[hexus.net]AMD claims it will power another gaming device

[TurtleCrusher]

It is a know fact that rhetorics like "It is a know fact" is used to convey opinion as fact in absence of evidence.

Agreed.

If its a known fact they failed to deliver then post the source! Yawn... sleepy reading your posts, same old thing different day.

+1

 

[railven]

Your argument is centered around 1080p60 yet there are many games that run 1080p60 even on a lowly wii u. Again, these are design decisions the devs made. A perfect example is BF4 which runs nearly flawlessy at 1080p60 on massive maps on the ps4, that is because they designed their engine multithreaded from day 1.

BF4 is 900p on PS4. 720p on XBone.

 

[Phynaz]

just try to remember that a 1.6GHz jaguar core outperforms a 3.2GHz xenon core

Wat?

Edit, oh, I thought that was Xeon.

 

[positivedoppler]

So much disdain for a couple of cheap consoles that has solid 4 star average user reviews from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-One-Assas...owViewpoints=1

http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-4-...owViewpoints=1

I thought this thread was about possible new console being powered by AMD showing up possibly in the 2016 time frame.. I don't understand this pages after pages of derailment for people who don't like these cheap $349 and $399 consoles. If you don't like it, simply don't buy it and invest in a PC or buy a $499 steam machine or stick with the xbox360 or ps3 if you don't feel there's enough of a graphics leap.

 

[railven]

So much disdain for a couple of cheap consoles that has solid 4 star average user reviews from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-One-Assas...owViewpoints=1

http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-4-...owViewpoints=1

I thought this thread was about possible new console being powered by AMD showing up possibly in the 2016 time frame.. I don't understand this pages after pages of derailment for people who don't like these cheap $349 and $399 consoles. If you don't like it, simply don't buy it and invest in a PC or buy a $499 steam machine or stick with the xbox360 or ps3 if you don't feel there's enough of a graphics leap.

Funny thing about opinions...

I own all the consoles (I love gaming ) doesn't change my disappointment in such under powered hardware choices. Frankly, I blame MSFT/Sony for aiming for the bottom of the barrel. They could have chosen better parts from the AMD catalog.

 

[monstercameron]

BF4 is 900p on PS4. 720p on XBone.

yeah you are right about the resolutions. It is still 60fps on huge 64man servers though...

 

[railven]

yeah you are right about the resolutions. It is still 60fps on huge 64man servers though...

Actually, no it's not. It can't even maintain locked 60 FPS in Single Player campaign on either console.

PS4 is basically 900p/50FPS and XBone is closer to 720p/45FPS on averages [EDIT] in MP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWzkw32amOM
EDIT: MP footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkjS4wLEQX0

Sure, they can hit 60 FPS, but staring at the floor or an empty field doesn't really reinforce the notion that these consoles have the oomph.

New Battlefield is already rumored to be sub 1080p resolution for both platforms.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Funny thing about opinions...

I own all the consoles (I love gaming ) doesn't change my disappointment in such under powered hardware choices. Frankly, I blame MSFT/Sony for aiming for the bottom of the barrel. They could have chosen better parts from the AMD catalog.

It sounds like you just look at "1.8Ghz, must be bad!!" and just assume. What you don't realize is that the XBOX 360 and PS3 too were already outperformed by high end PC hardware at launch. The same could be said about the Original XBOX, GameCube and PS2. The hardware and throughput is much better than the average PC gamers use. Looking at the average PC to game with on Steam in their hardware survey, it's a 2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz i3 with integrated Intel 4000 graphics, which is about the same cost as the PS4/XB1. In terms of value for the masses, the video game consoles is leaps and bounds better for gaming than spending the same amount of money on a gaming PC. I don't own a next-gen system as my PC is perfect for my uses, but if I just cared about gaming, those consoles are very good options.

You also aren't looking at the durability factor of these chips. They aren't power hogs, they do not present the same potential issues of last generation. Where have you seen any significant failure rate of APUs? I sure as hell have not seen any.

 

[krumme]

Funny thing about opinions...

I own all the consoles (I love gaming ) doesn't change my disappointment in such under powered hardware choices. Frankly, I blame MSFT/Sony for aiming for the bottom of the barrel. They could have chosen better parts from the AMD catalog.

For sony the current ps4 is a massive success compared to the ps3. The reason is cheap amd tech.
Had they chosen twice as fast cpu and gpu with 2x powersupply 2x fans and bigger cabinet.....they would have ended with a device with bom perhaps even more than 3 times as expensive. Remember the cpu big cores is 6x bigger per pcx and then add lower yield. Add 2x gpu and yet lower yield. You will probably end with a separated solution cpu-gpu. What a mess compared to the lean product that is now.

I am 100% confident future consoles will have the same lean single chip solution. Who want to give your customers money. The ps3 was killing sony. A disaster for something that should earn tons of money.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

I just dont understand why it bothers you so much that other people play games that dont fit what you think a video game should be. After all, it is not like playing some game that you consider "mature" is going to cure some disease or social problem. It is just a game that is played for fun or to escape the problems of life for a while. If someone else gets the same enjoyment or escape from a different type of game, what gives you the right to condemn them?

Again, you're assuming that it bothers me. It doesn't.

I am simply making the point that he was undermining his own objective -- he was advocating more people should be buying Wii U.... Then made Wii U buyers look bad (immature and juvenile by playing non-age appropriate games). That's a huge turnoff to prospective console buyers. People keep reading more into what I said, but nothing is there.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Your argument is centered around 1080p60 yet there are many games that run 1080p60 even on a lowly wii u. Again, these are design decisions the devs made. A perfect example is BF4 which runs nearly flawlessy at 1080p60 on massive maps on the ps4, that is because they designed their engine multithreaded from day 1.

Agreed. There are many games that run at 60 fps at 1080p on the current consoles. Devil May Cry is the latest:

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/1080p-60fps-devil-may-cry-announced-for-ps4-and-xb/1100-6424224/

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Are you guys claiming the new consoles are not seriously under powered in comparison to their predecessors?

I was excited about Xbox 360's hardware. Day it released it put PC's to shame. PS3's cell was a marvel when it released, although untapped.

Not even close, man. Your memory is failing you.

An Intel Core 2 Quad of that same era would mop the floor with an Xbox 360 or PS4. Consoles have always a bit behind of PC Gaming and its always been that way. The N64 was pretty impressive for its day, but it was still no match for a pair of 3DFX Voodoo2's.

You get what you pay for -- and to make game consoles affordable, compromise is always necessary.

 

[Shivansps]

Im sorry, but 10 years of games running on 6 cores of a failed tablet cpu arch is not a good thing. I still remember how those 512mb of ram screwed up gaming in general.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Not even close, man. Your memory is failing you.

An Intel Core 2 Quad of that same era would mop the floor with an Xbox 360 or PS4. Consoles have always a bit behind of PC Gaming and its always been that way. The N64 was pretty impressive for its day, but it was still no match for a pair of 3DFX Voodoo2's.

You get what you pay for -- and to make game consoles affordable, compromise is always necessary.

No, he is correct. I remember when Oblivion came out that PCs couldn't match the 360 even with SLI/Crossfire. It wasn't until the 8800GTX that PCs were the undisputed kings again.

 

[railven]

It sounds like you just look at "1.8Ghz, must be bad!!" and just assume. What you don't realize is that the XBOX 360 and PS3 too were already outperformed by high end PC hardware at launch. The same could be said about the Original XBOX, GameCube and PS2. The hardware and throughput is much better than the average PC gamers use. Looking at the average PC to game with on Steam in their hardware survey, it's a 2.3 Ghz to 2.69 Ghz i3 with integrated Intel 4000 graphics, which is about the same cost as the PS4/XB1. In terms of value for the masses, the video game consoles is leaps and bounds better for gaming than spending the same amount of money on a gaming PC. I don't own a next-gen system as my PC is perfect for my uses, but if I just cared about gaming, those consoles are very good options.

You don't own one of the consoles but you're going to argue that they are more than suitable? Of course they viable alternatives, that doesn't change that they are rather meager in overall performance (the Xbone more so).

I'm not saying the consoles are outright terrible, but are definitely a huge let down.

For sony the current ps4 is a massive success compared to the ps3. The reason is cheap amd tech.
Had they chosen twice as fast cpu and gpu with 2x powersupply 2x fans and bigger cabinet.....they would have ended with a device with bom perhaps even more than 3 times as expensive. Remember the cpu big cores is 6x bigger per pcx and then add lower yield. Add 2x gpu and yet lower yield. You will probably end with a separated solution cpu-gpu. What a mess compared to the lean product that is now.

Well Sony themselves they wanted an internal PSU thus their selection of the parts. With that in mind the console itself was doomed to be under powered.

MSFT's Xbone on the other hand is a complete mystery. They have enough space in the chassis to fid dual APUs (I'm saying this in jest) while the PS4 is backed to the gills.

Had Sony ignored the power envelope they could have aimed for something a little beefier. Unfortunately, they weren't in the position to really go balls out considering how much the PS3 cost them and of course their other markets hemorrhaging (hey, sounds like AMD ).

Not even close, man. Your memory is failing you.

An Intel Core 2 Quad of that same era would mop the floor with an Xbox 360 or PS4. Consoles have always a bit behind of PC Gaming and its always been that way. The N64 was pretty impressive for its day, but it was still no match for a pair of 3DFX Voodoo2's.

You get what you pay for -- and to make game consoles affordable, compromise is always necessary.

There is a come thing between this post and the one above. Of course a Thousand+ dollar computer will destroy consoles, that wasn't my argument. When the X360 launched it had the first unified shader architecture and was cable of rendering at a decent resolution 720p. It was a marvel for it's release. A PC at the time to rival it would cost well over $1,000. The PS3 didn't launch to such limelight do to being a year later but it had a BD-Drive, actually it was the cheapest BDP for over a year.

PS4/Xbone came out and were already being trumped by $600-700 computers. Shoot, anyone who had a semi-decent PC just had to stick a $220 Radeon 7850 into their RIG and they'd be fine. I'd argue even an HD 7770 would have sufficed.

When your render target is <1080p, <60 FPS (majority <30FPS), and medium/High settings - that is very feasible.



TLOU Remastered Edition has an option:
30FPS locked or 60FPS.
Do you think it's a cinematic/visual design to remove high detail shadows when you switch to 60 FPS or a trade-off due to insufficient processing power? Because I don't think Naughty Dog would intentionally hinder IQ for that "artistic look."

Source:
http://www.craveonline.com/gaming/a...-of-us-remastered-shadows-comparison#/slide/1


As someone that has spent probably unhealthy amounts of hours gaming, I'm disappointed by these consoles. I wasn't impressed by anything they've put out. There was no "wow" factor like there was the first time I saw Gears on 360 or Bioshock.

Also, something new which is driving me crazy is there is tearing and microstutter in these consoles (more so Xbone) which is just down right unacceptable.

The bullet for XBone is basically MSFT letting their "exclusives" get PC ports. At this point I've decided not to buy Xbone exclusives because chances are high a PC version will be out in a few months which will look and run better (exceptions of course for Halo, and the such.)

And shoot, just mentioning Halo:
None of the Halo titles can sustain locked 60 FPS.
In fact remastered CE has terrible frame drops, tearing, and micro stutter.
Halo 2 isn't even rendered at 1080p, nor does it maintain solid 60 FPS (though it handles better than Halo CE probably due to lower resolution).
Halo 3 and 4 suffer from tearing and micro stutter, though Halo 4 is probably the best performing of the collection.

This is just a down right disappointment.

 

[wilds]

I have played a lot of MCC online and the frame drops are purely network related. Halo 4 feels the best IMO. Xbox One and PS4 have plenty of life left.

 

[railven]

I have played a lot of MCC online and the frame drops are purely network related.

No network issues in solo campaign mode.

Xbox One and PS4 have plenty of life left.

They most definitely do. They will continue to improve the SDK. It's happened with every console generation.

Just about every game was been downgraded from it's initial announcement. Games that hit 1080p60 are going to be light visual games like sports. Everything will be lower.

 

[AnandThenMan]

...wall of text...

So tell use what the console hardware should have been. You are expressing bitter disappointment so you must have a very specific idea of what Sony and MS should have put into them.

 

[railven]

So tell use what the console hardware should have been. You are expressing bitter disappointment so you must have a very specific idea of what Sony and MS should have put into them.

Better.

 

[tential]

So tell use what the console hardware should have been. You are expressing bitter disappointment so you must have a very specific idea of what Sony and MS should have put into them.

What was stopping them from using a stronger APU from AMD?
Other than wanting to reap a profit from Day 1 for the first time ever.

 

[railven]

What was stopping them from using a stronger APU from AMD?
Other than wanting to reap a profit from Day 1 for the first time ever.

Microsoft's overall design is baffling considering it's a bigger chip than what's in the PS4, has a bigger chassis, an external PSU, and basically I'd argue designed to be as cheap as possible if you look at a break down versus the PS4.

I know for Sony a big thing was a 250W power limit.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/01...pt-the-ps4s-power-consumption-under-250-watt/

Ootori-san explained that 250 watt is the upper limit, by safety regulations, that allows the use of a two prong power cord. By using 250 watt or more the PS4 would have required a three prong power cord, and of course a three pin power inlet on the back of the console. That kind of connector is larger, and would have negatively impacted the miniaturization of the unit.
That&#8217;s why Sony put its best designers at work on making the console as power-efficient as possible in order to keep consumption under 250 watt.

EDIT: If that isn't a strict adherence to reducing cost, I don't know what is!

 

[tential]

I gave up on the new consoles the second I heard their real specs. Actually, I went out and bought a new gaming PC (Hadn't had one in 5 years, had a gaming laptop and console gamed), a month or two after the announcements.
I've seen my friend using the Xbone and it's just a half baked implementation and they gave up on the Kinect after forcing it on people and the Kinect ACTUALLY HAD POTENTIAL.

 

[HeXen]

The real problem with anything related to gaming is that gamers these days are some really hateful people. Only the negatives of software and hardware get discussed..right down to individual chips and the providers like we are here. We are getting too hard to please and too impatient. It's easier and cheaper to just make smartphone games...which is what I would do if I were MS or Sony, that or make a client like Steam and spread it to as many hardware devices as possible.

Microsoft's overall design is baffling considering it's a bigger chip than what's in the PS4, has a bigger chassis, an external PSU, and basically I'd argue designed to be as cheap as possible if you look at a break down versus the PS4.

Likely they learned a hard lesson on the 360's hardware failures and want to make sure the sytem stays cooler and quieter than last time. That last disaster with the 360 could have cost MS far more considering how the console market is always teetering on the edge of stability. It's nothing for consumers to mass adopt another platform for petty reasons, especially when most all the same games are available.

We all know it's a very risky business anyway, just be glad they didn't want it to be more affordable in the $250 price range like Nintendo did. But making it expensive has it's own issues as well in terms of consumer adoption.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Microsoft's overall design is baffling considering it's a bigger chip than what's in the PS4, has a bigger chassis, an external PSU, and basically I'd argue designed to be as cheap as possible if you look at a break down versus the PS4.

What's baffling? It's a bigger chip (363 sq mm versus 348 sq mm) because of the SRAM on die.

 

[mrmt]

For sony the current ps4 is a massive success compared to the ps3. The reason is cheap amd tech.

This. Despite being a generation leap compared to the previous generation, both the XB360 and the PS3 were two financial train wrecks for MSFT and Sony. In this generation both players went for a low cost solution, and guess what, it seems that the financial health of both business is better than at the same time of the previous generation, and that might allow for a shorter generational cycle. If both players managed to squeeze AMD margins, that's irrelevant, they did what they had to do, and are making plenty of money as a result.

The consoles were never about bleeding edge hardware, all the consoles that tried to be bleeding edge were commercial failures. The consoles were all about affordable costs and standardized hardware. As much as the current generation is a smaller leap compared to the previous generation, it seems to be a much more profitable business, and in the end, that's the only comparison that matters.