Intrinsic said:
You are derailing this thread. You are turning it into some sort of fanboy war. All i have done here is talk abut the tech of GPGPU and how it can be used in PS4 games. I did not once say how it will make PS4 games leauges better than XB1 games. I even admitted that third parties probably will never use it. And then I talked a bit aout AC:unity and exactly why the eason sthey gave for parity were stupid. I never said a game cannot be cpu bound. I just cited examples that I already used when explaining how GPGPU compute works to prove a point. Do not make this a PS4 vs XB1 thread please. |
your op was alluding to fanboy war. You even allude to parity clause. Which exists but has never been about visuals. The parity clause is about release times nothing more. Using parity to bolster a claim that ubisoft is lying and your tech site link gains more traction. Gpgpu has all of limitations. And you fail to mention infamous ss already using it.
The op is nothing more than Ps4 vs xbox one. And something with far more potential in 4 years time in cloud computation isn't even considered. So my point about product proof is completely valid. We had this last gen with the cell processor and before that with xbox hdd and far more power over ps2. And every time the end result is negligable. If the op was just about gpgpu and ps4 with no attempt at trying to show how its vastly superior to xbox one then you wouldn't have people ripping it apart.
I maintain infamous looks great, but so does horizon 2. So does ac unity. And ac unity arguably does alot more than infamous. So I fail to see how asking for product proof is derailing the thread. Numbers mean nothing if the product sees no gain.
