Xbox One - General Discussion (NO DISCUSSION REGARDING PS4 - MOD WARNING Post 6903)

AlmightyCushion

I don't think either have stated the clock speeds. It'll probably be around the 1.6Ghz mark anyways which isn't exactly eye melting given the architecture. Hopefully, multi-threading starts taking off. Microsoft really should have given the XBox a few GBs of GDDR5 for the GPU. This is where it will make a big difference.

Pushtrak

Richard Dower wrote: »

And we still dont know clock speeds!....the X1 again is said to be 1.6Ghz....but rumour has it Sony has the CPU clocked @ 2Ghz. GPU speeds remain the same @ 800Mhz, but it can boost to 1Mhz with ample cooling.

I've only seen both stated as 1.6 GHz.

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Pretty sure I've heard the speeds were 1.2 for the X1, and 1.8 for the PS4 with both GPUs being at 800Mhz.

That's teraflops, isn't it? Not GHz.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-spec-analysis-xbox-one

In terms of the GPU hardware, hard information was difficult to come by, but one of the engineers did let slip with a significant stat - 768 operations per clock. We know that both Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are based on Radeon GCN architecture and we also know that each compute unit is capable of 64 operations per clock. So, again through a process of extrapolation from the drip-feed of hard facts, the make-up of the One's GPU is confirmed - 12 compute units each capable of 64 ops/clock gives us the 768 total revealed by Microsoft and thus, by extension, the 1.2 teraflop graphics core. So that's another tick on the Durango leaked spec that has been transposed across to the final Xbox One architecture and the proof we need that PlayStation 4's 18 CU graphics core has 50 per cent more raw power than the GPU in the new Microsoft console. Now, bearing in mind that we fully expect PlayStation 4 and Xbox One to launch at similar price-points, how did this disparity come about?

FlyingIrishMan

Pushtrak wrote: »

I've only seen both stated as 1.6 GHz.

That's teraflops, isn't it? Not GHz.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-spec-analysis-xbox-one

Yeah, you're right it is.

Pushtrak

Still, though, a 50% advantage is a 50% advantage. It's semantics about where exactly that advantage is (within reason).

gizmo

TNT2k_ wrote: »

This is it, just how usefull is this 32MB of ESRAM really? Many are calling BS on them and giving solid examples of why this is just another way to make the PS4 advantage look smaller.

Those people are also confusing the function of the eSRAM with general purpose RAM. The former isn't there for size, it's there for speed. It's perfectly capable of holding a 1080p frame buffer with 2x MSAA though so I'd wager that's what it'll be used for in the short term.

As for the clock speed issue, if you watch some of the Killzone tech demos you can see the profiler reporting a CPU speed of 1.6Ghz so I'd say that's a safe bet for retail units.

Richard Dower

OMG!....Microsoft just won me over!

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-GB/Product/Xbox-One-Avatar-t-shirt/00000008-4ae0-2241-ccdc-f3b45858081c

CatInABox

To be honest, until Anandtech* goes through both systems when they come out, tech spec analysis can't really be done. The sudden emergence of more bandwidth on the Xbox One is surprising and slightly suspect, but again, the only way we'll see for sure is when it comes out.

It's not impossible that there is more bandwidth, designing something on paper is very different to having the final chips in your hand, however, I can't really remember a time where the specs are revised upwards rather than downwards.

I do think that this generation will see the PS4 have an advantage with their first party games, but I believe most third party games will be a wash. Or at least, in the first 5 years anyway.

*Digital Foundry for videogame analysis, Anandtech for tech spec analysis.

ShadowHearth

Pushtrak wrote: »

http://www.oxm.co.uk/57309/xbox-one-exec-says-sony-ps4-tech-specs-are-meaningless-games-more-important/

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/xbox-one-ps4-coming-to-gamestop-expo-6410861

August 28th, Las Vegas ^

The first link made me LoL.

Thats funny... they could have full right to say that in ps3 vs xbox 360 as ps3 architecture was a mess ( I found sony exclusives way better, but thats a matter of taste ), but in this 2 horse race Sony made an architecture around developers. So far every single developer has only good things to say about the Sony hardware. Plus it is faster too at this stage.
Maybe we wount see big differences in first few years graphic wise on multiplatform games, but in the second half of console lifespam that difference will show up, same way it showed in ps3 vs xbox 360. PS3 version of same games have huge performance hits, wheres 360 sailed nicely.

pleasant Co.

stevenmu wrote: »

Having the Xbox to target should attract a ton of developers, which may in turn actually improve the Windows 8 and WP 8 app stores as well.

That may also be wishful thinking

TNT2k_

Richard Dower wrote: »

Thats my problem, engineers suddenly "discover" more then 100GB's....it dosent make sense an engineer would make such a mistake or discover stuff they've worked on for over two years.

It just seems like MS are trying to spin the X1 is identical or has no hardware advantage over the PS4.

And we still dont know clock speeds!....the X1 again is said to be 1.6Ghz....but rumour has it Sony has the CPU clocked @ 2Ghz. GPU speeds remain the same @ 800Mhz, but it can boost to 1Mhz with ample cooling.

Its just seems very suspect they found extra bandwidth.

We don't know, though we're all assuming they'll be the same at 1.6Ghz, but who knows?

The rumour is that the PS4 could be clocked up to 2Ghz and the GPU of the X1 will be downlocked to 600Mhz. All rumours I don't really believe though.

If they did start fiddling with their GPU this late in the game I'd have reason to worry as all this should be finalised and ready for production and quality control. If the rumours are true that the eSRAM is running too hot, but they're still messing with it, and won't underclock it to avoid giving more of a power lead to the PS4, then I'd be apprehensive about a launch console from them again.

They should know exactly what they're doing and should be 100% open and confident about the specs of the box like Sony have been, they don't seem to want to talk in-depth at all and use vague buzzwords like "the Cloud", "300k servers" and "5 billion transistors" to make out that the X1 will be a powerhouse but avoid explaining how this will all work to achieve all this promised power.
I think it's all just PR damage control in overdrive.

gizmo

Am I the only one mildly amused at the fact that the majority of the rumours circulating involve the PS4 getting more powerful and the XBox One less powerful? :pac:

TNT2k_

gizmo wrote: »

Am I the only one mildly amused at the fact that the majority of the rumours circulating involve the PS4 getting more powerful and the XBox One less powerful? :pac:

Well in fairness we haven't heard a lot about the 2Ghz PS4 rumour so I wouldn't put too much weight on it either, but Microsoft don't have as much of an engineering upper hand compared to Sony on the hardware side of things, so it seems more likely that they would be running into more problems trying to get things running while trying to avoid another RROD situation. You never know, they could be trying to find ways to up the X1's power still and trying to juggle that with keeping the heat down seems like two goals that conflict with each other.

This is all speculation on my part too, and there probably isn't much weight in either rumour, but Sony had the PS4 designed in such a way so that the RAM could've been swapped out for any configuration and MS was trapped with their design as they couldn't just change their 8GB DDR3 for GDDR5, naturally enough. Maybe Sony's hardware design is then a bit more flexible than the X1 with more leeway for overclocking because of the lower power GDDR5 RAM and no heat producing eSRAM?

It seems the PS4 will use less power as it is in it's current state compared to the X1, so that might be able to buy them some headroom to increase the clock cycle from 1.6Ghz to 2Ghz without causing heating problems.

It is a bit funny that nearly every rumour suggests the PS4 might get more powerful while the X1 gets 'less powerful', but Microsoft is using more power intensive DDR3 RAM and eSRAM, so their console will be producing more heat and they really won't have as much wiggle room to overclock the CPU/GPU compared to Sony because their box will be producing more heat. That, and they don't want to chance another RROD so they might take every precaution possible to avoid that, even if it means clocking the GPU at a lower speed compared to the PS4.

So in a way they are more trapped than Sony is at the minute and upping the power is less of an option for them, so the only more likely route is to go down in power. That's probably where these rumours suggesting heat issues and downclocking are stemming from.

Stone Deaf 4evr

I really cant wait until all the details for both consoles is out. All the ifs and maybes are doing my head in.

