• 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.

Adrian C. (Former People Can Fly) Claims His Dev Friends Claim 50% XB1/PS4 Speed Diff

Status
Not open for further replies.
But Major Nelson said.....

:(

but directx

But muh cloud is infinite

But I've seen Titanfall...

Oh my poor F5 key.

Time to get the popcorn ready.

Direct X was supposed to fix that difference...

zowryhb.gif

:)
 

avaya

Member
No surprise at all. When you have the second coming of Christ as your systems architect you know you got something good going.

I knew the moment House introduced Cerny in February shit was going to get real.

People really have no idea of the calibre of the guy.
 

jdmonmou

Member
Does this even matter? The 360 was less powerful than the PS3 and the multiplatform games for both performed the same and in some cases better on the 360.
 
He is most probably referring to the GPU, and we have known this for months now.

I thought we knew 40% not 50% (admitted, I get confused with big numbers and shiny things, so maybe those numbers are for other things).

Also, Mr. Penello seemed to think the difference wouldn't be that big.
 

Sub_Level

wants to fuck an Asian grill.
Cerny actually put blast processing inside the PS4 architecture?

It's a risky move, but it can work.
 

Iacobellis

Junior Member
Does this even matter? The 360 was less powerful than the PS3 and the multiplatform games for both performed the same and in some cases better on the 360.

That's because 360 was a hell of a lot easier to develop for and already had a year's worth of marketshare.
 

Mechazawa

Member
Does this even matter? The 360 was less powerful than the PS3 and the multiplatform games for both performed the same and in some cases better on the 360.

The 360 was easier to develop for and I thought the common consensus was that they 360 at least edged the PS3 out as far as it's GPU went, even if it had a worse CPU so it wasn't as cut and dry as "PS3 is more powerful"

I don't think the X1 is supposed to have any particularly meaningful advantages.
 

Vashetti

Banned
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80168873&postcount=708

Performance: I’m not dismissing raw performance. I’m stating – as I have stated from the beginning – that the performance delta between the two platforms is not as great as the raw numbers lead the average consumer to believe. There are things about our system architecture not fully understood, and there are things about theirs as well, that bring the two systems into balance.

People DO understand that Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD. We CREATED DirectX, the standard API’s that everyone programs against. So while people laude Sony for their HW skills, do you really think we don’t know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously? There is no way we’re giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference – it would be obvious.

I get a ton of hate for saying this – but it’s been the same EVERY generation. Sony claims more power, they did it with Cell, they did it with Emotion Engine, and they are doing it again. And, in the end, games on our system looked the same or better.

I’m not saying they haven’t built a good system – I’m merely saying that anyone who wants to die on their sword over this 30%+ power advantage are going to be fighting an uphill battle over the next 10 years…

JdpYT.gif
 

jett

D-Member
50%? That's close to 30%. And as everyone knows, a 30% difference is negligible. Case closed, nothing to see here.
 
Does this even matter? The 360 was less powerful than the PS3 and the multiplatform games for both performed the same and in some cases better on the 360.

Yes because the disparity was caused by the lack of familiarity with how to efficiently use the Cell processor. Now we are looking at the same architecture for both (as in x86) in addition to a hardware advantage.
 

netBuff

Member
Does this even matter? The 360 was less powerful than the PS3 and the multiplatform games for both performed the same and in some cases better on the 360.

The PS3 is not clearly better than the 360, their respective architectures are very different. With systems as close as these two (much slower GPU and more complicated memory architecture on Xbone), differences are bound to get more noticeable (especially when it comes to achieving stable frame rates even in complex situations).
 

BigDug13

Member
The 360 was easier to develop for and I thought the common consensus was that they 360 at least edged the PS3 out as far as it's GPU went, even if it had a worse CPU so it wasn't as cut and dry as "PS3 is more powerful"

I don't think the X1 is supposed to have any particularly meaningful advantages.

And 512mb unified memory compared to 256/256 split was huge as well for memory management.
 

tensuke

Member
But MS invented DirectX. I don't think this Adrian guy gets it. They literally made a proprietary graphics API for their own OS. They made the Xbox. They made the Xbox 360. And now they've made the Xbone. Two whole consoles centered around gaming, and one box that also happens to play games. And there's no way they'd give a 30% advantage to Sony.
 
if true (50% and not 30%) well at least Major Nelson wasn't lying :p
Edit: Also where did he get this 30% number from I thought we believed it was 40-50
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom