PS Orbis vs Xbox Durango. Digital Foundry's verdict.

  • 72 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Nothing really new here seeing as how every spec has been leaked for these consoles already, but they do a really good job of comparing the two consoles in layman's terms. It's a good read if you care at all about which hardware will be more powerful. It's pretty much what I expected it to be from the leaked specs, but it's good to see Digital Foundry reaffirm Orbis' pretty significant advantage. 

Full article here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-spec-analysis-durango-vs-orbis

Some select quotes:

 The raw technological building blocks powering each next-gen console are designed by the same people, and the raw architecture is almost identical in nature as a consequence. Digital Foundry

...both the next generation Xbox and its PlayStation competitor feature the same CPU - an eight-core AMD offering running at 1.6GHz and based on its forthcoming low-power, high-performance architecture, Jaguar. Digital Foundry

GPU rendering is all about spreading the computational load across many cores and we find that the new Xbox has 12 of these "Compute Units" (CUs), while Orbis has 18 - a 50 per cent advantage. These numbers have been hotly contested in the last couple of weeks but our Orbis sources confirm the Sony side of the equation, while SuperDAE's leak - in combination with proof of his claims supplied to us behind the scenes - confirms the Durango CU count. The information there is around nine months old, hailing from Durango's beta period - in theory, the hardware could be improved, but practically it's almost impossible for this to actually happen. You can't just slap on some extra hardware without setting back your production schedule significantly by many months.

So does the GPU difference translate into as large an advantage as it sounds? VGleaks' Orbis spec, again derived from platform holder documentation, suggests that four of these CUs are reserved for Compute functions, conceivably bringing the PlayStation's raw advantage down from 50 per cent to just over 16. However, while Compute is often used for elements like physics calculations, there's nothing to stop coders hiving off specific graphics features to this hardware - Just Cause 2, for example, used NVIDIA's own Compute solution, CUDA, for enhanced water effects, while a core element of Battlefield 3 - the deferred shading solution that power its beautiful lighting - is handled via DirectX 11 Compute shader code.

 Digital Foundry

Other information has also come to light offering up a further Orbis advantage: the Sony hardware has a surprisingly large 32 ROPs (Render Output units) up against 16 on Durango. ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs). 16 ROPs is sufficient to maintain 1080p, 32 comes across as overkill, but it could be useful for addressing stereoscopic 1080p for instance, or even 4K. However, our sources suggest that Orbis is designed principally for displays with a maximum 1080p resolution. Digital Foundry

Conclusion:

On paper, Orbis looks like the tighter, more powerful, more games-focused design. With Durango, the astonishing lengths to which Microsoft has gone to accommodate 8GB of RAM adds further weight to the hypothesis that its plans for the Xbox hardware extend beyond gaming, that it wants the hardware to form a next-gen media centre. The question is to what extent its non-gaming plans impact on the processing resources available to developers...

____________________________________________________________________________

Looking at nearly every aspect of these two consoles, from the GPU power to the RAM to DirectX VS OpenGL, everything seems to give PS4 an advantage. I think it will translate into better AA and a higher resolution for PS4 ports, but it's exciting to see what Sony devs will achieve on this will console their second or third time through. MS's specs are pretty decent too, so nothing to be disappointed about. 

#2 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

So these are officially the confirmed specs now? I'm quite a bit disappointed in Microsoft's next console, but then again I think almost everyone expected them to go the "media center" route.

Sony really needs the PS4 do to well though. They still failed to turn a profit this last quarter, and their TV division has been losing money for almost a decade now. If the PS4 isn't successful, I'm having a hard time seeing how Sony survives. 

#3 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -

On paper the PS3 sounded like it would a beast but in reality it was far from one. I will wait for final specs and games to make a judgement. Regardless, they both would be more capable than current gen. 

#4 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

On paper the PS3 sounded like it would a beast but in reality it was far from one. I will wait for final specs and games to make a judgement. Regardless, they both would be more capable than current gen. 

Pedro

Like i said earlier, Cell and the Xbox 360 processors were very different. Here we are looking at basically the same processor and the same GPU, albeit one with more processing cores. It's made by the same guys too. 

So these are officially the confirmed specs now? I'm quite a bit disappointed in Microsoft's next console, but then again I think almost everyone expected them to go the "media center" route.Variety

The 720 specs are around 6-7x more powerful than the 720. That's nothing to be disappointed about. 

#5 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -

I am taking a wait and see approach on both systems claims. These folks are chronic liars/decievers so, the majority of the things they would be spewing prior to launch would be hype nonsense. Oh and by folks I mean Sony/Microsoft.

#6 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

Significant advantage? Sounds to me like it's the smallest difference between two consoles of the same generation yet. Identical CPU, one has a slightly more powerful GPU (which most likely won't translate into any real-world advantages) while the other has more RAM (with its actual benefits for gaming being questionable).

#7 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

Significant advantage? Sounds to me like it's the smallest difference between two consoles of the same generation yet. Identical CPU, one has a slightly more powerful GPU (which most likely won't translate into any real-world advantages) while the other has more RAM (with its actual benefits for gaming being questionable).

UpInFlames

600 Gflops of advantage is not significant to you? The PS3 and 360's combined GPU power is around 500 Gflops.

#8 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18416 posts) -
Can't wait for xbox 720 owners to start complaining about the game freezing when their internet connection drops
#9 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Significant advantage? Sounds to me like it's the smallest difference between two consoles of the same generation yet. Identical CPU, one has a slightly more powerful GPU (which most likely won't translate into any real-world advantages) while the other has more RAM (with its actual benefits for gaming being questionable).

S0lidSnake

600 Gflops of advantage is not significant to you? The PS3 and 360's combined GPU power is around 500 Gflops.

No. And the article itself basically suggests so as well.

The raw teraflop measurements being mooted - 1.23TF for Durango and 1.84TF for Orbis - have been dismissed as meaningless, and to a certain extent that is true. However, check out AMD's specs page for all of its various GCN hardware and you'll find similar metrics based a very easy formula derived from clock speed and CU count. It's not the be-all-and-end-all of processing power of course, but these are accurate measurements used by AMD itself in giving a broad assessment of the raw computational power of the parts it creates. You'll find that the next-gen console parts slot in quite nicely with their PC equivalents - in short, the teraflop metrics aren't much use in isolation but they are effective for comparison purposes in terms of base hardware capabilities.


The chances of this being translated into something meaningful as far as real-world development is concerned are very low.

#10 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

By the way, it's teraflops.

#11 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

So by the sounds of this multiplats will be practically identical, with the only big differences being the graphical quality of Sony's 1st party exclusives? 

#12 Posted by rragnaar (27023 posts) -

So by the sounds of this multiplats will be practically identical, with the only big differences being the graphical quality of Sony's 1st party exclusives? 

Vari3ty
That's what it sounds like to me. Some people called the PS3 and 360 the HD twins, but that name seems more appropriate for these consoles.
#13 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

By the way, it's teraflops.

UpInFlames

1000 Gigaflops = 1 teraflop. So we are looking at a 1240 Gflops GPU for Xbox and a 1840 Gflops GPU for PS4.

And your quote from the article pretty much confirms that there is an advantage if you compare them side by side. These GPUs that are nearly identical in terms of architecture, but with one major difference... 18 vs 12 compute units. I dont understand how anyone can look at that and go, 'Nope, it wont translate into any real world advantage.'  Then you have the Rendering Output Units where the PS4 has double the number the Durango has .... again 32 vs 16 output units. From the article: "ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs)." You are roughly looking at better AA and higher resolution. 

Again, this wasn't the case last gen when two different manufacturers made the GPUs for the two consoles. Both had different ways of calculating the theoretical computing power and both had an entire different architecture. Back then you had Nvidia blatantly lying about their GPU's theoretical power when it was clearly weaker than the 360 GPU. This time around it's the same manufacturer making these GPUs which are near identical to the GPUs they put out on PCs, and all these specs are coming from their specfication documents. Even if they are lying about the computing power of these units, we know the actual number of these units is more in one console than there is in the other. 18 vs 12. 32 vs 16. It's really that simple.

#14 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

So by the sounds of this multiplats will be practically identical, with the only big differences being the graphical quality of Sony's 1st party exclusives? 

Vari3ty

Pretty much. Expect higher resolution and better AA on PS4. Maybe even 3D. Plus it looks like the PS4 is a lot easier to program for, with the 720 asking the developers to pull out fancy trick to offset the slower RAM so you might see the developers lead the development on the PS4 and then downport the game to the 360. Pretty much what happened at the start of the current gen. But since the 720 is very similar to the PS4 setup, you wont see anything with awful tearing and framerate issues like the Assassin's Creed PS3 and other Unreal Engine 3 PS3 ports. 

#15 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -

1000 Gigaflops = 1 teraflop. So we are looking at a 1240 Gflops GPU for Xbox and a 1840 Gflops GPU for PS4.

And your quote from the article pretty much confirms that there is an advantage if you compare them side by side. These GPUs that are nearly identical in terms of architecture, but with one major difference... 18 vs 12 compute units. I dont understand how anyone can look at that and go, 'Nope, it wont translate into any real world advantage.'  Then you have the Rendering Output Units where the PS4 has double the number the Durango has .... again 32 vs 16 output units. From the article: "ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs)." You are roughly looking at better AA and higher resolution. 

Again, this wasn't the case last gen when two different manufacturers made the GPUs for the two consoles. Both had different ways of calculating the theoretical computing power and both had an entire different architecture. Back then you had Nvidia blatantly lying about their GPU's theoretical power when it was clearly weaker than the 360 GPU. This time around it's the same manufacturer making these GPUs which are near identical to the GPUs they put out on PCs, and all these specs are coming from their specfication documents. Even if they are lying about the computing power of these units, we know the actual number of these units is more in one console than there is in the other. 18 vs 12. 32 vs 16. It's really that simple.

S0lidSnake

Its not plain and simple. Execution and accessibility of these resources also play a role. At the moment the usage of these resources has not been confirmed. One system can have a OS that is hogging more resources than the other system. One system may allow for true multi-tasking while the other may has quasi multi-tasking. Both scenarios would have varying outcomes and would affect the gaming performance. So its not "really that simple".

#17 Posted by Archangel3371 (15493 posts) -
Not really surprising as I fully expect them to be on par with each other. I think I'm really going to enjoy using the 720 for a whole host of things in and outside of simply just playing games on it. Looking forward to both systems though. PS4 for exclusives and the 720 for everything else.
#18 Posted by Jbul (4835 posts) -

I hope Sony's machine, if they are indeed very close in overall power, ends up being the one with the slight edge on multiplatform titles.   In other words, I don't want them to give me reason to own both consoles -- Sony for it's exclusives, and Microsoft for everything else -- like they did this generation.

 

 

I've said it before, but I'll say it again -- whatever machine focuses most on games (and not stupid-ass multimedia functionality) will be the one that gets my attention and money.

#19 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

So by the sounds of this multiplats will be practically identical, with the only big differences being the graphical quality of Sony's 1st party exclusives? 

S0lidSnake

Pretty much. Expect higher resolution and better AA on PS4. Maybe even 3D. Plus it looks like the PS4 is a lot easier to program for, with the 720 asking the developers to pull out fancy trick to offset the slower RAM so you might see the developers lead the development on the PS4 and then downport the game to the 360. Pretty much what happened at the start of the current gen. But since the 720 is very similar to the PS4 setup, you wont see anything with awful tearing and framerate issues like the Assassin's Creed PS3 and other Unreal Engine 3 PS3 ports. 

I like the sound of everything except for 3D... 3D sucks. I really like hearing about Sony changing their tune and making the architecture friendly -- that's a HUGE change for them and I never really understood the mindset of making a machine that gave developers a hard time. It really, really seems like they have listened to a lot of what bothered people, both in the development community and the public.

Assuming Sony's in at $400 or less, they've not only earned my business again, but earned it exclusively. There's really nothing on the Xbox I can't live without anymore and they would have to have an incredible change in focus regarding first party development to get me to support them again. 

Plus... I could never see myself having to wait for a year or so to jump in to the next generation while I determined if Microsoft's next console was busted, so it's nice to be able to jump in on Day One and not have any/many reservations about new hardware taking a shlt on me shortly afterward.

#20 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

I hope Sony's machine, if they are indeed very close in overall power, ends up being the one with the slight edge on multiplatform titles.   In other words, I don't want them to give me reason to own both consoles -- Sony for it's exclusives, and Microsoft for everything else -- like they did this generation.

 

 

I've said it before, but I'll say it again -- whatever machine focuses most on games (and not stupid-ass multimedia functionality) will be the one that gets my attention and money.

Jbul

This is the second post I've read in this thread where someone said they are very close in overall power because that's not what the article says at all. 

The specs as we currently know them give Sony's console a significant advantage over MS. Unless MS has redesigned their console in the last few months, which the article states is very unlikely, Sony's machine is going to be the goto console for both mutliplatform and first party games. We may not see the advantage right away seeing as how most of these launch games will be cross gen PS3 ports, but in a couple of years the PS4 will start to outshine the 720 on a regular basis. The effect will be even more pronounced than it was with Uncharted, God of War and Killzone vs the best of 360. 

#21 Posted by Jbul (4835 posts) -

[QUOTE="Jbul"]

I hope Sony's machine, if they are indeed very close in overall power, ends up being the one with the slight edge on multiplatform titles.   In other words, I don't want them to give me reason to own both consoles -- Sony for it's exclusives, and Microsoft for everything else -- like they did this generation.

 

 

I've said it before, but I'll say it again -- whatever machine focuses most on games (and not stupid-ass multimedia functionality) will be the one that gets my attention and money.

S0lidSnake

This is the second post I've read in this thread where someone said they are very close in overall power because that's not what the article says at all. 

The specs as we currently know them give Sony's console a significant advantage over MS. Unless MS has redesigned their console in the last few months, which the article states is very unlikely, Sony's machine is going to be the goto console for both mutliplatform and first party games. We may not see the advantage right away seeing as how most of these launch games will be cross gen PS3 ports, but in a couple of years the PS4 will start to outshine the 720 on a regular basis. The effect will be even more pronounced than it was with Uncharted, God of War and Killzone vs the best of 360. 

 

I didn't read the entire article, it's a little too tech-y for me to really make much out of.   Those guys at DF are amazing though.

 

All the better if Sony's machine is a bit easier to develop for and more powerful -- they're the most game-focused out of the "big three" by a huge margin.  I'm just happy this generation is coming to a close... bring on the new systems!

#22 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

By the way, it's teraflops.

S0lidSnake

1000 Gigaflops = 1 teraflop. So we are looking at a 1240 Gflops GPU for Xbox and a 1840 Gflops GPU for PS4.

And your quote from the article pretty much confirms that there is an advantage if you compare them side by side. These GPUs that are nearly identical in terms of architecture, but with one major difference... 18 vs 12 compute units. I dont understand how anyone can look at that and go, 'Nope, it wont translate into any real world advantage.'  Then you have the Rendering Output Units where the PS4 has double the number the Durango has .... again 32 vs 16 output units. From the article: "ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs)." You are roughly looking at better AA and higher resolution. 

Again, this wasn't the case last gen when two different manufacturers made the GPUs for the two consoles. Both had different ways of calculating the theoretical computing power and both had an entire different architecture. Back then you had Nvidia blatantly lying about their GPU's theoretical power when it was clearly weaker than the 360 GPU. This time around it's the same manufacturer making these GPUs which are near identical to the GPUs they put out on PCs, and all these specs are coming from their specfication documents. Even if they are lying about the computing power of these units, we know the actual number of these units is more in one console than there is in the other. 18 vs 12. 32 vs 16. It's really that simple.

No, it really is not. It never is. Raw specs are just that, raw specs. They're good for a decently ballparking real-world performance. This is all theoretical, and doesn't factually confirm any of the things you claim in this thread (higher resolution, AA). We still have to see what these numbers will boil down to in real-world performance. You can't just look at these numbers and claim such specifics. What about the operating systems? What about the dev kits? What about game engines? What about the developers themselves?

Every generation we got a lot of hot air being passed around based on theory instead of real-world performace and every time it falls flat. The most recent obviously being the PS3.

#23 Posted by Heirren (16868 posts) -
Lol. There's a "verdict" on this and the consoles haven't even been seen yet?
#24 Posted by xxBenblasterxx (70 posts) -

Although the specs of each console point toward PS4's being the bigger power house (great for all those future PS4 owners I'm sure) the 720's are nothing nto be sniffed at and also point toward Microsoft trying to achieve something beyond the simple home console market that makes me that much more interested in what is to come from Microsoft than Sony

#26 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

No, it really is not. It never is. Raw specs are just that, raw specs. They're good for a decently ballparking real-world performance. This is all theoretical, and doesn't factually confirm any of the things you claim in this thread (higher resolution, AA). We still have to see what these numbers will boil down to in real-world performance. You can't just look at these numbers and claim such specifics. What about the operating systems? What about the dev kits? What about game engines? What about the developers themselves?

Every generation we got a lot of hot air being passed around based on theory instead of real-world performace and every time it falls flat. The most recent obviously being the PS3.

UpInFlames

After Pedro's post I decided to stay away from this thread until Feb 20th, but I cant.

PC gamer playing down technical specs... now I've seen everything. 

Also what specifics am I claiming here? I am merely regurgitating what the article stated. Are you saying you are more knowledgeable than the guy who runs the Digital Foundry blog? 

And yes, all of this talk is based on the theoretical power of the consoles. Aren't you stating the obvious? This is what we are discussing here. We are discussing specs. Just like PC gamers would discuss the specs of GTX 590 vz GTX 580 before they got a chance to run benchmarks. 

As for the OS overhead, of course that would have an effect on the performance. That's a given. It's going to affect both consoles. Again, we are discussing core specs here and if someone comes in this thread and says, 'ok what advantage does an extra 6 CUs give to Sony's console?', for the sake of answering that question we can for once ignore the OS overhead and give a rough ballpark. Just like the article does. And if anyone expects Sony's OS to be a bigger resource hog than Durango then that's just pure speculation on their part. There is a reason why MS is going with cheaper yet more RAM, and there is a reason why two of the CPU cores are rumored to have been set aside for the OS. Another leak says 512 MB has been reserved for PS OS while 3GB of MS. Here I will go and 'speculate' that it's Durango that's going to have a larger OS overheard. 

Lots of BS PR was thrown around by Sony last gen. But that's what it was, PR. These are specs leaked straight from AMD's specification documents. These leaks have come from different sources from within the industry, leaked to four different websites (Edge, Eurogamer, VG Leaks and Kotaku) and confirmed by more sources. These GPU designs are based on AMD's 7900 series and that allows blogs like DF to take a stab at giving us a rough ballpark of the theoretical performance of these two consoles. No one here is claiming exactly what quality graphics we'll see next gen, all we are doing is adding two and two together to compare these two systems who are much more identical than they have been in the past. Your skepticism here is kinda unwarranted in light of all this evidence we have in front of us. 

Now two things can happen in the next month or so. We might find out that Edge, Eurogamer and VG Leaks have all been systematically lied to and MS does indeed have a much more powerful console. In that case, looking at the specs we would have to give Durango the edge. Or MS might look at Sony's reveal and then decide to up the specs... this is highly unlikely due to it being too late to make any changes, but say if it does happen then obviously they thought their console was underpowered compared to the Orbis and they did that just by looking at the specs. Just like I have been in this thread, and just like the DF blog did in their article. 

#27 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="Vari3ty"]

So by the sounds of this multiplats will be practically identical, with the only big differences being the graphical quality of Sony's 1st party exclusives? 

Shame-usBlackley

Pretty much. Expect higher resolution and better AA on PS4. Maybe even 3D. Plus it looks like the PS4 is a lot easier to program for, with the 720 asking the developers to pull out fancy trick to offset the slower RAM so you might see the developers lead the development on the PS4 and then downport the game to the 360. Pretty much what happened at the start of the current gen. But since the 720 is very similar to the PS4 setup, you wont see anything with awful tearing and framerate issues like the Assassin's Creed PS3 and other Unreal Engine 3 PS3 ports. 

I like the sound of everything except for 3D... 3D sucks. I really like hearing about Sony changing their tune and making the architecture friendly -- that's a HUGE change for them and I never really understood the mindset of making a machine that gave developers a hard time. It really, really seems like they have listened to a lot of what bothered people, both in the development community and the public.

Assuming Sony's in at $400 or less, they've not only earned my business again, but earned it exclusively. There's really nothing on the Xbox I can't live without anymore and they would have to have an incredible change in focus regarding first party development to get me to support them again. 

Plus... I could never see myself having to wait for a year or so to jump in to the next generation while I determined if Microsoft's next console was busted, so it's nice to be able to jump in on Day One and not have any/many reservations about new hardware taking a shlt on me shortly afterward.

You need to play UNcharted 3 and Motorstorm in 3D and that will make you a believer. And those games aren't even close to 720p 3D. If Sony is somehow able to do 3D in 1080p, it will blow you away. 

My PS3 got the YLOD after only two years, so both hardwares are prone to failure. At least MS fixed yours for free. Sony wanted to charge me $150 and well, now my PS3 is sitting in my brother's basement collecting dust for the past four years. $650 down the drain. Good thing is that both Sony and MS are going with relatively low powered CPU and GPUs to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again. Sony's solution (CPU and GPU on the same chip) is supposed to be a much more reliable solution according to DF. 

I also read that Sony's improved their development tools a lot. So much so that a developer claimed Vita's tools are the best he's ever worked with. Supposedly ever since Kutaragi was shown the door, Sony's become more developer friendly. I cant remember where I read it but looking at the graphical quality of Vita's first year games, it's fair to say that Sony's learned from their mistakes. 

#28 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -
I would just like to further add that any claim that MS OS is going to use 3GB of RAM is absolute nonsense.If anything, that 3GB of RAM would most likely be reserved for none gaming purposes.
#29 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

I would just like to further add that any claim that MS OS is going to use 3GB of RAM is absolute nonsense.If anything, that 3GB of RAM would most likely be reserved for none gaming purposes.Pedro

Thats what i meant. 

#30 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -
It seems that all systems are prone to failure if they are set on the side/ upright. Overtime, the soldering moves south. So in theory flipping on the other side while its on may repair it. I don't know how long it would take before the soldering falls back into place.
#31 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

After Pedro's post I decided to stay away from this thread until Feb 20th, but I cant.

PC gamer playing down technical specs... now I've seen everything. 

Also what specifics am I claiming here? I am merely regurgitating what the article stated. Are you saying you are more knowledgeable than the guy who runs the Digital Foundry blog? 

And yes, all of this talk is based on the theoretical power of the consoles. Aren't you stating the obvious? This is what we are discussing here. We are discussing specs. Just like PC gamers would discuss the specs of GTX 590 vz GTX 580 before they got a chance to run benchmarks. 

As for the OS overhead, of course that would have an effect on the performance. That's a given. It's going to affect both consoles. Again, we are discussing core specs here and if someone comes in this thread and says, 'ok what advantage does an extra 6 CUs give to Sony's console?', for the sake of answering that question we can for once ignore the OS overhead and give a rough ballpark. Just like the article does. And if anyone expects Sony's OS to be a bigger resource hog than Durango then that's just pure speculation on their part. There is a reason why MS is going with cheaper yet more RAM, and there is a reason why two of the CPU cores are rumored to have been set aside for the OS. Another leak says 512 MB has been reserved for PS OS while 3GB of MS. Here I will go and 'speculate' that it's Durango that's going to have a larger OS overheard. 

Lots of BS PR was thrown around by Sony last gen. But that's what it was, PR. These are specs leaked straight from AMD's specification documents. These leaks have come from different sources from within the industry, leaked to four different websites (Edge, Eurogamer, VG Leaks and Kotaku) and confirmed by more sources. These GPU designs are based on AMD's 7900 series and that allows blogs like DF to take a stab at giving us a rough ballpark of the theoretical performance of these two consoles. No one here is claiming exactly what quality graphics we'll see next gen, all we are doing is adding two and two together to compare these two systems who are much more identical than they have been in the past. Your skepticism here is kinda unwarranted in light of all this evidence we have in front of us. 

Now two things can happen in the next month or so. We might find out that Edge, Eurogamer and VG Leaks have all been systematically lied to and MS does indeed have a much more powerful console. In that case, looking at the specs we would have to give Durango the edge. Or MS might look at Sony's reveal and then decide to up the specs... this is highly unlikely due to it being too late to make any changes, but say if it does happen then obviously they thought their console was underpowered compared to the Orbis and they did that just by looking at the specs. Just like I have been in this thread, and just like the DF blog did in their article.S0lidSnake

I am not downplaying the specs, I am downplaying your specific assumptions about real-world performance based on theoretical numbers - namely, you are telling people to "expect the PS4 to have higher resolutions and AA" and that the graphical difference between the two new consoles is going to be bigger than this gen's. That really might not be the case at all and nowhere does Digital Foundry claim such things.

#32 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

 

I am not downplaying the specs, I am downplaying your specific assumptions about real-world performance based on theoretical numbers - namely, you are telling people to "expect the PS4 to have higher resolutions and AA" and that the graphical difference between the two new consoles is going to be bigger than this gen's. That really might not be the case at all and nowhere does Digital Foundry claim such things.

UpInFlames

Other information has also come to light offering up a further Orbis advantage: the Sony hardware has a surprisingly large 32 ROPs (Render Output units) up against 16 on Durango. ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs).

#33 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

 

I am not downplaying the specs, I am downplaying your specific assumptions about real-world performance based on theoretical numbers - namely, you are telling people to "expect the PS4 to have higher resolutions and AA" and that the graphical difference between the two new consoles is going to be bigger than this gen's. That really might not be the case at all and nowhere does Digital Foundry claim such things.

S0lidSnake

Other information has also come to light offering up a further Orbis advantage: the Sony hardware has a surprisingly large 32 ROPs (Render Output units) up against 16 on Durango. ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs).

Remember the display cap is 1080p
#34 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

 

I am not downplaying the specs, I am downplaying your specific assumptions about real-world performance based on theoretical numbers - namely, you are telling people to "expect the PS4 to have higher resolutions and AA" and that the graphical difference between the two new consoles is going to be bigger than this gen's. That really might not be the case at all and nowhere does Digital Foundry claim such things.

Pedro

Other information has also come to light offering up a further Orbis advantage: the Sony hardware has a surprisingly large 32 ROPs (Render Output units) up against 16 on Durango. ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs).

Remember the display cap is 1080p

Shouldn't these extra ROPs allow them to do two images at 1080p for 3D? That was the talk over at the gaf and Beyond 3D forums.

#35 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

Pretty much. Expect higher resolution and better AA on PS4. Maybe even 3D. Plus it looks like the PS4 is a lot easier to program for, with the 720 asking the developers to pull out fancy trick to offset the slower RAM so you might see the developers lead the development on the PS4 and then downport the game to the 360. Pretty much what happened at the start of the current gen. But since the 720 is very similar to the PS4 setup, you wont see anything with awful tearing and framerate issues like the Assassin's Creed PS3 and other Unreal Engine 3 PS3 ports.

S0lidSnake

I like the sound of everything except for 3D... 3D sucks. I really like hearing about Sony changing their tune and making the architecture friendly -- that's a HUGE change for them and I never really understood the mindset of making a machine that gave developers a hard time. It really, really seems like they have listened to a lot of what bothered people, both in the development community and the public.

Assuming Sony's in at $400 or less, they've not only earned my business again, but earned it exclusively. There's really nothing on the Xbox I can't live without anymore and they would have to have an incredible change in focus regarding first party development to get me to support them again.

Plus... I could never see myself having to wait for a year or so to jump in to the next generation while I determined if Microsoft's next console was busted, so it's nice to be able to jump in on Day One and not have any/many reservations about new hardware taking a shlt on me shortly afterward.

You need to play UNcharted 3 and Motorstorm in 3D and that will make you a believer. And those games aren't even close to 720p 3D. If Sony is somehow able to do 3D in 1080p, it will blow you away.

My PS3 got the YLOD after only two years, so both hardwares are prone to failure. At least MS fixed yours for free. Sony wanted to charge me $150 and well, now my PS3 is sitting in my brother's basement collecting dust for the past four years. $650 down the drain. Good thing is that both Sony and MS are going with relatively low powered CPU and GPUs to make sure the same thing doesn't happen again. Sony's solution (CPU and GPU on the same chip) is supposed to be a much more reliable solution according to DF.

I also read that Sony's improved their development tools a lot. So much so that a developer claimed Vita's tools are the best he's ever worked with. Supposedly ever since Kutaragi was shown the door, Sony's become more developer friendly. I cant remember where I read it but looking at the graphical quality of Vita's first year games, it's fair to say that Sony's learned from their mistakes.

Based on my experience with 3D animated movies in theaters, a 3D cellphone my brother had briefly and the 3DS, while 3D can be really nice if done well (Avatar and Tangled spring to mind) its not so nice I feel a need to run out and buy a 3D tv. Judging by lackluster sales of 3D consumer electronics (the only thing 3D that sells well is the 3DS and that isn't selling because of the 3D) a lot of people feel the same way.

I don't know if hardware works that way (I know power is ties into resolution, I don't know about fps) but I hope developers use the processing power to run their games at 1080p and 60 fps.

Yeah, a lot of developers have praised the Vita's devkit. Its only the sales that they have an issue with. Sony should have chopped the price a while ago.

http://www.develop-online.net/features/1622/How-easy-is-it-to-build-your-first-Vita-game

The PlayStation 2, which was a very powerful system for its time, and the PlayStation 3, which continued that trend with the cell processor and the asymmetrical multi-core approach, were some of the most powerful and complex machines that the market has ever seen, explains Ubisoft Reflections director of technology Michael Troughton, who worked on Vita releases Rayman: Origins and Lumines Electric Symphony.

Developers had to really apply themselves if they wanted to get the most out of them.

Now, says Troughton, that trend has been bucked, thanks to the Vita adopting a far more conventional structure.

Boasting a symmetrical four-core CPU and PowerVR GPU in a single SoC, or system-on-chip, the device appears to deliver impressive power without obstructing the work of developers eager to build games for the system.

#36 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

3D games are so amazing. Totally agree with Solid.

Solid even if Sony blows everyone away with graphics next week everyone will just say its tech demos and not believe it. Its going to be the PS3 all over again.

#37 Posted by magicalclick (22562 posts) -
Interesting specs. Can't wait to see Next Gen console and games comes out. Really want to see games with tessellation or even pixel shader equivalent at work. I also hope to see games running based on that Lionhead tera-mesh they have demoed using X360.
#38 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

 

I am not downplaying the specs, I am downplaying your specific assumptions about real-world performance based on theoretical numbers - namely, you are telling people to "expect the PS4 to have higher resolutions and AA" and that the graphical difference between the two new consoles is going to be bigger than this gen's. That really might not be the case at all and nowhere does Digital Foundry claim such things.

S0lidSnake

Other information has also come to light offering up a further Orbis advantage: the Sony hardware has a surprisingly large 32 ROPs (Render Output units) up against 16 on Durango. ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs).

ON A VERY ROUGH LEVEL being the key. They're explaining ROPs, they're not saying this and this will actually happen like you are.

Nobody, NOBODY is going to do higher resolutions than 1080p. It's also quite likely that a lot of developers will opt for lower resolutions in favor of greater graphical details, larger worlds and so on.

#39 Posted by shellcase86 (1934 posts) -

So these are officially the confirmed specs now? I'm quite a bit disappointed in Microsoft's next console, but then again I think almost everyone expected them to go the "media center" route.

Sony really needs the PS4 do to well though. They still failed to turn a profit this last quarter, and their TV division has been losing money for almost a decade now. If the PS4 isn't successful, I'm having a hard time seeing how Sony survives.

Vari3ty

They're get paper from music and movie revenue, too.

#40 Posted by Shame-usBlackley (18266 posts) -

3D games are so amazing. Totally agree with Solid.

Solid even if Sony blows everyone away with graphics next week everyone will just say its tech demos and not believe it. Its going to be the PS3 all over again.

dvader654

Yeah, but looking at it logically -- it's a frivolous, non-starter of a feature. Sales of 3D are flat, the hype on it is way down, and few games use the feature. Speaking of which, isn't the lesson we are all trying to learn is that needless shlt should be thrown out to keep costs down? How many developers are going to spend even more money utilizing 3D, honestly? Or, even worse -- they throw 3D in and continue nickel and diming us with a bunch of witheld content?

#41 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

 

Other information has also come to light offering up a further Orbis advantage: the Sony hardware has a surprisingly large 32 ROPs (Render Output units) up against 16 on Durango. ROPs translate pixel and texel values into the final image sent to the display: on a very rough level, the more ROPs you have, the higher the resolution you can address (hardware anti-aliasing capability is also tied into the ROPs).

UpInFlames

ON A VERY ROUGH LEVEL being the key. They're explaining ROPs, they're not saying this and this will actually happen like you are.

Nobody, NOBODY is going to do higher resolutions than 1080p. It's also quite likely that a lot of developers will opt for lower resolutions in favor of greater graphical details, larger worlds and so on.

lol vader is right. This is the PS3 all over again.

First of all, you will notice that the hardware AA bit in the parenthesis is not a rough estimation of what these ROPs can do, it's a simple assertion. Hardware AA is tied to ROPs, a calculated guess would be that more ROPs would translate into either better AA or free up other GPU resources that usually handle anti-aliasing. Regardless, this isn't the only advantage the PS4 has over Durango.

Secondly, you are dismissing all my claims based on one instance where they attempt to describe the advantage and start with 'On a rough level'. You are a smart guy, why do you think Sony would go with an extra 16 ROP units when they already have a 6 CU or 600 Gflops advantage? Why would they up the cost of their machine if it didn't translate into any real world advantage? In fact, why would AMD support 32 ROP units for their high end graphics card and only only 16 for their low end ones? A person should be able to put two and two together and say, maybe because they provide extra horsepower.

And how can we quantify this extra horsepower? Looking at the PC ports this gen, we know that more powerful PC GPUs allow for better AA and higher resolution. So why cant we come to the same conclusion when it comes to a more powerful GPU in PS4? What, OS overhead that only affects the PS4? Some magical bottleneck that somehow doesn't affect Durango even though it has RAM that's 3 times as slow, has Directx 11 overhead, 16 fewer ROPs and 600 Gflops of extra horsepower?

Lastly, Where did I claim that the PS3 would be able to do more than 1080p? If you look up, you will see that Variety asked what 'difference' can we expect from these two consoles based on these specs. And I said higher resolution, better AA and maybe 3D. Read: Higher, Better. Higher and Better than Durango. Anyone expecting every game to be 1080p next gen is out of their minds, but looking at this extra horsepower of the PS4 compared to Durango, it's obvious that whatever resolution Durango can manage, the PS4 should be able to do better. And looking at Sony's big push for 4K televisions, i wouldnt be surprised if 2D games like Stardust and Rayman managed to run at 4K a few years from now. Most high end AMD cards support 4K already.

#42 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

3D games are so amazing. Totally agree with Solid.

Solid even if Sony blows everyone away with graphics next week everyone will just say its tech demos and not believe it. Its going to be the PS3 all over again.

Shame-usBlackley

Yeah, but looking at it logically -- it's a frivolous, non-starter of a feature. Sales of 3D are flat, the hype on it is way down, and few games use the feature. Speaking of which, isn't the lesson we are all trying to learn is that needless shlt should be thrown out to keep costs down? How many developers are going to spend even more money utilizing 3D, honestly? Or, even worse -- they throw 3D in and continue nickel and diming us with a bunch of witheld content?

Oh I know it is not something that will be required or anything, its just a nice feature to have. It must be easy to do since so many games have the option. Maybe one day when all tvs have 3D without glasses then it can be a standard but its just a nice side option.
#43 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -

3D games are so amazing. Totally agree with Solid.

Solid even if Sony blows everyone away with graphics next week everyone will just say its tech demos and not believe it. Its going to be the PS3 all over again.

dvader654

Do any of the games we have now look like the games they initially showed when the PS3 was announced 2006? Forgive us if we have been shown CG being played off as in game time and time again.

#44 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -

lol vader is right. This is the PS3 all over again.

First of all, you will notice that the hardware AA bit in the parenthesis is not a rough estimation of what these ROPs can do, it's a simple assertion. Hardware AA is tied to ROPs, a calculated guess would be that more ROPs would translate into either better AA or free up other GPU resources that usually handle anti-aliasing. Regardless, this isn't the only advantage the PS4 has over Durango.

Secondly, you are dismissing all my claims based on one instance where they attempt to describe the advantage and start with 'On a rough level'. You are a smart guy, why do you think Sony would go with an extra 16 ROP units when they already have a 6 CU or 600 Gflops advantage? Why would they up the cost of their machine if it didn't translate into any real world advantage? In fact, why would AMD support 32 ROP units for their high end graphics card and only only 16 for their low end ones? A person should be able to put two and two together and say, maybe because they provide extra horsepower.

And how can we quantify this extra horsepower? Looking at the PC ports this gen, we know that more powerful PC GPUs allow for better AA and higher resolution. So why cant we come to the same conclusion when it comes to a more powerful GPU in PS4? What, OS overhead that only affects the PS4? Some magical bottleneck that somehow doesn't affect Durango even though it has RAM that's 3 times as slow, has Directx 11 overhead, 16 fewer ROPs and 600 Gflops of extra horsepower?

Lastly, Where did I claim that the PS3 would be able to do more than 1080p? If you look up, you will see that Variety asked what 'difference' can we expect from these two consoles based on these specs. And I said higher resolution, better AA and maybe 3D. Read: Higher, Better. Higher and Better than Durango. Anyone expecting every game to be 1080p next gen is out of their minds, but looking at this extra horsepower of the PS4 compared to Durango, it's obvious that whatever resolution Durango can manage, the PS4 should be able to do better. And looking at Sony's big push for 4K televisions, i wouldnt be surprised if 2D games like Stardust and Rayman managed to run at 4K a few years from now. Most high end AMD cards support 4K already.

S0lidSnake

The funny thing with everything you said and what is generally said about these systems specifications is that NONE of it is confirmed. Speaking as though the information presented is factual seems rather far reaching. Claiming one system is drasiticallly faster than the other when none of the systems are on the market and basing it on rumors is equally crazy. Also Stardust is not 2D :|. I know its the trend to get high when new systems are on the horizon and speculation and hope of these systems reaching new hieghts and accomplishing new things blah blah is all well and good but the reality tends to differ each and everytime. I saw the same thing with the Wii U and all the systems before it. And now the same is repeating with the next generation Xbox and PS. Until these companies show their cards EVERYTHING is speculation. The only constant is that their performance is ALWAYS overstated. ALWAYS.

#45 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

3D games are so amazing. Totally agree with Solid.

Solid even if Sony blows everyone away with graphics next week everyone will just say its tech demos and not believe it. Its going to be the PS3 all over again.

Pedro

Do any of the games we have now look like the games they initially showed when the PS3 was announced 2006? Forgive us if we have been shown CG being played off as in game time and time again.

In fairness, Sony didn't pull off that stupid sh!t with the Vita, the tech demo was purportedly real time, a claim backed up by the fact that the near launch Gravity Rush pulled off a complex 3D environment that rivaled that of the tech demo in the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFv49yjsA2U

1807503-a3pemuwp.jpg

#46 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

The funny thing with everything you said and what is generally said about these systems specifications is that NONE of it is confirmed. Speaking as though the information presented is factual seems rather far reaching. Claiming one system is drasiticallly faster than the other when none of the systems are on the market and basing it on rumors is equally crazy. Also Stardust is not 2D :|. I know its the trend to get high when new systems are on the horizon and speculation and hope of these systems reaching new hieghts and accomplishing new things blah blah is all well and good but the reality tends to differ each and everytime. I saw the same thing with the Wii U and all the systems before it. And now the same is repeating with the next generation Xbox and PS. Until these companies show their cards EVERYTHING is speculation. The only constant is that their performance is ALWAYS overstated. ALWAYS.

Pedro

No, the funny thing is that you and UIF seem to think that you two are the only ones who are under the assumption that these are rumored specs. Any informed user on this board will look at this thread and know that these aren't the confirmed specs. They'll read the article that clearly states that the Durango info is nearly a year old. They will know that the specs being discussed in this thread are rumored specs. And that's all we are discussing here. If Digital Foundry, Kotaku and Edge can run articles saying one is better than the other then why cant a thread on a lowly forum discuss such claims? So now that we have established for the 20th time that these aren't confirmed specs, which one do you think is more powerful?

Stardust is not as graphically intensive as a something like Killzone or Uncharted. There is a reason why it's one of the few PS3 games running at 1080p. You know what I was getting at, but for some reason you felt compelled to point out something that doesn't add any weight to your argument.

Ah I remember you dismissing the Wii U Zelda realtime tech demo. What happens when in a couple of years, we get games on the Wii U that look better than the Zelda demo? Just like how we've seen games that have outdone the realtime PS3 tech demos or the PS2 tech demos so many years before it? The PS3 reveal in 2005 was an anomoly and no one has used CGi target renders since. They didn't use it for the vita, and I'd bet my left nut you wont see a single CGi demo on the 20th. All their other realtime tech demos have been matched and exceeded in many cases. 

 

#47 Posted by Pedro (21065 posts) -

No, the funny thing is that you and UIF seem to think that you two are the only ones who are under the assumption that these are rumored specs. Any informed user on this board will look at this thread and know that these aren't the confirmed specs. They'll read the article that clearly states that the Durango info is nearly a year old. They will know that the specs being discussed in this thread are rumored specs. And that's all we are discussing here. If Digital Foundry, Kotaku and Edge can run articles saying one is better than the other then why cant a thread on a lowly forum discuss such claims? So now that we have established for the 20th time that these aren't confirmed specs, which one do you think is more powerful?

Stardust is not as graphically intensive as a something like Killzone or Uncharted. There is a reason why it's one of the few PS3 games running at 1080p. You know what I was getting at, but for some reason you felt compelled to point out something that doesn't add any weight to your argument.

Ah I remember you dismissing the Wii U Zelda realtime tech demo. What happens when in a couple of years, we get games on the Wii U that look better than the Zelda demo? Just like how we've seen games that have outdone the realtime PS3 tech demos or the PS2 tech demos so many years before it? The PS3 reveal in 2005 was an anomoly and no one has used CGi target renders since. They didn't use it for the vita, and I'd bet my left nut you wont see a single CGi demo on the 20th. All their other realtime tech demos have been matched and exceeded in many cases. 

 

S0lidSnake

Try not to get all worked up sir. You are carrying on this discussion as if its something factual. Thats where the problem lies, not in the speculation. You then append to these speculation, which slowly gets more and more blurred from reality and you are somehow baffled when you are asked to keep things in perspective. 

As for which one is more powerful? Well I don't know. I am not going to base my judgement; especially a solid one, on unconfirmed data. Its particularly useless. I have no info on what the systems look like to gauge whether or not the rumored specs are even plausible. So,when both companies release official data about their system then I would be more than willing to state which one is more powerful.

Also, don't fault me because you decided to incorrectly bundle Stardust with Rayman as 2D games. They are clearly not in the same category when it comes to rendering.

As for the Wii U demo of Zelda, I would still dismiss it. You will not see a Zelda game of that graphical fidelity on the Wii U. You are more than willing to hold that against me at your convenience in the next 2 years or more. :) 

As far as the supposed demos on the 20th, well I can't comment because at the moment they don't exist. When they do, then I will discuss their validity.

#48 Posted by LazySloth718 (2332 posts) -

Look at this gen.

PS3 was a beast, and 360 still pwned it for %90 of multiplats.

Hardware is less important than software.

#49 Posted by UpInFlames (13279 posts) -

lol vader is right. This is the PS3 all over again.S0lidSnake

I'm not sure why you guys are even mentioning this since the fantasy of PS3's "hidden power" never came true. Just as I believed back then, the difference between the PS3 and 360 turned out smaller than the difference between the PS2 and Xbox.

If these rumored specs are to be believed, it is my opinion that the same trend will continue next gen seeing as how the two consoles are more similar than ever in history.

No, the funny thing is that you and UIF seem to think that you two are the only ones who are under the assumption that these are rumored specs. Any informed user on this board will look at this thread and know that these aren't the confirmed specs. They'll read the article that clearly states that the Durango info is nearly a year old. They will know that the specs being discussed in this thread are rumored specs. And that's all we are discussing here. If Digital Foundry, Kotaku and Edge can run articles saying one is better than the other then why cant a thread on a lowly forum discuss such claims? So now that we have established for the 20th time that these aren't confirmed specs, which one do you think is more powerful?S0lidSnake

That's not what it's about at all. The issue is you translating theoretical specs directly into real-world performance specifics. That's just not the way it works. Not for PC graphics cards, not for consoles, not for anything.

#50 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -

[QUOTE="dvader654"]

3D games are so amazing. Totally agree with Solid.

Solid even if Sony blows everyone away with graphics next week everyone will just say its tech demos and not believe it. Its going to be the PS3 all over again.

Pedro

Do any of the games we have now look like the games they initially showed when the PS3 was announced 2006? Forgive us if we have been shown CG being played off as in game time and time again.

Oh come on, eventually the games looked better than those videos. All I am saying is that the same thing is going to happen. Its probably going to be some BS vids, I am telling Solid that what happens next week wont change anything. Just cause they show amazing footage it might not mean much.