# PS4 has 50% More Raw Power in Graphics than the Xbox One



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

Popular news site Eurogamer's attempt at comparing raw system power seems to confirm that the newly revealed Xbox One console is much inferior to its competitor Sony's PS4. Do you think it will really mean something? Discuss​​​

​Source





​UPDATE:

 PS4 is more powerful than Xbox One on paper – but Microsoft will catch up, says Avalanche Studios


----------



## ComeTurismO (May 23, 2013)

I need a source for this, even though it is stated in the picture that it is stated that the PS4 has 50% more raw power in graphics than the Xbox one.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

ComeTurismO said:


> I need a source for this, even though it is stated in the picture that it is stated that the PS4 has 50% more raw power in graphics than the Xbox one.


...the source is right there in the OP?

It's from Eurogamer.


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

I think the source is there


----------



## Gahars (May 23, 2013)

ComeTurismO said:


> I need a source for this, even though it is stated in the picture that it is stated that the PS4 has 50% more raw power in graphics than the Xbox one.


 


EvilMakiPR said:


> Source​


 
Bam.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 23, 2013)

Lowest common denominator for multiplats is the Xbox One so really, this won't make much of a difference (aside from exclusives). Maybe slightly improved framerates and effects (kind of like what we've seen with 360 games vs. PS3).


----------



## Snailface (May 23, 2013)

50% may seem like a lot, but it's not enough difference to be significant in the world of graphics. (unless you're a nerd counting pixels and frames -- who is not representative of the general gaming population)


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

You know, those aren't the only three options.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

Snailface said:


> 50% may seem like a lot, but it's not enough difference to be significant in the world of graphics. (unless you're a nerd counting pixels and frames -- who is not representative of the general gaming population)


50% is not a _"counting pixels"_ sort of situation - both systems will display things at the same resolution, except one will calculate polygon-related maths faster and will be able to push more polygons quicker into much faster memory _(GDDR5 versus DDR3)_.

There's a number of variables making the PS4 a better system from a graphic's standpoint, not just the raw calculation power.



JoostinOnline said:


> You know, those aren't the only three options.


The Wii U is bottom-tier in this regard, XBox One is the happy middle, PS4 sits comfortably at the top - there's no reason to argue against that.


----------



## Chary (May 23, 2013)

Both controllers look like they suck.


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> 50% is not a _"counting pixels"_ sort of situation - both systems will display things at the same resolution, except one will calculate polygon-related maths faster and will be able to push more polygons quicker into much faster memory _(*GDDR5 versus DDR3*)_.
> 
> There's a number of variables making the PS4 a better system from a graphic's standpoint, not just the raw calculation power.


 


About that. People are saying that Sony is lying about the RAM. Is that true?



JoostinOnline said:


> You know, those aren't the only three options.


 
Well the question is Xbox One or PS4

What other option can I add?
Well I forgot 'Both'


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> About that. People are saying that Sony is lying about the RAM. Is that true?


Why would they lie about something they've officially announced in front of millions of people in February? Specs are subject to change, yes, but swapping GDDR5 for DDR3 is no easy task - they're different standards and it'd require re-designing the hardware. Swapping standards right now is not exactly an option - they might fiddle around with the CPU or GPU as those are all within the same standard but changing the memory means changing the memory control scheme. I highly doubt they'll back out of GDDR5 - if they would, it'd delay the release of the system quite a bit, I think.



EvilMakiPR said:


> Well I forgot 'Both'


Pretty sure he's talking about the Wii U which is an in-betweener - Last Generation hardware in a Next Generation system. Its capabilities would've been impressive... 3-4 years ago. Right now it's way, way behind.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

I actually find it rather sad that this will probably have a big affect on sales. So many people (especially teenagers) only care about graphics these days. Developers focus more on that now than gameplay or story, and we get good looking pieces of crap as a result.

"Both" and "Neither" are better options than "None".  "None" suggests you won't get any of the four consoles for this generation.


----------



## Gahars (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I actually find it rather sad that this will probably have a big affect on sales. So many people (especially teenagers) only care about graphics these days. Developers focus more on that now than gameplay or story, and we get good looking pieces of crap as a result.


 
Because the most powerful always wins. Always. Like the Wii and PS2 or... oh.

People have always cared about graphics and they've never been the deciding factor in console races past. This is hardly a new development, and it's not going to ruin gaming. There's no need to be upset.


----------



## Snailface (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> 50% is not a _"counting pixels"_ sort of situation - both systems will display things at the same resolution, except one will calculate polygon-related maths faster and will be able to push more polygons quicker into much faster memory _(GDDR5 versus DDR3)_.
> 
> There's a number of variables making the PS4 a better system from a graphic's standpoint, not just the raw calculation power.
> 
> ...


The specifics of pixel-counts, polygons, or whatever is not what I'm arguing about. Its that a raw 50% increase in overall graphics performance is insignificant from the 'general impression' of a typical dudebro gamer. Think Xbox vs PS2, the former was much more powerful, but it wasn't a typical x8 generational leap in graphics so it didn't matter in market share.


----------



## heartgold (May 23, 2013)

I was calling 50% powerful since yesterday. Lol

It's not just more bandwidth RAM the PS4 has, the raw power of the GPU is a monster. MS has settled for something in the middle. 

Some dev has said it could be a case of ps4 version running 60fps and X1 30fp. Expect PS4 exclusives to go beyond what X1 can offer. Perhaps demolish it if you can use the full power of the PS4.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I actually find it rather sad that this will probably have a big affect on sales. So many people (especially teenagers) only care about graphics these days. Developers focus more on that now than gameplay or story, and we get good looking pieces of crap as a result.


Y'see, better hardware has the upper-hand even when you think it doesn't. Poor hardware allows you to create games with poor graphics and good... or bad stories. Good hardware allows you to create games with good graphics and good... or bad stories. See what I did there?*

*Graphical capabilities are in no way connected with the developer's creativity. The PS3 is a powerhouse and it gave birth The Journey which was breath-taking to the point of winning a Grammy award for the best soundtrack for Visual Media, and that's just one example.



> "Both" and "Neither" are better options than "None". "None" suggests you won't get any of the *four* consoles for this generation.


...please tell me you don't mean the OUYA? Or is it the Steambox* line?

*Meaning HTPC's. Let's be frank here, it's not a console.



Snailface said:


> The specifics of pixel-counts, polygons, or whatever is not what I'm arguing about. Its that a raw 50% increase in overall graphics performance is insignificant from the 'general impression' of a typical dudebro gamer. Think Xbox vs PS2, the former was much more powerful, but it wasn't a typical x8 generational leap in graphics so it didn't matter in market share.


Considering the amount of time it was on the market for it did pretty well. It had no chance to gain a huge slice of the market share because the market was already owned by the PS2 - why jump ships when you could play the same games on a system that was cheaper and already owned by everyone and their dog?

This isn't something _"unnoticable"_ either - one system will have twice the graphical prowess of the other, how is that _"insignificant"_ to you?

Moreover, it's not _"just for dudebros"_ - you can make beautiful, compelling games that aren't shooters and do require great graphical prowess.

I'd also like to add that GPU's are not used _just_ for graphics these days - they handle physics calculations and perform other tasks which require floating point precision. It's _not_ just about the graphics.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Because the most powerful always wins. Always. Like the Wii and PS2 or... oh.
> 
> People have always cared about graphics and they've never been the deciding factor in console races past. This is hardly a new development, and it's not going to ruin gaming. There's no need to be upset.


I didn't say it would decide who "wins".  I said it would have a big affect.  Lots of people bought a PS3/360 because it had better graphics than the Wii.  Just because the Wii sold more doesn't mean the inferior graphics didn't have affect.  Imagine how well the Wii would have done if it was on par with the PS360?

And really, are you seriously telling me that graphics were as big of a deal for teenagers 15 years ago?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I didn't say it would decide who "wins". I said it would have a big affect. Lots of people bought a PS3/360 because it had better graphics than the Wii. Just because the Wii sold more doesn't mean the inferior graphics didn't have affect. Imagine how well the Wii would have done if it was on par with the PS360?


Imagine how well it would've performed if it wasn't designed to quickly cash-in on the technology that was developed for the Gamecube that was given a quick facelift and was pushed onto storeshelves? The WiiMote was originally patented as a Gamecube add-on, y'know - I've seen the sketches. The Wii's architecture is very much akin to the Gamecube's and that's no coincidence. 

It went to the top thanks to the WiiMote's novelty and fantastic marketing, yes, but that's _an exception_, not a general rule.



> And really, are you seriously telling me that graphics were as big of a deal for teenagers 15 years ago?


They were always a big deal? Since the dawn of computing?

People jumped from Atari to the NES for the graphics, they jumped to the Genesis for the graphics, they jumped to the SNES for the graphics - don't fool yourself, graphics are important. If they weren't, we'd play PONG to this day.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Y'see, better hardware has the upper-hand even when you think it doesn't. Poor hardware allows you to create games with poor graphics and good... or bad stories. Good hardware allows you to create games with good graphics and good... or bad stories. See what I did there?*
> 
> *Graphical capabilities are in no way connected with the developer's creativity. The PS3 is a powerhouse and it gave birth th The Journey which was breath-taking to the point of winning a Grammy award for the best soundtrack for Visual Media, and that's just one example.


Shocker, you only read part of my post. I clearly said "gameplay" (in fact, I mentioned that FIRST), but you didn't seem to notice that.

You can't focus on everything. That's why it's rare to see a game that wins in all areas.



Foxi4 said:


> ...please tell me you don't mean the OUYA?


I think the OUYA is ridiculous, but it's supposed to be a threat to Sony/MS/Nintendo. It's also a video game console.


----------



## Ethevion (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> And really, are you seriously telling me that graphics were as big of a deal for teenagers 15 years ago?


The jump in graphics from SNES and Genesis to N64 and PSX was the biggest deal in the world. That was 10 years ago, but ya.


----------



## Gahars (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I didn't say it would decide who "wins". I said it would have a big affect. Lots of people bought a PS3/360 because it had better graphics than the Wii. Just because the Wii sold more doesn't mean the inferior graphics didn't have affect. Imagine how well the Wii would have done if it was on par with the PS360?


 
I think you're leaping to quite a conclusion here.

The problem was less that the Wii's hardware made it less pretty - the problem was that it limited the sort of games the system could take (though the Wii remote didn't help much in that regard either). Huge titles like GTA IV, Mass Effect, and the like were just too much for the system.

If it was easier for developers to make their games for all three systems, then sure, more people might have bought the Wii. Graphics wouldn't be the deciding factor here - it would've been game selection.

Hell, the 360 is the weaker of the two graphics-intensive consoles from last gen and it's still beating the PS3 last I checked.

I'm not saying that people who favor graphics over anything else don't exist, but they're hardly the mass you seem to think they are. 



JoostinOnline said:


> And really, are you seriously telling me that graphics were as big of a deal for teenagers 15 years ago?


 
It's easy to put on the nostalgia goggles and say people only cared about gameplay back in the day, but that would be a lie. People cared just as much about graphics and hardware. Entire marketing campaigns were built around flaunting superior graphics ("BLAST PROCESSING!") and Nintendo considered its move to 64-bit so impressive that they named their new console after it.

Just because the graphics look unimpressive to us now doesn't mean that they weren't impressive at the time.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Shocker, you only read part of my post. I clearly said "gameplay" (in fact, I mentioned that FIRST), but you didn't seem to notice that.
> 
> You can't focus on everything. That's why it's rare to see a game that wins in all areas.


Uhh... Yeah, you can. With massive studios that delegate work to specific departments, you can. It always was, always has been and always will work that way. Think of legendary games like Skyrim or Fallout: New Vegas - they have stunning graphics, engrossing worlds and fantastic gameplay. Those games literally devour spare time, and I can only come up with more examples.



> I think the OUYA is ridiculous, but it's supposed to be a big threat to Sony/MS/Nintendo. It's also a video game console.


I hesitate to treat it on full rights with other consoles on the basis of its hardware. It's a smartphone/tablet motherboard with the GSM/GPS modules and the screen removed, there's nothing console-specific about it outside of the controller. As for it being a threat... Wait, I need to find my tissues, I'm tearing up over here... and my sides need a surgeon STAT.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Gahars said:


> I think you're leaping to quite a conclusion here.
> 
> The problem was less that the Wii's hardware made it less pretty - the problem was that it limited the sort of games the system could take (though the Wii remote didn't help much in that regard either). Huge titles like GTA IV, Mass Effect, and the like were just too much for the system.
> 
> ...


Thank you for reading my posts correctly.  That's a lot more than I can expect from Foxi.  He keeps arguing with things I'm not saying, lol.

Anyway, what you are describing was not my experience, but it might be a cultural thing.  I didn't move to the US until 2001, and thinking back it was only a few years later that I started noticing people with the attitude of "fuck gameplay, the graphics on this system are so much better!"  I try getting people to play Oblivion on the 360, but most (meaning kids) just get this look of revulsion when they see the graphics and don't give it a chance.


----------



## Ergo (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Thank you for reading my posts correctly. That's a lot more than I can expect from Foxi. He keeps arguing with things I'm not saying, lol.
> 
> Anyway, what you are describing was not my experience, but it might be a cultural thing. I didn't move to the US until 2001, and thinking back it was only a few years later that I started noticing people with the attitude of "fuck gameplay, the graphics on this system are so much better!" I try getting people to play Oblivion on the 360, but most (meaning kids) just get this look of revulsion when they see the graphics and don't give it a chance.


 
it would be more fair to say that the best graphics are important to a *segment of the market* since most people really just can't tell the difference unless it's an order of magnitude in difference (which is why Joostin *is* correct at least insofar as the gulf between the PS4 and 1 will not be large enough for the mass market to discern). This is why the weaker console can always hold its own against the stronger ones, because *most* of the market can't tell/doesn't care that one machine is better than another as far as its silicon goes, with consumers being more content and price-driven than the 'core' market which only sees "blast processing" (or seems to only see, if gaming message boards since the dawn of the Internet--and before that, the playground--are anything to go by).

(And, once again, it needs to be pointed out that the 'graphics whores' are a small slice of the market compared to the general population and are wholly incapable, on their own, of picking generational winners.)


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Ergo said:


> (And, once again, it needs to be pointed out that the 'graphics whores' are a small slice of the market compared to the general population and are wholly incapable, on their own, of picking generational winners.)


I guess my general community is kind of an anomaly then.  About 50% of the people I know are graphics whores.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Thank you for reading my posts correctly. That's a lot more than I can expect from Foxi. He keeps arguing with things I'm not saying, lol.


Thanks. I read your entire post, I just disagreed with the core concept you were conveying. Still do. 

There's more to hardware prowess than just pretty lights and fancy models - it's important in game development, even if only for the sake of spending less time optimizing and more time creating. I experienced this first-hand when developing for the DS - a lot of my projects were put on-hold or were completely scrapped not because of my inability but because they were not achievable due to hardware restrictions.

I'll give you an example. The DS has 4MB RAM - I reserved 500KB of that RAM for music streaming, 500KB for the program code. I was left with 3MB of RAM. One spritesheet for FalloutDS was around 700KB - effectively I could put up to about 3 different characters on the screen plus the map. _*3*_.

I was unwilling to lower the quality of my product or the framecount of the sprites, I wasn't going to create something I wouldn't be proud of and I stopped working on it. That, and I'm not even going to start talking about the pitiful amount of VRAM - even with those 3 different characters, they could only be spawned in very small numbers on the map anyways. This was a huge bummer for me as I was excited to work on the game, I spent a lot of time tweaking the graphics and now I'm just discouraged because I know I'd have to do severe coding gymnastics to push it any further than it is now or even re-write the whole thing completely_ for the sixth time_.

Hardware prowess _would've helped_ but I had no resources spare.


----------



## Bladexdsl (May 23, 2013)

I knew it was only a matter of hours before a thread like this would pop up


----------



## gamefan5 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I think the OUYA is ridiculous,* but it's supposed to be a big threat to Sony/MS/Nintendo.* It's also a video game console.


 
I thought I misread that.
I read it again...
You must be the first in all of the internets to actually THINK that the Ouya *might actually pose a threat* to the big three. Seriously! The impact of your sentence is astounding!


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Thanks. I read your entire post, I just disagreed with the core concept you were conveying. Still do.


And yet you repeatedly missed my point entirely.  Either you didn't read them properly, or you are just a dumbass.


----------



## gamefan5 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> And yet you repeatedly missed my point entirely. Either you didn't read them properly, or you are just a *dumbass.*


How does disagreeing a post makes someone a dumbass?


----------



## Gahars (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Anyway, what you are describing was not my experience, but it might be a cultural thing. I didn't move to the US until 2001, and thinking back it was only a few years later that I started noticing people with the attitude of "fuck gameplay, the graphics on this system are so much better!" I try getting people to play Oblivion on the 360, but most (meaning kids) just get this look of revulsion when they see the graphics and don't give it a chance.


 
Well, remember, opinions aren't evenly distributed. The majority opinion in one place may be wholly unrepresentative of the whole population.

Plus, don't take what kids say too seriously. Kids say and do stupid things, sure, but they're just kids - that's their nature. Besides, it's their parents who make the final purchasing decision, and most parents probably couldn't care less about the hardware specs that we could debate passionately for hours on end.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

gamefan5 said:


> How does disagreeing a post makes someone a dumbass?


He didn't disagree with my post. He disagreed with something (or rather several things) I didn't post, often addressing half a statement.

Oh, and the "big threat" was a mistake, I'm quite tired.  But it is thought by a lot of people that it will be a threat.  And it's not just the OUYA (what a ridiculous name), it's the whole tablet system.  Lots of people predict (but keep in mind, these are just predictions, so they could be completely wrong) that lots of people who would normally buy a console for casual gameplay will turn to things like tablets as a cheap alternative.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 23, 2013)

@OP: Where does this 50% figure even come from? I just read the article and it says nothing of the sort.


----------



## gamefan5 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> He didn't disagree with my post. He disagreed with something (or rather several things) I didn't post, often addressing half a statement.


Gimme an example? Cause I don't see how he disagreed with things you didn't post... It seemed more like you just plainly shrugged off his opinion...


----------



## Arp1 (May 23, 2013)

Chary said:


> Both controllers look like they suck.


Eh, I think the X1's controller looks pretty cool. I've always liked the 360's concave analogs, and the analogs on the X1's look much better.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> And yet you repeatedly missed my point entirely. Either you didn't read them properly, or you are just a dumbass.


So far your point was that _"graphics capabilities may have an impact on sales"_ which is your lucky guess - they may or may not, as shown by previously mentioned examples.

You also said that games with better graphics may have worse stories or gameplay mechanics, which again, is not a universal truth as graphics, gameplay mechanics and storytelling are entirely different things that are handled separately - you can make a fun-to-play game with stellar graphics and a compelling story to tell, it has been done - it just requires talented artists.

You also claimed that most people you know are graphics whores who don't care about gameplay, but if gameplay is so irrelevant to them, why do they game instead of watching CGI movies? That's eyecandy, right? Clearly the actual _gaming_ part is dear to them as well, they just want their games to look good, which is something they're entitled to.

Some people won't touch eyecandy-filled games because they prefer retro - how is that any better? Both are tastes regarding artistic design.

I wrote about more things than you directly mentioned because I tend to read between the lines - I know what you're going to say so I'm addressing what you said _and_ giving you my more detailed personal opinion.

Now, did I miss something again or will you persist in insulting me?


----------



## gamefan5 (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> So far your point was that _"graphics capabilities may have an impact on sales"_ which is your lucky guess - they may or may not, as shown by previously mentioned examples.
> 
> You also said that games with better graphics may have worse stories or gameplay mechanics, which again, is not a universal truth as graphics, gameplay mechanics and storytelling are entirely different things that are handled separately - you can make a fun-to-play game with stellar graphics and a compelling story to tell, it has been done - it just requires talented artists.
> 
> ...


Seriously, I just don't see what was wrong with what you said. You clearly addressed his post correctly. WTF?


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

soulx said:


> @OP: Where does this 50% figure even come from? I just read the article and it says nothing of the sort.


 
PS4 has "50% more raw power" in graphics than Xbox One, says report


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

gamefan5 said:


> Seriously, I just don't see what was wrong with what you said. You clearly addressed his post correctly. WTF?


I'm waiting for an explanation myself. If he thinks I didn't get what he said, he should've at least clarified his statement rather than going straight for the _"dumbass"_ card - that doesn't bode well for the rest of this conversation.


*Pro Tip:* If you want to converse in a civilized manner, don't throw around insults. If you do, not only people will stop listening to what you have to say, they'll also stop treating you seriously.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> So far your point was that _"graphics capabilities *may have* an impact on sales"_ which is your lucky guess - *they may or may not*, as shown by previously mentioned examples.


I don't understand why you are arguing, since this post indicates that you agree with me.  It might.  But it also might not.



Foxi4 said:


> You also said that games with better graphics *may have* worse stories or gameplay mechanics, *which again, is not a universal truth* as graphics, gameplay mechanics and storytelling are entirely different things that are handled separately - you can make a fun-to-play game with stellar graphics and a compelling story to tell, it has been done - it just requires talented artists.


Once again, you're just agreeing with me. 



Foxi4 said:


> You also claimed that most people you know are graphics whores who don't care about gameplay, but if gameplay is so irrelevant to them, why do they game instead of watching CGI movies? That's eyecandy, right? Clearly the actual _gaming_ part is dear to them as well, they just want their games to look good, which is something they're entitled to.


As a matter of fact, many of them DO watch CGI movies.  And of course gameplay matters to some degree (otherwise it wouldn't be a game), but they don't give a game a chance unless it looks like something at the peak of performance.



Foxi4 said:


> Some people won't touch eyecandy-filled games because they prefer retro - how is that any better? Both are tastes regarding artistic design.


I never said it was better, so I don't know what point you are getting at.



Foxi4 said:


> I wrote about more things than you directly mentioned because I tend to read between the lines - I know what you're going to say so I'm addressing what you said _and_ giving you my more detailed personal opinion.


You really don't know what I'm going to say.  As I demonstrated above, you don't even seem to know what the actual lines say, much less what's "between" them.



Foxi4 said:


> Now, did I miss something again or will you persist in insulting me?


You're missing quite a bit.  Just...stop trying to argue.


----------



## macmanhigh (May 23, 2013)

Blah Blah Blah seems like unfulfilled Promises like the 360 n PS3 before it....I wanna see the Damn Games Already All this Raw data crap is Bullshit


----------



## ggyo (May 23, 2013)

First, I thought that DDR5 has a higher memory capacity but DDR3 has quicker access times, meaning files can be accessed and loaded faster.

Basically DDR3 is more efficient. for loading higher quantities of files, while DDR5 is more efficient for loading larger sized files. RAM specifics have always confused me, like how DDR3 is cheaper to buy than DDR2.
Also "...we now knew that the 8GB of memory in Xbox One is indeed DDR3 as opposed to the bandwidth-rich GDDR5 found in the PlayStation 4 (and Wired's internal photography of the One confirms 2133MHz DDR3 Micron modules). Xbox One may well have a latency advantage over PS4..."

Second, the article says that they believe the PS4 GPU will have 50% more raw power than the Xbox One.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> As a matter of fact, many of them DO watch CGI movies. And of course gameplay matters to some degree (otherwise it wouldn't be a game), but they don't give a game a chance unless it looks like something at the peak of performance.


...why should they give a chance to something they know they won't like?

Imagine the situation works the other way around - you're supposed to give a chance to this super-duper particle effects-filled Next Generation shooter wonder. Sounds fun to you? Not in particular? But hey, it might be a good game, right?

See, they focus on different things when picking games they like, but different doesn't necessarily mean worse. At the end of the day, what matters is that everyone's having fun in their own way. The point I was drawing was that stronger systems can cater to a wider variety of tastes, weaker systems to a much narrower audience due to technical limitation.

That's _all_ I was saying and it's _very_ much to the point as long as you're willing to leave your comfort zone for a minute and embrace the idea from a different perspective.



> You really don't know what I'm going to say. As I demonstrated above, you don't even seem to know what the actual lines say, much less what's "between" them. _(...)_ You're missing quite a bit. Just...stop trying to argue.


I think it is you who's missing my point, not the other way around. First and foremost, we're not arguing - we're having a discussion. If you treat it as an argument, sure, go on ahead. It's a _"debate"_ at worst, and if so, it's an unintended one.

Secondly, I've addressed your statements sufficiently, just from a different angle than you may have expected. Perhaps I misunderstood what you wanted to say - if so, I apologize, although even with your clarification, I still think my points stand. Gahars answered to your post in a very similar fashion, y'know.

I think I've addressed everything I wanted to address.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (May 23, 2013)

Now will the Xbox be 50% cheaper than the PS4? lol


----------



## ggyo (May 23, 2013)

Imagine if there was cross-platform competition, like if all Xbox One Battlefield players (for example) could face off against all PS4 Battlfield players, at huge scopes of like 50 vs 50 or such?

It should have been done for Soul Calibur 4, if possible.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

ggyo said:


> Imagine if there was cross-platform competition, like if all Xbox One Battlefield players (for example) could face off against all PS4 Battlfield players, at huge scopes of like 50 vs 50 or such?
> 
> It should have been done for Soul Calibur 4, if possible.


It's going to be so fair when PS4 players will play at 60FPS and XBox One players at 30FPS... and Wii U players... will... cheer via MiiVerse? 


//MasterTrole2013


----------



## Deleted_171835 (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> It's going to be so fair when PS4 players will play at 60FPS and XBox One players at 30FPS... and Wii U players... will... cheer via MiiVerse?
> 
> 
> //MasterTrole2013


http://www.examiner.com/article/xbo...-all-have-dedicated-servers-up-to-128-players

While Xbox One players enjoy lagless perfect multiplayer thanks to dedicated servers.

[/alwaysonlinemasterrace]


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> ...why should they give a chance to something they know they won't like?
> 
> Imagine the situation works the other way around - you're supposed to give a chance to this super-duper particle effects-filled Next Generation shooter wonder. Sounds fun to you? Not in particular? But hey, it might be a good game, right?
> 
> ...


I always am willing to give things a chance.  I never said otherwise, and my main point is people so focused on one aspect that they don't care about anything else.

The game you described sounds like it could be fun, thanks for suggesting it.



Foxi4 said:


> I think it is you who's missing my point, not the other way around. First and foremost, we're not arguing - we're having a discussion. If you treat it as an argument, sure, go on ahead. It's a _"debate"_ at worst, and if so, it's an unintended one.
> 
> Secondly, I've addressed your statements sufficiently, just from a different angle than you may have expected. Perhaps I misunderstood what you wanted to say - if so, I apologize, although even with your clarification, I still think my points stand.
> 
> I think I've addressed everything I wanted to address.


You know what, at this point I'm so tired that I could be the one who's a jerk and you're being nice.  Right now (with the exception of this last bit) it doesn't seem that way, but I'm at the point where I could be misinterpreting your attitude.  I've had maybe 5 hours of sleep over the past three days (I suffer from insomnia and I'm missing medicine).

So if it's my fault, please forgive me.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> You know what, at this point I'm so tired that I could be the one who's a jerk and you're being nice. Right now (with the exception of this last bit) it doesn't seem that way, but I'm at the point where I could be misinterpreting your attitude. I've had maybe 5 hours of sleep over the past three days (I suffer from insomnia and I'm missing medicine).
> 
> So if it's my fault, please forgive me.


I'm glad that we're reaching a peaceful and mutual understanding here, I'm sure the fault is somewhere in-between. I bare you no ill will, I was merely trying to have an interesting discussion, and those tend to be interesting when your conversation companion happens to be on the _"other side of the barricade"_ so to speak.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm glad that we're reaching a peaceful and mutual understanding here, I'm sure the fault is somewhere in-between. I bare you no ill will, I was merely trying to have an interesting discussion, and those tend to be interesting when your conversation companion happens to be on the _"other side of the barricade"_ so to speak.


Alright, truce.  I'll just try not to make any assumptions until I've had some proper rest.

Was that a joke about the 30FPS?  Considering the Wii U can (although doesn't always, depends on the game) run at 60FPS, I highly doubt that the Xbox One won't be able to achieve better.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

soulx said:


> http://www.examiner.com/article/xbo...-all-have-dedicated-servers-up-to-128-players
> 
> While Xbox One players enjoy lagless perfect multiplayer thanks to dedicated servers.
> 
> [/alwaysonlinemasterrace]


We still don't know what Sony will have to offer in that regard - they've been working pretty hard with Gaikai as of late, and those guys aren't just specialists in streaming but also in networking.

That being said, XBox Live does provide a better service than PSN, even if only because of Cross-Game Chat and a much more stable infrastructure _(talking about the situation we have now, we'll see how things work in late 2013)_.

_...it's a shame that all this goodness comes at a hefty price of subscriptions that give you nothing but the opportunity to play games that you've already paid for. It tastes oh, the more sweeter when it's a privilege of the wealthy, not a right of a software owner. ;O;_

[/alwaysonlinemasterrace]



JoostinOnline said:


> Alright, truce. I'll just try not to make any assumptions until I've had some proper rest.
> 
> Was that a joke about the 30FPS? Considering the Wii U can (although doesn't always, depends on the game) run at 60FPS, I highly doubt that the Xbox One won't be able to achieve better.


Pretty much, although knowing that the XBox One _might (seeing that it wasn't benchmarked, it's still just an assumption)_ have half the GPU prowess, it's safe to say that the moment the two systems are pushed to their limits years down the line, one will objectively perform better than the other and the framecount is one thing that's easy to cut down on without losing visual quality _(...just fluidity)_.


----------



## LightyKD (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Shocker, you only read part of my post. I clearly said "gameplay" (in fact, I mentioned that FIRST), but you didn't seem to notice that.
> 
> You can't focus on everything. That's why it's rare to see a game that wins in all areas.
> 
> I think the OUYA is ridiculous, but it's supposed to be a threat to Sony/MS/Nintendo. It's also a video game console.


 

Ouya, Ouya, Ouya, Ouya!


----------



## ComeTurismO (May 23, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Bam.





Foxi4 said:


> ...the source is right there in the OP?
> 
> It's from Eurogamer.


OH! I DON'T GOT A GOOD EYE SIGHT, LOL.


----------



## IBNobody (May 23, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> Now will the Xbox be 50% cheaper than the PS4? lol


 
It will be cheaper! (If you sign the contract)



Hmm... Now that I think about it... I can foresee retailers selling the discounted X1+Live contract bundle and then forcing a bunch of bad launch titles on you to drive up the cost above the undiscounted X1.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> Ouya, Ouya, Ouya, Ouya!


OUYA? Oh Yeah, that's still, like, a thing... that people... talk about... 

Initial reviews are not all that favourable y'know - some people already got their units and aren't blown away - it's what they expected and... just that.


----------



## LightyKD (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> OUYA? Oh Yeah, that's still, like, a thing... that people... talk about...
> 
> Initial reviews are not all that favourable y'know - some people already got their units and aren't blown away - it's what they expected and... just that.


 

I wasn't trying to turn this into a Ouya thread but you're right Foxi, people should just expect what it is and just that.  To me the Ouya is the logical upgrade from the OnLive micro console. -kinda like how gamers upgrade from Wii to Wii U. Ouya will also be my main console until A-I find a Wii U cheaper than 250 or B-Nintendo gets their act together and continues focus on motion gaming and audience expansion. As for the PS4 and XBox One, Microsoft really REALLY fucked up with this one. Their used games situation alone makes me want to shout at everyone from a roof top to avoid the thing like the plague. PS4 to me is more of the same with interesting Cloud and social features. I'm also interesting to see how far Sony allows gamers to push the boundaries of "game sharing".


----------



## the_randomizer (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Imagine how well it would've performed if it wasn't designed to quickly cash-in on the technology that was developed for the Gamecube that was given a quick facelift and was pushed onto storeshelves? The WiiMote was originally patented as a Gamecube add-on, y'know - I've seen the sketches. The Wii's architecture is very much akin to the Gamecube's and that's no coincidence.
> 
> It went to the top thanks to the WiiMote's novelty and fantastic marketing, yes, but that's _an exception_, not a general rule.
> 
> ...


 

They are important, graphics are an integral part of what makes games fun in general, but graphics alone should not be the sole factor in what makes a game fun.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

LightyKD said:


> I wasn't trying to turn this into a Ouya thread but you're right Foxi, people should just expect what it is and just that.


What I meant by that was that the OUYA is somewhat underwhelming and disappointing. Its own UI holds it back, the build quality is debatable, the controller is meh and overall... the system is... _"okay"_, and people usually want _"great"_ from their devices. It promised to be unique and it's not - it's the same old Android, just with additional weight on its back.



the_randomizer said:


> They are important, graphics are an integral part of what makes games fun in general, but graphics alone should not be the sole factor in what makes a game fun.


Very true. What makes a game fun is the balance of its constituent elements - it's a belief I followed for years now. Theming is very important as well - some themes may get away with cutting corners in the graphics areas but then have to deliver in gameplay, with others, great graphics are expected and required, however sound doesn't have to be stellar and so on. The "balance" is not universal and is dictated by the target audience, the genre and various different aspects.

What makes games unique and memorable is this balance and unique approaches towards achieving it. For example, one of the most memorable things for me about Fallout and Fallout 2 was... the soundtrack. Most RPG's at the time didn't have that and Fallout did - it filled a gap and created a new standard, which is why experimentation is just as important as keeping up with the trends.

...I digress, right? I should stop now.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> What I meant by that was that the OUYA is somewhat underwhelming and disappointing. Its own UI holds it back, the build quality is debatable, the controller is meh and overall... the system is... _"okay"_, and people usually want _"great"_ from their devices. It promised to be unique and it's not - it's the same old Android, just with additional weight on its back.
> 
> 
> Very true. What makes a game fun is the balance of its constituent elements - it's a belief I followed for years now. Theming is very important as well - some themes may get away with cutting corners in the graphics areas but then have to deliver in gameplay, for example. Others are the exact opposite - graphics are requires, but sound not so much. The "balance" is not universal and is dictated by the target audience, the genre and various different aspects.
> ...


 

Eh, no worries, we both agree with the whole stance on graphics. Simply put, some people will be graphics whores while others will still care about them, but not worship them to the point of obsession


----------



## LightyKD (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> What I meant by that was that the OUYA is somewhat underwhelming and disappointing. Its own UI holds it back, the build quality is debatable, the controller is meh and overall... the system is... _"okay"_, and people usually want _"great"_ from their devices. It promised to be unique and it's not - it's the same old Android, just with additional weight on its back.


 

You're right about the UI. It's frustrating and ugly! I was really hoping for something similar to what was shown in the kickstarter. Another thing too is the lack of a online gaming service. It's worse than Wii. At least Nintendo had a mailing service that gave users some sort of connectivity feel. With that said, Ouya is better than Wii in that fact that gamers get to use screen names. Ouya is going to have to do what Google did last week. They need to add features to the console via App, UI and Store Updates to create the appearance of having a centralized infrastructure. Hell, EA almost did it on Wii with their online sports games. Once the June 25th launch is past us, the company should place sizable focus on revamping their community features.


----------



## nukeboy95 (May 23, 2013)




----------



## IBNobody (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> What I meant by that was that the OUYA is somewhat underwhelming and disappointing. Its own UI holds it back, the build quality is debatable, the controller is meh and overall... the system is... _"okay"_, and people usually want _"great"_ from their devices. It promised to be unique and it's not - it's the same old Android, just with additional weight on its back.


 
Thanks for reading my impressions. 

To be fair, it's actually a better gaming experience than on Android. Aside from the store UI (which has to be fixed if they expect to sell any consoles), the concept/implementation of all the free games is rather nice. I'd love to see Nintendo or Sony adopt something like this due to how indie-friendly they are. Microsoft? Well... I think Microsoft already screwed the pooch. I can't see any love coming from them.



nukeboy95 said:


> <SNIP>


 
Oh, WiiU... You're so doomed. No wonder why you aren't getting much love.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 23, 2013)

I love PC, so PC gaming is the direction I usually go with my gaming, with occasional Xbox 360 use. At this moment, I hate the new Xbox... I would rent games for Xbox 360 all the time, now with this new Xbox I have to pay for internet (I let that slide), connect to the internet at least every 24 hours, pay a fee when I use a used game, and the PS4 is now confirmed to be more powerful. I can't think of ONE reason not to drop this Xbox completely and just stick strictly with my PC. I don't like hating, but they made me so pissed. What ever, sticking with my PC, Steam will save me money.


----------



## uyjulian (May 23, 2013)

Everybody likes to compare specs


----------



## Skeet1983 (May 23, 2013)

Only 8GB RAM for memory? That seems kinda low. Anyway, how much VRAM does PS4/XO have?


----------



## LockeCole_101629 (May 23, 2013)

50% is quite a lot difference
but then again... probably only few games using 100% both raw power.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Skeet1983 said:


> Only 8GB RAM for memory? That seems kinda low.


Seems like a fuckton of RAM to me.


----------



## Chary (May 23, 2013)

Skeet1983 said:


> Only 8GB RAM for memory? That seems kinda low. Anyway, how much VRAM does PS4/XO have?


Uhh, didn't the 360 have only like, 512MB of RAM? I think 8GB is well enough.


----------



## grossaffe (May 23, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Eh, no worries, we both agree with the whole stance on graphics. Simply put, some people will be graphics whores while others will still care about them, but not worship them to the point of obsession


I don't think graphics are all _that_ important.  I find that a capable game engine and a solid art direction to be more important than polygon count and particle effects.  As big of a fan of the wii as I was, the one real problem I had with it was that it couldn't handle the more advanced game engines.  Xenoblade Chronicles, for example, made the wii's graphical limitations pretty clear, but the art was so beautiful that I just didn't care. (of course I may be splitting hairs here separating art direction from graphics)


----------



## hhs (May 23, 2013)

Skeet1983 said:


> Only 8GB RAM for memory? That seems kinda low. Anyway, how much VRAM does PS4/XO have?


