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

MiskyBoyy

Danonino. wrote: »

One little ickle thing that annoyed me the other day. The Xbox won't play movies from a USB stick :mad:

I had to go get another system, fiddle around with hdmi cables and power leads then play it through that because the tv in the sitting room doesnt have a USB input. For a console thats calling itself an all in one media hub, that was pretty lame.

First world problem perhaps :pac:

Yeah it is a little annoying but that feature will be added soon.

Otacon

It is kind of amazing that the PS3 and 360 are still better media devices when compared to their successors. Hopefully that will change in the next few months.

Grayditch

Maybe not. I'd say they're trying to lock in their subscription stuff.

Otacon

RUMOUR: Tomb Raider hits 60fps on PS4 but only 30fps on Xbox One - MCV

It is being claimed that Tomb Raider is the next big release to enjoy a notable performance advantage on PS4.

A report on Rocket Chainsaw claims that while the game will run in 1080p on both PS4 and Xbox One, it will hit 60fps on Sony’s machine but only 30fps on Microsoft’s.

“The Xbox One build can technically reach around 45fps, though this performance is generally only achieved during the most empty, simplest environments,” the site claimed.

“For most of your play, and during action scenes, the Xbox One build will sit on around 30 fps. On the other hand, the PlayStation 4 build will attempt to hit 60 fps as often as possible, and does a pretty good job of doing so, but does have slight dips under 60 fps during certain scenarios.”

Because we all love these rumours. I'm looking forward to Digital Foundry's article on this.

Retr0gamer

The big problem with One development is using the esRAM effectively where as you don't have that problem with the PS4 with the big pool of DDR4 that you can use for everything. Until third parties get their heads around it you'll probably see a lot of compromised ports on the One. Ryse demonstrates that the One is capable of a lot better.

gaynorvader

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The big problem with One development is using the esRAM effectively where as you don't have that problem with the PS4 with the big pool of DDR4 that you can use for everything. Until third parties get their heads around it you'll probably see a lot of compromised ports on the One. Ryse demonstrates that the One is capable of a lot better.

Pretty much what was said about the PS3 last gen.

_Puma_

Otacon wrote: »

RUMOUR: Tomb Raider hits 60fps on PS4 but only 30fps on Xbox One - MCV



Because we all love these rumours. I'm looking forward to Digital Foundry's article on this.

If that is true it is going to be a sobering FPS graph for Microsoft. Up to now most the 3rd parties have not been running at the same native resolution(With the PS4 running higher native). The xbox one games running at 1080 native (Forza, NBA?)seemed to have quiet a few tricks like Sharpening filters applied to enhance the visuals but no 3rd party is going to do this for a multi plat and usually compensate by lowering native resolution. For the PS4 we see less aliasing occuring to reach the targets. If both are running with the same settings enabled (which DF will figure out)that is a 100% increase in performance.

Basically this is the observed trend courtesy of neogaf. The next generation of games for release next year will more than likely widen the gap due to the more grunt available on the PS4, unless something left of field occurs with graphical development

Games that are leading on XB1 and targeting 1080p 30fps will be 1080p 60fps on PS4 (Tomb Raider: DE).

Games that are leading on PS4 and targeting 1080p (or 900p) 60fps will be 720p 60fps on XB1 (CoD: Ghosts, Battlefield 4).

Games that are leading on PS4 and targeting 1080p 30fps will be 900p 30fps on XB1 (Assassin's Creed IV).

Finally, games targeting 1080p 30 or 60 fps on both consoles will often have more special effects and/or less aliasing on the PS4 version (NFS: Rivals and EA Sports titles)

astonaidan

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The big problem with One development is using the esRAM effectively where as you don't have that problem with the PS4 with the big pool of DDR4 that you can use for everything. Until third parties get their heads around it you'll probably see a lot of compromised ports on the One. Ryse demonstrates that the One is capable of a lot better.

Is this basically the total opposite to PS3/360 when PS3 had great first party games but 360 looked better with multi platform

Retr0gamer

astonaidan wrote: »

Is this basically the total opposite to PS3/360 when PS3 had great first party games but 360 looked better with multi platform

Well there's no way to say at the moment which will have better looking first party games but yeah for the next while expect third party One exclusives to be inferior. It's weird, the One is using a very similar set up to the 360 which developers liked a lot more than the PS3, it's just this time around the PS4 just makes everything somuch easier. Sony really got their act together with ease of development.

ahnowbrowncow

Does the Xbox One not have the power of the cloud? I thought that would make it more powerful than the ps4?

