spatenfloot
Member
Also not good if you have cats. For various reasons.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EDGE: "Power struggle: the real differences between PS4 and Xbox One performance"
- Thread starter Musiol
- Start date
PanicFreak
Member
I was only addressing the first statement about how third parties make games look and run similarly on all consoles to help their brand. I think the rest is geared toward first parties and maybe time allocation between developing a game and porting it to other systems.
SwiftDeath
Member
Hmm I don't know it's all kind of like a run-on sentence
I feel he was talking about 3rd party devs the entire time
He does reference a 1P game but I think that was an example of a game that was designed from the ground up to hit that resolution and FPS, not decided after the fact
And the rest of what he says would apply to all devs
If PS4 (or XB1) is faster to develop on then there should be more time to polish
I think it is not correct. According to specifications:
The theoretical peak performances according to flops (single precision floating point operations per a second)
Xbox360 | CPU (Xenon): 115 GFLOPS | GPU (Xenos): 240 GFLOPS | CPU+GPU: 355 GFLOPS
PS3 | CPU (CELL): 179 GFLOPS | GPU (RSX): 176 GFLOPS | CPU+GPU: 355 GFLOPS
CELL = 7 * 25.6 GFlops (SPE FLOPS * 7 at 3.2 GHz )
CPU+GPU difference: 0% (XBox360 = PS3)
GPU difference: 36% (XBox360 > PS3)
with the next generation
XBOX ONE | CPU ~112GFlops | GPU 1,31 TFlops | CPU+GPU 1,422 TFlops
PS4 | CPU 102 GFlops | GPU 1,84 TFlops | CPU+GPU 1,942 TFlops
CPU+GPU difference: 36,5% (PS4 > XBOX ONE)
GPU difference: 40,5% (PS4 > XBOX ONE)
That small upclock to the CPU won't alter performance that much, it would still be a 40% perf difference.
Are you really gonna ignore the PPE of the Cell as if it's just 7 SPE's running alone?
I think what he means is that devs will start creating games with the goal of the two versions looking the same and running at the same framerate but with the xb1 version at 900p and the ps4 at 1080p. If the devs can lock in their desired framerate and still have some extra power, they will use that power on small things such as better AA or preventing framerate drops.
The edge article really makes this seem like whats going to happen. Currently, unoptimized code runs @30fps1080p on ps4 but runs @sub20fps900p on xb1. From this unoptimized performance, I can see developers then optimizing the xb1 hardware to close the framerate gap and optimizing the ps4 hardware to get a rock solid fps and a better form of AA ( extra little bits of polish).
Since the ps4 is stronger and easier to develop for, developers can hit their targets quicker which gives them time to slightly exceed those targets. But the original target will still be based on what the xb1 can handle. And by doing this , they are pushing both consoles.
SwiftDeath
Member
I agree that is likely what he meant
But it does seem as if he meant devs don't see the drop from 1080p to 900p (for example) as a big difference which I find surprising
It still doesn't really clarify how big the differences may be but that's probably on the dev I guess
I wonder if original targets are going to be based on the XB1's power then so the PS4 is in some ways an afterthought or do people think they'll have different targets originally for the PS4 and the XB1 version?
SwiftDeath
Member
That's a hypothetical question I assume?
Considering the kinect is bundled in and thus makes up a significant portion of the cost of the XB1 and therefore the price
What it suggests is that the kinect, HDMI IN, maybe some software R&D, and dat audo chip costs at least 100 bucks if not more (likely more considering)
Sony bet on GDDR5 memory and they got lucky with prices lowering giving them the ability to double the previous 4gbs to 8 and securing a significant power lead when combined with the more powerful GPU
The xbox one does have kinect bundled in though. So it has to be considered when looking at the price. Sony might be a bit better at putting a console together. But I don't think that describes the power difference. Microsoft probably made the choice to release a weaker console for two main reasons.
- they wanted the xb1 to be somewhat affordable.
- They don't think that the average gamer or consumer will be able to notice the slight differences in multiplatform games.
They could have matched the ps4 gpu, but it would have increased the price of the console.
According to specifications:
Corrected:
The theoretical peak performances according to flops (single precision floating point operations per a second)
Xbox360 | CPU (Xenon): 115 GFLOPS | GPU (Xenos): 240 GFLOPS | CPU+GPU: 355 GFLOPS
PS3 | CPU (CELL): 217,6 GFLOPS | GPU (RSX): 176 GFLOPS | CPU+GPU: 393,6 GFLOPS
CELL = (1 PPE * (4 FPU Flops + 8 VMX Flops) * 3.2 Ghz) + (7 SPE * 8 Flops * 3.2 Ghz) = 217.6 GFlops
CPU+GPU difference: 10,8% (PS3 > XBox360)
GPU difference: 36% (XBox360 > PS3)
Next generation consoles:
XBOX ONE | CPU ~112GFlops | GPU 1,31 TFlops | CPU+GPU 1,422 TFlops
PS4 | CPU 102 GFlops | GPU 1,84 TFlops | CPU+GPU 1,942 TFlops
CPU+GPU difference: 36,5% (PS4 > XBOX ONE)
GPU difference: 40,5% (PS4 > XBOX ONE)
Corrected:
The theoretical peak performances according to flops (single precision floating point operations per a second)
Xbox360 | CPU (Xenon): 115 GFLOPS | GPU (Xenos): 240 GFLOPS | CPU+GPU: 355 GFLOPS
PS3 | CPU (CELL): 217,6 GFLOPS | GPU (RSX): 176 GFLOPS | CPU+GPU: 393,6 GFLOPS
CELL = (1 PPE * (4 FPU Flops + 8 VMX Flops) * 3.2 Ghz) + (7 SPE * 8 Flops * 3.2 Ghz) = 217.6 GFlops
CPU+GPU difference: 10,8% (PS3 > XBox360)
GPU difference: 36% (XBox360 > PS3)
Next generation consoles:
XBOX ONE | CPU ~112GFlops | GPU 1,31 TFlops | CPU+GPU 1,422 TFlops
PS4 | CPU 102 GFlops | GPU 1,84 TFlops | CPU+GPU 1,942 TFlops
CPU+GPU difference: 36,5% (PS4 > XBOX ONE)
GPU difference: 40,5% (PS4 > XBOX ONE)
The PS4 being more powerful and cheaper than the XBOne is kind of a big deal this generation. MS is banking on the Kinect being the driving force that differentiates XBone from the PS4 with the casual audience, and it very well could have if it didn't cost $499. Most casuals aren't going to see the difference between what their 360 kinect devices already offers them, and what the XBone kinect is going to offer.
MS won't be able to win back the good will of core gamers with a more expensive, and less powerful device, than the PS4, unless they do something very drastic. None of my friends are still interested in buying XBone after the draconian policies they tried to pull. They just don't trust MS anymore and MS hasn't given them a reason to.
My gaming friends and I talked about this at length, and most of my friends (who all but one owned 360's) feel as if MS has already shown their true motivations when they unveiled the XBone. Now they see their sudden change of heart as Microsoft Games Division desperately trying to fit back into their sheep disguise, while simultaneously hoping that core gamers suffer a severe case of amnesia.
MS won't be able to win back the good will of core gamers with a more expensive, and less powerful device, than the PS4, unless they do something very drastic. None of my friends are still interested in buying XBone after the draconian policies they tried to pull. They just don't trust MS anymore and MS hasn't given them a reason to.
My gaming friends and I talked about this at length, and most of my friends (who all but one owned 360's) feel as if MS has already shown their true motivations when they unveiled the XBone. Now they see their sudden change of heart as Microsoft Games Division desperately trying to fit back into their sheep disguise, while simultaneously hoping that core gamers suffer a severe case of amnesia.
