Quantcast
RUMOR Kinect not required for Xbox One

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - RUMOR Kinect not required for Xbox One

KINGviATor said:
Imaginedvl said:
Captain_Tom said:

Exactly and the fact is that the 7770 has GDDR5 and the 7850 has 16 compute vs the PS4's 20!  The fact is the PS4 is around 2x stronger than the Xbox One, cheaper to produce due to no ESRAM, and simpler to program for due to a unified architecture.

MS was caught off guard.  Plain and simple.

Wow, 2 times stronger now, your maths are awesome :)
Keep dreaming about your "facts" dude... If it makes you happy to believe that, it makes me happy!



He is close. It's 1.5x more powerful than the Xbox One. 1.2 TFlops, vs 1.8 TFlops.


Also, GDDR5 is far more expensive than the ESRAM addition in the X1.


DDR3 is the RAM in xbox One.... BTW .6 Terraflops difference is not 1.5X stronger lol that is only half a terraflop.

As far as Iknow GDDR5 RAM is memory that is only found in graphics cards. Considerign we are talking about system memory here it puzzles me how it is they are using graphical memory to run the system. Maybe I am wrong on this but unless I`m doing research into graphics cards I`ve never seen GDDR memory of any kind. Show me where I can buy 8 GB of GDDR5 RAM for my PC...I have 8 GB of DDR3 RAM in it as of now and  1GB GDDR5 Nvidia Graphics card.



 How our favorite systems are just like humans and sometimes have issues finding their special someone...

Xbox 360 wants to KinectPS3 wants to Move!  Why are both systems having such relationship problems?  The reason is they both become so infactuated with desire while watching the Wii as it waggles on by. They simply want what they can't have.

 Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

Around the Network
Imaginedvl said:
KINGviATor said:


He is close. It's 1.5x more powerful than the Xbox One. 1.2 TFlops, vs 1.8 TFlops.


Also, GDDR5 is far more expensive than the ESRAM addition in the X1.

In what universe 1.8 / 2 is close to 1.2?

Also we have this debate going on for a long time...
GPU is not the only thing that matter... And the difference is comprable to the one in the PS3/Xbox360.

And in this universe, few devs already said that it is negligable (even the MGS one; if you really believe Microsoft paid them too...).
So give me a break with the "much stronger" :)


Ok so get me up to speed how can the xbox one catch up to the ps4's 50% more powerful gpu? battlefield 4 and Ghosts are definitely not using the cloud and you can't fight 50% brute gpu power which is about 3 ps360 more worth of power. The ps4 gpu has 2x more rops meaning it can far outdo the xbox one in terms of alpha transparency and antialiasing.  Also esram can't magically put out the ones deficiancy in pixel output either. 



LordMatrix said:
KINGviATor said:

Imaginedvl said:

Wow, 2 times stronger now, your maths are awesome :) 

Keep dreaming about your "facts" dude... If it makes you happy to believe that, it makes me happy!



He is close. It's 1.5x more powerful than the Xbox One. 1.2 TFlops, vs 1.8 TFlops.


Also, GDDR5 is far more expensive than the ESRAM addition in the X1.


DDR3 is the RAM in xbox One.... BTW .6 Terraflops difference is not 1.5X stronger lol that is only half a terraflop.

As far as Iknow GDDR5 RAM is memory that is only found in graphics cards. Considerign we are talking about system memory here it puzzles me how it is they are using graphical memory to run the system. Maybe I am wrong on this but unless I`m doing research into graphics cards I`ve never seen GDDR memory of any kind. Show me where I can buy 8 GB of GDDR5 RAM for my PC...I have 8 GB of DDR3 RAM in it as of now and  1GB GDDR5 Nvidia Graphics card.

Ok lets do a bit of math shall we: 1.2 (xb1 tf) x 1.5 = 1.8 (ps4 tf) also I love how everyone forgets that the xbox 360 uses 512mb of UNIFIED GDDR3 memory for both the system os and graphics.  



BF4 can have 4xMSAA on PS4 and none on Xbox One for example and they both could run at 1080p & 60FPS. AA is very taxing. Most people wouldn't even notice that much of a difference. They could could also turn off things like VSync on the One. Its easy to get the Xbox One to play games at the same resolution and FPS. There is not much of a difference between a 7770 and a 7850. I can barely tell a difference between me running Crysis 3 on medium and high settings. Both look phenomenal.



They should sell the kincet seprate.no need to put it in the same box



VITA 32 GIG CARD.250 GIG SLIM & 160 GIG PHAT PS3

Around the Network
NYCrysis said:
LordMatrix said:
KINGviATor said:

Imaginedvl said:

Wow, 2 times stronger now, your maths are awesome :) 

Keep dreaming about your "facts" dude... If it makes you happy to believe that, it makes me happy!



He is close. It's 1.5x more powerful than the Xbox One. 1.2 TFlops, vs 1.8 TFlops.


Also, GDDR5 is far more expensive than the ESRAM addition in the X1.


DDR3 is the RAM in xbox One.... BTW .6 Terraflops difference is not 1.5X stronger lol that is only half a terraflop.

As far as Iknow GDDR5 RAM is memory that is only found in graphics cards. Considerign we are talking about system memory here it puzzles me how it is they are using graphical memory to run the system. Maybe I am wrong on this but unless I`m doing research into graphics cards I`ve never seen GDDR memory of any kind. Show me where I can buy 8 GB of GDDR5 RAM for my PC...I have 8 GB of DDR3 RAM in it as of now and  1GB GDDR5 Nvidia Graphics card.

Ok lets do a bit of math shall we: 1.2 (xb1 tf) x 1.5 = 1.8 (ps4 tf) also I love how everyone forgets that the xbox 360 uses 512mb of UNIFIED GDDR3 memory for both the system os and graphics.  


.6 more terraflops is just slighly more than half a terraflop not 1 1/2 terraflops. .5 =/= 1.5



 How our favorite systems are just like humans and sometimes have issues finding their special someone...

Xbox 360 wants to KinectPS3 wants to Move!  Why are both systems having such relationship problems?  The reason is they both become so infactuated with desire while watching the Wii as it waggles on by. They simply want what they can't have.

 Official member of the Xbox 360 Squad

tuscaniman99 said:
BF4 can have 4xMSAA on PS4 and none on Xbox One for example and they both could run at 1080p & 60FPS. AA is very taxing. Most people wouldn't even notice that much of a difference. They could could also turn off things like VSync on the One. Its easy to get the Xbox One to play games at the same resolution and FPS. There is not much of a difference between a 7770 and a 7850. I can barely tell a difference between me running Crysis 3 on medium and high settings. Both look phenomenal.

I don't think we will be able to notice much of a graphical difference even with the PS4 being more powerful.  Especially not at first, all the devs for the PS4 were probably developing from the 4GB dev kits, so none of the games will really be fully optimized for the PS4's 8GB of ram.  I've never really seen much of a difference between something like high and medium PC settings.  The only real difference I can feel is frame rate, if the Xbox struggles with frame rate on the extremely demanding graphical games I would be very disappointed.  I don't think that will happen though as they would likely just tweak some settings to ease the load.



Shinobi-san said:
walsufnir said:


"The only major difference between the two systems is RAM type and GPU cores (12 vs 18). Sony is probably paying AMD more for the APU. This is the only cost factor that can actually have a major impact on price and i think that is what NYCrysis was getting it."

Perhaps he is but it is still wrong. System-performance depends on a lot of variables and not just ram-type and gpu. Anyway it is not *much* stronger.

"And price does have a direct relation to power. Especially in this case when the two systems are directly comparable"

But they aren't. Many parts are totally different so barely comparable. And no, there is no direct relation between price and power. If this would be true, the 3ds would be much cheaper than the vita, the WiiU also. The price is also influenced by a lot of variables.

"The price you pay for consoles is determined by the manufacturing costs as well as the amount the manufacturer is willing to subsidize."

Yes, and exactly the manufacturing costs consists of a lot of things.

"And I think the Kinect price can be approximated based on the price of the current Kinect and a bit of extrapolation."

Sure but we will never get actual costs. Crash did guesstimates at best, with a little bias.


Sorry but i just don't agree. The little additions Sony and MS make to their systems are negligible and probably dont add much to the cost. Its not that hard to price these systems with a little bit of knowledge on systems and how they work. But i think what is even more obvious is that the core components of the system are the main costs. And we already know what the main components are:

GPU, CPU, HDD, MOBO, RAM, COOLER, BLURAY DRIVE etc.

Theres also the cost of the controller and kinect. At this point we also know what specialed units both Sony and MS added to the console. Components that handle Sound etc.

Again the architectures are damn near identical going by the rumours. And lets face it, the rumours have been 100% accurate...you never going to get the details straight from MS or Sony. AMD obviously heavily influenced the design of the systems theres really nothing in it. Thats why they are comparable. If these systems arent comparable then no systems will ever be comparable. Consoles have never been this comparable ever before. And the major difference right now is the ram type, compute units, and Kinect. It really is that simple. I'm sorry but theres just no other way to see it.

This is why i have said multiple times in multiple other thread why the whole argument over console power is completely dead and boring. We know everything there is to know about these consoles. Thats what happens when you take off the shelf pc parts and put them in a console.

"Sorry but i just don't agree. The little additions Sony and MS make to their systems are negligible and probably dont add much to the cost. Its not that hard to price these systems with a little bit of knowledge on systems and how they work. But i think what is even more obvious is that the core components of the system are the main costs."

 

Sorry but I don't agree. The consoles are not made the way we build computers. The apus are customized by AMD and MSony, the chip-design is custom, the audio-hardware is completely custom, board-design... Ok, yes, HDD is off-the-shelf but the costs of all this detrmined by the actual hardware and the contracts MSony made with the ones who actually build the hardware. For example, the Xbone chip has 5 bn transistors. How would you measure the costs of such a chip?

 

To the architectures: Sadly MS built a system where it is *not* easy to say how the system-perfomance will be. PS4 is straight-forward but we are talking about system-performance here. This means you have to take into account the move-units, esram, the most probably way powerful audio-chip SHAPE and so on. Freeing the computing units from any audio-stuff frees a lot of ressources, for example. Or what is with the os? How many cores does the os occupy? Or is it done by an arm-chip? These are considerations you have to make to talk about system-performance, beside even more other things.

Do you get the idea? I know that you are not completely wrong and many people think like you but your arguments are not the whole truth - they are only part of it. It is really not that simple :) This doesn't mean that you can't compare the components but the single components don't make alone for system-performance.



walsufnir said:
Shinobi-san said:
walsufnir said:


"The only major difference between the two systems is RAM type and GPU cores (12 vs 18). Sony is probably paying AMD more for the APU. This is the only cost factor that can actually have a major impact on price and i think that is what NYCrysis was getting it."

Perhaps he is but it is still wrong. System-performance depends on a lot of variables and not just ram-type and gpu. Anyway it is not *much* stronger.

"And price does have a direct relation to power. Especially in this case when the two systems are directly comparable"

But they aren't. Many parts are totally different so barely comparable. And no, there is no direct relation between price and power. If this would be true, the 3ds would be much cheaper than the vita, the WiiU also. The price is also influenced by a lot of variables.

"The price you pay for consoles is determined by the manufacturing costs as well as the amount the manufacturer is willing to subsidize."

Yes, and exactly the manufacturing costs consists of a lot of things.

"And I think the Kinect price can be approximated based on the price of the current Kinect and a bit of extrapolation."

Sure but we will never get actual costs. Crash did guesstimates at best, with a little bias.


Sorry but i just don't agree. The little additions Sony and MS make to their systems are negligible and probably dont add much to the cost. Its not that hard to price these systems with a little bit of knowledge on systems and how they work. But i think what is even more obvious is that the core components of the system are the main costs. And we already know what the main components are:

GPU, CPU, HDD, MOBO, RAM, COOLER, BLURAY DRIVE etc.

Theres also the cost of the controller and kinect. At this point we also know what specialed units both Sony and MS added to the console. Components that handle Sound etc.

Again the architectures are damn near identical going by the rumours. And lets face it, the rumours have been 100% accurate...you never going to get the details straight from MS or Sony. AMD obviously heavily influenced the design of the systems theres really nothing in it. Thats why they are comparable. If these systems arent comparable then no systems will ever be comparable. Consoles have never been this comparable ever before. And the major difference right now is the ram type, compute units, and Kinect. It really is that simple. I'm sorry but theres just no other way to see it.

This is why i have said multiple times in multiple other thread why the whole argument over console power is completely dead and boring. We know everything there is to know about these consoles. Thats what happens when you take off the shelf pc parts and put them in a console.

"Sorry but i just don't agree. The little additions Sony and MS make to their systems are negligible and probably dont add much to the cost. Its not that hard to price these systems with a little bit of knowledge on systems and how they work. But i think what is even more obvious is that the core components of the system are the main costs."

 

Sorry but I don't agree. The consoles are not made the way we build computers. The apus are customized by AMD and MSony, the chip-design is custom, the audio-hardware is completely custom, board-design... Ok, yes, HDD is off-the-shelf but the costs of all this detrmined by the actual hardware and the contracts MSony made with the ones who actually build the hardware. For example, the Xbone chip has 5 bn transistors. How would you measure the costs of such a chip?

 

To the architectures: Sadly MS built a system where it is *not* easy to say how the system-perfomance will be. PS4 is straight-forward but we are talking about system-performance here. This means you have to take into account the move-units, esram, the most probably way powerful audio-chip SHAPE and so on. Freeing the computing units from any audio-stuff frees a lot of ressources, for example. Or what is with the os? How many cores does the os occupy? Or is it done by an arm-chip? These are considerations you have to make to talk about system-performance, beside even more other things.

Do you get the idea? I know that you are not completely wrong and many people think like you but your arguments are not the whole truth - they are only part of it. It is really not that simple :) This doesn't mean that you can't compare the components but the single components don't make alone for system-performance.

no you are missing the point.

At the end of the day these consoles are limited to their theoretical output. They can't do miracles and go beyond that. And yes im making it out to be more simple than what it is, but i assure you these consoles are very simillar. And we absolutely can compare them...and while 50% seems like a lot i dont think its that much. We only really sea difference when you looking at 5x - 10x the power and even then the perceived difference is up to opinion. Not to mention they have the exact same compute units and CPU! In other words every single flop is comparable.

Not to mention they have the exact same compute unit and cpu...with the same linear performance. Everything else really just changes the efficiency. The 5 billion transistors is down to mostly the esram as far as im aware.

I swear to you all the little add-ons sony and MS did are pretty much meaningless. And most of the changes MS did make, unfortunately were not positive changes. These topics have been discussed to death on the beyond 3d forums and other tech forums. And no, not everyone is a Sony fanboy. Its pretty much unanimously agreed that Sony went with the better hardware...i think thats pretty clear now. And yeah when im looking at power im mostly talking about the GPU compute units but why is that?

 The GPU is ~90% of the compute capability in both  machines! Thats how these consoles were built,same with the WiiU btw which was also made by AMD. If you not willing to admit that these consoles are comparable then i wont continue the discussion further because really...these consoles are as similar as consoles will ever be thats for damn sure. If you not willing to compare them based on the theoretical output just because it doesnt suite you then i dont know.

Have you ever wondered why the technical discussion has cmpletely died down in the tech forums? Do you really want us to whip out the diagrams and stuff and go through everything again :O...i dont think anyone is interested in doing that. And goodluck going on any forums and starting a discussion on next gen hardware now that everything is already known.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

LordMatrix said:
NYCrysis said:
LordMatrix said:
KINGviATor said:





DDR3 is the RAM in xbox One.... BTW .6 Terraflops difference is not 1.5X stronger lol that is only half a terraflop.

As far as Iknow GDDR5 RAM is memory that is only found in graphics cards. Considerign we are talking about system memory here it puzzles me how it is they are using graphical memory to run the system. Maybe I am wrong on this but unless I`m doing research into graphics cards I`ve never seen GDDR memory of any kind. Show me where I can buy 8 GB of GDDR5 RAM for my PC...I have 8 GB of DDR3 RAM in it as of now and  1GB GDDR5 Nvidia Graphics card.

Ok lets do a bit of math shall we: 1.2 (xb1 tf) x 1.5 = 1.8 (ps4 tf) also I love how everyone forgets that the xbox 360 uses 512mb of UNIFIED GDDR3 memory for both the system os and graphics.  


.6 more terraflops is just slighly more than half a terraflop not 1 1/2 terraflops. .5 =/= 1.5


He said it's 1.5 TIMES more powerful. He didn't say 1.5 more terraflops. Either you're not reading his posts correctly or you're not doing the math correctly.