Why build a great gaming machine and never upgrade your monitor?
-
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.
EDGE: "Power struggle: the real differences between PS4 and Xbox One performance"
- Thread starter Musiol
- Start date
Why build a great gaming machine and never upgrade your monitor?
Thats an apples v oranges comparison...it's not really a '1080p vs 900p' argument, its 'native res vs upsampled res' argument. If 1600x900 TVs were the norm, nobody would be complaining. But, the fact of the matter is 1920x1080 is the norm.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I'm not criticizing or attacking anyone else's view. I'm giving my view. Big difference.
Because money doesn't grow on trees, unfortunately, which is probably ironic for someone buying both systems at launch, but I have a list of priorities, and upgrading a monitor that I'm already more than satisfied with is at the very bottom of my list. I'd feel bad if I ended up upgrading my monitor for at least $200+ when I could've used that money towards a new graphics card, better processor, a bigger SSD, xbox one/ps4 purchases etc. My secondary monitor is a complete piece of shit, something I only started using when my Dell CRT crapped out on me, and I needed something to hold me over till I got this 120HZ Samsung. When I got my Samsung monitor, I decided, what the hell, I'll keep using my other crappy LCD, but as a second monitor. It serves its purpose, though.
Okay, but he should have at least included it in his post. Reading his version of events it sounds like Sony was the viciously down trodden underdog until their grand unveiling.
See above.
Sword Of Doom
Member
ProfessorMoran
Member
720p is your new standard? Going 1080p means limiting developer's vision? Less eye-candy doesn't matter? Wut now?
I like how in that article from 2009 it states that for the money you are better off going with the $200 cheaper option. I don't know why, but that makes me laugh.
Sword Of Doom
Member
This! With my limited tech knowledge this made the most sense to me. You either reduce the density of each pixel or you reduce the number of pixels
Forza is an example of this
There is one massive reason why hitting native 1080p is more important next gen than 720p vs sub-HD this gen. It's the native res of people's TVs. This gen, even if you had a 720p HDTV, it was highly unlikely your HDTV was 1280x720, so there was scaling going on.
You mention you play your PC games 1680x1050. For such an arbitrary resolution, I assume it's the native res of your monitor? Therefore the optimal native res a game can ever run at.
Just look at the Vita. The single biggest factor in IQ in its games is running at native 960x544. If non-native, it doesn't matter how many effects or quality of AA a game has, the image will always look cleaner and better at native res.
So it has nothing to do with trade offs between effects and performance. Just the simple fact that if you have a 1080p TV, native 1080p will always produce the best IQ, so should always be what devs target. It's fucking insane if the very design of the Xbone eSRAM prohibits this.
That's the problem I'm trying to highlight, dear sir. I've seen so many posts from you where all you are saying is "This is what I care about. The other stuff doesn't matter." That's your preference. And that's fine. You can't present that as a valid argument. It is subjective.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Let me explain. The Xbox One isn't as powerful as the PS4. That is obvious. To target 1080p on the Xbox One means to naturally accept that you're going to do less ambitious things with your game graphically, because it doesn't exactly have the most raw power. If by going to a lower resolution, developers can make a more graphically impressive game, then I support that. No, 720p isn't my standard. It's just the bare minimum of what I'd be willing to accept on the xbox one. My preference for the Xbox One is 900p.
A bit of a gross oversimplication of what I usually say, but point taken. That said, anybody's view on this is subjective, I think. As others point out, any developer can target 1080p for their game. It's just what are they willing to give up in order to do so. It's obvious, and I don't think this part is subjective, that to target 1080p on the Xbox One, developers would have to give up much more than what they would have to give up on the PS4. For what developers would have to give up on the Xbox One, I don't feel 1080p is worth it. If I had a choice of Ryse at 1080p, but with the game doing less technically, compared to what we now have at 900p, I take the 900p version. Quantum Break is an example I like to use because, based on what they say they want to achieve, it's bound to be one of the more technically interesting or impressive games on the Xbox One, and so if the Xbox One simply doesn't have the horsepower to nail what they want to nail at 1080p, with the level of graphical fidelity they desire, then I support targeting a lower rendering resolution. I feel everything else they would change to make it 1080p would be an even bigger compromise than the resolution in the first place. Or maybe I'm underestimating what the system will be able to do at 1080p, and I don't doubt for a second that could be the case, but I'm okay with lower than 1080p resolutions because, from my experience, the games still look fantastic.
One of the reasons the PS3/360 never hit 1080p consistently isn't that they weren't designed for it. They were but the standards of Image Quality got high enough that the trade off for 1080p vs 720p with better IQ wasn't worth it.
Similarly the XB1 was designed for 1080p as was the PS4 but the image quality targets between the two was different and it seems the standard is higher than the XB1 can deliver. So they have to compromise resolution.
The problem for Microsoft is that it very much appears as if the PS4 has that extra muscle to spare. 900p vs 1080p is around 40% more pixels and the PS4 vs the XB1 has more than 40% more capacity in every part of the rendering pipeline the PS4 has the XB1 by 40% or more. The only exception is in raw memory bandwidth; if the ESRAM and DDR3 is being used together you get parity at around 175GB/s (the 200GB ESRAM number is incredibly dumb, it's a one off trick they projected into a impossible number.).
Sword Of Doom
Member
http://reviews.cnet.com/lcd-monitors/samsung-syncmaster-2233rz/4505-3174_7-33499496.html
The better of my two pc monitor's top resolution is 1680x1050.
I don't really have a choice in the matter, but I also don't feel I'm missing very much. The games still look unbelievable at really high graphics settings.
Well, that wouldn't be too surprising if it did. The PS4 is the clearly stronger system after all. The real question is just what does less eye candy on high quality xbox one releases actually mean? I suspect that people won't be too disappointed by what 343i does with the next Halo, or what Remedy does with Quantum Break. Look at what Crytek are already doing with Ryse at launch. If that's what lower resolution and less eye candy means for the system, I don't think xbox one gamers will exactly be scraping the very bottom of the graphics barrel, do you know what I am saying?
So to sum everything up, you're basically saying "It's good enough"
I know you mean graphically, and I agree Halo 4 looks very nice however Halo 4 did disappoint it's online multi-player community.
If you look at my post history, you will see I've been active in all the hardware rumour threads around the next gen consoles.
You're most certainly incorrect. All the smart money was on the Xbox 3 being more powerful.
This was true when the first hardware leaks started as well. It was only the tail end of last year (weeks before the reveal of the PS4) that the Orbis was edging out in front, and even then there was lots of talk about secret sause / dual GPUs / dual SoCs of the Durango that would mean it eclipsed the Orbis in power.
This.
Ploid 3.0
Member
And I remember Major Nelson passing off that sony event as nothing, posting pictures of MS guys watching it and suggesting that there was popcorn (iirc). The messaging from MS on that event made it seem like it didn't effect them at all. It made me interested in seeing what they had up their sleeves because of that, then I see TV TV Sports TV.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
It's a case of group-think mentality.
They were really confident in the Xbox One project, but it got to their heads because clearly a lot of people disagreed with the direction they went and were far more impressed with the PS4.
la flama blanca
Banned
He's been full of stinky shit ever since he joined. Nothing new.
LightofRohan
Member
This is just an 'in general' statement, but man, PC gamers really try to ruin all the fun this console generation. It's so boring. You can already get a PC, the consoles aren't out yet -- stop trying to embed the PC into every discussion, it's so tedious and obnoxious. It's so odd that the PC-only gamers act like they are trying to better others or educate people on how it is possible to game on a PC. I'm pretty sure everyone knows this. I never thought there would be a gaming community that out annoys even the most obnoxious of "fanboys".
why does this blow your mind? console gamers go ga ga over graphics but play on er consoles. How many GT/kz2/uc gifs exist to show awesome gifs? Their view is common enough.
Especially considering that pcs are in no way monolithic. Some parts cost more than an entire console.
I smell another verbal brawl. Nib, you were just pulling his leg, right? Please say yes?
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I don't disagree, but I also don't see it as a problem that will meaningfully show up to such an extent that people will feel like crap for even owning an xbox one. There will be amazing looking games on the Xbox One regardless of what the numbers are, and while I completely understand why these numbers would be such a very big deal around here, I don't feel it will matter to the broader audience of gamers that just want great looking games regardless of where they find them. As an example, despite the Xbox 360 regularly having the superior versions of multi-platform games, there isn't a thing you could tell the folks that bought the PS3 version of games that would convince them that they were somehow getting a less than stellar gaming experience. If the consoles are being viewed in a purely competitive light, and only ever under such pretenses, then the differences between the two systems is really all that matters. However, most gamers really don't see things that way. They get a system, they buy games, and then they enjoy themselves.
But then I suppose I totally understand how that view might seem pretty out of place in a thread primarily about the differences in power between the two systems, so I've probably said about as much as is necessary on the matter. Other people see things differently, and I respect that.
I just wrote a post regarding why the xbox one was sub 1080p due to 32mb esram i another thread and thought it would be useful in here as there was some discussion regarding why xb1 would be stuck lower than 1080 and what CBOAT could have meant:
It's techy but I'm sure some will enjoy the read.
It's techy but I'm sure some will enjoy the read.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Dat arrogance!
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Why would it? EA can use PC as a base for both.
It blows my mind because I wrongly expected people who were heavily devoted to tech talk and graphical fidelity to have invested somewhat in to extracting more in that regard. 22" 900p monitors and GTX 560's are hardly the epitome of high tech. It's no surprise for example, SenjutsuSage would care so little for 1080p if his monitor doesn't even offer the resolution.
It's nice to want things I guess.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Did you just write that? I am playing Red Dead Redemption at the moment and guess what? Every second I am playing that game, I am telling myself "I AM PLAYING THE SHITTIEST VERSION OF THIS GAME". So please stop! Just stop!
Edit: I own a PS3 and I only imagine how much better that beautiful world Rockstar created looks on the 360. Cause I've seen the side by side comparisons
Windom Earle
Member
So why don't you start replying to the posts refuting your spin?
You can add to that the Edge developer comment from the OP.
So we have GAF Junior Member and MS PR interview vs the rest of the world.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
He makes some fantastic points, but I feel game content below 1080p scales very, very well on my 1080p television. I think it really comes down to the quality of the scaler in a person's television, or the quality of the scaler in the system itself.
My HDTV is native 1080p, but games like Halo 4, Uncharted 2, GTA V, and a multitude of others, all look quite amazing on it. Pretty much the only issue I ever run into is not being able to see the text on the user interface as well I'd would like. My go to examples to point this out currently are reading text messages on the cell phone in GTA V, or trying to get a good look at where cops are on the mini-map when trying to escape from them. So, my main argument is if you have a native 1080p television right now, and don't have any major complaints about 720p games on the 360 or PS3, why then would already non-existent issues pertaining to scaling potentially be exacerbated by the more powerful Xbox One, which will produce much superior graphics quality at even higher resolutions than the 360 or PS3?
Rather than telling me to stop, just accept that you and I have very different views. Although, in fairness, I do have the 360 version of Red Dead Redemption. I don't really know what the PS3 version of that game is like, but a major flaw in how we sometimes view things, I think, is that we readily accept that, due to the architectural similarities between the two systems this time around, the performance gap between them is even more telling or significant than was the case for whatever gap existed between the 360 and PS3. That we all accept.
However, at the very same time, we don't seem to readily acknowledge the fact that the Xbox One architecture is likely nowhere nearly as difficult for programmers to extract performance from as the PS3 was, which means there's a very high probability we also won't be seeing any Xbox One bayonetta style porting disasters on the system, which may significantly combat the "wow, this game is so unplayable on the Xbox One" complaints, like you see some people say about PS3 versions of certain multi-platforms. There is no cell processor on the Xbox One. ESRAM may be a challenge, but it isn't PS3 architecture levels of challenging, at least certainly not from my understanding. So, really, the PS4 versions of multi-platforms will no doubt likely be superior, but just don't be surprised if the Xbox One version isn't absolute "shit" in terms of graphics quality and framerate. Many of the things gamers had to deal with on the current gen systems won't apply this time around. Solid to great AF with some manner of AA seems a given, along with high quality textures and shaders. I mean, we'll have to see, but I get the feeling the "ugly duckling" version this upcoming gen won't be quite so ugly compared to what we might have seen on the 360 and PS3.
I'm not so sure, the 360 cleanly beat the PS3 in attach rate partly because for the majority of it's lifespan the 360 had the better version of important multi-platform games (GTA4, COD, BF3, etc...).
People like the notion of value, and $100 cheaper for better performance is a major selling point and the idea hit the mainstream. It was a simple easy to explain idea and it was news. The news loves that sort of narrative; a industry giant brought low by it's hubris. It's they narrative they wrote about Atari, Nintendo, and Sony. Now Microsoft and the narrative will inform purchase decisions.
We'll see how it all turns out but MS needs to cut out the 'we're not worried' position and needs to start taking their adversaries more seriously. If they bow out of the industry it isn't a good thing for the consumer.
Didn't mean to come off as arrogant. I appreciate everybody has different finances, priorities, outgoings, interests, hobbies and all the rest. Ultimately gaming is just a luxury, and putting less of one's finance towards it might not necessarily be a bad thing, especially if you have children, a mortgage and all the rest.
