PS4/XB1: Is the performance gap a big deal?

#51 Posted by Shewgenja (9286 posts) -

@spitfire-six said:

@Shewgenja: If he wants a console specifically based on power then PS4 is the answer i don't understand the debate maybe...

Just having banter. I enjoy debates like these.

#52 Edited by PAL360 (26883 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet said:

Yeah, the difference is 1080p 60fps vs 900p 30fps (sarcasm). The PS4 can't even do 60fps on current gen looking games, everything is 30fps.

Actually most PS4 games are 1080p60. Some run at flawless 60fps, like Ground Zeroes.

#53 Posted by Shewgenja (9286 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet said:

You think the PS4 can play games at ultra settings at 60fps?

I don't think it. I know it.

The PS4 game holds up rather well in approaching a 60fps set-up while featuring almost identical graphical quality to the PC game running with ultra settings enabled.

Source

#54 Posted by delta3074 (18297 posts) -

@Awinagainov said:

I had a ps3 last gen, and I want a new console. My gaming buddies split pretty evenly to ps4 and xb1. Is the performance game between the ps4 and xb1 really enough to influence a purchasing decision?

(i know this is similar to another recent topic, but the kid had like 4 posts and most repliers were criticizing him for that)

Only to fanboys, you should get whichever console has the games YOU want to play on it.

#55 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (4433 posts) -

@PAL360 said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

Yeah, the difference is 1080p 60fps vs 900p 30fps (sarcasm). The PS4 can't even do 60fps on current gen looking games, everything is 30fps.

Actually most PS4 games are 1080p60. Some run at flawless 60fps, like Ground Zeroes.

http://uk.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/PS4_vs._Xbox_One_Native_Resolutions_and_Framerates

I said current gen looking. The 60fps games don't look massively better than last gen, they look somewhere in between at best.

@Shewgenja said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:

You think the PS4 can play games at ultra settings at 60fps?

I don't think it. I know it.

The PS4 game holds up rather well in approaching a 60fps set-up while featuring almost identical graphical quality to the PC game running with ultra settings enabled.

Source

lol that game barely looks current gen. Bloody better be able to perform in the higher settings.

#56 Posted by Cloud_imperium (3339 posts) -

Both consoles have weak hardware . It's not like , PS4 is leagues ahead of Xbox One . It is just ... less underpowered .

Only games matter . If you are gaming on consoles and expecting performance/visuals of PC , then you're doing it wrong . Last gen Xbox had superior multiplatforms . This time it's the other way around . It's not end of the world . Exclusive games will boost hardware sales on both sides .

#57 Posted by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

Yea the performance gap is a big deal. Don't listen to lems telling you that you won't notice a difference between 720p and 1080p or that a performance gap of 20fps with missing effects or more is no big deal, it is.

With that said, you should pick the platform with the games that appeal to you the most. Sony always delivers with the games hence why I'm with them. The fact that they have the better console this time in terms of hardware is just icing to an already delicious cake.

#58 Edited by TheRealBigRich (733 posts) -

You know just a quick side note it's is peculiar that everyone remembers 360 having better looking games but worse 1st party. Everyone see the change in better looking games but seems so hard to believe that Xbox one games could be better. So if it was strictly a power thing and you could only afford a console then I would recommend ps4. I would say though that you should look at more than power cause 400 dollars is a lot just based on power and not what exclusive games you like, controller preference and features one system has the other doesn't

#59 Posted by jg4xchamp (48129 posts) -

Yes, why wouldn't it be.

You have 2 systems at identical price, but the PS4 is capable of more. It is a stronger system at the same price. It will have the better multiplats (by a hair or not, they will be better) at the same price, it'll get more exclusives in the long run at the same price. It handles PS+ stuff way better at the same price. It's still very much in line with its initial promise, where as the Xbox 1 has already made its whole "all in one media center thing" a separate purchase as opposed to selling that at the same price.

If the Xbox One was cheaper it be one thing for that horse power to not be a big issue, but it isn't. It be one thing if you have a PC, and are literally letting it come down to which exclusives you want to play, but as a primary system I'd have a hard time saying the PS4 isn't in a better position than the Xbox One in the long run. History favors Sony on this, as does their arsenal of studios vs what Microsoft can claim as actual first party.

#60 Posted by PAL360 (26883 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet:

Current gen looking is a bit subjective. Look at Second Son, then. It's an early gen game, looks amazing by any standards, native 1080p and runs at 40+ frames per second. Mid/late gen games will obviously look and perform better.

I wonder why do PC guys love to underestimate these new consoles. The fact they are pretty capable should be good news for everyone...especially for PC gamers!

#61 Edited by DEadliNE-Zero0 (2455 posts) -

@PAL360 said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Current gen looking is a bit subjective. Look at Second Son, then. It's an early gen game, looks amazing by any standards, native 1080p and runs at 40+ frames per second. Mid/late gen games will obviously look and perform better.

I wonder why do PC guys love to underestimate these new consoles. The fact they are pretty capable should be good news for everyone...especially for PC gamers!

Actually, it gets 40 in some situation, but it also drops to 20 often aswell.Most of the time it's 30fps. But Infamous is an open world game, albeit, somewhat deserted in it's streets from the videos i've seen. I find flucuating frame rates to not be good. Might aswell lock it at 30. 30fps inst bad either, anyway.

I feel Uncharted 4 will be a better way to measure if they can reach 60 and stay there without substantial drops, since it'll linear in it's design. Also, remember that they'll keep advancing the graphics, so frames have to keep taking hits has that bar rises, sadly. Unless they decide to not advance gfx much, and both consoles try to keep improving frame rates, which would be awesome. I feel next gen games look great already.

#62 Posted by tdkmillsy (1373 posts) -

Simple answer is no

Why is the Wii U so popular all of a sudden. The answer is games.

It has always been games, choose the console that has the most of the games you like.

Driveclub/Forza 2 is a prime example. Driveclub will look better, Forza 2 will be a better game in all other respects and will still look ace.

Ignore all the old graphs and misleading claims the gap is 720p - 1080p. Its will end up with a 180p resolution difference in multiplats and both will have great looking and playing games. You wont make a bad choice.

#63 Posted by smashed_pinata (3241 posts) -

Nah, the ps4 is still powerful enough for me not to care about it being a little behind.

#64 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (4433 posts) -
@PAL360 said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Current gen looking is a bit subjective. Look at Second Son, then. It's an early gen game, looks amazing by any standards, native 1080p and runs at 40+ frames per second. Mid/late gen games will obviously look and perform better.

I wonder why do PC guys love to underestimate these new consoles. The fact they are pretty capable should be good news for everyone...especially for PC gamers!

Infamous struggles above 30fps. It's really not subjective. Drive Club is current gen looking.

Late/mid games will look marginally better at best, just like they did on the 360. That got incremental gains throughout the gen because it was efficient it enjoyed consistency, just like the current gen will. You'll see the performance start to peak by the end of next year at the very most (likely before that), then the rest is small gains through small amounts of tuning and tweaking for the rest of the gen.

The PS3 got massive gains because it was complex and they had to work out how to get those gains, you will not see that this gen. People will be disappointed If they expect otherwise.

And if publishers are willing to hold back PC performance to match it with consoles like with Watch Dog, I doubt it's always going to be great news.

#65 Posted by Pray_to_me (2849 posts) -

Xbone is dying. I'm sure some of your friends got a Dreamcast but who gives a fuck?

#66 Posted by donalbane (16346 posts) -

If you are only going to have one console, and not play on PC, it matters, and you should get a PS4. If you are going to play multiplats on PC and want to have the consoles just as a way to play exclusives, it doesn't matter at all.

#67 Edited by Shewgenja (9286 posts) -

If a picture is worth a 1,000 words, how about a gif?

#68 Edited by Shewgenja (9286 posts) -

If a picture is worth a 1,000 words, how about a gif?

#69 Edited by tdkmillsy (1373 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

Xbone is dying. I'm sure some of your friends got a Dreamcast but who gives a fuck?

dying shut up, you forget its the second biggest selling console.

Really why, just why do people drama shit.

#70 Edited by Shewgenja (9286 posts) -

@tdkmillsy said:

@Pray_to_me said:

Xbone is dying. I'm sure some of your friends got a Dreamcast but who gives a fuck?

dying shut up, you forget its the second biggest selling console.

Really why, just why do people drama shit.

Please. The rubberband effect is about to snap you back into reality. MS was able to dupe 1 million people to buy the thing on launch day (arguably, since Day One bundles were seen on Amazon and other stores months after the fact fyi). That doesn't mean shit. When they fail to clear 9 or even 8 million XBones sold by the end of the year, it will no longer be "the fastest selling XBox." That's just a weak ass soundbite.

#71 Edited by PAL360 (26883 posts) -
@HalcyonScarlet said:
@PAL360 said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Current gen looking is a bit subjective. Look at Second Son, then. It's an early gen game, looks amazing by any standards, native 1080p and runs at 40+ frames per second. Mid/late gen games will obviously look and perform better.

I wonder why do PC guys love to underestimate these new consoles. The fact they are pretty capable should be good news for everyone...especially for PC gamers!

Infamous struggles above 30fps. It's really not subjective. Drive Club is current gen looking.

Late/mid games will look marginally better at best, just like they did on the 360. That got incremental gains throughout the gen because it was efficient it enjoyed consistency, just like the current gen will. You'll see the performance start to peak by the end of next year at the very most (likely before that), then the rest is small gains through small amounts of tuning and tweaking for the rest of the gen.

The PS3 got massive gains because it was complex and they had to work out how to get those gains, you will not see that this gen. People will be disappointed If they expect otherwise.

And if publishers are willing to hold back PC performance to match it with consoles like with Watch Dog, I doubt it's always going to be great news.

I think no one is expecting 2017 PS4/X1 games to compete with PC ones, but they will look visibly better than they look now. As for performance, i believe most devs will keep 1080p30 or 1080p60 as a standard. Sub 1080p30 performance is so criticized these days that no dev want that kind of advertising.

Also 360 is not a good example. Unlike what you said, it's games improved alot over the years. Just compare Forza 2 to Forza 4, Halo 3 to Halo 4, Gun to Red Dead Redemption, Gears 1 to Gears 3, etc. It's a night day difference in some cases, and like the PS4, 360's hardware was easy to develop for.

#73 Posted by SolidTy (43339 posts) -

@jg4xchamp said:

Yes, why wouldn't it be.

You have 2 systems at identical price, but the PS4 is capable of more. It is a stronger system at the same price. It will have the better multiplats (by a hair or not, they will be better) at the same price, it'll get more exclusives in the long run at the same price. It handles PS+ stuff way better at the same price. It's still very much in line with its initial promise, where as the Xbox 1 has already made its whole "all in one media center thing" a separate purchase as opposed to selling that at the same price.

If the Xbox One was cheaper it be one thing for that horse power to not be a big issue, but it isn't. It be one thing if you have a PC, and are literally letting it come down to which exclusives you want to play, but as a primary system I'd have a hard time saying the PS4 isn't in a better position than the Xbox One in the long run. History favors Sony on this, as does their arsenal of studios vs what Microsoft can claim as actual first party.

#74 Edited by RnD_9 (79 posts) -

Is there a power difference? Yes, and it's probably enough to sway some people to get a PS4 over the Xbox One.

But it really depends, if someone is more interested in Xbox One exclusives, it'll probably be worth getting the Xbox One over the PS4 since they'll get the exclusives they want, and get the same multiplats that will probably good even if they aren't on par with their PS4 counter parts.

#75 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14098 posts) -

It's not huge but it's not small either.

#76 Edited by HalcyonScarlet (4433 posts) -
@PAL360 said:
@HalcyonScarlet said:
@PAL360 said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Current gen looking is a bit subjective. Look at Second Son, then. It's an early gen game, looks amazing by any standards, native 1080p and runs at 40+ frames per second. Mid/late gen games will obviously look and perform better.

I wonder why do PC guys love to underestimate these new consoles. The fact they are pretty capable should be good news for everyone...especially for PC gamers!

Infamous struggles above 30fps. It's really not subjective. Drive Club is current gen looking.

Late/mid games will look marginally better at best, just like they did on the 360. That got incremental gains throughout the gen because it was efficient it enjoyed consistency, just like the current gen will. You'll see the performance start to peak by the end of next year at the very most (likely before that), then the rest is small gains through small amounts of tuning and tweaking for the rest of the gen.

The PS3 got massive gains because it was complex and they had to work out how to get those gains, you will not see that this gen. People will be disappointed If they expect otherwise.

And if publishers are willing to hold back PC performance to match it with consoles like with Watch Dog, I doubt it's always going to be great news.

I think no one is expecting 2017 PS4/X1 games to compete with PC ones, but they will look visibly better than they look now. As for performance, i believe most devs will keep 1080p30 or 1080p60 as a standard. Sub 1080p30 performance is so criticized these days that no dev want that kind of advertising.

Also the 360 proves my point. Unlike what you said, i think it's games improved alot over the years. Just compare Forza 2 to Forza 4, Halo 3 to Halo 4, Gun to Red Dead Redemption, Gears 1 to Gears 3, etc. It's a night day difference in some cases, and like the PS4, 360's hardware was easy to develop for.

Forza 2 to 3 was an improvement, 4 was incremental. Halo 3 to 4 wasn't huge, mostly cleaned up. Gears 1 was decent looking, Gears 2 was at it's peak, Gears 3 looks like a slightly different art style almost. Night and day is a tiny bit of a stretch.

#77 Posted by tdkmillsy (1373 posts) -

@Shewgenja said:

@tdkmillsy said:

@Pray_to_me said:

Xbone is dying. I'm sure some of your friends got a Dreamcast but who gives a fuck?

dying shut up, you forget its the second biggest selling console.

Really why, just why do people drama shit.

Please. The rubberband effect is about to snap you back into reality. MS was able to dupe 1 million people to buy the thing on launch day (arguably, since Day One bundles were seen on Amazon and other stores months after the fact fyi). That doesn't mean shit. When they fail to clear 9 or even 8 million XBones sold by the end of the year, it will no longer be "the fastest selling XBox." That's just a weak ass soundbite.

Impressive prediction you got there. All Xbox One owners got duped and the xbox will stop selling.

Showing a complete lack in business sense. Microsoft will just stand by and let this happen and do nothing. Get a grip man. That's like me saying PS4 will be the biggest selling console until Sony go bust next year. Who the fuck knows whats going to happen in the months and years to come.

#78 Edited by hrt_rulz01 (6100 posts) -

Well I own both, and I have to say the differences graphically are minimal. Obviously the differences in some games are more noticeable than others, but games like Wolfenstein are identical to me.

Personally I wouldn't let the power difference hinder your decision but that's me. If you want the absolute best graphics possible, get PS4. Or PC.

#79 Posted by Shewgenja (9286 posts) -

@tdkmillsy said:

Impressive prediction you got there. All Xbox One owners got duped and the xbox will stop selling.

Showing a complete lack in business sense. Microsoft will just stand by and let this happen and do nothing. Get a grip man. That's like me saying PS4 will be the biggest selling console until Sony go bust next year. Who the fuck knows whats going to happen in the months and years to come.

How many more price drops are you expecting in the first 12 months? It's the other way around. Do you expect any major platform maker to settle for Gen6 numbers? The late 20 millions for a life cycle don't look appealing to anyone when post-HD era game budgets are on the line. That is business sense. Don't lecture me on that.

#80 Posted by AzatiS (7612 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet said:

@AzatiS said:

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@AzatiS said:

@Awinagainov said:

I had a ps3 last gen, and I want a new console. My gaming buddies split pretty evenly to ps4 and xb1. Is the performance game between the ps4 and xb1 really enough to influence a purchasing decision?

(i know this is similar to another recent topic, but the kid had like 4 posts and most repliers were criticizing him for that)

Theres a considerably gap this generation between PS4 and X1. Its not close like last gen which games were running on same res/fps with small differences here and there on total quality of graphics.

To prove you my point ill ask you , all of you that reading this , a simple question.

Lets say there are 2 versions of the very same game on the very same price tag of 59.99$. The one version runs at 900p or/and 30 fps and the other 1080p and/or 60 fps. WHICH version every single one of us would had purchased ? Remember , same version of X game with same price tag

OFC the BEST possible !!! Who on earth would have gone for the 900p/30fps , way lower quality version on the same price tag ? Noone. Period Therefore which console you should go for if you are NOT , i repeat , if you are NOT that much into X1s exclusives or you dont mind or even better if you like PS4s exclusives ?

PS4 that is. This generation is an easy choice if you are not a hardcore Xbox fan.. Really easy.

Yeah, the difference is 1080p 60fps vs 900p 30fps (sarcasm). The PS4 can't even do 60fps on current gen looking games, everything is 30fps.

You didnt answer the question.

Same game on same price tag , which version would you choose ? I would had gone with the best possible since costs the same. SO you would , stop all being hypocrites. Every single one of you would go for the best version. Period

Yeah, that's why I went with the PC this gen. £10 cheaper and best performance by far on multiplats. Current gen consoles don't cut it. Sony/MS are taking the piss with their APU nonsense this gen.

You still didnt answer the question though but ok since PC works better for best multi quality. The games that are on that is

#81 Edited by tormentos (18131 posts) -

@tdkmillsy said:

Simple answer is no

Why is the Wii U so popular all of a sudden. The answer is games.

It has always been games, choose the console that has the most of the games you like.

Driveclub/Forza 2 is a prime example. Driveclub will look better, Forza 2 will be a better game in all other respects and will still look ace.

Ignore all the old graphs and misleading claims the gap is 720p - 1080p. Its will end up with a 180p resolution difference in multiplats and both will have great looking and playing games. You wont make a bad choice.

How the fu** do you know Forza Horizon 2 will be better in all other respects.? And look ace.? The game look average at best even Forza 5 looks better.

They both cost the same the PS4 is more powerful it is always closer to 60FPS than the xbox one version is,or happen like Ghost or MGS5 were both ended been 720p 60FPS on xbox one..

Ask any Hermits here if they had to chose over a $140 dollars R260 or a $140 R265 which one would they get..

I am sure not a single one will go for the R260 if it was sold at the same price as an R265.

@deadline-zero0 said:

Actually, it gets 40 in some situation, but it also drops to 20 often aswell.Most of the time it's 30fps. But Infamous is an open world game, albeit, somewhat deserted in it's streets from the videos i've seen. I find flucuating frame rates to not be good. Might aswell lock it at 30. 30fps inst bad either, anyway.

I feel Uncharted 4 will be a better way to measure if they can reach 60 and stay there without substantial drops, since it'll linear in it's design. Also, remember that they'll keep advancing the graphics, so frames have to keep taking hits has that bar rises, sadly. Unless they decide to not advance gfx much, and both consoles try to keep improving frame rates, which would be awesome. I feel next gen games look great already.

No it doesn't drops to 20 often dude stop inventing sh** DF say it drops into the 20'SSSSSSSS the lowest i saw it was 25 and that one for a second mostly is over 30.

No it doesn't have deserted streets and this has been proven by people who actually took shots of pedestrians on the street,is the same sh** always fanboy pass the same miss informed sh** from one to another.

Infamous is an open game with some incredible effects,basically the best AA solution a console has ever seen,and is 1080p over 30FPS most of the time,compare that to Ryse which is the best looking game on xbox one,enclosed heavily pathway guided game,that is 900p and is mostly 28 to 26 FPS and has drops into the teens..

@HalcyonScarlet said:

Infamous struggles above 30fps. It's really not subjective. Drive Club is current gen looking.

Late/mid games will look marginally better at best, just like they did on the 360. That got incremental gains throughout the gen because it was efficient it enjoyed consistency, just like the current gen will. You'll see the performance start to peak by the end of next year at the very most (likely before that), then the rest is small gains through small amounts of tuning and tweaking for the rest of the gen.

The PS3 got massive gains because it was complex and they had to work out how to get those gains, you will not see that this gen. People will be disappointed If they expect otherwise.

And if publishers are willing to hold back PC performance to match it with consoles like with Watch Dog, I doubt it's always going to be great news.

WTF do you even mean by that.? Look at the video on this same post the game is almost always over 30FPS,it could have been a lock 30 game,but it can reach 35 and 40 FPS,the lowest drop was 25 on a very intense scene,29 27 rarely mostly abode 30 and DF state.

@tdkmillsy said:

dying shut up, you forget its the second biggest selling console.

Really why, just why do people drama shit.

Second biggest.? WTF man no that is a total lie,the xbox doesn't even beat the PS3 first 4 months,it shipped 5.1 million units vs the PS3 5.5 million in its first 4 months,and fast forward to July and xbox one representative still use the 5 million figure,it is basically stock since March 30 when the last numbers came.

The xbox one sales for April and May combined didn't brake 200k in US,in fact PS4 April numbers > Xbox one April + May combined that sad it was,lets hope the price drop has done something.

Is not even on the top 3 fastest selling consoles or best selling for its time frame.

In fact for April and May relative in time frame,the XBO barely outsold the $600 dollar PS3,it sold in those 2 months 192k the PS3 in those same months in US sold 165k so the XBO barely sold more than the $600 dollar PS3.

#82 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5280 posts) -
@Shewgenja said:

When Xbone starts showing stuff like this, I'll start to believe the answer is no. Until then, any illusion of parity is simply a fanboy fantasy being pimped out on the unsuspecting to woo you into making a very bad choice with $400.

It's true that SONY first parties go for the graphics quite a lot. DriveClub devs even admitted that they went 30fps to enhance visuals. I think it will be a great game to play and very responsive, but I think the focus on graphics isn't always a good thing.

In UC4's case, that was a real time trailer at 1080p 60fps. They have probably finished creating all the levels in the game by now, and they still believe that 1080p 60fps is possible. They must have tested the gameplay at this point. So they are probably already getting a smooth 60fps at places in the game. They just have to further optimize the game and I have no doubt that UC4 will look like that trailer in game. They did say all assets in the trailer were in game level assets you see while playing. So that's a plus.

All that aside, I hope both games are more than just a tech demo for the console. And I have no doubt they will deliver.

#83 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5280 posts) -
@Cloud_imperium said:

Both consoles have weak hardware . It's not like , PS4 is leagues ahead of Xbox One . It is just ... less underpowered .

Only games matter . If you are gaming on consoles and expecting performance/visuals of PC , then you're doing it wrong . Last gen Xbox had superior multiplatforms . This time it's the other way around . It's not end of the world . Exclusive games will boost hardware sales on both sides .

Tell me, are you not impressed with the visuals of PS4 exclusives both released and coming out? I know it's 'weak' hardware but just come off your high horse already. They are squeezing good stuff from it and you know it. I bet Halo 5 looks amazing on Xbox too. In fact, I bet it's better looking than Crysis 3 PC maxed. Put it that way. Am I speaking heresy?

#84 Edited by DEadliNE-Zero0 (2455 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@deadline-zero0 said:

Actually, it gets 40 in some situation, but it also drops to 20 often aswell.Most of the time it's 30fps. But Infamous is an open world game, albeit, somewhat deserted in it's streets from the videos i've seen. I find flucuating frame rates to not be good. Might aswell lock it at 30. 30fps inst bad either, anyway.

I feel Uncharted 4 will be a better way to measure if they can reach 60 and stay there without substantial drops, since it'll linear in it's design. Also, remember that they'll keep advancing the graphics, so frames have to keep taking hits has that bar rises, sadly. Unless they decide to not advance gfx much, and both consoles try to keep improving frame rates, which would be awesome. I feel next gen games look great already.

No it doesn't drops to 20 often dude stop inventing sh** DF say it drops into the 20'SSSSSSSS the lowest i saw it was 25 and that one for a second mostly is over 30.

No it doesn't have deserted streets and this has been proven by people who actually took shots of pedestrians on the street,is the same sh** always fanboy pass the same miss informed sh** from one to another.

Infamous is an open game with some incredible effects,basically the best AA solution a console has ever seen,and is 1080p over 30FPS most of the time,compare that to Ryse which is the best looking game on xbox one,enclosed heavily pathway guided game,that is 900p and is mostly 28 to 26 FPS and has drops into the teens..

Your extreme level of fanboyism is sad. Relax abit dude. Look, DF themeselves state in their article that it stays between 30-40 most of the time. If you watch the 50 minute video, you'll see it's spending most of it's time around 35fps. Like i said, there's some drops to 20 that, because my PC is acting up, i'm can't go find.

And i said deserted in a sense that there's few predestrians and cars in the streets from most videos i see. Even regarding the map, if it is the size of Infamous 1 as i've read from people, it really isn't that big of a map. Not small either. Apparently, they where going for a comic book feel, whcih i did get from watching footage. BTW, you wanna discuss Killzone dropping between 40-50fps during action sequences on 24 warzones inclosed maps? Or how it runs at 30fps in linear single player? As i said, UC4 will be a much better game to determine the PS4's ability to keep a stable 60 on it's exclusives. And if you meantion KZ being a launch title, so was Ryse. And yes, the PS4 is stronger, i know.

Look Tormentos, the reality is this. The differences in multiplats for the majority of games between the 2 consoles is too small. Most devs are simply not going to push the PS4 far enough, just like they won't with PC. Otherwise, then there'd definitely be no reason for a console either way.

I've told you before, if you're part of the elite that can spot the exact frame rate, resolution and texture differences without needing references and comparisons, a high end gaming PC is definitely what you need. Otherwise, you, like the majority of people on SW, on gamespot and on the internet, are simply incapable of knowing the differences between the consoles without needing a head comparison and Digital Foundry articles to tell you where the differences are. Sniper Elite is a weird example, but even it runs at 30fps stable on the XB1, while the PS4 dips to 45 during action sequences, when you actually do need 60fps.

The differences are tiny. I don't need the net to tell me so, because i've tested this myself with my friends, and the average gamer can't tell unless you tell them. In short, enjoy the game, have fun, and stop looking at numbers that, when translatted to actual gameplay, you won't even see.

One final point i'll leave with is the BF Hardline beta. It was announced at 1080p/60fps. For 3 days, nobody said anythig on the net (that i noticed atleast), but when DF analyzed it, it was revealed to be at the level of 900p on the PC. So, if all this stuff is so massive, how the fuck didn't the PS4 fanbase notice they where playing at a non native resolution?

Know why? Because, like i said, when your'e too busy playing, you can't see jack.

#85 Posted by tormentos (18131 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@Awinagainov:

Way I figure, you're already willing to not get the best experience by not going gaming PC. So now, decide which has the games you want to play now and down the road. Also who are the friends you enjoy playing with the most. Either way you have great gaming coming your way.

Lemming this gen are sad sad sad..

Maybe he is not willing to pay more for more,or more for the same,getting a R270 PC without trying to even leave the HDD out and use a Pen drive as storage device like some hermits are close to do to try to beat the PS4 price wise,will cost him way more than $399,probably closer to $650..

The fact that you defend the XBO day and night but as soon as some one try to pull the power angle you side with PC says it all.

@HalcyonScarlet said:

Find a more recent graph, found the gamingbolt link. Xbox One had barebones system software back then. It's the same CPU running overclocked on the Xbox One, it makes no sense that it's slower. And there are many tests to determine CPU capability.

Also lol Cinema blend. What the fuck sort of fanboy website is this. It's unprofessional, the author isn't supposed to weigh in with his own opinions unless it's an opinion based piece.

What is this doing in their own article:

"Bolcato goes on to explain that Microsoft has released a new development kit for the Xbox One, with companion patches inbound for users, all in hopes of improving performance over the console's lifespan...

They are releasing a new SDK that’s much faster and we will be comfortably running at 1080p on Xbox One. We were worried six months ago and we are not anymore, it’s got better and they are quite comparable machines."

Why.?

The XBO got a GPU release not a CPU one,GPU was lock at 90% with 10% to use on Kinect,the xbox one reserve 2 cores for OS which hasn't change in any way,unless MS want to cripple its multi tasking performance running more than 1 app,a single core on that Jaguar at 1.7ghz will not do the job.

Second there is more to performance than speed,the PS4 architecture is true HSA one the xbox one isn't,the PS4 uses GDDR5 as system memory the xbox on uses DDR3,no matter what morons over the inter net try to imply GDDR5 is not bad for CPU,latency is make up by speed period,just like DDR3 had more latency than DDR2 yet that didn't stop people from moving to DDR3,because the speed benefit more than make for it,alto it was also confirmed by Helix that GDDR5 and DDR3 have about the same latency,so you have an architecture that is straight forward with a faster memory setup with no holes.

That is why the PS4 was faster,because even with a 100mhz slower CPU the hardware is better design with faster memory.

Yeah it runs in 1080p but at what quality.?

Bolcato's game Sniper Elite look better on PS4 and runs faster on PS4 as well,that is not parity in any way,basically they are trading quality and frames to achieve 1080p Tomb Raider style,no matter what the xbox one hardware will always be behind.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1127?vs=1079

This 2 are also comparable doesn't mean they are equal,Sniper Elite already came out and is superior on PS4.

@HalcyonScarlet said:

Yeah, the difference is 1080p 60fps vs 900p 30fps (sarcasm). The PS4 can't even do 60fps on current gen looking games, everything is 30fps.

The majority of PC can't either and grouping together all PC because some can is a joke.

Fact is MGS5 is 720p 60FPS on xbox one on PS4 has added effects like dynamic sky,is 1080p and runs solid 60FPS as well,that is a huge freaking gap,it depends on the game,the engine and what is doing not all engines are alike.

The fact is when developers shoot for 60FPS on both consoles the PS4 is the closest,the only case i can recall the xbox one been the closes was Ghost but Ghost is 720p on xbox one 1080p on PS4,so a few frames dropping when there is a huge advantage in resolution wasn't that bad.

The problem is that there is a difference no matter how small or big it is and both system cost the same now,because a month ago and since launch the weaker one was also the most expensive.

@the330and419 said:

@Awinagainov: i was both a ps3 and 360 gamer last gen but I played pretty much everything on 360. I have not bought a Xbox One and probably won't until it gets really cheap. I can't buy an Xbox One knowing that ps4 is stronger. Even if the games are almost identical, I still can't do it. I work hard for my money and I can't wrap my head around spending 60 bucks for an inferior version of a product I can get better on another platform. Another thing I worry about is the power gap 3-4 years from now. Games might be close now and they might stay close, but the possibility is there that ps4 starts taking a huge leap in graphics and performance. Just look at driveclub.

Exactly.

And cases like you happen allot,not every teen or person can spend $400 on a console freely without thinking about it,if the PS4 was $500 and the xbox one $399 then the things even out,you have a console that is weaker but cost $100 less,but at same price or even $100 more like it was the case since launch is a total joke.

@k2theswiss said:

Absoultly not

Games what matters and just extra pixels isnt going to change that.

Res/frames matter on forums not in front of your t v

The great majority of games are multiplatforms and superior on PS4,name one exclusive game on xbox one that sold better than Ghost.

720p on xbox one 1080p on PS4 and for $100 less on launch and until last month it was the case.

@leandrro said:

is the performance gap between wii (1) and ps3 important? for millions of nintendo fans it was not, look at it and decide for yourself, but it is a considerable gap, just like wii in 2006, the x1 is midway between past gen and current gen

Really then why isn't the wii U selling like the wii.?

Nintendo had a gimmick which attracted people,it wasn't about power for Nintendo and they won by gimmick which MS try to do with Kinect again and failed,so the PS4 is stronger,was cheaper and sold better then end.

#86 Edited by PAL360 (26883 posts) -

@HalcyonScarlet said:
@PAL360 said:
@HalcyonScarlet said:
@PAL360 said:

@HalcyonScarlet:

Current gen looking is a bit subjective. Look at Second Son, then. It's an early gen game, looks amazing by any standards, native 1080p and runs at 40+ frames per second. Mid/late gen games will obviously look and perform better.

I wonder why do PC guys love to underestimate these new consoles. The fact they are pretty capable should be good news for everyone...especially for PC gamers!

Infamous struggles above 30fps. It's really not subjective. Drive Club is current gen looking.

Late/mid games will look marginally better at best, just like they did on the 360. That got incremental gains throughout the gen because it was efficient it enjoyed consistency, just like the current gen will. You'll see the performance start to peak by the end of next year at the very most (likely before that), then the rest is small gains through small amounts of tuning and tweaking for the rest of the gen.

The PS3 got massive gains because it was complex and they had to work out how to get those gains, you will not see that this gen. People will be disappointed If they expect otherwise.

And if publishers are willing to hold back PC performance to match it with consoles like with Watch Dog, I doubt it's always going to be great news.

I think no one is expecting 2017 PS4/X1 games to compete with PC ones, but they will look visibly better than they look now. As for performance, i believe most devs will keep 1080p30 or 1080p60 as a standard. Sub 1080p30 performance is so criticized these days that no dev want that kind of advertising.

Also the 360 proves my point. Unlike what you said, i think it's games improved alot over the years. Just compare Forza 2 to Forza 4, Halo 3 to Halo 4, Gun to Red Dead Redemption, Gears 1 to Gears 3, etc. It's a night day difference in some cases, and like the PS4, 360's hardware was easy to develop for.

Forza 2 to 3 was an improvement, 4 was incremental. Halo 3 to 4 wasn't huge, mostly cleaned up. Gears 1 was decent looking, Gears 2 was at it's peak, Gears 3 looks like a slightly different art style almost. Night and day is a tiny bit of a stretch.

Forza 4 doubled the cars on track from 8 to 16, improved the visuals, especially the lightning, and managed to run the game at 60 frames per second. Halo 4 looks almost like a different generation compared to Halo 3 and still runs at a higher resolution. If you didn't play or remember it, i would recomend you to read some reviews or watch some vids. Same with Gears 3. It's not just different art-style. The lightning, geometry, effects, etc to the point Gears 1 looks old in comparison. It also has more on screen, and went from 2 to 4 player coop campaign. None of these games got a performance downgrade despite the graphical improvements.

#87 Edited by scottpsfan14 (5280 posts) -
@PAL360 said:

Forza 4 doubled the cars on track from 8 to 16, improved the visuals, especially the lightning, and managed to run the game at 60 frames per second. Halo 4 looks almost like a different generation compared to Halo 3 and still runs at a higher resolution. If you didn't play or remember it, i would recoment you to read some reviews or watch some vids. Same with Gears 3. It's not just different art-style. The lightning, geometry, effects, etc make Gears 1 look ridiculously old. It also has alot more on screen, and went from 2 to 4 player coop campaign. None of these games got a performance downgrade despite the graphical improvements.

Agreed. Lol at Halcyon saying Halo 4 wasn't a big visual jump from Halo 3. It was one of the best looking shooters last gen imo.

Halo 3

Halo 4

Halo 3 is the better game though.

#88 Posted by tormentos (18131 posts) -

@deadline-zero0 said:

Your extreme level of fanboyism is sad. Relax abit dude. Look, DF themeselves state in their article that it stays between 30-40 most of the time. If you watch the 50 minute video, you'll see it's spending most of it's time around 35fps. Like i said, there's some drops to 20 that, because my PC is acting up, i'm can't go find.

And i said deserted in a sense that there's few predestrians and cars in the streets from most videos i see. Even regarding the map, if it is the size of Infamous 1 as i've read from people, it really isn't that big of a map. Not small either. Apparently, they where going for a comic book feel, whcih i did get from watching footage. BTW, you wanna discuss Killzone dropping between 40-50fps during action sequences on 24 warzones inclosed maps? Or how it runs at 30fps in linear single player? As i said, UC4 will be a much better game to determine the PS4's ability to keep a stable 60 on it's exclusives. And if you meantion KZ being a launch title, so was Ryse. And yes, the PS4 is stronger, i know.

Look Tormentos, the reality is this. The differences in multiplats for the majority of games between the 2 consoles is too small. Most devs are simply not going to push the PS4 far enough, just like they won't with PC. Otherwise, then there'd definitely be no reason for a console either way.

I've told you before, if you're part of the elite that can spot the exact frame rate, resolution and texture differences without needing references and comparisons, a high end gaming PC is definitely what you need. Otherwise, you, like the majority of people on SW, on gamespot and on the internet, are simply incapable of knowing the differences between the consoles without needing a head comparison and Digital Foundry articles to tell you where the differences are. Sniper Elite is a weird example, but even it runs at 30fps stable on the XB1, while the PS4 dips to 45 during action sequences, when you actually do need 60fps.

The differences are tiny. I don't need the net to tell me so, because i've tested this myself with my friends, and the average gamer can't tell unless you tell them. In short, enjoy the game, have fun, and stop looking at numbers that, when translatted to actual gameplay, you won't even see.

One final point i'll leave with is the BF Hardline beta. It was announced at 1080p/60fps. For 3 days, nobody said anythig on the net (that i noticed atleast), but when DF analyzed it, it was revealed to be at the level of 900p on the PC. So, if all this stuff is so massive, how the fuck didn't the PS4 fanbase notice they where playing at a non native resolution?

Know why? Because, like i said, when your'e too busy playing, you can't see jack.

1080p 30 to 40 FPS mostly open world incredible effects,best AA post process on a console.

Compare that to Ryse and see what you get.

Yeah a 680GTX also drops into 40 on Ultra and is a way powerful card than the PS4,like 12% of steam has a GPU stronger than the PS4,but like 4% has a GPU stronger than then 680GTX,which mean a hell of allot of gamers on PC can't play this game either on Ultra and get 60FPs lock.

So yeah dipping to 45 FPS still is better than staying always at 30..

#89 Edited by handssss (1836 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@PAL360 said:

Forza 4 doubled the cars on track from 8 to 16, improved the visuals, especially the lightning, and managed to run the game at 60 frames per second. Halo 4 looks almost like a different generation compared to Halo 3 and still runs at a higher resolution. If you didn't play or remember it, i would recoment you to read some reviews or watch some vids. Same with Gears 3. It's not just different art-style. The lightning, geometry, effects, etc make Gears 1 look ridiculously old. It also has alot more on screen, and went from 2 to 4 player coop campaign. None of these games got a performance downgrade despite the graphical improvements.

