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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - No Goblin co-founder: Saying PS4 is “More Powerful” Than Xbox One Or Vice Versa Is Really Misrepresenting How Games Work

LudicrousSpeed on 24 November 2014
Nate4Drake said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
nuckles87 said:


I don't really care if you're a fanboy. I'm not gonna judge you personally because of the technical jargon you type. If typing that stuff makes you feel confident in PS4's vast technical superiority, that's fine.

Fact of the matter is, I own both consoles and I've yet to see a game on the PS4 that looks noticeably better than anything on the One. Whenever anyone talks about technical differences it ALWAYS comes down to frame rate and resolution, and even there the differences aren't really noticeable to anyone but graphics junkies. I mean my god, when people were complaning about ACU's rumored graphical parity, their complaints literally came down to "PS4 SHOULD HAVE 1080P 60 FRAMES, NOT 900P 30 FRAMES". Not the vastness of the world, number of NPCs, quality of the textures, or anything. If that's all that 40 percent increase in power is capable of, I'm not sure it's really worth bragging about. XD

So, in the end, I'm more inclined to believe a guy who works on these consoles over people who throw numbers at me without context or visual proof that demonstrates any real world difference.

@bolded, bravo. Could not have said it any better myself. All the talk of 50% more power and blah blah and the results thus far have been a resolution difference people wouldn't see without DigitalFoundry videos, some frame rate differences in a handful of games, and a toggle higher on the foliage setting in other games. Idk, it seems like it's not even as drastic a difference as some of the early to mid multiplatform games were on PS3 vs 360 last gen before developers caught up to the complexities of PS3.

But I agree, it's sad that the expectations for this supposed massive power difference is 1080p or bust. Not bigger worlds, not a revolution in AI, not higher NPC counts, etc etc. Oh the same game the 50% weaker console is getting is just fine, just make it a tad sharper please. I know Ubi did not optimize their game well at all, but it has been borderline depressing as a gamer to watch them be chastized for actually trying something that seemed next gen with their game, just because it resulted in dreaded 900p. Which, funny enough, if the Xbone version was 720p, then that 900p would have been just peachy.

But I hear Uncharted 4 will look amazing though.

And you are expecting big differences in 1st generation multiplatform games and cross-gen games ? :) Most 3rd party developers only care about profit, they will never push all platforms, they will never take full advantage of all hardware, most of all at this stage, this is why what you have is just higher resolution on PS4.  Do you know how long it takes to develop a great game ?  2,3 even 4 years.  Some of you speak like PS4 and XOne are out since 3 or 4 years and you look surprised that PS4 can 'just' do the same multi-platform/cross-gen title with better graphics/IQ with even more details in some cases(GTAV) ?!

Look at Dragon Age : Inquisition, by Bioware, which are very good 3rd Party developers; they managed to have higher Resolution on PS4 with better IQ, better texture quality and filtering, and more stable frame rate in intense situations; what do you want from a 1st generation 3rd party cross-platform game ?! Do you want more than this ?

 ''That brings us to the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions of Dragon Age Inquisition. Bioware have utilized the more powerful GPU of the PlayStation 4 to push out a 1080p screen resolution whereas the Xbox One version runs at 900p. This immediately results into a crisper and cleaner image on the PlayStation 4 version. Both the PS4 and Xbox One versions are no where close to the Ultra setting on the PC but they are definitely very close to the High settings found in the PC version.

Furthermore, the game runs at 30 frames per second most of the times on the PS4 and Xbox One versions. But during our tests we found out that in intense situations the PS4 version has an advantage over the Xbox One. Another advantage that we noticed is the level of detail [LOD] in the PS4 version is slightly superior resulting into better texture quality and filtering.''

http://gamingbolt.com/dragon-age-inquisition-visual-analysis-ps4-vs-xbox-one-vs-pc-ps3-vs-xbox-360


Uncharted4, to name one, will be the 1st example of PS4 good coding, and it will blow you away. Then wait the second Game by Naughty Dog on PS4 and you will cry. The games are not self-programmed, they need so much time, as you need so much more time to squeeze a new piece of hardware. This happens any new Gen, it happened with PS2/GC/XBox, with PS3/360, and it will be the same for the current generation.

1st Party developers are the ones who will show you what a Console can do, not most of 3rd party developers who do not care at all to waste money to push each version for every console. 

Specs are specs, hardware is there, it does not change. PS4 is a superior Console(Hardware), and anybody with a minimum understanding don't get fooled by every comment by every biased or non biased developer who want some visibility, or want people talking about you(like we are doing) or simply wanna be polite with everybody; If you say something completely wrong, you said it, it doesn't matter if you are a developer, or a publisher, or a user.  

This article is garbage from a technical point of you, ask everybody who has some understanding.  

I'm not saying this devs can't produce a good game or I'm a better developer, simply that their comments are a joke. The end.

If the difference were as big as some make it out to be, you wouldn't need to use 1st gen titles as an excuse.

 

Regarding the rest, please list for us what PS4 and Xbone games you have made.



Around the Network
torok on 25 November 2014
Locknuts said:

1. I'm not trying to be rude, but on paper specs rarely tell the whole story. But if you are going to quote specs, why just the main RAM bandwidth? Surely that doesn't tell the whole story as far as memory bandwidth goes? There's supposedly high bandwidth RAM in both the 360 and Wii U. My understanding from various dev quotes is that the Wii Us setup allows for far greater uses of that RAM than the 360s due to its GPGPU nature and larger size. Also, I've never once read about a dev complaining of RAM bandwidth on the WIi U. They complain about a lot of other things like SDKs and lack of 'next gen power', but never the RAM bandwidth.

2. There's also worse performance in COD:AW and DAI according to Digital Foundry despite the slightly higher res. GTAV is a mixed bag depending on what's happening on screen and both run at native 1080p in that one. These latest round of games seem to indicate to me that the dev in the OP might actually know what he's talking about.

1 - The EDRAM/ESRAM configuration is similar on X360 and Wii U. Anyway, it's small and just helps to improve a little bit the lack of bandwidth. The main memory specs are correct, the 360 uses GDDR3, the PS3 uses XDR and the U uses DDR3, with equivalent clock speeds.

The devs are complaining about CPU, that's the big bottleneck. The lack of RAM bandwidth however is probably the culprit behind games with low resolution and no AA. The console has a pretty bad CPU, a bad to average RAM setup and a average to half-decent GPU (compareed to the competitors).

2 - It isn't a slightly higher res. DAI runs at a 44% higher resolution on PS4 and CoD runs at a 41% higher resolution. Is this "marginal"? GTA V on PS4 has way more vegetation and higher quality alpha effects. The difference in fps is in all cases hardly 5%. Doing the math we still have a lot of things here. There isn't any mistery. Both PS4 and X1 uses very similar APUs. The slightly higher clock speed on the X1 CPU is just a 10% increase in performance, while the PS4 GPU is 50% better and the memory architecture allows 8GB of fast memory, instead of 8GB of slow memory coupled with 32MB of EDRAM that can't even hold an entire 1080p frame without tiling.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

Locknuts on 26 November 2014
torok said:
Locknuts said:
 

1. I'm not trying to be rude, but on paper specs rarely tell the whole story. But if you are going to quote specs, why just the main RAM bandwidth? Surely that doesn't tell the whole story as far as memory bandwidth goes? There's supposedly high bandwidth RAM in both the 360 and Wii U. My understanding from various dev quotes is that the Wii Us setup allows for far greater uses of that RAM than the 360s due to its GPGPU nature and larger size. Also, I've never once read about a dev complaining of RAM bandwidth on the WIi U. They complain about a lot of other things like SDKs and lack of 'next gen power', but never the RAM bandwidth.

2. There's also worse performance in COD:AW and DAI according to Digital Foundry despite the slightly higher res. GTAV is a mixed bag depending on what's happening on screen and both run at native 1080p in that one. These latest round of games seem to indicate to me that the dev in the OP might actually know what he's talking about.

1 - The EDRAM/ESRAM configuration is similar on X360 and Wii U. Anyway, it's small and just helps to improve a little bit the lack of bandwidth. The main memory specs are correct, the 360 uses GDDR3, the PS3 uses XDR and the U uses DDR3, with equivalent clock speeds.

The devs are complaining about CPU, that's the big bottleneck. The lack of RAM bandwidth however is probably the culprit behind games with low resolution and no AA. The console has a pretty bad CPU, a bad to average RAM setup and a average to half-decent GPU (compareed to the competitors).

2 - It isn't a slightly higher res. DAI runs at a 44% higher resolution on PS4 and CoD runs at a 41% higher resolution. Is this "marginal"? GTA V on PS4 has way more vegetation and higher quality alpha effects. The difference in fps is in all cases hardly 5%. Doing the math we still have a lot of things here. There isn't any mistery. Both PS4 and X1 uses very similar APUs. The slightly higher clock speed on the X1 CPU is just a 10% increase in performance, while the PS4 GPU is 50% better and the memory architecture allows 8GB of fast memory, instead of 8GB of slow memory coupled with 32MB of EDRAM that can't even hold an entire 1080p frame without tiling.

I know that on paper the number of pixels seems great, but to me, on my 42" screen that upscales quite well, I don't feel that the reduced resolution is all that noticeable. And is certainly not detrimental to the overall experience. That said, I play most multiplats on PC anyway in order to ensure 60fps in all cases. I'll always reduce effects to achieve a locked 60fps if necessary.

It seems like you base a lot of your opinions on specs you've read about. If you're a dev I apologise, but if not I can't really take what you are saying seriously as you haven't gone hands on with the systems. All my information is gained from dev quotes, as I can't determine how the on paper specs will translate into real world performance.

Finally, I said 'slight' not 'marginal'.  It may sound like I'm being pedantic but you used inverted commas. Don't misquote me please.



torok on 26 November 2014
Locknuts said:

I know that on paper the number of pixels seems great, but to me, on my 42" screen that upscales quite well, I don't feel that the reduced resolution is all that noticeable. And is certainly not detrimental to the overall experience. That said, I play most multiplats on PC anyway in order to ensure 60fps in all cases. I'll always reduce effects to achieve a locked 60fps if necessary.

It seems like you base a lot of your opinions on specs you've read about. If you're a dev I apologise, but if not I can't really take what you are saying seriously as you haven't gone hands on with the systems. All my information is gained from dev quotes, as I can't determine how the on paper specs will translate into real world performance.

Finally, I said 'slight' not 'marginal'.  It may sound like I'm being pedantic but you used inverted commas. Don't misquote me please.


Of course, 900p scales well when you use the hardware upscaler to up it to 1080p. I'm not saying a 1080p game "looks" 40% better than a 900p one, I'm saying you need 40% more performance to deliver the same visuals at the higher resolution.

Specs are the best source for comparisons. In the case of X1 and PS4 they are accurate because the consoles are too similar: same CPU, GPUs with the same architecture, etc. People called the PS360 the HD Twins, but they were pretty different. The PS4 and X1 are real twins and it's easy to check specs and say who wins. You can use benchmarks too. Any benchmark of the equivalent GPUs on PCs will show the difference here.

For a developer opinion, don't check this guys of No Goblin. Their game isn't pushing any machine and it's made on Unity. They didn't optimize, just let the engine do it. They are talking about something they didn't even checked and that's a fact. A way more informed opinion is from a developer from 4A Games that worked on the Metro games. Instead of a simplistic Unity indie game, this guy worked in a game that is on the all time top 5 visuals until today.



Bet with jetforcejiminy: PS4 will pass the Wii lifetime numbers.

ThePyroPath on 26 November 2014

People who think hardware stuff scales linear with and in equal proportion to the hardware "numbers" are quite out of touch with reality tbh. Imagine a fully loaded CPU core that needs to feed extra available GPU resources. How would that scale in your opinion? Couple that image with a 8 core CPU that isn't particularly powerful on the single core scale. Say you would be having 2 cores dedicated to feeding the GPU and doing audio for instance and this keeps things running those to cores at 90%. Now up the GPU specs 50%, without increasing dedicated threads for rendering. How much more stuff would you be able to pack into that "graphics performance increase" do you think?

In essence the guy is right. Both will have their perks, both have better specs for one or the other thing. But since making a high performance game that is high quality asks for a balance of AI, Sound, Design, GFX, etc. You'll soon realize that what he says holds water. That he makes it sound over simplified and the fact that the PS4 packs more raw GPU power and the XBONE packs more CPU power also holds water. For all intends and purposes everyone is right. Stop getting your panties in a bunch when someone says something you have no experience with and doesn't overlay with your believes 1:1.

Ample fact list:
PS4 GPU is a bunch more potent than XBONE GPU.
XBONE CPU is more potent than PS4 CPU.
Gaming uses a balance in resources.
Making a good game requires all assets to be put to good use.
Different approaches prefer different resources to achieve the same goal.
Raw numbers do not equal practical performance.



Around the Network
CrazyGPU on 26 November 2014

I see the facts as:
PS4 GPU is faster than XBONE one.
Most games run at 1080p on PS4, native resolution and they look better,
For some is a big difference and a lot of gamers care about that. Others dont.