216 posts in this topic

You dont know what you are talking about...

First of all cloud costs money, if anyone will pay for it it will be you.

The fact that microsoft has Azure cloud service doesnt mean anything to your games that come from EA or other publishers

If you think that games can ofload AI or other parts of the game proccessing to the cloud, think again.

The only cloud support I see for XBOX is based on skydrive, and thats it

 

No, it's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont know what you are talking about...

First of all cloud costs money, if anyone will pay for it it will be you.

The fact that microsoft has Azure cloud service doesnt mean anything to your games that come from EA or other publishers

If you think that games can ofload AI or other parts of the game proccessing to the cloud, think again.

The only cloud support I see for XBOX is based on skydrive, and thats it

- Xbox Live = Costs for online service.

-Azure Servers are being used by the Titanfall team for dedicated servers, I imagine other developers will also leverage this as well considering MS will be have a pricing scale that represents your user base. In theory this meants that EA won't be shutting servers down so quickly on XB1.

- Forza 5 will be offloading AI into the cloud come launch day. Not to mention other devs coming out talking about the benefits and features of using such a service.

Let's not forget that MS are already discussing backwards compatibility by streaming games via their cloud platform, similar to Gaikai on the PS4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Xbox Live = Costs for online service.

-Azure Servers are being used by the Titanfall team for dedicated servers, I imagine other developers will also leverage this as well considering MS will be have a pricing scale that represents your user base. In theory this meants that EA won't be shutting servers down so quickly on XB1.

- Forza 5 will be offloading AI into the cloud come launch day. Not to mention other devs coming out talking about the benefits and features of using such a service.

Let's not forget that MS are already discussing backwards compatibility by streaming games via their cloud platform, similar to Gaikai on the PS4.

 

Dedicated servers might as well be hosted somewhere else it doesn?t add to consoles performance debate we have here...

Forza 5 requires onetime online connection to Xbox Live - so it can download its games AI? or not being online will only let you race in an empty track?

The Gaikai stuff doesn?t add anything to the xbox performance discussion.

 

The fact that MS has acknowledged that you don?t have to be online to enjoy your games makes whole cloud processing talks ######.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Yawn* These comparisons have gotten stale.

The PS3 had monstrously better CPU and RAM "spec" than the 360, but does it perform better? Absolutely not.

These comparisons mean absolutely nothing, and people really need to let it go.

The PS3 does actually perform better.

Developed for the lowest common denominator is one of the lamest things I keep hearing.

Does anyone understand what that means when they say it?

It means games will be developed for the Xbox one and then ported over so no real graphics advantage will be seen.

Also Penello does confirm the PS4 is more powerful in his posts, but he says it's more powerful on paper and real world experiences will be similar / same as Xbox one. Read it again if you can't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually MS has already stated that they intend to give the Azure cloud servers to AAA games for free so they make the most out of it. It wouldnt cost MS much to do that as it would be very cheap to absorb there own costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be insane if MS had a discrete GPU with 2048 shader and 2GB GDDR5 ram slapped inbetween the APU and ESRAM. It would destroy sonys ps4. but seeing as they said they wont be making a loss on it i cant see it happening cus the part would cost to much making the console really expensive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PS3 does actually perform better.

It means games will be developed for the Xbox one and then ported over so no real graphics advantage will be seen.

Also Penello does confirm the PS4 is more powerful in his posts, but he says it's more powerful on paper and real world experiences will be similar / same as Xbox one. Read it again if you can't see it.

Can somebody please prove this lowest common denominator thing to me... I would love to read on it..l. Googling only brings up opinions. I need to read something from a developer.

Because Ive played a ton of 360 games that look and play amazingly well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PS3 does actually perform better.

There's a massive difference between on paper and real world performance. Especially when it comes to specs and architecture. Again, don't take this as I'm downplaying the PS3, just needs to be stated.

 

Kudos to Albert Penello for these comments, they really needed to be said. What intrigues me is the "not fully understood" comment, even though there was an architecture panel.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody please prove this lowest common denominator thing to me... I would love to read on it..l. Googling only brings up opinions. I need to read something from a developer.

Because Ive played a ton of 360 games that look and play amazingly well...

 

That's the thing. It can't be proven unless there are benchmarks released that don't favor specific hardware or only just specific components. It looks like everybody's throwing around speculation as if it were fact, especially the PS fans that are parasiting N4G and NeoGAF.

They are all looking at two parts of the entire box, the base GPU part and the RAM and clinging to it as if it were the last straw.

The Xbox One's customized hardware is definitely more streamlined in architecture if you look at it and especially if coded for well, which could mean that both consoles would be almost equally powerful IMHO, but this is also speculation without a proper benchmark.

 

But you are right, it's all about the games and if the difference is so minute that it can't be noticed by the general public then the point is moot anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have known this for a long time.  I guess people take numbers and run with them and I get why they do, but as I said before this is what is really going on......

 

The PS4 is like a lower mid-end PC and is mainly off-the-shelf PC hardware.  Some things have been modified a bit like GPGPU and other things, but it's 95% of an off the shelf PC.

The PS4 architecture is pretty straight forward and simple design and you will see some big performance gains over time, but the XB1 will have those too.

 

The Xbox One is 95% non-off-the-shelf PC.  With only a small part of it being off-the-shelf.  The Xbox one GPU isn't as powerful as the PS4 on paper. 

This is fact and it is a fact that most people fall into the trap of believing paper numbers over real-world performance.

 

1) The Microsoft architecture is more efficient than a normal PC architecture.  Microsoft made D3D 11.x, they know all about it because they created the entire API.   They optimized the "XB1 mono driver" for performance.

2) The XB1 can offload processes to other processors and can also do GPGPU, but it's not required.  The more PS4 uses GPGPU, the less they use the GPU for

    graphics processing and they have to do this because they don't have the processors that XB1 has.  The PS4 has more Compute Units dedicated for GPGPU features, but again the more you use of the other CUs the more things can suffer.

3)  The ESRAM can be a little more flexible than what Sony uses the GDDR5 for.

 

I really never even mentioned any performance increase (53 Mhz GPU boost or the 150 Mhz CPU boost either)

 

I also haven't actually mentioned the "server processing" yet, which will come later.   Halo 5 will probably be the first title that really uses this and people are going to be fascinated by what is coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hardware is powerful for both, but the new thing is server processing.  This isn't a marketing trick; it is real.

I am sure Sony will be fine.  However, the server processing is honestly the most exciting thing I can think about.

Sure, no titles will really use it like it should be used, but this is a game changer.   I am looking for this for an open world A.I. using the processing.

 

I hate video games, because not only do I love playing them, but I would love to create a company around it.  ;-p

 

I seriously know what I would do, but you just don't make money on it like you would in the mobile phone/data industry.

 

You know what I also like though, not having an inventory.   Having an inventory is very tricky for a business, and with the Xbox One and PS4, you don't have to have a retail Blu-ray disk or a case or an instruction manual.

It's all just digitally based and you could sell your quality game for $40 online and just reap a lot of money with most money going into salaries and marketing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PS3 does actually perform better.

It means games will be developed for the Xbox one and then ported over so no real graphics advantage will be seen.

Also Penello does confirm the PS4 is more powerful in his posts, but he says it's more powerful on paper and real world experiences will be similar / same as Xbox one. Read it again if you can't see it.

He actually says pretty clearly that the Xbox One will perform the same or better in the real world, which we've already seen at the expos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have known this for a long time.  I guess people take numbers and run with them and I get why they do, but as I said before this is what is really going on......

 

The PS4 is like a lower mid-end PC and is mainly off-the-shelf PC hardware.  Some things have been modified a bit like GPGPU and other things, but it's 95% of an off the shelf PC.

The PS4 architecture is pretty straight forward and simple design and you will see some big performance gains over time, but the XB1 will have those too.

 

The Xbox One is 95% non-off-the-shelf PC.  With only a small part of it being off-the-shelf.  The Xbox one GPU isn't as powerful as the PS4 on paper. 

This is fact and it is a fact that most people fall into the trap of believing paper numbers over real-world performance.

What utter nonsense. Both are using AMD for CPUs and GPUs, with largely similar architectures - obviously there are differences but to suggest that the Xbox One is "95% non-off-the-shelf" is patently absurd.

 

The hardware is powerful for both, but the new thing is server processing.  This isn't a marketing trick; it is real.

You have no way of knowing that, nor does anyone until we see it in the real world. Even developers aren't sure how they're going to utilise it, if at all.

 

You've clearly taken a position and are simply engaging in confirmation bias. It's quite clear that Microsoft is under pressure from the performance of the PS4, hence why it has had to up the clock speed for the CPU. Still, even if the X1 is less powerful than the PS4 we all know that there are other factors involved, like which platform is the lead and what the development tools are like - Microsoft has had an advantage in both areas for the current generation, so there's no doubt it's going to be a close race.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What utter nonsense. Both are using AMD for CPUs and GPUs, with largely similar architectures - obviously there are differences but to suggest that the Xbox One is "95% non-off-the-shelf" is patently absurd.

You have no way of knowing that, nor does anyone until we see it in the real world. Even developers aren't sure how they're going to utilise it, if at all.

You've clearly taken a position and are simply engaging in confirmation bias. It's quite clear that Microsoft is under pressure from the performance of the PS4, hence why it has had to up the clock speed for the CPU. Still, even if the X1 is less powerful than the PS4 we all know that there are other factors involved, like which platform is the lead and what the development tools are like - Microsoft has had an advantage in both areas for the current generation, so there's no doubt it's going to be a close race.

Have you read the Xbox One silicon thread? Their architectures aren't even close to similar and the X1 is quite a bit more customized than you appear to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please Mr. Penello, You are assuming that people working on OpenGL aren't goint to optimize it for PS4. State of the fact is that some highly influential gaming companies already exposed OpenGL as a more optimized platform, even on Windows. I can bet that Sony has been working on OpenGL for a long time, to enhance performance of PS4 even further. PS4 having a PC like architecture will benefit all three parties included...developers, PC gamers/users, and PS4 owners and that is the biggest advantage of PS4.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the Xbox One silicon thread? Their architectures aren't even close to similar and the X1 is quite a bit more customized than you appear to think.

They're both based on AMD architecture, so while they can play around with it there is inherently a lot of similarity between the two. Carmack, a major programmer, went as far as to say they're "essentially the same". Even if we were to accept the premise that the X1 hardware is 'more' customised we all know how that turned out for the PS3, so it's too early to tout it as a positive attribute. To suggest they "aren't even close to similar" doesn't pass muster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're both based on AMD architecture, so while they can play around with it there is inherently a lot of similarity between the two. Carmack, a major programmer, went as far as to say they're "essentially the same". Even if we were to accept the premise that the X1 hardware is 'more' customised we all know how that turned out for the PS3, so it's too early to tout it as a positive attribute. To suggest they "aren't even close to similar" doesn't pass muster.

So, you haven't read it then. It does pass muster and that's Panellos point here - if the two were as similar as you say than the ps4 would legitimately be 30% more powerful and we would see that pretty clearly. Fact is that's just not true and from what we've seen so far, X1 games look better.

But I'm more than happy to wait a couple months to see things in person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please Mr. Penello, You are assuming that people working on OpenGL aren't goint to optimize it for PS4. State of the fact is that some highly influential gaming companies already exposed OpenGL as a more optimized platform, even on Windows. I can bet that Sony has been working on OpenGL for a long time, to enhance performance of PS4 even further. PS4 having a PC like architecture will benefit all three parties included...developers, PC gamers/users, and PS4 owners and that is the biggest advantage of PS4.

 

 

You are right to an extent... Sony's 1st party games will show what O-GL can do...  Even some 3rd party developers as well...  But until the industry gets tired of DX, most 3rd parties will make that their #1 choice for development.

Which will mean that PC,Xbox will be most likely the lead platforms for development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're both based on AMD architecture, so while they can play around with it there is inherently a lot of similarity between the two. Carmack, a major programmer, went as far as to say they're "essentially the same". Even if we were to accept the premise that the X1 hardware is 'more' customised we all know how that turned out for the PS3, so it's too early to tout it as a positive attribute. To suggest they "aren't even close to similar" doesn't pass muster.

The PS3 WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM EVERYONE ELSE!!! using that as a testament for the x1 not working out only makes you look like a moron. The basic CPU architecture can be the same but the actual PCB choices with buffers etc can make a HUGE difference.

So much fail in this thread it hurts. GPU is not as big a factor as people make out, on PC with a haswell OC the cpu is the cap not the gpu in a lot of games (the worst being planetside 2, ha lets see that on ps4)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right to an extent... Sony's 1st party games will show what O-GL can do...  Even some 3rd party developers as well...  But until the industry gets tired of DX, most 3rd parties will make that their #1 choice for development.

Which will mean that PC,Xbox will be most likely the lead platforms for development.

 

 Industry will certainly not wrap their business moves based on tiredness and boredom, but on efficiency. This generation of console hardware will turn things upside down for Miscrosoft. It won't be an overnight move, but as I see it, since PS4 is esentially PC, why would developers for it be bothered to make a DX version of the game when it can run in OpenGL on any platform, including Windows. Legacy engines will certainly continue to use DX, but for companies writing their own new engines, DX has no value any more, as OpenGL and DX are practically the same feature wise and why spending extra time and money developing a dual engine, when the existing written assuming to use OpenGL can be used everywhere, except on Xbox One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 IDX has no value any more, as OpenGL and DX are practically the same feature wise and why spending extra time and money developing a dual engine, when the existing written assuming to use OpenGL can be used everywhere, except on Xbox One.

PERFORMANCE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vk__hyOM2M

 

1st party will always natively code, 3rd party could just use an engine that outputs to both that way we get the DX boost.

Single engines covering several platforms is the way its going, not back the way to only 1 option. Unity etc all output to mobiles etc all with a common engine at a higher level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody please prove this lowest common denominator thing to me... I would love to read on it..l. Googling only brings up opinions. I need to read something from a developer.

Because Ive played a ton of 360 games that look and play amazingly well...

 

Why are you having such a hard time with this?

 

Would you program a game that requires the current generation processor?  The latest card from nvidia or amd?  A crazy amount of memory (so you will need a 64-bit computer and OS)?

 

I do not need a multi-thousand dollar set up to play WoW.  Why?  They created the game to run at the lowest common denominator to still satisfy their needs of the game.  They did not build it to require SLI or require a very very expensive setup.

 

Why are games still offering resolutions below 720?

 

As a developer, you program your game to where you can get the most audience.  Therefore, you develop for the lowest common denominator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying this is exactly the same, but If you were to use a car analogy... Is this not like taking a bugatti Veyron against a modern day F1 car. Just because on paper the veyron has much "higher" numbers when it comes to BHP, the F1 car is always going to wipe the floor with the veyron because it does more with less?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh please Mr. Penello, You are assuming that people working on OpenGL aren't goint to optimize it for PS4. State of the fact is that some highly influential gaming companies already exposed OpenGL as a more optimized platform, even on Windows. I can bet that Sony has been working on OpenGL for a long time, to enhance performance of PS4 even further. PS4 having a PC like architecture will benefit all three parties included...developers, PC gamers/users, and PS4 owners and that is the biggest advantage of PS4.

So you're telling me a basic OpenGL wrapper which sits on a bulky modified version of CentOS can outperform a 100% optimized version of DirectX which sits on HyperVM instances? 

 

Comparing OpenGL on the PC to anything on the PS3/4 is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that were true the PC version of multi-plats would never have better graphics.

 

I've played plenty of multi-platform games where the PC didn't have better graphics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.