Agreed. Lol at Halcyon saying Halo 4 wasn't a big visual jump from Halo 3. It was one of the best looking shooters last gen imo.

Halo 3

Halo 4

Halo 3 is the better game though.

Halo 3 was head and shoulders above both 4 and Reach in terms of quality. TBH though I kinda disliked 3 a lot compared to 2 (not the campaign, but definitely the MP)

#90 Edited by DEadliNE-Zero0 (2455 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@deadline-zero0 said:

Your extreme level of fanboyism is sad. Relax abit dude. Look, DF themeselves state in their article that it stays between 30-40 most of the time. If you watch the 50 minute video, you'll see it's spending most of it's time around 35fps. Like i said, there's some drops to 20 that, because my PC is acting up, i'm can't go find.

And i said deserted in a sense that there's few predestrians and cars in the streets from most videos i see. Even regarding the map, if it is the size of Infamous 1 as i've read from people, it really isn't that big of a map. Not small either. Apparently, they where going for a comic book feel, whcih i did get from watching footage. BTW, you wanna discuss Killzone dropping between 40-50fps during action sequences on 24 warzones inclosed maps? Or how it runs at 30fps in linear single player? As i said, UC4 will be a much better game to determine the PS4's ability to keep a stable 60 on it's exclusives. And if you meantion KZ being a launch title, so was Ryse. And yes, the PS4 is stronger, i know.

Look Tormentos, the reality is this. The differences in multiplats for the majority of games between the 2 consoles is too small. Most devs are simply not going to push the PS4 far enough, just like they won't with PC. Otherwise, then there'd definitely be no reason for a console either way.

I've told you before, if you're part of the elite that can spot the exact frame rate, resolution and texture differences without needing references and comparisons, a high end gaming PC is definitely what you need. Otherwise, you, like the majority of people on SW, on gamespot and on the internet, are simply incapable of knowing the differences between the consoles without needing a head comparison and Digital Foundry articles to tell you where the differences are. Sniper Elite is a weird example, but even it runs at 30fps stable on the XB1, while the PS4 dips to 45 during action sequences, when you actually do need 60fps.

The differences are tiny. I don't need the net to tell me so, because i've tested this myself with my friends, and the average gamer can't tell unless you tell them. In short, enjoy the game, have fun, and stop looking at numbers that, when translatted to actual gameplay, you won't even see.

One final point i'll leave with is the BF Hardline beta. It was announced at 1080p/60fps. For 3 days, nobody said anythig on the net (that i noticed atleast), but when DF analyzed it, it was revealed to be at the level of 900p on the PC. So, if all this stuff is so massive, how the fuck didn't the PS4 fanbase notice they where playing at a non native resolution?

Know why? Because, like i said, when your'e too busy playing, you can't see jack.

1080p 30 to 40 FPS mostly open world incredible effects,best AA post process on a console.

Compare that to Ryse and see what you get.

Yeah a 680GTX also drops into 40 on Ultra and is a way powerful card than the PS4,like 12% of steam has a GPU stronger than the PS4,but like 4% has a GPU stronger than then 680GTX,which mean a hell of allot of gamers on PC can't play this game either on Ultra and get 60FPs lock.

So yeah dipping to 45 FPS still is better than staying always at 30..

Regarding your point about the PC performance, not only has it been proven alot of times that a mid perdormance PC will do better, but even then, PC has options. If it's not 60 stable on PC, you can still lower the res or settings to do so.

And so what you're saying is that, the PS4 is stronger than the XB1. But, it's still not strong enough to keep 60fps without dips. In other words, they both failed at it and if you really want the 60fps experience in Sniper Elite, you should buy a PC. Yes, i know.

Look dude, if the XB1 was stronger, the arguments would shift around. Don't believe me? Last gen cows bragged about how "we don't pay for multiplayer", and now it's "well atleast PS+ is a better service". And yes, i know there's hypocrisy on all sides.

The point is, the people who truly, honestly can spot these differences by simply playing and who truly care about them, about the tech behind these games, are NEVER going to game primarily on a static, non upgradeable machine that doesn't even allow a resolution option.

So to concluse with the point of the TC's thread, the PS4 being stronger should have almost no effect on ones decision of which console to buy. Sometimes yes, like i guess maybe MGS V (weird IMO, because MGS is a PS franchise), but most of the games are on pc, and have options on PC.

#91 Posted by scottpsfan14 (5280 posts) -
@handssss said:

@scottpsfan14 said:
@PAL360 said:

Forza 4 doubled the cars on track from 8 to 16, improved the visuals, especially the lightning, and managed to run the game at 60 frames per second. Halo 4 looks almost like a different generation compared to Halo 3 and still runs at a higher resolution. If you didn't play or remember it, i would recoment you to read some reviews or watch some vids. Same with Gears 3. It's not just different art-style. The lightning, geometry, effects, etc make Gears 1 look ridiculously old. It also has alot more on screen, and went from 2 to 4 player coop campaign. None of these games got a performance downgrade despite the graphical improvements.

Agreed. Lol at Halcyon saying Halo 4 wasn't a big visual jump from Halo 3. It was one of the best looking shooters last gen imo.

Halo 3

Halo 4

Halo 3 is the better game though.

Halo 3 was head and shoulders above both 4 and Reach in terms of quality. TBH though I kinda disliked 3 a lot compared to 2 (not the campaign, but definitely the MP)

Lol my favorite halo game is Halo Combat Evolved on PC. I loved that game to death. Never had an Xbox but I first played it on PC in 2004. Blew me away.

#92 Edited by bublover1 (129 posts) -

Yeah, it's a very big deal...

#93 Edited by SolidTy (43339 posts) -

@deadline-zero0 said:

Infamous is an open world game, albeit, somewhat deserted in it's streets from the videos i've seen.

Infamous 3 not deserted. Please don't judge a game by whatever videos or pictures you've seen. There's plenty of pictures and videos that prove otherwise, so anecdotal evidence based on whatever it was you exposed yourself isn't cutting the mustard. It doesn't matter if it's Titanfall, Mario Kart, or Infamous. No sense in making statements like that if you haven't qualified them by playing the product. It just adds to the litter of misinformation we find every few months with new accounts constantly popping up in SW making statements like this.

If you haven't played a game, in this case Infamous, you shouldn't throw out misinformation. Especially considering the fanboy "deserted" fallacious myth was exposed and proven repeatedly to be a myth after the game released by those that did play and complete the game. I own all the machines since launch over multiple gens and playing PC I too I used to wonder myself if the Infamous 3 game was going to be deserted based on idiot fanboys doctoring shots and conjecture, but I beat the game and I can tell you that it's all BS. It's made up fanboy bull from before the game released and it's that sort of bull that many of us use to figure out what kinds of users we are dealing with here in this rambunctious forum (Those that cling to myths and lies and those that speak on what they actually know).

#94 Edited by bublover1 (129 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@deadline-zero0 said:

Infamous is an open world game, albeit, somewhat deserted in it's streets from the videos i've seen.

Infamous 3 not deserted. Please don't judge a game by whatever videos or pictures you've seen. There's plenty of pictures and videos that prove otherwise, so anecdotal evidence based on whatever it was you exposed yourself isn't cutting the mustard. It doesn't matter if it's Titanfall, Mario Kart, or Infamous. No sense in making statements like that if you haven't qualified them by playing the product. It just adds to the litter of misinformation we find every few months with new accounts constantly popping up in SW making statements like this.

If you haven't played a game, in this case Infamous, you shouldn't throw out misinformation. Especially considering the fanboy "deserted" fallacious myth was exposed and proven repeatedly to be a myth after the game released by those that did play and complete the game. I own all the machines since launch over multiple gens and playing PC I too I used to wonder myself if the Infamous 3 game was going to be deserted based on idiot fanboys doctoring shots and conjecture, but I beat the game and I can tell you that it's all BS. It's made up fanboy bull from before the game released and it's that sort of bull that many of us use to figure out what kinds of users we are dealing with here in this rambunctious forum (Those that cling to myths and lies and those that speak on what they actually know).

Excellent post. The Xbone would explode if it even tried to render the civilians in Infamous: SS. That's how big the power gap is between the 2 consoles.

#95 Edited by DJ-Lafleur (34149 posts) -

Not really. If someone is choosing the PS4 over the Xbone, I'd hope it is because the system has more games that he/she personally wants, and not over some measly performance gap.

#96 Posted by bublover1 (129 posts) -

@DJ-Lafleur said:

Not really. If someone is choosing the PS4 over the Xbone, I'd hope it is because the system has more games that he/she personally wants, and not over some measly performance gap.

Check amazon rankings. PS4 routinely in top 10 while Xbone all the way down to 65.

#97 Posted by DJ-Lafleur (34149 posts) -

@bublover1 said:

@DJ-Lafleur said:

Not really. If someone is choosing the PS4 over the Xbone, I'd hope it is because the system has more games that he/she personally wants, and not over some measly performance gap.

Check amazon rankings. PS4 routinely in top 10 while Xbone all the way down to 65.

Okay. I honestly do not know what point you are trying to get across, but interesting to know.

#98 Posted by bublover1 (129 posts) -

@DJ-Lafleur said:

@bublover1 said:

@DJ-Lafleur said:

Not really. If someone is choosing the PS4 over the Xbone, I'd hope it is because the system has more games that he/she personally wants, and not over some measly performance gap.

Check amazon rankings. PS4 routinely in top 10 while Xbone all the way down to 65.

Okay. I honestly do not know what point you are trying to get across, but interesting to know.

So it's not "not really".

#99 Edited by tormentos (18131 posts) -

@deadline-zero0 said:

Regarding your point about the PC performance, not only has it been proven alot of times that a mid perdormance PC will do better, but even then, PC has options. If it's not 60 stable on PC, you can still lower the res or settings to do so.

And so what you're saying is that, the PS4 is stronger than the XB1. But, it's still not strong enough to keep 60fps without dips. In other words, they both failed at it and if you really want the 60fps experience in Sniper Elite, you should buy a PC. Yes, i know.

Look dude, if the XB1 was stronger, the arguments would shift around. Don't believe me? Last gen cows bragged about how "we don't pay for multiplayer", and now it's "well atleast PS+ is a better service". And yes, i know there's hypocrisy on all sides.

The point is, the people who truly, honestly can spot these differences by simply playing and who truly care about them, about the tech behind these games, are NEVER going to game primarily on a static, non upgradeable machine that doesn't even allow a resolution option.

So to concluse with the point of the TC's thread, the PS4 being stronger should have almost no effect on ones decision of which console to buy. Sometimes yes, like i guess maybe MGS V (weird IMO, because MGS is a PS franchise), but most of the games are on pc, and have options on PC.

No no no no....

Lowering resolution to gain frames doesn't put you in a better position than console gamer,in fact you are the same but on opposite side.

In consoles frames are trade for image quality and resolution,in PC if you trade resolution for frames you are doing the same just having a different trade off so you are no better.

Just like the 680GTX wasn't strong enough to play it without dips,in the setting DF used,so once how many people on steam have higher than 680GTX GPU.? If those over the PS4 are a 12% or something like that and the PS4 is like an R265,imagine how sad it most be for PC gamers,going down to 900p on PC to keep a rock solid 60 all the time,is call a TRADE OFF you are in no better position than console gamers.

They all failed even the 680GTX,sure you have settings to play on the 680gtx,but you are playing trading something for something else,in the PS4 and xbox one case the xbox one failed even more V-synch drops to 30 lock,which make the gap even bigger.

Not only fell behind in frames image quality wasn't the same either,look at how close the PS4 is to the 680GTX running the game on Ultra now look at the xbox one in the middle,and to think that most people payed $100 more make it worse to swallow,no matter what i would never pick an R250X for the same price of a R265 period and i am sure all hermits would not either.

Last gen.? in what last gen you were.?

Exclusive on PS3 mopped the floor with the xbox 360 ones all generation long,in fact the PS3 has more graphics awards in games than the xbox 360,the xbox 360 had the edge in multiplatforms because.

1-The PS3 was ultra hard to code.

2-Developers would not spend more on the PS3 version when the 360 version would sold better.

3-Most games the xbox 360 was the lead platform.

The PS3 did how ever had a few exclusives that were superior so not all of them were superior on xbox 360.PSN+ has been better than live since before the PS4 came out,PSN+ didn't start with the PS4 it started with the PS3 on 2010 dude,and was a better service because allow to get 2 games per month,when MS charged you for nothing,online play behind a pay wall add nothing to PSN+.

You should drop the charade lemming,on one side you want to pass PC as stronger than the PS4,but at the same time you want people to ignore how the PS4 is stronger than the xbox one is pathetic.

#100 Posted by dommeus (9317 posts) -

The parity shit is absolutely ridiculous.

Buy a PC. Fuck your friends.