If people just went about stumbling upon consoles by happenstance, I suppose that would be true. Otherwise it's an awfully convenient threshold of tolerance.
Before any tech specs were rumoured, the common thought was Sony's financial position meant it couldn't afford any losses, and couldn't afford to sink hundreds of millions into R&D. Sony publicly stated that R&D into Cell alone cost them $400m. With these two facts in mind, the thought was the PS4 would be based on lost cost hardware, and the Xbox 3 would kill it off by having power to spare.
You also had chumps like SuperDAE swearing blind that the Durango was all powerful and the Orbis was a joke. This was echoed in places like B3D, where the smarter folks there shared his sentiment. The fact the PS4 is significantly more powerful than the Xbone is something that only came about from the start of this year, slowly clarifying over time as more is known about the Xbox One.
BigJoeGrizzly
Neo Member
As a former biology/psychology double-major does that now give me the right to have my interpretation of what "evolution" means? I'm not talking about the evolution of species here, I'm talking the evolution of technology, which in many ways is a different interpretation. Evolution (as you know as a former genetics major) relative to species has more to do with adaptation, survival, and the ability to pass those genes to future generations. Evolution in technology also has similar principles, but is mainly used loosely as another way to describe the improvements of tech from past to present.
And "relativity" was not originally the argument some here were making when they attempted to pick apart my initial statements (the adjustment to a "relativity" argument against my statements by some has just started to surface) . If someone wanted to say that the PS4's memory architecture is easier to grasp, that's all they have to say, "the PS4's memory architecture is easier to develop for." The problem is people start suggesting "the Xbone memory architecture is a bitch to develop for" (which was originally mentioned to me by Sword of Doom who said "a developer" said it in the EDGE article). Look, figuring out the answer to 2+2 compared to 2x12 is definitely easier (and 2x12 is more "difficult" to figure out compared to 2+2), but in the grand scheme of things they're both pretty easy to figure out.
boredandlazy
Member
I don't entirely support his point, but I'd agree with his assertions. X3 was king. Monster 8 core CPU, 8gb ram. All that jazz. And with rumours suggesting that orbis was behind schedule, and getting jaguar instead of steamroller, with 2gb ram, maybe 4. I'd say x3 was ahead with its xeon powered dev kits.
Liabe Brave
Member
The thing is, you do not know what we now have at 900p. The only direct-feed screenshots and videos released have been rendered at 1080p (higher than the game actually will) or downscaled to 720p (from an unknown source resolution, giving free AA). Now, I don't expect the game to look considerably worse in terms of geometry, textures, etc. But I do expect the game to have more jaggies and shimmering than any media we've seen to date. I'm not sure that's an acceptable tradeoff for tons of blades of grass.
Firstly, you just highlighted some issues that probably will not go away with upscaling xbox one games. Is it not reasonable for people to want those issues (however minor you think they are) go away with a new generation?
Secondly, you have assumed there are no major complaints with upscaling 720p on PS3 and 360. They might not be major complaints for you and I. But high-end PC gamers who are used to impeccable image quality will consider it a major complaint when they play console exclusives. I'm sure you would agree that image quality is quite crappy for many of the top-end games that push the boundaries of the hardware. So for people who care about image quality, don't you think those are valid complaints? Sure you can anti-alias the heck out of it with additional horsepower on next gen, but as SPE pointed out, they would still not be as good as native resolution.
BigJoeGrizzly
Neo Member
1) What the hell does being a "Junior Member" have to do with a person's ability to have valid points and opinions? Didn't know "Junior Member" = ignore list.
2) Suggesting the Digital Foundry interview as "MS PR" is subjective at best. Should I suggest that any future Sony-related interviews are strictly "Sony PR" and all information within should be considered invalid?
3) When did NeoGaf = the rest of the world?
Liabe Brave
Member
But from what I can see, your only rebuttal has been that "360 wasn't tough, why would One be?" And several people have explained to you exactly why: the eSRAM setup in One is not like the eDRAM in 360. To which you have replied, "Yeah, Microsoft has said it's an evolution". And the repeated response has been that yes, it has evolved capacity. But it's harder to program in order to allow that greater flexibility.
Sure, programmers are smart guys and the eSRAM isn't insurmountable. But there's plenty of hard evidence that it's more difficult to use than the 360's eDRAM.
Windom Earle
Member
Waiting for your answers. You got your explanations why the ESRAM is bad. Not happy?
Similar threads
- Locked