|
PS4 beating Xbox One performance, says devs
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 13 September, 2013
Sony's PlayStation 4 (PS4) console is settling better with developers than Microsoft's Xbox One, according to developers who spoke to EDGE about the hardware.
It, of course, is stressed that both Sony and Microsoft are still tinkering with the hardware of both consoles at this time, with Microsoft just recently kicking up the clock speed on its console.
Still, according to the developers, ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
justchuck69
Newbie
|
13. September 2013 @ 23:44 |
Link to this message
|
" with the PS4 touting memory reads at 40-50 percent quicker than the Xbox One. "
well that is just the difference between using ddr3 and ddr5 and Microsoft saved about $15 to $20 there !
And i'm not sure if Microsoft uses both the built graphics and the dedicated graphics like Sony does ? Which might also make a frame per second difference !
Good Luck and Take Care
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
14. September 2013 @ 00:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Carrying on over which is the most powerful console in any generation pointless as with any console in history the games made for it will have to be specifically optimized for the console and I seriously doubt that the graphic and performance differences this generation will be significant enough for anyone to truly care aside from the spec whores and graphic whores.
The games developed on the console directly (Mainly first party and console exclusives) will always look and perform the best and the other games ported will perform and look good dependent on how much time and effort the developer spent optimizing the game for the ported console.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. September 2013 @ 06:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
I dunno lets get a year into the games before we can really see whose better built.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
14. September 2013 @ 07:52 |
Link to this message
|
I'll bet nobody sees any significant difference when it comes to actually using either on your 1080p TV in the home.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. September 2013 @ 10:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hell I never saw that much a difference in DD2 and DD3 or DDR 3 and DD5 in video cards I do not think there will be a noticeable difference other than minor load time decrease.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
14. September 2013 @ 11:27 |
Link to this message
|
Well, 50% is a big difference in RAM speeds. The fact that this will bottleneck textures is pretty damn important too, and is one of the more easy-to-perceive differences in any system. Remember, large games tend to use the most RAM for textures already!
Ray tracing and procedural generation are both useful, but the fact remains that they are not the biggest CPU/GPU "budget" for most, if not nearly all current games. It's not like Dwarf Fortress will be running on either of these consoles =) .
I'm not trying to imply that this needs to be some kind of "deal breaker" against the XBone, but neither is it good news. After their earlier missteps, they need *positive* news; for example, their boost to clock speeds is overshadowed by the implication that they were forced to do so by underperformance vs. the PS4.
|
|
A5J4DX
Senior Member
|
14. September 2013 @ 11:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
cool :D
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
14. September 2013 @ 14:39 |
Link to this message
|
I'd also be very suspicious of which 'devs' have claimed this, ones who work for Sony predominantly perhaps?
I've seen reports from devs saying it amounts to no significant practical difference, as with all gens, one will be a little bit better at some things and the other a little bit better at others.
I bet the differences on your TV at home will be miniscule.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. September 2013 @ 16:26 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Interestx:
I bet the differences on your TV at home will be miniscule.
I'll take that bet.
Look at how most of the games were this gen. We could carry on all week discussing which games ran great on one platform and ran crap and needed patched on the other.
You think next gen is going to be different?
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
16. September 2013 @ 19:20 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by bhetrick:
Originally posted by Interestx:
I bet the differences on your TV at home will be miniscule.
I'll take that bet.
Look at how most of the games were this gen. We could carry on all week discussing which games ran great on one platform and ran crap and needed patched on the other.
You think next gen is going to be different?
Um, I have Xbox 360 & PS3.
Whilst some games looked great on one or other they have been largely much the same with a few exceptions (on each side) looking a bit lacklustre when compared.
My bet is that this new gen will be exactly the same, minor differences here & there but largely much the same.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. September 2013 @ 19:21
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. September 2013 @ 19:28 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Interestx:
Originally posted by bhetrick:
Originally posted by Interestx:
I bet the differences on your TV at home will be miniscule.
I'll take that bet.
Look at how most of the games were this gen. We could carry on all week discussing which games ran great on one platform and ran crap and needed patched on the other.
You think next gen is going to be different?
Um, I have Xbox 360 & PS3.
Whilst some games looked great on one or other they have been largely much the same with a few exceptions (on each side) looking a bit lacklustre when compared.