Xenji

It has already been proven that the announcement of more bandwidth is pure PR nonsense :

So this article at the top of /r/games sounds pretty rosy. They're claiming the esram on the XBO can actually push 192.0 GB/s. That sounds really great...
Except if we read the actual statement, it is this.
However, with near-final production silicon, Microsoft techs have found that the hardware is capable of reading and writing simultaneously. Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
No, they didn't wake up one morning and realize there was an extra data line in their memory module, so lets drill down to what that actually means.
Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations.
In other words, no, it isn't capable of bidirectional data transfer. Their trying to push through a few extra memory operations, but the it's still strictly read or write.
Now, look at the actual numbers. I have to give credit to R_K_M and Boreras for pointing this out. I'm just aggregating, so I'm going to direct quote.
If I am not mistaken, that just means that they lowered the clock from 800 to 750 and are using the bi-directonal bandwith number for marketing when everyone else is using the bandwith number in one direction. - R_K_M
you're right the numbers do match up perfectly for that (750 (GPU clock) * 128 (bus width)*2(read&write during same cycle) = 192.0 GB/s --- if it were 800 MHz you would get 204.8 GB/s) - Boreras
So we can basically confirm that cboat was correct. The numbers tell the truth. The esram has been downclocked, and Microsoft's PR department is trying to spin it as an increase in total bandwidth based on some cycle tricks that are probably being exaggerated.

Taken from Reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/games

TNT2k_

God I hate reddit, but there are some very interesting, in-depth posts.

This one too http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1hawc4/the_power_difference_between_the_ps4_xbox_one/

TL;DR
The difference between these two systems is massive. If you only read one section, look at the 2nd link in the "GPU Power" section.
On every single issue, the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One. It's better designed for the unified memory architecture, which will likely be a huge deal in the next few years of game programming. The PS4 has least 50% more power, and the Xbox One is an additional 25% of the PS4's price.
Please understand that the difference between these two systems is MUCH bigger than Xbox 360 vs PS3. The closest system difference I could track down was the difference between the GameCube and PS2 -- you can see here how that actually ended up looking for a cross-platform port (Resident Evil). I'm not sure if the differences will be greater now (nearly identical hardware may result in better tuning), or less (diminishing returns on noticeable graphics differences). But the difference is there, and it's not some amorphous thing - the technology checks out.

There was talk about GDDR5 having higher latency than DRR3, but that seems to be totally unfounded and is actually lower than DDR3.

So now it looks like the PS4 outperforms the X1 in every single technical category while also being easier to develop for. I think the likes of Mark Cerny have done a great job on the console after their admitted stumble with the PS3 architecture.

FAILSAFE 00

I won't be making any next gen console decisions based on what everyone thinks each console is capable of.

i'll wait until an independent highly qualified source has both an Xbone and a PS4 beside them, opened and are running tests, etc.

The PS4 has still not been presented to any media for analysis of what's inside it.
There are no pictures of its internals while the Xbone has been fully dissected.

I am also very cautious about buying a console just because its more powerful on paper. History has taught us that the most powerful console doesn't guarantee a better gaming experience.

gizmo

TNT2k_ wrote: »

God I hate reddit, but there are some very interesting, in-depth posts.

This one too http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1hawc4/the_power_difference_between_the_ps4_xbox_one/

Please understand that the difference between these two systems is MUCH bigger than Xbox 360 vs PS3.

That's just complete nonsense from an engineering perspective. To be honest, the post reads like many other summations of released info so far, folk taking a bunch of figures and making judgements on them despite lacking knowledge of how the underlying technologies work. His original GPU comparison was a perfect example of this. What makes it more odd is that he's based a lot of his info on the pleasantly balanced analysis piece on Anandtech.

Pushtrak

A weaker spec'd console has never been the thing to stop a console being enjoyed. It's the quantity/quality of games that matter. The PS2 was the weakest in terms of specs when put against the Xbox or the Gamecube, but I don't think the specs are what people will think of when they think which they prefer. I think the games are what most would think about. With the 360 VS PS3, most of the face offs went in favour of the 360, but that isn't going to really matter. In terms of exclusives, the Wii U is the only one I know to be a winner. It has Bayonetta 2, that new monolith RPG and Zelda. But what's going on? Isn't it the weakest of the three systems? It's almost as if specs aren't the important thing...

Richard Dower

specs are important imo once we get 2-3 years down the line.

rob808

Try trade my 360 in at gamestop those feckers wouldn't take my 360 because had few marks on it today so no Xbox 0ne for me wonder how many people will be turn away at launch because there 360 doesn't reach there standards a well GameStop won't be around in 10 years time when everything digital.

pleasant Co.

That's a tad on the bitter side dude, try selling it yourself on adverts.ie instead as someone else might not mind the damage so much.

rob808

pleasant Co. wrote: »

That's a tad on the bitter side dude, try selling it yourself on adverts.ie instead as someone else might not mind the damage so much.

It not damage that the funny thing about it and seriously why do people buy game in GameStop there a rip off buy games online much cheaper new and second hand .

TNT2k_

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

I won't be making any next gen console decisions based on what everyone thinks each console is capable of.

i'll wait until an independent highly qualified source has both an Xbone and a PS4 beside them, opened and are running tests, etc.

The PS4 has still not been presented to any media for analysis of what's inside it.
There are no pictures of its internals while the Xbone has been fully dissected.

I am also very cautious about buying a console just because its more powerful on paper. History has taught us that the most powerful console doesn't guarantee a better gaming experience.

Sony haven't presented their console to any of the media for analysis, but they have been very open about the technology in the box and have been discussing it very much in-depth since the reveal back in February. Mark Cerny gave a presentation in which he talked about the system. Microsoft have given their box to some analysts, but they have been extremely vague about their specs and have avoided talking about it, even calling spec talk "meaningless". That's not a better attidute either.
We know what is in the PS4, and how it works in quite fine detail in some parts even, MS haven't gone deeper into detail at all.

In regards to the most powerful console, I don't see reason to be cautious if it's put in the right hands. Better specs let you do more, not just in terms of graphics, but also in gameplay.

In the past, the most powerful console was more expensive, and taking the PS3 for example, it was difficult to program for, which hurt it as developers took longer to get the games running and the install base was slowed by the high price point.

That problem looks to be totally removed now with a powerful box, that's both cheaper and easier to develop for than the rivals. I see no reason at all to be cautious, if anything, that's a massive plus for the console.

gizmo wrote: »

That's just complete nonsense from an engineering perspective. To be honest, the post reads like many other summations of released info so far, folk taking a bunch of figures and making judgements on them despite lacking knowledge of how the underlying technologies work. His original GPU comparison was a perfect example of this. What makes it more odd is that he's based a lot of his info on the pleasantly balanced analysis piece on Anandtech.

Not entirely. We know the GPU is more powerful than the X1's, the unified pool of RAM is better than the RAM and eSRAM in the X1. (That has been acknowledged and even explained when Cerny gave his presentation and said that Sony were looking to go down that route but decided against it in the end because it was less beneficial for the consumer and developer)
The CPU's will most likely be the same.

So it is safe to say that the PS4 will be more powerful. That is clear on paper, and it most likely will also stand true when people do get their hands on the systems. We will have to wait and see what the tear downs add to all of this, but it's obvious from the PR claims Microsoft is pushing with Cloud increasing performance and then double backing and saying specs are "meaningless", that they have the weaker console. There's no going around that no matter how many people are holding out for something in future that won't come.

That said, it's all about the games, but specs are important. Better specs lead to less restrictions on developers and more possiblities. Not to mention it gives it more longevity toward the end of a console's lifespan.

FAILSAFE 00

TNT2k_ wrote: »

Sony haven't presented their console to any of the media for analysis, but they have been very open about the technology in the box and have been discussing it very much in-depth since the reveal back in February. Mark Cerny gave a presentation in which he talked about the system. Microsoft have given their box to some analysts, but they have been extremely vague about their specs and have avoided talking about it, even calling spec talk "meaningless". That's not a better attidute either.
We know what is in the PS4, and how it works in quite fine detail in some parts even, MS haven't gone deeper into detail at all.

In regards to the most powerful console, I don't see reason to be cautious if it's put in the right hands. Better specs let you do more, not just in terms of graphics, but also in gameplay.

In the past, the most powerful console was more expensive, and taking the PS3 for example, it was difficult to program for, which hurt it as developers took longer to get the games running and the install base was slowed by the high price point.

That problem looks to be totally removed now with a powerful box, that's both cheaper and easier to develop for than the rivals. I see no reason at all to be cautious, if anything, that's a massive plus for the console.


Not entirely. We know the GPU is more powerful than the X1's, the unified pool of RAM is better than the RAM and eSRAM in the X1. (That has been acknowledged and even explained when Cerny gave his presentation and said that Sony were looking to go down that route but decided against it in the end because it was less beneficial for the consumer and developer)
The CPU's will most likely be the same.

