PS4's 50% More Powerful than Xbone

Proving what we already knew. Multiplats have clearly been rendering higher resolutions at higher framerates on the PS4. Arguing it doesn't make a difference today is kind of silly. We've been seeing the difference between the two. However being able to render higher resolutions at slightly higher framerates doesn't change the fact that majority of games on the market are still multiplat. Superior multiplats throughout last gen didn't stop the gap between the PS3 and 360 from closing. People don't buy game consoles for superior multiplats in the end.

It's on Sony and Microsoft to make sure they back their consoles with quality exclusives, good content updates for the consoles, and a strong online network. 50% more GPU power isn't going to help if the Xbox One starts pulling out great exclusives and expanding features while Sony sits on their ass. Microsoft did that last gen, they tried to enter a cash cow period too early and it bit them in their ass.

@Wasdie:

Yeah this is my view as well. I'm a PC gamer, I will play most multiplats on my gaming PC at much better visuals anyway. What is going to make me buy a console is exclusives. It may bug me that the PS4 is more impressive visually, but there are absolutely no exclusives I am interested in. At present there is nothing on either consoles I want to play, which is why I haven't bought one. But XBone definitely has the edge in my view in terms of upcomming exclusives. Not to mention it has a much better online system. Now that I can get a kinnect-free bundle for ~$360 I might buy one around Xmas or I might wait until Halo 5, I'll watch the holiday sales and play it by ear. I'm definitely leaning XBone though.

Dude you are truly dumb and biased they don't make em like you anymore. It's not that it any form of evangelisation, but he said its there for incentivisation, cherry pick much. Incentivize-to promote (something) with a particular incentive.

xbox no onion and garlic bus?

"The Xbox One SoC appears to be implemented like an enormous variant of the Llano/Piledriver architecture we described for the PS4. One of our theories was that the chip would use the same “Onion” and “Garlic” buses. That appears to be exactly what Microsoft did". -http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/164934-xbox-one-bus-bandwidths-graphics-capabilities-and-odd-soc-architecture-confirmed-by-microsoft

DX12 only job was to spread workload between CPU cores helping to make the system more efficient. You keep arguing about what I think but ignore what I say, it's not used on xbox one now because one core is still carrying the majority of the workload on both consoles.

So you ignore my link about cloudgine just to post that same tired ass link about Cloud being dedicated servers, which is no news at all just something for you to spin. Even I didn't believe in cloud rendering but now we have a company who's one and only goal is to make cloud rendering a reality and it's not an M$ company so now what. We will see when Crackdown releases even I'm still skeptical but it is listed as cloudgine's first project on their website. But that destruction demo you said was BS was done using cloudgine, just check the site and then come back and debunk it. www.cloudgine.com

Lol devs would'nt need to offload computations onto xbox gpu simply becasue the system was built so that each part can work together at max efficiency, which is why M$ kept throwing around the balanced system term. See there are no secrets to PS4 architecture when you look at it you can see it's basically just one big gpu powerhouse and by using gpu compute with gddr5 Sony, didn't have to invest in extra seperate ram dedicated to keeping the cpu efficient. Which would explain also why Cerny talks about the PS4 also handling audio on the gpu side.

I don't think you know what gpgpu is or why it's not widely used in PC's just yet, except for bitcoin mining.

@Gue1: 50% more powerful than a big fat turd equals a turd with a cherry on top. Congrats.

GPGPU? They've been on the PC since at least the late 2000's. A number of consumer graphics and video apps use it in the form of CUDA (Nvidia) and Stream (AMD) to accelerate many functions. Both often outpaced quadcore CPUs of the time in rendering functions.

I have no idea about 2001. GPU physics went popular with Nvidia's 8xxx series. Then later on, Havok, Bullet and other in-house physics engines also started using GPU compute to execute computational tasks on GPUs.

I don't know about 2001 either. But, I first heard of CUDA with my 2007 8600 GT and then Stream with my 2009 HD 5770.

I misread "late 2000s" as 2001. I'm not high, not even drunk. What the hell is happening to me?

Fallacy. The gap wasn't as big as now. There is much to consider here, for example, the difference showed in graphics in the start, middle and end of last gen, how it evolved, and why it changed like that. It all revolves around the almost similar strenght of both consoles, with one being a lot harder to code for. Now there is no room for such an evolution on just one part of the competition: optimization on both consoles will only maintain the distance, since it comes down to the hardware more than the coding now that they are designed so similarly.

And from last gen to this one, more third party studios went multiplat, like Bungie, Kojima Productions, Insomniac, etc. So multiplats are more an issue than before.

There's no such thing as equaling generations, they are not the same, the market is not the same. If you want to compare like that, you have to take into consideration what changed and remained the same, you speak like nothing changed on the market, and like the gap is like the one we had before.

1) Because, like I said before, if one game can have show such a big gap (especially when it's a game considered superior graphics-wise to most other multiplats) it's already direct-proof. Why did that game render such difference? Why does it look superior to others that didn't render that difference? What about the constant gap, that is bigger or smaller, but always present? Isn't that enough proof?

2) Because you already are ignoring proofs that're as good as any that can come in the future. Why provide more proof if you can just speak the same thing over and over and run in a circle of denial?

But why cling on to that one when there's other examples out there where it's not the case?

What makes Tomb Raider special? There have been multiplats where the difference was not that major. Hell, TR is one of the few that sticks out.

I MEAN I DON'T WANNA PULL OUT THE LAZY DEVELOPERS EXCUSE, but the TR ports were done by two different teams. There are better examples out there, sir.

Oh, and Tomb Raider is special.

Can't lie sometimes reading these threads is just humorous. People posting graphs and relaying numbers they literally know nothing about. Everyone here has their masters in math and and a never ending knowledge of processor power haha. Here's a statistic for ya 60% of time it works 100% of the time (pretty much sums up this thread).

yes soak it up lemmings your machine is a waste of money and time!

The gap between the PS3 and 360 was different than the PS4/Xbox One. Here you simply get higher resolutions and higher framerates on one over the other. The gap between the PS3 and 360 was much deeper and thus provided for a large subset of differences between the PS3 and 360 versions of games. There is a reason a lot of games were buggier on the PS3 than they were on the 360. This simply is not the case anymore given how similar the architectures of the PS4 and Xbox One are. Game design and rendering techniques aren't going to change much between the platforms.

The distance between the two here isn't huge either. More horsepower doesn't really matter when it comes down to it. The PS4 and Xbox One have the same rendering capabilities (not power, they can run the same kind of algorithms but the PS4's GPU can perform better) as they have the same type of GPU with practically the same hardware. This isn't like the PS3 vs. 360 with one having a unified shader GPU and the other relying on cores from the CPU to make up for the lack of a modern pipeline in the GPU. Basically rendering effects and algorithms between the two (PS4/One) differ on an API level, not a hardware level like before.

You're overestimating this small power gap in the larger picture. Most of the reason the PS4 is doing better than the Xbox One has been across the world is due to Microsoft's poorer offering in terms of price, feature, and markets. They are slowly fixing these things but it will take them awhile. If the Xbox One didn't have all of the negative press surrounding DRM and used games as well as launched at $400 like the PS4, the gap in sales would be much smaller and there is a possible the Xbox One could be selling better.

This is because the common gamer doesn't give a shit if another version of that game plays at 180 more pixels vertically and a slightly smoother FPS. They care about if they can play the game at all. Fanboys on the internet would have you believe a small framerate difference and resolution difference that is only noticeable if you can directly compare the two versions has a huge effect on the outcome. This is incorrect.

The gap between the two won't have anything to do with the design of the games and will have a lot less of an impact on the quality of games like the gap between the PS3 and 360 did last gen. We'll just see the PS4 version of games have a slightly higher FPS and resolution. Any contrast, AA, AF, and color difference is going to be more associated with the differences of APIs between the PS4 and Xbox One. OpenGL does certain things a bit better than DirectX and DirectX does other things better than OpenGL.

So far what we've seen is exactly what we'll keep seeing. Games that look nearly identical with fanboys having to do a direct comparison to see the differences. This means the difference is so small the average person won't care. It's going to be much more important for Sony and Microsoft to constantly work to offer a better product and service than their competitor. The hardware has little to do with this at this point. Both consoles can do modern rendering to a high level of fidelity relative to their price point and features. The gap between the two serves as nothing more than forum debate for fanboys.

@Gue1 said:

You guys remember that statement? Well, it was all the true and now we have the cold hard facts.

http://wccftech.com/playstation-4-vs-xbox-one-vs-pc-ultimate-gpu-benchmark/

The gap is way bigger than last gen folks and by quite a large margin too.

The GPU is one part of a console. And again, the XBox was 100% more powerful than PS2.

@StormyJoe said:

@Gue1 said:

You guys remember that statement? Well, it was all the true and now we have the cold hard facts.

http://wccftech.com/playstation-4-vs-xbox-one-vs-pc-ultimate-gpu-benchmark/

The gap is way bigger than last gen folks and by quite a large margin too.

The GPU is one part of a console. And again, the XBox was 100% more powerful than PS2.

Hardware matters. PS2 didn't get Riddick, Half-Life 2, DOOM 3, Far Cry etc.

@Wasdie:

Nicely Put

@faizan_faizan said:

@StormyJoe said:

@Gue1 said:

You guys remember that statement? Well, it was all the true and now we have the cold hard facts.

http://wccftech.com/playstation-4-vs-xbox-one-vs-pc-ultimate-gpu-benchmark/

The gap is way bigger than last gen folks and by quite a large margin too.

The GPU is one part of a console. And again, the XBox was 100% more powerful than PS2.

Hardware matters. PS2 didn't get Riddick, Half-Life 2, DOOM 3, Far Cry etc.

The performance gap between XBox and PS2 was more than double.

With all that extra power the ps4 should easily be able to reach 60fps running destiny.........oh wait its 30fps just like x1

Idiot damage control answers as follows:

Yes, more power matters. It makes games look and run nicer. Don't be a bellend.

Yes, more games are coming to PS4. More games are already out for the PS4 and more are on their way thanks to market share as well as ease of development.

If it doesn't run 60fps on the PS4, then it will certainly not run 60fps on the XBone.

You're not seeing a huge difference right now because this is the first year and most games on both the XBone and the PS4 began development on Alpha or Beta development kits.

Lastly, this should not come as a surprise to anyone. If the difference began and ended with the GPUs themselves, the difference would be a little closer in theory. Instead, one is mated to DDR3 shared memory like a non-gaming laptop and the other is mated with GDDR5.

The wizard jizz of the XBone is going to be less and less relevant as market position continues to favor the easier to develop and more powerful PS4. XBones only chance at being a major player hinged upon it launching strong so it could divert developer resources and create a political atmosphere where making games have parity on the two machines would benefit publishers and developers. The less people actually care about XBone, the better Generation 8 will be, ironically. That is God's honest truth, full stop.

In your first 2 paragraphs, you paraphrased me, but for implying the opposite. Actually, that's not an argument that goes in favor to your point, quite the contrary. Like we said before, both you and I: The biggest difference back then was relative to one point: the systems' designs. When it came down to actual capabilities, the PS3, the harder to code for console, was a little bit stronger overall.

Eventually, it all kinda evened out last gen. Why? Because the console which was harder to code for was actually on par with the other one (even a bit stronger).

Now, evolution on harnessing any kind of "hidden" power can't even bring them together. Optimization is a common factor for both platforms, much more than before - they are both similar to PC. The outcome of optimization on both consoles would maintain the ~30-50% gap. That's a life sentence for the X1. Which is the opposite of last gen.

Both can do modern rendering? Great, I agree. Does it all come down to that? What about the obvious differences between a PC GPU and a ~30-50% better one that's also able to do the same modern renderings? Is that unmeasurable and unnoticeable? Are fanboys the only ones able to notice the difference?

About the common gamer: the "common" gamer (what is that? something in between a hardcore and a casual? or is it "anyone that doesn't read gaming news"?), maybe by that you mean people guided by common sense, word of mouth and unintentional marketing exposure rather than info they gathered themselves before-hand. Anyway, it can't be that you're assuming it's people that are unwilling to know anything about what they're about to drop $400 on. One way or the other, they are more probable to hear anyone, even the clerk say that the PS4 is the stronger console than the other way around... that's just the momentum as is.

Actually, when you said the part I underlined in the quote, it seems you downplay the factor "price". That's why I don't like simplistic answers to complex questions, like bringing last gen into the table. As if performance and price are factors that don't interfere with one another. It's not only the price that makes the PS4 sell. nor it's just the better performance. It's costing the same to perform better. That's not a minimal difference. If that was the case, the X1 would be selling a lot better now that they are even in that field. The difference between it and last gen's PS3 is that this one offered enough performance and features to justify it's price. Even for those that bought it early in the gen, they bet on a potential that was there, waiting to be realized, and it eventually was. People were talking about it being a "supercomputer", and all (remember that?). Plus, it had a BD drive. The X1, on the other hand, for the same price, is offering no new tech standard (like the PS3 had the BD drive), dropped everything that made it unique, and is offering for the same price a level of performance that has no potential of equaling the other one's. There's no Cell to be conquered.

You say I'm exaggerating? And you base that in an hypothetical "if" that means nothing, takes into account an imaginary alternative chain of events that goes back to the console's reveal. The realm of possibilities beyond that "if" is infinite, and anyone's guess would be as good as Michael Pachter's and other analysts alike. At least as far as a historical comparison, the X1 is not in the same situation as the PS3, and the performance gap now is more a selling point then before... simply because it's set in stone.

That one is representative of a norm. Go look into ACIV: BF, NFS Rivals, SE III, MGS: GZ, WD, and so many other games... those are the norm, games where both versions perform equally are the exception.

You don't want to pull the excuse that you are pulling?

If you count overall power, no it's not 50% more powerful than the Xbox One.

You're still implying that a pure GPU advantage is somehow relevant. It's not. Even a 50% more powerful GPU isn't going to matter much in the long run. Devs aren't going to stop making games for the Xbox One and level design and core gameplay won't change between the PS4 and Xbox One versions. Furthermore they don't have any reason to do any more rendering on the PS4, just take the level of rendering they are going to use on the Xbox One and make it run a bit better and at a slightly higher FPS.

You're really hoping that GPU advantage means something in the long run but it really doesn't. The average consumer (and I mean those who typically buy a console) has already kind of spoken and the Xbox One is selling fine despite the initial higher price and the obvious marketing/PR blunders. It's selling faster than the Xbox 360 and is doing fine on its own. So I don't really see your point. If somehow having a weaker GPU means consumers aren't going to buy the Xbox One that argument of yours makes no sense given the sales trends we've seen. Is the PS4 winning in sales? Sure. Does that make the Xbox One some failure? No. Comparative to its own brand the Xbox One is the fastest selling machine they've had and it doesn't look like sales are slowing down that much. I

Unless the Xbox One stops selling right now, devs will continue to make games on both platforms as there is a market on each, even the sales gap means nothing. This is just system wars arguing on which of the successful gaming machines is a bit more successful so that you can feel better about your purchase.

Also you're taking this too damn seriously. Chill out. Who gives a shit who wins? That's all you're arguing anymore.

As I said before, it's on Sony and Microsoft to provide content to their machines as the differences of the 3rd party content are only going to be noticeable to people who actively compare multiplats. Most people who own one or the other aren't ever going to have that opportunity. It's going to come down to how the parent company supports their machine. A year ago I would have said that Sony had already won but Microsoft has been turning its business strategy around, had a strong E3 showing, dropped Kinect from the device and dropped the price in under a year, and has been reacting extremely well to the changing situations.

There will be no winner or loser this gen again. All of those people who thought consoles were dead and PC would take over have all been proven wrong as demand for both the PS4 and Xbox One have been higher than any consoles before it and are all off to a great start. Nintendo is the only one struggling in the console race and even they don't have any reason to really drop out as the Wii U now has a market base large enough to justify continued game development on the platform.

Oo! look, console gamers are fighting again to determine which console have more TFlops etc LOL, but when you tell them "my PC have 450% more TFlops than PS4" they start saying it doesn't matter...

lololol oh sheen's do you really have to try so hard?

So, a bunch of launch games with some resolution differences, but nothing that screams "FIFTY PERCENT".

for once i agree with the clown, 50% more gpu power does not translate to 50% overall, around 20-25% which is still substantial considering they are the same price.

Its sad that the Gawd had to step in and sprinkle some ice cubes in this thread to clear this mess. Looking through the flawless reflection of my platinum ice cube; it is pretty obvious that the power difference is not 50% overall. This is a heavily skewed thread and individuals lacking proper knowledge in internal structures and hardware could be mislead. Now does the PS4 overall have a little more sex juice? Probably. Does that mean anything? Probably not. They're both severely OUTDATED PC's at the end of the day. The gawd would like to remind you its about the talented developers who are able to squeeze everything out of these architectures and create compelling game experiences; if you really have a HARD on for HARD ware you're better off getting a gaming PC.

ICE CUBES ON THIS BITCH.

Lol no. One component doesn't dictate the entire consoles power.

The Xbox One Archeticture is proprietary much like Cokes secret formula. It's power is only surpassed by its mystery.

The PS4 is simple using readily available components. It is old tech.

The Xbox One will only get stronger as time goes on, as we are already seeing.

You're taking this more seriously than I am.

I guess you missed the point. Or took it the wrong way. Competition is necessary. And a system does not have to fail miserably for the other to be more successful. I never said otherwise. Don't extrapolate my position to what you think it is. All I said is that the performance gap and multiplats will play a bigger role this gen, and we all know which console this favors. If you doubt that, re-read the post (#159) where I pointed your fallacy (the false analogy with last gen). The point was to dismiss simplistic reasoning when trying to describe complex contexts. Yet you did it again when saying that the average gamer = people who "typically" buy a console = people that see no difference. That's generalizing a huge demograph. I don't deny that there are many that won't see or don't care about the difference, but we can't take a segmented market like this as a solid block.

But in that last line underlined, you not only missed my point, but you missed the very point behind the existance of SW. I take that as a "this discussion went too far" argument.

Better resolution, more stable framerate, differences on AF, AA, shadow rendering, lighting... And yes, those are as early as launch titles. May not be a 50% gap (since it's theoretical), but we're very probable to see bigger differences then these in the long run.

Whoaw, whoaw, The God senses someone going a little overboard there. Here put some ice cubes on that burn.

So, nothing that screams 50% stronger, unless that's what people consider 50%´more powerful.

Man i wish this place still had sigs on your posts cause this would be going straight in mine!

Please tell me about how DDR3 is newer and less readily available than GDDR5? Or how the X1's older model of GPU is better than the PS4's newer one?

I know there's a power difference. I just don't see it being 50%.

Is not about jumping ship,is about been a hypocrite,PC were stronger than your precious xbox 360 all gen last gen and you didn't care and now all of the sudden PC is better as if we care about power it most be a PC what we get..lol

The same care you give to PC last gen is the same one i give to this gen lemming...lol

Actually the one who doesn't care about resolution and frames if you,stop defending PC vs the PS4,because if resolution doesn't matter when is PS4 vs xbox one it doesn't matter when is PC vs PS4 hypocrite.

You lemmings are sad.

No they did not start with the same GPU,the xbox one is a cut down 7790 with lower clock speed,the PS4 is a cut down 7870 with lower clock speed.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/857?vs=776

This ^^ are both on their complete form as you can see yeah the 7870 > 7790.

No ESRAM is easy to use it is just to small and will be to small all generation long,just like 10MB Edram last gen was to small as well on xbox 360.

There is no balance,MS cut down the GPU computer units to fit ESRAM because they chose DDR3 as main memory,there was no balance but cause and effect .

And once again i tell you if multiplatform game use GpGPU on PS4 it will on xbox one,and yeah it get drawn from the GPU it self,GpGPU is pull from GPU not CPU,and what the cloud help the xbox one is so call CPU time in some task,so no the cloud can't be use to address GpGPU compute on xbox one.

But the PS4 version average 50FPS drops exist even on PC,that is why test always show maximum and minimum frames,the game hit 60FPS many times,it has higher quality effects on PS4,better textures and 1080p cut scenes which are 900p on PS4,the gap is quite large.

Like i proved with the PC screen the gap can be as big as 7770 vs 7950,hell i would say bigger because on that test the 7770 was beat by 30FPS by the 7950 but was at the same quality in everything which is not the case on PS4 vs xbox one the PS4 is doing a hell of allot more,because is not only running higher frames,is also doing higher quality effects as well.

I expect a bit more. If 50% is what multiplats have been showing so far, then fine, but I think it's overblown.

That's what I said multiple times in this thread.

What is 50% more to you? It sounds like it may be impossible to please your requirements. You want a next-next-gen experience out of those 50%? It's about a big performance gap. Performing better at what both do is a lot. Having higher resolution + more stable framerate, and in the case of some games add a better AA, AF solution and even better shadow resolutions or other effects and it's what make people buy a better version of the same GPU series for a premium. Only that between the two consoles you don't have to pay a dime more. That's a bigger gap than existed last gen.

Not impossible. I just expected more when people say 50%. Not just performance wise, but visually.

This.

Well said!