Microsoft offers more Xbox One-to-PlayStation 4 hardware comparisons

On paper, Sony's PlayStation 4 looks like it has more powerful hardware compared to Microsoft's Xbox One. The point has also been made that games developed for both next-generation game consoles will likely look the same in terms of graphics for at least the first few years of each console's lifespan.

This week, Microsoft Xbox marketing head Albert Penello, who has defended the Xbox One's hardware specs in the past, posted a message on the NeoGAF forums with what he claims are more even-handed comparisons between Microsoft's console and the PS4.

Penello said the idea that just because the PS4 has 18 control units to the Xbox One's 12 CUs, doesn't make the PS4 more powerful. He wrote, "Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU's, so it's simply incorrect to say 50% more GPU." He also said that each of Microsoft's CUs runs six percent faster than the CUs in the PS4.

Additionally, Penello claims that the Xbox One, with its DDR3 memory, has more bandwidth than the PS4, which has GDDR5 memory. He wrote, "176gb/sec is peak on paper for GDDR5. Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM). ESRAM can do read/write cycles simultaneously so I see this number mis-quoted."

The Xbox One also has 10 percent more CPU than the PS4, according to Penello, adding, "Not only a faster processor, but a better audio chip also offloading CPU cycles." Finally, he stated Microsoft has "3X the coherent bandwidth for GPGPU at 30gb/sec which significantly improves our ability for the CPU to efficiently read data generated by the GPU."

Penello did say that while he was not trying to disparage the PS4's hardware specs, he did feel that some people who have tried to compare the two systems were using inaccurate methods. He also said Microsoft's senior graphics and hardware engineers will offer even more information on the Xbox One's hardware features.

"They will be more credible then I am, and can talk in detail about some of the benchmarking we've done and how we balanced our system," Penello wrote.

Source: NeoGAF

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to offer masters-level certification exams until late December

Next Story

Alleged images of Amazon's Kindle Fire HD 2 leaked

162 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Hardware is nothing without software, its all about who makes the better games, not who has the most horsepower.. You can have a Haswell i7 8 core with 16gb RAM a 512GB SSD, and a radeon 7890 in crossfire, and without the software, its a $2500 paperweight..

In the end all multiplatform titles will be developed for the lowest common denominator as has been the case in previous generations. So why does it really matter to Microsoft that the PS4 is more powerful?

Seriously, I think a lot of people are missing the most important aspect of the console, the Operating System(s). This is where Microsoft beats Sony hands down. If you have better hardware but a ****ty OS to handle the multi-threading or the graphics abstraction layer, then you're at the mercy of the OS. For this reason alone, I place my money on the Xbox One.

its not esram to esram actually i think, looking at the soc diagram esram has 4x 8MB esram banks, each bank has a 256bit memory bus with max bandwidth of 204GB/s cus the diagram shows 4x 256 bit + 4x 204GB/s min is 109GB/s going into the gpu.

the ddr 3 is directly linked to move units etc then esram is independantly linked to that, seeing as graphic textures wont need to pass through ram i think just maybe pointers to it or PRT it doesnt need massive bandwidth from ram to gpu

Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM).

WRONG!!

the 204 only happens between ESRAM to ESRAM transfer,
any transfer from/to ESRAM to/from other devices (DDR3 / USB3) the speed will be toned down to maximum of other devices's speed.

so those 272 gb/sec will never happens.

Jaybonaut said,
You quoted the part that states you are wrong... lol

"Our peak on paper" - did you miss that?


its the wrong paperwork alright, boosterism propaganda to dress the spec looking good.

i bet those paper hasn't been truly peer reviewed.

Torolol said,

WRONG!!

the 204 only happens between ESRAM to ESRAM transfer,
any transfer from/to ESRAM to/from other devices (DDR3 / USB3) the speed will be toned down to maximum of other devices's speed.

so those 272 gb/sec will never happens.

You are thinking too linear. Concurrent read/write...


Using a very non-technical layman analogy...

Go look at L1, L2 CPU caches with tiny amounts of RAM, yet how massive of a difference they can make in terms of overall system performance. With these caches, dealing with main system RAM speeds have less effect.

There are 1333mhz system that run faster than an 1600mhz system, and the only differences are a slightly bigger/faster set of CPU caches.

Having watched the showcases of each I can say I can't detect a difference between the two.

Your preference is based on what you want. Same old or same old with a bit more.
I choose same old and a bit more. Not PS4. I nearly changed my mind with predicted VR headset but I can't believe it really would deliver.

I don't care about anything here people say, all I care is that XB1 is a huge upgrade over 360 but PS4 is not a big upgrade over ps3 and because xbox 360 and ps3 were close I will pick xbox one this time albeit its 100$ more expensive it will definitely worth it.
plus the whole x86 gaming platform is kind of Microsoft thing (PC gaming) so I don't think sony will have much to say there too, MS has better cloud architecture and Xbox smartglass is available on android tablets. so nothing can go wrong with it.
done.

i am a fanboy but not so much of MS, i havnt owned a console since the N64 and never intend to own one again, but im defending MS cus of there approach to it which seems interesting and im pretty sure they aint going to give a big performance lead to sony. itll end up being the same i reckon tbh. My mate at work keeps spouting of its got 18 CU and 1156 stream processors and 176GB/s bandwidth etc but hasnt got a clue. there the same

1 CU has 64 stream processors so x1 12x64=768. ps4 18 CUx 64 = 1156 stream processors. hasnt got a clue the 176GB/s is max memory bandwidth and if the game cant keep the bus feed with data or cpu gets memory starved through weak implementation of hUMA its going affcet performance. Same as no one except MS engineers really understand how the x1 works. Tiled based rendering i think needs low latency high speed transfer links, ddr3 and esram cpled with move units and best part of opengl 4.2 = partially resident textures. itll all come together.

I defend MS cus theyve gone down a different route tbh they could of pumped out the same hardware as the ps4 at a cheaper price point i bet if they were lazy and didnt understand a pc's architecture and more importantly how the software can play a massive part in performance improvements as they build OS's and the dx API for god sake. that why i defend em. im more of a tech fanboy hate apple as well, i take digs at there products but they are good products i just hate em as a company

At least you're honest about it. I claimed to be a fan of Microsoft, but apparently if you don't like the smell of their farts, you're not a "real" fan.

But to be serious, I don't think we're going to see a big difference between the two. Realistically, Microsoft has done some pretty amazing things in terms of software on all platforms. Sony however, excluding the jackasses they have working on their laptops, are decent hardware manufacturers in terms of gaming consoles. It shouldn't come as a surprise that Sony's console may have the optimal hardware in mind, but specs certainly aren't everything if the software isn't built well enough for it.

Overall, I think it'll be close. They'll each have their key advantages, just as they've always had. It'll be down to the public to decide which they prefer whether it's a matter of price, camera, or what have you.

"Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM)"

Seriously? Maybe in Microsoft it does, but the outside world don't do math that way. I guess Sony could claim that PS4 has a total bandwidth of 1408 gb/sec (176gb/sec * 8) or 1441792 gb/sec (176gb/sec * 32MB * 32 * 8), depending on how many chips they installed.

XBOX One has been an underdog since E3. I really think that Microsoft (or I should say the XBOX division) should switch to "shut up and ship" mode instead of creating illusions, making false promises or using those big vague words, 'cause actually games are what really matters.

Your comparison is totally inaccurate, since the PS4 GPU cannot read/write to each memory chip concurrently you can't sum the bandwidths of the memory chips. Conversely, the XBO GPU can read/write both the system memory and ESRAM concurrently, so you can add the bandwidth of each.

In addition to this, the move engines can read and write to and from system memory and ESRAM, doing compression and decompression as part of the transfer (instead of eating CPU cycles to compress/decompress), all in parallel.

That's not to say there aren't caveats to the XBO system. For instance, if the GPU needs access to more than 32MB at a time, there's a potential for it to stall while it waits for the move engines to copy back and forth, but my understanding is that the XBO does some clever scheduling so that it can do the memory transfers while the GPU is doing calculations, so that by the time the GPU needs to access the next set of data, it should already be in ESRAM, ready to go.

At the same time, there are caveats to the PS4's system as well. For instance, the PS4's CPU only gets 20GB/s bandwidth to the system memory. So while the GPU has high-bandwidth to the RAM, the CPU doesn't, and is in fact much less than the bandwidth that the XBO's CPU gets.

With all of that said, the point is we really can't speculate about the resulting performance differential of the two systems since they are both very different architectures, and we really don't even know the full specs of either system yet. So we should all just calm down, wait for the systems to come out, and then compare the graphics quality of the games after release...

Ratros said,
"Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM)"

Seriously? Maybe in Microsoft it does, but the outside world don't do math that way. I guess Sony could claim that PS4 has a total bandwidth of 1408 gb/sec (176gb/sec * 8) or 1441792 gb/sec (176gb/sec * 32MB * 32 * 8), depending on how many chips they installed.

XBOX One has been an underdog since E3. I really think that Microsoft (or I should say the XBOX division) should switch to "shut up and ship" mode instead of creating illusions, making false promises or using those big vague words, 'cause actually games are what really matters.

You don't have to provide 8gb of high speed RAM when you can keep an even faster cache filled. If you think 'cache' is irrelevant, go look at various CPU technologies and the L1, L2 caches and how they play into the overall performance of a PC, even though their sizes are TINY.

except, that's exactly how you do it. xbox one has 2 different memories. ddr3 ram and esram,which can be used at the exact same time. so the esram can be in use with the gpu, while the audio chip is working with the ddr3,and the chip can be consuming 272GB/S in bandwidth.

Ratros said,
"Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM)"

Seriously? Maybe in Microsoft it does, but the outside world don't do math that way. I guess Sony could claim that PS4 has a total bandwidth of 1408 gb/sec (176gb/sec * 8) or 1441792 gb/sec (176gb/sec * 32MB * 32 * 8), depending on how many chips they installed.

XBOX One has been an underdog since E3. I really think that Microsoft (or I should say the XBOX division) should switch to "shut up and ship" mode instead of creating illusions, making false promises or using those big vague words, 'cause actually games are what really matters.

They've been promoting and showing off their games every chance they get.

Asmodai said,
I'll just leave this here:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...cusations-its-underpowered/

Basically ArsTechnica disputes most of MS's claims. Maybe ArsTechnica is a bunch of Sony fanbois?

that analysis is full of ****. sounds like something you would read on a fanboy forum. "what does that mean" , "maybe true" "who cares about the api" "who knows if thats true". LOL instead of posting something more concrete,you post this crap?

hes also an idiot because because of this comment


"The entire point of GPU workloads is that they scale basically perfectly, so 50% more cores is in fact 50% faster."

digital foundry did benchmarks on gcn architecture amd gpus,one with 50% more CUs,and found the average framerate increase is only 20%. go look it up yourself,its there.

vcfan said,

that analysis is full of ****. sounds like something you would read on a fanboy forum.

ArsTechnica is generally a pretty well respected site.
vcfan said,
"what does that mean"

This was in response to the comment that every CU has a 6% clock speed boost instead of just an overall 6% clock speed boost. What is the distinction MS was trying to draw. If EVERY CU has a 6% boost then it is in fact the same as an overall 6% boost. Now if some had 6% and some had less then the overall would be something below 6% (depending on how many were less and by how much) but that's not the case here. There is no difference.
vcfan said,
"maybe true"

Sony hasn't officially announced some things so it's not definitely true until both hardware launch. I'm surprised you found issue with this because they aren't negating EVERY SINGLE point and in this case they are saying MS is might be right about that one.
vcfan said,
"who cares about the api"

This is true, the whole point (of this particular discussion) is if the hardware is faster or not so saying we have better programmers or our API's are better is beside the point. Now there is a very solid argument to be made that how fast the hardware is isn't a major factor in which console is better but if the discussion being had is specifically about hardware performance then API's are irrelevant.
vcfan said,

"who knows if thats true".

Again the points being analyized by Ars were from a MS rep who doesn't necessarily even know the final specs for Sony's hardware so there is no way he could really make some of the claims he's making.
vcfan said,

LOL instead of posting something more concrete,you post this crap?

Concrete like echoing the PR hype from a MS rep about how his product compares to a competitor he doesn't even know the full specs of?
vcfan said,

hes also an idiot because because of this comment

digital foundry did benchmarks on gcn architecture amd gpus,one with 50% more CUs,and found the average framerate increase is only 20%. go look it up yourself,its there.


You're comparing apples to oranges. GPU workloads DO scale basically perfectly as Ars stated. GPU workloads alone do not determine final framerates however. Digital Foundry is also correct because they're analysis took into account those other factors. Neither point contradicts the other as they are analysing two different things: Ars GPU workload and DF average framerate. Guess that makes you the idiot for not understanding the difference.

Asmodai said,
I'll just leave this here:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...cusations-its-underpowered/

Basically ArsTechnica disputes most of MS's claims. Maybe ArsTechnica is a bunch of Sony fanbois?

ArsTechnica can be a great resource for technical breakdown information, but in 'predicting' the net performance, the writers often fail.

They predicted the PS3 would do 1080p gaming and best the XBox 360 GPU. A later article tried to correct this, once they realized HOW the Xbox 360 GPU was different and worked differently.

They also predicted the Xbox 360 CPU was too complicated for developers.

There was also a series on the PS3/360 CPUs with a brilliant and breakdown of the CPUs. However, even with all the brilliant information, they failed to realize the Xbox 360 CPU was capable of 6 instructions per clock cycle. (As it was a tri-core, and the HT like processing was overlooked.)

Give them six months, when the two consoles have released and they get hard technical data on how the internals of the XB1 APU works and you will find a revision of everything they are 'predicting' today.

Microsoft let the Xbox 360 'slow CPU' 'slow GPU' crap continue for a long time, and even after showing the world why it is DIFFERENT and would be faster, there are still technical writers today that do not understand why the technology was different and how the Xbox 360 stayed ahead of the PS3 graphically.

Remember based on raw numbers, the PS3 CPU was potentially 2x faster, the RSX GPU was capable of 1080p gaming and even dual monitor support at 720p gaming. (This wasn't actually true and these things never happened.)

Asmodai said,

snip

trying to defend someone saying they don't know how something works is just comical.

Asmodai said,

GPU workloads DO scale basically perfectly as Ars stated. GPU workloads alone do not determine final framerates however. Digital Foundry is also correct because they're analysis took into account those other factors. Neither point contradicts the other as they are analysing two different things: Ars GPU workload and DF average framerate. Guess that makes you the idiot for not understanding the difference.

no, he says 50% more cores means 50% faster. that is the single most dumbest thing I have ever read. it doesn't matter how many cores you add, if you don't have the bandwidth to feed them, then most of them are going to be sitting idle.

if you read the amd gcn documentation, it shows each compute unit has a theoretical bandwidth maximum of 32 bytes a cycle.

at 850mhz for 12 CU, that's almost 300GB/S. Xbox memory provides 272GB/S. this is deliberately by design. use only the amount of cores that your memory will support.

at 800mhz for 18 CU, that's almost 460GB/S. PS4 memory has 176GB/S. what a waste.

its obvious the PS4 has 1/3 of the bandwidth what the compute units can handle. per core utilization is going to be very low.

the xbox one compute unit utilization is going to be very high,because there is enough bandwidth to almost saturate the cores.

if you add more cores, you need to add the bandwidth, or else youre wasting a lot of its potential. its only good for making the scheduler more efficient,since there are more cores, but with efficient programming,you can remove this advantage .

Edited by vcfan, Sep 11 2013, 11:34pm :

Mobius Enigma said,

ArsTechnica can be a great resource for technical breakdown information, but in 'predicting' the net performance, the writers often fail.

I think it's important to note that the Ars article wasn't on off the cuff prediction, as those are often wrong by anyone since by it's very nature you are predicting something that hasn't happened yet. The Ars article was a response to a MS reps prediction of how their console will stack up to their competitors. A competitor whose product they don't even know the complete specs for.
Mobius Enigma said,

Microsoft let the Xbox 360 'slow CPU' 'slow GPU' crap continue for a long time, and even after showing the world why it is DIFFERENT and would be faster, there are still technical writers today that do not understand why the technology was different and how the Xbox 360 stayed ahead of the PS3 graphically.

Remember based on raw numbers, the PS3 CPU was potentially 2x faster, the RSX GPU was capable of 1080p gaming and even dual monitor support at 720p gaming. (This wasn't actually true and these things never happened.)


The PS3 CPU and GPU ARE potentially faster than the Xbox 360 it wasn't a technical inaccuracy or that the misunderstood the Xbox 360. What happened is MS paid a ton of money for exclusives, had a better online strategy, eventually had a more technically advanced motion controller, had a MUCH easier to develop for console, and had a more inexpensive console so they sold more. When they sold more developers were less likely to target exclusives toward the PS3 and so multi-platform games had to cater to the lowest common denominator, the Xbox 360. The full potential of the PS3 was never realized outside of 1st party software.

