Playstation 4 Or Xbox One? (See mod warning in the first post)

Benzino

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.

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.

ShadowHearth

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

:rolleyes:

Retr0gamer

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.

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.

Benzino

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:

Pretty sure Assassin's Creed 4 is 1080p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox. Battlefield 4 also runs at 900p on PS4, while only 720p on Xbox. Now it is early doors in the lifetime of these consoles, but there is a common theme developing here where the PS4 versions are better than there Xbox counterparts.

Of course, over time this may change and not be the case, similar to how the PS3 caught up with the 360, but that is going to take time just like it did for the PS3. The problem here for MS is that Sony have the better first-party developers, which really is the most important thing for a games console.

Retr0gamer

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.

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.

ShadowHearth

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.

Thatis not based just one one game. As you said BF4 would be better example and we have 900p vs 720p, ASS 900p vs 1080p, Cod 1080p vs 720p. So it is not really based on one off game.
We will see it more mature later on, it is true. Then again the ease of developing for platform is a huge advantage already? We sow it already in old gen. Where Xbox one needs already work catch up and PS4 will look for even more ways to optimise stuff. I know XBOX one will get more umph later on in its life Cycle, but that does not mean that Sony hardware will be in some vacuum, Devs will get more out of that hardware again.

( Not directed to retro )As for this thread, it is about people talking about PS4 VS XBOX one. WTF you expect. I think some users make more fuss and make it look worse by moaning and going " OH LOOK FANBOISM " then it actually is.
Me and DaLad hava different opinion and view, that does not mean I dont respect him as a member of our community. In fact, its quit fun to have discussions about stuff, I know, shocking on forums... Like I said, third party moaning group makes it look worse and derail it further.

In so many pages it we had one lock down and I still think It was a bit over reaction. The so fast reopening was a prove of that too. Great thread, but less of a " so called neutral third party stirring ****".

Retr0gamer

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Then again the ease of developing for platform is a huge advantage already?

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.

Magill

Haven't a load of multiplatform developers already come out and said the PS4 was the more powerful console already ?

Benzino

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.

Well it's very difficult to factor in eSRAM cause, like you said, nobody knows how much extra power it will give the console. It's all potential at this stage, just like the Cell was. But there in lies the problem imo, Sony had the talent to take advantage of the Cell, I don't think Microsoft have the first party devs to do the same for Xbox One.

Edit: Well of course some people know how much extra power eSRAM will give, just not the general public yet :P

ShadowHearth

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.

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?

Dozen Wicked Words

All the very dry tech speak means absolutely nothing to me I'm afraid. Games are good or bad, lovely looking helps I'm sure but until either system has a decent library of actual titles to choose from who really knows, lots of Crystal ball gazing going on, i'll stick with scratching mine.

Picked PS4 in the poll purely for the fact I have a PS3 with PS Plus, son is getting a Vita from Santa and it will make economic sense eventually to continue with Sony. I think it will be a couple of years before I get one though, Wii U first.

Retr0gamer

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?

Yep it would be a pain in the hole to code for. A lot of third party devs have said that but I wouldn't really go by the opinion of a third party dev in this regard especially one trying to make a game for launch.

I know I'd be cursing Microsofts name if instead of the PS4 memory system I had to code in how to feed memory into the eSRAM in 32MB chunks and tile the image to make a 720p/1080p frame. Pain in the ass but that speed increase over GDDR5 could be an advantage to the XBox One once MS sort out their dev tools to make that a lot easier for devs. Developers as well will be modifying their engines to utilise it but we won't see it used properly for a while.

In a way Ryse might be a better showcase of the One's power but then it's hard to compare when it's not running on the PS4. Maybe the next Crytech engine will be a good comparison?

Whatever about that, all I know is digital foundry will be an interesting read for nerds in the next few months

Grayditch

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Nothing else to see here, move along

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.

NTMK

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?

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 bandwidth 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

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

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?

Retr0gamer

eSRAM is amazingly fast, much faster than GDDR5. The problem is that it's very expensive so can only be made in small sizes, hence the 32MB on the GPU of the One. The problem comes from controlling the flow of memory into the eSRAM to be processed by the GPU. Since 32MB isn't big enough for a 720p/1080p image with post processing the frame needs to be tiled as well and built up from these tiles (Well maybe it is, the 10MB on the 360 wasn't but 32 might be enough on the One). It's a pain to do but because of the PS2 and the 360 which used eDRAM how it functions and how to deal with it are well known with software and source code in place to deal with it.

It's not really there as a way to match the specs of the PS4. It's more an evolution of the 360's graphics hardware which used a similar set up but with 10MB eDRAM. By the time the specs were announced for each system it was too late to make drastic changes in specs.

NTMK

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?

ESRAM is a lot faster than GDDR but since MS are using a small amount but the bandwith GB/S is about the same with the drr3. ESRAM is pound for pound miles faster than GDDR but atm it is the stuff of nightmares producing an 8gb setup. our yield at work is 8-10%:pac:

Sonys GPU is what sets them apart but its not a 50% gap

either way its way too early to properly analyse the to system

jenjenten

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.

ShadowHearth

Well, enough of me for today, I am off to bed to play some FF7! :pac:

randomperson12

wiiu okay but its deadps4 graphics epic imagine mario on ps4

mikeym

Im loving the latest South Park episode.

one shot bang bang

The playstation youtube video ( for the players ) sold me. i can still remember getting my first ps1

Retr0gamer

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.

I feel sorry for those developers getting all that synced up!

FAILSAFE 00

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.

photofinish

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.

A sensible post.

I went with the Xbox because I like the games simple as.

It's amazing how many fan boys on either side will play their console with the resolution settings wrong and so on.

Apart from Call of Duty and Battlefield we have had the following.

Fifa 14
Need for Speed

Running in full 1080P on bolt consoles and in the case of Fifa full 60fps.
Forza 5 runs in full 1080P and 60fps.

Go two generations back and there was a much bigger gap in performance between the original Xbox and the PS2 and yet people kept on buying the Sony Console with no hard drive or proper online.

I like the Xbox platform better but I will admit that Sony Playstation has always had the cool image.

Most multiplatform games preformed better on the Xbox 360 due to it's better GPU and unified Ram.

The Playstation 3 on exclusive titles could use the trick of streaming textures from the Blu Ray drive on tunnel vision gameplay not free open worlds mind you to pull off some nice effects.
But on proper like for like performance the Xbox 360 won 90% of the time.

Now suddenly this generation performance matters when Sony has the more powerful hardware.

Sony fans were happy with the PS3 and the Xbox One is many times more powerful.

I put my cards on the table I like the Microsoft exclusive titles more that is why I picked Xbox One.

GTA IV on Xbox 360 ran a much higher resolution then its PS3 counterpart and Sony fans stuck with Sony.

The performance this generation will be much smaller.

photofinish

Fifa 14 running head to head on the two new consoles without the logos I would have no idea which console was which.

CiDeRmAn

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.

I think you might have contradicted the first part of the statement with the last part.
But that's ok.

It just seems like the same points are being made again and again.
And, even if I'm not buying until 2014, I still have a valid opinion.

That is that the system alone, even is potential, isn't enough to sell it, it has to have the gaming content.
I don't want a media centre.
I don't want a machine that matches in with my existing hifi equipment.
I want games, end of.
I couldn't be without my PS3 or 360 and I've no doubt this gen will be the same.
The technical differences between hardware do seem to iron themselves out rather quickly.
I'd be fascinated if the usp of each machine, like the touchpad on the Dualshock 4, are implemented well outside of the various 1st parties.

Xenji

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.

CiDeRmAn

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.

My point exactly

Tipsy McSwagger

All this talk about which is the more powerful console and the one game I'd love to play this Xmas is Mario 3D on WiiU.