LOL :)

This is the same guy who said Xbox One has no yield problems. I don't really trust anything MIcrosfot says these days. Just last week they said PS4 wouldnt' make them change their policies. Look what happened yesterday....

@bold Oh boy, you really don't know much about hardware, do you?

BTW, RSX is gimped 7800GTX with memory bandwidth of 7600GT, and its core clock is 550MHz. PS4's GPU runs at 800MHz - I'm just hoping you won't make any additional conclusions based on core clocks. ;)

Jump from 6th to 7th gen, contrary to what most people are led to believe, is around 10x, pretty much the same as objective jump from 7th to 8th gen - actually, Mark Rein from Epic Games stated this on PS4's reveal in February (Mark Cerny confirmed "at least 10x" in Fallon's show). Problem is, subjective jump is not as big, due to length of current gen - for it to be same as subjective jump in previous gen it should've been somewhere around 16x, which would call for 7950 Boost to 7970 level GPU...which is completely unreasonable, due to gfx cards not progressing in last few years as fast as they used to.

pff, okay, those are "almost" the same.

I do admit, I'm not a computer whiz, my current computers are a laptop which runs off linex because it woun't boot a windows bios after i shorted the motherboard, and a 10 year old Pentium 4.

Still, I don't think I'm saying anything that's false.

How was the PS3 only a 10x jump from PS2? I read that the PS2 only processed data at a rate of 6.2 GFLOPS. PS3's theoretical limit is 230 GFLOPS, that's almost a 40x jump (but once you contribute things like clock speed, and bus width, it's more like 25-30x from what I read).

Anyway, Microsoft themselves say the One is 8-10x better then the 360. PS3 was already more powerful then the 360, so PS4 being 9x better then PS3 puts PS4 a little better then the One (which is is), and in agreeance with Microsofts statements.

Don't be sore CGI, I expect better from you.

You claim over 15x, then agree with me, then change your mind, and now you're sore because I kept track of how you claim to be right all 3 times, but argue 3 different power figures? Then you quote people to disagree with me on something complete unrelated and attempt to demean me? Did I start to demean you when you were blatently incorrect about PS4 specs?

PS4 GPU clocks speed is only 3x faster then PS3's, I wasn't wrong when I said that, and the evidence is above.

It's one thing to be wrong in a debate and not conceding, it's another to start boosting intelligence over others when you have no reason to do so.

For some games, like games a part of a trilogy, like Halo's and Gears, yes, you need to get every installment. For Forza, not really, but MS's portfolio consists of biannual iterations of Gears, Forza, and Halo, then when you say no to it, what else do you have?

I do agree, Nintendo also needs some new IP's, but they do make very original games from time to time. Just last year Wii saw XenoBlade Chronicles release. X is a sequel to XenoBlade, but it's still a fresh IP. The Wonderful 101 releases in September, I a love all of Platinum Studios works so far.

For Crimson Dragon, I'm not even sure it's going to get a digital release. It might just be an arcade game like Killer Instinct is. So with that in mind the only really interesting One exclusives are Dead Rising 3 (which was a MP series at one time) and Quantum Break (which could be ported to PC).

I agree with you, you can't always have a new IP, I wouldn't want to, but a biannual release is pushing it, and anything more (like Halo and Forza which saw annual releases for a time) is just too much. I like the frequency of old IP's on Nintendo consoles, you rarely see a new Metroid, or Zelda within 3 years of another iteration. Mario is a bit too much, I'm probably going to have to turn down Galaxy 2 if I want to play 3D Worlds. Still, how can you complain about Mario Kart and Smash Bros? It's been 6 years since we saw a console Smash Bros. and Mario Kart (handheld games don't count, it's a different system)

Also the biggest problem we're ignoring is the need for a new iteration. After Gears 3, we didn't need a new Gears of War game, but Epic got People can Fly to make another one, and it's pretty bad in comparision to the original trilogy. Halo is milked like Mario, I won't argue that, but at least there are alternatives on Nintendo consoles. Forza as well, you don't need one every 2 years, there isn't much that can be improved, and in the case of Forza 4, they actually made an inferior game compared to Forza 3.

----

Anyway, as much as we argue, it's pointless. Sony is the best. After 3 Uncharteds, Naughty Dog made a new IP, and it's a contender for the best game of the generation. 2 InFamous games, 2 Gran Turismo's, 3 Resistances, 2 LBP's, etc. I'm just not a huge fan of most of the exclusive franchises, but at least Sony doesn't over-rely on big names like Microsoft AND Nintendo do.

10x is more between PS360 and XBOX1 (PS2 was quite weak honestly), and it's based on performance of GeForce Ti500 (which is GPU very similar to what XBOX1 had inside) vs PS360' GPUs. But yes, floating point performance skyrocketed between 6th and 7th gen, something that is not achievable today (to be fair, both pixel and texel performance jump is bigger in 7th to 8th gen than in 6th to 7th gen jump).

As for Sony/MS statements....Cerny said PS4 is at least 10x as powerful as any of current gen consoles...not sure what he considers most powerful console this gen, but I assume it's PS3. So yes, both MS and Sony's statements do seem to be in agreement, and reflect PS4 vs XOne differences correctly.

P.S. Just for reference, PS3 has 176GFLOPS GPU and 179.2 GFLOPS CPU (1 SPE inactive, 1 SPE locked for OS), but those are just theoretical numbers, neither you can squeeze that much from GPU, and specially not from CPU for gfx related tasks.

Think of clockspeed this way...

The clockspeed is how fast a car can go, in the PS4's case, 550 kilometers an hour.
Think of the shaders as how many cars are on the race track, the PS4 has 24 cars going at 550km.

Now the PS4 GPU can go 800km an hour.
However it has 1152 cars on the track.

Who will have the most cars win? Hint: PS4 and it's a massive difference.

You're grabing the GFlops numbers.
For starters, there is more to a processor than floating point, you have integers too! However GFlop is a one-dimensional and application-specific metric, it's not comparable.

Secondly, take the GFlop numbers with a grain of salt, or 10. - Microsoft and Sony have a financial vested interest to inflate their GFlop numbers to make their system look more superior, it's marketing pure and simple and you fell for it.
This time around as Microsoft and Sony are using a mix of Low-end and Mid-range hardware, the PC can keep them more honest.

Either way, 9x, 10x, I won't argue that. When CGI says over 15x, then I'll call him out on that.

As for last gen, I hear the old XB1 was about 13 GFLOPS, so PS3 is 16-17x more powerful then the XB1, plus I bet the GPU in the PS3 is more efficient then the one in the XB1, like you said, you can't measure things off raw power anymore.

P.S. Wikipedia says PS3's performance is 230 GFLOPS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

However, I think with PS3, because it has was 6 or 7 CPU's, it was hard to program for, hard to reach that theoretical max.

----

Since you know more about Video cards then me, what about the GPU speed, PS4's GPU speed is about 3x as powerful as PS3's. Two people quoted me, and laughed, and CGI even took the opportunity to rub that in my face. I'm not wrong am I? Why is is funny when I mention something like this?

Well you did for a point say 10x, where I say 9x, that's basically the same thing.

Also don't be in denial now, the whole reason we had that original arguement was because you claimed "PS4 is at least 10-15x" more powerful then PS3, which implies it could be more. . I said thaat was wrong, then you changed your statement, I called you out, and you just never admited that your original statement was false.

As for stuf like floating points, I'm not a computer programmer, I actually hate programming, but I have a grasp on what it is. It's something to do with decimal places for numbers that don't divide exactly into a binary. What does knowing what that is have to do with anything?

Anyway, you'll never admit being wrong, so don't worry about it. I said It's not worth arguing about anymore.

I mean you and I are very different types of gamers anyway. You're a graphics whore, where I still play SNES . I don't care if PS4 is 9 or 10x more powerful then PS3, I just don't like how when you're wrong you can't admit it, but when I say something people disagree with, you like to rub it in my face. People in Glass Houses eh?

Good Day sir, Happy Days are ahead.

How do you find out how many shaders the PS3 and PS4 have? Also am I reading it wrong, or did I get the wrong graphics card, but doesn't PS4 has a clock speed of 1,000 Mhz? Shaders make a big difference.

Wait, how did I fall for Sony/MS's marketing ploy? It seems like people agree with me when I said PS4 is 9x as powerful as PS3. Some people argue 10, 1 guy argues 15, but in general I think even you agree with me here.

----

Would the number of transistors make a more direct comparable measure then GFLOPs? off that chart what info can I use to determine the power of a graphics card?