BladeVenom
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2005
- 13,365
- 16
- 0
The ps4 uses basically a 7850, which is a $160 card, and the One uses a 7790 which is $120.
The Xbox One won't even be that good. DDR3 is crippling for graphics performance.
The ps4 uses basically a 7850, which is a $160 card, and the One uses a 7790 which is $120.
The Xbox One won't even be that good. DDR3 is crippling for graphics performance.
The Xbox One won't even be that good. DDR3 is crippling for graphics performance.
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 7970?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).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...
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
- 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.
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 )