CiDeRmAn

Could we be seeing lazy developers then?
Early titles always seem to highlight the difference between 1st party and 3rd party titles.
These differences seem to iron themselves out with time though, as in the aforementioned PS3/360 games development, huge early differences in multiplatform titles, leaning towards the 360, BioShock for example, but by the end the differences were negligible.

ShadowHearth

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Does the Xbox One not have the power of the cloud? I thought that would make it more powerful than the ps4?

I think it is pretty much confirmed that MS was talking out of its arse with cloud computing power just to make it self look better.

ahnowbrowncow

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Could we be seeing lazy developers then?
Early titles always seem to highlight the difference between 1st party and 3rd party titles.
These differences seem to iron themselves out with time though, as in the aforementioned PS3/360 games development, huge early differences in multiplatform titles, leaning towards the 360, BioShock for example, but by the end the differences were negligible.

Profit hungry publishers rather than lazy developers I'd say.

Retr0gamer

Yeah mostly it's publisher pressure. Why spend the extra time and effort making a tweaked version of your game for XBox One when it's easier and cheaper to just put it out on the console early but compromised. You'll see things improve as better middleware is written that will make things easier. I mean it's hard to blame them, you'll need some very clever programmers to modify the display process of the engine for the XBox One, that could take months. Better to let the middleware guys worry about that.

Basically this is the observed trend courtesy of neogaf. The next generation of games for release next year will more than likely widen the gap due to the more grunt available on the PS4, unless something left of field occurs with graphical development

No it won't. What you'll see is third party games coming closer to parity on both systems over time. It's what happened with the PS3 and 360, third party games were woeful on PS3 but in the last 2 years it's been very unusual for a game to not preform close to parity across both systems.

Ask for the cloud, I doubt the cloud will be used for rendering of AI and graphics. You need to have a stable connection for it to work and there's always going to be delays not to mention servers getting hamered on release. If you have a game running at 30-60 fps thee's no way the gameplay can be updated from the cloud considering the lag and unpaking of the information packets.

_Puma_

Retr0gamer wrote: »

No it won't. What you'll see is third party games coming closer to parity on both systems over time. It's what happened with the PS3 and 360, third party games were woeful on PS3 but in the last 2 years it's been very unusual for a game to not preform close to parity across both systems.

I agree about the 360 and PS3 example but I think the disparagement between the two at the start was the graphics API and Dev tools were far better for the 360 early on and the chipset for the PS3 was alien to a lot of Developers. If you looked at Polyphony's GTP it was quiet a technical achievement but that was because Polyphony worked closely with Sony in developing the API and tools. They were far better informed in how to manage the cell processor than other developers.

The difference this time is that both are working with the same x86 APU, so in terms of coding it will be very similar between the two. Another tell is the 1st party Xbox one games are struggling to hit native 1080 and I firmly believe this is down to horsepower being diverted to the other OS and Kinect in the xbox one, further disadvantaging it. Forza is a good example of squeezing every bit out of the Xbox one (And probably managing the eSRAM well)and smart special effects but most 3rd parties will not go to these lengths.

For both, the API's and Dev tools will improve but more than likely what optimisation can be done for one can be done for the other, which leaves us with the horsepower under the hood. Maybe Microsoft have something up their sleeves with the eSRAM but from noises coming from Developers they seem to be only scathing the surface of the potential of the GDDR5 Ram in the PS4. From what I understand of eSRAM you are constrained for bandwith by the physical DIE size of the chip so I'm not sure if there is much optimisation to be made there.

Retr0gamer

_Puma_ wrote: »

From what I understand of eSRAM you are constrained for bandwith by the physical DIE size of the chip so I'm not sure if there is much optimisation to be made there.

Yes but the esRAM on the One still utterly destroys the GDDR5 of the PS4 in terms of bandwidth. It's a case of managing it in 32MB (well actually 8MB) chunks which is a pain in the ass, whereas there's none of that management needed on the PS4 to get the full bandwidth speed out of GDDR5. There's a huge amount of optimisation I'd say to be made in the One API and development software as well as middleware.

_Puma_

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Yes but the esRAM on the One still utterly destroys the GDDR5 of the PS4 in terms of bandwidth. It's a case of managing it in 32MB (well actually 8MB) chunks which is a pain in the ass, whereas there's none of that management needed on the PS4 to get the full bandwidth speed out of GDDR5. There's a huge amount of optimisation I'd say to be made in the One API and development software as well as middleware.

When game engines are built from the ground up you would not generally be thinking about handling your Memory like that so again there is middleware that is handling this which is adding overhead(Cannot read and write at the same time etc..). The major advantage of the GDDR5 is that it is a unified memory pool (hUMA)allowing you to access all the fast memory at any time. As New game engines develop(Current Modern PC games) you will be looking at handling more and more memory with every clock cycle so for this GDDR5 has a distinct advantage of being able to access more fast memory at any one point in time.

