-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
VG247 Rumor: PS4 > Xbox 720; NowGamer Rumor: Xbox 720 > PS4
- Thread starter Auto_aim1
- Start date
Nah that works. Going by those numbers in maths terms PS4 would be 50% then Durango. It's the other way around you'd say Durango is 33% slower than PS4.
How true that is is something else entirely
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
This thread... good grief! :lol
phosphor112
Banned
Really, the gif at the top of the page makes it even better.
Affordability is definitely key. Still I think there is a good possibility these will come in higher and possibly considerably higher on the cost side of $400-500.
iamvin22
Industry Verified
-Pyromaniac-
Member
The nowgamer article is still there eh, lol, gonna be a lot of misinformation being spread because people won't read more than the OP.
Cornbread78
Member
True hurts, I know, but in actuality, I wish Consoles would allow this flexibility...
Phonomezer
Banned
I don't think anybody is taking either seriously at this stage.
Baconsammy
Banned
In which universe did that happen?
Can Crusher
Banned
You would be wrong. Ilherre says both have details that are simply wrong...
Yet some don't seem to mind one of them. But I guess it's normal, we take the stuff we want to believe in.
shinobi602
Member
If I recall correctly, the PS2 was hitting like 15fps or worse in the rain on the tanker level. I remember it chugging like hell.
Alternate one were Microsoft's console was named PS3.
Gemüsepizza
Member
PS4 will be easier to develop for then PS3. So yeah, if it's more powerful, games will look better, because devs can actually use that power. And if it is 50% more powerful, they will look a lot better.
I think he tried to be sarcastic.
I can't wait for E3.
I found Gears3 to be easily on par with those games, especially when you take 4 player co-op into consideration. The game just looks and runs great. Halo 4 is up there as well, and one of the reasons why it looks better than Reach is because 343 freed up resources by taking out features like Theater mode.
I found Gears3 to be easily on par with those games, especially when you take 4 player co-op into consideration. The game just looks and runs great. Halo 4 is up there as well, and one of the reasons why it looks better than Reach is because 343 freed up resources by taking out features like Theater mode.
Sarcasm World.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
Random thoughts.
MS is going with a more Wii U approach (hear me out). They will give up some horse power so they can ship Kinect with every system and have it running all the time. This is the Trojan horse. They are betting the average user will be more impressed with features like voice, gesture based UI, etc. and not just graphics. They went with DDR to get a larger memory pool (more apps + Kinect) and eSRAM to alleviate bandwidth issues and 360 BC.
If the 192GB/s GDDR5 is true, then a beefy GPU is implied. You simply don't waste money and heat with high bandwidth memory unless you have something that requires it. So Sony is go for more eye candy (and easier to use architecture), but they won't have the hook of the Wii U pad or Kinect. Of course they could still have some camera/motion based controller system. I also expect Sony to ditch traditional PS3 BC and move towards cloud gaming with Gaikai tech. Maybe Plus members can stick Uncharted 2 into the system and it will launch a cloud version, though this sounds expensive for Sony. They could also sell that same access to any device (PC, iPad, etc.) with a broadband connection.
Two strategies, both have risks. The core crowd could not grow much and might be dwarfed by potential casual crowd like in early Wii days, this would hurt Sony and help MS. You could also have a resurgence in core gaming and the fickle casuals might move to a new flavor of the year.
MS is going with a more Wii U approach (hear me out). They will give up some horse power so they can ship Kinect with every system and have it running all the time. This is the Trojan horse. They are betting the average user will be more impressed with features like voice, gesture based UI, etc. and not just graphics. They went with DDR to get a larger memory pool (more apps + Kinect) and eSRAM to alleviate bandwidth issues and 360 BC.
