ZyroXZ2 said: Sony really markets their stuff well, people are buying into all kinds of exaggerated numbers, haha... According to raw, theoretical peak numbers, the PS4's GPU is about 4.5 times more powerful than the PS3's GPU, while the CPU is clearly weaker by a large margin (especially when you bring the 8-core's total performance down to just 6 cores for games). As Sony stated, they TARGETED 10 times more powerful than the PS3 (they have not confirmed that it IS 10 times more powerful), but clearly missed this by a decent margin. And I don't know why people continue to run around with some <200 GFLOPS number for the Wii U when the system is quite obviously, at this point, more powerful than the PS3/XBox360, both of which have GPUs that do well over 200 GFLOPS... Lastly, I don't know why people keep saying Infamous SS looks that great. The trailer that starts in the tunnel and has closeups on faces clearly show polygonal edges and some less than ideal textures here and there. It looks "good", but not "great". ..."B-b-but it's open world!"...

Wow.

Not a good wow either.

The Wii U will cap out its power quite quickly. The PS4 is just getting started and its already pumping out games the likes of InFamous: Second Son, Killzone:Shadowfall and The Order. Yeah...theres no comparison. The games the Wii U are playing are closer to last gen. They just have the Wii U graphics wit the glossier look. Thats pretty much it. Third parties have seen the power of the Wii U and have deemed it last gen tech. Its not being underestimated.

I don't?

http://ps4daily.com/2013/02/playstation-4-gpu-is-4-5x-more-powerful-than-ps3-gpu/

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/power/library/pa-cellperf/

Though the Cell processor is architecturally different than the AMD CPU in the PS4, it clearly has a power advantage, hitting near theoretical peaks of 200 GFLOPS! Despite the dramatically higher EFFICIENCY of the PS4's CPU at normal tasks than the Cell, no one in their right mind defines the Jaguar as more powerful than the Cell.

Lastly, if you don't see the polygon corners in this image, I'm not sure what to tell you...


photo sharing sites

Edit: Whoops, totally messed up the quoting on this one, not even gonna bother... But it's clearly aimed at the people who think I have no idea what I'm talking about, lol

How, when almost no devs are investing the time to opimise for its architecture, or designing games that push its limits?

Consoles only reach their full capacity when talented devs take the time to learn the hardware inside out, and build games from the ground up to make full use of it. About the only devs even trying right now are Shin'en, and they're limited by being a 5-man indie team.

JoeTheBro said: ZyroXZ2 said: Sony really markets their stuff well, people are buying into all kinds of exaggerated numbers, haha... According to raw, theoretical peak numbers, the PS4's GPU is about 4.5 times more powerful than the PS3's GPU, while the CPU is clearly weaker by a large margin (especially when you bring the 8-core's total performance down to just 6 cores for games). As Sony stated, they TARGETED 10 times more powerful than the PS3 (they have not confirmed that it IS 10 times more powerful), but clearly missed this by a decent margin. And I don't know why people continue to run around with some <200 GFLOPS number for the Wii U when the system is quite obviously, at this point, more powerful than the PS3/XBox360, both of which have GPUs that do well over 200 GFLOPS... Lastly, I don't know why people keep saying Infamous SS looks that great. The trailer that starts in the tunnel and has closeups on faces clearly show polygonal edges and some less than ideal textures here and there. It looks "good", but not "great". ..."B-b-but it's open world!"... Wow. Not a good wow either.

You sound extremely dissappointed by his post ...

They will. You will see. Its not much more powerful than last gen consoles. It wont be long. Nintendo will never cap it out, but third party devs will. If the games continue to be lower budget, you're probably right but it will only get slightly better than what you're seeing right now. X doesnt even look that good anymore. Looking at Final Fantasy XV its totally outclassed.

I am.

He's using the wording of a Jimmy Fallon interview as evidence. This is conspiracy level stuff here. If they were just saying a BS number, why didn't Sony say they targeted 15 times more? 20 times more? Wouldn't matter since they "clearly missed this by a decent margin" right?

Plus you know there are things like this: http://www.gamnesia.com/news/tretton-says-playstation-4-is-ten-times-more-powerful-than-ps3#.UwmcUYWmb84

"With PlayStation 4 being $399, and being 10 times more powerful than the PlayStation 3, that bodes very well for talking people into buying a PlayStation 4." — Jack Tretton

And this: http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2013/10/30/playstation-4-the-ultimate-faq/

"The PS4 system is capable of 10x the processing power of PS3 system."

Also he's more than nitpicking infamous. An open world game has some edges in a cut-scene close up. No way, really?!? It's still by far the best looking open-world game out there. I mean this thread is about him seeing the X video and thinking it looked amazing, and now he's saying Infamous looks "good?"

"B-b-but it's open world!" Is that him giving us permission to say X looks horrible? If it wasn't for that fact about X, it wouldn't even compare to mid 7th gen games. Don't make me bring up the Mr. Khan quote about removing what makes something extraordinary lol.

Can't comment about the tech stuff since the PS4 CPU info hasn't been released and the Wii U GPU info hasn't been released.

I have to say, the WiiU is a pretty capable system but you can't compare the graphics to the PS4. After playing Killzone its pretty clear the PS4 a big step ahead.

And when did I say 'X' looked amazing?

And you really buy those PR statements by Sony?  Remember when: http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/release/pdf/050517e.pdf

Yea, 2 TFLOPS of power for the PS3.  Look, I'm not a fanboy of anything, but I know some BS when I see it.  The PS2 was said to be powerful enough to bring CG-like graphics to games.  The PS3 was hailed as being so powerful that no developers will ever use its full power. Now the PS4 is 10 times more powerful than the PS3, and yet, I played KZ:SF and was pointing out 2D grass sprites in multiplayer that were low res, and didn't even have their own shadow...  6 out of 8 cores for games (probably about 70 GFLOPS of CPU power there), 1.84 TFLOP GPU, people need to get real about it and stop thinking the PS4 is going to do anything more than put some polish on last generation games, mostly by modernizing special effects, decreasing loading times, allowing for bigger worlds, and more players/NPCs in multiplayer/singleplayer.  It won't change the graphics landscape.  In fact, I'm keen to believe that we will NEVER see another change in graphics landscape like the PS3/XBox360, because it's just not financially viable to do that, not the way the industry is now with games requiring budgets so large that they need to sell doorbusters to survive.

Besides, didn't someone earlier try to use Pikmin 3 to pick out some polygon edges on an EYEBALL of a bulborb?  Why is that flaws in a Sony game are cherrypicked, but flaws in a Nintendo game are major problems indicative of the entire system? o_O

So which third parties are going to tap out the system "quickly", hmmm? Ubisoft, with what's sure to be a shitty unoptimized port of Watch Dogs?

There will be Wii U games that look significantly better than what we've seen so far, but they're not releasing any time soon.