Diff between PS4/XB1 > PS3/360

[VanceIX]

Darc Requiem said:

VanceIX said:

Last gen the PS3 was a lot more powerful, just harder to optomize for than the 360.

This gen, the PS4 and One use the exact same architecture and the PS4 only has marginally better components. As devs get better at optimizing for x86 on the consoles, games will probably look much more similar either way.

Heck, the One has the best looking game currently (Ryse), and even with lower pixel counts the games look almost identical in real life.

There is so much wrong with this post. The PS3 wasn't a lot more powerful than the 360. The RSX was significant weaker than the 360's GPU. Most of the Cell's computational advantage over the 360's CPU had to be used to compensate for the RSX's short comings. Even then the Cell's general purpose processing abilities were worse than the 360 CPU. The 360's memory setup was also superior to the PS3's and  it had slightly more memory available for gaming. The PS3 had the edge but it games had to be built from the ground up for the architecture and the differences. Even so it had clear disadvantages in comparison to the 360.

The PS4/XB1 situation is completely differently. Both consoles have similar architectures with the PS4 having significant memory bandwith and GPU rendering advantages. Last gen, developers had to put in more time into PS3 software just to get similar results to the 360. This gen developers have to put more time into the XB1 hardware for inferior results. 

@VanceIX

Your PC comparison is apples to oranges. PC games aren't optimized to take advantage of the hardware like console games are. The games have to be made with the lowest common denominator in mind. 

There's not much wrong with my post at all. Yes, the PS3 was weaker in the GPU environment, but the Cell absolutely destroyed the 360's PowerPC architecture in computing performance, and it showed with exclusive titles.

And you know what? My point about PC optimization was exactly the point I was trying to make -_-