I'm not that impressed by Ryse either (I still think it looks good) but this can't be serious.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Substance Engine benchmark implies PS4 CPU is faster than Xbox One's
- Thread starter Brad Grenz
- Start date
I'm not that impressed by Ryse either (I still think it looks good) but this can't be serious.
But both are launch tittles, we see this every gen. I would suspect that both respective platforms will have their time to shine. Quantum Break and The order 1886 seem like the games that will ease a lot of these hardware/performance anxiety'. Like with any console gen, they may lack the hardware but the software will always tell a different story.
I never said it wasn't relevant, I was just throwing a loose example to how something could affect the results and not show a clear picture on OS use or core clocks. I imagine the API and the access to the hardware may also have an affect.
I'm not saying anything for certain, nor am I debating the results. Just trying to give some alternative perspective to the possibilities when we don't know the entire picture.
I thought something more recent was shown, but I could be wrong.
Has the Kinect usage ever been confirmed? If so, link please?
I agree with you that the why is interesting when we find things out about these systems. However the rest of your post sounds like your just guessing and running with it.
They can try as much as they want. It won't make a lick of difference as long as the price tag remains at $500 w/tax. Sure, it's selling right now, but it's because of the early adopters (or "hardcores").
But the average consumer rarely spends $500+ on home gaming consoles, especially when they have rent, bills, etc. to pay, children to take care of (possibly), & grocery.
I only ask for links after I've exhausted my own attempt at google searches. There's way too much "link" posts going on by people who want you to do the research/legwork for them.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Can't wait for visual spectacles like God of War and demanding tech showcases like GTA V to show up.
Pound_lb003
Member
So true.
Anyone saying 'diminishing returns' is kinda stupid. The evolution of art assets, asset pipelines, art direction and graphics technology over the past generation has been more impressive than the power of those machines ever were.
Was there any reason to edit my post, do we really need to specify the overall visual representation of game based on how its was achieved? Are we only allowed to judge a games visuals strictly based on its technical merits? I personally couldn't give a flying fuck for what's underneath the hood, if it looks good and runs good...That's good enough for me.
Hey thanks you two, much appreciated.
It's not something I do regularly. I generally do research on my free time, I just find the xbone the least interesting, so I'm not clear on some things.
ionicbluebird
Member
Actually the mic array on the PS Camera (if the PSEye was any indication) is REALLY good.
It is amazing how well the maths works out for either scenarios.
If you think it's core reservation (the xbone reserves 6 for games), it would be:
6 × 14 ÷ 12 = exactly 7 (cores available to games on PS4, but it means the PS4 CPU is also running at 1.75ghz)
If you think it's purely an upclock, it would be:
1.75ghz × 14 ÷ 12 = 2.0ghz (if the PS4 reserves the same number of cores)
If you think it's core reservation (the xbone reserves 6 for games), it would be:
6 × 14 ÷ 12 = exactly 7 (cores available to games on PS4, but it means the PS4 CPU is also running at 1.75ghz)
If you think it's purely an upclock, it would be:
1.75ghz × 14 ÷ 12 = 2.0ghz (if the PS4 reserves the same number of cores)
serversurfer
Member
Based on the iOS scores which I haven't broken down myself yet the benchmark seems to be per-core, which would mean PS4 has 7 cores at 2 GHz, while XBone has 6 cores at 1.75 GHz, making the PS4's CPU 33% faster with regard to games.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
The PS3 was even more at $600 and the games for it until MGS4 hit were not that appealing. Yet it still sold better than the XBox 360 on average per year.
ionicbluebird
Member
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiintersting.. but we don't know for sure if the PS4 is using one or two cores for OS. I'm leaning towards two based on the Shadowfall presentation only mentioning 6. Would be great if it's only one partioned; and not in any console war way, but just better for the developers.
LiquidSolid
Member
Oh history, you're so easy to rewrite.
Heh, well there hasn't been a home gaming console that was $500 (or more) in a long time. There is proof that general consumers are okay with tech products in that range as long as they are appealing in multiple ways.
I agree that $500 will be tough once this year is over but good content and appealing features could still make many people want to get one. 2014 looks like it will be a really strong year for the Xbox One in terms of content.
I think though that MS is going to have to make some bundles if they still want to keep the $500 price around this time next year -- So $500 for Xbox One with say, Titanfall and/or Halo 5 bundled and a few months of XBL. I'm pretty sure that would sell pretty well.
There was one last gen.
There is proof that iPads and other devices sell in that range. There is not proof that game consoles do.
If it's 1.75 GHz, like Xbox One, then it's 1.95 TFLOPS.
ionicbluebird
Member
Available to games... Either:
96 GFLOPS at 2Ghz with 6 cores available
or
112 GFLOPS at 2GHz with 7 cores available
vs.
The previously thought to have been correct 76.8 GFLOPS at 1.6Ghz with 6 cores available.
Total TFLOPS at 2Ghz would be 1.968 TFLOPS.. Almost 2TF
or as said above; 1.95TFLOPS at 1.75 Ghz
CadetMahoney
Member
In the long that won't save them. You only need 1 solid year of constantly losing to PS4, inferior multiplats, consistently losing marketshare in every region and the gen will be set in stone.
The blunders they made for this gen coming off 360 marketshare are equally hilarious as they are pathetic lol. Probably worse than PS2-PS3 because Ps3 made a comeback. Won't be long before third parties simply ignore bone because it's not worth the return in investment.
simplythebest
Banned
He Didnt Lie, Its Just That The Words He Used In The Order He Used Them Didnt Tell A Truth Per Se
Windom Earle
Member
Exactly. All this doesn't necessarily tell the full story and people should wait for the truth to come out.
... I don't even know where to begin with this.
1. A gen isn't determined as a whole in year 1.
2. The Xbox One has pretty much made a comeback from its terrible post launch period. It's selling well -- at least so far.
3. If inferior multiplats determined a console's "life", the Playstation brand would have been gone years ago -- the PS brand had worse looking multiplats for almost two decades .
Yes... at the beginning. So again, a long time.
Ignoring inflation yes.
The biggest problem with the PS3 early on was that it had no exclusive content that was considered worthy of its higher price vs. the Xbox 360.
The Xbox One however, does seem to be at least getting really good content for its first year so we'll see what happens. As I said before though, if MS wants to keep the $500 price after the middle of next year, they are more than likely going to have to make some game bundles.
simplythebest
Banned
This guy knows what's up :]
I think he's referring to the cheapest SKU available. Sony became the butt of the joke with "Five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars", but what some tend to forget is that there was also a 20GB SKU at $499.
ionicbluebird
Member
On another note... how lovely is is that we don't have to deal with multiple SKU's again.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
They probably didn't forget. To this day I've still only seen one with my own eyes and it was a refurb a couple years after launch. When I bought my PS3 around launch I really only wanted it as a Blu-ray player. I would have been all over that shit.
That SKU was basically Sony saying, "Hey look, we're really only $500.
lol
Meanwhile, the core 360 was widely available. (but actually more like $340 because of the practical need for a memory card before used HDDs became common) Most people I know wouldn't have noticed the difference between that and the HDD models until BF3 came out. One of my cousins had an Elite and didn't download a single thing from Live.
True; but since there was a $299 Xbox 360 you still had that $200 gap either way. The $499 PS3 was a better value than the $299 Xbox 360 though.
I don't know. I guess it's easier for general consumers but I wouldn't have mind paying $550 for an Xbox One with 1 TB.
ionicbluebird
Member
Yeah, in Microsoft's case, I could see the value in multiple sku's based on hard drive size. Even Sony had done it with the PS3 and likely will do it again.
Just as long as they are all feature complete.
I didn't intend to imply that those who joke about the $599 price tag did forget, just that it does slip some minds when discussion surrounding the PS3's price tag comes up -- as you say yourself, it wasn't exactly popular.
Sure, but that's not relevant to the point I was making (that the PS3 was available for less than $500, albeit barely).
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Quite a while back on here some dev or person involved with the PS4 (maybe it was even Cerny himself) mentioned that the PS4 was 'close to 2 TFLOPS'. So this all makes perfect sense in hindsight and there was debate at the time that either the CPU or GPU was clocked higher than those VGLeaks specs.
Melchiah
Member
With the PS2 that wasn't an issue, due to the userbase it already had before the competitors launched. Its popularity resulted with a huge 3rd party support, including a plenty of exclusives. The PS3 was saved by the varied 1st party library, which is something the XB1 isn't likely to accomplish on the same scale. They'll have to rely on bought 3rd party content, and if their userbase will be far behind the PS4's that's going to be costly/impossible.
The generation was already decided when Sony announced they would launch this year and at a cheaper price since hell would have to freeze over for them to not significantly outsell Microsoft everywhere outside of NA.
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
Yes but never has a console been released at the same time as a rival product that is cheaper and more powerful to boot.
Like others have said, once the initial Xbox hardcore have bought their Xbox One's and the early adopters sated with purchases at Xmas, the console is going to struggle to sell well at that price, at least in comparison to PS4.
Well, before annoucement that PS4 CPU is faster, FLOPS was 102 @ 1.6 GHz ( http://www.examiner.com/article/ps4-orbis-leak-claims-8-core-amd-cpu-integrated-with-gpu ). Xbones CPU is @ 112 GFLOPS - 1.75 GHz ( after upclock ). But now PS4 is 1.75 GHz or 2.0 GHz, i think the whole system come close to 2TF.
nelsonroyale
Member
Well, number of combatants on screen in Ryse is cannot really be considered a big deal, given how limited encounters are...it isn't any different in that respect from Heavenly Sword really, except the combat system is a lot more bare bones....It is obviously a technical showcase, but to me it is also an early representation of things to come.
LiquidSolid
Member
What a laughably misleading statement.
IonicSnake
Banned
Well, if PS4 CPU is 2.0 GHz for 6 cores, then GFLOPS are around 127, if i'm correct. So, PS4 is indeed over 2 TF.
If the benchmark is per core, how do you know the ps4 is using 7 cores for gaming?
Evolves into 1100+ page discussing that the OP didn't make a thread worth discussing about.
GoofsterStud
Member
The chip specs said up to 2ghz... Who didn't see this coming?
Similar threads
- Poll