• 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.

FRIDAYTON MK II: 5.5 million bears and salmon create unholy allliance to sack SONY HQ

Cidd

Member
Jan 14, 2013
4,356
1
500
He asked for specifics, I was giving my opinion on what port differences could be. No one can say anything for certain. I posted a link above to similar GPUs in both PS4 and Xbox One to give you an idea of how large a performance difference can be on pure power alone.

With that said, I'm off.
Time to call it a night thuway, I don't want to see you get banned again dude, btw thanks for all the info.
 

oSoLucky

Member
Jun 15, 2013
2,954
8
495
Seattle, USA
I wanted that significant advantage we were all thinking was going to happen and now it's looking like much less of an advantage and also a lame launch lineup compared to XBone in my opinion.
Can you tell me exactly why you want an advantage for the PS4 over the XB1? Bragging rights? Feeling of superiority? I'm genuinely curious. I have both consoles preordered, and I just want them to blow away the last gen, and push multiplats higher so that the PC versions might target higher spec.

If you can only afford one console, then you should really only be worried about them being competitive so that they get game support. Numbers don't mean shit, and it's already been pointed out about a million times that the most powerful console never sells the most in any generation.
 

mavs

Member
Mar 18, 2009
4,536
0
0
Xbox One has dedication for their wavy waggle.

PS4 is using 3.5 GB is worse because it's not a general purpose OS. Windows 8 has a much smaller footprint, and Linux way lower than that.

I can only conclude that Sony is being sloppy or reserving space for advertising. PC primary is looking more likely for me.

If it's for that damn share video feature, I hope I can disable it and instead cache game assets. Way more important to me.
It's not for the video share. Or for any current OS feature, since they haven't maxed out the OS RAM allocation.
 

TheD

The Detective
Mar 29, 2012
3,575
0
0
The trash cans outside your house.
Yup . A better way of thinking is the hypervizer is like the bios setup which runs when you boot up . It's the common thing behind everything. Then then there are two virtual machines are partitions one whih runs os app related stuff . Other for games . The key difference in pc partitions for dual operating systems use the same ram processor but divide up the hard disk. Here the virtual machines are dividing up the ram processor but sharing the same hardisk.

I'm no expert in the field myself.

My expertise lies in programming languages and algorithms but I do understand os stuff somewhat . Hope it helped.

EDIT should stop posting now starting to pregame to go to the bars so my explanations will probably get super esoteric after this lol

A Hypervisor is a program that controls the allocation of computer resources between virtual machines (thus allows for the running of said virtual machines).

Xbox One has dedication for their wavy waggle.

PS4 is using 3.5 GB is worse because it's not a general purpose OS. Windows 8 has a much smaller footprint, and Linux way lower than that.

I can only conclude that Sony is being sloppy or reserving space for advertising. PC primary is looking more likely for me.

If it's for that damn share video feature, I hope I can disable it and instead cache game assets. Way more important to me.

FreeBSD is as general purpose as the other OS kernels and it is not like you are running anything close to a full desktop userland on the xbone!
 
Sep 11, 2007
26,930
1
0
It is a narrative. Microsoft's hardware choices were a result of assuming GDDR5 in high volumes would not be feasible at the end of 2013, that's why they went with their memory setup. Sony's approach turned out to be smarter, giving them higher performance for the same (if not less) buck, but Microsoft didn't design the hardware in order to screw the gamer.
They didn't wanted to screw the gamer, but they had a very clearly multimedia vision for Xbone and what you're saying about their choice shows so: They decided for a larger pool of memory vs a faster memory because i for their multimedia vision they needed that over fast memory.

Sony went GDDR5 for their vision on unified memory architecture, multimedia for them was secundary. In the end, as you say, they got lucky and now they can easily play the same game as MS if it turns succesful reserving a larger memory pool for OS.
 

dubq

Member
May 23, 2012
4,583
0
0
It is a narrative. Microsoft's hardware choices were a result of assuming GDDR5 in high volumes would not be feasible at the end of 2013, that's why they went with their memory setup. Sony's approach turned out to be smarter, giving them higher performance for the same (if not less) buck, but Microsoft didn't design the hardware in order to screw the gamer.
random bolding ftw
 
May 6, 2012
1,631
0
475
San Diego, CA
Right at launch, the Xbox offered 480p in most games, DD 5.1 sound, better textures in some multiplats, and custom soundtracks.

Right now devs are aiming for feature and graphical parity for games that are planned through at least next summer. The difference between launch exclusives is negligible, and MS oddly has more 60 fps games in the pipeline. If MS offered a Kinect-less sku right now, it would be difficult to argue that the PS4 was a significantly better value to the average consumer, despite what we know about the innards.
Talking from a pure graphical performance perspective, not features and overall value to the customer. I would say framerate, textures, resolution, ect would be more akin to PS2 vs Xbox differences than GC vs Xbox multi plats(they were actually pretty similar if I remember correctly).

As far as more 60fps games in the pipeline, theres no way to say for sure about that at this point, as both systems have many unannounced games. More importantly its not necessarily a show of systems prowess when 90% of the time it comes down to a developers choice based on artistic preference and what they feel is best for there specific game.
 

bud

Member
Nov 22, 2004
34,563
0
1,690
that is an absurd number for a system that doesn't even allow you to watch the game/movie while skyping with your buddies
 

140.85

Cognitive Dissonance, Distilled
Jun 6, 2006
9,955
0
0
What I find most interesting about this is it explains why devs were so adamantly against 4 gigs. They were probably only going to be able play around with about 2 gigs of it.
 

Yawnier

Banned
Nov 12, 2010
16,657
0
0
All for instant switching between apps.....SO IMPORTANT.

This console gen is going to be a short one IMO. 6 years tops
I think a lot of gaffers wouldn't mind another average sized generation after the length of this one. 5 - 6 years of this upcoming generation brings us to 2018 - 2019 which I think quite a few people would be more than ready to move on to next-next gen by that point.
 

Napalm_Frank

Member
Jun 27, 2011
22,873
1
675
Finland
Can someone summarize what the fuck has been going on between pages 1 and 100? I tried to read the whole thread but it has just exploded so it's no use.
 

RedRedSuit

Member
Apr 28, 2008
2,370
0
885
Silicon Valley, CA
Look at the PSN store. 7 years and it's still a clunky, jerky experience. They couldn't even get background installs done. Don't underestimate Sony when it comes to screwing something easy up.
The incredibly frustrating thing about the PSN store is that starting with the first store redesign and before the 2nd (current) one, the store was VERY nice and snappy.

That lasted for years. Nice quick store, easy enough to get around as well.

Then they redesigned it to the laggy monstrosity that it is now. Why? I'll never know.
 

strata8

Member
Dec 13, 2010
4,768
0
0
Australia
If you can do it for me, that would be great :), but I'm just trying to illustrate that there is a significant power difference between the two machines that isn't some trivial 3 or 4 frames per game.
Sure:

Metro 2033 1920x1200
7770: 24 fps
7850: 38 fps
Difference: 55%

Dirt 3 1920x1200
7770: 52.5 fps
7850: 74 fps
Difference: 40%

Total War 2 1920x1200
7770: 47.5 fps
7850: 71 fps
Difference: 49%

Battlefield 3 1920x1200
7770: 33 fps
7850: 48.5 fps
Difference: 47%

It usually hovers around 45-55% difference, in line with the TFLOP count. The XB1 has 50% more CUs than the 7770 (clocked lower, so same TFLOPS) but I'm not sure if that makes any difference.
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
Jan 18, 2007
46,582
1
1,215
The Confederate United States of America
The incredibly frustrating thing about the PSN store is that starting with the first store redesign and before the 2nd (current) one, the store was VERY nice and snappy.

