Unbiased Comparisons of the PS4 and XB1

[ThatDudeWithTheFood]

The only useful comparison (except maybe the online services) are the video game libraries.

Both specs and online services are definitely worth comparing.
Specs less so because they'll both likely get mostly the same games but as far as exclusives are concerned that might be a factor.
And when the online service is giving you free games(well besides the subscription fee) and you know actually has an account system that works and most of the gaming you are going to be doing is multiplayer then how is it just a maybe useful comparison?

 

[BenRK]

I wasn't being rude, not at first. I was simply stating that it was better to wait then try to make judgments on something that very few of us has had any hands on experience with. I would imagine things like Aliens Colonial Marines, the PS3's launch, and even the Wii U's launch would have taught us to not jump into things with so little info.

And I don't know about you, but dismissing another persons post that isn't in favor of your own by claiming to have only read the first two lines is rather rude. Refusing to hear out their side of things. I would have hoped that you would have seen that with my "rude" post after that.

 

[Foxi4]

I wasn't being rude, not at first. I was simply stating that it was better to wait then try to make judgments on something that very few of us has had any hands on experience with.

I wouldn't expect any changes to be implemented between now and November as far as specs of the systems are concerned so what exactly is the problem with comparing variables which are known to be set in stone?

The only useful comparison (except maybe the online services) are the video game libraries.

Thinking that the games library in any way improves the hardware is the equivalent of thinking that a poem can glorify a piece of toilet roll it was written on. A toilet roll is a toilet roll - it's not quality paper and it's not going to change, no matter what you scribble it on.

Compare hardware with hardware, game libraries with game libraries. While the hardware is means of playing games from the library, it cannot be considered better or worse due to the library - that's a completely arbitrary reason for thinking one system is better than another. While the library may or may not change, the system just won't - it's either well-made or poor.

More on-topic though, I think it's a good comparison and should be worked on further once the systems reach the masses. It certainly had some new info I hadn't come across and I'm usually the one to keep up with the news (then again, I've been on holiday for the last month, so maybe that's why I haven't heard all the spicy details).

 

[BenRK]

I wouldn't expect any substantial changes to occur between now and November as far as specs of the systems are concerned so what exactly is the problem with comparing variables which are known to be set in stone?


Thinking that the games library in any way improves the hardware is the equivalent of thinking that a poem can glorify a piece of toilet roll it was written on. A toilet roll is a toilet roll - it's not quality paper and it's not going to change, no matter what you scribble it on.

Compare hardware with hardware, game libraries with game libraries. While the hardware is means of playing games from the library, it cannot be considered better or worse due to the library - that's a completely arbitrary reason for thinking one system is better than another. While the library may or may not change, the system just won't - it's either well-made or poor.

I completely disagree. If you were to look at history, you'll find that good hardware doesn't mean the system will sell like hotcakes. I can't think of a single generation where the most successful console was the most powerful. What sells the console is the games. If the games are shit, who gives a crap if you're running them on the best hardware imaginable?

 

[Foxi4]

I completely disagree. If you were to look at history, you'll find that good hardware doesn't mean the system will sell like hotcakes.

I don't think you understand what was said but instead of asking you to re-read, I will re-phrase what I said. This is a comparison of hardware. It doesn't compare systems in the scope of games, it compares them in the scope of hardware. For those interested in hardware.

 

[BenRK]

If this thread was only about hardware, the chart on the first page wouldn't include pointless service comparisons. Lets compare what the processor speeds are, not the multiplayer services. Lets compare things that are completely pointless to non-developers, not the stuff that matters to consumers.

 

[Foxi4]

I can't see why the services which go hand-in-hand with the new systems shouldn't be discussed, especially if their features have been revealed already during numerous interviews, previews and conferences. It's what you're getting out of the box and it should be discusses, especially if it can be decisive for future customers who just want to compare the two systems to know what to expect.

