• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

is the Xbone hardware definitely inferior to the PS4?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
i was just wondering if it had no tech advantages over the PS4.

i cant think of any generation of consoles in which one console was definitely superior hardware tech-wise to the other other than maybe the Saturn/PS and N64 and maybe the Xbox and the PS2/GC.

the genesis wasnt inferior to the super nes and vice versa, the saturn wasnt inferior to the ps and vice versa, the dreamcast wasn't inferior to the PS2 (and vice versa), the PS2 wasnt inferior to the gamecube (and vice versa), the ps3 wasn't inferior to the Xbox360 (and vice versa) so it would be pretty shi**y if microsoft was the first to make a console with definitely inferior specifications.

of course, the games matter most and i miss Sega's ingenuity. Sega's development houses (both 2nd party and internal) ranked higher in ingenuity than any of the others. nintendo has had the same franchises forever, while Sega generally made new ones all the time with fewer follow ups. sometimes nintendo's execution has been damn near perfect, no doubt. sony comes up with franchises frequently, but they always make more and more sequels.

i guess Sega was the best because they had the most divisions (plus excellent second parties like Blue Sky) while nintendo had miyamoto in charge of way too much (at least in my opinion if not in your opinion too) of their game development and they fired the brilliant mind behind metroid.

microsoft, however, has barely even had their own development house. NFL Fever and Halo were two of their earliest console games and probably the best... whenever you saw "only on Xbox", you could count on those games being 2nd or 3rd party.
anyway, F*** NINTENDO!
 
Anarchist420 said:
i was just wondering if it had no tech advantages over the PS4.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking, hardware-wise, it doesn't.

Anarchist420 said:
the genesis wasnt inferior to the super nes and vice versa,
Click to expand...
What?

Anarchist420 said:
the saturn wasnt inferior to the ps and vice versa,
Click to expand...
huh?

Anarchist420 said:
the dreamcast wasn't inferior to the PS2 (and vice versa),
Click to expand...
uhhhh....

Anarchist420 said:
the PS2 wasnt inferior to the gamecube (and vice versa),
Click to expand...
Yo, PASS THAT SHIT!
 
I think it is but I dont care, I will have both but prefer Xbox more due to the controller and XBL, they both will be great though. From what I can tll they are both honestly weak compared to the latest pc tech
 
Easiest answer, yes. It has a slightly faster CPU but inferior RAM and GPU.
IIRC, the Xbone's GPU is somewhere between the HD 7670 and 7750. It's hard to do a direct comparison but the differences in performance should be somewhere in this ballpark.
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/535?vs=549

Does it matter? Probably not. Third party titles will be set up to run identically on both systems. You'll only see a difference in Sony exclusive titles, which might only be better frame rate or maybe slightly better visuals.
 
The PS4 has a significantly beefier GPU and faster memory. The XBone has slightly higher clocked version of the POS cpus they put in there.

These new consoles cpus single thread performance is between 1/4 and 1/3 of a 3.4ghz i5.

So how that thing is gonna push next gen physics, A.I., world interactivity is beyond me.
 
We have seen repeatedly in this generation games that ran with different graphical features on the ps3 and xbox360. They often differ in resolution along with other effects and it was to the ps3 detriment. There is definitely a difference in performance between the two current generation consoles and it results in a difference in the games graphics.

The ps4 is unfortunately much faster in its GPU than the Xbox one but slightly down on the CPU. Thus we can expect down the line that the ps4 will run higher resolutions, with effects that the other can't use etc and its unlikely to be the case that the Xbox one will have something the ps4 doesn't as the CPU difference is quite small. Its happened for most of the current gen time period, it will manifest throughout the lifetime of the next gen consoles as well.
 
futurefields said:
The PS4 has a significantly beefier GPU and faster memory. The XBone has slightly higher clocked version of the POS cpus they put in there.

These new consoles cpus single thread performance is between 1/4 and 1/3 of a 3.4ghz i5.

So how that thing is gonna push next gen physics, A.I., world interactivity is beyond me.
Click to expand...

That's hardly an accurate comparison. Raw performance numbers are irrelevant, all that matters is what you can actually deliver at run time. The consoles operate with greater efficiency, especially on the CPU.

I've never been able to figure out why people complain about the hardware in consoles. MS and Sony are interested in creating something that is cheap for the masses. You'd all whine when you saw the price if they put an i7 and GTX 780 in them. If you were to poll significant numbers of console gamers you'd find that the vast majority don't care about graphics. They didn't buy a console for graphics, and most were perfectly content with what the current systems offered. MS and Sony aren't here to cater to the 2% of you that think consoles should be on par with a top of the line PC, that's not the purpose of the console. They need to strike a balance between power and price, and I think Sony did a spectacular job. Killzone looks great, even if it is only at 1080/30, and graphics will get better as engines are improved.
 
8 cores at 1.6 ghz is not ideal for gaming no matter how you try to spin it. Its marketing driving design "8 cores wowwee!" when the fact is games favor higher per thread performance over a bunch of weak ass mobile tablet cpu cores.
 
futurefields said:
8 cores at 1.6 ghz is not ideal for gaming no matter how you try to spin it. Its marketing driving design "8 cores wowwee!" when the fact is games favor higher per thread performance over a bunch of weak ass mobile tablet cpu cores.
Click to expand...

Who tried to spin it that way?
 
Dominato3r said:
There is a ~500Gflop difference between them. I'll be honest, I have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...
that's an S-load of difference especially when the PS4 has double the ram.

but if it cant do double fp precision then it sucks as fp32 isnt enough for some things more precision for physics can be useful for example. so full compute features in the GPU are necessary for the future, especially for cycle accurate replication... the hyper Q in the GK110 (but absent from GK100) is good for replication (ie cycle accuracy) as the cuda cores can more easily share general purpose tasks with the CPU with it than they can on a PofS GK100.

0___________0 said:
You'd all whine when you saw the price if they put an i7 and GTX 780 in them.
Click to expand...
actually, the launch of that console would probably be the first day i'd buy a new console since 2005 ('06 if the DS lite counts).

the GTX780 is so programmable and has an excellent feature set (even though nvidia hasnt cared to make good use of it) although twouldve been nice if it had more GDDR5.

that said, i really dont even see why a brand new architecture is even necessary for nvidia since DX12 probably will have some competition and the games that use it can use a wrapper in any other API.

i think that a 20nm version of the GTX780 with higher stock clocks and 6 GB GDDR5 would be pretty sufficient for years to come. maybe they could even integrate vreg into the GPGPU die, make it fluxless solder, and put it on a board with a socket... if having a socket doesnt have disadvantages, i dont know.
 
Anarchist420 said:
actually, the launch of that console would probably be the first day i'd buy a new console since 2005 ('06 if the DS lite counts).
Click to expand...

+1

An fixed hardware gaming platform ie. Console with an i7 + 780 would be capable of insane game development. Imagine a GTA or Fallout game that leveragdd that total power for world interactivity, AI complexity etc... it could be almost lifelike im guessing.
 
futurefields said:
8 cores at 1.6 ghz is not ideal for gaming no matter how you try to spin it. Its marketing driving design "8 cores wowwee!" when the fact is games favor higher per thread performance over a bunch of weak ass mobile tablet cpu cores.
Click to expand...

PC games need extremely powerful cores because of the great deal of overhead present. Consoles don't need that much power to attain the same performance. Like I said, they're not comparable. Games don't favor anything, that's a development decision. Heavily threaded games will become the norm, we've already passed the point where slower per core quads overtake Intel's i3s. You'll start to see the same thing happen; it's where the untapped power lies at now.

BF4 on the new consoles is CPU-wise getting the same output as the PC. You've got 66 players running at 60 FPS. It's matching the PC stride for stride, with much less powerful hardware.

There's no set in stone ideal hardware specs for gaming. A couple years ago having an octo core wouldn't give you any benefit, but we're getting to the point where chip makers can't increase single threaded performance massively, so devs turn to greater multi-threading to use more cores. Now we see even AMD's BD disaster actually do quite well in some games.

Stop with the irony of accusing me of spin, I don't own any current consoles; you on the other hand go out of your way to bash consoles with misleading statements. So lets re-evaluate who's doing the spinning.

Anarchist420 said:
actually, the launch of that console would probably be the first day i'd buy a new console since 2005 ('06 if the DS lite counts).
Click to expand...

I didn't made my comment general enough. 99% of potential buyers would be enraged over a console that cost that much. It's not profitable and we all know it, so I find it funny people act like they should have done that. You may prefer a $2000 PS4, and I don't begrudge you your wishes for it, but you're in a vast minority even among those who want more powerful hardware. Who would develop for that platform? No one, cuz hardly anyone would own it. It's a non-starter. You can dream about all the great games that could be made, but they wouldn't be, no studio would survive when your target audience is so small.



MS and Sony need something that is affordable, and no matter what they use it's going to be obsolete hardware almost immediately anyways. Consoles are not manufactured for graphics, you want it for reasons it wasn't made for.
 
Last edited:
Considering 90%+ of Sony games(1st and 3rd party) appear to be running at 1080p(welcome to 2013!), and XB1 is well under 50%+ so far, it doesn't look good.
I've got both pre-ordered, but will probably just sell them and wait until the new year to see how things have sorted themselves out.
 
The PS4 is 50% more powerful or more when it comes to graphics. Call Of Duty: Ghosts is going to be 1080p on the PS4, and probably only 720p on the Xbox One.

If graphics matter to you at all, it's an easy choice.
 
Dominato3r said:
There is a ~500Gflop difference between them. I'll be honest, I have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...

Means theoretically it could have slightly better frame rates or some graphical feature tossed in. In reality though, it means only first party developers making exclusive games will even bother to showcase that difference which should take about 4 years for them to max it out effectively.
Every other developer will just make both versions look identical and then toss out a PC bone where they can opt for more AA and higher resolution at the expense of rushing it so it's good and buggy.
 
Anarchist420 said:
i was just wondering if it had no tech advantages over the PS4.

i cant think of any generation of consoles in which one console was definitely superior hardware tech-wise to the other other than maybe the Saturn/PS and N64 and maybe the Xbox and the PS2/GC.

the genesis wasnt inferior to the super nes and vice versa, the saturn wasnt inferior to the ps and vice versa, the dreamcast wasn't inferior to the PS2 (and vice versa), the PS2 wasnt inferior to the gamecube (and vice versa), the ps3 wasn't inferior to the Xbox360 (and vice versa) so it would be pretty shi**y if microsoft was the first to make a console with definitely inferior specifications.

of course, the games matter most and i miss Sega's ingenuity. Sega's development houses (both 2nd party and internal) ranked higher in ingenuity than any of the others. nintendo has had the same franchises forever, while Sega generally made new ones all the time with fewer follow ups. sometimes nintendo's execution has been damn near perfect, no doubt. sony comes up with franchises frequently, but they always make more and more sequels.

i guess Sega was the best because they had the most divisions (plus excellent second parties like Blue Sky) while nintendo had miyamoto in charge of way too much (at least in my opinion if not in your opinion too) of their game development and they fired the brilliant mind behind metroid.

microsoft, however, has barely even had their own development house. NFL Fever and Halo were two of their earliest console games and probably the best... whenever you saw "only on Xbox", you could count on those games being 2nd or 3rd party.
anyway, F*** NINTENDO!
Click to expand...
Soo, what exactly is the focus of this thread? You go from comparing hardware to comparing the console manufacturers, to ending off with a quick Nintendo rant.
 
I'm glad we are having this discussion. I'm having a hard time determining which one I want to get. On one hand, I want to have the console that the majority of others have, that way online gaming is best. Last gen that was the Xbox.

However, I'm worried that the PS4 is technologically better, it's cheaper... and I don't have as many concerns with trusting Sony to not try to completely bone the consumer the way microsoft looked like they wanted to initially (and probably will try to do again in the future, if they get the chance).
 
None of it really matters actually.
Game developers will still develop games the same way with both console versions offering the same performance due to the fact that both of them are nearly identical.
Only PC is excluded from this issue, however PC does not gain the ability to utilize its fullest potential.

I still prefer PC games over console games due to KB/mouse. There is a place for console on games but very limited.
For example- FPS games should have never made it to consoles. TPS (Third person shooter) however, is 50/50.
RPG games? Quite nice on console. MMORPGs? No, just no. (Looking at you FFXIV)
Fighter games? Yes, definitely. Racing? Sure, but you can get a steering wheel.
 
HeXen said:
Means theoretically it could have slightly better frame rates or some graphical feature tossed in. In reality though, it means only first party developers making exclusive games will even bother to showcase that difference which should take about 4 years for them to max it out effectively.
Every other developer will just make both versions look identical and then toss out a PC bone where they can opt for more AA and higher resolution at the expense of rushing it so it's good and buggy.
Click to expand...

I'm getting an Xbox if it means any. The PlayStation and its atrocious networking and software kind of soured me from the thought of getting a PS4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top