If the 192GB/s GDDR5 is true, then a beefy GPU is implied. You simply don't waste money and heat with high bandwidth memory unless you have something that requires it. So Sony is go for more eye candy (and easier to use architecture), but they won't have the hook of the Wii U pad or Kinect. Of course they could still have some camera/motion based controller system. I also expect Sony to ditch traditional PS3 BC and move towards cloud gaming with Gaikai tech. Maybe Plus members can stick Uncharted 2 into the system and it will launch a cloud version, though this sounds expensive for Sony. They could also sell that same access to any device (PC, iPad, etc.) with a broadband connection.
Two strategies, both have risks. The core crowd could not grow much and might be dwarfed by potential casual crowd like in early Wii days, this would hurt Sony and help MS. You could also have a resurgence in core gaming and the fickle casuals might move to a new flavor of the year.
Like the one dev in this thread explained... It will be this gen on repeat graphically.
Not a Xbox/PS2 difference. Or even a PS2/GC difference.
Phonomezer
Banned
I agree, its possible for WiiU's GPU to be anywhere from 352Gflops to 563Gflops (considering clock speed). Its a wide range, my guess is simply at the high end and others guess at the low end. Also agree that the kind of power we're hearing for the next XBox is fine.
Baconsammy
Banned
My detector is on the fritz again.
dead monkey uk
Member
Skyrim says hello
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
To be fair, I played ZoE: 2nd Runner several months ago on my PS2, and while it generally runs at 60 fps, that game also has severe frame rate problems, at least the PAL version does. Slowdowns are not uncommon.
dead monkey uk
Member
We can't say. The OP's VG247 article seems to confirm some suspicions we've had at GAF. The NOWGAMER Article is a pure joke though.
True. However, the quality of assets are going to increase next gen and despite all the advancements in streaming, I'd assume devs would still like to dump most frequently accessed assets on to the RAM. If the PS4 is using the expensive GDDR5, many including me, feel it would be waste to lock up one whole gigabyte, which is more than 2x of what was available for game development on PS3, just for OS. Of course, I am going to abstain from precluding the possibility of Sony eventually reducing the OS footprint much like they did with the PS3. However, most people were hoping for either another pool of memory just for OS or have two versions of an OS (normal and light/lite) with the aid of the rumoured 16GB flash memory cache, which would exist depending upon if one is or isn't playing a game.
Gemüsepizza
Member
PS4. Will change again with next rumors lol.
Definitely sarcasm there dude.
Yeah it did dip, but on average it was higher. You can never have too much bandwidth. It's a major reason 360 games run better like Bayonetta due to the edRAM.
If these 4 and 8 GB RAM rumours are true, I hope Microsoft use a smaller pool of super fast RAM to offset the slow DDR3
never on PS2 - it was perfect on PS2...even locked at 60fps IIRC but the rain affected the Xbox version for sure...was a big talking point at the time (due to all other Xbox games being clearly better looking/running)
-Pyromaniac-
Member
Where is arkam when we need him to give us the straight dope no BS.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
Not that I entirely agree with the rest of your analysis, but there's just one thing that I'd like to point out: core gamers don't go where the tech is, they go where the games they're interested in are.
Phonomezer
Banned
We've already had someone comment ITT
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46551080&postcount=274
shinobi602
Member
WHAT? I have to look this up now. I'm like 95% sure it was horrible on the PS2. I remember playing it with my friend on release day and getting pissed at how slow it got because we don't know a damn thing about framerates at the time lol.
You're saying MGS2 was 60fps on the PS2?
-Pyromaniac-
Member
well I assumed that already
but still arkam was the most honest about the wiiU and ended up being the most right lol.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Yes. It definitely was. MGS2 was amazing on PS2.
GarthVaderUK
Banned
There have been rumours here on GAF over the last few days that they're putting some eSRAM in the Nextbox. No idea how accurate those rumours are.
Yeah. Some cutscenes were 30fps and 60fps though.
madmaxx350
Member
i dont recall the game ever running at 15 fps on PS2
Tanker was 30fps, Plant was 60fps.
You mean outside the Tanker was 30fps. lol
Harrier battle. Watch the explosions.
This is a hardware thread what else are you expecting to talk about?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll