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

[ElYubiYubi]

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]

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]

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.

 

[ElYubiYubi]

I think the source is there

 

[Gahars]

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.

Source​

Bam.

 

[Deleted_171835]

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]

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]

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

 

[Foxi4]

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.

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]

Both controllers look like they suck.

 

[ElYubiYubi]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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 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 againts that.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

...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.