PS4 n X1 architecture.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for b3gv5m63
#1 Edited by B3GV5M63 (117 posts) -

Does anybody think that MS and Sony did the right decision by going with the 32-bit architecture . all previous Playstation and XBOX architecture were specially designed to give the best performance for gaming. they were made specifically for gaming while 32-bit is as general as it gets. for me. I dont think either PS4 or XBOX1 Will last as long as PS3 and XBOX 360. maybe they will. when you compare PS3 and XBOX360, PS2. XBOX to PC at that time. they're pretty much the weakest Specs in terms of PC. but X1 and PS4 are considerably strong in terms of PC specs as well. 8 gigs both. thats a lot. but they delivered about an equal gaming performance at that time. Anybody agrees with me. or not. I think going with a specialized architecture would have been a better option. few will say that developers will not take advantage of the hardware because of that. its efficient Architecture vs General Architecture.

Avatar image for barrybarryk
#2 Edited by barrybarryk (488 posts) -

Both consoles are 64-bit capable. x86 doesn't mean 32bit registers, it means they're using a version of the x86 instruction set.

Neither console is considered particularly strong against the PC space but that's largely irrelevant when it comes to the consoles life cycle. With every other console generation turn around, there was never the scenario that we have now where a midrange PC can output the same level of visuals as their console counterparts.

If you think going with a specialised architecture is a better idea, have a look at the Wii U's booming release schedule or the early years of the PS3. More specialised architecture = more expensive development costs and less code portability.

Avatar image for b3gv5m63
#3 Edited by B3GV5M63 (117 posts) -


if PS2, PS3 were x86 or x64 at that time. they would have never made it.

Avatar image for barrybarryk
#4 Edited by barrybarryk (488 posts) -

@b3gv5m63: What else does your magical alternate timeline machine tell you?

The PS3 was based on the CELL because Sony are arrogant fucks. After the massive success of the PS2 they thought they were guaranteed developer support, so they picked the most obtuse and complicated architecture for the PS3 deliberately and specifically to make it more difficult for developers to port their PS3 projects to other systems. In the end the opposite happened and the PS3 saw virtually no support for years until middleware appeared to do the heavy lifting. The PS3 cost Sony their dominant market position because of its obtuse architecture.

Avatar image for osan0
#5 Posted by osan0 (14884 posts) -

i think the PS4 and X1 are basically the best consoles ever made from a developers perspective now (the wiiu is a complete screw up though). we can argue about the PS4 being X% more powerful or whatever but at the end of the day, looking at the guts of both consoles, there isnt anything seriously wrong with them thats going to cause the developers serious headaches. they have very much taken the philosophy nintendo used for the gamecube (probably the best console they ever built at the time): easy to learn but hard to master. the amount of ram in them to go with the rest of the system is also a nice balance which makes a nice change to consoles that have skimped on the ram in the past.

the fact they share so much in common with the PC is also very positive for the industry as it will make cross platform development easier which will, hopefully, reduce costs.

contrast that to so many consoles in the past where developers had to jump through many hoops just to get the basics up and was lunacy. in fairness PC hardware, at the time, was not suitable for a console really. it was designed to be in a big tower or server rack. i remember people poking fun at the first xbox for its size. but modern PC hardware is well suited to the job. its designed for laptops.

dont write off PC hardware as some inefficent and slow tech either. the first xbox had a massive jump from halo 1 to halo 2. it was hard to believe both games were running on the same console.

i was just reading a performance analysis for the new infamous and the way its behaving it looks like, even with those visuals, the PS4 still has plenty left in the tank so visuals will improve a lot on both consoles.

my only complaint about the X1 and Ps4 really is the amount of ram being used by the OS.....3-4GB is just silly (same applies to the wii u....half the ram for the OS is mad).

so instead of some weird, untested, hard to develop for architecture that has reliability problems we have consoles that have proven pretty darn reliable at launch, are sensibly priced (compared to last gen for the PS3), quiet and developer firendly. its a win all round and i hope they continue along this path next gen.

Avatar image for b3gv5m63
#6 Posted by B3GV5M63 (117 posts) -


Sony's PS4 will have a dynamic Ram limitation. means that the Game will use whatever RAM left. however. the xbox will has half the Ram to the OS and the kinect.

Avatar image for firefox59
#7 Posted by firefox59 (4530 posts) -

@b3gv5m63 said:


Sony's PS4 will have a dynamic Ram limitation. means that the Game will use whatever RAM left. however. the xbox will has half the Ram to the OS and the kinect.

That's not even close to being accurate. Both consoles have 3 of the 8 GB of RAM locked to the OS. They both have 5 available.

Avatar image for b3gv5m63
#8 Posted by B3GV5M63 (117 posts) -


oh yes. your right. they changed that before release. what i said is what i heard at E3.