Is it me or the new-gen Xbox1/PS4 are underwhelming spec-wise?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
Not particularly underwhelmed because we basically knew what to expect a few months ago.

It is enough to keep them interesting, and as long as the games look decent and run smooth most will be happy. Nobody should expecting Crysis level graphics on a console.

And how exactly is DDR3 crippling anything? The theoretical bandwidth is lower? And how much does that actually impact performance?
 

SymphonyX7

Member
Oct 1, 2009
35
0
0
The Xbox One won't even be that good. DDR3 is crippling for graphics performance.

That's why the eSRAM is there. D'oh.

I'm partially underwhelmed by the specs. I'd reckon they could've went for even more RAM on the Xbox One. I don't know how much overhead the watered-down Windows 8 with its subsystems and the "Xbox OS" has, but I'd reckon it's more than what Sony's implementing on the PS4. In two years' time they'd probably be hungrier for additional RAM for even more persistent environments. 16 GB of RAM in 8 GB + 8 GB config on the Xbox One doesn't seem cost prohibitive over time imo.

Still, I'm holding out for E3. I feel neither of them have played their aces yet.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
consoles have been pieces of shit since before the Super NES came out. A 486 with VGA graphics looked better.

On the other hand, PC games don't look all that good since devs are using OGSS and/or FXAA more and more and various other reasons.
 

dagamer34

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2005
2,591
0
71
The 360 had graphics close to a high end graphics card, maybe the equivalent of a $250 graphics card. The Xbox One has low end graphics comparable to a $99 graphics card.

The 360 was only $299.99, for the basic model, not bad considering it's graphics capability.

So what are you suggesting Microsoft should have used instead? A $400 7970?
 

SymphonyX7

Member
Oct 1, 2009
35
0
0
So what are you suggesting Microsoft should have used instead? A 7970?

Yes. Considering they milked the Xbox 360 very thoroughly, losing money on the first and second year of production until a die shrink occurs doesn't seem that bad to have a raw horsepower advantage over your competitor. They do have the cash to do so. Then again, the thermals will be affected and quietness seems to be one of the features they're touting with the new Xbox One.

Ahh... That dream I had of the 'Durango' having Tahiti-based graphics.
 
Last edited:

AustinInDallas

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2012
1,127
0
76
www.amitelerad.com
I think when you design something for the sole purpose of gaming, you can compare it spec for spec. These were designed from top to bottom to play games(im sure all the other things they can do were just a side benefit).

Even if you "design" your desktop as a gaming unit, you are still pulling parts off the shelf that are made to be good at doing everything.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
So what are you suggesting Microsoft should have used instead? A $400 7970?

They should have at least matched Sony, and gone with mid level graphics. Instead they went low end, and might not even have have half the graphics power of the PS4.
GPU Cores: 768 vs. 1152
Memory Bandwidth: 68.3 GB/s vs. 176.0 GB/s

Ok if you want to watch TV, but I wouldn't want to game on it.
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
They should have at least matched Sony, and gone with mid level graphics. Instead they went low end, and might not even have have half the graphics power of the PS4.
GPU Cores: 768 vs. 1152
Memory Bandwidth: 68.3 GB/s vs. 176.0 GB/s

Ok if you want to watch TV, but I wouldn't want to game on it.

The PS4 is in an absolute best case theoretical scenario which can never possibly happen in the real world 50% faster than the Xbox One in a completely GPU bound scenario lol. Don't have a clue where you got the half the power from. Realistically the PS4 is going to be something like 20-25% better on visuals if the developer is really really good.
 

dagamer34

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2005
2,591
0
71
They should have at least matched Sony, and gone with mid level graphics. Instead they went low end, and might not even have have half the graphics power of the PS4.
GPU Cores: 768 vs. 1152
Memory Bandwidth: 68.3 GB/s vs. 176.0 GB/s

Ok if you want to watch TV, but I wouldn't want to game on it.

So umm.. do you know how eSRAM works? If you don't, please don't attempt to make that comparison up above. I don't know what makes you more qualified than several electrical engineers Microsoft has hired.

Also, buying a console because it is more "powerful" doesn't make sense when the main purpose of these boxes by your reasoning is to play games. What happens when the XBOX One has 12 games you want to play but the PS4 only has 2? Will that "extra power" really be helpful then? :whiste:

It's always been about and will forever be about games. Games games games. It's the reason why the PSOne outsold the N64 and Dreamcast, the PS2 outsold the Gamecube and Xbox, Wii outsold the PS3 and Xbox 360, Nintendo DS outsold the PSP and 3DS kicked the shit out of the PS Vita.

Games. Period. Fin.
 

dagamer34

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2005
2,591
0
71
The PS4 is in an absolute best case theoretical scenario which can never possibly happen in the real world 50% faster than the Xbox One in a completely GPU bound scenario lol. Don't have a clue where you got the half the power from. Realistically the PS4 is going to be something like 20-25% better on visuals if the developer is really really good.

Not only that, most games are made by 3rd parties, which have little interest to overplay the differences between the two consoles. They don't care which system you buy a game on, they just care if you buy it. Which is why you really need a Digital Foundry article to tell the difference between the PS3 and 360 versions of games today.

If raw performance was the only thing that mattered to the general public, then the Wii should have bombed instead of selling 100 million units.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
The PS4 is in an absolute best case theoretical scenario which can never possibly happen in the real world 50% faster than the Xbox One in a completely GPU bound scenario lol. Don't have a clue where you got the half the power from. Realistically the PS4 is going to be something like 20-25% better on visuals if the developer is really really good.

A 7850 is about 50% better than a 7700. That's real world performance, with both of them using, GDDR5. The PS4 falls in between a 7850 and a 7870. So it's going to be at least 50% better, before you figure in that the Xbox One is crippled with DDR3. http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/777?vs=778
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
So umm.. do you know how eSRAM works? If you don't, please don't attempt to make that comparison up above. I don't know what makes you more qualified than several electrical engineers Microsoft has hired.

:rolleyes: Find me a single Microsoft engineer that will go on record saying that 32mb of eSRAM is going to make up for 8GB of slower DDR3 with less than half the memory bandwidth. None of them have ever said that, and I doubt any of them ever will. They designed the Xbox One to be cheaper.

Sony has engineers to, and I'm sure there's told them that GDDR5 was worth the extra cost to have superior graphics performance.
 
Last edited:

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
:rolleyes: Find me a single Microsoft engineer that will go on record saying that 32mb of eSRAM is going to make up for 8GB of slower DDR3 with less than half the memory bandwidth. None of them have every said that, and I doubt any of them ever will. They designed the Xbox One to be cheaper.

Sony has engineers to, and I'm sure there's told them that GDDR5 was worth the extra cost to have superior graphics performance.

I don't think you really know what you're talking about. Read Anandtech's recently published article on the hardware of the two consoles. I could use your own logic against your argument just as easily and say Microsoft has engineers that must have concluded that 32MB of embedded RAM would be a better choice than 8GB of all GDDR5 but that would be silly since it's not good logic to try and make an argument with.
 

Topweasel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2000
5,437
1,659
136
I don't think you really know what you're talking about. Read Anandtech's recently published article on the hardware of the two consoles. I could use your own logic against your argument just as easily and say Microsoft has engineers that concluded that 32MB of embedded RAM would be a better choice than 8GB of all GDDR5...
Hell even Sony said performance wise it was a better choice but added to much complexity for their developers and didn't want to go that route (the first time ever that they have gone that route).
 

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
The ps4/One use a 1.6ghz AMD octocore which at the very best will give performance close to an intel i5 3570, probably closer to an i3.



There is no way in hell that the CPU part of the APU in PS4/One is anywhere close to a 3570 in performance.
 

cmdrdredd

Lifer
Dec 12, 2001
27,052
357
126
So umm.. do you know how eSRAM works? If you don't, please don't attempt to make that comparison up above. I don't know what makes you more qualified than several electrical engineers Microsoft has hired.

Also, buying a console because it is more "powerful" doesn't make sense when the main purpose of these boxes by your reasoning is to play games. What happens when the XBOX One has 12 games you want to play but the PS4 only has 2? Will that "extra power" really be helpful then? :whiste:

It's always been about and will forever be about games. Games games games. It's the reason why the PSOne outsold the N64 and Dreamcast, the PS2 outsold the Gamecube and Xbox, Wii outsold the PS3 and Xbox 360, Nintendo DS outsold the PSP and 3DS kicked the shit out of the PS Vita.

Games. Period. Fin.

You really think the PS4 will have 2 games vs 12 xbox? LOL...if anything it'll be the other way around thanks to the following...

Self Publish for Indie Devs

For the record: the Wii did not sell because of getting the most games. It got the fewest and the most shovelware that translates to the lowest number of AAA titles of any of the consoles compared. As for the Vita? The 3DS didn't do that great to start and it's still super early in the life cycle of those to say what you said.

Hell even Sony said performance wise it was a better choice but added to much complexity for their developers and didn't want to go that route (the first time ever that they have gone that route).

If that's true then why is the article here http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2

Stating 33% lower compute performance and lower overall bandwidth?
 
Last edited:

videoclone

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2003
1,465
0
0
You really think the PS4 will have 2 games vs 12 xbox? LOL...if anything it'll be the other way around thanks to the following...

Self Publish for Indie Devs

For the record: the Wii did not sell because of getting the most games. It got the fewest and the most shovelware that translates to the lowest number of AAA titles of any of the consoles compared. As for the Vita? The 3DS didn't do that great to start and it's still super early in the life cycle of those to say what you said.



If that's true then why is the article here http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2

Stating 33% lower compute performance and lower overall bandwidth?

Dont worry, that guys living in his magic fanboy land where 75% less memory speed and 40% Less GPU cores makes for only 25% less total performance.
Even Anandtech have stated that with xbox's 32mb's of embedded esram not being the right choice. PS4 GDDR5 will still have 50% more GPU power and be easier to work with. where's the Xbox One will be harder to work with extracting the performance from the GPU. due to its unusual memory setup.

The strange thing about this whole thing is that a HD7770 GDDR5 is 50% slower then a HD7850 GDDR5.

That would be the best example really... as the HD7770 in the xbox would be equivalent to that example.. even though the GPU is on ( DDR3+ESram= the slow GDDR5 found on HD7770's )
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Consoles aren't about games or gamers anymore, it's just become another consumer rape party milking every last dollar at the cost of everything that mattered for the last 20 years. If Microsoft hasn't made this clear with their reveal, nothing will.

And for reasons I cannot fathom people line up and support this behavior. Most have to have the next Call of Duty for the same reason they have an iPhone 3,4,5 and 6; because it's the "in" thing and all their friends have it.

I bought a XBox 360 way before I bought a PS3 because of a few exclusive games. As I catch up on PS3 at the end of it's life, I realize I made a huge mistake having the 360 first. After what the XBox One has shown itself to be, I'm not interested.

Anyone see where they patented a method to use Kinect to determine the number of viewers and charge accordingly for content based on number of people? I called it YEARS ago. If you have a internet enabled microwave it will probably charge you cinema prices for popcorn too if you have a movie playing at the same time. That's all anybody is interested in anymore, not delivering a product but finding new ways to charge people for shit they have already been doing all along.

Consumerized cash grab now. Like anything that gets too big for it's own good. Gaming as I knew and loved is nearly dead.
 
Last edited:

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
It's about what I expected. The PS4/XB1 simply need to hit the same 1080P resolution as last gen except with AA/AF and some advanced features. From the players perspective the graphics will be far better than last gen but from a hardware perspective it's nothing that extraodinary. I'm actually quite please with the overall spec from both consoles. Software is obviously going to be the deciding factor, but both companies have built very comparable system and I think gamers will be fine performance wise with either.

Given both machines are X86, we are going to see an even higher amount of crossplatform gaming. I do want to say that I'm basing my opinion purely on hardware specs and not on any announcements that either company has made in regards to software or DRM. I think everyone is going to have their own opinions on that.
 

videoclone

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2003
1,465
0
0
It's about what I expected. The PS4/XB1 simply need to hit the same 1080P resolution as last gen except with AA/AF and some advanced features. From the players perspective the graphics will be far better than last gen but from a hardware perspective it's nothing that extraodinary. I'm actually quite please with the overall spec from both consoles. Software is obviously going to be the deciding factor, but both companies have built very comparable system and I think gamers will be fine performance wise with either.

Given both machines are X86, we are going to see an even higher amount of crossplatform gaming. I do want to say that I'm basing my opinion purely on hardware specs and not on any announcements that either company has made in regards to software or DRM. I think everyone is going to have their own opinions on that.

And all cross platform games will feel/run smoother on the PS4. And exclusives will not be held back by the xbox-1 and the graphics will look better

I am also happy "overall" as first rumors had them both using HD6670 VLIW-4 Mid range GPU's VS the now confirmed GCN 7790/7870
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
The PS4 and Xbone have pretty decent specs. I don't know what you are talking about OP.

The graphics were unheard of at the initial release. The PCs titles and your average 'gamer rigs' ($800-1200) weren't even close. Consoles games looked very impressive graphic-wise and seemed a leap ahead. It took few years for PC to catch on.

The hell are you smoking?

- HDTV & 1080p was just starting to penetrate the market with steep adoption. Lots of people's PCs had trouble running full 1080p video. Even the typical monitors didn't have 1080p. The consoles looked beautiful hooked up to the HDTV at the time.

360 and PS3 barely do anything in 1080p. Most of it is 720, and it looks aged as hell and has for some time now.
 
Last edited:

dagamer34

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2005
2,591
0
71
Dont worry, that guys living in his magic fanboy land where 75% less memory speed and 40% Less GPU cores makes for only 25% less total performance.
Even Anandtech have stated that with xbox's 32mb's of embedded esram not being the right choice. PS4 GDDR5 will still have 50% more GPU power and be easier to work with. where's the Xbox One will be harder to work with extracting the performance from the GPU. due to its unusual memory setup.

The strange thing about this whole thing is that a HD7770 GDDR5 is 50% slower then a HD7850 GDDR5.

That would be the best example really... as the HD7770 in the xbox would be equivalent to that example.. even though the GPU is on ( DDR3+ESram= the slow GDDR5 found on HD7770's )

Magical fantasy land is the belief that people buy consoles for the hardware inside them instead of the games you can play on them. If the former were true, those people should be buying PCs instead, you'll get far better graphics there.
 

Staples

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2001
4,953
119
106
As said before, we knew they wouldn't have bleeding edge performance like the generations that came prior. Their best performance can be achieved on a modern $800 PC where as before, their performance out of the gate was unmatched.

I wish it wasn't so because just think, these things may be around another 8 years before we see a new one. By that time, they will really look out dated. But if the Xbox One bombs like they have set it up to, we might see something sooner.