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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which will prevail? Xbox Power or Playstation Speed?

Tagged games:

 

Pick your side!

XBOX 27 31.03%
 
PLAYSTATION 50 57.47%
 
Master Race 10 11.49%
 
Total:87
Hiku said:

shikamaru317 said:

Must be a benefit of the newer RDNA 2 architecture then. I remember older DF videos where they compared overclocked GPU's with the next GPU tier up with stock clock rates, and even though flops wise the overclocked GPU was a match for the larger GPU with slower clocks, the larger slower GPU was faster in real game performance. 

starcraft said:
It feels like this thread is designed to create a false equivalence? The Xbox is clearly a significantly more powerful machine.

We'll have to wait for some real world examples, but the Xbox is clearly targeting delivering extraordinary graphics with very, very small load times and rapid fast travel.

If MS can load games in 4 seconds, it is going to be irrelevant if Sony can load them in 2 seconds. This will only matter if there is some sort of major loading differential. Other than that, every comparison video online is just going to have better looking games on Xbox.

Now that is unlikely to shift the sales battle on its own due to Sony's enormous incumbent advantage, but lets not try and tear down MS for those things it has clearly committed to doing better.

It's not just loading games or loading screens that was interesting about Sony's SSD approach, but how you can build games when large amounts of data can be loaded in instantaneously. Digital Foundry went over this and seem the most interested in this feature. 

https://youtu.be/4higSVRZlkA?t=1076

Essentially, from my understanding level design in video games have always been held back by how quickly assets can load. If it takes you one second to turn around, the stage can only be designed in a way that it has to be able to load in everything neccesary in one second. Hence why level designers put up walls, and shape corridors, streets etc with this in mind. You didn't necessarily take a right turn there because it made the most sense from a design perspective, but rather the limitations of hardware.
PS5's SSD would seemingly eliminate the need to design games with this limitation in mind. And that's very interesting.

I read that as well, and agree that it is interesting. But again this thread likely overstates the distinction. It wouldn't be enough that Sony can do that. It would have to be the case the the MS console cannot do that. I consider it unlikely that that will be the case, as MS was surely mindful of this in designing its console with two different types of RAM.

Add to that, even in the worst case where the PS5 can somehow achieve this and the Xbox can not, it would be limited to a few very advanced PS5 games, and even then whats rendered on screen would look worse than the most advanced Xbox games - try marketing that!



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
thismeintiel said:

If the BOM that Forbes estimated was correct (~$450), then $499 should be break even, maybe a tiny profit.  Sony has always sold at a loss.  $449 should be the max we should expect.  Unless MS does price theirs at $599, then they may figure they can get away with a $499 price.  Remember, Sony took at $200+ loss when they felt they had to for the PS3.  I don't think a ~$100 loss is completely out of the question.  Not when this gen is very important to the future of their company.

And MS is not going to try to beat Sony or 100% be only more than them by $50.  Xbox is not a huge pillar in their company.  Satya Nadella does see it as a way to break into streaming, which is his background.  But, they are not in the business of losing millions/billions on HW, again.  If the XBX costs $100 more to make than the PS5, expect it to cost $100-$150 more than the PS5.  This is why the Lockhart existed to begin with.  Series X was to beat Sony with power, but definitely not price.  Lockhart was to beat it with price, definitely not power.  We'll have to see if they actually release the Lockhart, given some of the leaks that some devs aren't exactly excited with having to develop on it if they want to make a XBX game.

Something I just read on a few sites said that SmartShift only works in laptops with separate AMD CPU and GPU. PS5 has SmartShift, so does that mean it's not a monolithic APU? SNY's slides showed a layout much like how AMD's slides do, with separate CPU and GPU and I/O die, which is how Zen 2 is laid out (minus the GPU die). AMD also showed they were working on infinity fabric that allowed for the CPU and GPU to operate together, but for servers. Could PS5 be using a consumer form of this, and could that be cheaper? The smaller chiplets certainly should be a lot cheaper than a large APU, and it would partially explain the much higher GPU clocks as well.

I read your last reply wrong. I thought you said MS would try and keep XBSX close to PS5 cost, but you said it's own costs. Oops. Even if both have monolithic APU's, then XBSX's should cost a lot more. Though the PS5 SSD should cost a bit more than XBSX's, even with slightly less storage space. XBSX also doesn't sound like it's audio portion will cost as much as PS5's either. It's hard to say. While I don't think they'll be the same price, I don't see more than a $100 difference at most. SNY really doesn't like $50 launch pricing. That's why $499 for PS5 and $549-$599 for XBSX make more sense to me. I think that would work better than most may think for PS5. XBSX may only be another $50, but it would be over that $500 mark and that will immediately turn some people off. Unless MS sets the price at $499, then PS has to decide what they want to do, and if they can afford it, they may just bite the bullet and go with the tried and true $399. PS5 specs at $399 would destroy PS4 launch sales, if they aren't hampered by covid.

AMD notebook APU's have smartshift.

starcraft said:

I read that as well, and agree that it is interesting. But again this thread likely overstates the distinction. It wouldn't be enough that Sony can do that. It would have to be the case the the MS console cannot do that. I consider it unlikely that that will be the case, as MS was surely mindful of this in designing its console with two different types of RAM.

Add to that, even in the worst case where the PS5 can somehow achieve this and the Xbox can not, it would be limited to a few very advanced PS5 games, and even then whats rendered on screen would look worse than the most advanced Xbox games - try marketing that!

The Xbox Series X only uses one type of Ram (GDDR6) and only has a single RAM pool.

The difference is due to the mis-matched memory module capacity, the memory addresses of which are exposed in software for developers to leverage.

Memory transactions work in parallel... So if you have a 2GB chip and a 1GB chip... The memory transaction will be twice as fast for the first 2GB, after that... It can only make memory transactions to the last 1Gb of the 2GB chip, halving the speed. (This is the dumb-down explanation anyway.)



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

Whichever has the most games.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Sony is going to initially struggle in conveying to the average consumer what makes their SSD solution special; what it'll mean to level design, and how big of an advantage it likely is. But the average consumer may inevitably understand as the exclusives start dropping and the word spreads.

Assuming Sony will be able to deliver on their promise in concerns to the advanced boost mode, the GPU TFLOPS gap between PS5 and XSX should be more marginal than PS4 vs X1 or PS4P vs X1X. To top it off, the much higher frequency on PS4 apparently means that it'll handle certain tasks better. PS4/X1X never had a SERIOUS advantage over X1/PS4P in the first place, and yet the gap this time around is much smaller. To reiterate though, it'll all depend on whether or not the variable clockrates work as efficiently as Sony claims.

As for SSD, Sony didn't just accidentally trip over and took the wrong route; they know exactly what they're doing and why they sacrificed a bit of power for this. As far as level design, I feel that PS5 will most likely have an enormous advantage that can potentially entice quite a few third parties to start making exclusives for it. MS is also aware of the significance of a standard super fast SSD but decided to capitalize on TFLOPS hype instead, which could manifest as a slightly higher resolution and little else, honestly.



Sony's game selection will matter the most to me. They always have a more broad array of different types of games.



Around the Network

It seems that the ps5's design is much more thought out and innovative compared to the Series X. Series X has about 20% more raw gpu power, while the ps5 SSD tech seems to open up far more possibilities when it comes to core level design and how we'll move around in them. It will be very interesting to see what will happen if 3rd party developers target ps5 as the base console, take full advantage of Sony's SSD tech and what that will mean for the Series X and also pc versions of these games.



BraLoD said:

Next gen is sounding a lot like SNES vs Mega Drive to me.

One side has the power, the other has the speed.

Will XSX arm muscle beat up Sony?

Or will PS5 leg speed run rounds around Microsoft?

Will you Play With Power? Or will you be Blasting throught your games?

What will be games be focused on? What future we are entering into?

And most importantly, are you going to LoD next gen?

Let the war begin!

Well when you put it like that - what won the power vs speed battle in the 16 BIT era? Yep, power it was.....



victor83fernandes said:

None, as always with all generations, exclusive games will dictate the outcome, of which xbox will have no exclusives for 2 years. So there's really no competition there.

I still will choose xbox if ps5 doesn't have vapor cooling and replaceable/upgradeable graphics card

PS - Just read that ps5 is not actually 10 tf, that's only overclocked sometimes, not at all times like 12tf on xbox. More and more Im leaning towards xbox.

The exclusives make the system (or launcher) in the end. Power is a fantasy. 

Third parties will have some influence too though: if developers lean more towards one style over another that would have an affect farther down the line. 



The Democratic Nintendo fan....is that a paradox? I'm fond of one of the more conservative companies in the industry, but I vote Liberally and view myself that way 90% of the time?

EricHiggin said:
thismeintiel said:

If the BOM that Forbes estimated was correct (~$450), then $499 should be break even, maybe a tiny profit.  Sony has always sold at a loss.  $449 should be the max we should expect.  Unless MS does price theirs at $599, then they may figure they can get away with a $499 price.  Remember, Sony took at $200+ loss when they felt they had to for the PS3.  I don't think a ~$100 loss is completely out of the question.  Not when this gen is very important to the future of their company.

And MS is not going to try to beat Sony or 100% be only more than them by $50.  Xbox is not a huge pillar in their company.  Satya Nadella does see it as a way to break into streaming, which is his background.  But, they are not in the business of losing millions/billions on HW, again.  If the XBX costs $100 more to make than the PS5, expect it to cost $100-$150 more than the PS5.  This is why the Lockhart existed to begin with.  Series X was to beat Sony with power, but definitely not price.  Lockhart was to beat it with price, definitely not power.  We'll have to see if they actually release the Lockhart, given some of the leaks that some devs aren't exactly excited with having to develop on it if they want to make a XBX game.

Something I just read on a few sites said that SmartShift only works in laptops with separate AMD CPU and GPU. PS5 has SmartShift, so does that mean it's not a monolithic APU? SNY's slides showed a layout much like how AMD's slides do, with separate CPU and GPU and I/O die, which is how Zen 2 is laid out (minus the GPU die). AMD also showed they were working on infinity fabric that allowed for the CPU and GPU to operate together, but for servers. Could PS5 be using a consumer form of this, and could that be cheaper? The smaller chiplets certainly should be a lot cheaper than a large APU, and it would partially explain the much higher GPU clocks as well.

I read your last reply wrong. I thought you said MS would try and keep XBSX close to PS5 cost, but you said it's own costs. Oops. Even if both have monolithic APU's, then XBSX's should cost a lot more. Though the PS5 SSD should cost a bit more than XBSX's, even with slightly less storage space. XBSX also doesn't sound like it's audio portion will cost as much as PS5's either. It's hard to say. While I don't think they'll be the same price, I don't see more than a $100 difference at most. SNY really doesn't like $50 launch pricing. That's why $499 for PS5 and $549-$599 for XBSX make more sense to me. I think that would work better than most may think for PS5. XBSX may only be another $50, but it would be over that $500 mark and that will immediately turn some people off. Unless MS sets the price at $499, then PS has to decide what they want to do, and if they can afford it, they may just bite the bullet and go with the tried and true $399. PS5 specs at $399 would destroy PS4 launch sales, if they aren't hampered by covid.

Mark Cerny was very clear that PS5 have a SOC.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

starcraft said:
It feels like this thread is designed to create a false equivalence? The Xbox is clearly a significantly more powerful machine.

We'll have to wait for some real world examples, but the Xbox is clearly targeting delivering extraordinary graphics with very, very small load times and rapid fast travel.

If MS can load games in 4 seconds, it is going to be irrelevant if Sony can load them in 2 seconds. This will only matter if there is some sort of major loading differential. Other than that, every comparison video online is just going to have better looking games on Xbox.

Now that is unlikely to shift the sales battle on its own due to Sony's enormous incumbent advantage, but lets not try and tear down MS for those things it has clearly committed to doing better.

What am I tearing down from MS?

False equivalence? From what? Where is it?

The only comparision I made was with SNES and MD, don't you know the SNES was stronger than the MD?

I even specially focused on saying MS has the power on its side. It's in the title as well.

Sony speed advantage is also much more than just loading a game faster, even if I never went into that, but I won't suggest you are trying to downplay it... it's rude, you know.

You can take it any way you want, I highlighted both systems advantages and asked which system will end up in the lead. 

If you want a fully focused XB thread where XB power is the only thing we are allowed to talk about, the button to create threads is right there waiting for ya.