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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why Xbox One Will Catch Up To Playstation 4 in Performance.

4k1x3r on 14 March 2014
adamh73 said:

 In response to the resolution numbers you posted, I want to point out that in terms of pixels pushed every second 1280x720 at 60fps is 55.3 Mps vs 1920x1080 at 30fps = 62.2Mps ( if the frames rates are locked) whichs ends up being almost exactly a 12.5% increase in pixel count and not a superficial 200+%  pixel increase many people think they'll see by only a simple examintion of how many static pixels are on the screen - most people forget the importance of fps and how it affects the eye.

True Full HD is 1920x1080p x 60 (fps) - even Blu-ray movies are not True Full HD because the frames per second are only being rendered at 24p fps.

Fps = Frames per Second; Mps = Millions of pixels per second; p = progressive


Ok and how is this relevant to the thread? I might have missed something.



Around the Network
Jega on 14 March 2014

My argument once again is basically this.

The theoretical performance of the PS3 memory bandwith is 176GB/s when an actual game is running that dips.

Same thing goes for the Xbox One memory as well the ESRAM has a theoretical performance of 192GB/s by it self.

And also dips when a real game is thrown at it.

But it is still more than the PS4. This should allow more graphics on the Xbox one not by alot but still more which

should mean xbox one games should perform on par with ps4 games even though the ps4 gpu is faster by about

50%.

And for those out there that can't count, 50% does not mean the ps4 gpu is twice the power.

If the ps4 gpu was 100% more powerful that would make it twice as fast.

Finally developers are saying that the ESram is too small for 1080p 60fps.

I just think developers just don't know how to use the esram effeciently as they are more used to DDR ram

My argument is that once they get the new SDKs (software development kits) from microsoft

developers will be able to reach the level we see on ps4 because Microsoft knows how to use the esram more effeciently.

After all microsoft made their own system they should know how to use it to the full. 

Xbox Ones ESRAM 192GB/s, MORE than PS4s 176GBs.



Darc Requiem on 14 March 2014
Jega said:

My argument once again is basically this.

The theoretical performance of the PS3 memory bandwith is 176GB/s when an actual game is running that dips.

Same thing goes for the Xbox One memory as well the ESRAM has a theoretical performance of 192GB/s by it self.

And also dips when a real game is thrown at it.

But it is still more than the PS4. This should allow more graphics on the Xbox one not by alot but still more which

should mean xbox one games should perform on par with ps4 games even though the ps4 gpu is faster by about

50%.

And for those out there that can't count, 50% does not mean the ps4 gpu is twice the power.

If the ps4 gpu was 100% more powerful that would make it twice as fast.

Finally developers are saying that the ESram is too small for 1080p 60fps.

I just think developers just don't know how to use the esram effeciently as they are more used to DDR ram

My argument is that once they get the new SDKs (software development kits) from microsoft

developers will be able to reach the level we see on ps4 because Microsoft knows how to use the esram more effeciently.

After all microsoft made their own system they should know how to use it to the full. 

Xbox Ones ESRAM 192GB/s, MORE than PS4s 176GBs.


Your argument is bullocks. The memory setup of the XB1 is similar to the setup of the 360. It's not some exotic setup that is unfamiliar to developers.



r3tr0gam3r1337 on 14 March 2014

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/3



Current PC build:

Asus Z97I-Plus, i5 4790K @ 4.6ghz, EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 1377/1853/124%, Corsair Vengence Pro 2400mhz 2x 8192mb, Corsair RM850, Corsair H80i, 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSD, 750GB Seagate Momentus XT SSHD, 320GB Weston Digital HDD, Corsair 230T, Corsair K50 Raptor, HP XQ500AA mouse, Windows 10 Pro 64bit. iiyama Pro Lite G2773HS 120Hz 1Ms G2G gaming monitor.

Kymmi1989 on 14 March 2014
etking said:
Because of the highly expensive ESRAM, the X1 is a huge design failure. Even if they would drop Kinect to sell at a cheaper price, the much slower APU would still be much more expensive to produce so they will never be able to be competitive in power and price.

agreey .. the eSRAM was as stupid choice, they should have opted for 8 gb of GDDR5 ram and been fine with a slightly weaker gpu... Drop the kinect... drop the price and this would be an incredibly close battle.



Around the Network
FinalFantasyXIII on 14 March 2014

The complaining on forums like this one is overdone.

The constant complaining is in fact worse than 900p imho. You guys beat this horse any longer and you might be dead too. :)



r3tr0gam3r1337 on 14 March 2014
FinalFantasyXIII said:
The complaining on forums like this one is overdone.

The constant complaining is in fact worse than 900p imho. You guys beat this horse any longer and you might be dead too. :)


the sad thing is the guy who created this thread is in denial and refuses to accept facts, the very first coment he made was more of a wish list but still totally inacurate.



Current PC build:

Asus Z97I-Plus, i5 4790K @ 4.6ghz, EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 1377/1853/124%, Corsair Vengence Pro 2400mhz 2x 8192mb, Corsair RM850, Corsair H80i, 120GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSD, 750GB Seagate Momentus XT SSHD, 320GB Weston Digital HDD, Corsair 230T, Corsair K50 Raptor, HP XQ500AA mouse, Windows 10 Pro 64bit. iiyama Pro Lite G2773HS 120Hz 1Ms G2G gaming monitor.

DD_Bwest on 15 March 2014

http://youtu.be/JJW5OKbh0WA?t=38m32s



I am Torgo, I take care of the place while the master is away.

"Hes the clown that makes the dark side fun.. Torgo!"

Ha.. i won my bet, but i wasnt around to gloat because im on a better forum!  See ya guys on Viz

adamh73 on 15 March 2014

read 1st post of thread where Fps and resolution are mentioned  - I though I add to that and how fps affects what is considered "Full Hd" and what the actual difference is in terms of pixels per second being processed. Just some info full people if they're interested.



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 15 March 2014

some people can't just admit when they are wrong. try it, its quite refreshing.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank