwidth will be needed for shaders.
PS2 was GOD, wouldn't that effect BC on PS3 thou? keep in mind I have PS2 BC on PS3 before you mention not having it
really? I always thought there are a combination of reasons, the flexibility of ram and gpu configuration in 360. For games to run properly on ps3, developers have to offload some gpu tasks to cell.
Does Vita have high bandwidth?
There are multiple reasons, a large issue with PS3 titles often having worse image quality, resolution, aliasing etc. is because of the benefits of 360s memory set upreally? I always thought there are a combination of reasons, the flexibility of ram and gpu configuration in 360. For games to run properly on ps3, developers have to offload some gpu tasks to cell.
Also no way in hell MS will let multiplats be night and day, if it's true that ps4 can do 60fps and next box will do 30fps they won't let that happen. PS4 will just end up with a gimped version.
So yea it will come down to First Party to prove the TRUE strengths of each system.
I find it funny how people are arguing over specs that do not matter in the long run. The era of hardware is over, and software is all that matters right now. The 2 specs are comparable enough that any visual discrepancies will be unnoticed by about 80% of the people out there.
I think if people can play their favorite games, and easily, it'll be fine. The generational leap is already pretty extraordinary. Games will look beautiful on all consoles. Sit back and watch the majesty that will come and bless us all.
Also no way in hell MS will let multiplats be night and day, if it's true that ps4 can do 60fps and next box will do 30fps they won't let that happen. PS4 will just end up with a gimped version.
So yea it will come down to First Party to prove the TRUE strengths of each system.
Also no way in hell MS will let multiplats be night and day, if it's true that ps4 can do 60fps and next box will do 30fps they won't let that happen. PS4 will just end up with a gimped version.
So yea it will come down to First Party to prove the TRUE strengths of each system.
I think this is where the tech stuff goes over my head a bit (or alot).
When I see the difference of 0.6TF between the two specs and someone says the Wii U is only 0.8TF. I can only comprehend the difference is Orbis having nearly the Wii U's graphics card rammed up its arse.
I know I am missing some form of escalation in the numbers or something but its the only way my mind can work
More like interesting month.
Although the eDRAM is also the 360's achilles heel at the same time because of its size.
Also no way in hell MS will let multiplats be night and day, if it's true that ps4 can do 60fps and next box will do 30fps they won't let that happen. PS4 will just end up with a gimped version.
So yea it will come down to First Party to prove the TRUE strengths of each system.
No point in the devs doing more work to make one version worse. If the difference is that prounced then it will show in one way or another
MS has that much control over 3rd parties?
How would Microsoft prevent that from happening, exactly?
Wii U 0.8TF?
First, Microsoft couldn't stop that from happening
Second, the spec difference isn't even big enough for that to happen
Thats what I read somewhere, but then they could of just thrown around alot of technical babble and I probably dived for another shot of vodka and got it wrong
AMD's RV770 hardware is well documented so with these numbers we can now, categorically, finally rule out any next-gen pretensions for the Wii U - the GCN hardware in Durango and Orbis is in a completely different league. However, the 16 TMUs at 550MHz and texture cache improvements found in RV770 do elevate the capabilities of this hardware beyond the Xenos GPU in the Xbox 360 - 1.5 times the raw shader power sounds about right. 1080p resolution is around 2.5x that of 720p, so bearing in mind the inclusion of just eight ROPs, it's highly unlikely that we'll be seeing any complex 3D titles running at 1080p.
well, it's going to get raped by Durango and PS4, but did anyone seriously expect that not to happen?
And even moreso in how it could be used and sampled.
You don't know all the clauses when licensing software...
Yep.Which MS seem to have rectified if rumors are true.
Not talking pure control, but they do have some influence, I think it was posted in one of these next gen threads the whole "if the title isn't on some form of equal playing field as it is on it's competitors then they won't allow it on 360"
Thats a very very ROUGH jist of it so don't take it as word.
I'm sure they have a great reason for it, but is that reason tied to video games, or to something else?
First you have to assume they want Kinect available to every game without a performance hit, plus Kinect as an alternative to a traditional remote. That means Kinect needs it's own chunk of memory assigned specifically for it so that you don't see a graphical divide between Kinect and non-Kinect titles.
Second, you have the need to run DVR functionality that has been strongly rumored for a long time. Sony has a very efficient implementation of this on the PS3 already, but there is no guarantee that MS' implementation is as efficient, or that it's just basic DVR service, it could be something with expanded functionality.
Then you get into questions about the OS kernel. At this point I think it's highly likely that it'll be Windows 8 based. Consider MS' current overall corporate direction. Why would they fund Xbox 720 apps that can't also run as Windows 8 apps? Therefore the Xbox 720 needs at least cross compatibility of apps with Windows 8, and emulating that is less efficient than just building the OS off Windows 8. At that point the question is just how much Windows 8 are they putting in the box.
The rumored "display planes" feature also sounds like a real memory hog to me. My interpretation of that is MS' desire to use them for seamless plane switching. For example, you're playing Halo 5 online with your pals and one of them mentions a great new youtube video he saw yesterday. Instead of having to wait to view it after playing you can simply flip to a different, already running, web browsing plane and view the video while waiting for the next round to load.
Or lets say you're watching a blu-ray while your spouse/sibling/etc. wants to watch a video on the DVR. The Xbox 720 can without a hitch stream a pre-scaled version of the DVR'ed media to a compatible Windows 8 device.
The ultimate culmination of this that makes MS need to reserve a lot of assets is the power user. Someone who starts out watching a blu-ray, gets a friends list invite to play Halo 5 online, and during rounds flips over to the live broadcast football game that is running through the Xbox. You don't have to even close the Blu-ray if you buy Halo 5 via Xbox Live Arcade, instead it's progress is paused in the background waiting for you to flip back via a simple Kinect-sensitive snap of the wrist.
Picture the quick flipping you do on a tablet in high resolution with the Xbox 720 keeping all video at the current display setting for your TV regardless of it's native resolution (removing the need for those brief display refreshes), but instead of using a finger you use your hand and instead of flipping to angry birds or a web video that needs to buffer before being ready it's blu-ray movies, digital download movies, your whole music collection, your DVR, and all of your games. Just one flip and everything is there - instant gratification from all of your media.
All of that would eat up a lot of resources, and MS will obviously want some buffer to future proof themselves.
Also no way in hell MS will let multiplats be night and day, if it's true that ps4 can do 60fps and next box will do 30fps they won't let that happen. PS4 will just end up with a gimped version.
So yea it will come down to First Party to prove the TRUE strengths of each system.
Not talking pure control, but they do have some influence, I think it was posted in one of these next gen threads the whole "if the title isn't on some form of equal playing field as it is on it's competitors then they won't allow it on 360"
Thats a very very ROUGH jist of it so don't take it as word.
I'm sure they have a great reason for it, but is that reason tied to video games, or to something else?
First you have to assume they want Kinect available to every game without a performance hit, plus Kinect as an alternative to a traditional remote. That means Kinect needs it's own chunk of memory assigned specifically for it so that you don't see a graphical divide between Kinect and non-Kinect titles.
Second, you have the need to run DVR functionality that has been strongly rumored for a long time. Sony has a very efficient implementation of this on the PS3 already, but there is no guarantee that MS' implementation is as efficient, or that it's just basic DVR service, it could be something with expanded functionality.
Then you get into questions about the OS kernel. At this point I think it's highly likely that it'll be Windows 8 based. Consider MS' current overall corporate direction. Why would they fund Xbox 720 apps that can't also run as Windows 8 apps? Therefore the Xbox 720 needs at least cross compatibility of apps with Windows 8, and emulating that is less efficient than just building the OS off Windows 8. At that point the question is just how much Windows 8 are they putting in the box.
The rumored "display planes" feature also sounds like a real memory hog to me. My interpretation of that is MS' desire to use them for seamless plane switching. For example, you're playing Halo 5 online with your pals and one of them mentions a great new youtube video he saw yesterday. Instead of having to wait to view it after playing you can simply flip to a different, already running, web browsing plane and view the video while waiting for the next round to load.
Or lets say you're watching a blu-ray while your spouse/sibling/etc. wants to watch a video on the DVR. The Xbox 720 can without a hitch stream a pre-scaled version of the DVR'ed media to a compatible Windows 8 device.
The ultimate culmination of this that makes MS need to reserve a lot of assets is the power user. Someone who starts out watching a blu-ray, gets a friends list invite to play Halo 5 online, and during rounds flips over to the live broadcast football game that is running through the Xbox. You don't have to even close the Blu-ray if you buy Halo 5 via Xbox Live Arcade, instead it's progress is paused in the background waiting for you to flip back via a simple Kinect-sensitive snap of the wrist.
Picture the quick flipping you do on a tablet in high resolution with the Xbox 720 keeping all video at the current display setting for your TV regardless of it's native resolution (removing the need for those brief display refreshes), but instead of using a finger you use your hand and instead of flipping to angry birds or a web video that needs to buffer before being ready it's blu-ray movies, digital download movies, your whole music collection, your DVR, and all of your games. Just one flip and everything is there - instant gratification from all of your media.
All of that would eat up a lot of resources, and MS will obviously want some buffer to future proof themselves.
Not talking pure control, but they do have some influence, I think it was posted in one of these next gen threads the whole "if the title isn't on some form of equal playing field as it is on it's competitors then they won't allow it on 360"
Thats a very very ROUGH jist of it so don't take it as word.
I think Aegies was saying something about a manufacturer(s) enforcing performance clauses to keep things equal graphics wise. The only way this works is if both consoles are neck and neck sales wise.
This is off-topic, but I have to ask: Does the PS3 actually have DVR capabilities? And it records and plays back video using the same HDD that games are installed to? Wouldn't this impact the performance of games, especially ones that do a lot of just-in-time asset streaming?Second, you have the need to run DVR functionality that has been strongly rumored for a long time. Sony has a very efficient implementation of this on the PS3 already, but there is no guarantee that MS' implementation is as efficient, or that it's just basic DVR service, it could be something with expanded functionality.
This is off-topic, but I have to ask: Does the PS3 actually have DVR capabilities? And it records and plays back video using the same HDD that games are installed to? Wouldn't this impact the performance of games, especially ones that do a lot of just-in-time asset streaming?
I ask because I've always been skeptical of the Durango-as-DVR idea, due partially to those same (disk contention) concerns. Are they really not an issue? I guess since Sony lets you throw just about any HDD in there, perhaps developers know they can't expect any particular level of performance from them.
For what it's worth, I've been using DVRs since the original TiVo came out in the '90s, and I have been using a whole-house DVR setup (Windows Media Center) for about 5 years. (All "TV" is streamed to various 360s throughout the house.) I also do most of my web surfing on my living room TV. (The afore mentioned WMC PC.) So I'm totally on board with the whole DVR/media hub... thing. I'm happily drinking that Cool-Aid. And yet, shoving all that functionality into one $400 box just seems dumb to me. If you try to do too many things, you risk being crappy at all of them. (IMO) To be fair, it is a cheaper solution, by far.
It seems like MS might be ceding the "hardcore gamer" to Sony, purely on the hope of enticing people with a bunch of functionality that is probably best left to dedicated devices. (Tablets, PCs, and DVR/media-servers)
Or, more likely, perhaps these so-called leaks are not very accurate.
You don't know all the clauses when licensing software...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed
I don't think GPU is 0.8TF.
EDIT: And from Marcan twitter:
How would Microsoft prevent that from happening, exactly?
The same way Nvidia gets developers to cripple their games running on AMD gpus.
I would have thought neck & neck sales would have the opposite effect. If a big named title like GTA or Final Fantasy had an obvious performance advantage, I doubt a console manufacturer would risk alienating the publisher by getting out a rule book and risk a defection.
It seems to me it would only work with the small fry.
320 shaders. 352 GFLOPS
But there are a lot of fixed functions in there.