Asmodai said,

I think it's important to note that the Ars article wasn't on off the cuff prediction, as those are often wrong by anyone since by it's very nature you are predicting something that hasn't happened yet. The Ars article was a response to a MS reps prediction of how their console will stack up to their competitors. A competitor whose product they don't even know the complete specs for.

The PS3 CPU and GPU ARE potentially faster than the Xbox 360 it wasn't a technical inaccuracy or that the misunderstood the Xbox 360. What happened is MS paid a ton of money for exclusives, had a better online strategy, eventually had a more technically advanced motion controller, had a MUCH easier to develop for console, and had a more inexpensive console so they sold more. When they sold more developers were less likely to target exclusives toward the PS3 and so multi-platform games had to cater to the lowest common denominator, the Xbox 360. The full potential of the PS3 was never realized outside of 1st party software.

I almost agree here, except the last part about the GPU.

In terms of GPU understanding and thinking in 2005, the PS3 GPU on paper looked faster.

However, this was based on a lack of understanding the new technologies in the Xbox 360.

So in 'ignorance', sure they thought the PS3 GPU might be faster.

It is this ignorance that is being repeated again with the Xbox ONE GPU. What 'little' we do know about it, the PS4 GPU is NOT going to be faster. No matter if Sony puts mythical GDDR10 memory in the system.

Just because technology is new or not understood, does not make it correct when saying it would suck in comparison.


There would be NOBODY in the GPU/Engineering/Gaming world today knowing how the Xbox 360 GPU works would ever say the PS3 GPU was as fast or potentially faster.

I am not too concerned about the hardware specs per se due to the diminishing returns of graphic improvements. I am more interested in the added value of Kinect and SmartGlass.

For a company that claims that the specs of each console are meaningless, they sure like to talk about them a lot.

spacer said,
For a company that claims that the specs of each console are meaningless, they sure like to talk about them a lot.

Trying to correct false rumours and full on lies. I think we'll let them have this one.

spacer said,
For a company that claims that the specs of each console are meaningless, they sure like to talk about them a lot.

They never said they were meaningless. Fanbois were the ones saying it was meaningless.

Microsoft is just adding to an incomplete picture. There is so much that is unknown about the XB1 APU and how the 'tiny' details that are known/unknown actually work together.

If Microsoft thought the PS4 was going to be 'faster' they would have changed their APU design. They have the hardware engineer team to do this.

The world was so sure the PS3 would do 1080p, as it was possible on paper and that the Xbox 360 would fall far behind.

The world didn't expect the performance advantages of the 'tiny' details of the Xbox 360 GPU at the time would be as important as they were. The new integrated DMA, the UMA model, the Unified Shaders, etc..

Seven years later it is a bit 'simple' to assume Microsoft hasn't taken THEIR existing GPU and SoC technologies and expanded on them. Microsoft is only licensing technology from AMD, AMD is not building the XB1 APU.

First off when has specs determined the better console? Did Sony fans wave the flag of specs when the PS2 was a near generation behind the Xbox and Gamecube? The difference between the Xbox one and PS4 is going to be pretty slim in actual games, you are going to have to count pixels and run framerate counter to determine a difference. Both consoles are fully capable of ever visual effect that Directx 11.2 allows
You are not going to see games that are missing graphical features from one another. Your going to see framrete differences of under 10% and maybe some lower res textures at times. That is the realistic difference, and it still may be even less than that.

Secondly raw numbers don't mean crap and a closed platform optimized drivers and tool sets can make up hardware differences. I thought the PS3 was some godly monster box that was going to crush every consoles in it's path?

Why did most games run better o the 360 and why did the WII outsell the heck out of the PS3 if specs really mattered?

CygnusOrion said,
On paper PS4 specs are superior. Physics can't be denied.

bandwidth is more important,and xbox one has 55% more of it.

its like youre trying to fill up a bucket of water. if your water flow from the pipe is very weak, it doesnt matter if you use a bigger bucket, your bucket fill rate will stay the same. 12 compute units has a peak bandwidth capacity a little over the bandwidth capabilities of the esram. if adding more compute units,you dont have the bandwidth to support them. you only gain some efficiencies in the scheduler, thats it,not in actual extra computing capabilities,because you cant feed more jobs in. like you said, you cant deny physics.

vcfan said,

bandwidth is more important,and xbox one has 55% more of it.

its like youre trying to fill up a bucket of water. if your water flow from the pipe is very weak, it doesnt matter if you use a bigger bucket, your bucket fill rate will stay the same. 12 compute units has a peak bandwidth capacity a little over the bandwidth capabilities of the esram. if adding more compute units,you dont have the bandwidth to support them. you only gain some efficiencies in the scheduler, thats it,not in actual extra computing capabilities,because you cant feed more jobs in. like you said, you cant deny physics.

Truth be told, everyone's claiming various different things are more important. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that games aren't really going to look any different from one console to the next. They just have some different offerings between the two, and what will REALLY matter is what's important to the consumer, whether it be price, camera, remote play, apps, or whatever. We can only spend with our own wallets though.

Thankfully, I'll be getting both as opposed to not having either this past generation. I'm excited.

There is some BS in that post. How does Albert know the PS4's clock speed when Sony never announced what it was? He's making a false claim right there.

This is what I dislike about speculation. If he wants to clear up unclear information, that's fine. However, doing it on the basis of "prolly" rather stinks and doesn't really bring us anything more.

Realistically, both consoles will do about the same. This gauging of specs is really just for the flag waving folks.

Definitely.

This November when Xbone and PS4 are launched I'm going to downclock my CPU and GPU and rip out half of my RAM so I can experience the same thing all the console fanatics are wetting their pants over.

Lord Method Man said,
Definitely.

