By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Looming question: Will XB1 be able to close the gap to PS4 in holiday 2014's big multiplatform games?

Moonhero on 03 January 2014

Look, this gap is only going to get bigger. PS4 comes out next month in Japan. Xbox one could go there as well, but they won't do anything close. I know this is early to be saying this, but WW, this gen is a lock for PS4.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

Around the Network
JoeTheBro on 03 January 2014
Moonhero said:
Look, this gap is only going to get bigger. PS4 comes out next month in Japan. Xbox one could go there as well, but they won't do anything close. I know this is early to be saying this, but WW, this gen is a lock for PS4.




Links

TheLastStarFighter on 03 January 2014
lt_dan_27 said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
lt_dan_27 said:


You're funny. the xbox and ps4 will probably both make their OS more efficient. But let me break down the power for you. It's not speculated that the ps4's CPU is clocked at 2ghz vs the xbox one's 1.75. They're essentially the same cpu, so that's a 14% plus over the xbox one. The gpu's are 1.84tflops vs 1.23tflops. Which creates is a 49.6% difference. The PS4's memory bandwidth is about 3 times higher than the xbox one's. On top of all of this, the ps4 has a seondary chip that takes care of side tasks during gaming. On top of this, 10% of X1's power is reserved for the kinnect. So, with all of this, the only thing the x1 has over the ps4 is 32MB esram. Let me put 32mb in perspective for you. The xbox one's total pool of ram has 8224MB of ram. That means the esram makes up a woping .39% of the system's total ram. The esram isn't even that much faster the the ps4's gddr5 either. I think it's 170GBps  vs 190GBps. So about an 11% differnce in speed. Also, if you want to keep telling yourself the resolution makes no noticable difference, you can keep telling yourself that. It's pretty easy to see if you have eyes. Why do you think most PC gamers will lower other settings to get a higher resolution? It makes the most noticable difference. Also, all of those games you mentioned with the ps4 having a higher resotuioin, the resolution isn't the only difference. Look at screenshots of the ps4 and xbox one versions of BF4. The xbox one version has lower res, less AA, lower texture details, washed out shadows. This is also applicable for every game you mentioned. And those are details I could spot from compressed videos. That means the difference in graphics is even easier to tell in person because it will make the better graphics look worse because it can't show as much detail from it. So if you want to keep fooling yourself into believing that the eSRAM is going to make the xbox one twice as powerful, you can keep fooling yourself into believing that. 

This comment indicates that you have no idea what ESRAM is, how fast it is, or what it's used for.


I'm putting into persectve how little influence it actually will be. The esram will probably be used for frame buffers and fxaa. Sorry, I was off by 2gb/s, 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware

You're really confused and talking over your head here.  The ESRAM really is very significant.  Not enough to make the XBOne more powerful, but it nearly bridges the gap in bandwidth between the memory types in the two systems.  The numbers you're quoting aren't the speed of ESRAM and GDDR5, respectively, but the bandwidth of the two gaming systems.  Think about this:  The 8 Gig of GDDR5 gives around 176 GB/sec while just 32 MB of ESRAM gives around 100 GB/sec. ESRAM is exponentially faster than GDDR5, and having this buffer makes the difference of the slower 68.3GB DDR3 system memory in the XBOne almost insignificant.  The two systems use different approaches to the same problem, and even Mark Cerny admits the best approach is debatable.

The PS4 is more powerful, but mostly due to the GPU.  You clearly want the PS4 to be the better system, and I'm sure it is so you should be happy with that.  But talking about tech stuff that you don't really understand weakens your argument.



whatever on 03 January 2014
TheLastStarFighter said:

You're really confused and talking over your head here.  The ESRAM really is very significant.  Not enough to make the XBOne more powerful, but it nearly bridges the gap in bandwidth between the memory types in the two systems.  The numbers you're quoting aren't the speed of ESRAM and GDDR5, respectively, but the bandwidth of the two gaming systems.  Think about this:  The 8 Gig of GDDR5 gives around 176 GB/sec while just 32 MB of ESRAM gives around 100 GB/sec. ESRAM is exponentially faster than GDDR5, and having this buffer makes the difference of the slower 68.3GB DDR3 system memory in the XBOne almost insignificant.  The two systems use different approaches to the same problem, and even Mark Cerny admits the best approach is debatable.

The PS4 is more powerful, but mostly due to the GPU.  You clearly want the PS4 to be the better system, and I'm sure it is so you should be happy with that.  But talking about tech stuff that you don't really understand weakens your argument.

Show me any technical analysis anywhere that shows this to be the case.  You can't, because your just making it up (or parroting MS marketing drivel).

The gap in performance will only get larger.  As devs try to squeeze more out of the systems, there simply isn't as much to squeeze out of the XB1.



TheLastStarFighter on 03 January 2014
whatever said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

You're really confused and talking over your head here.  The ESRAM really is very significant.  Not enough to make the XBOne more powerful, but it nearly bridges the gap in bandwidth between the memory types in the two systems.  The numbers you're quoting aren't the speed of ESRAM and GDDR5, respectively, but the bandwidth of the two gaming systems.  Think about this:  The 8 Gig of GDDR5 gives around 176 GB/sec while just 32 MB of ESRAM gives around 100 GB/sec. ESRAM is exponentially faster than GDDR5, and having this buffer makes the difference of the slower 68.3GB DDR3 system memory in the XBOne almost insignificant.  The two systems use different approaches to the same problem, and even Mark Cerny admits the best approach is debatable.

The PS4 is more powerful, but mostly due to the GPU.  You clearly want the PS4 to be the better system, and I'm sure it is so you should be happy with that.  But talking about tech stuff that you don't really understand weakens your argument.

Show me any technical analysis anywhere that shows this to be the case.  You can't, because your just making it up (or parroting MS marketing drivel).

The gap in performance will only get larger.  As devs try to squeeze more out of the systems, there simply isn't as much to squeeze out of the XB1.


I'm not parroting anything.  I'm not a fan of the XBOne.  But you don't need to look far to know that the lack of ESRAM on PS4 negates much of the benefit of going with GDDR5.  As I said above, even Mark Cerny said as much.  Or click the link above that It_Dan was mistakenly referencing which compared the theoretical system bandwidth.  Or Wired's examination of the topic.

You PS passion blinds you into reading what I wrote as being pro-XBox, because it's not completely licking the ass of the PS4 in all regards.  I'm not pro-XBox.  If I were to buy one of the systems, it would be the PS4. It's cheaper and better.  But it's techincal supperiorety is mostly due to the graphics chip, and much less due to the additional RAM.  I also suspect that XBOne's OS is much less optimized and efficient for games than PS4, but that's just speculation on my part based a little bit on insider information that I can't get into.



Around the Network
JoeTheBro on 03 January 2014
TheLastStarFighter said:
whatever said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

You're really confused and talking over your head here.  The ESRAM really is very significant.  Not enough to make the XBOne more powerful, but it nearly bridges the gap in bandwidth between the memory types in the two systems.  The numbers you're quoting aren't the speed of ESRAM and GDDR5, respectively, but the bandwidth of the two gaming systems.  Think about this:  The 8 Gig of GDDR5 gives around 176 GB/sec while just 32 MB of ESRAM gives around 100 GB/sec. ESRAM is exponentially faster than GDDR5, and having this buffer makes the difference of the slower 68.3GB DDR3 system memory in the XBOne almost insignificant.  The two systems use different approaches to the same problem, and even Mark Cerny admits the best approach is debatable.

The PS4 is more powerful, but mostly due to the GPU.  You clearly want the PS4 to be the better system, and I'm sure it is so you should be happy with that.  But talking about tech stuff that you don't really understand weakens your argument.

Show me any technical analysis anywhere that shows this to be the case.  You can't, because your just making it up (or parroting MS marketing drivel).

The gap in performance will only get larger.  As devs try to squeeze more out of the systems, there simply isn't as much to squeeze out of the XB1.


I'm not parroting anything.  I'm not a fan of the XBOne.  But you don't need to look far to know that the lack of ESRAM on PS4 negates much of the benefit of going with GDDR5.  As I said above, even Mark Cerny said as much.  Or click the link above that It_Dan was mistakenly referencing which compared the theoretical system bandwidth.  Or Wired's examination of the topic.

You PS passion blinds you into reading what I wrote as being pro-XBox, because it's not completely licking the ass of the PS4 in all regards.  I'm not pro-XBox.  If I were to buy one of the systems, it would be the PS4. It's cheaper and better.  But it's techincal supperiorety is mostly due to the graphics chip, and much less due to the additional RAM.  I also suspect that XBOne's OS is much less optimized and efficient for games than PS4, but that's just speculation on my part based a little bit on insider information that I can't get into.

Oh I love insider information! Spill the beans man!



Links

TheLastStarFighter on 03 January 2014
JoeTheBro said:
TheLastStarFighter said:
whatever said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

You're really confused and talking over your head here.  The ESRAM really is very significant.  Not enough to make the XBOne more powerful, but it nearly bridges the gap in bandwidth between the memory types in the two systems.  The numbers you're quoting aren't the speed of ESRAM and GDDR5, respectively, but the bandwidth of the two gaming systems.  Think about this:  The 8 Gig of GDDR5 gives around 176 GB/sec while just 32 MB of ESRAM gives around 100 GB/sec. ESRAM is exponentially faster than GDDR5, and having this buffer makes the difference of the slower 68.3GB DDR3 system memory in the XBOne almost insignificant.  The two systems use different approaches to the same problem, and even Mark Cerny admits the best approach is debatable.

The PS4 is more powerful, but mostly due to the GPU.  You clearly want the PS4 to be the better system, and I'm sure it is so you should be happy with that.  But talking about tech stuff that you don't really understand weakens your argument.

Show me any technical analysis anywhere that shows this to be the case.  You can't, because your just making it up (or parroting MS marketing drivel).

The gap in performance will only get larger.  As devs try to squeeze more out of the systems, there simply isn't as much to squeeze out of the XB1.


I'm not parroting anything.  I'm not a fan of the XBOne.  But you don't need to look far to know that the lack of ESRAM on PS4 negates much of the benefit of going with GDDR5.  As I said above, even Mark Cerny said as much.  Or click the link above that It_Dan was mistakenly referencing which compared the theoretical system bandwidth.  Or Wired's examination of the topic.

You PS passion blinds you into reading what I wrote as being pro-XBox, because it's not completely licking the ass of the PS4 in all regards.  I'm not pro-XBox.  If I were to buy one of the systems, it would be the PS4. It's cheaper and better.  But it's techincal supperiorety is mostly due to the graphics chip, and much less due to the additional RAM.  I also suspect that XBOne's OS is much less optimized and efficient for games than PS4, but that's just speculation on my part based a little bit on insider information that I can't get into.

Oh I love insider information! Spill the beans man!

Ha, it's mostly just my unsubstantiated opinion and connections that, as I said, I can't talk about.  But the OS for the One is, I think, more or less Windows.  I don't think that's anything earth-shattering to anyone.  And Windows is not exactly efficient in its use of resources, nor is it specialized.  I think the PS4's OS will do a better job of doing what it has to do - because it was designed from the ground up to do it.



thx1139 on 03 January 2014
kitler53 said:
thx1139 said:
kitler53 said:
imo, depends on how well xbone sells relative to ps4.

if ps4 dominates the market it will be the lead platform for development and xbone will get shitty ports because MS will be in a weak position. if xbone can keep pace with ps4 developers will put more effort in because MS will demand parity and will have a stronger position to negotiate/mandate.

2014 games are already deep in development so lead platform is already established and likely the lead is no lead at all.  Also believe that resolution comparisons between X1 and PS4 amount to a pissing contest and for 90% of the buying public it will not matter one bit.


..it is the last 12-6 months where platform specific optimization occurs so we're entering the important phase for how holiday 2014 games will look on xbone.   ps4 (from the few games that divulge the information) has been the lead platform.   if xbox has disappointing sales it will recieve disappointing amounts of investment (aka platform optimization aka polish) too. 

 

but if you think it's just a pissing contest please enjoy your premium priced downgrades.  ;)


The pissing contest is when people freeze frame screen shots and look for differences that amount to nothing.  Aka who can piss further.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

JoeTheBro on 03 January 2014
TheLastStarFighter said:
JoeTheBro said:

Oh I love insider information! Spill the beans man!

Ha, it's mostly just my unsubstantiated opinion and connections that, as I said, I can't talk about.  But the OS for the One is, I think, more or less Windows.  I don't think that's anything earth-shattering to anyone.  And Windows is not exactly efficient in its use of resources, nor is it specialized.  I think the PS4's OS will do a better job of doing what it has to do - because it was designed from the ground up to do it.

I'm a dev. I just wanted to see how legit you were.



Links

fps_d0minat0r on 03 January 2014

I think devs will maintain the similar frame rates, and if they do make use of PS4's extra power, it will go into resolution, load times, and preventing the developer having to spend time optimising....because they will need a lot more time optimising the xbox one if they are to keep MS happy.