More RAM and better processors is a godsend for games made by Bethesda. Fallout 3 had more loading than playing if you tried playing it on Xbox.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

It's hard to see any game using 8GB of RAM or 8 cores in a CPU, but maybe the OS alone is pretty demanding.


----------



## raulpica (May 23, 2013)

When it comes to hardware, you HAVE to leave it to hardware specialists. Like the ones on AnandTech:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4

The PS4 has a slight edge because of larger bandwidth and 33% (iirc) more shaders, but the eSRAM on the GPU die might be the X1's secret weapon.

tl;dr: PS4 and X1 will be pretty much on-par in real world applications.


----------



## Snailface (May 23, 2013)

This image provides a pretty clear explanation of one way just 50% better graphics nowadays is fools gold:
(and yes, this principle also applies to more than just polygons)


----------



## Elrinth (May 23, 2013)

Polycount doesn't really matter much any more, we've got enough detail in the structure. Now it's the lighting of the surfaces which what's being focusing on.
Today it's all shaders baby! 
The more power we got to use, the more detail we can get (if we aren't lazy), as simple as that.

As for PS4 vs XbOne. I would much rather buy the PS4 as it just seems more appealing after the XbOne conference. Then again, it's ALL about the games, E3 is upon us. My opinion might change then.


----------



## FireGrey (May 23, 2013)

I don't see myself getting one of these because of price, so I'll just stick to Wii U for games with friends and PC for Personal Gaming.
I think that the PS4 would be more powerful, but the xBox One would have a lot more support from developers.


----------



## emigre (May 23, 2013)

FireGrey said:


> I don't see myself getting one of these because of price, so I'll just stick to Wii U for games with friends and PC for Personal Gaming.
> I think that the PS4 would be more powerful, but the xBox One would have a lot more support from developers.


 
> Won't buy PS4/XBone because of the price
> PS4/XBone's prices haven't been announced.


----------



## Sop (May 23, 2013)

Where does this leave the Wii U? :/ Why aren't Ninty including more powerful hardware?


----------



## lokomelo (May 23, 2013)

The hardware difference will not affect games itself that mutch. 90% or more of Xbox and PS games are not exclusives. Fifa (sports, sports, sports, sports...) will look like the same on both consoles, as well as Call of Duty. Fifa/Madden + Call of Duty = Full game library of 75% of the gamers.



Sop said:


> Where does this leave the Wii U? :/ Why aren't Ninty including more powerful hardware?


They say things about that stuff of graphics vs fun, ya know... The fact is that Nintendo has less strength (money if you want) on R&D and another reason is that Nintendo has its focus on kids, and who buy stuff for kids are the parents, and parents use to choose the less expensive console, and that's the marketing positioning of Nintendo, it is always the cheapest deal (from wii onwards at least).


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

Snailface said:


> This image provides a pretty clear explanation of one way just 50% better graphics nowadays is fools gold:
> (and yes, this principle also applies to more than just polygons)


There's more to graphics than just filters - anti-aliasing, bloom, motion blur, teselation, shading, reflections, sub-surface coloration, bumpmapping etc. etc. The mesh can remain the same, but you can add additional effects which will improve the quality of the end model.

Moreover we have to remember that we won't use polygons forever - it would be ideal if we eventually moved on to voxel-based models entirely, however we're not at that level of technological prowess yet.



raulpica said:


> tl;dr: PS4 and X1 will be pretty much on-par in real world applications.


Perhaps on-par is an overstatement, but I don't think the developers will utilize PS4's upper hand in commercial products that aren't exclusives - they'll just feel more comfortable on it. Multiplatfrom games will remain the same.


----------



## FireGrey (May 23, 2013)

emigre said:


> > Won't buy PS4/XBone because of the price
> > PS4/XBone's prices haven't been announced.


It's really easy to predict they will be significantly more than the Wii U and current PS3/360


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

FireGrey said:


> It's really easy to predict they will be significantly more than the Wii U and current PS3/360


...perhaps because they're new hardware? 

You could say the exact same thing about not buying a DS, 360 or PS3 - the prices were significantly higher than those of the Game Boy Advance, XBox or the PS2.


----------



## DaniPoo (May 23, 2013)

I hope that won't be any big difference when it comes to gaming on both these consoles! That way I don't have to buy both


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

UPDATE:

 PS4 is more powerful than Xbox One on paper – but Microsoft will catch up, says Avalanche Studios


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> UPDATE:
> 
> PS4 is more powerful than Xbox One on paper – but Microsoft will catch up, says Avalanche Studios


You can't magically _"catch up"_ when it comes to hardware - there's only so much software wiggle room you can introduce. If the hardware is weaker, it will always be weaker. That being said, the games might be equivalent anyways.

PS3 is stronger than the 360 and gets the same games _(partially due to the convoluted CPU architecture which hindered early development and had to be "masked" by later SDK's)_. Naturally there isn't a 50% performance difference like this time around, but the XBox One will still be the middle ground - developers will do their best to make games that work on both platforms so the PS4 will merely give them more wiggle room.


----------



## Aeter (May 23, 2013)

Since watching TV works pretty good on my TV already and watching movies and series too with a HDMI cable between my laptop and TV and since I don't like social media at all, I choose PS4.
I've always like the feel of the PS controllers better than the XBox ones and it's about time for a new PlayStation, since the last one I got was the first one they made.


----------



## hhs (May 23, 2013)

Most multiplats might load slightly faster on the PS4 if you're in a larger high texture environment like an Elder Scrolls type game. At least that's what I interpreted it as that and made the previous post. Honestly that'd be good enough for me if I could have 1080p with smaller load times. But the difference in the graphics ceiling probably won't be noticeable.

Graphics beyond current gen suffer from diminishing returns but load times could be cut down and greatly change the single player experience. Part of the reason I'm hoping the next smash bros moves away from brawl load times back to melee. I can't tell you how much that takes you out of the experience.


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)




----------



## Hielkenator (May 23, 2013)

Why does everybody compare these systems as if they were PC's running the same OS?
It does not make sense.

All games will look breath taking on either of these systems. 
What counts is which games for each are being released.
Personally I can't wait for 1st party Nintendo games on WiiU.

I also do not see the XBOX One a gaming console.
It's more something in the lines of an 'all in one entertainment device', and I can't help feeling that is a bit tacky and very unneeded.
No focus at all. It will also cost a lot of money to get the full experience on that system.

Sony and Nintendo seem to be on the right path, very hardcore in terms of gaming and focus.


----------



## narutofan777 (May 23, 2013)

Should I find the prospect of a do-it-all entertainment system intriguing I would just get a computer. I'm getting the ps4 though for Sony has proven it always has the best exclusives for every generation of the Playstation. ps1= classics, ps2= classics, ps3= more exclusives than xbox 360.
I'M GOING TO PLAY THE LAST OF US WHEN IT COMES OUT! I'M PROUD TO BE A PS3 OWNER. 

---

if i wanna get a do-it-all entertainment system i'd get a computer. im getting the ps4 though cuz sony has proven that every generation of the playstation, it always has the best exclusives. ps1= classics, ps2= classics, ps3= more exclusives than xbox 360.
I'M GOING TO PLAY THE LAST OF US WHEN IT COMES OUT! I'M PROUD TO BE A PS3 OWNER.


----------



## Jamstruth (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You can't magically _"catch up"_ when it comes to hardware - there's only so much software wiggle room you can introduce. If the hardware is weaker, it will always be weaker. That being said, the games might be equivalent anyways.
> 
> PS3 is stronger than the 360 and gets the same games _(partially due to the convoluted CPU architecture which hindered early development and had to be "masked" by later SDK's)_. Naturally there isn't a 50% performance difference like this time around, but the XBox One will still be the middle ground - developers will do their best to make games that work on both platforms so the PS4 will merely give them more wiggle room.


I understand that the PS3 was limited by the Cell Architecture being difficult to code for but the point Avalanche were making was that MS has a much better track record of being able to make efficient SDKs to get the most out of their system and they are very used to doing things like this on an x86 architecture. Meanwhile Sony could have made their SDK more efficient but just couldn't resulting in similar performance to the Xbox's significantly weaker hardware.

Personally I think the Xbox One is going to flop but it's not going to be because of the hardware behind it. It's going to be because the company is not focusing on what they should be anymore (i.e. the games!). The PS4 seems like it's got the upper hand to me right now (but that can change once it actually releases).


----------



## Gahars (May 23, 2013)

narutofan777 said:


> I'M GOING TO PLAY THE LAST OF US WHEN IT COMES OUT! I'M PROUD TO BE A PS3 OWNER.


 

If owning a video game console makes you proud, you must not have much to be proud about.


----------



## heartgold (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You can't magically _"catch up"_ when it comes to hardware - there's only so much software wiggle room you can introduce. If the hardware is weaker, it will always be weaker. That being said, the games might be equivalent anyways.
> 
> PS3 is stronger than the 360 and gets the same games _(partially due to the convoluted CPU architecture which hindered early development and had to be "masked" by later SDK's)_. Naturally there isn't a 50% performance difference like this time around, but the XBox One will still be the middle ground - developers will do their best to make games that work on both platforms so the PS4 will merely give them more wiggle room.


Read this post people, so much right. 

There's like a half a gen difference between these machines, PS4 has superior tech in every way and not just slightly. It's a somewhat a leap.

Here's why, PS4 on the left and X1 on the right

*18CU *graphics core  vs 12CU graphics core
*32 ROPS* vs 16 ROPs
7GB* GDRR5* vs 5GB DDR3 (Gaming purpose)

You can clearly see which one is at an disadvantage. 

It's not like last gen where in practice they performed the same, the numbers are quite a difference. See twitter.


----------



## RPG_Lover (May 23, 2013)

While what the paper specs say are useful, let's call it like it is - what runs on the hardware is what matters to the end users - aka us. If Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can all offer quality gaming experiences to the public, they will be a success. It's already been stated that the most powerful hardware doesn't always win the generation in terms of sales - a truth that's happened multiple times over in gaming history. Forget the specs - show us the games. Let's decide from there.


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

heartgold said:


> Read this post people, so much right.
> 
> There's like a half a gen difference between these machines, PS4 has superior tech in every way and not just slightly. It's a somewhat a leap.
> 
> ...


 

This could be a Double Edge Sword for Sony. I mean The Xbox One could end up being the Wii of this Gen if you know what I mean




RPG_Lover said:


> While what the paper specs say are useful, let's call it like it is - what runs on the hardware is what matters to the end users - aka us. If Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can all offer quality gaming experiences to the public, they will be a success. It's already been stated that the most powerful hardware doesn't always win the generation in terms of sales - a truth that's happened multiple times over in gaming history. Forget the specs - show us the games. Let's decide from there.


 

That's the problem with Microsoft. Unlike Sony and Nintendo they have no games. Yes they announced 15 exclusives games for the first year and 8 of them being New IPs. But how many of them are Kinect Games?

Kinect now is NOT optional


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

heartgold said:


> Read this post people, so much right.
> 
> There's like a half a gen difference between these machines, PS4 has superior tech in every way and not just slightly. It's a somewhat a leap.
> 
> ...


Yeppers. This is why the PS4 really has a chance to shine when it comes to exclusive titles if the SDK is done right. 

While multiplatform titles will just be smoother for the most part, exclusives can take full advantage of the hardware superiority of the system, and seeing that it has quite an edge... it's pretty exciting to see what will be the results. Killzone already looks pretty amazing and it can only get better from there.


----------



## WiiUBricker (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> This could be a Double Edge Sword for Sony. I mean The Xbox One could end up being the Wii of this Gen if you know what I mean.


Like a VHS can compete with a game console


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> This could be a Double Edge Sword for Sony. I mean The Xbox One could end up being the Wii of this Gen if you know what I mean


 
I thought the Wii U was the Wii of this generation.

Just unsuccessful.


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I thought the Wii U was the Wii of this generation.
> 
> Just unsuccessful.


 
No because Nintendo is after the Hardcore gamers this time.


----------



## Veho (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> No because Nintendo is after the Hardcore gamers this time.


Not with those specs they're not


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

Veho said:


> Not with those specs they're not.


 
What the Specs has to do with this? If they are after the Hardcore Gamer they are after them. If they are successful or not that's another topic


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

Veho said:


> Not with those specs they're not


An old Chinese saying: _"To want is not enough, you have to know how". _


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> This could be a Double Edge Sword for Sony. I mean The Xbox One could end up being the Wii of this Gen if you know what I mean
> 
> That's the problem with Microsoft. Unlike Sony and Nintendo they have no games. Yes they announced 15 exclusives games for the first year and 8 of them being New IPs. But how many of them are Kinect Games?
> 
> Kinect now is NOT optional


 
No. It will not. The Wii was a runaway hit because of motion controls, price, Nintendo games, the family oriented gaming library and because fucktons of families bought it for the sake of exercising with Wii Sports. I know a lot, and I mean A LOT of families who bought it basically so that the kid shuts up and mommy can exercise. I'm sorry, but I see no indication that the X1 is significantly lower priced than the PS4 (I doubt it will) or that they have enough features that appeal to families other than Kinect and Netflix. The PS4 can do virtually everything that the X1 can do gaming related (other than Kinect integration, but we don't really know much about Move), which makes this a very incorrect analogy.

I'm not sure. I mean, I think there's only so many words that sound good with Kinect. What the fuck is next? Kinectisex?

Also, the whole Sony and Nintendo have no games thing is ironic given the current status of the Wii U and the PS Vita. I mean, I know more games are coming for both, but it's still pretty funny.



Guild McCommunist said:


> I thought the Wii U was the Wii of this generation.
> 
> Just unsuccessful.


Well, basically everything is the same, except for the market focus I guess and the feature set lacking anything for mommy and fat uncle to play around with.



Foxi4 said:


> An old Chinese saying: _"To want is not enough, you have to know how". _


Well, their idea is basically to make a console with just good enough specs to be better than last gen's consoles, slap some Nintendo games on 'em, and hope that the gamers flock to them.


----------



## Veho (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> What the Specs has to do with this? If they are after the Hardcore Gamer they are after them. If they are successful or not that's another topic


It depends on how you define "being after" someone; it's true that they would very much _like_ hardcore gamers to return to their consoles, but what steps are they taking to make it happen?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

Veho said:


> It depends on how you define "being after" someone; it's true that they would very much _like_ hardcore gamers to return to their consoles, but what steps are they taking to make it happen?


Well, to be fair, they did go multicore - that's a step forwards. They did give the console several times the RAM/VRAM of the PS3/360 too. I think Nintendo just had a hard time... imagining that the generation jump will be that huge - they wanted to top the PS3 and 360 and capitalize on that, unfortunately they did so a little late. I think if the WiiU was released 2-3 years earlier than it was, gamers would accept it with a round of applause because the hardware would've been relevant. Now it's... well... lackluster.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 23, 2013)

Veho said:


> It depends on how you define "being after" someone; it's true that they would very much _like_ hardcore gamers to return to their consoles, but what steps are they taking to make it happen?


"Hey guys... we have... Zelda? And Metroid... And Smash Brothers... And we finally upgraded our 480 quality... So... buy this?"


----------



## Gahars (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, to be fair, they did go multicore - that's a step forwards. They did give the console several times the RAM/VRAM of the PS3/360 too. I think Nintendo just had a hard time... imagining that the generation jump will be that huge - they wanted to top the PS3 and 360 and capitalize on that, unfortunately they did so a little late. I think if the WiiU was released 2-3 years earlier than it was, gamers would accept it with a round of applause because the hardware would've been relevant. Now it's... well... lackluster.


 

To be fair, I think Nintendo might have known that they would be behind the competition. I could be entirely wrong, but I think they hoped that, by launching a year early, they could capture the market early and block Sony and Microsoft out. The graphics gap wouldn't really matter if mostly everyone just owns your console already.

Unfortunately for them, people have been mostly indifferent to the Wii U, and now it'll have to compete directly with Sony and Microsoft's consoles. I expect they'll slash the price by the holiday season, but price cut or no price cut, it's going to be an uphill battle.


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, to be fair, they did go multicore - that's a step forwards. They did give the console several times the RAM/VRAM of the PS3/360 too. I think Nintendo just had a hard time... imagining that the generation jump will be that huge - they wanted to top the PS3 and 360 and capitalize on that, unfortunately they did so a little late. I think if the WiiU was released 2-3 years earlier than it was, gamers would accept it with a round of applause because the hardware would've been relevant. Now it's... well... lackluster.


 

Exactly but since now the Xbox One and Microsoft are ditching the hardcore gamer suddenly a lot of people are starting to like the Wii U


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

Gahars said:


> To be fair, I think Nintendo might have known that they would be behind the competition. I could be entirely wrong, but I think they hoped that, by launching a year early, they could capture the market early and block Sony and Microsoft out. The graphics gap wouldn't really matter if mostly everyone just owns your console already.
> 
> Unfortunately for them, people have been mostly indifferent to the Wii U, and now it'll have to compete directly with Sony and Microsoft's consoles. I expect they'll slash the price by the holiday season, but price cut or no price cut, it's going to be an uphill battle.


Yeah, that's another thing. Still, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## PityOnU (May 23, 2013)

In the current generation, didn't the computational power of the systems look like this:

Wii<Xbox 360<PS3

But the sales figures look like this:

PS3<Xbox 360<Wii

Just sayin'


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> Exactly but since now the Xbox One and Microsoft are ditching the hardcore gamer suddenly a lot of people are starting to like the Wii U


No. The X1 being ass didn't really make anyone begin to like the Wii U. If anything, the positive effect is on the PS4 and not the Wii U. Like, "Hey, here's this more powerful console without nearly as much bullshit as the X1."



PityOnU said:


> In the current generation, didn't the computational power of the systems look like this:
> 
> Wii<Xbox 360<PS3
> 
> ...


These consoles aren't the same as their predecessors. The Wii is not the Wii U, because it doesn't have nearly as much appeal to a family or an older or younger audience because it doesn't have a price point or a feature set that is as attractive as the Wii. The X1 is not the X360, because Microsoft is more focused on transforming it into an all-purpose machine. The PS4 is not the PS3, due to the fact that the PS4's game support and emphasis on game development is much heavier than before. They are different deals, and this is a different generation.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> In the current generation, didn't the computational power of the systems look like this:
> 
> Wii<Xbox 360<PS3
> 
> ...


The Wii had a selling point of the WiiMote which actually worked from Day 1 plus it was half-price compared to its competition. The Wii U's gamepad doesn't attract customers and the system doesn't sell because the 360 and the PS3 are still cheaper alternatives.

Nintendo counted on the PS3 and 360 to get pulled off the market when their successors surface but that won't happen - low-cost versions will emerge instead because the PS4 and the XBox One are not Backwards Compatible. We already have the Super Slim PS3, now it's time for a Super Slim 360.

You were saying?


----------



## PityOnU (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The Wii had a selling point of the WiiMote which actually worked from Day 1 plus it was half-price compared to its competition. The Wii U's gamepad doesn't attract customers and the system doesn't sell because the 360 and the PS3 are still cheaper alternatives.
> 
> Nintendo counted on the PS3 and 360 to get pulled off the market when their successors surface but that won't happen - low-cost versions will emerge instead. We already have the Super Slim PS3, now it's time for a Super Slim 360.
> 
> You were saying?


 
I was saying that raw computational power has little effect on the success or failure of a system. It seems you would agree with me.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

PityOnU said:


> I was saying that raw computational power has little effect on the success or failure of a system. It seems you would agree with me.


The success of a system is determined by a variety of factors, not just one factor. Raw computational power is what pushed the NES ahead of the Atari systems. Raw computational power was what gave the Genesis the upper hand before the SNES entered the market.

A successful system is a system that balances it constituent parts - it has to have approachable, relevant hardware, a library of titles for a variety of audiences and a price point that's within reach of the average consumer. Excel in some of those and you've got yourself a winner.

I guarantee you that if the Wii didn't cost next to nothing and wasn't marketed as well as it was _(so that every parent and grandparent wanted to get one for their kids PLUS the hardcore Nintendo fans were excited PLUS the casual gamers jumped it)_ it would not sell nearly as well on its own merit.


----------



## Veho (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I guarantee you that if the Wii didn't cost next to nothing and wasn't marketed as well as it was _(so that every parent and grandparent wanted to get one for their kids PLUS the hardcore Nintendo fans were excited PLUS the casual gamers jumped it)_ it would not sell nearly as well on its own merit.


I think he's talking about PS4 VS Xbox One, you know, the topic of the thread. "Computing power alone doesn't determine the success or failure", i.e. "doesn't mean the PS4 will sell better than the Xbox One."


----------



## EvilMakiPR (May 23, 2013)

KingdomBlade said:


> No. The X1 being ass didn't really make anyone begin to like the Wii U. If anything, the positive effect is on the PS4 and not the Wii U. Like, "Hey, here's this more powerful console without nearly as much bullshit as the X1."
> 
> 
> These consoles aren't the same as their predecessors. The Wii is not the Wii U, because it doesn't have nearly as much appeal to a family or an older or younger audience because it doesn't have a price point or a feature set that is as attractive as the Wii. The X1 is not the X360, because Microsoft is more focused on transforming it into an all-purpose machine. The PS4 is not the PS3, due to the fact that the PS4's game support and emphasis on game development is much heavier than before. They are different deals, and this is a different generation.


 

http://n4g.com/news/1262481/where-was-the-illumiroom#c-7622590







http://n4g.com/news/1263431/what-does-the-xbox-one-mean-for-wii-u


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

Veho said:


> I think he's talking about PS4 VS Xbox One, you know, the topic of the thread. "Computing power alone doesn't determine the success or failure", i.e. "doesn't mean the PS4 will sell better than the Xbox One."


I was building up on that idea which is why I said that the XBox One vs. PS4 vs. Wii U will be a confrontation as any other - many variables will come into play and now is not the time to determine which one will have the upper hand - we need more data than just raw specs.


----------



## Hielkenator (May 23, 2013)

Veho said:


> Not with those specs they're not


 
Gamers should not have to bother about specs at all, they should bother about games.
We all know wich system will get the best, regardless of specs...


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 23, 2013)

EvilMakiPR said:


> http://n4g.com/news/1262481/where-was-the-illumiroom#c-7622590
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To be honest, like that guy in your image, I don't think that the Wii U even competes with the X1, since they're not even on the same wavelength. It pretty clearly competes with the PS4. All this does is show that the X1 is shit, and you shouldn't buy it. Most of these comments, at best, show that "no one's going to buy an X1 since it's ass, so people will probably buy PS4's instead, and people who want to play Nintendo games will still buy the Wii U." Not, "because it's ass, everyone thinks that the Wii U is a great console." No one's going to buy a Wii U to replace something like the X1.

For example, in the previous gen, I rarely saw people own X360 + PS3 since it had little point, since neither had enough exclusives or features individual to them to justify getting both. The people that had two consoles mostly had Wii + PS3/X360 combos.


----------



## SSVAV (May 23, 2013)

Who the hell cares what system is more powerful than the other.

Each system aims for a demographic in its own way.

Nintendo has his exclusives, Sony has their powerful still easy machine, Microsoft has their Americans with their Netflix or cable TV.

History will repeat itself, Nintendo with a low priced machine (speculation, don't bash me) an their exclusives will attract most people, Sony will have their hardcore gamers, and once again Microsoft will fail to enter the Japanese market and with their current media-center strategy, will also probably fail in Europe.

Plus THE FRIGGIN MACHINE NEEDS INTERNET AND BLOCKS USED GAMES.

Who the hell wants that?


----------



## MarcusRaven (May 23, 2013)

I find myself really not caring about the next Playstation or XBox. I feel they are focusing too heavily on power and features, and less on games and FUN. My allegiance this gen is Nintendo by far. The Wii U has the games I like to play (I've put well over 100 hours into Monster Hunter, and I'm not done. Plus I love Mario and Scribblenauts), its features actually fit my family's gaming style (letting the kids watch a movie while I play on the gamepad...wonderful), and Nintendo is still just trying to make gaming fun.


----------



## weavile001 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I actually find it rather sad that this will probably have a big affect on sales. So many people (especially teenagers) only care about graphics these days. Developers focus more on that now than gameplay or story, and we get good looking pieces of crap as a result.
> 
> "Both" and "Neither" are better options than "None". "None" suggests you won't get any of the four consoles for this generation.


4.....?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

KingdomBlade said:


> "Hey guys... we have... Zelda? And Metroid... And Smash Brothers... And we finally upgraded our 480 quality... So... buy this?"


Except they don't have Zelda, Metroid or Smash Brothers.


----------



## MarcusRaven (May 23, 2013)

weavile001 said:


> 4.....?


 
I wonder if he's counting the Ouya.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, to be fair, they did go multicore - that's a step forwards. They did give the console several times the RAM/VRAM of the PS3/360 too. I think Nintendo just had a hard time... imagining that the generation jump will be that huge - they wanted to top the PS3 and 360 and capitalize on that, unfortunately they did so a little late. I think if the WiiU was released 2-3 years earlier than it was, gamers would accept it with a round of applause because the hardware would've been relevant. Now it's... well... lackluster.


I agree with this.

I get tired of people saying that the Wii U is just a slight improvement over the PS360 (it's quite a bit better), but there is no question that it is behind in this generation when it comes to power.

Nothing seems to be going right for Nintendo this generation.  They've got piss poor marketing (they've got a confusing name for your average kid/parent, they flip-flop between focusing on family and core games, etc), there is a lot of misinformation about the power, EA seems to really have it out for them (not necessarily saying this is all EA's fault, Nintendo might be to blame), and they fall behind once again on specs (not nearly as bad as the Wii, but still a significant amount).  Then right after they reveal their new console, and before they get a chance to "bounce back" from the bad start, both Sony and Microsoft announce something better.