Here is an analogy that I tried to come up with:

Think of it as a cannister full of water. With eSRAM you have a set number of small holes along the cannister between graduations leaking out the water. These holes cannot get any bigger (DIE Size). Each hole can only be either leaking out water or (hypothetically) leaking in water, between two graduations, at any one time(and there is an overhead in managing this). It cannot move water between anther two graduations. There is also a small pump (DDR3 RAM) taking in or pumping out water when a flush is needed. The Pump is at the end of its design cycle and will not be optimised further.

The GDDR5 is a new model water pump. It is able to move a lot more water at any point in time than the DDR3 can ever hope to achieve. It will only get more optimised into the future and will be able to move more and more water as it is improved. It is not restrained by which layer of water(say from the top down or from the middle first) it can move at any one time. It is able to fill and empty different layers between the graduations at the same time.

I'm not so sure about the Bandwidth of the eSRAM utterly destroying the GDDR5. You are talking about moving a small amount more quickly in one direction but you have a lot more flexibility with what you can do with GDDR5(And generally how game engines are built require this.) Think about loading a screen in Skyrim, you want to get everything up as quickly as possible and you want to package textures together. Fully optimising eSRAM would require you to have the texture split into small parts, but for the engine to complete the rendering you need the entire texture to load first. The eSRAM or DDR3 cannot improve the physical amount it can handle but maybe there is optimisation to be done with how much the DDR3 can handle alone and what the eSRAM can do(Perhaps eSRAM handling Distant pop ins? etc..). But in my view you are still constrained by the old DDR3

Retr0gamer

If you have optimised code DDR3 really shouldn't be limiting the esRAM but getting that level of optimisation is very tricky. I'd say a lot of third parties are just using the DDR3 as GPU memory and the esRAM for post processing.

photofinish

I have been saying for the whole thread there is very little difference between the Xbox One and the PS4 in terms of performance.

I got an Xbox One.

However the new Tomb Raider game runs at 60fps on PS4 and 30fps on Xbox One.

I can see a big performance gap starting to open.
If this trend carries on I may have to rethink my choice of console this generation.

3rdDegree

photofinish wrote: »

I have been saying for the whole thread there is very little difference between the Xbox One and the PS4 in terms of performance.

I got an Xbox One.

However the new Tomb Raider game runs at 60fps on PS4 and 30fps on Xbox One.

I can see a big performance gap starting to open.
If this trend carries on I may have to rethink my choice of console this generation.

I would have to agree with this. But it's still very much wait and see for now.

By the way, I think the graphics on Forza are appalling. The aliasing is just dreadful. If that is the best they can do, I will be sorely disappointed. But it is a damn enjoyable game!

Otacon

3rdDegree wrote: »

I think the graphics on Forza are appalling. The aliasing is just dreadful. If that is the best they can do, I will be sorely disappointed. But it is a damn enjoyable game!

While I agree that Forza is not as graphically impressive as I had initially heard it was, remember that it is a launch title so I am sure that it is not the best they can do.

Unlike others though, I do not expect to see the gap between both consoles close. For all of the improvements that developers will make in tweaking the way they work with the XBO hardware, they will also have just as much time to tweak their PS4 development skills and techniques.

photofinish

I can not stand bias and I can not stand fanboys.

Last generation most of the time the Xbox 360 had the best running version of a game and the unified ram gave it the slight edge over the PS3 on frame rates and things like screen tear.

The GPU in the 360 was also more powerful then the PS3.

I liked the exclusive games on the Xbox 360 and in my opinion Forza 4 was the best racing game of the generation.

Following on from that I got an Xbox One at launch.
The HDMI pass-through was rubbish as cable and Sky boxes run at 50hz and the Xbox runs at 60hz so there was a judder on passed through content.

Forza 5 featured less tracks and cars then Forza 4 and there was a €60 add on car pack day one.:mad:
Ryse while looking great was rubbish to play it was a repetitive hack and slash game.

Multi platform games featuring lower res or lower frame rates then Playstation 4 was the final kick in the teeth.

I have traded in my Xbox One with a game and controller and picked up a new PS 4 with Killzone without adding a cent.

This is a great looking game that is also fun.

I always defended the 360 because it was the better console despite Sony fanboys saying different.

This generation the PS4 is the better console I did not want to be buying crippled versions of full price games.

The Tomb Raider only running at 30fps on Xbox One while running at 60frs on PS4 was the last straw.

I believed Microsoft about the power of the Cloud but I have woken up and smelled the coffee.