This November when Xbone and PS4 are launched I'm going to downclock my CPU and GPU and rip out half of my RAM so I can experience the same thing all the console fanatics are wetting their pants over.

Their version of "high/ultra" settings in BF3 was basically medium on PC.

yeah ultra settings in bf4 will be low quality with extra processing to smooth the jaggys out to make it look better!!! nah, i think bf4 will look good on both consoles but theres no way itll manage to beat a decent pc rig. im waiting for the Volcanic islands gpu's to come out see how much they are. 9950 or R-285? pends on if they rename the parts. then itll DESTROY the consoles. not sure if the 4096 stream processors are for a high end dual gpu card or not. only have to wait bout a month.

wonder if they can fit more than 64 stream processors per Compute Unit (CU) now

MikeChipshop said,

Meanwhile this is a discussion about consoles not PC.

It's like 2 guys who drive a Vauxhall Corsa having a discussion about which is faster/better while the interested observer drives a nice Audi.

The point - if you want a supreme gaming experience with quality graphics - you buy a PC. Otherwise you're just swimming in mediocrity.

SirJimmyOfRussell said,

It's like 2 guys who drive a Vauxhall Corsa having a discussion about which is faster/better while the interested observer drives a nice Audi.

The point - if you want a supreme gaming experience with quality graphics - you buy a PC. Otherwise you're just swimming in mediocrity.

Blah blah blah, master race blah blah blah. You do realise many many PC gamers game on consoles to don't you? As a PC gamer, the latest batch of PC gamers waving their superiority complex flacid e-peni's around just embarrasses me and they should be ashamed of themselves.

MikeChipshop said,

Blah blah blah, master race blah blah blah. You do realise many many PC gamers game on consoles to don't you? As a PC gamer, the latest batch of PC gamers waving their superiority complex flacid e-peni's around just embarrasses me and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Only those wasting their time on FIFA...which doesn't need the power anyway.

What we're really talking about is stuff like BF4 and you'd have to be a clown to play that on a console. Like Grade A Ronald McDonald level.

SirJimmyOfRussell said,

Only those wasting their time on FIFA...which doesn't need the power anyway.

What we're really talking about is stuff like BF4 and you'd have to be a clown to play that on a console. Like Grade A Ronald McDonald level.

Looks at console... Fifa and Fifa World Cup only.

Kalint said,

Looks at console... Fifa and Fifa World Cup only.

Football and racing games are generally better suited to consoles. For the former it just has the look decent. For the latter it just has to be smooth.

For shooters - PC or go home, son.

i dunno mate consoles own really well at call of duty over PC's know why???? well i learned last week that if you dbl tap the trigger it automatically locks on to the enemy and shoots it. if you tap it 3 times then something else happens and its in the tutorial to learn how to do that so its not a bug. Sorry for us uber PC guys with a mouse that has to manually lock on with our eyes and fingers with explosive precision to destroy every enemy out there with no assistance!!!

psionicinversion said,
i dunno mate consoles own really well at call of duty over PC's know why???? well i learned last week that if you dbl tap the trigger it automatically locks on to the enemy and shoots it. if you tap it 3 times then something else happens and its in the tutorial to learn how to do that so its not a bug. Sorry for us uber PC guys with a mouse that has to manually lock on with our eyes and fingers with explosive precision to destroy every enemy out there with no assistance!!!

lol...well it would be kinda like driving a car with a joystick....not very exact.

psionicinversion said,
i dunno mate consoles own really well at call of duty over PC's know why???? well i learned last week that if you dbl tap the trigger it automatically locks on to the enemy and shoots it. if you tap it 3 times then something else happens and its in the tutorial to learn how to do that so its not a bug. Sorry for us uber PC guys with a mouse that has to manually lock on with our eyes and fingers with explosive precision to destroy every enemy out there with no assistance!!!

Well yeah, lining up shots on a controller sucks. Whereas on PC its up to the skill of the user. I remember reading a while back they did a match between really good console players and meh pc players. The console gamers got obliterated. Really wish there was a video for that.

SirJimmyOfRussell said,

It's like 2 guys who drive a Vauxhall Corsa having a discussion about which is faster/better while the interested observer drives a nice Audi.

The point - if you want a supreme gaming experience with quality graphics - you buy a PC. Otherwise you're just swimming in mediocrity.


Its all about the graphics!!!! Ignore the rest, graphics only! They are not baby bottom smooth so its sucks.

People really don't understand what a console is obviously.... If you don't like it, don't buy it.

SirJimmyOfRussell said,
Meanwhile...On the PC...graphics are still better.

Potentially...

An optimized console that can break with legacy issues or even how timing must be managed on a PC can make a big difference.

The Xbox 360 is old, and the CPU/GPU is slow in terms of PCs, yet it outperforms all comparable PC hardware from that generation and even the subsequent generation.

Think of it like this. A racecar can get more power to the tires than a family car, or even a Corvette that has the same powertrain. The racecar doesn't have to deal with the extra details and weight and slows things down.

Shadowzz said,

Its all about the graphics!!!! Ignore the rest, graphics only! They are not baby bottom smooth so its sucks.

People really don't understand what a console is obviously.... If you don't like it, don't buy it.

It's indicative of a far superior experience on any given criteria. Graphics is just one.

SirJimmyOfRussell said,

It's indicative of a far superior experience on any given criteria. Graphics is just one.

I have this mate like you that bangs on about gaming PC superiority all the time. Funny that his PC has only been good enough in the last year to surpass the consoles.

Only a small % of PC gamers i know have the systems to actually game at the dizzying heights oh 'high'.

