Support NeoGAF

[LukasTaves]

Embedded RAM always takes up a big chunk of silicon.

True, but for this case depending on the type we are talking about a good 1.5 billion transistors.

I am 100X more cautious about confirming any thing after this 8 GB GDDR5 shit going down. I want to be surprised and I have no interest in one machine dominating the other.

I see, sorry if i sounded like i'm pushing towards console wars, It just that i can't fathom why would Ms, having almost the transistor budget as a 680 for the gpu would spent so much of it on just ram, to the point where the gpu sounds pretty weak compared to what's on market today...

I can see some of the reasons (esram+ dmes increasing the whole bandwidth of the system, plus being useful as a cache of some sorts), but unless current gpus do are terribly stalled by memory accesses, it won't make up for the performance, nor it will be very easy to manufacture... Depending on the ram, 1.5bi transistors take more area than 1.5bi transistors of logic, which does not bodes well for a apu solution, specially within a few die shrinks, where the ram could lag behind the rest...

They could end up with a gigantic terribly low yield chip, and at the same time having subpar performance xD

 

[eddfromtheriver]

You can quite clearly see it in Knack.

Speaking of Knack... i hope the camera is pulled back a bit more, kind of like Jak and Daxter, because in the bits of actual gameplay i saw it... it looks a bit more like the one in Sonic Unleashed ( werehog mode)... not a bad thing perse, but i prefer the J&D approach.

Sorry if it's a bit off-topic.

 

[Reiko]

Thuway, you have to remember that third party PS4 games are competing with first party PS4 games. If Killzone Shadow Fall looks way better than BF4 on PS4 because EA is fine with just parity plus enhanced IQ, more PS4 owners will flock to Killzone instead.

Also remember that BF4 is rumored to be targeting a 60fps framerate unlike KZ4.

Battlefield 3 PC settings at 60fps is eye popping already.

 

[Codeblew]

The power overhead of PS4 will go to waste because no third party developer is going to dive in and bother to exploit PS4 hardware when the game looks and runs as good as its Durango counterpart. The best you can hope for is slight technical advantages in terms of IQ.

Assuming PS4 gets good sales, wouldn't Devs target PS4, port almost straight across to PC (and linux steam assuming OpenGL ES) and downport to xboxnext?

 

[JohnnySasaki86]

The point is, MS believes most people will not care or notice the difference. This generation, a majority of gamers, went unaware that the PS3 ports for games are deficient. COD is the top selling game on PS3, and usually performs atleast 20% worse than the 360 counterpart in terms of resolution, textures, and effects scaled back.

I've said this before, PS4 ports will run at a slightly higher resolution with effects maxed out, with Durango ports being slightly lower resolution and effects. Gamecube to Xbox, PS3 to Xbox 360, and perhaps less visually noticable due to diminishing returns of the coming generation.

This is simply not true. That's a big exaggeration. Most of the COD releases are the same resolution now, textures have always been the same, as have the effects(Infinity Wards releases were much closer, MW2 and MW3 were very close). Some mulitplatform releases favor PS3(not COD or UE3 games). The main difference between most multiplatform releases(COD too), if there is difference at all, is the 360 version having a framerate advantage, which generally is like 5fps. Which is why most multiplatform games don't suffer on PS3 sales wise. Hell most hardcore gamers don't notice a 5fps difference, myself included. Only certian people are very sensitive to framerate drops. I play games enough to know when something drops more than 10fps though. If Durango sepcs are correct, were going to see much bigger differences than there were with PS3/360, differences where you wouldn't need a DF face off articles to point them out to you.

We could have games running at 60fps on PS4 and 30fps on Durango. Not because PS4 is twice as powerful, but because the Durango release might hover around 40-45fps, so most developers would prefer to lock it to 30fps than have a varying framerate around 40-45fps. Thats too far away from that "perceptual 60fps". btw I'm actually basing this off what Timothy Lottes said when he was talking about the bandwidth of the two consoles.

 

[Reiko]

This is simply not true. That's a big exaggeration. Most of the COD releases are the same resolution now, textures have always been the same, as have the effects(Infinity Wards releases were much closer, MW2 and MW3 were very close). Some mulitplatform releases favor PS3(not COD or UE3 games). The main difference between most multiplatform releases(COD too), if there is difference at all, is the 360 version having a framerate advantage. If Durango sepcs are correct, were going to see much bigger differences than there were with PS3/360, differences where you wouldn't need a DF face off articles to point them out to you.

We could have games running at 60fps on PS4 and 30fps on Durango. Not because PS4 is twice as powerful, but because the 360 release would hover around 40-45fps, so most developers would prefer to lock it to 30fps than have a varying framerate around 40-45fps. Thats too far away from that "perceptual 60fps". btw I'm actually basing this off what Timothy Lottes said when he was talking about the bandwidth of the two consoles.

Performance differences aren't so clear cut. Specifically if Durango specs are aiming for 100% efficiency with it's GPU. Could be much worse, or it could get close to PS4 performance. On paper I still give the edge to Sony.

In about a year or so we will know for sure.

 

[JohnnySasaki86]

Performance differences aren't so clear cut. Specifically if Durango specs are aiming for 100% efficiency with it's GPU. Could be much worse, or it could get close to PS4 performance. On paper I still give the edge to Sony.

In about a year or so we will know for sure.

From the info released today PS4 looks like it could be close to 100% efficiency too. That's the whole point of GCN architecture, efficiency. Now its looking like PS4 is using a evolved form of that, which very well may be a custom version of their GCN 2.0.

I really don't think Durango is going to gain much ground on PS4 with this bullet point, if any at all. There both looking to be highly efficient.

edit: and remember the performance differences are much more clear cut now, when you compare it to 360/PS3. Things are much more apples to apples now, even if Durango had an efficiency advantage. That type of difference wouldn't begin to compare to the architectural differences we had with 360/PS3.

Also remember that BF4 is rumored to be targeting a 60fps framerate unlike KZ4.

Battlefield 3 PC settings at 60fps is eye popping already.

It's a cross gen game, where as Shadow Fall isn't. I'm not predicting BF4 to be pushing the envelope as much as Shadow Fall would. Technically speaking that is. This unfortunately is going to be one of the big downsides of the the start of this generation, compared to ones in the past. So many cross gen games. Could be this way for the first 1-2 years. I think the reason it will be a much bigger issue this time around, is cause the budgets of this current gen so much higher then they were in the PS2/Xbox days. They didn't quite realize this back, and need that huge install base more than ever.

This is another big reason why i'll be favoring Sonys platform over MS. Most of the non cross gen games are going to be from Sony's FP studios. They have a lot more of them then MS does. MS could surprise us with their FP efforts though.

 

[artist]

ES RAM is taking up a huge amount of transistors (half the size of a GTX 680).

~150mm2. Cant control, can you? Especially after your recent leaks

The power overhead of PS4 will go to waste because no third party developer is going to dive in and bother to exploit PS4 hardware when the game looks and runs as good as its Durango counterpart. The best you can hope for is slight technical advantages in terms of IQ.

I lost you here.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Can someone post some quotes from the leak?

 

[onQ123]

PS4 APU is the Ghost of Larrabee.

 

[phosphor112]

I would like to understand this in real world gaming terms.

Here is my understanding based on reading the OP of the rumor thread for this:

They said their 2 ACE setup can already saturate the x16 PCI-E bus with bandwidth.

Now because of the APU in PS4 instead of using traditional CPU and GPU separate as on a PC that means you'd need to increase the way this bandwidth is utilized to take advantage of the 176GB/s bandwidth on PS4 for more than just classical GPU tasks. Right?

If that isn't the case, why is this GDDR5 such a big deal compared to a hypothetical 8GB DDR3 with 128MB ESRM setup?

Based on this benchmark about PCI-E bus performance in games: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/18/pci_express_20_vs_30_gpu_gaming_performance_review/
there is AT MOST a 10% benefit to the increased bandwidth with the higher PCI-E spec.

Will this change from the assumed 2 ACE to 8 ACE make a bigger impact than PCI-E 2.0 to PCI-E 3.0?

Thanks in advance!

Can't be serious, right? The reason why the rumored Durango GPU is worse is because eSRAM takes a lot of space. To accommodate that onto the chip without having costs be stupid high from lots of silicon or heat, they have to shrink something... they are already at a 28nm process, so they have to take it to the next step, cutting out part of the processor. In this case, it's the GPU.

Now... the current rumor is... 32mb...

You're saying 4 times that amount? That is literally impossible to do.

 

[TKM]

Ms is not the same as they used to be.

Ms does not care how powerful Sony is. They have a different gameplan and if the last few years is an indication, you will not like it. It's funny too cause they have the resources to probably take them out and they were winning the American market too. What a bunch of fools. If they continue this way next gen they deserve to fail.

On the bright side, hopefully psn will remain free

MS is unlikely to ever again go for max performance at any price like they did with Xbox 1. It was just a crazy amount of money thrown into a box. Great for gamers, but bad business. 360 showed a more thoughtful approach, and probably Durango as well.

Same goes for Sony. No more building custom fabs (PS2) or co-developing exotic architectures from scratch (PS3 CELL). Fewer and fewer companies can afford the exponential tech cost curve.

IMO, there's too much team sports mentality going around in forums. MS and Sony do not have to match each other feature for feature, spec for spec. At some point, you have to ignore what the other guy is doing, and execute on your plan as smoothly as possible. Reactionary thinking could lead to costly delays, hardware failure, or make game development more complex.

 

[BlastProcessing]

MS is unlikely to ever again go for max performance at any price like they did with Xbox 1. It was just a crazy amount of money thrown into a box. Great for gamers, but bad business. 360 showed a more thoughtful approach, and probably Durango as well.

Same goes for Sony. No more building custom fabs (PS2) or co-developing exotic architectures from scratch (PS3 CELL). Fewer and fewer companies can afford the exponential tech cost curve.

IMO, there's too much team sports mentality going around in forums. MS and Sony do not have to match each other feature for feature, spec for spec. At some point, you have to ignore what the other guy is doing, and execute on your plan as smoothly as possible. Reactionary thinking could lead to costly delays, hardware failure, or make game development more complex.

Well said.

 

[ALBOFIGHTER]

This is simply not true. That's a big exaggeration. Most of the COD releases are the same resolution now, textures have always been the same, as have the effects(Infinity Wards releases were much closer, MW2 and MW3 were very close). Some mulitplatform releases favor PS3(not COD or UE3 games). The main difference between most multiplatform releases(COD too), if there is difference at all, is the 360 version having a framerate advantage, which generally is like 5fps. Which is why most multiplatform games don't suffer on PS3 sales wise. Hell most hardcore gamers don't notice a 5fps difference, myself included. Only certian people are very sensitive to framerate drops. I play games enough to know when something drops more than 10fps though. If Durango sepcs are correct, were going to see much bigger differences than there were with PS3/360, differences where you wouldn't need a DF face off articles to point them out to you.

We could have games running at 60fps on PS4 and 30fps on Durango. Not because PS4 is twice as powerful, but because the Durango release might hover around 40-45fps, so most developers would prefer to lock it to 30fps than have a varying framerate around 40-45fps. Thats too far away from that "perceptual 60fps". btw I'm actually basing this off what Timothy Lottes said when he was talking about the bandwidth of the two consoles.

Doesn't matter how strong ps4 is. Xbox makes it a prerequisite to release game at the same quality for both platforms otherwise they won't let studios publish their games on the system. It doesn't matter if durango does 30 fps and orbis can do 240 fps (lol pachter). They will come out the same to the naked eye.

 

[iamshadowlark]

This also means that we can finally rest that 14+4 split theory.

This isnt Durango, so no.

It confirms it, no?

 

[Beermeister]

 

[Perkel]

It confirms it, no?

From this graph it is better than 14+4 combination (4 were customized for compute). All of CU should do compute work now.

 

[teo72]

This new design is probably implementet so developers are freed up to use the power as they see fit... All I care about is having great games. But that's only my humble opinion.

 

[JohnnySasaki86]

Doesn't matter how strong ps4 is. Xbox makes it a prerequisite to release game at the same quality for both platforms otherwise they won't let studios publish their games on the system. It doesn't matter if durango does 30 fps and orbis can do 240 fps (lol pachter). They will come out the same to the naked eye.

Your assuming something that MS mandates this generation will stay the same next generation? That's a big assumption. btw there have been plenty of times where PS3 versions of games have released with extra content that violates that rule. MGR is a recent example.

 

[Espada]

Your assuming something that MS mandates this generation will stay the same next generation? That's a big assumption. btw there have been plenty of times where PS3 versions of games have released with extra content that violates that rule. MGR is a recent example.

But the mandate is a real thing, and if there's a good chance the PS4 versions are considerably better than the 720's you can bet your ass Microsoft will wave that bat in a threatening fashion.

His point is valid. It's a very sly tactic that would prevent any multiplat dev from making the most of the PS4, effectively eliminating any technical advantage.

 

[iamshadowlark]

From this graph it is better than 14+4 combination (4 were customized for compute). All of CU should do compute work now.

Idk. It reads so ambiguous. 10 pipelines doesn't particularly line up with any specs released by VGLeaks so far.

 

[antic604]

it is done so you can utilize APU better, but you cant get more raw power that way. But sure, games will look better for it.

I think all this confusion comes to this: if you have one GPU with 2TF but 60% efficiency, it gives you 1.2TF of real-life average performance. If you have 1.2TF GPU with 100% efficiency, it produces 1.2TF performance as well. In a sense then, you could say that the latter has a TFlop-multiplier of x1.7 in order to compare its output to the former.

 

[Biggzy]

MS is unlikely to ever again go for max performance at any price like they did with Xbox 1. It was just a crazy amount of money thrown into a box. Great for gamers, but bad business. 360 showed a more thoughtful approach, and probably Durango as well.

Same goes for Sony. No more building custom fabs (PS2) or co-developing exotic architectures from scratch (PS3 CELL). Fewer and fewer companies can afford the exponential tech cost curve.

IMO, there's too much team sports mentality going around in forums. MS and Sony do not have to match each other feature for feature, spec for spec. At some point, you have to ignore what the other guy is doing, and execute on your plan as smoothly as possible. Reactionary thinking could lead to costly delays, hardware failure, or make game development more complex.

A nice summary there. Also, do you think Nintendo were scrambling when they were developing the Wii and saw these hi-spec machines from Microsoft and Sony? No, they stuck to their strategy and it earned them a shit ton of money and forced Sony and Microsoft to alter their strategy instead.

 

[antic604]

The point is, MS believes most people will not care or notice the difference. This generation, a majority of gamers, went unaware that the PS3 ports for games are deficient. COD is the top selling game on PS3, and usually performs atleast 20% worse than the 360 counterpart in terms of resolution, textures, and effects scaled back.

I've said this before, PS4 ports will run at a slightly higher resolution with effects maxed out, with Durango ports being slightly lower resolution and effects. Gamecube to Xbox, PS3 to Xbox 360, and perhaps less visually noticable due to diminishing returns of the coming generation.

That summarises my thoughts 100% as well. As much as I'm happy for Sony for making apparently superior tech / gaming console, for 95% of buyers it won't matter because they won't see the difference in games themselves, while I feel Durango's user experience - even if it's not designed for me / us - will blow a lot of people's minds and people will flock to the shops just to show their mates they can wave / talk to TV and it "does things"

 

[bigboss370]

They can increase the amount, but it is expensive, and large. The point is, it won't make that much of a difference. For those of you who want parity, if MS were to change any part, you would have to wait till 2014 and would pay for it indirectly. Both Sony and MS are locked in. Testing is thorough at the moment.

uhh, are you telling us that, barring a release delay for MS, there is no way Durango will be as powerful as PS4?

that kinda sucks. although i will wait to see what games MS has.

That summarises my thoughts 100% as well. As much as I'm happy for Sony for making apparently superior tech / gaming console, for 95% of buyers it won't matter because they won't see the difference in games themselves, while I feel Durango's user experience - even if it's not designed for me / us - will blow a lot of people's minds and people will flock to the shops just to show their mates they can wave / talk to TV and it "does things"

i'm sure people will notice the first party exclusives though.

 

[Perkel]

uhh, are you telling us that, barring a release delay for MS, there is no way Durango will be as powerful as PS4?

that kinda sucks. although i will wait to see what games MS has.



i'm sure people will notice the first party exclusives though.

*if rumors are true.

For me biggest unknown now is integrated Kinect. If Kinect will be mandatory in all applications it will further take away power from games. It wouldn't be so bad if it was 1,8Tf but at 1,2Tf this can take a lot of power.

Best case scenario would be like original Kinect was planned with own hardware to process image.

 

[ekim]

I would like to understand this in real world gaming terms.

Here is my understanding based on reading the OP of the rumor thread for this:

They said their 2 ACE setup can already saturate the x16 PCI-E bus with bandwidth.

Now because of the APU in PS4 instead of using traditional CPU and GPU separate as on a PC that means you'd need to increase the way this bandwidth is utilized to take advantage of the 176GB/s bandwidth on PS4 for more than just classical GPU tasks. Right?

If that isn't the case, why is this GDDR5 such a big deal compared to a hypothetical 8GB DDR3 with 128MB ESRM setup?

Based on this benchmark about PCI-E bus performance in games: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/07/18/pci_express_20_vs_30_gpu_gaming_performance_review/
there is AT MOST a 10% benefit to the increased bandwidth with the higher PCI-E spec.

Will this change from the assumed 2 ACE to 8 ACE make a bigger impact than PCI-E 2.0 to PCI-E 3.0?

Thanks in advance!

You have to consider that PC benchmarks compare different GPUs within the same environment. These combinations always include the common Overhead for PC gaming which equals, roughly speaking, lost performance. GDDR5 and more rendering pipelines can somewhat accelerate the brute force processing done on those GPUs which results in slightly increased FPS and better IQ for certain display settings like higher distance-LOD, HD textures...

In a closed environment like the PS4 in combination with the low level native openGL support, Devs can optimize their rendering and memory management without any overhead. (I doubt multiplats will make 100% use of this potential)

Especially in open world games, these specs will do wonders in terms of numbers of(believable acting) NPCs/cars/assets on the screen as well as in terms of a persistent world. (Say goodbye to vanishing car wrecks when moving around the corner)

 

[phosphor112]

You have to consider that PC benchmarks compare different GPUs within the same environment. These combinations always include the common Overhead for PC gaming which equals, roughly speaking, lost performance. GDDR5 and more rendering pipelines can somewhat accelerate the brute force processing done on those GPUs which results in slightly increased FPS and better IQ for certain display settings like higher distance-LOD, HD textures...

In a closed environment like the PS4 in combination with the low level native openGL support, Devs can optimize their rendering and memory management without any overhead. (I doubt multiplats will make 100% use of this potential)

Especially in open world games, these specs will do wonders in terms of numbers of(believable acting) NPCs/cars/assets on the screen as well as in terms of a persistent world. (Say goodbye to vanishing car wrecks when moving around the corner)

Driving around in GTA4.

See a banshee

Want to get it.

It turns the corner.

Gone forever.

 

[Interfectum]

The point is, MS believes most people will not care or notice the difference. This generation, a majority of gamers, went unaware that the PS3 ports for games are deficient. COD is the top selling game on PS3, and usually performs atleast 20% worse than the 360 counterpart in terms of resolution, textures, and effects scaled back.

I've said this before, PS4 ports will run at a slightly higher resolution with effects maxed out, with Durango ports being slightly lower resolution and effects. Gamecube to Xbox, PS3 to Xbox 360, and perhaps less visually noticable due to diminishing returns of the coming generation.

I dunno man, you seem to be sugar coating it a bit for Xbox. Not only are the leaked specs on paper notably worse than PS4, but we aren't even taking into account what resources the OS/Kinect are eating up yet.

 

[BloodMoney]

Thuway, you have to remember that third party PS4 games are competing with first party PS4 games. If Killzone Shadow Fall looks way better than BF4 on PS4 because EA is fine with just parity plus enhanced IQ, more PS4 owners will flock to Killzone instead.

I agree with this sentiment. If COD, Madden, and whatever 3rd party (cross platform games) are built towards the nextbox spec, thats fine... It looks as though those games will run better on their PS4 than their next gen counterpart, and if they run the same, thats fine too. Though i don't often find myself playing such titles. The games i really enjoyed last gen were 1st party exclusives (on both sides), and with them in mind, i think the PS3 exclusives achieved better visuals than the xbox 360 counterparts.

What excites me the most about the PS4 specs is how much power there is to be tapped into by the likes of ND, GG, PD, SM, and so on.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Doesn't matter how strong ps4 is. Xbox makes it a prerequisite to release game at the same quality for both platforms otherwise they won't let studios publish their games on the system. It doesn't matter if durango does 30 fps and orbis can do 240 fps (lol pachter). They will come out the same to the naked eye.

While MS do have that policy, it is unusable against larger dev studio's & publishers. Against devs who struggle for marketshare, yes the policy can work.

Do you really think if Dice make BF4 better for PS4 than Durango, MS will say "no" to its release and risk losing EA support for the platform?

Of course they wont as all console manufacturer's are at the mercy of the big publishers

 

[Angelus Errare]

Driving around in GTA4.

See a banshee

Want to get it.

It turns the corner.

Gone forever.

lol....

 

[scently]

I dunno man, you seem to be sugar coating it a bit for Xbox. Not only are the leaked specs on paper notably worse than PS4, but we aren't even taking into account what resources the OS/Kinect are eating up yet.

There is no sugar coating there. The durango is 33% less gpu FLOPS, 50% less ROP, and 33% less TMU. According to bgassasin, the durango has twice the cpu FLOPS of the ps4. The ps4 will need to be at least 100% more powerful than the durango in raw specs to have a notable advantage. It will need to be at least 100% more powerful in other to render at twice the framerate eg 30fps vs 60 fps, that isn't going to happen. It will need to be more than 125% more powerful with the bandwidth to boot in other to render at more than twice the resolution eg 720p vs 1080p, that isn't going to happen either. What will probably happen is some effects might run at higher precision on ps4 than on durango or it might be missing from the durango build, or the ps4 might have a more steady framerate, or the durango might have a slightly lower resolution etc. Things like that. And this are all based on theoritical performance/specs.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Ports are almost guaranteed to not eclipse Durango's abilities by much, if at all. First Party games will be where the difference will surface.

 

[scently]

Ports are almost guaranteed to not eclipse Durango's abilities by much, if at all. First Party games will be where the difference will surface.

Indeed. Personally I think art style will be a major factor this coming gen. Have a good art style and you can get away with it.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Even if it was an IQ difference, but not an impossible to distinguish one, I might be interested in PS4 more (and I think I would like to go with PS4 at launch, budget permitting, although one day, again budget permitting, if Durango has enough worthy exclusive I would like to pick it up too).

Something really upsetting for me this gen was the horrible surface aliasing in many titles and aliasing induced by leaves and very thin polygon blades (see grass and distant tree meshes and branches). The first time I looked at a lake from a distance in Oblivion (Xbox 360 version and also PS3 version), I was already missing Morrowind on Xbox+Component+CRT a bit... Sure, tons of other things improved, but some things actually regressed IQ wise, surface aliasing most of all.

Also, I expect 1st parties to show what other uses of heavy Compute processing there are in addition to purely improving graphical bells and whistles.

 

[beast786]

There is no sugar coating there. The durango is 33% less gpu FLOPS, 50% less ROP, and 33% less TMU. According to bgassasin, the durango has twice the cpu FLOPS of the ps4. The ps4 will need to be at least 100% more powerful than the durango in raw specs to have a notable advantage. It will need to be at least 100% more powerful in other to render at twice the framerate eg 30fps vs 60 fps, that isn't going to happen. It will need to be more than 125% more powerful with the bandwidth to boot in other to render at more than twice the resolution eg 720p vs 1080p, that isn't going to happen either. What will probably happen is some effects might run at higher precision on ps4 than on durango or it might be missing from the durango build, or the ps4 might have a more steady framerate, or the durango might have a slightly lower resolution etc. Things like that. And this are all based on theoritical performance/specs.

the difference between 360/ps3 was less on paper than rumored leaked ps4/Durango . yet there was plenty of difference to be noted in performance and resolution among Multiplatform games. Enough difference that people flocked to the superior version and it showed in sales.

probably that was due to ease of development and split memory/cell on ps3.

Regardless, I believe the difference between the two with time will become more magnified and it will effect the sales if the gamers get the perception that ps4 versions are always going to be better, just like this GEN where normal assumption is always 360 version will be better. I don't think MS can afford that stigma.

 

[scently]

the difference between 360/ps3 was less on paper than rumored leaked ps4/Durango . yet there was plenty of difference to be noted in performance and resolution among Multiplatform games. Enough difference that people flocked to the superior version and it showed in sales.

probably that was due to ease of development and split memory/cell on ps3.

Regardless, I believe the difference between the two with time will become more magnified and it will effect the sales if the gamers get the perception that ps4 versions are always going to be better, just like this GEN where normal assumption is always 360 version will be better. I don't think MS can afford that stigma.

The difference between the ps2 and the xbox was even much more than that. Didn't stop the ps2 from stomping all over the xbox in sales. And there have been several games where the difference, at least according to DF, favor one console or the other this gen but the reverse has been the case in sales. At the end of the day, there are a lot more variable to account for.

 

[ArjanN]

Driving around in GTA4.

See a banshee

Want to get it.

It turns the corner.

Gone forever.

It's funny how in a lot of open world games you can just spin in a circle and it'll generate more cars behind you.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

The difference between the ps2 and the xbox was even much more than that. Didn't stop the ps2 from stomping all over the xbox in sales. And there have been several games where the difference, at least according to DF, favor one console or the other this gen but the reverse has been the case in sales. At the end of the day, there are a lot more variable to account for.

A comparison between PS2 and Xbox is pretty much nonsense, because the Xbox was released much later than the PS2, and the Playstation brand was well established while the Xbox brand wasn't. The situation now is very different, both consoles will be released at about the same time.

 

[phosphor112]

It's funny how in a lot of open world games you can just spin in a circle and it'll generate more cars behind you.

In GTA? Yeah, when driving, but once you're out on foot, you get 500 pedestrians and 2 cars. Both poot out smoke from the exhaust.

 

[scently]

A comparison between PS2 and Xbox is pretty much nonsense, because the Xbox was released much later than the PS2, and the Playstation brand was well established. The situation now is very different, both consoles will be released at about the same time, and Sony reps already said that it won't be "$599".

And the ps2 launch later than the dreamcast........Anyway tha isn't really my original point, which is that there won't be a significant difference as some people seems to be expecting. The performance difference, based on what we know from leaks and comments from dev (llherre and the EDGE article), might not be so obvious.

 

[OG_Original Gamer]

I don't see any reason why the next Xbox can't match PS4 texture resolution and render target.

 

[AgentP]

I guess the thread has abandoned all objective technical talk. Back to Xbox vs PS.

 

[Biggzy]

I guess the thread has abandoned all objective technical talk. Back to Xbox vs PS.

Console Wars.

 

[beast786]

And the ps2 launch later than the dreamcast........Anyway tha isn't really my original point, which is that there won't be a significant difference as some people seems to be expecting. The performance difference, based on what we know from leaks and comments from dev (llherre and the EDGE article), might not be so obvious.

my point being the Differnce was obvious and effected the sales and perception this GEN, even though power relation was closer than ps4/Durango if we go by leaks.

Madden games were running 30fps on ps3 at launch versus 60fps on 360. we had huge differences between the two early on, enough that perception was set .

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I don't see any reason why the next Xbox can't match PS4 texture resolution and render target.

The PS4 having 300% more ACEs, 100% more ROPs, 50% more CUs and 200+% of X3's memory bandwidth does sound like a pretty good reason to me.

And the ps2 launch later than the dreamcast........Anyway tha isn't really my original point, which is that there won't be a significant difference as some people seems to be expecting. The performance difference, based on what we know from leaks and comments from dev (llherre and the EDGE article), might not be so obvious.

The comment from llhere was probably just him being diplomatic / or he couldn't really say anything because of a NDA. Afaik he isn't even a graphics programmer. The specs tell a completely different story. And the EDGE article was afair very vague regarding a difference in graphic fidelity/performance.

 

[scently]

my point being the Differnce was obvious and effected the sales and perception this GEN, even though power relation was closer than ps4/Durango if we go by leaks.

Madden games were running 30fps on ps3 at launch versus 60fps on 360. we had huge differences between the two early on, enough that perception was set .

And that won't be happening based on the raw specs we have. The power simply isn't there for that kind of difference.

 

[scently]

The PS4 having 300% more ACEs, 100% more ROPs, 50% more CUs and 200+% of X3's memory bandwidth does sound like a pretty good reason to me.



The comment from llhere was probably just him being diplomatic / or he couldn't really say anything because of a NDA. Afaik he isn't even a graphics programmer. The specs tell a completely different story. And the EDGE article was afair very vague regarding a difference in graphic fidelity/performance.

Well that is a case of inferring what you want from what we have. Can you prove any of that?

 

[Gemüsepizza]

What should I prove? I just said, that I don't believe such comments, when they are clearly in conflict with leaked / official specs. I think if someone has to prove something, it should be the people claiming there won't be any big differences, despite those specs.