I still have my 360.

photofinish

Just to add what Sony have delivered is 1080p gaming at 60fps Microsoft have failed to deliver.

Some people say processing power does not matter well if that was the case why upgrade to a new console generation?

I hated the Playstation 2 the original Xbox and the Gamecube were much more powerful and had the better multi-platform games yet the PS2 sold on hype.

This new generation the most powerful is in first place the runner up is in a distant second place and Nintendo is on the road to ruin.

Kilzone is the first next generation shooter that looks next generation.

Pushtrak

photofinish wrote: »

This new generation the most powerful is in first place the runner up is in a distant second place and Nintendo is on the road to ruin.

Overstating things, no?

photofinish

Pushtrak wrote: »

Overstating things, no?

I am just looking at that poll in this thread and I voted Xbox One.

Battlefield
Call of Duty
Tomb raider
Assassin's creed

Xbox One has got the inferior version of all these games so far I can not see things improving for Xbox One in this regard.

I though the power advantage for PS4 was hype after all Sony hype the PS2 with the Emotion engine and the PS 3 with the cell processor in bolt generations Microsoft delivered the better preforming console on multi-platform games.

This time around Sony has done so by a big margin and this time I will agree it is not hype.

Ok the Xbox One may not be a distant second yet but if they keep loosing people like me who have followed them from the start they are in for a bumpy ride.

I remember the slogan on the original Xbox as regards Multi-platform games it was ALWAYS BETTER ON XBOX.

Pushtrak

photofinish wrote: »

I am just looking at that poll in this thread and I voted Xbox One.

A poll of 800 people on one forum. Not really indicative of much. If you look at the sales, it certainly doesn't show a significant distance between the two. And this surprises me, honestly given the price differential.

Magill

photofinish wrote: »

Just to add what Sony have delivered is 1080p gaming at 60fps Microsoft have failed to deliver.

Some people say processing power does not matter well if that was the case why upgrade to a new console generation?

I hated the Playstation 2 the original Xbox and the Gamecube were much more powerful and had the better multi-platform games yet the PS2 sold on hype.

This new generation the most powerful is in first place the runner up is in a distant second place and Nintendo is on the road to ruin.

Kilzone is the first next generation shooter that looks next generation.

From reading your posts... you'd have Ben better getting a good gaming pc since graphics seem to be the most important thing for you in a gaming system. And we all know even the ps4 can't hang with a standard gaming rig. The ps2 comment is a strange one, mostly because I'm pretty sure the reason it did so well was because it had the best games. I think there was a lot less multiplatform games that gen ?

photofinish

Magill wrote: »

From reading your posts... you'd have Ben better getting a good gaming pc since graphics seem to be the most important thing for you in a gaming system. And we all know even the ps4 can't hang with a standard gaming rig. The ps2 comment is a strange one, mostly because I'm pretty sure the reason it did so well was because it had the best games. I think there was a lot less multiplatform games that gen ?

There was a few Crash Bandicoot and the like the Xbox and Gamecube versions left the PS2 in the dust.

What kind of money for a good gaming PC and how much better would it be to the consoles?

Also in this day and age I would guess on PC a really big screen could be added into the mix.

johnny_ultimate

If you think the PS2 sold solely on hype, you're mistaken and maybe even completely deluding yourself. It is a strong candidate for the best games console of them all, featuring a pretty much peerless back catalogue of inventive, imaginative and in many cases timeless classics. There are many games on there - Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Persona 4, MGS 3, We Love Katamari - that I value than the entirety of the original Xbox catalogue combined. I'm not even exaggerating there, the PS2 was something of a golden age for gaming unto itself, offering the kind of brave mid to big budget experiments that have all since disappeared.

Raw power doesn't make a console, it never has. It's the games that appear on it. That's why the must own console of the moment is the least powerful - the humble 3DS, with a heady stream of inspired titles from first and third party developers alike.

Magill

photofinish wrote: »

There was a few Crash Bandicoot and the like the Xbox and Gamecube versions left the PS2 in the dust.

What kind of money for a good gaming PC and how much better would it be to the consoles?

Also in this day and age I would guess on PC a really big screen could be added into the mix.

Risking getting flamed for being off topic...

Well for single player multiplatform games I just play them on my tv. My pc is nearly 3 year old, cost me about 650 at the time.. plays bf4 at 1080p on high settings at 60+ fps. I mean, it's probably better to put in that extra few quid on the pc since its so much more than just a "next-gen" gaming system. Not only are most of the multiplatform games gonna be better in terms of performance. You'll also have an incredible backlog of games that isn't defined by generations, arguably the best exclusives and certainly the most, cheaper games with great sales, genres that you just can't get on console etc