Freshmaker
I am Korean.
It arguably edged out the Xbox as well.
-
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.
PSM: PS4 specs more powerful than Xbox 720
- Thread starter [Nintex]
- Start date
- Status
do those guys actually play the games at those settings, or are they bumping up AA etc just to take screenshots? Cause I have a decent PC and I never get games looking anything like that at a playable (>30) framerate. I nearly always have to use a lower level of AA if I want my effects turned up, or turn effects down to get more AA. Using a 2GB 6950 so not a top-top end card but not a crappy one
Lol................ You guys are insane..
les papillons sexuels
Banned
people are still talking about graphics? the power of these two systems are going to be meaningless. There's no way that one system is going to provide hardware that will have any form of meaningfull impact on the performace and visuals on games when compared to the other systems.
Diminishing returns is in full swing, even pc's which are magnitudes stronger then current consoles barely provide visuals that are beyond the current consoles, whether that's the result of consoles holding back the pc, or due to other reasons, there only real thing to take from and that's games( and engines) will now be developed for the lowest common denominator first.
Case and point, unreal developed for the iphone. Developers are following the money, they always have.
(for those of you who don't comprehend the notion of diminishing returns it's that the processing powered required to produce visuals is on an exponential curve. To produce a game with double the polygon count, double the frame rate, double the image resolution in pixels, would require roughly 8 times the performance. Coupled with the power and heat requirements for a home console, there's a cap to what manufactures can/will produce. Unless the pricing dictates otherwise, we'll find out when they announce the price, it's highly unlikely that either console is going to be "more powerful" in such a way that it matter.)
As for the pc argument, the games produced for the next set of consoles will look better then what high end pc's produce today, but pc games will scale accordingly, as has always been the case.
Diminishing returns is in full swing, even pc's which are magnitudes stronger then current consoles barely provide visuals that are beyond the current consoles, whether that's the result of consoles holding back the pc, or due to other reasons, there only real thing to take from and that's games( and engines) will now be developed for the lowest common denominator first.
Case and point, unreal developed for the iphone. Developers are following the money, they always have.
(for those of you who don't comprehend the notion of diminishing returns it's that the processing powered required to produce visuals is on an exponential curve. To produce a game with double the polygon count, double the frame rate, double the image resolution in pixels, would require roughly 8 times the performance. Coupled with the power and heat requirements for a home console, there's a cap to what manufactures can/will produce. Unless the pricing dictates otherwise, we'll find out when they announce the price, it's highly unlikely that either console is going to be "more powerful" in such a way that it matter.)
As for the pc argument, the games produced for the next set of consoles will look better then what high end pc's produce today, but pc games will scale accordingly, as has always been the case.
It came out 18 months later.
When people talk about Sony always bringing powerful consoles and packing power into their systems, it doesn't really seem relevant to point out that consoles coming out significantly after theirs were more powerful. He didn't say Sony always have the most powerful system in a given generation, he said that they've tended to pack a lot of power in and persuade that their system was more 'next-gen'. And in the case of PS1 and PS2, that was certainly true vs the relevant points of comparison when they were announced and released. Gamecube and Xbox were not the state of the art Sony was being compared to when they released PS2, we didn't even know anything about them when PS2 first released.
True, but these people are replying to others who are making it seem like Sony consistently has the strongest console which is where I see the disagreement.
I edited my post for clarification on that - I don't think the poster he was replying to was implying that at all. He wasn't saying Sony had the most powerful system in any given generation, he's saying that they presented a more convincing argument of next-gen-ness vs what people had seen to date. When Playstation was announced it seemed more 'next-gen' than Saturn. That the N64 came out two years later, or whatever, and was arguably more powerful, hardly seems relevant.
Of course these systems could not address future systems that hadn't been announced. No one was thinking of Gamecube when PS2 was shown and launched, it wasn't relevant to the argument at the time about what was 'most powerful' or 'next gen'. People were arguing about that with Dreamcast, and about Saturn with PS1 - those were the prior benchmarks.
Aizu_Itsuko
Member
Of course it was but it was released a year and a half after the PS2 so it's no surprise. The Xbox edged them both in pretty much every aspect though.
That being said Sony have always released systems that were pretty cutting edge at the time of release one way or another.
godhandiscen
There are millions of whiny 5-year olds on Earth, and I AM THEIR KING.
It didn't under any aspect.
If you like, sure. I mean, there's two sides to the message Sony puts out - the machine itself, and the messaging around it. But the machines did enough to support the message in those cases. I mean, I know some people still argue about whether DC might not have been >= PS2, but Playstation definitely seemed 'fuck you, this is next-gen!' next to Saturn (with Sega literally scurrying at the last minute to beef up its system), and the combination of messaging and the machine itself with PS2 was definitely another 'this is a proper next-gen machine'. Not just because of the processing guts either, but things like the DVD drive etc. - it just was sexy and powerful. Other future systems in both cases were not in anyone's heads, weren't impairing any arguments about those systems being 'power packed' at the time, or whether Sony was more-or-less packing as much as they could tech-wise into their systems. Think it's fair to say they have done that.
I was only joking, I agree with everything you've saying. =)
lolwut? it was a valid comment and is actually true. ps2 was less powerful than both and was even inferior to the dreamcast in some respects.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
If you compare the PS1 and PS2 to what was available at the time of their release, sure, they were pretty amazing, but I was comparing them to the other consoles belonging to their respective gens, not previously released consoles.
Besides, launching later doesn't necessarily mean better hardware. The PS3 launched nearly a year after the 360, with a weaker GPU and a completely obtuse architechture (although the GPU fuckup was due to the decision made when Sony, fairly late into the development cycle, realized using a Cell as a replacement for a proper GPU would be madness).
Well, it's not more detailed - that's an overstatement of course, but they are comparable, as in "not leaps and bounds away" or "not next gen away". I mean, yes you would need a 590 or even SLI of those to keep that levels of AA and overall image quality and supposedly next Xbox could do that for $400, but still it's not something awe-inspiring compared to what we have today.
Yeah, I'm just pointing out that bigdaddygamebot wasn't making a statement about how they compared across the whole generation.
It was still a pedal-to-the-floor and (attempted) 'fuck you! this is next-gen!' approach, per bigdaddygamebot's characterisation. It was less convincing than the PS2's or PS's, perhaps, thanks to GPU choice (and more indirectly, the price methinks - which made a lot of people less open to persuasion about its merits). But the machine in pretty much every other respect and overall still felt high end and 'packed'. In fact, it was arguably more pedal to the floor than even their previous systems in some respects (Blu-ray was less mature than DVD when PS2 launched etc.), and I think that's reflected in the cost the system bore - even if in, say, respect of the GPU, the system was less over-the-top.
To cut a long story short, I don't think pointing out that later systems were more powerful does much to contradict an argument that Sony makes 'pedal to the floor powerhouses'. They do tend to go high end.
(That said, PS4 ought to be less OTT than PS3 just because there's less opportunity, less bleeding edge stuff Sony could probably put in there. I think it'll be 'high end' - within reason and within a much firmer price target.)
Maximilian E.
AKA MS-Evangelist
Well, some thoughts..
Most likely, if any difference in techs, will be minimal and thus, really not something to brag about. I would guess that the difference with these two would be smaller than the difference between PS3 and 360, where in theory, PS3 had a stronger CPU but in practice, this was offset by the easier development on the 360.
If they release in the same year, it will be no performance difference. I dont believe Sony cant take the extra costs involved in trying to out-tech everyone again and also, they have Vita to sustain as well.
But ok, I play along with this game. If any hardware differences, it will be in "some megahertz range" and nothing that really matters. We will never have the fanboys wet dream of "my console can do things your console cannot"-situation..
Most likely, this whole article was written by PSM or who ever wrote it, to generate traffic for their page.
Let´s brings this one up again when the machines are revealed and see if they were right or not, shall we?
Most likely, if any difference in techs, will be minimal and thus, really not something to brag about. I would guess that the difference with these two would be smaller than the difference between PS3 and 360, where in theory, PS3 had a stronger CPU but in practice, this was offset by the easier development on the 360.
If they release in the same year, it will be no performance difference. I dont believe Sony cant take the extra costs involved in trying to out-tech everyone again and also, they have Vita to sustain as well.
But ok, I play along with this game. If any hardware differences, it will be in "some megahertz range" and nothing that really matters. We will never have the fanboys wet dream of "my console can do things your console cannot"-situation..
Most likely, this whole article was written by PSM or who ever wrote it, to generate traffic for their page.
Let´s brings this one up again when the machines are revealed and see if they were right or not, shall we?
Opus Angelorum
Member
If the hardware was identical there would still be claims of one being better than the other.
CadetMahoney
Member
I don't believe that can either. It's too much of a risk and could potentially finish them if they play their cards wrong like this gen. Which is why MS can only have an advantage making a monster Sony can't afford to and also releasing a kinect casual-end model.
Let´s brings this one up again when the machines are revealed and see if they were right or not, shall we?
That won't work on release, it will be target renders and "wait until next year. . ." with some "potential" arguments spiced in.
GameCube didn't use any tech that didn't exist when the PS2 launched, and it launched for $100 less at a profit while PS2 was sold at a loss initially. 18 months isn't enough to make that big of a difference.
You can't make an untested (in 2000) PowerPC architecture CPU at near 500 MHz on a 250nm process. Neither could you make that huge amount of 1T-SRAM. Flipper was also definitely 2001 tech. The GameCube needed 180nm/130nm facilities and state-of-the-art graphics tech to be even possible.
10 years back 18 months were enough to make a tremendous difference. PC/console tech was like cellphones are now, after a year stuff got twice as fast.
Okay, I didn't consider that.
I was talking about the cost difference, actually.
Deus Ex Machina
Member
Insane Metal
Gold Member
360RAM > PS3RAM
CouchMaster
Member
Depends upon which RAM in PS3
That's debatable if you're talking about any other developer than Bethesda.
StealthGoblin
Banned
I'm no technical expert, but from what I have read it seems that most developers had gripes with the fact that the PS3's RAM was split into two chunks and not a pooled RAM architecture like the 360 had. That seems a lot more prevalent than developers complaining about the PS3 CPU.
If Sony where to release a PS4 with a high amount of pooled RAM structure, an upgraded Cell CPU with more SPUs and PPUs, a faster Blu-Ray drive etc, would that really put off developers? It seems like it would be great for backwards compatibility and would enable developers to transfer over to PS4 development quite seamlessly.
Are we expecting combined CPU/GPU boards this time around?
If Sony where to release a PS4 with a high amount of pooled RAM structure, an upgraded Cell CPU with more SPUs and PPUs, a faster Blu-Ray drive etc, would that really put off developers? It seems like it would be great for backwards compatibility and would enable developers to transfer over to PS4 development quite seamlessly.
Are we expecting combined CPU/GPU boards this time around?
I feel that backwards compatibility is really the only benefit Sony gains by keeping the Cell since developers are by and large porting their SPU jobs to run on Compute Shaders instead.
Or any other developer that wants to use memory for game data rather than pretty textures.
One possible solution would be to have a cheap Cell as an additional processing unit, like that Toshiba laptop.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
It's not, really. Even if we ignore the flexibility of the unified pool, Xbox 360 has more available RAM due to the OS having a smaller footprint and eDRAM being used as a frame buffer.
StealthGoblin
Banned
I think backwards compatibility is even more important now because of PSN development. Studios will be mighty annoyed if their PSN work is segmented into only playable on PS3 and only playable on PS4. It cuts the revenue channels rather badly for them, particularly if they wanted to put their titles on 'sale' and their hardcore audience has moved on to another platform.
When I move to PS4, I want to still play Flower on it, for instance. If they design an architecture that allows that to happen without changing code then I think they should do it.
PS2 backwards compatibility would be nice, particularly for PlayStation Store downloads. If they can design the architecture with the PS2's buffer in mind, we could sidestep that issue too. PSP emulation shouldn't be an issue either.
That way they could have a downloadable revenue stream for four generations of Sony home consoles, PlayStation Suite, and PSP.
ShadowRunner
Member
Do we know what route the next Xbox is even going in? I mean if they are going for an upgraded Kinect as a big focus then the budget allocated to the core components of the system will suffer accordingly. There is potential for the PS4 to be significantly more powerful than the next Xbox even if PS4 is only moderately high-end.
StealthGoblin
Banned
If I had to guess, I'd say that they'll pitch it high enough for hardcore titles like Halo but keep it reasonable so that Kinect 2 can be packed in. They'll probably try and increase their expansions into other media/devices with the same or a similar OS - Windows 8. If they can get a consistent OS or UI across all of their devices than they should be on to a winner. For example touch interfaces would work well with Kinect because they can swap out tactile contact with gestures.