So it is safe to say that the PS4 will be more powerful. That is clear on paper, and it most likely will also stand true when people do get their hands on the systems. We will have to wait and see what the tear downs add to all of this, but it's obvious from the PR claims Microsoft is pushing with Cloud increasing performance and then double backing and saying specs are "meaningless", that they have the weaker console. There's no going around that no matter how many people are holding out for something in future that won't come.

That said, it's all about the games, but specs are important. Better specs lead to less restrictions on developers and more possiblities. Not to mention it gives it more longevity toward the end of a console's lifespan.

Its a lot of money to spend, i cant efford both so i am being cautious, i dont think its the best idea to order any console based on what it says it does on paper. specifically with the PS4 i want to see its internals and how it keeps cool.

One thing I know from Irish history is never buy a house off the plans.

gizmo

TNT2k_ wrote: »

Not entirely. We know the GPU is more powerful than the X1's, the unified pool of RAM is better than the RAM and eSRAM in the X1. (That has been acknowledged and even explained when Cerny gave his presentation and said that Sony were looking to go down that route but decided against it in the end because it was less beneficial for the consumer and developer)
The CPU's will most likely be the same.

So it is safe to say that the PS4 will be more powerful. That is clear on paper, and it most likely will also stand true when people do get their hands on the systems. We will have to wait and see what the tear downs add to all of this, but it's obvious from the PR claims Microsoft is pushing with Cloud increasing performance and then double backing and saying specs are "meaningless", that they have the weaker console. There's no going around that no matter how many people are holding out for something in future that won't come.

That said, it's all about the games, but specs are important. Better specs lead to less restrictions on developers and more possiblities. Not to mention it gives it more longevity toward the end of a console's lifespan.

Perhaps we're reading that bit differently, I'm referring to "difference" in the architectural sense, not the overall performance sense. In the case of the former, the quote is indeed nonsense, in the case of the latter, well I can't say either way yet for reasons already stated.

As for the more general point, no one is going to argue that the PS4 has 50% more raw shader performance over the XBox One due to the extra compute units. Trying to then claim that it makes the PS4 50% more powerful than the XBox One is a different story though and therein lies the problem with a lot of these pre-release breakdowns. There does exist some excellent balanced analysis though, the aforementioned Anandtech one for instance, and they're the ones people should be paying attention to while we wait on some more detailed comparisons post-launch.

Regardless of what Cerney stated in the recent presentation though, the move to GDDR5 was incredibly risky for Sony. The claim that it was done for the benefit of customers and developers is kind of irrelevant when you consider the fact they were originally only going to ship with 4GB of it until an outcry from the latter group and yield/finance problems were sorted.* I'm delighted the gamble worked out for them though and now even more interested in seeing how MS' solution compares with the eSRAM/Data Move Unit combination. I certainly know which one I'd prefer to be developing on anyway.

*In many respects this is quite similar to the situation MS were in for the 360 when they originally intended to ship the console with only 256MB of RAM and probably would have done so were it not for the objections from a number of developers.

chiefohara05

The Exec that promoted the Xbox One at E3 is apparently leaving

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.820573-Rumor-Xbox-President-Don-Mattrick-Leaving-For-Zynga

More level headed websites are saying this is a huge blow for microsoft

http://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-boss-don-mattrick-leaving-to-head-up-zynga-257335.phtml

FlyingIrishMan

chiefohara05 wrote: »

The Exec that promoted the Xbox One at E3 is apparently leaving

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.820573-Rumor-Xbox-President-Don-Mattrick-Leaving-For-Zynga

More level headed websites are saying this is a huge blow for microsoft

http://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-boss-don-mattrick-leaving-to-head-up-zynga-257335.phtml

Those "level headed" websites are wrong. He was a fcuking idiot.

TNT2k_

chiefohara05 wrote: »

The Exec that promoted the Xbox One at E3 is apparently leaving

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.820573-Rumor-Xbox-President-Don-Mattrick-Leaving-For-Zynga

More level headed websites are saying this is a huge blow for microsoft

http://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-boss-don-mattrick-leaving-to-head-up-zynga-257335.phtml

Sony must be so disappointed to see him go, he single handedly did the best PR work for them at promoting the PS4 :P

It's only good news for Microsoft to see him leave, he was an absolute idiot.

evolutionqy7

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Those "level headed" websites are wrong. He was a fcuking idiot.

Good riddance!

TNT2k_

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

Good riddance!

May the power of the cloud be with him :pac: