Impeccable
Member
There is no way I am purchasing a XbOne anywhere near launch now,mI'm not risking this.
Thanks insider friends.
Thanks insider friends.
Just delay the damn system until Fall 2014. Put a beefier GPU in the fucking console while you're at it.
There is no way I am purchasing a XbOne anywhere near launch now,mI'm not risking this.
Thanks insider friends.
Just delay the damn system until Fall 2014. Put a beefier GPU in the fucking console while you're at it.
You might get some of that in PS4 exclusives, but multiplatform games will be layed out for the least common denominator, and most devs will choose the XBox One for that.
Generally, we shouldn't forget we're talking about the GPU's performance here. That means an increase in resolution would come for free, however an automatic boost in framerate isn't guaranteed since the CPU's performance is rumored to be the same.
Wasn't the original place-holder date Dec 31st? Can't see a date for the XBONE now.
TIMED exclusives
A slight downclock isn't going to cause drastic differences like in the scenarios you detailed.
PS4 going from 192 GB/S to 176 GB/s was as trivial as this downclock.
This is where I'm confused, it sounds like these "rumors" just came from a Gaf discussion in the other thread? How does anyone on Gaf have that insider knowledge?
You mean spend 500 milllion more dollars, test-test-test, manage to piss off third parties who you have TIMED exclusives with, AND give Sony a head start?
I don't think going embedded memory with DDR3 was that bad a decision. What I really don't get is why they went with 6t-SRAM instead of eDRAM. The size difference is humongous. Are there production/process advantages to this I am unaware of?
Too late better suck up the damages and take on the 3rd gen console curse and rise again like a shining phoenix like sony with ps4.
You mean spend 500 milllion more dollars, test-test-test, manage to piss off third parties who you have TIMED exclusives with, AND give Sony a head start?
Same. He's progressively tanked Microsoft and it's stock. I know people will say the stock is on a high right now, but so is most stock, since it's false comfort and boom coming off the back of a great recession.
25% of the APU is occupied by 32MB of ESRAM.
I don't get it man. I just don't get it.
Better than having a failed product for 5 or more years. There's a real chance this shit is gonna backfire.
Unfortunately it's not. There are performance issues. In some cases, its quite significant.
If there are yield issues, they will bin the chips and (console) supply will be low until yields are fixed. That is the ONLY thing that will happen if any of this is true.
Using eSRAM guarantees that there will be little issues when shrinking to 20nm, 14nm, and if there's anything beyond that as SRAM is fundamental to any chip design. eDRAM is not guaranteed at those nodes. I think MS just decided to bite the bullet knowing that yields could be an issue now, but after a shrink to the next node, the decision will payoff. It seems everything was designed with long-term cost savings in mind.
I don't see what the Xbone being weaker has to do with the quality of visuals on the PS4.
PC ports of all 360/PS3 games hands down destroy their console counterparts. It isn't going to be very difficult for devs to make their PS4 games prettier than the Xbone games.
You can't have some consoles play a game better than others.
The platform is whatever it is day one.
I'd say that the development side is pretty well represented here on GAF, like almost any videogame related group; the outlier being games journalists. They come here to read, but they reply on Twitter.This is where I'm confused, it sounds like these "rumors" just came from a Gaf discussion in the other thread? How does anyone on Gaf have that insider knowledge?
Why would being a GAF member preclude someone from having inside knowledge?
This makes sense, thanks for the explanation.Right now, the EDRAM seems to be only available on 40nm/32nm nodes. 28nm EDRAM is in development, but I'm aware of any shipping products with it.
For MS, I think the decision was a XCGPU setup APU + eDRAM daughter die, a WiiU like setup with CPU and GPU/EDRAM on separate dies (since the eDRAM would be on a different node), or APU with ESRAM on chip. In theory, with everything on chip power consumption and performance could be better.
Using eSRAM guarantees that there will be little issues when shrinking to 20nm, 14nm, and if there's anything beyond that as SRAM is fundamental to any chip design. eDRAM is not guaranteed at those nodes. I think MS just decided to bite the bullet knowing that yields could be an issue now, but after a shrink to the next node, the decision will payoff. It seems everything was designed with long-term cost savings in mind.
Or maybe MS overshot theirs.
Why would being a GAF member preclude someone from having inside knowledge?
I just wanted to thank you for your contribution to the thread with this personal attack, which seems to be standard practice for you. Just for your own reference, here is this post that you always seem to fail to look at :
You're right, everything I say must be off Beyond3D, right? Even though much or most of that content wasn't on B3D during those dates. Was I wrong about memory? Yes and no. At the time where I had garnered information on the PS4, it DID have 2GB of GDDR5 and at its original release schedule, it was going to end up with either 2GB or 4GB. 8GB is Sony getting lucky. I admit to being wrong on that front, and what I say can be corroborated.
Next time, Heavy, instead of hurling personal insults dispute the content of my posts, not the posters themselves. Or go back to WrassleGaf.
This logic baffles me, and I don't know why people think this will happen just because.
At the end of the day the console that sells the most becomes the lead platform whether it is underpowered or overpowered, there are instances like the Xbox vs PS2 where the Xbox was the lead platform and was highly favoured by PC devs because of ease of programming, but from what's been said so far Sony is farther along in that regard.
Normally the first year of a console's new launch is ass in terms of displaying what the new generation is about from third parties and you usually end up with what ultimately feels like up-ports from the previous generation.
They also mentioned 768 operations per cycle, is compatible 768 opc with a frequency downgrade?
How can Microsoft be so bad when it comes to hardware. They have so much money, why can't they hire people to be smart in this.
It not all doom and gloom for MS
power has never determined the winner and its certainly no wii/wiiu situation in regards to power and 3rd party support.
As long as the X1 gets the same 3rd party support as the PS4, the power difference will only effect like 5% of the gaming population.
It wasnt a downclock... They basically used different memory chips at lower frequency.
But all PSPs were capable, it's wasn't a hardware change, it was a FW change.Well the psp upped their clocks (maybe reinstated is a better word) a good while after it launched.
They did hire the best people to make the hardware. But at the same time, they gave those people a shitty goal.
In reality, it could've been worse.
It was a bet, like any other bet, but the downclock isn't what is worrisome, it's the half baked OS. I hope they just fix things in time. I'm optimistic they'll get it right, but it might be a few months after launch.
They have a very ambitious goal with the Xbox One OS.
It not all doom and gloom for MS
power has never determined the winner and its certainly no wii/wiiu situation in regards to power and 3rd party support.
As long as the X1 gets the same 3rd party support as the PS4, the power difference will only effect like 5% of the gaming population.
I like that answer more, I was thinking about this earlier about how MS is trying to compete with EVERYONE and make a product to capture everyone and everything in it that to try to get there, they're going to miss their goal horribly.
Their goal relies more on (a change of) perception than (a change of) reality. They have built a filter/funnel. I don't see why they can't succeed.I like that answer more, I was thinking about this earlier about how MS is trying to compete with EVERYONE and make a product to capture everyone and everything in it that to try to get there, they're going to miss their goal horribly.
Unfortunately it's not. There are performance issues. In some cases, its quite significant.
Outside of digital foundry and similar technical analysis, most people will never notice the real-world difference between the two consoles. Those "50%, 33%, 123.4%" numbers throw out really don't mean much outside of the paper its printed, mainly because for both boxes we do not know what the system bottleneck is (my guess is the CPU for both). And in the long run, bottlenecks is where the great equalizer is located.
25% of the APU is occupied by 32MB of ESRAM.
I don't get it man. I just don't get it.
Better than having a failed product for 5 or more years. There's a real chance this shit is gonna backfire.
I don't think going embedded memory with DDR3 was that bad a decision. What I really don't get is why they went with 6t-SRAM instead of eDRAM. The size difference is humongous. Are there production/process advantages to this I am unaware of?
For everyone asking- this information is all pretty recent. Around the PlayStation Meeting the Xbox One was way behind (OS + hardware). Engineers were scrambling to get things sorted out.
It turns out, they didn't sort it out. The OS you saw was a complete and total lie. The current plan is to get the yields up, lower the clock rate, and to have enough units out for a sell out in the Fall.
CPU is only a bottleneck if a game is designed to demand a lot from the CPU. This is highly up to a game per game basis.
Even so, considering the fact that GPGPU is going to be a big thing this gen, even more importance will be put on the GPU as it will be able to pick up some tasks normally given to the CPU (physics being the obvious one). I actually don't really think the CPU will be much of an issue at all this gen if the physics are offloaded.
For everyone asking- this information is all pretty recent. Around the PlayStation Meeting the Xbox One was way behind (OS + hardware). Engineers were scrambling to get things sorted out.
It turns out, they didn't sort it out. The OS you saw was a complete and total lie. The current plan is to get the yields up, lower the clock rate, and to have enough units out for a sell out in the Fall.
For those asking how this affects performance- to be perfectly frank; it is nothing turning down features won't solve. The mass market will never notice a difference between 1080p and 900p; neither will they care about dynamic shadows / global illumination / or tesselation. Go to your PC - and turn shadows from Ultra to medium, disable tesselation, and lower the resolution to 900p; and you'll find games run totally fine.
Microsoft is purely behind and it's now time to make drastic decisions. I don't think any one is happy about the lower clocks, but no one is depressed about it either. The Xbox One is an all-in-on device; and that's how it will be marketed.
Unfortunately it's not. There are performance issues. In some cases, its quite significant.
No. One thing is for sure- Sony prioritized the gamer and the developer. Microsoft looked at your grandmother and wanted to know how to get her to like dubstep.One thing is sure. Sony got lucky a lot.