Support NeoGAF

[avaya]

You normally never want to keep on drawing attention to your weak point. The focus on the hardware itself is insta-win for Sony each time Microsoft do it. But the focus on trying to bump up the performance of the Bone seems to indicate that 3rd party publishers see that Microsoft is a paper tiger and were unwilling to gimp without cold hard cash. Threat of no title on X1 if they don't gimp is no threat at all since it would give Sony an instant exclusive. Microsoft working hard to plug a gap that won't be plugged.

If Sony has the de facto multiplatform console, the revenue market share numbers, even if units sold was similar (which it is very unlikely to be) would be so one-sided. Microsoft are definitely in a panic about this, that realisation is dawning. Sony have got to be feeling very comfortable, don't have to pay for exclusives, they are the go-to platform for multi's - that is where the bulk of the high margin money is.

 

[velociraptor]

It's pretty interesting. What MS have confirmed is the console is actually weaker than we originally anticipated. Instead of being a 1.31TF machine, it's basically running at 1.18TF.

Xbox One: 1179 GFLOPS

+ 131 GFLOPS =

Xbox One Unlocked: 1310 GFLOPS

+ 530 GFLOPS =

PS4: 1840 GFLOPS

Now if unlocking 10% of the Xbox One's GPU has a large effect on visuals, then I cannot quite imagine how PS4 games will look in comparison to the Xbox One. It's 10% (131) x 4.

 

[frizby]

If the power is unlocked at some point, it must mean the Kinect requirement will be dropped at some point. That is how I'm reading into it. If that is the case, I feel sorry for those who buy the console at launch who wish they had a Kinectless, cheaper option.

Hmmm.

Kinectomy confirmed?

 

[IT Slave]

Evidently, IT Slave either has a bad memory or chooses to continually ignore well versed explanations and rebuttals to his claims...

Re-record not fade away...

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=83506749&postcount=1734

Why are you always so defensive? I'm not making any claims because I don't have any more information than you do. What I am attempting to do is have a civil discussion to try and understand this issue of at least some GPU being reserved for both consoles.

I saw eltorros response and it wasn't satisfactory. I'm not saying that the PS4's OS has a 10% GPU allocation. I'm just stating that it has to have some sort of reservation (however small) if the OS can be called up at any time instantly. Even the Windows Aero interface needed some GPU capability.

Also, the GPU allocation on the Xbox One has nothing to do with the snap functionality specifically. Xbox One has essentially two OSes running in tandem, Xbox and Windows and so the Windows guest essentially needs 10% of the GPU at all times. This gives MS the flexibility to have cross compatibility between games on the Windows app store and Xbox One. Snap is just a byproduct of having another OS running.

 

[2345425]

If the power is unlocked at some point, it must mean the Kinect requirement will be dropped at some point. That is how I'm reading into it. If that is the case, I feel sorry for those who buy the console at launch who wish they had a Kinectless, cheaper option.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Sigh.... Why wait? Why not let them do it now? Like I don't understand this but I don't think I'm going to try either. With MS it's a roller-coaster and I'm trying so hard to give them the benefit of the doubt and I absolutely getting tired of it.

 

[AntiSwerve]

So heres my question for YOU random MS Console engineer:

If you KNEW your system needed to pull resources from your GPU for 1) your OS and 2) the kinect.....why didnt you come stronger with better hardware. Its bad enough you were outclassed before this news.

Im an xbox fan, idgaf about you telling me how you are adding 6% here and 4% there. Your hardware is underpowered compared to the competition so stop feeding me BS. Sony has the upper hand right now for this gen. I dont want to lose the possibility of playing beautiful games so that I can f*cking skype while i play Destiny. Even if you gave 100% of power to developers your console is still weaker. Focus on getting me some better games and stop talking about a battle you cant win. YOU CANT BEAT SONYS SPECS, LEAVE IT ALONE.



/endrant

 

[bigboss370]

So currently:

Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +400%

Looks unbalanced to me.

 

[velociraptor]

Why are you always so defensive? I'm not making any claims because I don't have any more information than you do. What I am attempting to do is have a civil discussion to try and understand this issue of at least some GPU being reserved for both consoles.

I saw eltorros response and it wasn't satisfactory. I'm not saying that the PS4's OS has a 10% GPU allocation. I'm just stating that it has to have some sort of reservation (however small) if the OS can be called up at any time instantly. Even the Windows Aero interface needed some GPU capability.

Also, the GPU allocation on the Xbox One has nothing to do with the snap functionality specifically. Xbox One has essentially two OSes running in tandem, Xbox and Windows and so the Windows guest essentially needs 10% of the GPU at all times. This gives MS the flexibility to have cross compatibility between games on the Windows app store and Xbox One. Snap is just a byproduct of having another OS running.

What plausible reason exists for the OS to demand 10% of the GPU?

The Xbox One is actually running two OSes in tandem? I ask you again - why must the GPU sacrifice 10% of it's resources to allow the operating system to operate?

 

[Biker19]

These guys need to stop talking specs. It simply highlights a disadvantage.

I agree; it's getting very annoying & ridiculous.

First, this company says that "specs don't matter," then they turn around & contradict themselves by constantly downplaying PS4's specs almost every time & started whining about their console not being more powerful than the PS4.

Well, they shouldn't have made the console as an entertainment media hub/kinect box in mind first over specs, then. You don't see Sony complain about having weaker specs & having mostly worse multiplats with both PS2 & PS3.

This is one of the reasons why I can't take Microsoft very seriously. I just can't.

 

[2345425]

So currently:

Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +400%

Looks unbalanced to me.

That looks rather one-sided.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

er...unless I'm reading your reply wrong, you can access the guide (which is now basically the full dashboard) from in-game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QDlPs7Xx2gA#t=101

So this is why they need the GPU reserve right? It's rendering the game and the dashboard at the same time. Am i missing something? Is there more to it than that?

 

[FranXico]

[...] why must the GPU sacrifice 10% of it's resources to allow the operating system to operate?

Running all those fancy Windows 8 effects, such as app snapping, on top of games and HDMI input?

 

[mrklaw]

I just remembered that the PS4 also has a camera and will have voice and face recognition. Will that change anything in your calculations?

Voice and face recognition has only be mentioned for the OS. And as discussed earlier, when running the OS it can use as much GPU and CPU as it likes.

If games wanted to use voice/face/motion recognition, then those games would have to account for that - so eg like eyepet - they would have less power available to them.

 

[skdoo]

The XB1 was designed for a specific purpose - media machine that can run console games. MS built the set top box that they have been working towards since the first XBox. They never expected Sony to come out with something significantly more powerful.

Remember, the specs were a lot closer in line until Sony upped the RAM at the last moment. A lot closer - Sony had a better GPU that MS had no idea of, but needed the extra RAM to take advantage.

Sony built a game machine, while MS built a set top box. It really is that simple - different philosophies in the design

 

[mrklaw]

Why are you always so defensive? I'm not making any claims because I don't have any more information than you do. What I am attempting to do is have a civil discussion to try and understand this issue of at least some GPU being reserved for both consoles.

I saw eltorros response and it wasn't satisfactory. I'm not saying that the PS4's OS has a 10% GPU allocation. I'm just stating that it has to have some sort of reservation (however small) if the OS can be called up at any time instantly. Even the Windows Aero interface needed some GPU capability.

Also, the GPU allocation on the Xbox One has nothing to do with the snap functionality specifically. Xbox One has essentially two OSes running in tandem, Xbox and Windows and so the Windows guest essentially needs 10% of the GPU at all times. This gives MS the flexibility to have cross compatibility between games on the Windows app store and Xbox One. Snap is just a byproduct of having another OS running.

Your name suits you - you certainly aren't an IT master

 

[ChainsawFilms]

Was the two reserved core news confirmed? Beside GG's slide.

Never confirmed, but it makes sense. They knew MS were reserving 2 cores, and Sony won't want to be caught out by not providing enough features for the OS; see what MS are doing with their 2 cores, and they can do the same, if they deem it a necessary feature. That's also why they're keeping so much RAM reserved, despite their [apparent] original plan of only reserving 512mb [when they had a 4gig system].

They don't want a repeat of the cross-chat issue, which was a great feature MS introduced after launch and Sony could never imitate. Certain people held that over the PS3.

They're playing it safe, and it may just be in 2 or 3 years time, they open up a 7th CPU core to gaming, because they've decided they no longer need to reserve that overhead.

They're are several ways both Sony and MS could "improve" their systems after launch. However, unless they're feeling very brave, you won't be seeing any clock increases after launch. And despite what MS say, activating those extra 2 GPU cores was never an option, and it will never be an option going forward.

 

[SHADES]

So heres my question for YOU random MS Console engineer:

If you KNEW your system needed to pull resources from your GPU for 1) your OS and 2) the kinect.....why didnt you come stronger with better hardware. Its bad enough you were outclassed before this news.

Im an xbox fan, idgaf about you telling me how you are adding 6% here and 4% there. Your hardware is underpowered compared to the competition so stop feeding me BS. Sony has the upper hand right now for this gen. I dont want to lose the possibility of playing beautiful games so that I can f*cking skype while i play Destiny. Even if you gave 100% of power to developers your console is still weaker. Focus on getting me some better games and stop talking about a battle you cant win. YOU CANT BEAT SONYS SPECS, LEAVE IT ALONE.



/endrant

Because the XBone's eSRAM eats a lot of that APU budget. There next gen vision wasn't from a gaming standpoint first & foremost.

 

[Night Angel]

Your name suits you - you certainly aren't an IT master

Ice cold.

Any bets on how big of a graveyard this will be/number of pages? I'm going 25 pages with 7 dead.

 

[Bgamer90]

The XB1 was designed for a specific purpose - media machine that can run console games. MS built the set top box that they have been working towards since the first XBox. They never expected Sony to come out with something significantly more powerful.

Remember, the specs were a lot closer in line until Sony upped the RAM at the last moment. A lot closer - Sony had a better GPU that MS had no idea of, but needed the extra RAM to take advantage.

Sony built a game machine, while MS built a set top box. It really is that simple - different philosophies in the design

Both systems are "media machines the can also run console games". Sony and MS will be going for the exact same areas. PS4 having more power doesn't negate that fact.

 

[Nafai1123]

So this is why they need the GPU reserve right? It's rendering the game and the dashboard at the same time. Am i missing something? Is there more to it than that?

Dashboard in-game, Snap functionality, Kinect functionality

Essentially anything that can be drawn while in-game or utilized in-game (GPGU for Kinect) will need GPU reservation.

 

[AntiSwerve]

Because the XBone's eSRAM eats a lot of that APU budget. There next gen vision wasn't from a gaming standpoint first & foremost.

Which is what ruins my day. Why go away from the thing everyone wants? You want a set top box? Fine. Make one, just dont take away from my gaming capabilities to serve a group of people that dont care about gaming. And that same group of people WONT pay $500 and an online fee to do something they can get with a Roku or AppleTV w/out a Kinect.

 

[mrklaw]

So this is why they need the GPU reserve right? It's rendering the game and the dashboard at the same time. Am i missing something? Is there more to it than that?

More than that. Remember at the reveal where they showed snap mode? You have an actual app like Skype video chat running next to the game. So more demanding than just running the OS

Also they reserve some for kinect

 

[skdoo]

Bgamer - Sony didn't build as much of a media machine as MS did. Their focus has first and foremost been on games, while MS has been off securing TV deals with the NFL, and Fitness deals all NOT related to games.

MS has games, but the gamer is NOT their primary audience. They want normal people to own this box, and use it as their set top device. MS is in competition with Apple and Google these days a LOT more than they are Sony. No matter what a gaming message board says.

 

[Biker19]

Both systems are "media machines the can also run console games". Sony and MS will be going for the exact same areas. PS4 having more power doesn't negate that fact.

There's a difference between a device which is focused on games with living room features acting as a supplement, and a device which is aimed at the living room with games as the supplement.

Sony's more in line with the former (PS4), while Microsoft are more in line with the latter (Xbox One).

 

[IT Slave]

What plausible reason exists for the OS to demand 10% of the GPU?

The Xbox One is actually running two OSes in tandem? I ask you again - why must the GPU sacrifice 10% of it's resources to allow the operating system to operate?

I thought this would be simple to understand. Game and Application developers need predictable environments and so in this case MS had to give them a worst case scenario for how much memory and GPU resources they would have available to them. The OS environments shouldn't be competing with each other for resources. In Xbox One's case, it's two separate OS environments sharing resources instead of a single OS sharing resources between applications.

To add to that, you need room for growth. These machines need to be relevant for ten years. They need to be able to evolve in response to what's next. Just think about the shift that happened since the last consoles launched. In 2005, the "second screen" was the old 20" CRT you had upstairs. "App" was just an abbreviation for "Application" and reliable streaming was watching a grainy video on your PC that didn't buffer ever 10 seconds. Xbox and PS3 were barely able to evolve to adapt to these trends.

 

[NoirVisage]

By Richard Leadbetter.
a man who does not give a flying $#@ about his reputation.

 

[Finalizer]

Running all those fancy Windows 8 effects, such as app snapping, on top of games and HDMI input?

Note that velociraptor is replying to the claim "the GPU allocation on the Xbox One has nothing to do with the snap functionality specifically." Hence the question concerning what is readily obvious to anyone else.

 

[Skeff]

Bgamer - Sony didn't build as much of a media machine as MS did. Their focus has first and foremost been on games, while MS has been off securing TV deals with the NFL, and Fitness deals all NOT related to games.

MS has games, but the gamer is NOT their primary audience. They want normal people to own this box, and use it as their set top device. MS is in competition with Apple and Google these days a LOT more than they are Sony. No matter what a gaming message board says.

Unfortunately for Microsoft, it seems Sony is the only one actually making progress in making this deals, e.g. viacom.

The difference is of course:

PS4 does games and media.
XB1 does media and games.

 

[Chobel]

Both systems are "media machines the can also run console games". Sony and MS will be going for the exact same areas. PS4 having more power doesn't negate that fact.

I don't know about Xbox One, but PS4 is game console that can be used as media machine not the other way around.

 

[SHADES]

Which is what ruins my day. Why go away from the thing everyone wants? You want a set top box? Fine. Make one, just dont take away from my gaming capabilities to serve a group of people that dont care about gaming. And that same group of people WONT pay $500 and an online fee to do something they can get with a Roku or AppleTV w/out a Kinect.

You're not alone, I've loved my time on 360 & all MS had to do after the Sony reveal for me to be Day one was build a system that would compete as gaming console 1st, But kinect, TV TV, sports & TV was all I needed to hear where next gen lay.

Its a shame because even with its paywall XBL has grown into a solid feature but for me anyway its time to move on.

 

[Drek]

Both systems are "media machines the can also run console games". Sony and MS will be going for the exact same areas. PS4 having more power doesn't negate that fact.

The respective hardware/retail package designs sure doesn't suggest that.

MS spent their BoM on:
1. Kinect - no major first party Kinect title at launch, but it controls the system's OS via voice and gesture commands. Basically it's an OS tool that can also be used by games.

2. 8GB of DDR3 as a hardware necessity - to allow for the layered OS and the various media features. This also produced the need for ESRAM, eating up transistor count on the APU, in order to come even close to meeting the GPU's bandwidth needs.

3. Dedicated audio processor, primarily used by Kinect - to support Kinect voice input.

Meanwhile Sony spent their BoM on:
1. Beefier GPU side - this is what produces graphics and will allow for GPGPU, so it's the best horsepower per dollar allocation they could find.

2. Unified GDDR5 - not optimal for running the OS but definitely optimal for running games.

3. Upping RAM count from 4GB to 8GB - future proofing memory supply for games.

Nothing in the PS4's box in non-gaming related. Consumers pay zero out of pocket for non-gaming features when they buy a PS4. All of Sony's media features are coming via software after the fact, entirely optional. The Xbox One was designed from the ground up with a focus on non-gaming features via hardware, with non-optional cost attached to the purchase that has nothing to do with improving your game play experience.

 

[velociraptor]

Surely you agree that PC gaming in the past 6 years has been heavily constrained by current gen hardware? There were some games where the devs went the extra mile and added exclusive effects and particles and all that jazz, but many many ports were lazy (Dark Souls comes to mind).

You could run everything with the better performance possible (provided you have a nice rig) but the presentation on itself isn't that different. The games run on higher fps and resolution, but nothing else (even though those are very important things imo) but they could do much much more if the baseline were a little higher. More effects, bigger areas, etc..

Even the lazy port looked miles better than the console version. Dark Souls looked great in 1080p and above.

 

[Drek]

By Richard Leadbetter.
a man who does not give a flying $#@ about his reputation.

More like a man deathly afraid that a real hardware gap will make his site (Digital Foundry) irrelevant.

Not going to draw a lot of clicks when every face off is "Yep, PS4 stomps a mud hole in XB1's ass once again".

 

[velociraptor]

More like a man deathly afraid that a real hardware gap will make his site (Digital Foundry) irrelevant.

Not going to draw a lot of clicks when every face off is "Yep, PS4 stomps a mud hole in XB1's ass once again".

We've had an entire generation of 360 > PS3 from DF. Not sure why the opposite would eliminate clicks.

 

[skdoo]

Excellent post Drek... remember that Cerny received a LOT of input on the features of PS4 from the developer community, which is why it is so easy to develop for, and why the RAM and GPU received the majority of the investment.

MS put most of its focus on Kinect...

 

[Sorc3r3r]

You normally never want to keep on drawing attention to your weak point. The focus on the hardware itself is insta-win for Sony each time Microsoft do it. But the focus on trying to bump up the performance of the Bone seems to indicate that 3rd party publishers see that Microsoft is a paper tiger and were unwilling to gimp without cold hard cash. Threat of no title on X1 if they don't gimp is no threat at all since it would give Sony an instant exclusive. Microsoft working hard to plug a gap that won't be plugged.

If Sony has the de facto multiplatform console, the revenue market share numbers, even if units sold was similar (which it is very unlikely to be) would be so one-sided. Microsoft are definitely in a panic about this, that realisation is dawning. Sony have got to be feeling very comfortable, don't have to pay for exclusives, they are the go-to platform for multi's - that is where the bulk of the high margin money is.

This is an interesting point of view.
I find very weird, almost absurd what MS is doing with all this tech, spec focus talk lately, it's a battle they have no hope to win it risks to become free advertisement for the competition, but when you put the question like you did...

As much as i hated with passion the original xbox one policy, i'm starting to think that MS should have sticked with that, right now their new console seems so unfocussed, too unfocussed i dare to say.

 

[Perkel]

If the power is unlocked at some point, it must mean the Kinect requirement will be dropped at some point. That is how I'm reading into it. If that is the case, I feel sorry for those who buy the console at launch who wish they had a Kinectless, cheaper option.

They won't drop Kinect.

What they are saying is basically what Sony did with PS3 OS shrinking it down and making it more effective over time.

When PS3 started there was no in game XMB not XMB was advanced as todays with such things as trophies and additional functions.

They lowered memory and system resources OS footprint which gave more power to game devs. Something like this will happen with Kinect. Either they will improve precision and how Kinect operates or they will make it more efficient freeing up resources to devs.

 

[FranXico]

Not going to draw a lot of clicks when every face off is "Yep, PS4 stomps a mud hole in XB1's ass once again".

To be fair, DF did just fine back when all face-offs gave the 360 an advantage. I lost count of the times he wrote "another win for the 360, then".

I don't think he is doing this to keep DF relevant.

 

[ChainsawFilms]

As an aside, anyone want to guess how much bandwidth MS are reserving as well? After all, you don't reserve 10% of the GPU and a proportional amount bandwidth to go with it.....

 

[skdoo]

This is an interesting point of view.
I find very weird, almost absurd what MS is doing with all this tech, spec focus talk lately, it's a battle they have no hope to win it risks to become free advertisement for the competition, but when you put the question like you did...

As much as i hated with passion the original xbox one policy, i'm starting to think that MS should have sticked with that, right now their new console seems so unfocussed, too unfocussed i dare to say.

As someone who both competes and collaborates with MS in the non-gaming space for my job this is how MS works. FUD, FUD, and more FUD. Just enough technical information to generate discussion, but a bunch of misinformation as well

 

[frizby]

More like a man deathly afraid that a real hardware gap will make his site (Digital Foundry) irrelevant.

Not going to draw a lot of clicks when every face off is "Yep, PS4 stomps a mud hole in XB1's ass once again".

Insightful. I hadn't looked at it this way.

Maybe it's more "self preservation" than "bias". He might not even know he's doing it.

 

[Nafai1123]

I thought this would be simple to understand. Game and Application developers need predictable environments and so in this case MS had to give them a worst case scenario for how much memory and GPU resources they would have available to them. The OS environments shouldn't be competing with each other for resources. In Xbox One's case, it's two separate OS environments sharing resources instead of a single OS sharing resources between applications.

To add to that, you need room for growth. These machines need to be relevant for ten years. They need to be able to evolve in response to what's next. Just think about the shift that happened since the last consoles launched. In 2005, the "second screen" was the old 20" CRT you had upstairs. "App" was just an abbreviation for "Application" and reliable streaming was watching a grainy video on your PC that didn't buffer ever 10 seconds. Xbox and PS3 were barely able to evolve to adapt to these trends.

I agree with you on what MS is attempting the achieve. The primary difference between MS and Sony's strategies going into next-gen is the idea of multitasking while playing a game. MS felt it was very important to provide the ability to do other things while playing, and thus needed to reserve GPU power for those tasks. Sony on the other hand went with task-swapping without true multitasking, thus allowing them to use less to reserve to OS capacity.

At the end of the day, it's all about whether you want to be able to do other things on the same screen while playing a game. I personally, dont' give a fuck about multitasking while playing since playing a game is rather focus oriented. As long as the OS allows for chat between me and my friends I will be happy. I can see the draw for some people though to be able to snap other functions while still playing.

I disagree that the PS360 were unable to adapt. Both have become primary multimedia boxes in a large number of homes and provide a lot of the functionality that set-top boxes do.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

You need some GPU resources to render a decent quality dashboard. If both the OS and game are running at the same time, you don't want a game using up 100% of the GPU and the user trying to switch to the OS at the same time (worst case scenario).

Only if the graphics of the game and OS are going to be fully rendered at the same time, which they aren't.

It's already been said a million times. There's reserved memory for the OS since it's always in the background but not GPU reserve, since it won't be doing OS GUI and game at the same time. The GPU can instantly switch to whichever pool (OS or game) of memory it's being told to address at any given moment. The game stays frozen until the user switches back to it.

Tl;Dr: process running in the background =/= being graphically rendered in the background too

 

[FStop7]

How can you add 10% to infinity?

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

So currently:

Xbone: 1.18 TF GPU (12 CUs) for games
Xbone: 768 Shaders
Xbone: 48 Texture units
Xbone: 16 ROPS
Xbone: 2 ACE/ 16 queues

PS4: 1.84TF GPU ( 18 CUs) for games + 56%
PS4: 1152 Shaders +50%
PS4: 72 Texture units +50%
PS4: 32 ROPS + 100%
PS4: 8 ACE/64 queues +400%

Looks unbalanced to me.

 

[TUROK]

Goddamn it, Microsoft. Just admit it. Your shit is weak.

 

[Bgamer90]

The respective hardware/retail package designs sure doesn't suggest that.

MS spent their BoM on:
1. Kinect - no major first party Kinect title at launch, but it controls the system's OS via voice and gesture commands. Basically it's an OS tool that can also be used by games.

2. 8GB of DDR3 as a hardware necessity - to allow for the layered OS and the various media features. This also produced the need for ESRAM, eating up transistor count on the APU, in order to come even close to meeting the GPU's bandwidth needs.

3. Dedicated audio processor, primarily used by Kinect - to support Kinect voice input.

Meanwhile Sony spent their BoM on:
1. Beefier GPU side - this is what produces graphics and will allow for GPGPU, so it's the best horsepower per dollar allocation they could find.

2. Unified GDDR5 - not optimal for running the OS but definitely optimal for running games.

3. Upping RAM count from 4GB to 8GB - future proofing memory supply for games.

Nothing in the PS4's box in non-gaming related. Consumers pay zero out of pocket for non-gaming features when they buy a PS4. All of Sony's media features are coming via software after the fact, entirely optional. The Xbox One was designed from the ground up with a focus on non-gaming features via hardware, with non-optional cost attached to the purchase that has nothing to do with improving your game play experience.

So all of the power in the PS4 won't help the system for features outside of gaming?

Sony has their own large branches that make music and movies, yet nothing about the PS4 was designed with media outside of gaming in mind? Even though there isn't much outside of the Playstation consoles that sells well when it comes to Sony products?

Yes, MS made many decisions for features outside of gaming too but at the end of the day, both consoles will more than likely go toe to toe when it comes to features outside of gaming with the main differences being in implementation and/or interface. Both companies want similar living room goals.

 

[BigDug13]

The XB1 was designed for a specific purpose - media machine that can run console games. MS built the set top box that they have been working towards since the first XBox. They never expected Sony to come out with something significantly more powerful.

Remember, the specs were a lot closer in line until Sony upped the RAM at the last moment. A lot closer - Sony had a better GPU that MS had no idea of, but needed the extra RAM to take advantage.

Sony built a game machine, while MS built a set top box. It really is that simple - different philosophies in the design

I'm not so sure. It almost seems like even with 4GB GDDR5, the PS4 would still have been overall more powerful.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

As someone who both competes and collaborates with MS in the non-gaming space for my job this is how MS works. FUD, FUD, and more FUD. Just enough technical information to generate discussion, but a bunch of misinformation as well

I see.
I'm in the opinion that in 2013 the FUD strategy may backfire horribly.
But they know better than me, of this i'm sure.