That lasted for years. Nice quick store, easy enough to get around as well.

Then they redesigned it to the laggy monstrosity that it is now. Why? I'll never know.
Agreed. That store is designed for PS4 type of HW. It's going to be a non issue with PS4.
 

Can Crusher

Banned
Dec 10, 2012
11,377
0
0
Sure:

Metro 2033 1920x1200
7770: 24 fps
7850: 38 fps
Difference: 55%

Dirt 3 1920x1200
7770: 52.5 fps
7850: 74 fps
Difference: 40%

Total War 2 1920x1200
7770: 47.5 fps
7850: 71 fps
Difference: 49%

Battlefield 3 1920x1200
7770: 33 fps
7850: 48.5 fps
Difference: 47%

It usually hovers around 45-55% difference, in line with the TFLOP count.
Still a pretty big difference.
 
Sep 20, 2005
18,327
205
1,730
The discussion shouldn't be about memory but about Sony's ability to compete with an OS that rivals Microsoft's. They clearly didn't show they had the guns to keep up programming wise (even if they were constrained by split memory) and I personally wasn't a fan of their consoles UI as its organizational setup became quite unweildly when you had a large amount of things installed.

I just hope they hired a equally talented and equal size team as MS. I'm hoping the PS4's approach is more influenced by Google and the 360 than the PS3.
 

Finalizer

Member
Jul 6, 2013
3,080
0
0
We should talk more about this post 2500 posts ago.
I don't think this topic is even about anything in particular anymore. Not bothering to read the 20+ pages that have popped up since I was last in the thread, mind, but it seems to have devolved to general PS4 vs Xbone power debate.

Also, I like bolding random words to make sure I sound important and on-point about the things I say. Penis.
 

Midou

Member
Apr 21, 2009
6,070
0
0
I think a lot of gaffers wouldn't mind another average sized generation after the length of this one. 5 - 6 years of this upcoming generation brings us to 2018 - 2019 which I think quite a few people would be more than ready to move on to next-next gen by that point.
Yep. 5-6 years is a great length, spending $400-500 that often is fine by me. A lot of technologies are in their early phases now that have the potential to be bigger, stuff like oculus rift, cloud computing/gaming, digital downloads(not so early but still in infancy for consoles) and all this other jazz. 5-6 years from now it may be possible to do something more awesome and unique with the console generation.
 

Pirzolaman

Banned
Mar 19, 2013
240
0
0
Since I'm a console gamer and not a game developer for the said console, specs really doesn't matter to me. If there are good games on a system that I like, then I enjoy that system regardless of its specs.

However that being said, if I buy two different consoles with the same multiplatform games, and if the games run better on the one because of it's specs, then that's a different story.

In the end it's all about the games...
 

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,618
2
0
Sure:

Metro 2033 1920x1200
7770: 24 fps
7850: 38 fps
Difference: 55%

Dirt 3 1920x1200
7770: 52.5 fps
7850: 74 fps
Difference: 40%

Total War 2 1920x1200
7770: 47.5 fps
7850: 71 fps
Difference: 49%

Battlefield 3 1920x1200
7770: 33 fps
7850: 48.5 fps
Difference: 47%

It usually hovers around 45-55% difference, in line with the TFLOP count. The XB1 has 50% more CUs than the 7770 (clocked lower, so same TFLOPS) but I'm not sure if that makes any difference.
But the PS4s GPU is also better spec'd than a 7850. Add to that the XO is limited by DDR3, the PS4 benefits from high bandwidth GDDR5. But easy, those differences sound plausible tbh.
 

Midou

Member
Apr 21, 2009
6,070
0
0
Since I'm a console gamer and not a game developer for the said console, specs really doesn't matter to me. If there are good games on a system that I like, then I enjoy that system regardless of its specs.

However that being said, if I buy two different consoles with the same multiplatform games, and if the games run better on the one because of it's specs, then that's a different story.

In the end it's all about the games...
Spoken like someone who has not played ram before!

Really all this power stuff and comparisons are silly. There are factors beyond actual processing power of each unit like:

1) is a developer willing to put in extra effort to make use of that power
2) is a developer even going to bother utilizing a lot of ram in the first place

the only solution is to SEE THE GAMES. Let's give it a year or two, let developers learn each system, see how multiplatform games turn out, see how exclusives turn out, then we could see the real difference between them.

I suspect the differences will be more minor than last-gen, therefore going with either system is swell, as most games are multi-plat...
 

prwxv3

Member
Sep 7, 2011
7,479
2
0
5-6 would be great less would be way too short for a 400-500 device and more would get us into the situation we are in now.
 
Oct 30, 2011
5,619
2,635
755
Sony is playing it very safe for launch units. Things like clock rates, OS size, and memory allotments are conservative for a reason. Sony does not want to be in a position where they will lose out on a killer feature or find themselves in a position where there is zero room to grow. I wouldn't be surprised if year 3 or 4 of the PS4's life cycle you see a patch to upclock the GPU.

Upclocking the PS4's GPU 200 mhz more would yield a 2.3 TF machine.

As of this moment, not a single developer has complained about "too little RAM". Most developers are very happy by not only the quantity, but the speed of RAM. As we enter the third year of the machine, the OS size will shrink and things will become less bloated.

Let things play their part and STOP overreacting. Some of you have zero idea how well designed and balanced the PS4 is.
Really? Is this even a remote possibility, thuway? You're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't see Sony upclocking the PS4's GPU at all...there's too many factors involved here (power, cooling, etc).
 

i-Lo

Member
Dec 23, 2008
14,759
0
0
Canada
Really? Is this even a remote possibility, thuway? You're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

I don't see Sony upclocking the PS4's GPU at all...there's too many factors involved here (power, cooling, etc).
No, he is just presenting a hypothetical situation via the usage math. There is no upclock of any kind. Cerny has held to two figures since the start: 176GB/s and 1.84TF.
 

Nightengale

Member
Jun 12, 2013
21,443
0
500
Sounds to me that while these 'numbers' are real, Sony still haven't finalised everything yet.

I'm pretty sure the OS-team is still trying to reduce the footprint of the actual 'current' OS, and debating how much needed for reserves/future-proofing, based on their current ability to cram X amount of features into X amount of RAM.

In the worst case scenario, we'd get the current 2.5GB allocation, which while more than desired, is still pretty okay. I personally have a gut feel that they'll manage to pull it down to 2GB though, those OS-wizards has been pretty good at making their OS on the Vita as small a footprint as possible.
 

Yawnier

Banned
Nov 12, 2010
16,657
0
0
Yep. 5-6 years is a great length, spending $400-500 that often is fine by me. A lot of technologies are in their early phases now that have the potential to be bigger, stuff like oculus rift, cloud computing/gaming, digital downloads(not so early but still in infancy for consoles) and all this other jazz. 5-6 years from now it may be possible to do something more awesome and unique with the console generation.
Agree with your points.

5-6 would be great less would be way too short for a 400-500 device and more would get us into the situation we are in now.
Agreed, 3 or 4 years would too short. 5 - 6 years like most generations are is just right, not too long and not short either.
 

nib95

Banned
Feb 26, 2007
34,618
2
0
So just a recollection of the insider posts:

Famousmortimer



Verendus



Thuway



Shinobi
Awesome set of posts.

So..

1.5GB used by OS
1GB reserved for future OS functionality
1GB reserved for additional dev use
4.5GB reserved for set dev use

So yea, at the moment, 5.5GB available for Devs with games, but potential to move up to 6.5gb later down the line.
 

MASB

Member
Jun 9, 2004
926
0
0
It'd be amazing what the next-gen consoles could do if so much of their resources weren't dedicated to everything except videogames.

Maybe they can reduce the needs of the OS as the generation goes on.