PS: Got some sleep.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (May 23, 2013)

Let's see how EA responds when time comes for multi platform titles. I want to know why everyone is defending the X1 while they rag on Wii U?


----------



## thebsharp (May 23, 2013)

MarcusRaven said:


> I find myself really not caring about the next Playstation or XBox. I feel they are focusing too heavily on power and features, and less on games and FUN. My allegiance this gen is Nintendo by far. The Wii U has the games I like to play (I've put well over 100 hours into Monster Hunter, and I'm not done. Plus I love Mario and Scribblenauts), its features actually fit my family's gaming style (letting the kids watch a movie while I play on the gamepad...wonderful), and Nintendo is still just trying to make gaming fun.


 
These events were more hardware reveals than anything, though. We should be seeing games at E3. That said, you are kind of right. Both PS4 and X1 focused on features and power. The features of the X1, though, plainly spell out that X1 will be a media center. Not only will it play games, but it'll also do sports, TV, netflix, and bla bla bla. The PS4 features, though had to do with sharing content, be it screen shots of ingame, streaming play, watching other people's streams.

I would argue that the PS4's features that you don't think have to do with games and fun, absolutely do! 

I came into the next gen kind of meh... The Wii U has (so far) been underwhelming, and I wasn't all that invested in X1 or PS4. After hearing about both of them, though, right now it's PS4 for me.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 23, 2013)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> Let's see how EA responds when time comes for multi platform titles. I want to know why everyone is defending the X1 while they rag on Wii U?


Who is "everyone?" Since the X1 was announced, pretty much everyone who knows about it hates it, and no one's really been paying to the Wii U that much with the X1 and PS4 going on.

EDIT: Oh, you mean in this thread? That's slow of me. Thanks Foxi4. Well, the Wii U is weak, hardware wise. The X1 is strong, hardware wise. Are we good?



JoostinOnline said:


> I agree with this.
> 
> I get tired of people saying that the Wii U is just a slight improvement over the PS360 (it's quite a bit better), but there is no question that it is behind in this generation when it comes to power.
> 
> ...


You are way nicer and more reasonable with sleep. That's cool.

Well, at least they're doing well with the handheld market, so I guess that that's what they're doing well this generation. 30 million sold isn't bad at all, especially in comparison to the Vita's 2 million. Besides that, yeah, they're pretty much doing really bad so far. If only they just fucking consulted a focus group, gained more third party support (I mean, for chrissake they had to publish Bayonetta to get something as big as it that's not developed by them as an exclusive, which is fine, but it's not really a good sign,) sped up their release schedule a bit, and decided to release killer apps a bit earlier, then maybe they could've sold more consoles. They didn't, and now, Sony (and... Microsoft, okay, maybe now) is about to beat them to the punch.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> Let's see how EA responds when time comes for multi platform titles. I want to know why everyone is defending the X1 while they rag on Wii U?


Everyone's defending the XBox One from a hardware perspective - it's still contemporary hardware, where it currently falls flat is the used games issue that's yet to be resolved and, well, very little games presented so far. The Wii U on the other hand is _way_ behind contemporary hardware, which is why people rag on it in a thread dedicated to hardware performance.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> The Wii U on the other hand is _way_ behind contemporary hardware, which is why people rag on it in a thread dedicated to hardware performance.


I think that's an exaggeration, unless you are talking about electronic hardware in general (in which case every console is and always will be way behind).  It isn't like the Wii vs the PS360.  It's certainly behind, but not to that degree.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 23, 2013)

I really don't understand why people here are all like "ew, social and multimedia features! I'm not touching Xbox1!"

So let me get this straight... You're not getting a particular console because it has optional features that you don't have to use? Wait, what?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I think that's an exaggeration, unless you are talking about electronic hardware in general (in which case every console is and always will be way behind). It isn't like the Wii vs the PS360. It's certainly behind, but not to that degree.


Uhm... yeah, it kinda is like Wii in comparison to the PS360, really. The Wii U is entirely capable of producing graphics slightly exceeding the PS3/360, yes, but it's nowhere near the performance of the PS4/One. It's not so obvious now, but it will be after those consoles are released.

From what we heard so far, the Wii U's GPU is what, 1.5 times as powerful as the PS3's. The PS4's GPU is 4 times as powerful. Naturally this is based on theoretical values - until the consoles are hacked and benchmarked we won't know for sure... but just compare Call of Duty: BlackOps 2 on the Wii and, say, KillZone on the PS4. The difference is night and day.



xwatchmanx said:


> I really don't understand why people here are all like "ew, social and multimedia features! I'm not touching Xbox1!"
> 
> So let me get this straight... You're not getting a particular console because it has optional features that you don't have to use? Wait, what?


Let me rephrase that...

_"Eww! The XBox One and the PS4 play games and have other features! That's disgusting, they would be so much better if they just played games (had less features for the same price)! I'm not going to buy them now rather than refrain from using features I don't feel like using like a reasonable person!"_


Oh, and by the way... Everybody's climaxing over WaraWara/MiiVerse, everybody hates on PS4's/XBox One's social. That's not a double-standard at all.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Uhm... yeah, it kinda is like Wii in comparison to the PS360, really. The Wii U is entirely capable of producing graphics slightly exceeding the PS3/360, yes, but it's nowhere near the performance of the PS4/One. It's not so obvious now, but it will be after those consoles are released.


This is the kind of misinformation I was talking about.  It's capable of producing graphics WAY better than the PS360, not slightly better.
Wii U's GPGPU Squashes Xbox 360, PS3; Capable Of DirectX 11 Equivalent Graphics

If you are thinking of what games look like now, you are making the mistake of comparing a console's weakest games (i.e. launch titles) to titles of another console at the peak of it's performance.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> This is the kind of misinformation I was talking about. It's capable of producing graphics WAY better than the PS360, not slightly better.
> Wii U's GPGPU Squashes Xbox 360, PS3; Capable Of DirectX 11 Equivalent Graphics
> 
> If you are thinking of what games look like now, you are making the mistake of comparing a console's weakest games (i.e. launch titles) to titles of another console at the peak of it's performance.


Show me the numbers. Show me GFLOPS/MIPS comparisons. Show me the number of shaders. Show me any actual proof of performance.

Bet you million bucks the PS4/XBox One _"squash"_ the Wii U in the same way the Wii U _"squashes"_ the PS3/360 now simply because it's more contemporary hardware. Perhaps _"slightly"_ was not a fortunate word to use, but the point stands - it's far weaker than the PS4/XBox One - it's an in-betweener just like the Wii was to the 360 and the PS3.

As for COD : BLOPS2 which I used as an example, it was indeed gimped for the PS3/360, but the Wii U _already_ had issues with certain effects used in the PC/360/PS3 versions, which goes to show that developing for it is not that smooth. Peak theoretical performance is one thing, actual, real life applications is another.


----------



## TheCasketMan (May 23, 2013)

nukeboy95 said:


>


The type of RAM the One and PS4 use make a BIG difference, and the Wii U doesn't have Blu Ray.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 23, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> I really don't understand why people here are all like "ew, social and multimedia features! I'm not touching Xbox1!"
> 
> So let me get this straight... You're not getting a particular console because it has optional features that you don't have to use? Wait, what?


 
... No, they're not getting a new console because of it's weaker power in comparison to another console, because it doesn't have backwards compatibility, because Kinect is an integrated feature that basically functions so as long as its plugged in and that's a little bit disturbing, because you have to be online often just to play, because the look of the console is awful, and because you have to pay a fee for used games. And that's not even just it.

No one is ragging that the social and multimedia features are bad, it's the fact that they've put so much emphasis into them that the gaming side is a overshadowed. And what's left of the gaming side is awful.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Show me the numbers. Show me GFLOPS/MIPS comparisons. Show me the number of shaders.
> 
> Bet you million bucks the PS4/XBox One _"squash"_ the Wii U in the same way the Wii U _"squashes"_ the PS3/360 now simply because it's more contemporary hardware. Perhaps _"slightly"_ was not a fortunate word to use, but the point stands - it's far weaker than the PS4/XBox One - it's an in-betweener just like the Wii was to the 360 and the PS3.


I'm sure they will be a lot better (it's hard to compare different hardware and architecture based on a few specs, we'll need to wait for games), but unless the PS4/X1 double-squash the PS360, this won't be a difference equal to that of the last generation.

The Wii wasn't much more powerful than the Gamecube, but the Wii U is WAY more powerful than the Wii (and the PS360).

@TheCasketMan: The Wii U does have a blueray drive.  It just doesn't play movies (at least not now).


----------



## thebsharp (May 23, 2013)

TheCasketMan said:


> The type of RAM the One and PS4 use make a BIG difference, and the Wii U doesn't have Blu Ray.


While the RAM does make a difference, you may want to reread the line about the Optical Drive again...


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I'm sure they will be a lot better (it's hard to compare different hardware and architecture based on a few specs, we'll need to wait for games), but unless the PS4/X1 double-squash the PS360, this won't be a difference equal to that of the last generation.
> 
> The Wii wasn't much more powerful than the Gamecube, but the Wii U is WAY more powerful than the Wii (and the PS360).


You have to consider the fact that technological leaps are becoming _"longer and longer"_. Based on what I gathered:



> *GPU and Memory Comparison*
> 
> *PS4:*
> 1.84 TFLOPS
> ...


 
It's literally double-squashed by the XBox One and triple-squashed by the PS4 in terms of the GPU alone and just 2GB of memory, part of which is reserved for the OS _will_ handicap it some time in the future. If I made a mistake somewhere, feel free to correct me.


_Numbers taken from various sources and they do vary from source to source, even if slightly:_
http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/official-wii-u-lobby-specs-graphics-power-thread.452775697/page-52
http://asia.cnet.com/ps4-vs-xbox-360-vs-wii-u-62220533.htm
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=136756



JoostinOnline said:


> @TheCasketMan: The Wii U does have a blueray drive. It just doesn't play movies (at least not now).


It's the same deal as with Wii's DVD drive - it's a _"Nintendo P__roprietary Format__"_ meaning they didn't pay royalties for the use of the BluRay name and standard so they cut the functionality out. It does not and will not support BluRay. The Wii was supposed to get a DVD Add-On but never got one in the end because Nintendo judged the interest to be low - the Wii U's BluRay won't be any different.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Well the CPU is underclocked at about 50%, but for the most part you are right.  One thing you are leaving out is that there is a ton of cache, a common tradeoff these days for clockspeed.  However, I don't know how that compares to the PS4/X1.  We'll probably need to wait till they are released.

One thing that frustrates me about Nintendo is that they always have to do the "weird thing".  This time it's a slow CPU and moderate GPU with a ton of extra cache.  They get to say "we have something that nobody else has", but it's also always something that developers don't seem to want.  Having a standard makes it easy to develop something for all consoles.  They seem to expect third party developers to want to do something special for their system.  It's probably why exclusives generally look a lot better on Nintendo systems.  They are designed for it and nothing else.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Well the CPU is underclocked at about 50%, but for the most part you are right. One thing you are leaving out is that there is a ton of cache, a common tradeoff these days for clockspeed. However, I don't know how that compares to the PS4/X1. We'll probably need to wait till they are released.
> 
> One thing that frustrates me about Nintendo is that they always have to do the "weird thing". This time it's a slow CPU and moderate GPU with a ton of extra cache. They get to say "we have something that nobody else has", but it's also always something that developers don't seem to want. Having a standard makes it easy to develop something for all consoles. They seem to expect third party developers to want to do something special for their system. It's probably why exclusives generally look a lot better on Nintendo systems. They are designed for it and nothing else.


I can see what they were trying to do, to be honest.

The assumption was that the huge amount of cache will allow developers to send tons upon tons of floating point calculations, calculations the Wii U's CPU is terrible at, to the GPU and back fast and seamlessly, decreasing the need for a strong CPU.

The problem that surfaced later was that the GPU turns out to be _"acceptable, but nothing to write home about"_ when it comes to the XBox One and the PS4. The latter two machines won't _have to_ resort to GPGPU and even if they will, they'll have spare wiggle room. The Wii U will _have_ to rely on it, so the already somewhat inferior GPU will only have more work to do outside of graphics. Moreover, developers are not _used_ to GPGPU yet and unless the SDK does it automatically, they'll just forget about it at times - this will lengthen the optimization process. Similarly developers weren't 100% ready for 64-bit development in the early days of the Nintendo 64, nor were they ready for specialized multicore development in the early days of the PS3.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 23, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I can see what they were trying to do, to be honest.
> 
> The assumption was that the huge amount of cache will allow developers to send tons upon tons of floating point calculations, calculations the Wii U's CPU is terrible at, to the GPU and back fast and seamlessly, decreasing the need for a strong CPU.
> 
> The problem that surfaced later was that the GPU turns out to be _"acceptable, but nothing to write home about"_ when it comes to the XBox One and the PS4. The latter two machines won't _have to_ resort to GPGPU and even if they will, they'll have spare wiggle room. The Wii U will _have_ to rely on it, so the already somewhat inferior GPU will only have more work to do outside of graphics. Moreover, developers are not _used_ to GPGPU yet and unless the SDK does it automatically, they'll just forget about it at times - this will lengthen the optimization process. Similarly developers weren't 100% ready for 64-bit development in the early days of the Nintendo 64, nor were they ready for specialized multicore development in the early days of the PS3.