I agree, but the split pool does offer better concurrent access by CPU and GPU and XDR RAM also has its advantages over GDDR3. That's why I said it's debatable.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
We have no idea, there are many possibilities. Some form of Kinect will definitely be bundled with the next machine, but not necessarily "Kinect 2". Current Kinect is in some ways being held back by Xbox 360, and most of its magic lies in software after all, so there might be no need for huge hardware upgrades initially. Then they could revive the sales by releasing Kinect 2 several years down the line, just like they did this generation.
Besides, Kinect hardware is not that expensive to produce, Microsoft just turns a lot of profit on it.
Again, that's not necessarily the case (for instance, eDRAM has huge internal bandwidth and it can also be used concurrently with the main RAM). Between developers it's agreed upon that Xbox 360's memory structure is better and you can hear them complaining about PS3's solution rather often - not so the other way around.
ShadowRunner
Member
Could be on to winner but it also risks opening up the core gamer market more for Sony to capitalise on, and starts moving into direct competition with Nintendo, hard to say how that would end.
How is kinect doing currently? Do we think a new console with kinect focus will sell?
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Split Ram isn't an issue, it's just that the PS3 has less of it. If Sony releases an upgraded PS3 with a powerful GPU, and more RAM, I don't think any developer should have an issue with it.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Given the direction of Microsoft studios these days, I would be surprised if Microsoft didn't try the 'box for every member of the family' strategy straight out of the gate. Looking down their studio list, the vast majority of them are doing something with Kinect.
They've conditioned their hardcore gamers into buying Halo, Fable and Gears. They'll keep making those games and they'll continue to sell well. The box will still attract the 3rd parties too because of its popularity and because people will still want to play on Live! with their friends.
Of the three, Microsoft have made more progress into making their box the 'media centre' too. If the rumours of a built in DVR are true, they'll continue to make massive strides into that market. If everything is being downloaded through the walled garden of Live, they'll be extremely happy.
Kinect hardware is doing well. The second round of software didn't live up to the sales of the first round by the looks of things. I've always thought that it looked better as an UI navigator than a game input anyway.
The 360 EDRAM has many problems itself, as it's a bottleneck for resolution, AA, HDR lightning etcetera. All I'm trying to say that the PS3's memory structure has certain advantages. While the 360 memory structure may be preferable in a larger number of cases, it is probably too black and white to say "360 RAM > PS3 RAM".
ShadowRunner
Member
I dont know, for all the functionality id say the people who actually buy the system for that media stuff is reletively few, even within the xbox userbase itself only a percentage are interested in non-gaming features and again only a percentage are Live users. In no way do they want to bank on there current userbase sticking with them, consumers can be a fickle bunch.
Problem with jack of all trades route is that thats exactly where Nintendo is going to be sitting with WiiU, with a years headstart and significantly more mindshare with casual users. If it doesnt work out for Nintendo in that segment i doubt it will work out for MS, and if it does work out for Nintendo then MS will still be screwed ;-)
TerryLee81
Member
I guess they will both be powerful enough.
I'm more interested in what they will look like!
I'm more interested in what they will look like!
BruiserBear
Banned
I will be shocked to see the Kinect built into every next gen Xbox. It just makes no sense. There are lots of people who have zero interest in using it, and I'm not all that impressed as an owner of the current Kinect. Giving it to everyone by default seems like a huge waste.
Also, this thread seems rather pointless to me. Even if one console has a bit more power than the other, as it is this gen, we know multiplatform games are going to be nearly identical, and exclusives will still only show marginal differences. In other words, this whole debate about "power" is largely pointless.
Also, this thread seems rather pointless to me. Even if one console has a bit more power than the other, as it is this gen, we know multiplatform games are going to be nearly identical, and exclusives will still only show marginal differences. In other words, this whole debate about "power" is largely pointless.
brain_stew
Member
Sony's likely switch to an AMD GPU is going to cause enough problems with BC as it is. Far better making a clean break and actually designing a console that developers want.
People should be looking at the Vita for the sort of design direction of the PS4. Basically, what would a developer's dream system be given a choice of mostly off the shelf components and a reasonable transistor budget?
For me that would look something like a big shared pool of high speed RAM, a few wide ooo cores and the biggest modern GPU that Sony can afford. For me, the CPU should only be there to facilitate the GPU working at peak performance. It shouldn't be the focus of the system like out read with the PS3.
bgassassin
Member
Based on this response, you didn't quite read why I said that.
painful fart
Member
So which console do you think Nvidia is working on?
Because they have confirmed they are working on one.
- Status