Quantcast
RUMOR Kinect not required for Xbox One

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

Shinobi-san said:
walsufnir said:

"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.


No, you are missing the point. I know the hardware specs, of course. But again, you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between system-performance and theoretical limits. I told you several points that influence the system-performance and you can't argue with that. I don't know if you are not able or not willing.

I will make it even more clear: Let's take a hypothetical WiiU2 with the same APU the PS4 has. Sadly, the system itself has a very bad audio-chip so the cpu has to do a lot of work for audio-processing. Even more bad, the OS running takes enormous 4 cores to run the OS beside games. This means the remaining 4 cpus need to do the processing of audio and the game-mechanics. On paper, you'd say it's as powerful as the PS4 while *system-performance* is not. You get the idea now? I don't know how to explain easier.

Again: System-performance is not "we put every spec together and that's it".  And don't swear on forums, it's useless here :)

Really, I have to fiddle with big systems every day. Custom hardware, generic hardware, obscure hardware. If we would judge system-performance only by specs we would have bought very much crap. This doesn't mean the ps4 is crap, of course.



Around the Network
walsufnir said:
Shinobi-san said:

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.


No, you are missing the point. I know the hardware specs, of course. But again, you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between system-performance and theoretical limits. I told you several points that influence the system-performance and you can't argue with that. I don't know if you are not able or not willing.

I will make it even more clear: Let's take a hypothetical WiiU2 with the same APU the PS4 has. Sadly, the system itself has a very bad audio-chip so the cpu has to do a lot of work for audio-processing. Even more bad, the OS running takes enormous 4 cores to run the OS beside games. This means the remaining 4 cpus need to do the processing of audio and the game-mechanics. On paper, you'd say it's as powerful as the PS4 while *system-performance* is not. You get the idea now? I don't know how to explain easier.

Again: System-performance is not "we put every spec together and that's it".  And don't swear on forums, it's useless here :)

Really, I have to fiddle with big systems every day. Custom hardware, generic hardware, obscure hardware. If we would judge system-performance only by specs we would have bought very much crap. This doesn't mean the ps4 is crap, of course.


But thats just it the PS4 also has dedicated hardware for sound, streaming etc.? I won't argue further but fortunately I think its pretty much unanimous on all other forums about the hardware of next gen. You welcome to go against the grain but kinda pointless. Like i said these topics have already been discussed. I dont see how anyone who has any shred of knowledge on PC systems will say that the systems are not comparable and come to the same conclusions that everyone has come to.

Edit: In case you think I'm lying about the PS4 dedicated hardware components, here is a link

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?print=1

The dedicated components in the Xbox One is slighlty different but has similar features. The xbox One also has dedicated hardware for video compression and decompression. The similarities are endless. Its almost like the same people made it. If there are other major differences that free up resources then please let me know but as far as i do know theres nothing else.

And in case you missed it but i also disagree with Crysis when he said the PS4 is much more powerful than the Xbone. But you cant ignore that there is a difference and you sure as hell cant say they arent comparable. I mean people were comparing PS3 and 360..and that was super hard to compare.



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|



Shinobi-san said:
walsufnir said:
Shinobi-san said:

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.


No, you are missing the point. I know the hardware specs, of course. But again, you don't seem to understand that there is a difference between system-performance and theoretical limits. I told you several points that influence the system-performance and you can't argue with that. I don't know if you are not able or not willing.

I will make it even more clear: Let's take a hypothetical WiiU2 with the same APU the PS4 has. Sadly, the system itself has a very bad audio-chip so the cpu has to do a lot of work for audio-processing. Even more bad, the OS running takes enormous 4 cores to run the OS beside games. This means the remaining 4 cpus need to do the processing of audio and the game-mechanics. On paper, you'd say it's as powerful as the PS4 while *system-performance* is not. You get the idea now? I don't know how to explain easier.

Again: System-performance is not "we put every spec together and that's it".  And don't swear on forums, it's useless here :)

Really, I have to fiddle with big systems every day. Custom hardware, generic hardware, obscure hardware. If we would judge system-performance only by specs we would have bought very much crap. This doesn't mean the ps4 is crap, of course.


But thats just it the PS4 also has dedicated hardware for sound, streaming etc.? I won't argue further but fortunately I think its pretty much unanimous on all other forums about the hardware of next gen. You welcome to go against the grain but kinda pointless. Like i said these topics have already been discussed. I dont see how anyone who has any shred of knowledge on PC systems will say that the systems are not comparable and come to the same conclusions that everyone has come to.

Edit: In case you think I'm lying about the PS4 dedicated hardware components, here is a link

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?print=1

The dedicated components in the Xbox One is slighlty different but has similar features. The xbox One also has dedicated hardware for video compression and decompression. The similarities are endless. Its almost like the same people made it. If there are other major differences that free up resources then please let me know but as far as i do know theres nothing else.

And in case you missed it but i also disagree with Crysis when he said the PS4 is much more powerful than the Xbone. But you cant ignore that there is a difference and you sure as hell cant say they arent comparable. I mean people were comparing PS3 and 360..and that was super hard to compare.


Ok, you still don't get it, let us finish here. It is not your fault you can't follow me, it is possibly mine because I can't make it any more clear to you. I don't say PS4 isn't more powerful but the ratio is still not that what the actual hardware-specs tell us - I explained thoroughyl why. You are obviously no technician but that's no problem, we are at least all gamers.

Sorry I couldn't tell you or share my knowledge enough with you. I think this can only be taught in a good way personally to make you (and others, of course) understand.



walsufnir said:
Shinobi-san said:


But thats just it the PS4 also has dedicated hardware for sound, streaming etc.? I won't argue further but fortunately I think its pretty much unanimous on all other forums about the hardware of next gen. You welcome to go against the grain but kinda pointless. Like i said these topics have already been discussed. I dont see how anyone who has any shred of knowledge on PC systems will say that the systems are not comparable and come to the same conclusions that everyone has come to.

Edit: In case you think I'm lying about the PS4 dedicated hardware components, here is a link

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/191007/inside_the_playstation_4_with_mark_.php?print=1

The dedicated components in the Xbox One is slighlty different but has similar features. The xbox One also has dedicated hardware for video compression and decompression. The similarities are endless. Its almost like the same people made it. If there are other major differences that free up resources then please let me know but as far as i do know theres nothing else.

And in case you missed it but i also disagree with Crysis when he said the PS4 is much more powerful than the Xbone. But you cant ignore that there is a difference and you sure as hell cant say they arent comparable. I mean people were comparing PS3 and 360..and that was super hard to compare.


Ok, you still don't get it, let us finish here. It is not your fault you can't follow me, it is possibly mine because I can't make it any more clear to you. I don't say PS4 isn't more powerful but the ratio is still not that what the actual hardware-specs tell us - I explained thoroughyl why. You are obviously no technician but that's no problem, we are at least all gamers.

Sorry I couldn't tell you or share my knowledge enough with you. I think this can only be taught in a good way personally to make you (and others, of course) understand.

Wow I try to reason with you and you throw up that shit. Oh well.

Ive been on this site for about 5 years now and i've mostly discussed on the tech side of things. I am first a techie and then a gamer. I also have a degree to prove it.

I understand you loud and clear you are saying there is more to it....im saying theres nothing much more to it given that we knw everything to know about the systems. Also your WiiU2 analogy makes a good point and i agree with it, but it simply doesnt apply here.

Edit: we have also derailed the thread so i will leave it at that.



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|

Around the Network
Shinobi-san said:
walsufnir said:


Ok, you still don't get it, let us finish here. It is not your fault you can't follow me, it is possibly mine because I can't make it any more clear to you. I don't say PS4 isn't more powerful but the ratio is still not that what the actual hardware-specs tell us - I explained thoroughyl why. You are obviously no technician but that's no problem, we are at least all gamers.

Sorry I couldn't tell you or share my knowledge enough with you. I think this can only be taught in a good way personally to make you (and others, of course) understand.

Wow I try to reason with you and you throw up that shit. Oh well.

Ive been on this site for about 5 years now and i've mostly discussed on the tech side of things. I am first a techie and then a gamer. I also have a degree to prove it.

I understand you loud and clear you are saying there is more to it....im saying theres nothing much more to it given that we knw everything to know about the systems. Also your WiiU2 analogy makes a good point and i agree with it, but it simply doesnt apply here.

Edit: we have also derailed the thread so i will leave it at that.


No schlong-comparisons, I also have a degree and more experience, for sure, but this is not the point :)

We currently don't know enough details to say "PS4 *is* x-times more powerful than Xbone". That is and will be my point until we know further details. Anything we say by now is most probably wrong and depends on much more than just what we know so far. No one knows how much speed-up the move-units and esram will actually give the system, especially considering that almost noone considers them in comparisons.

So, still have a nice day in South Africa, I am now out for sports.



I think what he meant is even with exactly the same tech specs.... one could be more powerful than the other.... or even pushing it further one being more powerful than the other on specs and still be weaker on the result.... we see that all the time in tech today but also in mechanic and other fields.... where on the paper something is/looks better on paper but when it comes to real performance it doesn't outcome the same because resources are handled and exploited differently.....

the cell for instance was a great example of that.... here even with similar architectures the pure spec comparison might not output the expected theorical results.... the little tweaks each did and the OSs and different code in the box might allow a better use of resources or on the opposite generate less loss of resources than the other which could dwarf the theorical spec sheet benefit of one over the other....



NYCrysis said:
If no kinect version how much will the box cost? $300? Cause the box itself is much weaker than the ps4.


$399 minimum. Sony are probably making a loss at their price point.



I'm no expert on both box I haven't even bothered looking at the actual specs of both.... but I think that's what walsufnir was trying to say.....

you could have a F1 next to a John Deer on the sheet they are obviously 2 motor engine working pretty much the same and with 4 wheels and all... but the tweaks of the john deer allow it to outperform the F1 any time on rough terrain....



NYCrysis said:
If no kinect version how much will the box cost? $300? Cause the box itself is much weaker than the ps4.


$399 minimum. Sony are probably making a loss at their price point.