By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zekkyou on 30 September 2014
Edit Thread
zero129 said:
Zekkyou said:

Eh? :p

The original Xbox had an obvious advantage both on paper and in games. There is nothing about the PS2's specs that suggest it was a "beast". Regardless to Sony's fancy names for the pieces in it, the PS2 was pretty under powered. It was the weakest of all three 6th gen systems (and it showed, even despite it generally being the biggest priority system for developers).

Your PS3/360 example is even worse. The PS3 did have a decent hardware advantage over the 360 (it wasn't large, smaller than that of the Xbox and PS2 that's for sure, but it was still there), but it was an absolute nightmare to work with. That's common knowledge.

The PS4 doesn't have that issue. Not only does it have a power advantage (larger than that between the PS3 and 360), it seems to be the easier of the two to work with.

I do agree that specs don't directly equate to a real world advantage, but you're being hypocritical. You can't use that as a defense when the advantage is clear both on paper and in real world games.

It doesn't matter if the advantage is because of specs, because the X1 is tad hardware to work with or because Sony made a deal with a wizard; it's here and claiming the advantage is smaller than what both the specs and games are showing, without any sort of proof, makes you look silly

Where is your proof as now you the one looking silly?.

I didnt need to proof anything as so far the is only like 2 games that show such a huge dif between the 2 and plenty more that show like a 20-30% dif in res only so where is all them real world examples you speak of??

You must really have little knowledge of the topic we're discussing if you need proof ^^; When we see differences as larger as 720p vs 1080p (a 125% difference, scaling up of course, since that's the direction PS4/X1 comparisons tend to be done in) a good chunk of it can be credited to poor optimization. That said, here are a few examples of games with performance variations of 40%+ (I've bracketed the percentage for each). For reference, 900p + 44% = 1080p.

- AC4 (44%)

- BF4 (56%)

- COD:G (125%)

- Metro R (40%)

- Golf Club (125%)

- PvZ:GW (44%)

- SW (44%)

- Theif (44%)

- MGSV:GZ (125%)

- TF (44%)

Then you have unreleased titles such as PES15, SOM, TW3, LOTF etc that have all reported possible resolution variations (44% to 125%, though there are no specifics for TW3).

It's also worth mentioning games like SEIII, Tomb Raider, M:SS etc. Those games have significant frame rate advantages in favor of the PS4 (similar in scale to the resolution differences listed above).

In-fact the absolute smallest resolution difference on a non-parity title is Watch Dogs at 29% (plus AO on the PS4). So there is only a single title that comes within even the upper limit of your "estimate", but i found 10 to 20 at 40%+ with a 2 minute google.

So as you can see, the PS4 has a rather obvious advantage both on paper and off. The most common advantage is around 40 - 50% (similar to the difference seen in spec comparisons). We can spend all day debating where specifically that difference comes from, but in the end it's still there.

There's my "proof", where is yours to back up this 20% - 30% claim (or 15% to 20% :p)? Please feel free to build an argument based on loose connective assumptions. That's what people usually do around here when they can't think of a proper one ^^ Or you could divert from the core topic, that works as well.