I guess the joke was worse than I ever anticipated.
;_;
Xbone is powerful enough..
The power difference won't become real apparent until Sony 1st party titles come out
AFAIK both systems require installations. Dem blu-rays is 2slo.
Xbone is powerful enough. The power difference won't become real apparent until Sony 1st party titles come out.
The math geek in me died a little at a line graph being used for a discreet series of data.
lol, excuse me as it's 4am here and I cant sleep. Here, better?
Xbone is powerful enough. The power difference won't become real apparent until Sony 1st party titles come out.
Very good. But was does that have to do with Xbox One and PS4.
I do think people are underselling what Kinect could do. In terms of 'core' games it certainly has left a bad taste though. I think VR is where it's going to be at in five years, and if you throw in Kinect/PS Eye with that then you may be onto something big. If Kinect is vastly superior, maybe that hardware 'bundle' suddenly seems better in this context.
Right now though, there's really nothing beyond PR that they can say about the disadvantage. For the types of games that the core audience is concerned with, Kinect is not worth a weaker and more expensive console. The scary thing for MS right now is that the higher price means it may also not be worth it for the people who would be interested in Kinect.
as far as polyh3dron is concerned, 60FPS is very important for racing games.as far as EmptySpace is concerned, driveclub already looks better than forza.
Both consoles have GPU's that closely match up with the two he's compared. If anything, Tflops wise it's unfair to the PS4.
How so? I'm curious? For gamers like me.. That play 3 games a year and want more than a pc. How is this bad? They won me over with the snapping and fantasy football.So has Major Nelson decided to comment on this in the thread?
This is really one hell of an uphill battle for the MS PR guys.
Why is everyone forgetting the cloud when comparing the consoles? MS doesn't have 300.000 servers for nothing.
How so? I'm curious? For gamers like me.. That play 3 games a year and want more than a pc. How is this bad? They won me over with the snapping and fantasy football.
You have to figure us goons in.
as far as polyh3dron is concerned, 60FPS is very important for racing games.
if thats true then their drive speeds are the next spec i want to know, cause that will define if installs will take significantly longer for either machine.
also whether the wireless version will have battery packs like the 360 did with a charge stand, i didnt mind the recharge packs for 360, but its gonna be a pain if the XB1 only takes actual batteries...id much rather just use a lighter wired controller
if the "PC" version of the Xbox One controller coming out in 2014, is wired and works with the console as well, would be a huge plus.
lol, okay.Both are running at different clock speeds compared to Xbox One and PS4.
One of them is using different memory and memory buss width.
So no. That graph has completely irrelevant.
Very good. But was does that have to do with Xbox One and PS4.
Why is everyone forgetting the cloud when comparing the consoles? MS doesn't have 300.000 servers for nothing.
Xbone is powerful enough. The power difference won't become real apparent until Sony 1st party titles come out.
The red bar is performance from the GPU closest in spec to what's in the PS4 and the green bar is the GPU closest to what's in XB1 if I'm reading it correctly (at the resolution's noted for each game noted).
lol, okay.
Which is fine an all but this thread isn't really about that.
So has Major Nelson decided to comment on this in the thread?
This is really one hell of an uphill battle for the MS PR guys.
The red bar is performance from the GPU closest in spec to what's in the PS4 and the green bar is the GPU closest to what's in XB1 if I'm reading it correctly (at the resolution's noted for each game noted).
Both are running at different clock speeds compared to Xbox One and PS4.
One of them is using different memory and memory buss width.
So no. That graph has completely irrelevant.
Apparently lowering the resolution may also not get parirty
For starters. The 7770 is clocked at 1000Mhz. That's a 20% faster then what's clocked in the PS4.
facepalm.For starters. The 7770 is clocked at 1000Mhz. That's a 20% faster then what's clocked in the PS4.
Now recalculate your graph and drop all the 7770 scores by 20% and lets see what it looks like.
LOL, okay.
Its because I chose techpowerup as their benchmarking suite of titles is quite large and recent and those are the only relevant resolutions they used. If anyone has 1080p vs 900p for both GPUs, I'd gladly create a new one.Why are they rendering at 1,920x1,200 for the "PS4" sample?
The 7770 is brought up usually because it closely matches the Xbone GPU in GFLOPs. Despite some differences, they have a roughly similar performance level.
Really, the graph is kinda handy as it shows a basic example of what the GPU difference might end up manifesting in multiplats. Obviously it isn't representative of the systems as a whole, but it works as a basic measure of GPU difference.
And, again, there's more to the multiplat thing than just horsepower difference.
That does not make it irrelevant. It is the closest or most accurate comparison that can be made from existing PC hardware to date..
This horrible comparison again. The Xbox One GPU is not a 7770, far from it.
The Xbox One GPU has two geometry engines, the same number of geometry engines as Pitcairn, Tahiti, Bonaire, and the PS4 GPU.
The 7770, which is Cape Verde, has 1 geometry engine. The Xbox One GPU and the PS4 GPU as a result of this have practically identical triangle performance, with the Xbox One having a slight advantage due to the GPU upclock, that is if the PS4 GPU still remains at 800MHZ. Not a big deal, but I'm just saying this to point out how very different the GPU is from a 7770.
The 7700 is limited to 72GB/s of bandwidth, the Xbox One easily has access to quite a bit more than that, easily twice that amount, potentially even more. Comparing the Xbox One to a 7770 is wildly flawed. Toss in the move engines that can do various kinds of copy operations that help save bandwidth, one of which can actually handle texture de-compression in place of either the GPU or the CPU, and you have even more potential performance that your typical 7770 simply isn't matching. I know people love that 7770 comparison, but it's a lot less accurate than people think. If you're looking at a 7770 for anything at all, consider that a 7770 in a console would perform even better than on the pc due to superior optimization. Now consider that the GPU inside the Xbox One is clearly better than a desktop 7770, and you have a GPU that will definitely, and easily, outperform whatever performance metrics people are comparing to in the form of a desktop 7770.
This horrible comparison again. The Xbox One GPU is not a 7770, far from it.
The Xbox One GPU has two geometry engines, the same number of geometry engines as Pitcairn, Tahiti, Bonaire, and the PS4 GPU.
The 7770, which is Cape Verde, has 1 geometry engine. The Xbox One GPU and the PS4 GPU as a result of this have practically identical triangle performance, with the Xbox One having a slight advantage due to the GPU upclock, that is if the PS4 GPU still remains at 800MHZ. Not a big deal when comparing the PS4 and Xbox One, but I'm just saying this to point out how very different the GPU is from a 7770. This is no small difference.
The 7700 is limited to 72GB/s of bandwidth, the Xbox One easily has access to quite a bit more than that, easily twice that amount, potentially even more. Comparing the Xbox One to a 7770 is wildly flawed. Toss in the move engines that can do various kinds of copy operations that help save bandwidth, one of which can actually handle texture de-compression in place of either the GPU or the CPU, and you have even more potential performance that your typical 7770 simply isn't matching. I know people love that 7770 comparison, but it's a lot less accurate than people think. If you're looking at a 7770 for anything at all, consider that a 7770 in a console would perform even better than on the pc due to superior optimization. Now consider that the GPU inside the Xbox One is clearly better than a desktop 7770, and you have a GPU that will definitely, and easily, outperform whatever performance metrics people are comparing to in the form of a desktop 7770.
facepalm.
The grunt behind either of the cards I chose is the closest approximation we can have right now. Unless MS and Sony release some numbers or a devs gives us cold hard data, this is all you can use. Or if you prefer secret sauces, Penello stories, cloud powah or mathemagic then obviously thats your opinion.
Its because I chose techpowerup as their benchmarking suite of titles is quite large and recent. If anyone has 1080p vs 900p for both GPUs, I'd gladly create a new one.
They really don't, but I've already said that.
The 7770 is brought up usually because it closely matches the Xbone GPU in GFLOPs. Despite some differences, they have a roughly similar performance level.
Really, the graph is kinda handy as it shows a basic example of what the GPU difference might end up manifesting in multiplats. Obviously it isn't representative of the systems as a whole, but it works as a basic measure of GPU difference.
And, again, there's more to the multiplat thing than just horsepower difference.
facepalm.
The grunt behind either of the cards I chose is the closest approximation we can have right now. Unless MS and Sony release some numbers or a devs gives us cold hard data, this is all you can use. Or if you prefer secret sauces, Penello stories, cloud powah or mathemagic then obviously thats your opinion.
It's why I said a basic measure - they don't give the full picture obviously, but it's something to illustrate a vague idea since we've got not much else to go on at the moment.
CTRL+F "move engines" = successThis horrible comparison again. The Xbox One GPU is not a 7770, far from it.
The Xbox One GPU has two geometry engines, the same number of geometry engines as Pitcairn, Tahiti, Bonaire, and the PS4 GPU.
The 7770, which is Cape Verde, has 1 geometry engine. The Xbox One GPU and the PS4 GPU as a result of this have practically identical triangle performance, with the Xbox One having a slight advantage due to the GPU upclock, that is if the PS4 GPU still remains at 800MHZ. Not a big deal when comparing the PS4 and Xbox One, but I'm just saying this to point out how very different the GPU is from a 7770. This is no small difference.
The 7700 is limited to 72GB/s of bandwidth, the Xbox One easily has access to quite a bit more than that, easily twice that amount, potentially even more. Comparing the Xbox One to a 7770 is wildly flawed. Toss in the move engines that can do various kinds of copy operations that help save bandwidth, one of which can actually handle texture de-compression in place of either the GPU or the CPU, and you have even more potential performance that your typical 7770 simply isn't matching. I know people love that 7770 comparison, but it's a lot less accurate than people think. If you're looking at a 7770 for anything at all, consider that a 7770 in a console would perform even better than on the pc due to superior optimization. Now consider that the GPU inside the Xbox One is clearly better than a desktop 7770, and you have a GPU that will definitely, and easily, outperform whatever performance metrics people are comparing to in the form of a desktop 7770.
Wii U?my 2 year old pc has better specs than both these "next gen" consoles. guess which one I am buying.
And that's where you make your mistake. Given that they have different clock speeds. Different bus widths. Different memory interfaces. Are custom designed silicon with custom busses etc.... all integrated into a custom design. Add in optimised GPU drivers and this makes this comparison completely and I mean completely irrelevant.
If the fantasy of these graphs gives your e-loins a hard on then good for you but it's simply not based on reality.
They really don't, but I've already said that.
The 7790 Is the closest comparison to the Xbox One GPU, except it has two more CUs, and is clocked up to 1000MHZ, making it close to a 1.8 teraflop part, but it has the same number of rops, the same number of geometry engines, and it comes even closer to the Xbox One's bandwidth numbers than the 7770. The Xbox One GPU still has it easily beat for overall bandwidth, though.
CTRL+F "move engines" = success
I'm disappointed you didnt link me to a vague Baumann post.
Wii U?
CTRL+F "move engines" = success
I'm disappointed you didnt link me to a vague Baumann post.
Wii U?
Captain obvious over here. They're not exact comparisons, just the best that can be done with existing GPU's, and still a good, but vague reference point.
Can you even name a better comparison between the console GPU's and PC GPU's?
Doesn't matter, the raw performance output is still considerably more with the 7790 (1.8 Tflops vs the 7770's/Xbox One's 1.3 Tflops), as such it is far more disingenuous to compare the Xbox One's GPU with a 7790 than a 7770. You're essentially raising the bar for diminishing returns and giving the Xbox One more leeway and benefit than otherwise true. That is, strictly comparing the GPU's.
Captain obvious over here. They're not exact comparisons, just the best that can be done with existing GPU's, and still a good, but vague reference point.
Can you even name a better comparison between the console GPU's and PC GPU's?
Doesn't matter, the raw performance output is still considerably more with the 7790, as such it is far more disingenuous to compare the Xbox One's GPU with a 7790 than a 7770. You're essentially raising the bar for diminishing returns and giving the Xbox One more leeway and benefit than otherwise true. That is, strictly comparing the GPU's.