Quantcast
The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The wisdom of the 6Tf vs 4Tf

d21lewis said:
Like they say in Bionic Commando for the NES: "It's too early to feel safe!"

I don't know. I'm just enjoying both. Half the time I can't even tell the difference between the two.

That's... what she said.



Around the Network
Intrinsic said:
AsGryffynn said:

Power... 

As a whole, the XBX seems to be doing better given the other drawbacks it suffers from, namely having a smaller presence. The fact it sold the way it did implies it's doing better per capita... 

So power seems to be the answer. Apparently, it seems some consider it less an upgrade and more of a transition console that will in essence represent MS for the next gen, since any further power boosts are negligible and would focus exclusively on HDD and processor performance. 

This is just BS. 

Its doing better because more people that own an XB1 feel the need to upgrade. Simple as that. 

At the very least thats all we can confirm from the sales so far which has been for only 1 month. The people that are buying the XB1X aren't the same people that felt $200 was too much to spend on an XB1s.

give it time.

I see your point.   But do you think those same people that you speak of would be equally willing to make the jump if it wasn't 4x more power?



DonFerrari said:
EricHiggin said:
I can't help but wonder, if Scorpio ended up being 4.5TF to 5TF, would it have sold any better? I really think it would have at launch and overall. The gap between 1.4TF and 4.5TF would still be a larger leap than 1.8TF to 4.2TF. With first party games like Forza 7 hitting 4k/60 with plenty left over in the tank apparently, a 4.5TF-5TF console could more than likely handle that same Forza 7 4k/60, just almost maxed out.
There is also the fact that Scorpio could more than likely have launched 12-6 months sooner, and would also have cost close to $100 less. This leads me to believe that the large majority of XB1X buyers would still have bought it, as well as many more who wanted an XB but just didn't want to pay, or have $500 to spend.

The marketing could remain mostly the same thing. It would still be the worlds most powerful console, and it would technically be capable of 4k/60 as well. It would have to use checkerboarding more often than it does now, but that wouldn't matter if the XB1X wasn't required to last.
In terms of longevity, this would have hurt Scorpio, considering it wouldn't have had the grunt to last as long as the XB1X will be able to, but the question is how long will XB1X remain relevant? Will XB keep their word and eventually make the XB1X the base console and release an upgrade in another 4 years?

Whether 6TF was the better choice, depends more so on what the future plans and execution are for the XB1X.

Seems like they compromised a little on FM7 compared to 6 to get the 4k60fps

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU. They had some good idea's and used some smart techniques to allow the CPU as much room to breathe as possible, but it's still a Jaguar in the end. They shouldn't have said 4k/60 no compromises initially. It started massive hype, but was pushing the marketing to an extreme. Just 4k/60 would have been much easier to forgive when they announced it would also checkerboard. Even as successful as the PS4 has been, it still has to compromise between 1080p/30 and 900p/60, PS just didn't market the PS4 as 1080p/60 no compromises.

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG. It's another reason why I wonder how long XB1X is really going to remain relevant because if it holds back 'next gen' then it may really piss off hardcore XB fans who want or buy an XB2. How many of those XB fans will have upgraded to XB1X and already be unhappy they aren't getting 60 fps due to XB1S, then look at XB2 and wonder is this going to end up the same thing again? Why buy a 100% true 4k/60 no compromises XB2 console, if you know all the games will only end up 30 fps because of XB1X?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

I am glad that both of them did mid-gen upgrades. Personally, I hope this trend continues. I see no reason why defined generations need to exist anymore. The hardware companies can release upgraded hardware as often as they wish, and devs can make games that work for as many of those consoles as they want. That's more choice for everyone.

As for the Pro vs. X sales discussion.... I think its too early to draw any real conclusions. But, I think many people have already pointed out the seemingly common sense explanations for what we think has happened. A bigger leap, longer period for excitement to build, more marketing, and objectively a lot more power would all seem to favor the X. The only negatives for X relative to Pro that I can see are the price, and the smaller original user base from which to pull upgraders.



Hynad said:

The Switch isn't even 1 TFLOPS and it's outselling the XBox One and XBox One X, selling at a similar pace as the PS4.
Let that sink in.

The wisdom of less than half a TFLOPS vs 6 TFLOPS.

If we go that route we can talk about NES and PS2 selling over 80 and 160M with negible power to today standards =p

And not to forget that the main point people like to put for Switch success is it portability not it lack of power.

EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

Seems like they compromised a little on FM7 compared to 6 to get the 4k60fps

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU. They had some good idea's and used some smart techniques to allow the CPU as much room to breathe as possible, but it's still a Jaguar in the end. They shouldn't have said 4k/60 no compromises initially. It started massive hype, but was pushing the marketing to an extreme. Just 4k/60 would have been much easier to forgive when they announced it would also checkerboard. Even as successful as the PS4 has been, it still has to compromise between 1080p/30 and 900p/60, PS just didn't market the PS4 as 1080p/60 no compromises.

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG. It's another reason why I wonder how long XB1X is really going to remain relevant because if it holds back 'next gen' then it may really piss off hardcore XB fans who want or buy an XB2. How many of those XB fans will have upgraded to XB1X and already be unhappy they aren't getting 60 fps due to XB1S, then look at XB2 and wonder is this going to end up the same thing again? Why buy a 100% true 4k/60 no compromises XB2 console, if you know all the games will only end up 30 fps because of XB1X?

It's possible that CPU had hold FM7 a little. But I won't call Phill a liar on the balance statement. If their intention is similar to PS4Pro, meaning same game as on the base but prettier, then the framerate and player count shall be similar then the increase in CPU capacity need to be just enough to cover the increase in GPU for graphics while having similar performance on the rest.

Also a new CPU could also make it harder for the crosscompatibility.

And sure enough that may be an issue for next gen. Even on the low powered portable level CPU in 3 years will be much higher than what it was 4-5years ago when they put together PS4+X1. So the CPU will really put the gens apart.

VAMatt said:
I am glad that both of them did mid-gen upgrades. Personally, I hope this trend continues. I see no reason why defined generations need to exist anymore. The hardware companies can release upgraded hardware as often as they wish, and devs can make games that work for as many of those consoles as they want. That's more choice for everyone.

As for the Pro vs. X sales discussion.... I think its too early to draw any real conclusions. But, I think many people have already pointed out the seemingly common sense explanations for what we think has happened. A bigger leap, longer period for excitement to build, more marketing, and objectively a lot more power would all seem to favor the X. The only negatives for X relative to Pro that I can see are the price, and the smaller original user base from which to pull upgraders.

Time to the market could be considered another negative. But on the rest I would say you are about right except that if they make mid gens or genless 2-3y refreshes we will have some issues. Tailored games to a HW usually take 2-3 years to show up enjoying the potential of the platform. If we are changing HW every 2-3y we won't ever see the HW maxed out, so we'll be tossing money away on bruteforcing the game.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network
caffeinade said:


If Xbox One x and Playstation 4 Pro are lemons, the Switch is a potato.

They aren't lemons.
They are exactly what we expected at the time of their hardware release.

Well, those who knew and understood hardware and basic economics anyway.

DonFerrari said:

If PS5 isn't much more powerful, the right price and longer presence in the market can help MS keep a foothold.

Playstation 5 might not drop until 2020.
Microsoft will be getting all the favorable comparisons in Digital Foundry and so on until that time, so that have that advantage at least... And they really do need every advantage they can get to remain relevant.

Either way, Sony has locked this console generation down... And deservedly so, they had the right product for the right price that resonated with consumers.

EricHiggin said:

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU.

People really need to stop hanging by every single word that Phil and Cerny say, they have an obligation to embellish things a little to make their platforms seem the best that they can.

Rather, impartial outlets are better sources of information.

EricHiggin said:

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG.

To be fair, PUBG is a terribly optimized game and an extremely CPU heavy game, more than it needs to be.

EricHiggin said:
I can't help but wonder, if Scorpio ended up being 4.5TF to 5TF, would it have sold any better? I really think it would have at launch and overall. The gap between 1.4TF and 4.5TF would still be a larger leap than 1.8TF to 4.2TF. With first party games like Forza 7 hitting 4k/60 with plenty left over in the tank apparently, a 4.5TF-5TF console could more than likely handle that same Forza 7 4k/60, just almost maxed out.

I doubt it would have sold better.
One of the marketing angles used was that it was the most powerful console ever, being near to the Playstation 4 Pro wouldn't be doing them many favors.

With that... Do people actually give a shit about flops other than it's use as a metric to be used in debates? Because I would argue the majority of people do not have an understanding of how it relates to graphics or performance in a game.

Random_Matt said:
6TF is such a waste with a shit CPU.
At the end of the day, it's still mostly a sub 30FPS box.
$500, what a rip off.
My opinion of course.

6 Teraflops isn't actually that powerful, it's mid-range levels.
Nor is flops everything.

Ganoncrotch said:

If that graphical power was coupled with a CPU half way capable of utilizing it, would blow the X out of the water in games like Assassins creed where you have cpu hungry scenes killing the X, stick a Ryzen 1600 in place of the Jaguar and you have a next generational Console instantly.

I think one of the great things about partnering these consoles up with such a terrible CPU is that developers are forced to get a little more creative in how they utilize their extremely limited CPU but plentiful GPU resources (by comparison)...
Doom and Wolfenstein for instance is using GPU accelerated Particles with shadowing and lighting which looks really amazing.

Regardless... The Xbox One and Xbox One X is still limited by the slowest CPU in the consoles which happens to be the base Playstation 4. (Ignoring the Switch of course.)
So multiplats like Assassins Creed do have to be built with that CPU in mind either way... And there is a big difference between the Playstation 4's 1.6Ghz Jaguar the Xbox One X's 2.3Ghz Jaguar, even outside of the 700mhz (43%) higher CPU clocks.

AsGryffynn said:

At 6TF, Microsoft basically cornered the competitors before the next generation even started in the first place. Jumping much higher after this yields negligible benefits to performance, and the cost will skyrocket afterwards.


There is more to performance and graphics than flops.

There are massive gains to be had, the Xbox One X's GPU is only mid-range relative to what is on the market today, mid-range parts in several years time will be significantly more capable.

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

What about the difference between 1.8 tflops and 1.3 tfrops ?

What about them?

Snoopy said:
The difference between xbox one x games and ps4 games are huge and nothing can be said to say other wise. Assassins creed looks awesome and it isn't just the resolution, but the textures too. Resolution isn't all there is to it regarding graphics.

...But still falls short of Microsoft's advertised claims of a true 4k experience. - And thus falls extremely short of what the PC can do.
At-least my PC can actually output 1440P, the Xbox One X is essentially a glorified 1080P console for me at the moment.

And in-fact, the majority of the Xbox One X's game library are 1080P and below games anyway, with a chunk still being 720P even if you do have a 4k display.

JRPGfan said:

How much does it really matter? in some games alot, in otheres almost not at all.

It is completely up to the developer.

JRPGfan said:

PS4 does the checkerboarding via buildt in hardware, that reduces how demanding it is to do (XB1X doesnt have this).

Can you give me some kind of reference to how much overhead checkerboarding has on the Xbox One X? Because I doubt it's even worth mentioning.

But the fact is, the Xbox One X shouldn't need to do checkerboarding, it should be able to hit higher resolutions natively, not full 4k, but still natively.

JRPGfan said:

PS4 also has Half floats (so the differnce between the PS4pro VS XB1X is smaller than it looks, if games are optimised for it)

No.

eva01beserk said:

Arent rumors going around of it coming at around 12-15tf? Maybe not that big a jump, but then sony will show Horizon 2 running on it and it will be clear why we need gen 9.

They are just rumors.

It really depends on what the PC has available, if mid-range GPU's are pushing 15 Teraflops, then that is likely what the next gen will have.
But using flops alone is a little bit disingenuous, it doesn't actually tell us what the consoles CPU capabilities are, how much and how fast the ram is, how much pixel or texture fillrate, geometry performance, bandwidth the GPU has or what the load times will be like.

You can have more flops, but less performance.




--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
caffeinade said:


If Xbox One x and Playstation 4 Pro are lemons, the Switch is a potato.

They aren't lemons.
They are exactly what we expected at the time of their hardware release.

Well, those who knew and understood hardware and basic economics anyway.

Lemons have a decent amount of juice inside them.

It is my opinion, that lemon juice is too sour, but that is just me.



Pemalite said:
caffeinade said:


If Xbox One x and Playstation 4 Pro are lemons, the Switch is a potato.

They aren't lemons.
They are exactly what we expected at the time of their hardware release.

Well, those who knew and understood hardware and basic economics anyway.

DonFerrari said:

If PS5 isn't much more powerful, the right price and longer presence in the market can help MS keep a foothold.

Playstation 5 might not drop until 2020.
Microsoft will be getting all the favorable comparisons in Digital Foundry and so on until that time, so that have that advantage at least... And they really do need every advantage they can get to remain relevant.

Either way, Sony has locked this console generation down... And deservedly so, they had the right product for the right price that resonated with consumers.

EricHiggin said:

CPU limitations most likely. Even with Phil pointing out how balanced the console was supposed to be, the GPU is much more impressive in terms of performance than the CPU.

People really need to stop hanging by every single word that Phil and Cerny say, they have an obligation to embellish things a little to make their platforms seem the best that they can.

Rather, impartial outlets are better sources of information.

EricHiggin said:

The problem XB may have later on, is if they use a decent CPU that hits 60 fps consistently for XB2, what is going to happen if those same games can't hit 60 fps on the base XB1X in 4 years? We've already seen this with PUBG.

To be fair, PUBG is a terribly optimized game and an extremely CPU heavy game, more than it needs to be.

EricHiggin said:
I can't help but wonder, if Scorpio ended up being 4.5TF to 5TF, would it have sold any better? I really think it would have at launch and overall. The gap between 1.4TF and 4.5TF would still be a larger leap than 1.8TF to 4.2TF. With first party games like Forza 7 hitting 4k/60 with plenty left over in the tank apparently, a 4.5TF-5TF console could more than likely handle that same Forza 7 4k/60, just almost maxed out.

I doubt it would have sold better.
One of the marketing angles used was that it was the most powerful console ever, being near to the Playstation 4 Pro wouldn't be doing them many favors.

With that... Do people actually give a shit about flops other than it's use as a metric to be used in debates? Because I would argue the majority of people do not have an understanding of how it relates to graphics or performance in a game.

Random_Matt said:
6TF is such a waste with a shit CPU.
At the end of the day, it's still mostly a sub 30FPS box.
$500, what a rip off.
My opinion of course.

6 Teraflops isn't actually that powerful, it's mid-range levels.
Nor is flops everything.

Ganoncrotch said:

If that graphical power was coupled with a CPU half way capable of utilizing it, would blow the X out of the water in games like Assassins creed where you have cpu hungry scenes killing the X, stick a Ryzen 1600 in place of the Jaguar and you have a next generational Console instantly.

I think one of the great things about partnering these consoles up with such a terrible CPU is that developers are forced to get a little more creative in how they utilize their extremely limited CPU but plentiful GPU resources (by comparison)...
Doom and Wolfenstein for instance is using GPU accelerated Particles with shadowing and lighting which looks really amazing.

Regardless... The Xbox One and Xbox One X is still limited by the slowest CPU in the consoles which happens to be the base Playstation 4. (Ignoring the Switch of course.)
So multiplats like Assassins Creed do have to be built with that CPU in mind either way... And there is a big difference between the Playstation 4's 1.6Ghz Jaguar the Xbox One X's 2.3Ghz Jaguar, even outside of the 700mhz (43%) higher CPU clocks.

AsGryffynn said:

At 6TF, Microsoft basically cornered the competitors before the next generation even started in the first place. Jumping much higher after this yields negligible benefits to performance, and the cost will skyrocket afterwards.


There is more to performance and graphics than flops.

There are massive gains to be had, the Xbox One X's GPU is only mid-range relative to what is on the market today, mid-range parts in several years time will be significantly more capable.

Oneeee-Chan!!! said:

What about the difference between 1.8 tflops and 1.3 tfrops ?

What about them?

Snoopy said:
The difference between xbox one x games and ps4 games are huge and nothing can be said to say other wise. Assassins creed looks awesome and it isn't just the resolution, but the textures too. Resolution isn't all there is to it regarding graphics.

...But still falls short of Microsoft's advertised claims of a true 4k experience. - And thus falls extremely short of what the PC can do.
At-least my PC can actually output 1440P, the Xbox One X is essentially a glorified 1080P console for me at the moment.

And in-fact, the majority of the Xbox One X's game library are 1080P and below games anyway, with a chunk still being 720P even if you do have a 4k display.

JRPGfan said:

How much does it really matter? in some games alot, in otheres almost not at all.

It is completely up to the developer.

JRPGfan said:

PS4 does the checkerboarding via buildt in hardware, that reduces how demanding it is to do (XB1X doesnt have this).

Can you give me some kind of reference to how much overhead checkerboarding has on the Xbox One X? Because I doubt it's even worth mentioning.

But the fact is, the Xbox One X shouldn't need to do checkerboarding, it should be able to hit higher resolutions natively, not full 4k, but still natively.

JRPGfan said:

PS4 also has Half floats (so the differnce between the PS4pro VS XB1X is smaller than it looks, if games are optimised for it)

No.

eva01beserk said:

Arent rumors going around of it coming at around 12-15tf? Maybe not that big a jump, but then sony will show Horizon 2 running on it and it will be clear why we need gen 9.

They are just rumors.

It really depends on what the PC has available, if mid-range GPU's are pushing 15 Teraflops, then that is likely what the next gen will have.
But using flops alone is a little bit disingenuous, it doesn't actually tell us what the consoles CPU capabilities are, how much and how fast the ram is, how much pixel or texture fillrate, geometry performance, bandwidth the GPU has or what the load times will be like.

You can have more flops, but less performance.


Yep 2020, or 2021 (my take) for PS5. And as you said, X1X can make a good presence until then. And if PS5 is 2021 there is a chance for X2 or whatever is the name of X1 nextbox, for both to release for similar power.

And although I agree on the Tlops not being everything and knowing you have better understanding than me for this, considering we are talking about consoles and they are more or less balanced. Having the Tflop of the GPU may help us have a ballpark for the console power.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

The fact that WW the xb1 barely outsold ps4 the week it launched tells you something.

Worldwide the month it launched it will lose heavily. Sony have nothing to be worried about.

And I mean literally nothing. Because xbox yet again next year hasn't got a software line up to match the ps4.

Sony must be relieved because the xbx was their last shot at redemption.



Intrinsic said:

Unfortunately a number of the conclusions you are drawing are arguable or........ not that straight forward.

 

  1. XB1X had a much more focused and hyped buildup to its release. Over a year vs two months.
  2. XB1X had a longer duration being available for preorders. 2 months VS 3 weeks.
  3. MS marketed the XB1X significantly more than Sony marketed the PS4Pro.
  4. The user base, its more likely that people that own a XB1 will "upgrade" to the XB1X. They have only had to endure 4yrs of getting the weaker lesser ports of games after all. And less likely for people that own a PS4 to want to get a PS4pro as the PS4 is still good enough.
Having said all that, it was great of MS to put in a 6TF GPU, but then again, thats also arguable with regards to that it was expected or at the very least a no brainer. They did launch a year after the PS4pro after all.
Lastly, its too early to call just how successful or impactful the XB1X is right now. Wait till next year.... give it 6 months into next year then we will see what effect it has on overall XB1 sales. It could be severely front-loaded which will mean there were just a lot of dissatisfied XB1 owners upgrading. Having sold so well this month means fuck-all if sales tank starting next year.
That has been the pattern with the XB1 all of this generation so far, logic dictates that its what we should expect to happen again, so we really need to give it time to see if it won't... then we can call it a success.

I was going to say something similar, but I'll just add a bit to what you said.

Microsoft did indeed promote Xbox One X more ferociously than Sony did with Pro, and one of the reasons for that is because Microsoft spent significantly more money on R&D for XB1X than Sony did for Pro. Pro is basically the same as a standard PS4, but they put in some extra (duplicate) components.
For Sony it probably doesn't make much difference which model they sell, but Microsoft will want to see a bigger return on their R&D investment for XB1X.

Then there's the 4 year stigma of not only being the weaker system, but really... many times not even reaching the expected minimum standards of current gen resolution/performance for many games.
And Pro's were originally reported to be supply constrained and shipped fewer launch units (at least to the UK). I can definitely see why Xbox One owners would be more inclined to upgrade than a PS4 owner. However, one thing worth taking into consideration is that XB1X is $100 more expensive than Pro, so in that regard they've started off pretty well.

But we are only at the start. During the original launch of PS4 and Xbox One, they both sold at a similar pace. They hit the one million mark first week, and they both hit 2 million around the same time as well, iirc.
However that was not an indication of how things would look in the long run.

Last edited by Hiku - on 21 December 2017