Microsoft beefs up Xbox One specs ahead of launch

Microsoft’s Xbox One is a big play for the company in terms of putting an ‘all-in-one’ entertainment solution in the living room. The console, with its heritage in gaming, is the next step in Microsoft’s quest to have a PC in the living room. While the Xbox 360 started this trend with the massive transition over the console’s lifetime, the Xbox One will be the largest leap for Microsoft when it lands later this year.

But the console, at its heart, is still a gaming machine and when Microsoft found itself outgunned by Sony’s PS4 offering, it decided to make a small tweak to the GPU to give it a bit more performance.

Marc Whitten stated on Major Nelson’s podcast that the GPU will receive a clock bump from 800 MHz to 853 Mhz which will net in a 6.5% increase in processing power. Despite this spec bump, Sony’s PS4 still outpaces the Xbox One but this increase will close the gap a bit.

While the PS4 does outpace the Xbox One in raw specs, the Xbox 360 was largely believed to outpace the PS3 in the spec wars (thanks to a superior SDK) but the net results are that the consoles have comparable graphics and that marginal differences do not equate to noticeable differences on the big screen. Further, while not always openly stated, developers building cross-platform games generally play to the lowest denominator of the two so that they could build for one spec-class to reduce overhead while building games for two competing platforms.

Of course, the proof will be in the pudding when these consoles hit retail shelves later this year and you can bet that there will be many articles comparing side-by-side screenshots of games on each platform.

Source: Major Nelson | Via: OXM

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft adds Message Center for Office 365 admins

Next Story

DOJ wants Apple to place links to third-party e-book stores in iOS apps

136 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

sure opengl can have tiled resources to because the powervr stuff used to render stuff in tiles BUT is the PS4's hardware built around that resource like the x1, i think not. a console thats optimised to use a feature that has bin built specifically for it to use will be able to use it far more efficiently and effectively.
the xenos gpu from the xbox 360, that had hardware tesselation but nvidia didnt have a part that did tesselation so instead of MS putting it in dx10, it got shunted to dx11 cus they moaned about it (i think). so dont underestimate what MS can do with the thing they build. they have full control and they can optimise the crap out of it!

i think the xbox one will win even without the clock increase of gpu cus its a band aid at best but i think i saw... is it the unreal engine 4 sdk with links where you have a texture then drag a link to something else and the sdk does the rest for ya? apparently its so easy to use. if x1 sdk same as that with the esram section included like say "linking" textures you want to an esram function, and the sdk does the rest for ya, you dont even need to worry bout it if the sdk is THAT good. cant imagine sonys anywhere near as good as a ms sdk

Tiled resource is exclusive in DX 11.2 for xbox one and Window 8.1. Notice I didn't put Sony PS4 in there.
So you know tiled resources is a big deal and only xbox one has it.

startscreennope said,
PS4 can do tiled resources. It also doesn't need extra development effort to deal with the ESRAM.

sorry but wasn't the PS3 supposed to win on paper last round? but the 360 kept on giving and only a small number of ps3 only games actually benefited from any supposed 'RAW increase'.

Anyway, anyone that knows a decent amount about how graphics work and how performance in general should and in essence can ever be judged by paper specs alone, if at all when we're this close.

Plenty more aspects come into play to give the end user the pixels on their screens, and seriously this can only be judged once both consoles are available and games are pushing them, the good news is that this time round a lot of architecture is shared (both x86 cpu and AMD GPU) but both have modified setups, so instead of IBM power pc (Xbox 360) and Cell Processor (PS3), we now have a common base with only slight modifications needed.

so this time round we have a far more shared code base for devs, and the pathetic arguments that are currently rolling around related to who can beat their chests the hardest while benefiting in absolutely no way at all (unless being a shareholder of championed company).

sony has faster RAM
MS uses RAM and faster but smaller RAM differently (had a few beers, loss of memory on names)
John Carmac has stated (and he is always honest) that there is nothing between the systems
That's it basically, unless you have a bias and want 'you side to win' which is extremely and absolutely utterly pathetic.........go MS! FTW!!! ha

PS4 and X1 are nearly identical architectures, it's much more accurate to directly compare the two. The main difference is DDR3+ESRAM vs GDDR5 and PS4 having a significantly more powerful GPU, even after this upclock.

360 and PS3 were worlds apart in terms of architecture. It's a fallacy to say A =/= B therefore C =/= D.

The only "pathetic" arguments I'm seeing are related to secret sauce ESRAM, move engines, dev toolkits, etc. in the face of an undeniable hardware advantage.

I don't like that they decided to overclock. GPUs are less forgiving than CPUs in this area. This increases heat. And It could really exacerbate any of the inevitable tiny manufacturing defects that vary from unit to unit.

a very mild cpu overclock is not beefing up the specs. In fact, nothings technically changed....just a little more heat.

to be honest, I can't ever remember a bigger fiasco for a piece of technology

I wish Sega would come back and make a new console.....crazy taxi, virtua cop with a light gun.....ahhh the good old days

Should the title not read, "Microsoft beefs up Xbox One CPU speed ahead of launch." Saying they've beefed up specs is misleading, since it seems to indicate that multiple changes have been made when the reality is otherwise.

I remember my Intel 486 PC back in the nineties, and how I also upgraded and overclocked it once by 50 MHz. The difference back then was that it made for a 81% MHz boost unlike 6%.

So... MS believes a 6% overclock will help?? all I see it helping is the amount of returns that people will be doing from cooked consoles..

meh. I'm more worried about the space and ventilation requirements for both consoles, it looks like there will be a lot more than the current gen.

When I first got my PS3 (old 60 GB model), I never ran the heater in the winter. I'd just turn on the plasma and play a PS3 game for a little while. Mmmm- toasty!

spacer said,
RROD v2 confirmed?

I miss the flaming/smoking PS2s...

It will be interesting this time around which console will have production issues.

Mobius Enigma said,

I miss the flaming/smoking PS2s...

