This should put an end to those that say that PS3 & 360 are very equal in graphics & power. If it wasn't for the fact that the cell processor was very difficult to develop for, then most of the multiplats on PS3 would've far surpassed most multiplats on 360 right now.
-
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.
Microsoft respond to the EDGE article
- Thread starter GribbleGrunger
- Start date
- Status
This should put an end to those that say that PS3 & 360 are very equal in graphics & power. If it wasn't for the fact that the cell processor was very difficult to develop for, then most of the multiplats on PS3 would've far surpassed most multiplats on 360 right now.
EventHorizon
Member
To ignore that fact is to ignore reality. While it might technically be true to say that the PS3 had more potential power, that nugget of information tells you little about how gaming actually played out on both systems. Cross platform games generally looked better on the 360, and the PS3 could never implement cross game chat do to the console's limitations. To say the PS3 was more powerful also does a disservice to the PS4 which truly is a more powerful system than the XB1.
I think a key point is that while its possible the masses could see a difference in resolution drop, they will likely never get the chance to compare. Going from the 360 to the Xbone even 1600x900 would be a big leap in IQ, so they won't know what they are missing. I think the bigger difference is going to come from things that you don't need to compare. Things like framerate, v-sync, pop-in, and lack of AA are all going to be likely outcomes of the Xbone's lower power, and things that can stick out like a sore thumb.
Maximilian E.
AKA MS-Evangelist
Curious, where does 77 GFLOPS come from regarding Xenon? I was under the impression it was over 100 (115 GFLOPS)
It does not matter now, just got curious about the number..
Have you tried the PS4 controller, Bish? Just wondering how the two compare, particularly the feel of the sticks.
I think this is the main factor the PS4 be better in terms of power. The PS3's hardware was reported to be extremely difficult to work with and talk coming out now seems to suggest the PS4 hardware doesn't have this issue and the technology is something a lot of developers have experience with.
I doubt the multiplatform games will be much different, but I do think sites like Digital Foundry will most likely showcase that the PS4 versions will have advantages over the Xbox versions but they won't be huge as most developers will use the Xbox One as the baseline and work from there (for PC, PS4 and Xbox One games).
I also think Sony will really showcase their hardware and it will look better than anything the Xbox One has to offer.
Hopefully MS can do some more stuff to close the gap (not sure what is left to do, maybe they could continue to optimise the Xbox One's firmware or something so it ekes out every last bit of power it can).
Having said all that I am planning on getting the Xbox One first (and the PS4 when I have the cash spare) as I think it will take some time for the PS4 to start to show an advantage.
Seriously dude, what are you talking about?
Just a few examples:
- N64: Mario 64 a launch title!!!
- PS2: MGS2 a year after launch and it looked and played incredible
- 360: Gears of War a year after launch
- PS3: Uncharted... a year after launch
Devs are, (especially first party) pushing the hardware pretty good with the second genaration of games in terms of performance and graphics. It has always been like this. PS4 and Xbone are even more easier to develop for...
BluePigGanon
Member
...and all those games were visually outdone a year or two later.
Really? By what games? Their sequels? They relied on the same tech with a few tweaks and sometimes with cost of performance like MGS2 60fps -> MGS3 30 fps.
This is how development works. Experience and better code until the sacrifices get to big. There is still no 360 game that looks and runs better than Gears 1 for example.
Fresh Face
Banned
Not "dwarf." Carmack would not have said they were so similar if one were to "dwarf" the other.
As for "perform better," yes, it will. But you are overestimating the difference. A dev on here said at worst it will be something like 1080p @ 60fps vs. 900p @ 50fps. Not a huge difference. Certainly not huge for casuals who may not even be able to tell the difference.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Nib, the 360's CPU is 115 Gflops. This brings the total to about 355 Gflops for the 360 vs 406 Gflops for the PS3.
The PS3 is slightly more powerful although it's much more difficult to access the power.
Great post.
velociraptor
Junior Member
I think that is actually a huge difference.
SEGAvangelist
Gold Member
To the GAF Hardcore and PC Gamers? Yes. To most casuals? No.
Sony will probably push the power difference and work to convince the casuals otherwise, though, and it may work. I just think an everyday gamer playing one then the other wouldn't see much difference, though TV size would be important in those tests.
Fresh Face
Banned
Is it? Also, I'm pulling numbers out of thin air. In other words, I think that's what the numbers are in the worst case scenario, in addition to a given game being completely un-optimized. With optimization, the numbers could (and should) be a lot closer. Microsoft is very good with software. I know people don't like the design of Windows 8, for example, but it is an excellent, stable system.
It's really not going to be as bad as you think.
*clap*
SwiftDeath
Member
The power argument is certainly one for hardcores considering the power difference isn't going to be as large as other previous gens
I would say though that for the majority of GAF the main console for multiplats will be the one with better looking games
Whether or not individuals will buy both or not is more interesting
For Gaffers I feel the power argument is a valid one if they're considering one console like that active thread that's going around
Exclusive games for both of course are the other important consideration
But considering the industry seems to be going to more 3rd Party and hit every platform possible imo, it's a valid argument for those who care
To casuals and softcore, it won't matter
Activision will get COD to 60FPS no matter what
Hell it was 544P last go around wasn't it?
Perhaps, but I keep seeing people ignoring the fact that not only will games look superior on ps4 but they will come in at a price tag of $100 less.
So while many non-technical geek gamers may not care about the difference in graphics they are likely to be more price sensitive.
Just because people don't understand the technical aspect behind it, they can sure notice 1080p @ 60 vs 900p @ 50.
LukasTaves
Member
RSX is not a 176 Gflops part, going from a sony presentation its 192gflops @ 500mhz:
http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20060329/3dps3.htm
http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/20060329/3dps309.jpg
And I would have to say that I disagree with the notion that sony 1st party games are simply more technically advanced than everything else on the market, or that Ps3's shortcomings come only from difficult of use.
Curious, where does 77 GFLOPS come from regarding Xenon? I was under the impression it was over 100 (115 GFLOPS)
It does not matter now, just got curious about the number..
115 gflops is an inflated number that is non achievable. It comes from the scalar and vector execution units that each core has, but IIRC, for each clock the instruction could only use the vector unit or the scalar unit, so you would never have a real peak of the two operations added.
Not seeing what's so bad about what MS said. They basically said, "Our machine is more than the sum of it's parts and we'll let the games speak for themselves."
Sony is saying they have the fastest car ever because their engine has more cylinders and 50 more HP. MS is basically saying, all that matters is how it performs on the track.
So the moment that PS4 games start looking better than Xbox One games from a technical perspective is the moment we can shove this back in MS face. But not a moment sooner.
Sony is saying they have the fastest car ever because their engine has more cylinders and 50 more HP. MS is basically saying, all that matters is how it performs on the track.
So the moment that PS4 games start looking better than Xbox One games from a technical perspective is the moment we can shove this back in MS face. But not a moment sooner.
exactly
Yes, but they've changed that message, and they've tried to hide it under PR buzzwords. This isn't what Microsoft has been stating since day one, remember, the cloud was going to do everything magical, after that reality was debunked and realized, now its all about how it handles on the track. The excuse of the Miata. They came to the table pretending their box was powerful, that the cloud was going to process things in ways we could never imagine, etc. With that being unfounded, the excuses are latched onto.
Microsoft would be in a better, honest, position, if they knew what they wanted to do with the Xbone. If they know the pulse of gamers, as we all know MS does, then they would know the gaming community wouldn't care about lesser hardware. They wouldn't look like they are trying to spin their hardware shortcomings, if they knew that hardware was not important.
If MS stuck to the message that they didn't design the xbox for hardcore gaming, none of us would be here. Instead of trying to double back and say that while its mathematically inferior, its STILL better, in a technical performing way. Its just silly. As they are trying to redefine everything, again, much like they've done with the term "exclusive."
SEGAvangelist
Gold Member
Then how are CELL's GFLOPS calculated? Aren't they basically the same parts? (PPC Core with SPEs)? Does this need to be adjusted as well?
SwiftDeath
Member
Yep MS's messaging has been all over the place since the reveal, hell before the reveal with orth
So I feel no qualms about belittling their PR now
Major Nelson didn't wait until PS3 released to do a comparison
Not sure why we should feel the need to given how much of the specs we're aware of
Yes, I was just messing around with it this morning. The new DualShock for PS4 feels better, chunkier. Most of my FPS console action was on 360 this gen, but putting aside differences in power between platforms, I would be inclined to move over to the PS4 controller. You can't go wrong with either one.
Back on topic - I think this thread has run the course.
- Status