RoadHazard
Gold Member
I'm not sure I would read too much into that quote. The console is "close to 2 TF" no matter what the CPU is clocked at. It's over 1.84 TF either way, we're just not sure how much over.
-
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 sure I would read too much into that quote. The console is "close to 2 TF" no matter what the CPU is clocked at. It's over 1.84 TF either way, we're just not sure how much over.
Giant Panda
Member
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Diminishing returns != no graphics improvement. You might be the "kinda stupid" one if you can't understand that.
It wasn't an issue for the PS2 mainly because it had a great game library and was a cheap DVD player. It's userbase (welll at least in the US) during 2000-2001 was obviously no where near the userbase it had in the US in say, 2004-2005.
You can't say this at all. We don't know what MS could put out years from now. The PS3 didn't get the ball rolling in terms of this until around the same time as the first PS3 slim remodel -- so around 2009. That's 3 years after launch.
Again, we don't know this. If the new IPs they introduce during the beginning of the gen are good and get great mainstream praise/word-of-mouth then they'll get a decent userbase that will support possible future sequels of those games.
________________________________
I do believe that PS4 will outsell the Xbox One in worldwide sales but anything can happen over the next 5-6 years.
_____________________________
The majority of PS2 sales came after the Gamecube launched. Sony could have gave the system at that time a price drop but they didn't -- and neither did they really need too. People were buying a PS2 due to its game library and features.
The PS2 was the weaker console and cost $100 more during the majority of its gen vs. the Gamecube, but many who bought one after 2001 (which was the majority of the system's userbase) didn't care. The system was still more appealing to them.
We don't know this at all yet. We should wait for more gaming content to come -- as I said previously, the system has a lot of solid looking games coming out next year.
____________________________
How is it misleading? The past 3 Playstation consoles within their gen had worse looking multiplats. I should know... I was a huge fan of the first two Playstation consoles.
travisbickle
Member
Now I see, PS3 ran over your dog?
Unlike the PS1 and PS2, the PS3 didn't have appealing looking exclusives until the middle of its life (and not during the beginning a la PS1/PS2).
That is just my opinion though.
Adding CPU and GPU flops isn't a useful metric.
First big 1st party game came out in 2007 - Uncharted. Waaaay before PS3 Slim in Semptember 2009.
LiquidSolid
Member
You mean aside from the fact that multiplatform games were nowhere even remotely as important or prevalent on the PS1 and PS2 as they are nowadays, right?
And I guess it's not important enough to mention that there were a lot of games that were identical between the PS3 and 360 or even better on PS3. Doesn't fit the narrative, so let's just ignore it.
Like I said, laughably misleading.
Sword Of Doom
Member
I think the issue here is multiplatform game performance. Exclusives will always shine since you can't compare them.
fatgamecat
Member
More PS4 CPU comments by Project Cars dev
On being asked if there was a challenge in development due to different CPU threads and GPU compute units in the PS4, Tudor stated that, Its been challenging splitting the renderer further across threads in an even more fine-grained manner even splitting already-small tasks into 2-3ms chunks. The single-core speed is quite slow compared to a high-end PC though so splitting across cores is essential.
The bottlenecks are mainly in command list building we now have this split-up of up to four cores in parallel. There are still some bottlenecks to work out with memory flushing to garlic, even after changing to LCUE, the memory copying is still significant.
On being asked if there was a challenge in development due to different CPU threads and GPU compute units in the PS4, Tudor stated that, Its been challenging splitting the renderer further across threads in an even more fine-grained manner even splitting already-small tasks into 2-3ms chunks. The single-core speed is quite slow compared to a high-end PC though so splitting across cores is essential.
The bottlenecks are mainly in command list building we now have this split-up of up to four cores in parallel. There are still some bottlenecks to work out with memory flushing to garlic, even after changing to LCUE, the memory copying is still significant.
GameAddict411
Member
there are a lot of wrong information in this post.
PS4 has:
Better CPU.
Better GPU.
Better RAM setup.
More RAM available.
OS
Faster (installs - UI )
Simpler
Social (streams)
Remote Play
Better Chat
Hardware design
Smaller
better looking
internal PSU
Software support:
More 1st party studious.
Complete support for indies.
Best console Multiplatform versions guaranteed.
VALUE:
you get the most powerful console on earth for $399 ($100 cheaper than main competitor)
Fatality!
Better CPU.
Better GPU.
Better RAM setup.
More RAM available.
OS
Faster (installs - UI )
Simpler
Social (streams)
Remote Play
Better Chat
Hardware design
Smaller
better looking
internal PSU
Software support:
More 1st party studious.
Complete support for indies.
Best console Multiplatform versions guaranteed.
VALUE:
you get the most powerful console on earth for $399 ($100 cheaper than main competitor)
Fatality!
