EPTThe XBox Thread - Page 119
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Lynkilen
Norway211 Posts
| ||
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
On June 11 2013 13:58 takingbackoj wrote: Is this factual? Not being sarcastic, I actually would like to see the specs and haven't seen anywhere that says that PS4 is better than Xbox One hardware wise. Sony's white paper for their PS4 shows that they opted for a 18 Compute Unit GCN configuration with 1152 shaders. Microsoft has been quiet about specs but in a video somewhere (I think it was from Wired), they mentioned 768 shaders/12 Computer Units. Since we definitely know AMD has both design wins, we know both consoles are using the same GCN architecture and the CPUs have to be really similar since you're not cramming 8 Bulldozer cores into a console without melting the console. If you want to know why Microsoft's APU has 5 billion transistors compared to the PS4's 3 billion transistors, it has to do with embedded memory. Sony opted for GDDR5 to provide bandwidth required to feed the GPU; Microsoft opted for much, much slower DDR3 so they are forced to graft a huge amount of embedded memory to make up for the pathetic memory bandwidth. Sony struck gold in the past year because they were choosing to launch with 4GB of RAM but suddenly denser GDDR5 modules from Hynix and Samsung became available. Since they're using similar designs overall, you can kind of compare and contrast specs. Of course you have things like development tools and whatnot but the hardware isn't like the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 where you have wildly different GPU and CPU architectures. On June 11 2013 14:02 takingbackoj wrote: Yeah most likely but I see people repeating that the hardware is inferior on Xbox one yet I haven't seen any evidence of either one being better than the other. My main concern is whether the $100 price difference is due solely to that motion sensor garbage or not. Motion sensor and poor APU yields do a huge number on your console. They definitely have poor yields, no matter what Major Nelson says. There is no way AMD and TSMC can manufacturer a very custom 5 billion transistor APU well. TSMC and GloFlo are notorious for having way shittier fabs than Intel or Samsung. | ||
|
Elwar
953 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:07 Lynkilen wrote: PS4 has GDDR3 Xbox has DDR3 ram wise. PS4 has GDDR5 (176GB/s), Xbox has DDR3 (68GB/s)+32MB ESRAM to help offset the low bandwidth. PS4 is rumoured to reserve 1GB for the OS. The Xbox One is confirmed to reserve 3GB for the OS (remember its 3 OS's). | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Poll: Percentage of PS4 sales in comparison to Xbone sales? 150-200% (1.5-2 PS4 sales per Xbone sale) (20) 300%+ (3+ PS4 sales per Xbone sale) (8) 100-150% (1-1.5 PS4 sales per Xbone sale) (6) 200-300% (2-3 PS4 sales per Xbone sale) (5) <100% (The Xbone will out-sell PS4) (4) 43 total votes Your vote: Percentage of PS4 sales in comparison to Xbone sales? (Vote): 300%+ (3+ PS4 sales per Xbone sale) | ||
|
GattAttack
Canada202 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:07 Womwomwom wrote: Sony's white paper for their PS4 shows that they opted for a 18 Compute Unit GCN configuration with 1152 shaders. Microsoft has been quiet about specs but in a video somewhere (I think it was from Wired), they mentioned 768 shaders/12 Computer Units. Since we definitely know AMD has both design wins, we know both consoles are using the same GCN architecture and the CPUs have to be really similar since you're not cramming 8 Bulldozer cores into a console without melting the console. If you want to know why Microsoft's APU has 5 billion transistors compared to the PS4's 3 billion transistors, it has to do with embedded memory. Sony opted for GDDR5 to provide bandwidth required to feed the GPU; Microsoft opted for much, much slower DDR3 so they are forced to graft a huge amount of embedded memory to make up for the pathetic memory bandwidth. Sony struck gold in the past year because they were choosing to launch with 4GB of RAM but suddenly denser GDDR5 modules from Hynix and Samsung became available. Since they're using similar designs overall, you can kind of compare and contrast specs. Of course you have things like development tools and whatnot but the hardware isn't like the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 where you have wildly different GPU and CPU architectures. This is a pretty good source for hardware comparison: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4 | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:02 takingbackoj wrote: Yeah most likely but I see people repeating that the hardware is inferior on Xbox one yet I haven't seen any evidence of either one being better than the other. My main concern is whether the $100 price difference is due solely to that motion sensor garbage or not. Basically, yes. Honestly, there's not much wrong with XBox One for the average consumer. Sure, if you're in the military, live in Podunk, North Dakota, or only buy used games, then yes, it could be rough. But for most of us, it's a good machine with features we would probably enjoy given time. That being said, the PS4 is probably the go-to console for hardcore gamers. No frills, no complications, just games. (There are media features to it, but they all take a backseat to the gaming side.) | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On June 11 2013 13:58 takingbackoj wrote: Is this factual? Not being sarcastic, I actually would like to see the specs and haven't seen anywhere that says that PS4 is better than Xbox One hardware wise. Itt is "factual". The biggest factors if we are talking about pure hardware would be the graphics cards (MS:D3D 11.1 chip with 32 MB embedded memory which equals 1.23 TFLOPS vs PS4: AMD Radeon Graphics Core which equals 1.84 TFLOPS.) along with the memory (MS:Memory (RAM) 8 GB DDR3 PS4:8 GB GDDR5). Then we have gameplay optimization. MS constructed The new XBox in a funky way so 3 GIG of the RAM will be used to run the operation system... Further the PlayStation 4 will have a maximum memory bandwidth of 176 GB per second, while the Xbox One will be capped at 68.3 GB per second. | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
On June 11 2013 12:46 ticklishmusic wrote: Ouch. I didn't know you could win E3, but Sony did. LOL ! Ballsy | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
This is encouraging, hopefully this pans out to be true. | ||
|
takingbackoj
United States684 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:07 Womwomwom wrote: Sony's white paper for their PS4 shows that they opted for a 18 Compute Unit GCN configuration with 1152 shaders. Microsoft has been quiet about specs but in a video somewhere (I think it was from Wired), they mentioned 768 shaders/12 Computer Units. Since we definitely know AMD has both design wins, we know both consoles are using the same GCN architecture and the CPUs have to be really similar since you're not cramming 8 Bulldozer cores into a console without melting the console. If you want to know why Microsoft's APU has 5 billion transistors compared to the PS4's 3 billion transistors, it has to do with embedded memory. Sony opted for GDDR5 to provide bandwidth required to feed the GPU; Microsoft opted for much, much slower DDR3 so they are forced to graft a huge amount of embedded memory to make up for the pathetic memory bandwidth. Sony struck gold in the past year because they were choosing to launch with 4GB of RAM but suddenly denser GDDR5 modules from Hynix and Samsung became available. Since they're using similar designs overall, you can kind of compare and contrast specs. Of course you have things like development tools and whatnot but the hardware isn't like the Xbox 360 vs. PS3 where you have wildly different GPU and CPU architectures. On June 11 2013 14:09 Elwar wrote: PS4 has GDDR5 (176GB/s), Xbox has DDR3 (68GB/s)+32MB ESRAM to help offset the low bandwidth. PS4 is rumoured to reserve 1GB for the OS. The Xbox One is confirmed to reserve 3GB for the OS (remember its 3 OS's). Good info guys, thanks. Personally, I liked Live much more than PSN and though its not a huge deal, Xbox's controller to me was superior as well. Just the feel and experience of Xbox's online system had me leaning toward getting Xbox One first despite the always online stuff. But i'll say this, if PS4 turns out to be superior hardware wise then the exclusive content on Xbox would have to be very good for me to get one before a price cut at least. If the only reason for it being priced 100 dollars more is the Kinect then I will just wait. I don't care for the motion sensing stuff, just give me a controller and i'm fine. I will hold out judgement until I see more though. I have owned pretty much every major system since the SNES (excluding the ridiculous wii) so I will in all likelihood buy both of these systems but obviously, for their own sake, MS needs to come out with more reasons to buy Xbox One before they release it. Neither system will die but from a business standpoint, I would lose a lot of built up faith for MS if this is all they got to separate from PS4. | ||
|
Womwomwom
5930 Posts
The paywall is arbitrary but that's literally the worst thing this console has. Personally, I liked Live much more than PSN and though its not a huge deal, Xbox's controller to me was superior as well. Just the feel and experience of Xbox's online system had me leaning toward getting Xbox One first despite the always online stuff. But i'll say this, if PS4 turns out to be superior hardware wise then the exclusive content on Xbox would have to be very good for me to get one before a price cut at least. If the only reason for it being priced 100 dollars more is the Kinect then I will just wait. I don't care for the motion sensing stuff, just give me a controller and i'm fine. I will hold out judgement until I see more though. If the Vita is anything to go by, its definitely usable now. The PS3's architecture is really, really bad for everything. | ||
|
Elwar
953 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:20 Womwomwom wrote: I don't think it matters in the long run. Its nice to have the option but PS+ is a really, really good service. They provide you with lots of "free" games to play and they actually take the time to choose games that you rpobably wouldn't normally play but are actually pretty interesting. The paywall is arbitrary but that's literally the worst thing this console has. Yeah. Take a game like Catherine, its meant to be good but theres no way I'm walking into a store and buying that game, but now that I have it free I'll probably play it sooner or later. Its not just about the blockbusters like Uncharted 3. | ||
|
caelym
United States6430 Posts
| ||
|
Elwar
953 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:24 caelym wrote: I'm not a console gamer so I'm genuinely curious. Does no one care at all about the Kinect? XB1 seems to have a huge edge in the motion and auditory sensing department but no one seems to care. This is the result of experiences with the over-promising, under-delivering Wii and Kinect 1. They just don't do much for normal games, the best use-cases are actually just voice commands, which isn't necessarily unique to Kinect (plenty of games have done it via headset before). The casual game market has rapidly dried up, and obviously aren't the people who watch an E3 conference or buy $499 consoles. The reason why Ryse was just QTE after QTE was because it was originally a Kinect exclusive. There is no deep well of gameplay to be explored, or at least no developers have uncovered it yet. MS were smart to downplay Kinect this year, they realise its not very popular right now. Edit: Smartglass is..an OK concept? Its another thing thats like "oh thats cool...but". In this case, but do I really want to be switching between my controller and my phone/tablet when I'm playing games? | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:24 caelym wrote: I'm not a console gamer so I'm genuinely curious. Does no one care at all about the Kinect? XB1 seems to have a huge edge in the motion and auditory sensing department but no one seems to care. Also what's the general opinion on XB1's smartglass app? I sort of thought of that technology as McDonald's offering fruit deserts and healthier Happy Meals. Just sort of covering their asses in case public opinion turned against them on health issues. Personally I find it interesting, but don't care enough about it. I don't want to put on the tin foil hat, but always online, various sensors, microphone, camera + NSA collecting info from companies like MS... yeah not crazy about it myself. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:24 caelym wrote: I'm not a console gamer so I'm genuinely curious. Does no one care at all about the Kinect? XB1 seems to have a huge edge in the motion and auditory sensing department but no one seems to care. Also what's the general opinion on XB1's smartglass app? As much as I recognize that the Kinect could have good applications, the current ones don't interest me and the fact that there's no way to get around buying it seems to me like complete BS. I don't want it, therefore I should be able to opt out. So I have 2 reasons to dislike it. | ||
|
Mercurial
Canada92 Posts
| ||
|
takingbackoj
United States684 Posts
On June 11 2013 14:43 Djzapz wrote: As much as I recognize that the Kinect could have good application, the current ones don't interest me and the fact that there's no way to get around buying it seems to me like complete BS. I don't want it, therefore I should be able to opt out. So I have 2 reasons to dislike it. I agree. There are probably decent applications for it but they haven't caught my eye with any of them yet. More often than not, I look at a game that is tied in with Kinect and think to myself "This game would be better without all of this motion sensing stuff." As for being able to turn the console on and control it with my voice, it seems extremely unnecessary. They already have wireless controllers that can turn it on and control it and while voice commands are cool I guess, it's not worth paying $100 dollars for it. From what I have seen, Sony's comments on focusing on gamers is true. They don't have the frills that MS put into Xbox One but for me, that is fine. MS will most likely still do fine due to the extra perks that will attract more casual gamers looking for something that they can play a few of the more popular games on while also adding value outside of gaming. The TV intergration, the fantasy football intergration, the Kinect voice command and any of the other extras they put in will likely win over enough people to justify its existence regardless but as far as the more hardcore gamers go, as it stands, PS4 looks like the better option. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2104 Posts
 ... Along with PS4 not having all of the shit.... And having better exclusives.... And..... (etc.) | ||
| ||