Ironchef3500
Banned
What here got him banned? I'm somewhat confused on the gaf banning policies...
I would assume he was found to be astroturfng, based on his registration e-mail address or something. Nothing in that post itself is ban worthy. The gist of the post was that the Xbone would get better performance, and that the consoles 'both have their strengths and they both have their weaknesses', which is not really true. The PS4 is not weaker than the Xbone in any area, unless you use Microsoft Maths™ to prove otherwise.
Ironchef3500
Banned
Sword Of Doom
Member
So basically there is no point in competition with consoles. No incentive to innovate. The lower spec/design always dictates things for Devs? That's kind of shitty. :/
Glorified G
Member
It's the new "I have plenty black friends" defense
I think it says a lot about the future of the Xbox One when nearly everyone supporting it plans on getting a PS4 down the line while most getting PS4 first plan on sticking with just that console.
Nightengale
Member
Boy, was that pathetic.
"Hi, I'm new. I'm purchasing both because games are awesome either."
"By the way... did you know that Xbox is not actually as weak as it seems/PS4 is not as awesome as they seem?"
*goes into multi-post tirade on engines, latency, or whatever bullshit clingable*
Sword Of Doom
Member
That's how I feel too. How come developers don't care about alienating consumers when most multiplatform games look significantly better on PC. Especially as the consoles begin to show their age. It just doesn't make any sense to me. If a game is good people will buy it on the platform of their choice. Why worry about alienating consumers? Sounds more like alienating platform holders.
not with consoles but certainly there will be competition with other games... that is what will drive better/maximized graphics.
Crimson_Fate
Member
Exactly...
Even giving the benefit of the doubt that they are going to buy both consoles, why exactly would anyone buy the less powerful, more expensive one first ?
You buy the PS4 first then evaluate the weaker "One" and pick it up cheaper next year if you are still inclined to.
No way in hell I would touch the XB1 out of the gate... Not a single reason...
spatenfloot
Member
Lots of banned first posters lately were following the formula perfectly. They could at least try to seem like real people.
Yeah, but if they are still constrained to that lower spec, then basically to a degree, it halts innovation through an entire generation. I'm not saying that even with the lower specs, games won't look better as it goes on. They will. But games could be looking even better, and they won't - because according to this dev, devs will always constrain their stuff to the lower specs.
That to me is depressing. I guess the PS4 first party titles will look stellar, and as the generation goes on SHOULD look marginally better (tapping into the full power of the PS4). But damn.
The Microsoft engineers got one job to do and the Sony engineers another one.
They had different goals and we can't judge whether or not they are good by the end product, because we don't know if they met the goal they were supposed to target.
More power does not equal better engineers. I can build a more powerful console by not giving a shit about final cost or TDP and that doesn't make me good.
Look out for Juniors (<10 posts) that say "I love Kinect voice commands if I have my hands full like when I'm holding my kid."
NM, it was a quote off that stupid WCCFTECH website.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
He spread misinformation, and maybe he might have had a curious email address. Just maybe.
It's addressing the point that differences between 3rd party multiplats on different consoles will be limited to straightforward tweaks - resolution, IQ, that sort of thing. The point being that developers aren't going to sit down and create two sets of textures, models, assets, etc. for two different versions of the same game - they'll make some general version that can get running on all target platforms at some level, and use the easiest means of modifications (aforementioned resolution & AA) to gain performance parity, maybe make use of extra performance headroom on the stronger system.
So yeah, as others have been saying, don't expect some ridiculous Xbox vs. PS2 levels of difference, just resolution & IQ tweaks. As devs have time to settle down and get more familiar with the hardware of both new consoles, it then depends on whether the performance disparity grows or shrinks compared to what it's assumed to be now, which in my eyes depends a whole lot on how much MS can reduce the ESRAM headaches.
It's what gets me about MS' entire strategy with the Xbone. I get the feeling that they must've assumed Sony would just have an aneurism and forget to release a new console after the PS3, and that they'd be able to sell whatever in the upcoming gen.
They struggled to prove to the hardcore crowd that the original Kinect was remotely worth it, and so far the Kinect 2 seems to be traveling down that same path, which simply begs the question, "why is this thing even packed in if you're barely going to talk about it?" Furthermore, as much as folks argue it's targeted toward the casual audience, I've thought about the same thing you mentioned in this regard - There's not much that Kinect 2 does that's going to distinguish itself from the original Kinect in the eyes of the casual crowd, and on top of that the 360 + Kinect goes for much cheaper than the Xbone, a trend that will likely simply continue even as the Xbone gets cheaper down the line.
It leaves the Xbone + Kinect 2 in a weird spot - A packed-in piece of hardware that alienates the hardcore at a high price-point that alienates the casual audience. Unless MS finds some seriously killer app for the thing in short order, I only see the combination weighing the whole package down for the time being.
In AUS its only $50 difference, and now with FIFA14 added you can say its cheaper then PS4.
Also why im going with Xbox one 1st? simple, launch games appeal to me more than the PS4.
Australia is probably one of the smallest markets in the world.
Dr. Kitty Muffins
Member
Playground battles used to consist of arguments about blast processing and stuff. Can you imagine what kids argue about now that they access to so much information via the internet? I'd love to record them without their knowledge sometime just to hear what funny things they say.
Whiteshirt
Member
That's the only explanation I can think of too. Microsoft isn't particularly known for future foresight (read: basically outmaneuvered by every major tech company in the last decade).
Sony isn't particularly a smart company, especially between 2000-2010 where they did shit all and eroded their entire brand name with mediocre consumer electronics. If Ballmer's laughter at Apple products is any indication of Microsoft's attitude towards "weaker" competitors, I'm not surprised that they thought Sony would pull out of the market or develop some stupid Wii U competitor. Sony's leadership at the time wasn't exactly inspiring at all.
Crimson_Fate
Member
Please... PS4 has so many more free Day one games. Vaue is far on the PS4 side.
I guess if giving away a free game (which will still look worse on the XB1) was all it took to suck you in to an inferior console then I guess MS PR did its job. Enjoy a decade of console mediocrity ...
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
Those numbers are not very accurate and PS3/360 are far less efficient, among other things.
In other words, apples to oranges.
I keep forgetting that Australia falls under the EU market. Pretty sweet that you guys and girls get FIFA.
We also get royally screwed money wise (the PS4 costs $549 AUD, and the XBONE costs $599 AUD) so im planning on buying from overseas.
SwiftDeath
Member
Aren't games also ridiculous prices?
Jesus DAT import tax! Highway robbery I say.
ehh kind of. At the start of the last gen, games were actually selling at the official RRP of $119.95/$99.95 alot of the time. These days though, there are always a few stores selling any new release at around $60-$70, and even dedicated gaming stores like EB will sell at $89. So far, it looks like next-gen is following the trend, which is fantastic news.
EDIT: Also got to remember that pricing here in Australia is inclusive of all taxes. What is on the ticket is what we pay.
Won't be a problem, even at launch. It's just too easy to improve IQ and framerate not to put the PS4 versions at a better performance. 50% better specs across the board and easier architecture will almost guaranty 50% better performance in games and you can rest assured anyone who tries to downgrade the PS4 version will stick out like a sore thumb.
It has nothing to do with tax (at least pass 10%), it costs that much because they get away with charging that much.
Keep dribbling more spin.
Again games that I want at launch on X B O X O N E interest me more then P S 4.
Do U get it or you want me to simplify it more?
I think his point was why get an inferior version of Fifa and an inferior console even if you save a few bucks?
Rustle Da Jimmies
Banned
The amount of smug in this thread is impressive.
Because he prefers Xbox launch games. It's that simple.
I was about to say something similar