GameAddict411
Member
it sounds to me that the problem is lack of experience rather than a "bottleneck", if it's hard for them to split-up threads on the CPU for parallelism i wonder how the game performance would have been on PC(read: disaster) if they didn't announce a next gen version lol.
It's similar to what the Planetside 2 devs were saying. They were used to having high single core performance so it takes some extra work to get the parallel cores working.
You make this argument literally every chance you get and it is still as grossly unrepresentative of the dynamic in the sixth generation now as it is the first time you made it.
The PS2 took off far before it had a great game library. You keep talking about price vis-a-vis GameCube (really keep talking about it), but the GameCube is not instructive or revealing of anything besides the depths of irrelevance that Nintendo had sunk to during that period. You talk about the PS2's sales after the GameCube's release and that it was weaker, but what about the PS2's sales before the GameCube had come out? What percentage of the GameCube's lifetime sales had the PS2 reached in the 18 months prior to the GameCube's release? I'll let you do the math but suffice it to say the generation was over before any of the competitor consoles came out.
The system was more appealing than the GameCube because the GameCube was a non-entity. It does not reveal anything about price elasticity of consoles because we saw the exact same sales pattern for the Xbox (really, almost demonstrably the exact same sales pattern) at the same price point as the PS2.
The PS2 was the anointed successor console to the most successful console in the history of consoles and it had absolutely no competition for 18 months. The generation was decided on day 1 of the Xbox and GameCube's life.
Why do you think multiplat performance didn't matter so much? Do you think it is because multiplat performance didn't/doesn't matter to a significant degree or do you think it is because the PS2 had structural advantages in the way it was released, marketed, and sold that marginal benefits in versions of Madden didn't matter so much?
And do you see why the argument doesn't hold for this gen, where the systems are releasing at the same time, at different price points, and with 99% of the same software?
This is equivalent to trying to figure out why DVD took off vs. Laserdisk. You are missing the forest for the trees. Laserdisk had such structural weaknesses that fringe, nuanced comparisons between the two products are completely irrelevant because one of the products was a complete fat egg.
It was a big title but the system still suffered from its $200 higher price vs. the competition. Plus that's just only one game.
When the PS3 got the remodel, it also got a price drop, and hyped exclusive games on a more regular basis.
___________________________________
Uh, what?
I agree that they weren't as "AAA huge" but they were still popular and still made up a large portion of games being sold on consoles. Heck, certain multiplats (like Madden for example) were even more popular back then in comparison to now.
What "narrative"? It was pretty much a fact through a large portion of last gen that the 360 had better looking multiplats... especially early on. Even though this is true, it doesn't automatically negate the cases in which the multiplats looked pretty much the same.
Heh, okay -- if you say so.
serversurfer
Member
We don't. We've just heard the XBone reserves two cores, while PS4 only reserves one.
Of course, we've also heard the PS4's CPU is clocked at 1.6 GHz, which doesn't appear to be the case.
Actually, most of my PS2-owning friends had absolutely no idea it played DVDs until I told them. They just bought it because it played games.
Actually, the PS3 consistently outsold the XB360 since shortly after it launched and Sony sorted their supplies. I don't recall the exact timeframe, but I'm sure it was by mid-2007, maybe Spring.
You're kinda missing the point. A big reason the GameCube struggled despite being cheaper and having better graphics was because the PS2 had already established itself by the time GC launched. 10M PS2s doesn't seem like much compared to 155M PS2s, but it's a hell of a lot compared to 0 GCs. Similarly, the XB360's established base particularly in the US made it difficult for PS3 to gain traction.
The PS2 had no where close to its full userbase during the 2000-2001 period though. So the majority of PS2 owners got one when the Xbox and Gamecube was available on shelves. As I said before, the systems games and features combined with its overall greater presence in advertising greatly helped it throughout the majority of the gen.
The majority of people can only have one console per gen. Therefore, they are going to buy multiplats for whatever console they buy. People chose what console they buy based on the things it has in terms of features and content in various categories.
As long as the games as a whole look/play at what they consider to be a "next gen leap" vs. what they had on their old consoles, they will be pleased.
No, because there are still many choosing one console over the other based on exclusive features and content. There people who bought an Xbox One based on the content it will be getting vs. what the PS4 will be getting.
I never said that the fact will be as prevalent and/or huge as it was during the PS2 gen (since obviously this gen has just started and there are still many games to be announced in the future); I just relate it to the PS2 gen simply because there were many who fully knew that the Gamecube was more powerful than the PS2 (at $100 less) but still choose the PS2 after the Gamecube launched due to what the PS2 had in comparison.
s_mirage
Member
Why would the performance have been a disaster when the PC, the format they wrote the engine for, has much better single thread performance than the new consoles? Not everything easily lends itself to multithreading; do you see many heavily threaded emulators for example?
Here we go again. Yes, more people bought PS2s after GameCube and Xbox came out. This is because time is linear and 10 years is a longer period of time than 18 months. The point is that it did not matter because they were not competitive alternatives (the GameCube especially). Again, the point is that the winner was chosen in that first 18 months. Yes, the GameCube and Xbox continued to exist, but it does not matter.
The PS2 sold more units than the Xbox and GameCube sold combined after the competitors had been removed from the market. What does this say about the generation? It says nothing because those two systems were irrelevant.
I would ask you to substantiate any of the arguments you make in your post. How do you know people can only have one console per gen? How do you know what pleases people? This is all conjecture and you have thrown it out on the boards at least fifteen times and in this thread it isn't even relevant. How do you know people "fully knew" the GameCube was more powerful than the PS2? Why does this matter?
You are going to just keep making these pedantic observations when there is one big elephant in the room: the PS2 was established as the console to own before the other two even existed on the market. How does this not color every single comment you make after this reality is established?
The PS2 sold more units than the Xbox and GameCube sold combined after the competitors had been removed from the market. What does this say about the generation? It says nothing because those two systems were irrelevant.
I would ask you to substantiate any of the arguments you make in your post. How do you know people can only have one console per gen? How do you know what pleases people? This is all conjecture and you have thrown it out on the boards at least fifteen times and in this thread it isn't even relevant. How do you know people "fully knew" the GameCube was more powerful than the PS2? Why does this matter?
You are going to just keep making these pedantic observations when there is one big elephant in the room: the PS2 was established as the console to own before the other two even existed on the market. How does this not color every single comment you make after this reality is established?
Really? That's very interesting if true since it being a cheap DVD player was all over mainstream media.
You mean worldwide correct?
No, I definitely agree with that. My main point though was that there were many people who chose a PS2 vs. the competition after the competition was released solely based on the content and features the PS2 had in comparison.
I just brought that up since many people (big gamers matter of fact) who went with a PS2 that gen didn't really care about the advantages of the competition -- and again, I'm referring to people who bought the PS2 after its first year (which is the majority).
Louis Cyphre
Banned
What we know is right now MS is having a better start than any XBox previous to it. Now what? What I find interesting is how the XBox One can't have success even if it sells less than the PS4. It's like some people act as though there can only be one winner. Yes it is true MS has a bigger uphill battle coming out with a higher price point and the PS4 also being more powerful. Marketing can do wonders as can games people really want. It's also their job to show consumers why Kinect is vital or at the very least something consumers may like or want.
What is clear however is this insistence by a few like Biker19 whom I initially responded to who have somehow decided on their own for whatever reason to paint the most negative light on the system. To be as pessimistic as possible. Almost to the point of wanting the system to not do well.
Every generation there are hurdles to overcome for the game console to be a success and every generation we seem to have a few folks who decide early on to pick sides and root for one while continually trying to challenge the other.
This whole comment seems to come from someone who is mature and does not get emotionally attached to brands. Well said.
fatgamecat
Member
Yes devs will have to rewrite their engines to handle 6-7 CPU cores if they haven't already.
"The bottlenecks are mainly in command list building. There are still some bottlenecks to work out with memory flushing to garlic, even after changing to LCUE, the memory copying is still significant." Anyone want to explain this in simpler terms?
Let's ignore the most popular games in the world were exclusive to ps2 when GameCube and Xbox launched. But hey you did hold out hope Sony would have DRM too and everyone just misunderstood Microsoft's plans.
I'll buy your argument when GTA cod and battlefield are exclusive to x1.
His favorite topic, console sales from two gens ago.
GameAddict411
Member
What "PC" you're referring to exactly? This where your argument falls apart.
I'm not some kind of alien; I get attached to brands just like anyone else. I think it is tough to talk about consumer taste in aggregate when we have so little data besides flat sales numbers.
simplythebest
Banned
No, he saying Xbox One will be the new PS2. Frankly, it's just a never ending cycle with this dude.
I wouldn't say it didn't matter at all -- you had people who had a choice of what console to get during the majority of the PS2's life. There were people who chose the PS2 over competition while still at the same time knowing what the competition had over the PS2 (power).
It says that many agreed that the PS2 had a larger & more diverse library in comparison.
Because previous gens showed that there were many people who only had one console out of the bunch? That's not to say that case is true for everyone (and neither did I say that it was).
So people don't buy a new console based on the improvements it has over the (older) consoles they own?
I've said it many times before -- there were many who fully knew that the PS2 was weaker but they still bought it vs. the competition due to its content.
The same is and will be true of the Xbox One vs. the PS4.
Because the system was established as "the console to own" based on what the system had. Its exclusive gaming content mattered since its exclusive gaming content was different and better in comparison to the older consoles that people had.
And that's my whole point -- different gaming content can sway a person to chose one console over the other regardless of it being more expensive or it not being #1 in power.
An utterly irrelevant metric since this is the first time consoles are being launched with manufacturing solutions and logistics designed to handle them thanks to the smartphone and tablet age.
PS4 is also running better than PS2. The launch performance, as long as you sell out, is almost irrelevant to how the console has actually been received by the wider market.
On your wider point of being a success, you don't have any significant monetary success in this business unless you achieve scale. Microsoft is going to lose the battle for scale. Sub-50mn units is not going to be a success for Microsoft.
Yeah, I'm just going to ask you to keep this argument to threads explicitly about sixth gen sales since it is obvious you aren't going to be able to substantiate things beyond "I've said this many times before" and it derails threads over and over.
OK! Let's get this straight.
2007. excklusives :
Uncharted, Motorstorm, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, Folklore, F1 Championship Edition, Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, khm.... Lair
2008. exclusives :
LittleBigPlanet, Metal Gear Solid IV, Wipeout HD, Valkyria Chronicles ( great RPG, btw. ), Resistance 2, MLB : The Show 2008, Motorstorm : Pacific Rift, GT5 : Prologue, Ratchet & Clank Future: Quest for Booty, Siren : Blood Course ( Lost Translation - excellent horror game ), khm.....Haze,
2009. exclusives ( before PS3 Slim came out in September 2009. ) :
Killzone 2, Demon's Souls 2, Yakuza 3, MLB : The Show 2009, InFamous, Atelier Rorona,
Well, so many god damn exclusives before first PS3 Slim.
I don't think you understand why the PS2 dominated, they had exclusivity on series such as Final fantasy, MGS, GTA, DMC, aswell as their first party offerings of course like God of war and gran turismo on top of backwards compatibility for PS1 games.
You always seems to bring up ps2 vs. gamecube, it's as if your stuck in time 10 years ago.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Can you tell me next weeks lottery numbers too?
RealityPales
Member
I thought we knew this already?
You complain too much to be 'impartial'. So drop the act, it's pretty transparent.
You really don't like any one talking "ill" of xone huh?
You try to play the neutral poster guy but your posting habits resembles someone who sees Sony "fanboys" in his sleep.
If true? What reason do you have to doubt his anecdotal account of his friends' awareness of the DVD feature? It's certainly far more believable (and verifiable) than your claim that the PS2 was touted so heavily as a DVD player by the media that no one could possibly miss that fact (all the time? Throughout the entirety of the PS2's lifespan?).
Why? Because the PS2 didn't continue to have advantages after the first year? Features that people care about in luxury products tend to be subjective, but a couple that do seem to be fairly universally important in the GAME console market are a robust library and healthy ongoing developer support.
At the time the PS2 had GTA, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Gran Turismo and other games in that calibur at a quantity you could not find on the Xbox or Gamecube, power was largely not a consideration because of this, although I do think the Xbox's power was a factor in carving the market it did albeit very limited in comparison to the PS2.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
No, both systems are starting well. That is all. What is evident is we always have each generation a few that like to paint the darkest picture possible. I know the X1 has larger hurdles to keep the momentum going but some of you guys seem to get a payoff making the X1 look bad.
No I'm not saying that at all. No future console will probably ever match the PS2 since the great graphical leap it had over the PS1 + "cheap DVD player" will probably never be duplicated in impact size.
What I am saying though is that many people choose a console based on the content it has vs. the competition, regardless of its rank in power within its respective gen. That's it.
Don't see what makes my opinion so controversial at all.
Based on the content of the OP, it appears yet again to be MS's own PR team that's doing a better job of making the X1 look bad than what anyone here is doing. The amount of times they've resorted to easily refuted lies/misrepresentation now is hard to overlook - is there any reason why we should?
Well it's a good thing for PS4 owners that it's probably going to have the better content too.
s_mirage
Member
What are you talking about? Any modern PC that is viable as a gaming platform will have significantly stronger single thread performance than the PS4 or Xbone. Developers know what their target hardware is capable of and write code accordingly.
rokkerkory
Member
neogaf within a NeoGaf within a NEOGAF
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
So in the end your overall point was MS will sell...some consoles. No shit.
That was a hella roundabout way to state this fact, which can't be argued with. But come on - don't be deliberately obtuse. No-one here is doubting XB1 will sell. But the general consensus is that Sony is going to eat into Xbox's marketshare this gen, in a big way. And MS are not just gonna think 'well damn it's ok. Some gamers are choosing our console for the content we are offering'.
Nope. It will be a huge failure for the company. The debate should be how they are gonna stop that happening.
Similar threads
- Poll