Retr0gamer wrote: » It's actually very hard to say which one has an advantage in terms of power, even now. The fact of the matter is that you can't judge based on third party games. Those were crapped out as fast as possible with probably access to final dev kits a few days before release. Sony also had their final dev kits out much longer than XBox One dev kits. Even with first party games it's hard to judge which has the advantage since none of them will be taking full advantage of the consoles. There's really not a big difference in terms on CPU power. It's when it gets to memory and the GPU that it gets complicated. On paper the PS4 looks like it has an advantage with 8GB GDDR5 and the extra compute units on the GPU. The XBox One however has a much more complicated set up with 32 MB of eSRAM. Although GDDR5 has a bigger memory bandwidth than DDR3 the eSRAM has a memory bandwidth that far eclipses GDDR5. It's a more complicated set up so you can bet no third parties have really taken advantage of the eSRAM yet especially third parties. Remember the eSRAM acts just like the eDRAM that gave the 360 an advantage in certain areas against the PS3.
CiDeRmAn wrote: » Wow, this thread has gotten really boring really quick. Both side have no idea what the true capacity of their consoles are yet are only too delighted to bang on about then as if they were exhibiting anything other than the earliest of software that is never anything but a pale reflection of what's to come. Nothing else to see here, move along
ShadowHearth wrote: » If what Third party games are the ones to show the difference in power. There was already a report on Cod Ghost, that it took 3 weeks to make it work on PS4 and 3 months to work on XBOX one and in final product we see that PS4 is superior version. You cant compare how much power by exclusive platform titles as those will be 2 different titles and the difference will be stupidly different and will be more down to how much effort and optimisation devs put in.
DaLad wrote: » The only game that is 1080p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox One is CoD: Ghosts which looks like f*cking sh*te anyway! :eek:
Benzino wrote: » While the CPU is similar, and the RAM is hard to tell at this stage, but isn't the PS4's GPU almost 50% faster than the Xbox One? On paper at least.
Retr0gamer wrote: » Again these things aren't that simple. Firstly the whole 720 vs 1080p thing is silly since this is only based on one game, CoD Ghost, a game that is still running on Quake 3 tech. A much better comparison would be Battlefield 3 with a more modern engine but even then there's other factors at work. What people are completely discounting is how much trouble developing for XBox One launch has been. Dev kits arrived much later than PS4 dev kits and development tools weren't as refined as PS4 and also delivered late. The XBox One also has a much more complex set up with the eSRAM taken into account. You have to factor in development troubles on the XBox One. It might end up that the PS4 has an advantage but right now it would be stupid to make a definitive statement on it. More likely both will excel in different areas. It would be the same as discounting the power of the PS3 based on it's launch titles where third party launch title graphical features and performance were extremely poor compared to the same titles on the 360. Resistance as well looked terrible, like an upscaled PS2 game. It's too early to tell and there's far too many factors to include to make that comparison just yet.
ShadowHearth wrote: » Then again the ease of developing for platform is a huge advantage already?
Retr0gamer wrote: » It runs at a slower clock rate than the XBox One GPU but has 50% more compute units. However this isn't a 50% increase in power. It translates more into perhaps a 20-30% increase in GPU power. However again nobosy is really factoring in how much the eSRAM will affect this. The memory badnwidth throughput of the eSRAM far exceeds the bandwidth of the PS4's GDDR5. However it's a more complicated set up so it will be a while before we see just what, if any advantage this has for the XBox One. As a comparision, the PS3 had a GPU that on paper beat the 360's hands down but with the Xeno's 10 MB eDRAM (which serves the same function as the One's eSRAM) the 360 had an advantage when it came to displaying stuff like transparent alpha textures and post processing effects. We could see the same thing between the One and the PS4, the 32MB eSRAM really is a memory bandwidth monster.
Retr0gamer wrote: » Developers are already used to coding for the eDRAM on the 360 so while it is more complex than the PS4 it shouldn't be a big disadvantage since the developers are used to it and have the code to work with it. The real problem was the development tools and dev kits for the XBox One were delayed compared to the PS4 which made it tough on the devs, it seemed to be more of a rush job than Sony who surprisingly seemed well prepared. There's really no comparison to be made when you have one version of a game on a console where it's easy to get the most out of a console and the other where it's a struggle because of the poor roll out of dev kits and tools. You just can't compare the power there because it's not an equal play field. It will all equalise in the next few months and it will be easier to make a comparison with a more even playfield.
ShadowHearth wrote: » Just about that ESRAM, wasnt that already reported as a pain in a hole, then actual benefit? As it is an sort of bottleneck and extra stop? I think they said that you can write or read from it at the same time too?
CiDeRmAn wrote: » Nothing else to see here, move along
ShadowHearth wrote: » Well, I guess the best way to compare will be with BF5 coming out in the future. Both systems out for long time and enough time to learn. Will be way less variables. Just about that ESRAM, wasnt that already reported as a pain in a hole, then actual benefit? As it is an sort of bottleneck and extra stop? I think they said that you can write or read from it at the same time too?
NTMK wrote: » ESRAM is a crazy Pain in the hole to manufacture and develop for atm but it has some decent advantages over the ps4 GDDR5 config sony has DDR3 + ESRAM configured right will allow the xbox ones cpu to have nice consistent RAM while allowing it (in theory) to have similar band with to the ps4 using GDDR5 on a cpu is a bit of an unknown and it remains to be seen if later in the gen when its pushed does it cause bugs and crashes due to the inconsistent nature of it
ShadowHearth wrote: » Isnt ESRAM not even that much faster then GDDR5 on its own, but with added bottleneck effect? And in the end of all this complication it is over all coming down to Sony setup power wise?
jenjenten wrote: » Just a FYI to the eSRAM debate....it is NOT a 32mb cache, its not a sinlge pool.....its four 8mb caches, making things even more complex.
FAILSAFE 00 wrote: » Its seems that a few people on this thread simply want to own the most powerful console. Which we all know is the PS4. If this is what people want I'd highly recommend it. The PS4 is a great bit of kit and for me I like the simplicity of its UI, the remote play feature and the console itself looks great. I haven't seen any games yet that would make me buy the console yet. I have played many of the cross platform games such as COD Ghosts and BF4 on both consoles and I could barely notice any difference in the graphics. I have to say I was expecting more from the PS4, I thought I'd play BF4 and be like "I have to get a PS4 now" but I have to say I felt the games were on par with the XB1. Now we all know the resolution is better in just a few games which are cross platform. We know that the Xbox one can do 1080p at 60 frames a second, as seen with Forza 5. This is a more than likely due to Turn10 studios only having to develop it for the Xbox One, which would give them more time to adapt to the development kit. When I bought the Xbox 360 I never even asked was it more powerful than PS3 or vice versa. I looked at the games each had and just said "yeah I'll get that console". As a poster mentioned earlier, a game is either beautiful or its not. Its either fun or it isn't etc. Thats a great point. The games on both consoles look beautiful to me. My advise, buy the console that has the games you like, simples. I am very happy with the XB1 launch titles and as someone who enjoys unique FPS games I am excited about Titanfall coming in March. I am also very intrigued by Quantum break and then of course all the multi platform titles that will be arriving. The Xbox One suits me well, I am building a nice digital collection of games, switching between the games is so fast. I like the Kinect integration into the UI. Its amazing what you get used to. When I first heard about Kinect bundled with the XB1 I detested the idea, but now I wont plug it out. Snap mode is fantastic, while waiting for a spot to open up on a server I watch a bit of TV or Twitch. Its still very early days for these 2 consoles and both Microsoft and Sony have sold over 2 million units so far. Both consoles are missing certain features at present, that's how early it really is.
Grayditch wrote: » This is in no way a dig, but considering you're not planning on getting either anytime soon, that's probably good advice for your good self.
Xenji wrote: » No point really comparing the two consoles as it stands graphically, your gonna have to wait awhile to see the true potential of either console, it is the same with every console launch.