My PC on the other hand can play at top quality on most games but i still have both an Xbox and a PS. It's like saying because i've got a phone i shouldn't get a tablet. Because i've got a car i shouldn't get a motorbike. Different environments have different reasons to own them. Want to play GTAV Tuesday? Then your shi* outta luck mate. Wanna play a strategy game how it's intended, then PC all the way. There is no master race both consoles and PC's have their swings and roundabouts.

MikeChipshop said,

I have this mate like you that bangs on about gaming PC superiority all the time. Funny that his PC has only been good enough in the last year to surpass the consoles.

Only a small % of PC gamers i know have the systems to actually game at the dizzying heights oh 'high'.

My PC on the other hand can play at top quality on most games but i still have both an Xbox and a PS. It's like saying because i've got a phone i shouldn't get a tablet. Because i've got a car i shouldn't get a motorbike. Different environments have different reasons to own them. Want to play GTAV Tuesday? Then your shi* outta luck mate. Wanna play a strategy game how it's intended, then PC all the way. There is no master race both consoles and PC's have their swings and roundabouts.

Being this wrong. I feel for you.

SirJimmyOfRussell said,

Being this wrong. I feel for you.

Brilliant response, your intelligence astounds me. Do me a favour, when you don;t have a worthwhile reply just don't bother replying. There's a good chap.

MikeChipshop said,

Brilliant response, your intelligence astounds me. Do me a favour, when you don;t have a worthwhile reply just don't bother replying. There's a good chap.

You sound mad.

PCs NEED new consoles. A PCs are like when your driving down a one lane road in a hurry to get somewhere but some slow ass person is in front of you and wont pull out of the way so you can speed up. Once the new consoles come out we will see some serious advancements in pc graphics then it slow down again till consoles catch up once again.

Houtei said,
PCs NEED new consoles. A PCs are like when your driving down a one lane road in a hurry to get somewhere but some slow ass person is in front of you and wont pull out of the way so you can speed up. Once the new consoles come out we will see some serious advancements in pc graphics then it slow down again till consoles catch up once again.

Er...no.

Xbox1 OWNS lol. I hope theres secret code inserted into PS games via hackers from MS so when it knows its on a playstation the games become sluggish as hell software overclocks everything so it burns the system out etc then the PS people can stop moaning about there super powerful tea coaster!!!

This may be one of the silliest comments i've ever seen on a front page news article. And that takes some beating.

psionicinversion said,
Xbox1 OWNS lol. I hope theres secret code inserted into PS games via hackers from MS so when it knows its on a playstation the games become sluggish as hell software overclocks everything so it burns the system out etc then the PS people can stop moaning about there super powerful tea coaster!!!

For a second I thought I was reading NeoGaf

psionicinversion said,
Xbox1 OWNS lol. I hope theres secret code inserted into PS games via hackers from MS so when it knows its on a playstation the games become sluggish as hell software overclocks everything so it burns the system out etc then the PS people can stop moaning about there super powerful tea coaster!!!

Dafuq did I just read?

notchinese said,
All I learned is that I am glad I do not post on NeoGaf...wow, literally every single poster there is annoying.

HAHAHA

LarvaInject said,

Last time I checked, video games weren't played on paper.

-LarvaInject


That must be the dumbest comment I've read in a long time. The 'paper' is the whole point. You can't compare the real life performance based on just the numbers on paper.

Also, stop tagging every comment you made. Makes you look egocentric. Your username is already visible.

Jarrichvdv said,
Also, stop tagging every comment you made. Makes you look egocentric. Your username is already visible.

You mad, bro?

-LarvaInject

Jarrichvdv said,

That must be the dumbest comment I've read in a long time. The 'paper' is the whole point. You can't compare the real life performance based on just the numbers on paper.

Also, stop tagging every comment you made. Makes you look egocentric. Your username is already visible.

If thats the dumbest comment you've read in a long time then you must not come here often.

Kalint said,

If thats the dumbest comment you've read in a long time then you must not come here often.

Or visit gaf, because the comments there will make you hate everything.

Unfortunately there are already fanboys choosing to believe uneducated NeoGAF posters over someone in the position to more accurately explain what's true. Sad times.

MikeChipshop said,
Unfortunately there are already fanboys choosing to believe uneducated NeoGAF posters over someone in the position to more accurately explain what's true. Sad times.

Didn't know the head of xbox marketing was an uneducated person on the subject

neufuse said,

Didn't know the head of xbox marketing was an uneducated person on the subject

Yu're reading my post backwards. We're saying the same thing

Maybe i wrote it in an arse about face way, what i'm saying is that here and on NeoGAF there are still people claiming that Albert is wrong and they know better, which is laughable.

"

neufuse said,

Didn't know the head of xbox marketing was an uneducated person on the subject


Penello isn't marketing or PR. He is product planning.

MikeChipshop said,
Unfortunately there are already fanboys choosing to believe uneducated NeoGAF posters over someone in the position to more accurately explain what's true. Sad times.

You are correct that this is a highly complicated topic. However, to just dismiss someone that would be in a position to have the still unknown engineering information on the Xbox One CPU/GPU is just silly.

Mobius Enigma said,

You are correct that this is a highly complicated topic. However, to just dismiss someone that would be in a position to have the still unknown engineering information on the Xbox One CPU/GPU is just silly.

I don't understand your comment, sorry.
I'm saying that i don;t understand why fan boys are still trying to argue with Albert Panello who quite obviously has a far deeper insight than them.

Why does everybody care about specs this generation? I thought consoles are meant for gamers that do not care about specs (as in not having to worry about keeping your computer up to date hardware wise).

Because its the primary talking point that Sony has for the PS 3.5. There is nothing new it offers out of the box except updated graphics and since there aren't any new experiences everyone who buys one will get, its what they are focusing on for their system.

@Shadow 024: That is not really specs comparing as it is with this new generation. It seems people are going on and on and on and on and on about more Mhz!!!!

@Drewidian: Hmm okay. So they bring nothing new to the table that you are interested in is what you mean? The only think I care about is actually updated graphics and hardware. Not these TV features, Kinect gimmick, or streaming games as you download.

Drewidian said,
Because its the primary talking point that Sony has for the PS 3.5. There is nothing new it offers out of the box except updated graphics and since there aren't any new experiences everyone who buys one will get, its what they are focusing on for their system.

Welcome to consoles...

So much changed from NES to SNES to N64? Or from PSX to PS2 to PS3?

Better graphics, few new doowackies, faster CPU....

Can't speak for everyone who buys a console, but buying a console base on specs sounds kind of weird to me. At the end of the day, are you even going to notice a difference?

Shekers said,
Can't speak for everyone who buys a console, but buying a console base on specs sounds kind of weird to me. At the end of the day, are you even going to notice a difference?

I agree completely. I think this generation is going to be interesting, as neither console is going to have games that look any different from the other (As is generally the case), but with the XBox's cloud architecture and support, the XBox will make experiences possible that the PS4 cannot. So, what I think we're going to see is games that look the same, but features and advanced game elements will only be available on the XBox.

Boyejo said,
wow that's a detailed explanation, only PS4 fan boy will be in denial

I would prefer comparison from a more neutral source and not from an "always backpedaling corporation called Microsoft"

Haha, who can tell me more about you. Your parents (person on the inside), or one of your co-workers (the neutral source). Exactly, a neutral source may not have that type of detailed information without having full access to the system.

Boyejo said,
wow that's a detailed explanation, only PS4 fan boy will be in denial

You mean he didn't say a single word about the GPU because the PS4's GPU is 50% faster than the One's?

http://www.extremetech.com/gam...attempt-to-keep-up-with-ps4


Neowin members pls, if you believe this crap reasoning...

My friend has a 7970 and I have a gtx 660 but I have 8 gigs of ram and he only has 6. My computer clearly runs games faster right.. /s

uxo22 said,
Haha, who can tell me more about you. Your parents (person on the inside), or one of your co-workers (the neutral source). Exactly, a neutral source may not have that type of detailed information without having full access to the system.

Exactly. And everyone took Sony's statements as fact... LOL

So, Microsoft is using numbers Sony has released and comparing them to their actual numbers and this can't possible be accurate because Microsoft is releasing the numbers? Who else is going to know at this point? lol

onionjuice said,

You mean he didn't say a single word about the GPU because the PS4's GPU is 50% faster than the One's?

http://www.extremetech.com/gam...attempt-to-keep-up-with-ps4


Neowin members pls, if you believe this crap reasoning...

My friend has a 7970 and I have a gtx 660 but I have 8 gigs of ram and he only has 6. My computer clearly runs games faster right.. /s

you know what, you didn't even need to click to the source to see this, i seriously cant believe your comment!
"Penello said the idea that just because the PS4 has 18 control units to the Xbox One's 12 CUs, doesn't make the PS4 more powerful. He wrote, "Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU's, so it's simply incorrect to say 50% more GPU." He also said that each of Microsoft's CUs runs six percent faster than the CUs in the PS4.

onionjuice said,

You mean he didn't say a single word about the GPU because the PS4's GPU is 50% faster than the One's?

http://www.extremetech.com/gam...attempt-to-keep-up-with-ps4


Neowin members pls, if you believe this crap reasoning...

My friend has a 7970 and I have a gtx 660 but I have 8 gigs of ram and he only has 6. My computer clearly runs games faster right.. /s

Your comparing pcs... you could be fast if you had a special motherboard and special ram that were designed to work in sync better than his. The comparison is stupid.

Did you read the article you linked? They like their headlines.

Headline: Xbox One CPU speed boosted by 10% in vain attempt to keep up with PS4

Quote 1: While a free speed boost is of course nice, this isn't going to make up the massive performance lead granted by the PS4′s GPU, which has 50% more compute units (cores), and thus 50% higher theoretical peak performance.

then get this, right from the same article:

Quote 2: Ultimately, as we've already reported numerous times, the real-world difference between the consoles is likely to be very, very small.

...um ok.

duddit2 said,

you know what, you didn't even need to click to the source to see this, i seriously cant believe your comment!
"Penello said the idea that just because the PS4 has 18 control units to the Xbox One's 12 CUs, doesn't make the PS4 more powerful. He wrote, "Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU's, so it's simply incorrect to say 50% more GPU." He also said that each of Microsoft's CUs runs six percent faster than the CUs in the PS4.

LOL "Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU" <--- what bull****. Xbox One's cores don't run much higher than PS4's anyways. The PS4 has 50% more than Xbox ones CU'S and that does make a huge difference. I'm not console designer or computer engineer but as a computer enthusiast I'm not retarded to believe that 12 CU's running at 850 mhz is faster / same speed as 18 CU's at 800 mhz no matter the efficiency.

PS4 is faster than Xbox One and by a sizable margin Microsoft is covering all this up because more people are wanting the PS4 due to many reasons and one of them is this. Yes the real world performance isn't 50% but its still going to be very heavily in favor of the PS4.

You expect Microsoft to come out and say yes Xbox One is slower than the PS4?.

Edited by onionjuice, Sep 11 2013, 7:35pm :

Houtei said,
Your comparing pcs... you could be fast if you had a special motherboard and special ram that were designed to work in sync better than his. The comparison is stupid.

Still doesn't change the facts that PS4 has more power..... and it was an analogy, but one that fits into this situation.

onionjuice said,

LOL "Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU" <--- what bull****. Xbox One's cores don't run much higher than PS4's anyways. The PS4 has 50% more than Xbox ones CU'S and that does make a huge difference. I'm not console designer or computer engineer but as a computer enthusiast I'm not retarded to believe that 12 CU's running at 850 mhz is faster / same speed as 18 CU's at 800 mhz no matter the efficiency.