I will proceed to ignore off-topic comments from now on and try to be useful, seeing that my replies seem to fall on deaf ears and I don't want this thread to get any messier. Sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, I tired to get my point across.

 

[Thirty3Three]

Anyway, to get us back on track;

What do you all think of the comparison chart I've created?

Any suggestions?

 

[Foxi4]

(...) all I ever said was lets wait and see so we can make better judgements, that we should wait and see how the games are.

*Reads signature*
Owner of a "Deluxe Wii U" - the system with no games. I see what you did there, buyer's remorse kicking in with a delay?

I kid, I kid. Seriously though, some people such as myself just like to compare those things and there's nothing wrong with doing so. It's not so much about stroking the ego of either XBone or PS4 future owners, more so about analyzing the systems. Some people made a profession out of it (see: Engadget) - you could say that each and every Android handset is, well, an Android handset and does what every Android handset does, and yet we see a teardown whenever a new model is out.

Any suggestions?

I'm looking into my own info stash, but for now you could consider adding that the XBox One comes with a Kinect wheras the PS4's PlayStation Eye is a separate accessory costing $59 if memory serves well.

 

[BenRK]

*Reads signature*
Owner of a "Deluxe Wii U" - the system with no games. I see what you did there, buyer's remorse kicking in with a delay?

I kid, I kid. Seriously though, some people such as myself just like to compare those things and there's nothing wrong with doing so. It's not so much about stroking the ego of either XBone or PS4 future owners, more so about analyzing the systems. Some people made a profession out of it (see: Engadget) - you could say that each and every Android handset is, well, an Android handset and does what every Android handset does, and yet we see a teardown whenever a new model is out.

The difference between an Android phone and a dedicated game console is the hardware tends to remain constant. Someone who bought a PS3 back in 2006 can play a game from 2013 just fine for example. The same can not be said for phones.

 

[Thirty3Three]

The difference between an Android phone and a dedicated game console is the hardware tends to remain constant.

Well that's just not true at all.

 

[BenRK]

Well that's just not true at all.

Ok, fine, you'll get your slims and your budget versions of consoles, but those usually don't change the basic hardware specs to the point where you NEED a PS3 from 2013 to play games from 2013. Things will get smaller, more efficient, but why would console makers fracture their user base? This is why we have new generations to begin with so console makers CAN upgrade, so the fracture at least makes sense.

 

[Thirty3Three]

So I may update with some more info guys; not sure yet...

 

[Foxi4]

The difference between an Android phone and a dedicated game console is the hardware tends to remain constant. Someone who bought a PS3 back in 2006 can play a game from 2013 just fine for example. The same can not be said for phones.

Just because the generation gap between phones is narrower than between consoles or just because there's more variety does not in any way change the principle behind comparing offerings from different manufacturers, not in terms of hardware.

As for the "PS3/360 from 2006 can do what a PS3/360 from 2013 can" comment both you and me know that's not true due to the changes implemented by subsequent revisions (changes in terms of memory card slots, PS2 hardware and so on. Hell, as far as I remember, not all XBox 360'ties came with a WiFi module or HDMI for that matter).

To the OP, some on-CPU-die goodies:

XBox One:

• GPU consists of 12 Compute Units @ 64 Operations per Clock = 768 Operations per Clock (hence the difference in TFLOPS)
• 8GB of DDR3 RAM (68GB/s bandwidth) plus 32MB of ESRAM (102GB/s, 192GB/s if you read and write simultaneously) (ESRAM embedded on CPU die to give the memory a boost)
• 16 ROP's

PS4:

• GPU consists of 18 Compute Units @ 64 Operatios per Clock = 1152 Operations per Clock (hence the difference in TFLOPS)
• 8 GB GDDR5 RAM (176GB/s bandwidth)
• 32 ROP's (more space on the die due to lack or ESRAM allowed for doubling their number)

Source #1 Source #2 (contains additional info about the Kinect 2.0 too)

 

[BenRK]

Just because the generation gap between phones is narrower than the consoles or just because there's more variety does not in any way change the principle behind comparing offerings from different manufacturers, not in terms of hardware. As for the "PS3/360 from 2006 can do what a PS3/360 from 2013 can" comment both you and me know that's not true due to the changes implemented by subsequent revisions (changes in terms of memory card slots, PS2 hardware and so on. Hell, as far as I remember, not all XBox 360'ties came with a WiFi module or HDMI for that matter).

That's not what I said. What I said was a PS3 from 2006 can play the same games from 2013. A PS3 from, regardless of PS2 backwards compatibility, can play The Last of Us just as well as a Slim PS3 from today. Nothing in the hardware is going to change that.

 

[Thirty3Three]

Just because the generation gap between phones is narrower than the consoles or just because there's more variety does not in any way change the principle behind comparing offerings from different manufacturers, not in terms of hardware. As for the "PS3/360 from 2006 can do what a PS3/360 from 2013 can" comment both you and me know that's not true due to the changes implemented by subsequent revisions (changes in terms of memory card slots, PS2 hardware and so on. Hell, as far as I remember, not all XBox 360'ties came with a WiFi module or HDMI for that matter).

To the OP, some on-CPU-die goodies:

XBox One:

• GPU consists of 12 Compute Units @ 64 Operations per Clock = 768 Operations per Clock (hence the difference in TFLOPS)
• 8GB of DDR3 RAM (68GB/s bandwidth) plus 32MB of ESRAM (102GB/s) (ESRAM embedded on CPU die to give the memory a boost)
• 16 ROP's

PS4:

• GPU consists of 18 Compute Units @ 64 Operatios per Clock = 1152 Operations per Clock (hence the difference in TFLOPS)
• 32 ROP's (more space on the die due to lack or ESRAM allowed for doubling their number)

Source (contains additional info about the Kinect 2.0 too)

Hey, thanks so much, Foxi! I really appreciate the information

 

[Foxi4]

That's not what I said. What I said was a PS3 from 2006 can play the same games from 2013. A PS3 from, regardless of PS2 backwards compatibility, can play The Last of Us just as well as a Slim PS3 from today. Nothing in the hardware is going to change that.

Even that can change with some revisions of consoles, really. The PSP-1000 has 32MB RAM - 50% less than its successors and as such, you cannot use Skype with it. The DSi is widely-considered a revision of the DS (although I personally treat it as a successor and entirely new system due to the massive upgrades in terms of hardware, but that's apparently debatable on GBAtemp) and introduced DSiWare, DSi-Enhanced titles and a handful of DSi-Only titles - good luck playing those on a classic DS (or playing them to their fullest in terms of DSi-Enhanced ones). Then again, the DSi won't play all your favourite GBA games. More recently, the PSP E-1000 has no WiFi module so trying to use multiplayer features on the games that support them sends you to the "please filp the WiFi switch to the ON position" screen - a switch which naturally doesn't exist on the system.

All in all, the tl;dr version of what I'm trying to say is that people like comparing specs, especially before they buy something and there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[BenRK]

Ok, cool, but lets compare specs when they come out, when we can rip open the new consoles our selves instead of taking for granted what some people with agendas have to say. Are they lying outright? Probably not, but you never know if there are some nasty surprises in store for us.

As for the whole PSP thing, that change fractured the consumer base. Suddenly developers didn't know what to do. Should they develop for the 32MB model so everyone could play? Should they alienate previous owners and take advantage of the 64MB model? And as for the DSi, the games that took advantage of its hardware were mostly download only, which couldn't be played on the original DS. The physical games that did take advantage of it didn't use the improved hardware, just locked out using the camera in Pokemon when played on the original DS.

 

[decemberchild]

so what you're saying is that even without using bias, the ps4 is the better system

 

[AngryGeek416]

So there isin't even 1 thing better about the X1?