Agreed.  I think it's pretty obvious that Nintendo wants to be the cheap alternative to other consoles (that's what they were with the Wii).  They went with using cache and GPGPU so they could cheaply offer backwards compatibility.  It's effective when used properly.  But it's still only one method.

Now that I think about it, this offers a good explanation for the mixed reports that developers give about the Wii U.  If developers do things the way they are used to, the Wii U isn't going to do very well.  If they do things differently (and without making mistakes), it's going to be great.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 23, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> Agreed. I think it's pretty obvious that Nintendo wants to be the cheap alternative to other consoles (that's what they were with the Wii). They went with using cache and GPGPU so they could cheaply offer backwards compatibility. It's effective when used properly. But it's still only one method.
> 
> Now that I think about it, this offers a good explanation for the mixed reports that developers give about the Wii U. If developers do things the way they are used to, the Wii U isn't going to do very well. If they do things differently (and without making mistakes), it's going to be great.


This is where Nintendo comes in. If they want the Wii U to reach peak performance, they need to inform the developers about this requirement time and time again. Even better, they should upgrade the development kit so that it either suggests to send a floating point-based calculation over _or_ does it automatically when the operation is based on floating point. Hell, they can even add a flag to functions which require floating point - 1 for send, 0 for leave it in the CPU. If they show the developers that things they assumed are impossible are indeed possible without costing developers an arm and a leg as far as development time is concerned, they just might get more support.


----------



## heartgold (May 23, 2013)

Xbox One 40x more powerful than 360 with the cloud, Only 10x without the Cloud.

http://stevivor.com/2013/05/microsoft-xbox-australia-on-some-of-todays-lingering-xbox-one-questions/

This is too funny, I'm not even going post another topic. I'm laughing my head off. The cloud is the secret source. Internet on 24/7 for Xbone for those advance computing behind the cloud.


----------



## edwardbirkholz05 (May 23, 2013)

A nice theory except for 2 minor details: - The "huge amount of cache" you're talking about is L2 cache - it's inside the CPU and can't be accessed by any other part of the system. - Espresso is not bad at floating point operations (it has at least twice as many FPRs as an x86 CPU and doesn't have to put up with the constraints of SSE programming). Relying on the GPU to do the number crunching would be a waste of resources due to the time required to constantly feed/poll data to/from the GPU, especially when you consider it's already doing twice the amount of work of a normal GPU for the two (main and gamepad) displays.


----------



## cdoty (May 24, 2013)

... and the WiiU was twice (or was that four) times as powerful as the 360 and PS3. It's like deja-vu all over again.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2013)

edwardbirkholz05 said:


> A nice theory except for 2 minor details: - The "huge amount of cache" you're talking about is L2 cache - it's inside the CPU and can't be accessed by any other part of the system. - Espresso is not bad at floating point operations (it has at least twice as many FPRs as an x86 CPU and doesn't have to put up with the constraints of SSE programming). Relying on the GPU to do the number crunching would be a waste of resources due to the time required to constantly feed/poll data to/from the GPU, especially when you consider it's already doing twice the amount of work of a normal GPU for the two (main and gamepad) displays.


GPGPU has been implemented for a reason - it's not a waste of time when you have _a lot_ of floating point operations to deal with, for example when handling physics engines.

As for floating point performance of the three CPU's, I'd like to see some numbers because you're talking out of context. Now, x86 and x86_64 aren't the best architectures for floating point, but that doesn't mean that they don't top the Wii U's CPU when they have 5 more cores to spare if they feel like dealing with it.

As for relying on the GPU to do the number crunching, it's not a waste of time - that's how PhysX was born and that's why there are PCI-E cards specifically dedicated for _"number crunching"_, such as the NVidia TESLA. GPU's are just _"better"_ at those tasks and the benefits of performing them there outweigh the cons.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 24, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Let me rephrase that...
> 
> _"Eww! The XBox One and the PS4 play games and have other features! That's disgusting, they would be so much better if they just played games (had less features for the same price)! I'm not going to buy them now rather than refrain from using features I don't feel like using like a reasonable person!"_
> 
> ...


I was thinking the exact same thing myself, and I'm a hardcore Nintendo fan. Why is it OK if Nintendo offers a robust social network (awesome as it may be), but not OK if Microsoft does the same thing?

Then again, Nintendo often has a different fan base than the other two companies (though not always, as evidenced by myself, for example). So that might have something to do with it, rather than just hypocrisy.


KingdomBlade said:


> ... No, they're not getting a new console because of it's weaker power in comparison to another console, because it doesn't have backwards compatibility, because Kinect is an integrated feature that basically functions so as long as its plugged in and that's a little bit disturbing, because you have to be online often just to play, because the look of the console is awful, and because you have to pay a fee for used games. And that's not even just it.
> 
> No one is ragging that the social and multimedia features are bad, it's the fact that they've put so much emphasis into them that the gaming side is a overshadowed. And what's left of the gaming side is awful.


I'm not saying there aren't good reasons to dislike the Xbox 1. In fact, I agree with many of the reasons you just listed. But just look at the comments here. WAY too many of them go "ew, social features!" Or else make kind of baseless claims like, "gaming isn't even the main focus!" Even when the social features aren't the only reason they list, the fact that they list it at all is kind of ridiculous.

I could understand if the comments were like "well, I don't give a crap about social and media features, so that's not really a selling point to me." But that's not what's happening. They're listing social and media features as this negative thing that somehow makes the console worse.


----------



## VMM (May 24, 2013)

MarcusRaven said:


> I find myself really not caring about the next *Playstation or XBox. I feel they are focusing too heavily on power and features, and less on games and FUN*. My allegiance this gen is Nintendo by far. The Wii U has the games I like to play (I've put well over 100 hours into Monster Hunter, and I'm not done. Plus I love Mario and Scribblenauts), its features actually fit my family's gaming style (letting the kids watch a movie while I play on the gamepad...wonderful), and *Nintendo is still just trying to make gaming fun*.


 

You're getting the thing wrong.
It's not Sony and MS that are investing too much on hardware, it's Nintendo that isn't.
It's similar to what happened with Wii.

Investing in power and features do not mean not investing on games and fun,
to say the truth, I believe investing in power is indirectly investing in fun,
since the platform will be supported by third party developers and it will have new games for it's whole life-cycle,
which clearly didn't happen on Wii, and I bet will be similar on WiiU.

I know many people that used their Wii for like 6 months and simply stoped because there wasn't a wide variety of games to play,
and since then, it's collecting dust.

PS: I'm not questioning your opinion, if WiiU satisfies you, good for you.


----------



## xwatchmanx (May 24, 2013)

VMM said:


> You're getting the thing wrong.
> It's not Sony and MS that are investing too much on hardware, it's Nintendo that isn't.
> It's similar to what happened with Wii.
> 
> ...


This. I personally liked the Wii's offering, but there's no denying that so much more could and would have been done with it if it was closer in power to the competition.


----------



## Obveron (May 24, 2013)

GDDR's high transfer rate is to deal with feeding a hungry GPU. Graphics data flow is very structured and predictable for parralel graphics transformations. But it's not ideal in more dynamic CPU computing where access times and latencies are important.
If GDDR was better for CPU tasks it would be available as RAM for PC's.

The PS4 has super fast GDDR5 which may be overkill if the GPU isn't able to put that bandwidth to good use. Asynchronous and varrying CPU tasks may be slightly impacted by latencies of GDDR.
On the other hand, XB1 may be starving its GPU with DDR3, it has significantly lower bandwidth and it will be hard to use the E-SRAM to improve performance. but the CPU may slightly benefit from having DDR instead of GDDR.
Such is the compromise with shared memory systems.
PS4 has the advantage, but it remains to be seen if graphics memory will be an important bottleneck.
"50% more powerful" is hardly accurate.

Driver performance and the quality of the SDK and supporting dev tools will be a bigger factor to developers.

I'm willing to wager that, despite the performance gap, most games will look and feel about the same on both consoles. Differences will need to be spotted by those fussy few over at the lense of truth.


MS is really missing the mark with their new strategy on used games and online DRM. However, Sony hasn't really shown that they won't do something just as bad.


----------



## VMM (May 24, 2013)

xwatchmanx said:


> This. I personally liked the Wii's offering, but there's no denying that so much more could and would have been done with it if it was closer in power to the competition.


 
Every console has it's amazing titles no matter how bad the console sold.
PS1 outsold N64 by far, yet N64 had amazing first party titles and some nice third party like Mortal Kombat Trilogy, Turok, Resident evil 2, Bomberman 64, the star wars titles etc 
I'm not a Wii owner but I can see some nice first party and some nice JRPGs, but overall it still had just too few multiplats.

I believe that the game library of WiiU will be similar to Wii one,
but I don't believe WiiU will sell so much as Wii sold,
having a tablet controler doesn't seem to me like something as revolutionizing as motion controllers.
Also using a tablet controller kind of kill the motion controller, at least for 1-player games.

I like Nintendo franchises, but sometimes it looks like Nintendo has, that Apple manner, of try to be different by any cost.
Catridges on N64, the mini-dvd on gamecube, demos with limit of usage, no achievements, realesing underpowered consoles with gimmicks to atract casual players etc;
sometimes I just want Nintendo to keep it simple, and oriented to gamers.  



xwatchmanx said:


> I was thinking the exact same thing myself, and I'm a hardcore Nintendo fan. Why is it OK if Nintendo offers a robust social network (awesome as it may be), but not OK if Microsoft does the same thing?
> 
> Then again, Nintendo often has a different fan base than the other two companies (though not always, as evidenced by myself, for example). So that might have something to do with it, rather than just hypocrisy.


 

Well, that's *GBA*Temp*  *


----------



## Sop (May 24, 2013)

lokomelo said:


> The hardware difference will not affect games itself that mutch. 90% or more of Xbox and PS games are not exclusives. Fifa (sports, sports, sports, sports...) will look like the same on both consoles, as well as Call of Duty. Fifa/Madden + Call of Duty = Full game library of 75% of the gamers.
> 
> 
> They say things about that stuff of graphics vs fun, ya know... The fact is that Nintendo has less strength (money if you want) on R&D and another reason is that Nintendo has its focus on kids, and who buy stuff for kids are the parents, and parents use to choose the less expensive console, and that's the marketing positioning of Nintendo, it is always the cheapest deal (from wii onwards at least).


 
Nintendo always tried to have good prices, but it's only recently they've stopped caring about hardware.


----------



## grossaffe (May 24, 2013)

VMM said:


> You're getting the thing wrong.
> It's not Sony and MS that are investing too much on hardware, it's Nintendo that isn't.
> It's similar to what happened with Wii.
> 
> ...


I disagree.  Launch prices for consoles in the US historically been in the $200 range.  The deluxe NES bundle launched at $200 and included two controllers, a zapper, a R.O.B., Gyromite, and Duck Hunt, the SNES launched at $200 and came with Super Mario World, the N64 launched at $200, the Gamecube launched at $200, the Wii launched at $250 and included Wii Sports.  And now the deluxe bundle of the Wii U is launching at $350 and comes with Nintendo Land.  Seems Nintendo's been using the same level of technology in relation to the times throughout while Sony and Microsoft have been going more expensive technology for the era.  The huge jump in hardware cost in the last generation,  I think, have set people up for disappointment this generation because in order to create an equal jump that th PS3/360 provided would require even more expensive hardware, and considering that those consoled were selling at a loss, meeting those expectations just isn't feasible.  So some say Nintendo is cheating out, but to me it seems they're just letting the technology advance naturally rather than trying to skip ahead by overspending.  
Is it really worth spending an extra $200 to advance the console generation's technology one year for every generation to come from now on?  Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather let the technology advance naturally than artificially skipping a year or two by paying a big premium for every console from here on out.  If I'm to spend $500+ on a console, I may as well just build a PC that does more than a console and games are cheaper.


----------



## Nemix77 (May 24, 2013)

I'm sticking with the Wii U and PS3 with my budget for next gen. 

If I had the money though, I'd probably get a PS4 (if there's no fees for per-owned games) and Wii U combo while still keeping a current gen console like the PS3 or 360.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> I disagree. Launch prices for consoles in the US historically been in the $200 range. The deluxe NES bundle launched at $200 and included two controllers, a zapper, a R.O.B., Gyromite, and Duck Hunt, the SNES launched at $200 and came with Super Mario World, the N64 launched at $200, the Gamecube launched at $200, the Wii launched at $250 and included Wii Sports. And now the deluxe bundle of the Wii U is launching at $350 and comes with Nintendo Land. Seems Nintendo's been using the same level of technology in relation to the times throughout while Sony and Microsoft have been going more expensive technology for the era. The huge jump in hardware cost in the last generation, I think, have set people up for disappointment this generation because in order to create an equal jump that th PS3/360 provided would require even more expensive hardware, and considering that those consoled were selling at a loss, meeting those expectations just isn't feasible. So some say Nintendo is cheating out, but to me it seems they're just letting the technology advance naturally rather than trying to skip ahead by overspending.
> Is it really worth spending an extra $200 to advance the console generation's technology one year for every generation to come from now on? Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I'd rather let the technology advance naturally than artificially skipping a year or two by paying a big premium for every console from here on out. If I'm to spend $500+ on a console, I may as well just build a PC that does more than a console and games are cheaper.


...you do realize that $200 dollars in the times of the NES isn't _"worth"_ $200 by today's standards, right?

A dollar isn't _"just a dollar"_ - the value of currency in relation to other currencies and in relation to its own value from the past is in constant fluctuation. Due to inflation alone, the $200 you'd pay for a NES way back in 1985 is actually worth $436 _"dollars of today"_.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

...and that's _just_ inflation. You also have to consider the changes in wages over the years, the Yen and Yuan appreciation rate (Nintendo and Sony are Japanese companies and manufacturing mostly takes place in China so both currencies are to be taken into consideration) and our recent economical crisis as factors. What I'm saying here is that perhaps you paid $200 for a NES way back in 1985, but the money was much more valuable - you could buy _"more"_ for $200 than you can now, making the _"$200 over the years"_ argument sort of pointless.

On top of that, the NES was actually a killer back then - it had _great_ graphics for the time and it gave Atari systems a run for their money. It literally had no equivalent until SEGA entered the game with their Master System, but by then Nintendo had a big slice of the market due to expert marketing and, well, great hardware.

...the Wii U is _not_ a killer today. It would've been if it was released 3-4 years earlier than it was, but right now it's trailing behind the PS4/XBox One, far behind.

Neither Microsoft nor Sony are _"artificially"_ pushing the technology forwards - their systems are both based on cheap, Netbook-grade technology. It's just that they're consoles, so they can squeeze much, much more out of it. They'll be _"behind"_ PC's specs wise upon release, but on par or even a bit ahead when it comes to real life performance precisely because they're consoles and don't have to bother with PC OS'es and libraries. This is the natural relation between console-PC at launch, it's the way it should be - allow gamers to play the same games at similar quality with more bang for the buck. The Wii U isn't in such relation - it's _just_ way behind both PC's and Next Generation systems.


----------



## emigre (May 24, 2013)

Foxi got a like for pointing out inflation. Cuz people forget/ don't understand the importance of inflation.


----------



## Rizsparky (May 24, 2013)

Nemix77 said:


> I'm sticking with the Wii U and PS3 with my budget for next gen.
> 
> If I had the money though, I'd probably get a PS4 (if there's no fees for per-owned games) and Wii U combo while still keeping a current gen console like the PS3 or 360.


I'm in exactly the same boat, when developers stop supporting current gen consoles (might be a while) I'll jump ship to the PS4, otherwise I'm content with my PS3/WiiU


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 24, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> Seems Nintendo's been using the same level of technology in relation to the times throughout while Sony and Microsoft have been going more expensive technology for the era. The huge jump in hardware cost in the last generation, I think, have set people up for disappointment this generation because in order to create an equal jump that th PS3/360 provided would require even more expensive hardware, and considering that those consoled were selling at a loss, meeting those expectations just isn't feasible. So some say Nintendo is cheating out, but to me it seems they're just letting the technology advance naturally rather than trying to skip ahead by overspending.


The technology that Nintendo uses is comparable to a decent PC that you could get about 6-8 years ago. So no. Absolutely not. If you paid attention to the specs, it'd be really obvious that the technology that Nintendo uses is greatly outdated and outclassed by virtually every other form of modern mid-range hardware. Even the PS4/X1 is still outclassed by older high end gaming PC's, even taking into account the fact that the consoles are optimized for gaming, so I think that the idea that Nintendo is going with the natural flow of technology is ridiculous. Consoles use outdated technology that is optimized for gaming use, and that's why they run games as well as they do; fact of the matter is, Nintendo is even more outdated than Microsoft and Sony due to them targeting a more budget conscious and family based market, which allows them to keep the price down. But no, Nintendo is NOT in relation to the times at all when their gaming device has as much RAM as a smartphone.


----------



## VMM (May 24, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> ...you do realize that $200 dollars in the times of the NES isn't _"worth"_ $200 by today's standards, right?
> 
> A dollar isn't _"just a dollar"_ - the value of currency in relation to other currencies and in relation to its own value from the past is in constant fluctuation. Due to inflation alone, the $200 you'd pay for a NES way back in 1985 is actually worth $436 _"dollars of today"_.
> 
> ...


 

That text was almost flawless, you said everything I could and more.

Just a little detail, netbooks, you mean notebooks right, cause the day I find a netbook with these configurations, 
I'll probably be playing my PS5.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 24, 2013)

VMM said:


> Just a little detail, netbooks, you mean notebooks right, cause the day I find a netbook with these configurations,
> I'll probably be playing my PS5.


AMD Jaguar is a Next Generation netbook APU. To be fair, the consoles will be getting 8 cores wheras the stock Jaguar will have 4, but the point still stands - it _is_ netbook-grade hardware... just pimped up.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 24, 2013)

emigre said:


> Foxi got a like for pointing out inflation. Cuz people forget/ don't understand the importance of inflation.


 
GBAtemp has an issue understanding inflation, economics, or business in general I have found. WHAT COMPANY X ISN'T DEVELOPING FOR CONSOLE Y BUT I WANT THEM TO SO THAT MEANS THEY SHOULD.


----------



## grossaffe (May 24, 2013)

Well if you wish to go that route (inflation), then the plain NES without ROB and such was only $90.  If you were to adjust each of these consoles prices for inflation, do you honestly believe that the modern day prices would be closer to the $400-500 that the ps3/360 launched at, or the $300 the Wii U launched at?  

NES' $90 in 1984 translates to about $190 in 2012.  SNES' $200 in 1991 translates to about $335.  N64's $200 in 1996 translates to about $290.  The Gamecube's $200 in 2001 translates to about $260.  The Wii's $250 in 2006 translates to $285.  The Wii U then is the most expensive console Nintendo has ever released vs. buying power (I am comparing the deluxe bundle to the SNES because they both came with a game.)


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 24, 2013)

grossaffe said:


> Well if you wish to go that route (inflation), then the plain NES without ROB and such was only $90. If you were to adjust each of these consoles prices for inflation, do you honestly believe that the modern day prices would be closer to the $400-500 that the ps3/360 launched at, or the $300 the Wii U launched at?
> 
> NES' $90 in 1984 translates to about $190 in 2012. SNES' $200 in 1991 translates to about $335. N64's $200 in 1996 translates to about $290. The Gamecube's $200 in 2001 translates to about $260. The Wii's $250 in 2006 translates to $285. The Wii U then is the most expensive console Nintendo has ever released vs. buying power (I am comparing the deluxe bundle to the SNES because they both came with a game.)


Well the Deluxe bundle comes with a lot more than a game, compared to the Basic version, so that's hardly a fair comparison.

Anyway, it may be one of the most expensive Nintendo systems, but it's one of the cheapest systems overall (counting inflation).
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/177337/Sizing_up_Wii_Us_price_tag_against_history.php


----------



## tronic307 (May 25, 2013)

cdoty said:


> ... and the WiiU was twice (or was that four) times as powerful as the 360 and PS3. It's like deja-vu all over again.


Nope. I have a suspicion that you meant to say that the *Wii* was 4 times *less* powerful than PS360, which is conservative at best, but I'll respond to what you *actually wrote*:
The Wii U GPU may be up to twice as powerful as the PS3 GPU, but the CPU is like 3 Wii cores with a 70% overclock. Integer performance and IPC are decent, but there's no SIMD to speak of; peak floating point is >15GFLOPs. If Nintendo had specced 6 cores for Espresso, it would almost certainly leave Xbox 360 in the dust in real-world scenarios, but even then floating point would be about 1/3 that of Xenon.
Nintendo had no time to change architectures drastically because they were likely dazzled by the Wii's success until *after* it peaked in 2009. The Wii U is the likely result of an overly ambitious Wii HD project run amok, which isn't exactly a shit idea at its core, just a bullshit idea; not quite sound enough for all parties to be 100% committal. I believe even Reggie downplayed the Wii HD notion when asked.
Nintendo had to have perfect backwards compatibility, and adding a dedicated FPU might have broken that. When IBM added Altivec, they threw out the paired-single floating point that Gamecube, Wii and Wii U's architectures depend on, and redesigned the whole processor, breaking binary backwards compatibility. This is likely why Nintendo has been stuck at PowerPC 1.10 ISA since Gamecube.
Nintendo should dump IBM for their next console; the competition already have. A future AMD or Nvidia APU would serve them better moving forward. All IBM designs are server chips these days.


----------



## JoostinOnline (May 26, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> The Wii U GPU may be up to twice as powerful as the PS3 GPU, but the CPU is like 3 Wii cores with a 70% overclock.


I'm pretty sure the CPU is greatly underclocked.  I can't remember where I read that though, so it's not something I can back up.  Anyway, people keep forgetting that it's all about cache these days.  I'm not saying it's on par with the PS4/X1 (it's definitely not), but clock speed isn't all that matters.


----------



## tronic307 (May 26, 2013)

JoostinOnline said:


> I'm pretty sure the CPU is greatly underclocked. I can't remember where I read that though, so it's not something I can back up. Anyway, people keep forgetting that it's all about cache these days. I'm not saying it's on par with the PS4/X1 (it's definitely not), but clock speed isn't all that matters.


Early devkits were rumored to run at 1GHz (994.5MHz) CPU/400MHz GPU - "underclocked" relative to final hardware. The E3 2011 demos might have run with these specs. Espresso has an extremely short pipeline (4 stages) which enhances IPC, limits potential clock speed, and greatly lessens the performance penalty of a cache miss.


----------



## cdoty (May 28, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> Nope. I have a suspicion that you meant to say that the *Wii* was 4 times *less* powerful than PS360...


 
Here's the quote:

http://www.develop-online.net/news/39593/Wii-U-twice-as-powerful-as-Xbox-360


----------



## grossaffe (May 28, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> Early devkits were rumored to run at 1GHz (994.5MHz) CPU/400MHz GPU - "underclocked" relative to final hardware. The E3 2011 demos might have run with these specs. Espresso has an extremely short pipeline (4 stages) which enhances IPC, limits potential clock speed, and greatly lessens the performance penalty of a cache miss.


I'm not sure how the shorter pipeline has an effect on the penalty of a cache miss.  My understanding of computer architecture would put one of the advantages of a shorter pipeline would be lower penalty of an incorrect branch prediction (resulting in a flushing of the pipeline, so smaller pipeline leads to fewer clocks to complete the next instruction).  Cache penalties would come down more to memory hierarchy, I'd think, where the stall is about how quick your access time to the data is.  The Espresso does have a large cache, though, which should lessen the miss-rate limiting the stalls for a cache miss.  Also, I think the EDRAM introduced into the memory hierarchy should help reduce the miss penalty by providing a higher speed memory that can be checked before going out to main memory.


----------



## tronic307 (May 29, 2013)

I've seen cache miss listed under pipeline hazards, but your info seems legit.  I had also read that a shorter pipeline would benefit less from OoO execution; what's your take on this?


----------



## grossaffe (May 29, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> I've seen cache miss listed under pipeline hazards, but your info seems legit. I had also read that a shorter pipeline would benefit less from OoO execution; what's your take on this?


Perhaps they consider it a hazard because you have to stall the pipeline while you wait for the data to be retrieved from wherever it is.

As for the Out of Order execution, I can't say for sure how much of an effect it has based on the pipeline length. I think it partially comes down to how many potential hazards you have and how often they occur. My most in-depth look at the pipeline process was with a MIPS processor with a four-stage pipeline. I can't remember the exact hazard it faced (it's been a couple years), but I seem to recall it involved the load word and store word instructions being called at the same time (as they are in different stages of the pipeline but use the same resources), while the other potential data hazards could be solved by forwarding. However, if OoO can be utilized to keep doing work while recovering from a cache miss, I could see it potentially being a huge boost as cache misses can be extremely costly.


----------