My bet is that this new gen will be exactly the same, minor differences here & there but largely much the same.
Yup since they are all made to ht the same range they will pretty much look alike. Altho I doubt there will be the texture issues with the Xbone/PS4.
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
17. September 2013 @ 11:55 |
Link to this message
|
Since they both actually have enough memory this time and we shouldn't have to worry about issues like we saw with Fallout and Skyrim on the PS3, it shouldn't make much difference between them. Sure, one system might have a slightly lower quality of graphics, but both consoles are already outdated by PC standards and we can pretty much expect them to remain unchanged (from the technical standpoint) with the exception of hard drives for the next 6 years. It seems that the main areas where two outdated platforms can compete with each other are exclusives, price, and annoyances like always-on cameras.
|
|
justchuck69
Newbie
|
17. September 2013 @ 19:51 |
Link to this message
|
Anyone bother too read the linked article ?
xbox one @ 900p - 20 fps vs ps4 @ 1080p - 30 fps
Good Luck and Take Care
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
18. September 2013 @ 13:28 |
Link to this message
|
You might try this article
Quote:
Bearing in mind that games take upwards of two years to develop, decisions on rendering resolutions must surely have been taken prior to the console's hardware spec being set in stone.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit...se-runs-at-900p
So the fact that some initial games might not hit the native res target.
You'll also find the article has seen both & it makes little difference.
It's the same as Xbox 360 (and some PS3) games not hitting 720p.
It proves nothing.
|
|
justchuck69
Newbie
|
19. September 2013 @ 00:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Interestx:
You might try this article
Quote:
Bearing in mind that games take upwards of two years to develop, decisions on rendering resolutions must surely have been taken prior to the console's hardware spec being set in stone.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit...se-runs-at-900p
So the fact that some initial games might not hit the native res target.
You'll also find the article has seen both & it makes little difference.
It's the same as Xbox 360 (and some PS3) games not hitting 720p.
It proves nothing.
Yeah when you see both pics in full size ( click on them twice .. once to open in a new tab and the second time to render in full size ) you can notice quite a bit of differences ... even the HUD looks brighter and more clearer and more detailed in the 1080p and in the whole pics there is more details evident !
Thanks for pointing that out !
Good Luck and Take Care
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. September 2013 @ 08:36 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by justchuck69:
Originally posted by Interestx:
You might try this article
Quote:
Bearing in mind that games take upwards of two years to develop, decisions on rendering resolutions must surely have been taken prior to the console's hardware spec being set in stone.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit...se-runs-at-900p
So the fact that some initial games might not hit the native res target.
You'll also find the article has seen both & it makes little difference.
It's the same as Xbox 360 (and some PS3) games not hitting 720p.
It proves nothing.
Yeah when you see both pics in full size ( click on them twice .. once to open in a new tab and the second time to render in full size ) you can notice quite a bit of differences ... even the HUD looks brighter and more clearer and more detailed in the 1080p and in the whole pics there is more details evident !
Thanks for pointing that out !
And yet the 1080 PS3 games still have worse textures. Just saying.....
Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Lets renegotiate them.
|
|
justchuck69
Newbie
|
19. September 2013 @ 19:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
And on another article at Eurogamer they say that the PS4 will not be better by a factor of %50 but by only %24 !
Good Luck and Take Care
|
|
Bozobub
Senior Member
|
19. September 2013 @ 20:13 |
Link to this message
|
Either 25% or 50% is still a pretty big difference in raw texture performance, one of the biggest drains on any GPU.
|
|
justchuck69
Newbie
|
19. September 2013 @ 23:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Bozobub:
Either 25% or 50% is still a pretty big difference in raw texture performance, one of the biggest drains on any GPU.
Yep Bozobub and it is 100 bucks cheaper !
Good Luck and Take Care
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
adre02
Member
1 product review
|
22. September 2013 @ 08:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually on some of those shots the 900 looked better. I am not sure where "no significant difference" comes to play.
On one shot the 1080 looked better SIGNIFICANTLY and on at least one shot the 900 looked MUCH BETTER. I am not sure why that cannot be seen evidently,.
Still, doesn't it say "our interpretation" so again this article doesn't really prove much.
This is superman
|
