By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why does everyone keep saying the reason why ps4 is better than Xbox one because its more powerful.

S.T.A.G.E. on 26 December 2013
superryo said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
superryo said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
superryo said:
Rafux said:
-1080P>720P
-100$ cheaper
-Smaller (no powerbrick)
-Better multiplats from the beginning
-No need for batteries for the controller
-Plus>Live

That is not true.  Some games are 1080P on XBOX One and eventually more will be.

The $100 is true but if you add the camera and a better headset for PS4 (the ear bud really sucks) then the price difference is negligible.  Besides these systems are supposed to be 10 year cycle per MS and Sony so $100 over 10 years is $10 a year.  Besides if you didn't preorder a PS4 yet then you won't be getting one for a while unless you are willing to pay much more than the retail price - in some cases even more than the Xbox One.

Yes it is smaller but once it is in the AV unit, why does this matter?  My brick sits behind the console so I never see it.

As for multiplats - from what I see there is hardly any difference.  It's like when they were comparing Xbox 360 and PS3 and people were nitpicking over tiny differences that you need a magnifying glass for.  The average consumer would not be able to tell at all if we are to be completely honest.  In fact there isn't a huge difference between current gen multi plats and the next gen so far.

No batteries for controller - I see that as a plus since the Xbox controller seems to last much longer.  I also bought 4 Duracel rechargeable battery with charger for $20.  This allows me to always have 2 fresh battery ready if my battery dies. 

I only subscribe to Plus for a few months way back but for me Live is a much better experience than the PS network by far. It's all personal opinion but I have way more friends on Live and the few I have on both prefer Live.  The experience is just simpler for my taste.  As for free games, both give out free games and for the most part they are good even if older.   Sure Plus may give out newer games but if you ever stop paying then those games are no longer playable while Live is more like the iOS store model where once you download they are yours for life.


PS Network is free. You don't pay for that. You only pay for Plus perks.

Yes but with PS4 there is no "free" multi player.  I always play multi player so PSN is not an option for me.  I do play PSN on the PS3 and while it works, one thing that annoys me is the constant update that takes so long.  Sometimes I only have a short period to play and booting up to have to do an update along with DCU update which takes hours doesn't give me much gaming time.  That and I find some of the social games on PSN doesn't seem to have anyone talking on the headset.  I like socially chatting while playing so it's a - on PSN.


The PS3 is not the PS4. The fact that we're paying might bring more money into the fold for increasing the overall value of multiplayer. PSN will always be free. You can cross-chat, video chat, watching netflix and enjoying everything else with your friends is at no extra charge. For those who don't like multiplayer, PSN is still 100% free for them. Again, the PS4 will show major differences in online from the PS3. It's already been reported that PSN is way faster than Live. Lets hope this translates to loading screens as well because during the 7th gen 360 games loaded faster since there was less content on each disc and the PS3's RAM was taken up so everything ran slower. This gen it seems a lot of the third party gamers have switched back to Sony so that little theory about no one chatting might come to pass. I've chatted with many people on PSN though during the PS3 era, mainly because of my effort to initiate conversations and I joined a couple teams in COD and Last of Us.

Even if gaming consoles do Netflix for free, they don't do them very well.  I bought an Apple TV and now Roku 3 for that.  Much better at streatming video and DNLA and much much cheaper (less than $100).  Plus almost ALL new HD TV now are smart TV's and have Netflix and Youtube built in so that is not even a benefit of any console.  The reason I pay for XBOX Live is to play multi player and to ensure I have RELIABLE always available servers and connections.  It is always the reason to pay for XBOX Live.  Anything else is a bonus but not a necessity.  Anyone who buys a $300-$500 console just for free netflix and youtube is just silly when they can buy a google chromecast for just $35.


The PS4 is faster than the Xbox One from what I've played from both of them. I like the Xbox One OS better though aesthetically speaking but the PS4 is easier to navigate through. Thats essentially all that Microsoft does better than Sony to me. That and they are better marketers. 

Xbox Live Gold perception is based upon subjective reality. Sony still allows you to do the majority of what you pay for on Xbox Live Gold for free and theres no disputing that. Xbox Live Gold is the true experience of owning and Xbox, period. What it comes down to in fact (rather than truth) is the cloud. Both Sony and Microsoft are backing cloud this gen. Will Sony further invest into it? No one knows.



Around the Network
HeisenbergRules on 26 December 2013

Better gaming system 100 less..no brainer.



bonzobanana on 26 December 2013
Pemalite said:
bonzobanana said:


Without the 32MB of ESRAM you have 12 gpu compute units and 8 cpu's all sharing the same pool of memory of low bandwidth DDR memory. The ESRAM is there to help solve that issue but there is only 32MB of it. It's a clear limitation. Cache memory is there to remove latency issues and help coordinate use of bandwidth but there is clearly an issue with the xbox one, cache can't create extra bandwidth.

Also remember both GPU's have compute functionality. So the extra power of the PS4 GPU can be utilised for additional compute power if necessary which again means for CPU intensive games it can have an advantage. Obviously if the GPU is used for this then actual GPU work has to be reduced but there may be games where the PS4 advantage is an improved physics engine or more characters on screen or improved AI.

The PS4 is just a much more powerful design and will be capable of greater things than xbox one.


The eSRAM isn't a limitation. Developers don't have to use it, they have a choice.
If developers make use of it, they get a performance boost, how could that be described as a limitation when it increases performance?

Is it as Ideal as the memory set-up in the Playstation 4? Heck no. But it's still not a limitation.
Fact of the matter is both systems are going to have games that look downright fantastic, eSRAM or not. (Granted at only HD resolutions. Ugh.)

In the end, most games won't be any different across platforms, save for some minor details (That people will most certainly blow out of proportion), most developers use 3rd party game engines and don't optimise for any specific platform to a massive degree, it's only the first party developers who generally push the envelope.

But if you are indeed worried about graphics and performance, get a PC and stop stressing.


Of course its a limitation. There is only 32MB of it and its there to improve memory bandwidth. If developers didn't use it the Xbox one would be even slower. Why do I even have to explain something so incredibly obvious. There is 8GB of low bandwidth memory and 32MB of higher bandwidth memory in the Xbox One. The PS4 has 8GB of very high bandwidth memory without restriction. The PS4's 18 gpu compute units and 8 cpu cores can all access memory without restriction at the full bandwidth. The xbox one has about a third of the bandwidth but this additional 32MB of ESRAM allows some high priority tasks to work at a higher memory bandwidth. 32MB isn't even enough for a 4K frame buffer so not much future capacity. 

The performance level of the PS4 is significantly higher than Xbox One. Perhaps something like the ratio between the original xbox over the ps2. While ps2 and original xbox ran many similar games the original xbox versions were often enhanced, higher resolution, better sound, more graphic detail, better frame rates.

While the ps2 simply wasn't capable of many of the original xbox games like Half Life 2 the same probably isn't true here. I think the issue here is while both can probably run all the same games due to similar cpu and memory resources the PS4 will hold a significant graphic advantage, higher frame rates, higher resolution and enhanced graphic detail.

None of this will stop me enjoying Xbox One games but I'm certainly not interested in buying an Xbox One at current pricing.



MARCUSDJACKSON on 26 December 2013

tell that to the PC master race. Power + RAM=developer appeal.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Pemalite on 26 December 2013
bonzobanana said:


Of course its a limitation. There is only 32MB of it and its there to improve memory bandwidth. If developers didn't use it the Xbox one would be even slower. Why do I even have to explain something so incredibly obvious. There is 8GB of low bandwidth memory and 32MB of higher bandwidth memory in the Xbox One. The PS4 has 8GB of very high bandwidth memory without restriction. The PS4's 18 gpu compute units and 8 cpu cores can all access memory without restriction at the full bandwidth. The xbox one has about a third of the bandwidth but this additional 32MB of ESRAM allows some high priority tasks to work at a higher memory bandwidth. 32MB isn't even enough for a 4K frame buffer so not much future capacity. 


You're missing the point.
If a developer feels limited by the eSRAM, then they simply don't use it. It's called choice.

Plus, the 32Mb of eSRAM is plenty of space, ever heard of tiled resources and tiled rendering? That will make great use in setting up a scene that fits perfectly fine in the 32Mb, even for something like a 4k frame buffer, it would fit fine.
Again, only first party developers will take complete advantage of the Xbox One and Playstation 4.

Besides, you need to keep in mind that by the very nature of the Xbox One having less compute resources, it's going to require less memory bandwidth in order for the hardware to become fully saturated, so comparing the bandwidth numbers isn't the right way to go about it.

Seems to me you are incredibly worried about specifications and graphics, so I ask you, why bother with a console at all if it's the only reason to buy one?

bonzobanana said:


The performance level of the PS4 is significantly higher than Xbox One. Perhaps something like the ratio between the original xbox over the ps2. While ps2 and original xbox ran many similar games the original xbox versions were often enhanced, higher resolution, better sound, more graphic detail, better frame rates.

The difference between the Playstation 2 and Xbox Origional was that the hardware was as far removed as you can get.
Microsoft wen't with a (At the time) powerfull Intel x86 CPU and Sony wen't with a RISC based custom designed In-Order CPU based on MIPS.
Even the GPU's were generationally different as the Xbox was based on a PC Direct X 8 class GPU whilst the PS2's was a custom job.
Not to mention the Xbox was launched late and didn't exactly get a long shelf life that would have allowed developers to make full use of the hardware.

The Playstation 4 and Xbox One however are identical from a hardware architecture point of view, the only major difference is the memory subsystems and GPU compute resources.
So you're comparing Apples to Oranges.


bonzobanana said:

While the ps2 simply wasn't capable of many of the original xbox games like Half Life 2 the same probably isn't true here. I think the issue here is while both can probably run all the same games due to similar cpu and memory resources the PS4 will hold a significant graphic advantage, higher frame rates, higher resolution and enhanced graphic detail.

None of this will stop me enjoying Xbox One games but I'm certainly not interested in buying an Xbox One at current pricing.


I don't doubt that the Playstation 4 is going to have an advantage in graphics, but it's not going to be the difference between a PS2 and Xbox Origional, that's for sure, they both share the same feature set in terms of graphics effects, with probably a slight advantage going to the Xbox One due to Microsoft inventing some non-hardware dependant technologies to make things go allot farther.
The Xbox One might just get a Resolution and/or framerate cut and that's about it.

Besides, if you: Have less than perfect eyesight, use only a 720P display, then you won't notice hardly any difference between the systems for multiplats.
Heck, even on a 1080P display and depending on viewing distance and panel sizes, the difference isn't going to be that big.
It's certainly not going to be the difference between the Playstation 4 and PC that's for sure.

Whether that is worth the extra's that the Xbox One console offers is entirely up to the individual, some may simply prefer Kinect and Xbox Live.

It's a good thing both systems offer different things, it honestly feels like people on this forum would rather the Xbox One to be exactly the same as the Playstation 4 (I.E. More of the boring old same.), which would suck.
Thankfully you are also not forced to buy either. I'm not, yet, maybe late next year.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
superryo on 29 December 2013
bonzobanana said:
The major limitation of the xbox one really is that 32MB of ESRAM. Same amount as wii u which is a far less capable console. We have seen games that initally release at 720p but are patched to 900p later or 900p to 1080p. This is the result of having to optimise that 32MB of memory to fit everything in. It's simply a limitation the ps4 doesn't have, not only is the gpu about 40-50% more powerful in graphic cores, but it is 2x capacity in rendering output and has full access with no restriction to incredibly high bandwidth GDDR5 memory. This bodes well for 4K support, full use of 1080p, 3D support and their upcoming VR visor.

There will likely come a time when more casual gamers start to realise the huge difference in power and the xbox one price premium will become unsustainable and may even fall below that of the ps4.

I saw Forza on display in store on xbox one. There was some aliasing on what I'm sure was a 1080p display. I was not impressed. Car models were nice but the general look of the surroundings, sky etc still looked last gen.


In a year when developers understand how to use the architecture (as they did with the PS3 and 360) and all games are 1080P and 60fps, no one will care what is under the hood as long as it looks good.  As it is even my die hard PS friend couldn't notice much of a difference when he came over to play on the X1.  To be perfectly honest, the games do look better than previous generation but not so drastic that you can immediately say "wow" what a generational difference yet.



selnor1983 on 29 December 2013

This boat has sailed now. Its all about exclusive content from this point on.



deskpro2k3 on 29 December 2013

more power
less money
built by game developers
made for gamers



CPU: Ryzen 7950X
GPU: MSI 4090 SUPRIM X 24G
Motherboard: MSI MEG X670E GODLIKE
RAM: CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM 32GB DDR5
SSD: Kingston FURY Renegade 4TB
Gaming Console: PLAYSTATION 5
the2real4mafol on 29 December 2013

I think given that it's cheaper, more powerful and much smaller than Xbox One means it's better by default. The Xbox One is a typical American product. Bulky, inefficient and expensive.



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

kirby007 on 29 December 2013

because it has nothing else



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.