Currently Online 
Scoobes said:
If I remember rightly, these two articles are why he was banned from GAF: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-can-xbox-one-multi-platform-games-compete-with-ps4 Which was a horrible attempt at comparing the graphics chips in both machines. His choice of GPUs was flawed and he failed to mention ROPs in that article. It was amateurish at best. and this one: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-ps3-system-software-memory which was disproven by developers on Gaf and Twitter. It only takes a couple of examples of incompetence to ruin your reputation it seems. The headline on this article is a bit of spin, but I assume that was an editorial decision to get hits. |
Yep, I read those articles. The first one is interesting if people actually read the article for what it was trying to accomplish not what people wanted it to be, maybe they would have come to a different conclusion if not being console bias. The article is attempting to compare the scale between the number of GPU cu cores not a parallel between the X1 and PS4. I find it strange how people can not understand scope. Here is a statement from the first article.
"To begin with, let's take a look at the choices we made for our target platforms. Let's be clear here - our objective here is not to create complete PC replicas of the consoles - it simply isn't possible. Our focus is the differential in graphics performance based on the available GPU specs. "
So why did that article not talk about ROPs, because it was not the scope of the article. The article is trying to determine if you actually get 50% return in performance based on GPU cu cores alone and the data did not prove that. I will say it again, Scope is very important when reading anything from anyone.
On the second article, how was it disproven. You have Richard with his source and you have people on GAF stating something else. In the middle you have Sony who did not either disprove or approve anything. Richard stated he was given Sony documents from his source. The GAF sources from my memory (have to recheck) stated they are able to use 6GB of memory but that does not disprove what Richard wrote.
This is no different than how people confirmed MS uses 3GB for the X1 OS. Here is an article on that very point
"In a long interview today Marc Whitten of Microsoft confirmed how much of the Xbox One’s 8GB RAM will be taken up by the OS and games. He did this indirectly by not denying past rumors of the RAM being broken down this way. He was directly asked if 3GB RAM was used for the OS and he shyed away from answering, hinting that it may be true."
If I were to go by that logic than, I would say that Sony also prove Richard right by not disproving the 4.5 guaranteed for developers since they did not state it was not true.
Here is Sony response which I take more than posters on GAF
"We would like to clear up a misunderstanding regarding our "direct" and "flexible" memory systems. The article states that "flexible" memory is borrowed from the OS, and must be returned when requested - that's not actually the case.
The actual true distinction is that:
- "Direct Memory" is memory allocated under the traditional video game model, so the game controls all aspects of its allocation
- "Flexible Memory" is memory managed by the PS4 OS on the game's behalf, and allows games to use some very nice FreeBSD virtual memory functionality. However this memory is 100 per cent the game's memory, and is never used by the OS, and as it is the game's memory it should be easy for every developer to use it.
We have no comment to make on the amount of memory reserved by the system or what it is used for."
Seems like the same situation to me but then again, I guess if you are console bias you believe one statement over another based on which console corporation you trust.