It will be interesting this time around which console will have production issues.

5 billion transistor SOCs by definition will have "production issues" in the form of awful yields.

I will probably get both, but I only preordered the PS4. I actually don't like the OS on my 360. I think it's hard to find things (Am I still downloading something in the background somewhere or not?), and the fact that it's littered with ads everywhere just ****es me off all to hell. Tacky, tacky, TACKY!
That said, I find the two minute delay to get trophy information and load the Playstation Store completely ridiculous on the PS3. How can it be that this was never fixed?

I wouldn't think it would be more than a tiny bit of XML that's being transferred and then parsed and displayed. A Gameboy should be able to handle that just fine. There must be something else going on.

What a lame excuse, blaming OS for not liking 360. There's like 1 ads per page and it's silent somewhere in the corner. Sometimes those ads gives exclusive such as Netflix "House of Cards", free xbox gold etc. Besides you turn on xbox either head straight to games or Netflix/Hulu, Amazon. Why are you even sticking around the dash board.
From the official statement from both console (Piece of **** 4 and xbox 1) you don't have to wait for the game download to finish because you can start playing as soon as the first level is downloaded. The rest of the game content will be downloaded while you are playing.


Skwerl said,
I will probably get both, but I only preordered the PS4. I actually don't like the OS on my 360. I think it's hard to find things (Am I still downloading something in the background somewhere or not?), and the fact that it's littered with ads everywhere just ****es me off all to hell. Tacky, tacky, TACKY!
That said, I find the two minute delay to get trophy information and load the Playstation Store completely ridiculous on the PS3. How can it be that this was never fixed?

minster11 said,
What a lame excuse, blaming OS for not liking 360. There's like 1 ads per page and it's silent somewhere in the corner. Sometimes those ads gives exclusive such as Netflix "House of Cards", free xbox gold etc. Besides you turn on xbox either head straight to games or Netflix/Hulu, Amazon. Why are you even sticking around the dash board.
From the official statement from both console (Piece of **** 4 and xbox 1) you don't have to wait for the game download to finish because you can start playing as soon as the first level is downloaded. The rest of the game content will be downloaded while you are playing.



not a lame excuse, the ps3 lacks a lot cause of limited os resources.
vita does not have these issues cause it doesnt lack the resources for it.

I don't care how powerful these consoles are, just so long as they can run games and display the menu system at full 1080p (instead of the upscaled 720p we have to put up with now)

Have enough RAM (let's say 16GB) to stop the "Loading" crap in menus etc

Once you install the game on the console, never having to put that disc in the machine again (maybe for the paranoid piracy crowd, insert once every 10 plays?)

An HDMI cable in the box (what's the point in that composite cable when I bet 99.9% of users use HDMI?)

Two controllers as standard.

tuckeratlarge said,
I don't care how powerful these consoles are, just so long as they can run games and display the menu system at full 1080p (instead of the upscaled 720p we have to put up with now)

Have enough RAM (let's say 16GB) to stop the "Loading" crap in menus etc

Once you install the game on the console, never having to put that disc in the machine again (maybe for the paranoid piracy crowd, insert once every 10 plays?)

An HDMI cable in the box (what's the point in that composite cable when I bet 99.9% of users use HDMI?)

Two controllers as standard.

One hand controller and the Kinect is also a controller, so thats two. But I know what you're saying. What I hate is to buy a controller they simply cost way to much and do nothing different vs 3rd party ones. $50 for a stick is just ridiculous.

I don't think they did it because they wanted more raw power, the upgrade is not significant at all. There might be some other reasons like manufacturing costs and maybe in an architectural level it makes more sense to be at 853Mhz, which it might sum to a significant performance boost than just 53Mhz of raw power. Then again, I'm not an expert on architectural design, so I'll go for manufacturing reasons: probably it was the same cost (or cheaper) to have it at 853Mhz.

rahvii said,
I don't think they did it because they wanted more raw power, the upgrade is not significant at all. There might be some other reasons like manufacturing costs and maybe in an architectural level it makes more sense to be at 853Mhz, which it might sum to a significant performance boost than just 53Mhz of raw power. Then again, I'm not an expert on architectural design, so I'll go for manufacturing reasons: probably it was the same cost (or cheaper) to have it at 853Mhz.

You're right, if you listen to the pod cast he refers specifically how they pull information like yields to understand the balance of the hardware. Hitting up the GPU by 53Mhz probably balances the rest of the system perfectly.

"While the PS4 does outpace the Xbox One in raw specs, the Xbox 360 was largely believed to outpace the PS3 in the spec wars (thanks to a superior SDK)"

If ever there was a citation needed, this would be it. On paper, the PS3 is much more powerful than the 360. The reality is that the 360 was simply much easier to develop for but it wasn't because of the SDK, it was because the PS3 had an exotic design. These days the SDKs are quite comparable as Sony invested a lot in developer support.

is not MUCH MORE, but it is. I heard developers that worked with both say it. It's just harder to get results from it.

And Sony finally ditched their own CPU designs and went for a more standard X86, I think this will have more affect then their investment in their SDK (which they have been doing heavily last couple of years)
I'm afraid though, the easier it gets to develop for, the less optimized it will be. You see the same on PC where programs/games easily eat 2+ times the resources they should just because of the (average)abundance of power and simpleness of coding.

It's not linked like that.

What happens when a system it's easy to develop for it's that it reaches it's peak faster, it's not linked to how much powerful it is. The PS3 is indeed more powerful than the 360 but you have to invest more to get past the peak of the 360 and have better results.

Sony likes this kind of approach a lot because it marks more the generational improvements across the console lifespan and because it's a one "low cost" way to give more raw power to the console, even if at first seems like impossible to use those modules. But in the end is all on the developers hands how games get better, not hiding weird tricks on the architecture.

Current consoles now plan to do this by giving flexibility to the developer instead of limiting what they can do, in the case of the PS4, the very fast memory and the all purpose compatible GPU, so they can go beyond shaders and use OpenCL kind of stuff. In the case of the One by giving early access to cloud computing facilities. Not sure of the One also can do OpenCL/DirectCompute, but most likely yes.

I don't think Sony intentionally made the PS3 hard to develop for in order to spread improvements over the years. It was just a mistake, one that they have explicitely recognized and fixed for this generation.

Kushan said,
"While the PS4 does outpace the Xbox One in raw specs, the Xbox 360 was largely believed to outpace the PS3 in the spec wars (thanks to a superior SDK)"

If ever there was a citation needed, this would be it. On paper, the PS3 is much more powerful than the 360. The reality is that the 360 was simply much easier to develop for but it wasn't because of the SDK, it was because the PS3 had an exotic design. These days the SDKs are quite comparable as Sony invested a lot in developer support.

The PS3 had the 'least' exotic design of the two consoles.

People think that the Cell processor in the PS3 made it unusual or exotic because it depended heavily on use of threading to get performance out of the CPU.

However, they forget that the CPU in the Xbox 360 also had the same threading needs.

PS3 - 6 Core CPU - 6 Threads
XB360 - 3 Core CPU - 6 Threads
-(Each core was capable of two threads like HT technology you find in Intel CPUs.)

PS3 - traditional VS/PS based GPU
XB360 - new unified shader GPU with new onboard DMA and new BUS transfer technologies.

The PS3 was dealing with an equivalent CPU as the Xbox 360, yet the Xbox 360 introduced an entirely new GPU model to deal with that was 'exotic' at the time.

Sony started with poor development tools that were not as advanced at threading as the Microsoft development tools.

(The Sony Cell CPU and the Xbox Xenon CPU is not as 'different' as people realize, as they are essentially both based on the same technologies. Go look up the PowerPC technologies and its relation to the Sony Cell CPU.)

Mobius Enigma said,
The PS3 had the 'least' exotic design of the two consoles.

People think that the Cell processor in the PS3 made it unusual or exotic because it depended heavily on use of threading to get performance out of the CPU.

However, they forget that the CPU in the Xbox 360 also had the same threading needs.

PS3 - 6 Core CPU - 6 Threads
XB360 - 3 Core CPU - 6 Threads
-(Each core was capable of two threads like HT technology you find in Intel CPUs.)

It's not about the number of threads. First your comparison is wrong anyway; 3 threads saturate a 3-Core HT processor 100%, 3 threads only use 50% of a real 6 Core machine. HT is just a thread switching optimisation in case you're using more threads than the number of cores; you don't actually need more threads than cores.

But that's not even the point. Cell cores are completly different from what programmers are used to from desktop x86 cores, and the Xenon was a familiar architecture from that perspective. Programming the Cell is more like programming a GPU using OpenCL, or a supercomputer using MPI. SPEs had a local cache that had to be explicitely managed, could not access main memory directly, were heavily optimised for vector/SIMD code; basically they forced a very particular and poorly understood model of programming. The Xenon was much more forgiving and flexible.

Unified shaders and unified memory on the Xbox 360 provided a vastly simplified programming model, not the reverse. Unified shaders shortly after became prevalent on the desktop as well with NVidia G80 so for the majority of Xbox 360's life, it had the more widespread architecture.

startscreennope said,

Oh wait, that would require MS listening to their customers. Nevermind.

Because it is the role of the NSA. ;-)

SteveyAyo said,
Idiots holding back progress

Is Kinect cross platform/vendor?, if it is not then you know who is holding back progress.


Heard this Kinect-less xbox on every f*cking thread. MS does listen to gamer sometimes, but xbox is still their brand, they have the right to choose what bundle goes to where.

startscreennope said,
Still waiting for a cheaper kinect-less version of Xbox.

Oh wait, that would require MS listening to their customers. Nevermind.

Brony said,

Is Kinect cross platform/vendor?, if it is not then you know who is holding back progress.

Yes, the Kinect for Windows will be released soon which will work on ever PC in the world... So its people like you who are holding progress back.
Also the NSA just revealed how absurdly easy it is to hack and listen in on Android phones, they don't need to hack a Kinect when youre carrying a listening device around with you 24/7

startscreennope said,
Still waiting for a cheaper kinect-less version of Xbox.

Oh wait, that would require MS listening to their customers. Nevermind.

It would also require MS 'breaking' the platform for game developers.

When creating a hardware or platform for development you get more developer use of the available technologies if they are assured that a minimum set of hardware is always available.

Why punish users that want Kinect integration? Why make things harder for developers?

BTW, even if Microsoft rips the Kinect from the XB1, it won't reduce costs by much, as the additional onboard processor for the Kinect is located inside the XB1. It is a set of technologies, not just the external cameras/microphones on the Kinect Sensor itself.

SteveyAyo said,
That's idiotic, youll never get that because at some point you have to stop listening to idiots holding back progress
The CUSTOMERS decide how the industry progresses, by buying products they want. Busineeses don't progress the industry by forcing people to buy things and proclaim they're "moving the industry forward". "Tail wagging the dog" businesses go out of business.

Yet another post blaming and insulting the customer. Next you'll be lobbying the US govt to force everyone to buy MS products because "those whining cry baby idiots don't know what's good for them".

I guarantee you an Xbox One $100 cheaper without Kinect would be selling more to the "mass market". People generally don't care how "hard" it is for developers with kinect integration.

startscreennope said,
The CUSTOMERS decide how the industry progresses,

In your dreams buddy.
Think about this, which customers do they listen too? Remember, "you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time"

Mikeffer said,

In your dreams buddy.
Think about this, which customers do they listen too? Remember, "you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time"

It's true - customers decide the future of the industry by purchasing products they like. Based on sales of Windows 8, Win phones, tablets, and Xbox One preoders, they aren't pleasing very many people lately.

Neowin Defense Force is like a bunch of people on a sinking ship, cheering on as it sinks, and booing anyone trying to prevent it. It's a similar community to people defending failing MMORPGs that are losing or lost all their customers.

startscreennope said,

Neowin Defense Force is like a bunch of people on a sinking ship, cheering on as it sinks, and booing anyone trying to prevent it. It's a similar community to people defending failing MMORPGs that are losing or lost all their customers.

So because people disagree with you there's suddenly a 'Neowin defence force'? Ever thought it might be because you type absolute tripe?

Mikeffer said,
So because people disagree with you there's suddenly a 'Neowin defence force'? Ever thought it might be because you type absolute tripe?
LOL

MS should improve their products = trolling!
customers decide the future of the industry by purchasing products they like = LIES, ALL LIES, UTTER TRIPE!

startscreennope said,
LOL

MS should improve their products = trolling!
customers decide the future of the industry by purchasing products they like = LIES, ALL LIES, UTTER TRIPE!

Amusing considering that quote was about your attitude but you chose to ignore this and continue wailing.

My "attitude" is to point out where MS needs to improve to gain sales.

Your "attitude", and others like you, is to insult and blame the customer in the most offensive manner possible, and encourage MS to keep smashing its face against the wall of business failure until there's nothing left but a bankrupt mess.

You think people might get offended when you preemptively attack customers as whiny, ignorant, afraid of change cowards, stupid, idiots, etc.? LOL Not to mention the vast number of logical fallacies trotted out to illogically defend MS, while ignoring technical points like functionality or the fact that MS's latest products are sales disasters.

startscreennope said,
My "attitude" is to point out where MS needs to improve to gain sales.

Your "attitude", and others like you, is to insult and blame the customer in the most offensive manner possible, and encourage MS to keep smashing its face against the wall of business failure until there's nothing left but a bankrupt mess.

Go ahead then. At which point did i insult these customers?

MikeChipshop said,

Go ahead then. At which point did i insult these customers?

The keystone of Neowin Defense Force's "argument" is insulting, deriding, and belittling the very customers they think should be buying MS's products. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

xbox 360 wasn't great at the beginning, Sony PS3 was too expensive at the time, did customers decide the future of those consoles?

startscreennope said,
It's true - customers decide the future of the industry by purchasing products they like. Based on sales of Windows 8, Win phones, tablets, and Xbox One preoders, they aren't pleasing very many people lately.

Neowin Defense Force is like a bunch of people on a sinking ship, cheering on as it sinks, and booing anyone trying to prevent it. It's a similar community to people defending failing MMORPGs that are losing or lost all their customers.

startscreennope said,
The keystone of Neowin Defense Force's "argument" is insulting, deriding, and belittling the very customers they think should be buying MS's products. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Haha nope you really don't get it do you? At what point did i (that's me btw) insult these customers? I think if you bother to go through my post history you'll see i'm actually a rather fair unbiased poster, but of course you have your little agenda to follow through. Enjoy yourself

startscreennope said,
The keystone of Neowin Defense Force's "argument" is insulting, deriding, and belittling the very customers they think should be buying MS's products. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Insulting, deriding and belittling you, you mean? You != All customers. You =A single customer. Stop professing to represent all customers when you don't.

Besides, clearly your here trolling by posting such obvious flamebait. Your name says it all.

Also just to comment on one of your earlier posts when you commented on sales/pre orders of "Windows 8, Win phones, tablets, and Xbox One", can I just point out that Windows Phone is rapidly gaining market share, especially outside of the US, and also that you have zero clue how many people have pre-ordered Xbox One. Saying otherwise is what is "tripe" here.

Edited by Ryster, Aug 3 2013, 9:48pm :

I don't see why they would confirm vgleaks rumors by stating 800 in the first place, seeing as 853 is the first time they mentioned GPU clock speed at all.

In any case, it's a nice little boost, not enough to make a big difference though.

What they should worry about is to implement a very good cloud processing system. I'm not that worried about One's spec due to this feature. If implemented, the gap could be minimal... Even the PS4 could be left on the dust.

Yes, I know that Sony also supports this feature.

Jose_49 said,
Yes, I know that Sony also supports this feature.

Sonys implementation of cloud gaming isn't the same as Microsofts, it wont do anything close to what XB1's cloud system will be able to do for enhancing games

I disagree, the cloud is just cloud computing. Sony has the ability to do any cloud enhancements that Microsoft can. Sony has an infrastructure to stream games (for backwards compatibility) already.

Sonys cloud is about accessing games, Microsofts is about enhancing... and lets not even worry about the infrastructure of the two and who has faster servers... its not even close

Jason Stillion said,
I disagree, the cloud is just cloud computing. Sony has the ability to do any cloud enhancements that Microsoft can. Sony has an infrastructure to stream games (for backwards compatibility) already.

Sony CAN'T do the things MS can do because they don't have the data centers MS has. They just don't have the money to throw at it that Microsoft has.

scaryrobots said,

Sony CAN'T do the things MS can do because they don't have the data centers MS has. They just don't have the money to throw at it that Microsoft has.

Maybe next MS can throw some money into making products more consumers want.

startscreennope said,
Maybe next MS can throw some money into making products more consumers want.

You mean, a product *you* want. There were quite a lot of people wanting the digital system that they introduced originally. The system plays games. People want that. And it adds interactive ability to your tv. There are people who want that. To say: maybe they should throw money into making a product more consumers want is silly. Which consumers do you choose? Not everyone is going to have the same opinion (or want the same thing) as *you*or other 'gamers' on this forum or other places on the internet.

scaryrobots said,

Sony CAN'T do the things MS can do because they don't have the data centers MS has. They just don't have the money to throw at it that Microsoft has.


Cause Sony is a small company that hasn't been rolling with the tech world longer then MS. They also don't have a similar revenue or assets at all.

Shadowzz said,

Cause Sony is a small company that hasn't been rolling with the tech world longer then MS. They also don't have a similar revenue or assets at all.

They've lost a lot of money with electronics and other entertainment over the last few years. They're not a small company; they're pretty damn big over seas. Quote: "Sony actually makes most of its profit from its financial division. As the New York Times notes, the company's insurance policies accounted for 63% of operating profit last year. Life insurance alone has generated over $9 billion in operating profit in the last decade."

PS4 could offer cloud like processing at some point later on; however the major difference between XB1 and PS4 here would be, the cost factor, it would be a lot cheaper and easier for MS to implement and offer the cloud processing service into their console, since they have their own databases and own the azure cloud service, where as Sony would most likely have to outsource this service through a provider such as Amazon or even Azure it's self. Sony's cloud Gaikia isn't a cloud processing service, it will be used to stream rendered games, demo's etc. However, like the majority over here stated, it will come down to software that will determine the success of these consoles. Also most likely the cloud processing stuff will be used by first party exclusives.

Shadowzz said,

Cause Sony is a small company that hasn't been rolling with the tech world longer then MS. They also don't have a similar revenue or assets at all.
Sony is not a small company. Sony's major business for years were electronics like walkman and tv's. That is where most of their money is made. Sony had no intentions of entering the video game market until Nintendo forced them to do so. The original PlayStation was to be a CD addon for the SNES. Nintendo backed out and Sony took that work and made a console instead and it simply worked out.

Sony is not small they are simply in a different segment vs Microsoft and they really shouldn't be compared just because they compete on the console level.

Sony has more experience than MS with gaming. MS is still wet behind the ears as this is only the 2nd console while Sony has had 4 including the latest.

TechieXP said,

Sony has more experience than MS with gaming. MS is still wet behind the ears as this is only the 2nd console while Sony has had 4 including the latest.

Which is completely irrelevant when it comes to cloud services, which Microsoft has by far the best in the world. They know how to design, and run servers on this scale more efficiently than Sony will be capable of for the next decade.

SteveyAyo said,

Which is completely irrelevant when it comes to cloud services, which Microsoft has by far the best in the world. They know how to design, and run servers on this scale more efficiently than Sony will be capable of for the next decade.

Amazon is the current leader of cloud computing, and Microsoft has been catching up (Microsoft Azure is not a bad product by any means).

TechieXP said,
Sony is not a small company. Sony's major business for years were electronics like walkman and tv's. That is where most of their money is made. Sony had no intentions of entering the video game market until Nintendo forced them to do so. The original PlayStation was to be a CD addon for the SNES. Nintendo backed out and Sony took that work and made a console instead and it simply worked out.

Sony is not small they are simply in a different segment vs Microsoft and they really shouldn't be compared just because they compete on the console level.

Sony has more experience than MS with gaming. MS is still wet behind the ears as this is only the 2nd console while Sony has had 4 including the latest.

Just wanted to note that the XB1 will be the 3rd Xbox.

As for 'gaming experience', you are forgetting that MS is the original author of the shader language, created DirectX for gaming because OpenGL wanted to stay as an engineering based framework, and also designed the GPU along with NVidia that existed in NVidia's products until the Geforce 7xxx series.

MS hardware engineers then went on to create the Xenos GPU that ALL GPUs for GAMING are based on today.

In the non-consumer world, Microsoft is a major player when it comes to development and compiler technologies, and have been a primary player in hardware technologies as well.

Don't underestimate how 'experienced' Microsoft is in the gaming world. Even going into the release of the PS4 and XB1, there is a lot of concern about the development tools from Sony as they are seen as the least experienced, which was also true of the PS3 that had poor development tools and ended up being a nice CPU cobbled together with an outdated GPU.

SteveyAyo said,
Last I checked the 360 sold like crack and the XB1 is selling out just as fast... oh wait you were just trolling, cool
False accusation, trolling, flamebaiting.

What stats do you have? None, I'm guessing.

360 was a good console, sure. And J.Allard is long gone from MS, replaced by bean counters, suits, and "metrics" - that's what you're blindly defending these days.

If 360 pre-orders were selling "as well as" X1, that would be a very bad thing, given the relative size of the consumer base between the original Xbox and 360. Instead I think we'll see 2/3 PS4, 1/3 X1 market share in most markets.

Finally, LOL at people accusing me of trolling for saying MS should make products more consumers want. Oh no, I'm totally wrong, they should make products almost nobody wants and go out of business. Complete insanity.

Amazon maybe the current leader to power websites with their cloud. Microsoft is the leader to power games with their new system called "Orleans". Sony maybe the leader to stream games with their Gaikai server.
What MS said Xbox one will add 300,000 more server to power games. So shut up and take my money.

Jason Stillion said,

Amazon is the current leader of cloud computing, and Microsoft has been catching up (Microsoft Azure is not a bad product by any means).

TechieXP said,
Sony has more experience than MS with gaming. MS is still wet behind the ears as this is only the 2nd console while Sony has had 4 including the latest.

You fail at math. Including the new consoles, it's 3 to 4, not 2 to 4. Xbox One is the third console for MS, not the 2nd. Did you conveniently forget about either the Xbox or Xbox 360?

TCLN Ryster said,

You fail at math. Including the new consoles, it's 3 to 4, not 2 to 4. Xbox One is the third console for MS, not the 2nd. Did you conveniently forget about either the Xbox or Xbox 360?


Besides MS also worked on the Dreamcast.

I dont think MS should have mentioned this slight spec bump yet. Because all Sony seem to do is wait for MS to announce something, then match it or out-do it.

So next week i expect to see "PS4 GPU bumped to 854MHz"

NoClipMode said,
I dont think MS should have mentioned this slight spec bump yet. Because all Sony seem to do is wait for MS to announce something, then match it or out-do it.

So next week i expect to see "PS4 GPU bumped to 854MHz"

Nope. In this case the PS4 is already using faster RAM bec it GDDR5 so an increase in speed wouldnt matter bec its already faster.

Geezy said,
Why bother? PS4's 1152 GPU cores vs One's 768...
Because processing power offers no true benefit to code other than crunching speed. Its not how fast the hardware is, its how well the code is written.

Example. I hope you're old enough to remember the Sega vs Nintendo days. Remember how Sega rushed to make a 32bit system and they pushed the uglt 32x adapter which took SOME 16bit games and tried ot make them 32bit yet they still looked like crap. But then Nontendo simply added a 16GB processor that worked with the onboard 16bit processor which made the games look better. Starfox, and more just blew Sega away.

Even on lesser spec'd system, Nintendo games simply looked better even running at 1/2 the hardware specs. Specs that are higher simply dont mean better. Thus the 360 with lesser specs vs the PS3 has better looking and better playing games.

That's actually my argument. The 32X didn't actually upgrade certain 16-bit games, it actually had its own games. The reason it was an add-on peripheral with its own video out is because SEGA couldn't add an extra processor into its carts and have them output in more than 64 colors because of framebuffer limitations. They had to use a video overlay. Nintendo could add an extra chip into its games because they could just output the graphics to the character map, they weren't trying to display any additional colors or do anything that the PPU couldn't originally handle. Same thing with DKC, except instead of realtime graphics they were basically playing back a video for character animations, they didn't need an extra chip.

I don't know what your last paragraph means, Nintendo didn't have 1/2 the hardware specs that SEGA did. Maybe you're just comparing clock rate, but like you said, clock rate isn't everything. The Genesis and SNES video chips were very different. You're also not taking into account that the SNES output at 256x224 instead of 320x224 so it had less pixels to push. The SNES video chip had hardware functions to perform certain specific graphics routines, so it could do more impressive stuff more easily, but like the PS3, the Genesis was more flexible, which is why you could get games like Gunstar Heroes and Batman & Robin, which would have multiple scaling/rotating objects as opposed to the SNES which could only handle one scaling/rotating plane at a time.

Like the SNES and Genesis, the PS3 and 360 are very comparable, but one is more flexible than the other and it's what you do with it that makes it shine.

But we're talking PS4 vs One here. Since we know that the GPU cores are practically the same, right down to the architecture, it sounds like they will be basing the code on the PS4 and then tuning it down for the One. Like PC games that support different configurations by allowing you to move sliders from minimum to maximum, I'm sure developers will be trying to get the most out of each system.

Yes, but now that they got rid of the online aspect of the console they have to somehow help those people who decided they wanted a last gen console instead

I heard rumor that MS is bring family sharing back, so some kind of DRM should re-Surface.

SteveyAyo said,
Yes, but now that they got rid of the online aspect of the console they have to somehow help those people who decided they wanted a last gen console instead

Shadowzz said,
Like those people that go on holidays.

If you bring an Xbox on holiday with you, youre living life wrong and don't need to be worried about

SteveyAyo said,

If you bring an Xbox on holiday with you, youre living life wrong and don't need to be worried about


So you never go to a little cabin at a beach for a few weeks?
Never go to a camping park in your own country or in others for a couple of weeks?
Or even going to an hotel for a few weeks....

Most people I know that go on longer holidays take their console with them, especially if the holiday is drivable, the latest slims take up less then your 2nd pair of shoes. Not sure how you are living your live, but expecting 3 weeks of clear blue skies on your holiday destination is impossible in Europe.

SteveyAyo said,
Yes, but now that they got rid of the online aspect of the console they have to somehow help those people who decided they wanted a last gen console instead

How would the 24-hour check-in have helped graphics? The console still could have been offline 99% of the day. The Xbox One was never an always-online console. That change has no effect on how the cloud could be used.

Shadowzz said,

So you never go to a little cabin at a beach for a few weeks?
Never go to a camping park in your own country or in others for a couple of weeks?
Or even going to an hotel for a few weeks....

Most people I know that go on longer holidays take their console with them, especially if the holiday is drivable, the latest slims take up less then your 2nd pair of shoes. Not sure how you are living your live, but expecting 3 weeks of clear blue skies on your holiday destination is impossible in Europe.

I do ALL of those things regularly, and leave my console behind, because why am I leaving my house to do the exact same sht I do back home? Unplug and live a little

SteveyAyo said,
Yes, but now that they got rid of the online aspect of the console they have to somehow help those people who decided they wanted a last gen console instead

Nonsense. They haven't gotten rid of the online "aspect" of the console at all, only the anti piracy components and the game sharing and digital library features that relied on them. This has nothing to do with the "cloud powered" features.

Agreed Athlonite. I'd consider it a waste of time (and money?) to go on holiday, and spend most of it watching TV and playing Xbox. Why bother going at all?

TCLN Ryster said,
Agreed Athlonite. I'd consider it a waste of time (and money?) to go on holiday, and spend most of it watching TV and playing Xbox. Why bother going at all?

Different experiences than. I've been to vacation parks in southern Europe for weeks on end, and always ends up in a couple of rainy ass days where you end up sitting in the trailer or hotel room those days. And watching foreign TV (all fun if its 100% French/Italian or Spanish allllllll day) gets bored quick and since its a holiday, you aint packing boxes of family games and often all you got is a pack of cards and Yahtzee....
There is little indoor entertainment if any within dozens of miles....
And I was glad I packed a NES, PSX etc. for those moments of absolute and complete boredom. Specially if you made some buddies in the area.
And a while ago I went to the beach here at a little resort with some mates, and from the week I stayed there, we had 3 days of rain.... I was so glad my mate brought his PS3 and were able to download a bunch of PSN+ games and had something else to do than playing Poker/Bullying(pesten in Dutch) or blackjack.

I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.

Xenosion said,
I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.

because hardware isn't the biggest part of the entire experience.. especially when it comes to gaming on a tv with fixed resolutions/refresh rates and framerates.

Engineered systems ftw

Xenosion said,
I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.

and after all of these generations with virtually indistinguishable graphics, I never really understood why people put so much stock into the raw power spec sheet. In the end the games always look the same.

pack34 said,

and after all of these generations with virtually indistinguishable graphics, I never really understood why people put so much stock into the raw power spec sheet. In the end the games always look the same.


You can't be serious... You should probably reword this to make sense.

Xenosion said,

I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the
power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.


While the Cell processor in the PS3 maybe marginally better than the PPC 970 CPU in the Xbox360,
there's no denying the Xbox 360 had a superior GPU compared to the one found inside the PS3.

Especially when a cross-platform title like GTA IV looks better on the 360, even with a Sony TV!

Xenosion said,
I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.

What do you mean? The original XBOX has twice the specs of the PS2. Microsoft learned that generation that specs aren't everything. When it came to X360 vs PS4 therewere experts that claimed the X360 would be more powerful and those that believed the PS3 would be more powerful. Again it mattered little.

And now the Xbone has slightly lower specs then the PS4. Why would it matter this time? The gap isnt nearly as large as XBOX vs PS2. IF anything it will matter even less then before. Because now both are equally important brands and both have the same genre games. Previously XBOX was less important and both consoles had their own genres/developers. But now just about everything is multiplatform. anyway.

pack34 said,

and after all of these generations with virtually indistinguishable graphics, I never really understood why people put so much stock into the raw power spec sheet. In the end the games always look the same.


Never seen a PC with High-Ultra settings and 60 FPS?

Xenosion said,

You can't be serious... You should probably reword this to make sense.

There were negligible visual differences in graphics between the 360 and the PS3 Even though one had the upper hand in the spec sheet. History repeats and the games will be about the same between the consoles.

Last gen, Sony created a custom device... while powerful, it was expensive and hard to program for. Despite that, the last round was pretty close. Why? Because it's not just about the power... hell, look at the Wii. It was more than successful despite being a distant third in "Power".

This round? Both consoles are arguably similar... Minor differences that may amount to % differences in frame rates, but really... does it matter?

It's going to come down to games (like Halo and Final Fantasy) and console exclusives (like Kinect/TV vs touch on controller for PS4).

My vote, if I had to chose, would be X1... TV integration should be a big bonus for me, and Sony is... well... a Turd. MS isn't perfect, but I don't expect rootkits and lost functionality (read: OtherOS) from the X1.

Xenosion said,
I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.

because all playstation has to offer is to show consumers higher specs, they don't have kinect, illumiroom, robust online network etc. so if xbox raise the specs they have to raise it too otherwise nobody buys ps4. in other word, sony looked at microsoft whatever they set for the hardware they had to offer better by a margin so people here and there say ps4 is better. but hardware specs in my opinion is much closer in this generation. xbox now has blueray and the processors are almost identical whereas ps3 processor was much better than xbox 360

Edited by trojan_market, Aug 2 2013, 3:58pm :

Its about games and thats it. Its why i loved my ps2 over my xbox. Xbox looked way better but ps2 had far superior quality gameplay. Its the reason wii u is not selling. Heck 8 of my top 10 games have crap graphics. I really feel like if your into shooters xbox one will def be the way to go. If you are into rpgs or action/adventure then ps4 is going to be the way.

A console will never outclass a PC, never has. What you buy is convenience and a large game library. Raw power never meant much either.

PS3
CPU 230 GFLOPS

Xbox 360
CPU: 77 GFLOPS

Look how awesome that turned out for the PS3.

Thanks for the replies. I don't really keep up on the details between the two consoles anymore. The last time I really cared about consoles was N64

pack34 said,

This is an article about consoles.


Yes, this is an article about consoles and your initial comment was about hardware which is universal. Hardware of course matters. You are undermining complicated political issues between developers and the consoles. The article even states that developers will usually "play to the lowest denominator of the two". Bringing up PC hardware levels the discussion because we all know that games developed with PC hardware in mind, are always top notch.

I'm into wRPG and I'm stil undecided. This gen the X360 is clearly better as it had Mass Effect, had Oblivion as a temporary exclusive as well as exclusive DLC. Not to mention many PC wRPG such as The Witcher coming console exclusive to X360. Of course it also had Fable. Upcoming gen I suspect the PS4 will get the same multiplat wRPG. It all comes down to exclusives. Who knows, the next Fable could actually be good again...

WinMunkee said,
A console will never outclass a PC, never has. What you buy is convenience and a large game library. Raw power never meant much either.

PS3
CPU 230 GFLOPS

Xbox 360
CPU: 77 GFLOPS

Look how awesome that turned out for the PS3.


Indeed, some games on the PS3 are absolutely drool worthy for such an ancient device.
Last generation Sony had issues with their custom hardware which only lately is starting to show their power, the same issue they had with the PS2 in a way.
That problem seems gone now finally ditching their own CPU designs for a X86 one.

I'm pretty positive it will come down to the exclusives to show what console can use their raw power the best.

Xenosion said,
I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.

Funny, it seemed to compete just fine in the current generation. Prior to that, there was only one generation which was MS's first entry, and even then the Xbox was more powerful. I don't really get what you're bragging about.

uxo22 said,

Funny, it seemed to compete just fine in the current generation. Prior to that, there was only one generation which was MS's first entry, and even then the Xbox was more powerful. I don't really get what you're bragging about.


Bragging? Please, move along.

Xenosion said,
I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.
Because better specs dont always mean better experience. I mean Apple fans argue this constantly, unless their favorite device is actually winning in the spec.

Where the Xbox is going is going to win is simple. Xbox games are made with tools devs already are familiar with. When the PS3 came out games were harder to make bec it was a whole new platform. Microsoft's SDK for the Xbox makes the job so easy that the devs can actually concentrate on beefing up gameplay, AI, and graphics.

Even if the PS4 gets off to a good start and sells more units, once the games start coming and they are better on Xbox the tide will change. Just like it did with the last 2 models.

Shadowzz said,

Indeed, some games on the PS3 are absolutely drool worthy for such an ancient device.
Last generation Sony had issues with their custom hardware which only lately is starting to show their power, the same issue they had with the PS2 in a way.
That problem seems gone now finally ditching their own CPU designs for a X86 one.

I'm pretty positive it will come down to the exclusives to show what console can use their raw power the best.

Not the direction I was going but most of the multi-plat games run like complete dog crap on PS3. None of them are a gigantic leap from what the Xbox 360 could do. Honestly, where a lot of the visuals are going to come from is the software and drivers. If you have a good foundation the rest is history.

hardware isn't everything. the thing is what you do with the system you got. take for example android. the manage to get quadcore with 2GB of ram and it still sucks while iOS and WP are way too smooth with far less

spudtrooper said,

because hardware isn't the biggest part of the entire experience.. especially when it comes to gaming on a tv with fixed resolutions/refresh rates and framerates.

Engineered systems ftw


This has pretty much always been true. Arguing better hardware specs has historically been the hobby of niche/failing system fan bases. The N64 had better looking 3D than the PS1, and people never mention more than the same 2-3 games when talking about what's good on it (we get it, you like Goldeneye, move on already).

People froth over these kinds of debates before launch because it's the only time they can get an audience. Once the systems have been out for a while, the sales speak for themselves. I don't know why people get so emotionally invested in the specs now, considering it's such a complete, total waste of time and energy that you'd have to question their judgment in all other aspects of life.

Joshie said,
The N64 had better looking 3D than the PS1

No, it could produce less polygons per frame, which meant less detailed models, and had a very low size limit for textures, so the models were not only low poly but had low res textures as well. It also rendered most games at 256x224, and the PS1 would use 320x224 or a protracted 512x224 for some games. The N64 had more RAM, but dedicated most of this to mip-maps and anti-aliasing, as well as sound samples. It had to use the main CPU to render audio as well, decreasing the CPU time that could go to transform, clipping, and lighting (yes, this was back before T&L was done by the GPU).

It had z-buffer support, which would help in reducing texture warp, but it was a negligable enhancement on the N64 due to its small and blurry textures anyway, and PS1 could do software z-buffer.

But why are we talking about PS1 vs N64 anyway? Because it's still fun!

Maybe they thought it wasn't important after the XBOX failed in the sales department against the much weaker but successful PS2.

pack34 said,

This is an article about consoles.


Haha, my bad. Thought you were talking in general. If that's so, then I would agree if you compare current gen PS3 VS Xbox 360. Not Xbox Vs Xbox 360 or PS2 vs PS3

Xenosion said,
I never really understood why Microsoft hasn't or can't compete with the power of the Playstation for what is now multiple generations.

That's a ridiculous questions, considering, damn near every single title looked better on the 360, due, to better dev software and a far simpler setup. When the PS3 came out, John Carmack (a reputable developer), talked about how, all you need is "general purpose processing," nothing extravagant, as it only makes it harder to develop for. Microsoft had the upper hand, because the SDK's used for developing the 360, was the same SDK used for developing for PC (XNA), so it made it easier for developers, who, were already familiar with developing for PC. Tee 360 also had the advantage on the OS front. I remember reading how, the Xbox took up about 42mb of RAM for the OS and the PS3 was around 90MB. Eventually, both companies got that figure down, but I don't know by how much. The GPU in the 360 was also light years ahead of the RSX that Sony opted for. Nvidia was going through a not so great period at that time. I remember personally despising the Nvidia Geforce 6000 and 7000 series. Games couldn't run AA + HDR at the same time, which, unfortunately, also applied to the PS3, the card only had 8-16 Pixel pipelines, while the 360 had 50 via, it's unified shading system. Before stream processors, things were measured by pipelines...the 360 even had tessellation abilities...that didn't finally start showing up in games until just a couple years ago. There is one known advantage though...last I heard, the PS4 had 3 billion transistors and the xbox One has 5 billion...that also equates to efficiency and performance, in a pretty big way.

Graelock said,

That's a ridiculous questions, considering, damn near every single title looked better on the 360, due, to better dev software and a far simpler setup. When the PS3 came out, John Carmack (a reputable developer), talked about how, all you need is "general purpose processing," nothing extravagant, as it only makes it harder to develop for. Microsoft had the upper hand, because the SDK's used for developing the 360, was the same SDK used for developing for PC (XNA), so it made it easier for developers, who, were already familiar with developing for PC. Tee 360 also had the advantage on the OS front. I remember reading how, the Xbox took up about 42mb of RAM for the OS and the PS3 was around 90MB. Eventually, both companies got that figure down, but I don't know by how much. The GPU in the 360 was also light years ahead of the RSX that Sony opted for. Nvidia was going through a not so great period at that time. I remember personally despising the Nvidia Geforce 6000 and 7000 series. Games couldn't run AA + HDR at the same time, which, unfortunately, also applied to the PS3, the card only had 8-16 Pixel pipelines, while the 360 had 50 via, it's unified shading system. Before stream processors, things were measured by pipelines...the 360 even had tessellation abilities...that didn't finally start showing up in games until just a couple years ago. There is one known advantage though...last I heard, the PS4 had 3 billion transistors and the xbox One has 5 billion...that also equates to efficiency and performance, in a pretty big way.


A stupid question should have an equally stupid answer, but clearly that is not the case. I appreciate your details but the issue is not as clear as you make it out to be especially since, apparently, the 360 accomplished more with less hardware.

It would be great if hardcore gamers would be a bit more tolerant.

Panagiotis G. said,
hardware isn't everything. the thing is what you do with the system you got. take for example android. the manage to get quadcore with 2GB of ram and it still sucks while iOS and WP are way too smooth with far less
You're trying to compare Android which is a full multi-tasking OS with widgets which are applications that run on your screen to iOS which doesn't have multi-tasking and WIndows Phone which also had limited multi-tasking? Has less features and a capabilities? I mean would you compare a Corolla to a Lamborghini? Of course the Corolla is better on gas. But I can get from zero to 100 in the same time it takes you to get to 30mph and I have all the bells and whistles too. Of course I may not run as smooth. But in the end, you still lose. Android 80% world marketshare, iOS 15$ World Marketshare and Windows Phone is not even worth mentioning yet.