PS4 is faster than Xbox One and by a sizable margin Microsoft is covering all this up because more people are wanting the PS4 due to many reasons and one of them is this. Yes the real world performance isn't 50% but its still going to be very heavily in favor of the PS4.

You expect Microsoft to come out and say yes Xbox One is slower than the PS4?.

Well since you are just a enthusiast I can't blame you for not understanding how a CU and a Core interact. But let me give you an analogy that might make it clearer. If you have 2 pipes feeding water into a bucket each one about half as fast as the bucket is draining you are effectively keeping the bucket at the same level. If you have 3 pipes feeding a bucket, and each pipe is feeding the bucket at about half the rate the bucket is draining, you are overfilling the bucket about 50% faster than it can drain.

That is the inherent inefficiency in having too many CUs in a multi-core processor dumbed down to a grade school level.

Most of the time it's never an issue, but as soon as you have to do something intensive, you start getting interrupts system lag.

onionjuice said,

Still doesn't change the facts that PS4 has more power..... and it was an analogy, but one that fits into this situation.

No it wasn't. Here is an analogy that fits.

I actually have 2 desktops running the same motherboard and processor. One is mine one is my wifes, my wife graphics card is a Radeon HD 6500 series with 2GB of DDR3, and 6 gigs of system ram. Mine is running a Radeon 7700 series with 1GB of DDR5 and 8 gigs of system ram. Which one do you think benchmarks better? Which one benchmarks better for the graphics?

I was pretty surprised by the answers to that.

onionjuice said,

LOL "Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU" <--- what bull****. Xbox One's cores don't run much higher than PS4's anyways. The PS4 has 50% more than Xbox ones CU'S and that does make a huge difference. I'm not console designer or computer engineer but as a computer enthusiast I'm not retarded to believe that 12 CU's running at 850 mhz is faster / same speed as 18 CU's at 800 mhz no matter the efficiency.

PS4 is faster than Xbox One and by a sizable margin Microsoft is covering all this up because more people are wanting the PS4 due to many reasons and one of them is this. Yes the real world performance isn't 50% but its still going to be very heavily in favor of the PS4.

You expect Microsoft to come out and say yes Xbox One is slower than the PS4?.

However Microsoft is CORRECT.

A layman example - Go back to the PS3 and the 'overhead' of managing the cores in the cell processor was problematic to get the performance out of the CPU.

Additionally, you cannot discount how the Xbox One's GPU and CPU shove RAM/communicate that IS DIFFERENT than how the CPU/GPU in the PS4 work.

This has been one of the 'unknowns' as Microsoft redesigned the internal bridges of the processor. So if MIcrosoft is stepping forward and stating we can shove data between the CPU and GPU faster, they DO KNOW what they are talking about.

Microsoft created the SoC model that the AMD APU uses, which is why it was expected for Microsoft to further optimize the design. The irony is that the PS4's APU is using Microsoft technology already.

People fail by seeing MS as only a software company, when in reality they have contributed more to the CPU and GPU industry in the past 15 years than ANY company outside of Intel and AMD.

When AMD say that the PS4 APU was the most powerful they had created, they were right. However, the Xbox One APU is NOT MADE BY AMD, it is using licensed AMD technology that Microsoft has modified and AMD is not producing.

NastySasquatch said,

No it wasn't. Here is an analogy that fits.

I actually have 2 desktops running the same motherboard and processor. One is mine one is my wifes, my wife graphics card is a Radeon HD 6500 series with 2GB of DDR3, and 6 gigs of system ram. Mine is running a Radeon 7700 series with 1GB of DDR5 and 8 gigs of system ram. Which one do you think benchmarks better? Which one benchmarks better for the graphics?

I was pretty surprised by the answers to that.

You have 1 GB card if you try to load textures from battlefield or any modern game it's going to be terrible for your perf. The problem with memory comparison in this case is you don't need more memory bandwidth or CPU especially... you need more GPU processing power CLEARLY because ps3's gpu is about the same as a 7850 which is a mid range gfx but it will not sustain to run games in high quality at 60 fps for another 10 years. Probably not even 4 years.

Better example would be something like your wife has a 6500 with 5 gb video memory and you have a 7700 with 2 gb of video memory... yours will be faster because the memory doesn't matter anymore... it comes down to the # of cores / clock or in your case the difference in manufacturing processes.

Edited by onionjuice, Sep 12 2013, 12:18am :

Mobius Enigma said,

However Microsoft is CORRECT.

A layman example - Go back to the PS3 and the 'overhead' of managing the cores in the cell processor was problematic to get the performance out of the CPU.

Additionally, you cannot discount how the Xbox One's GPU and CPU shove RAM/communicate that IS DIFFERENT than how the CPU/GPU in the PS4 work.

This has been one of the 'unknowns' as Microsoft redesigned the internal bridges of the processor. So if MIcrosoft is stepping forward and stating we can shove data between the CPU and GPU faster, they DO KNOW what they are talking about.

Microsoft created the SoC model that the AMD APU uses, which is why it was expected for Microsoft to further optimize the design. The irony is that the PS4's APU is using Microsoft technology already.

People fail by seeing MS as only a software company, when in reality they have contributed more to the CPU and GPU industry in the past 15 years than ANY company outside of Intel and AMD.

When AMD say that the PS4 APU was the most powerful they had created, they were right. However, the Xbox One APU is NOT MADE BY AMD, it is using licensed AMD technology that Microsoft has modified and AMD is not producing.

It may be the case but they are both using the same exact architecture with differences in processing power as clearly stated by AMD so none of what you said will make a difference.

If you are speaking about optimization there is no reason not to believe that PS4 won't be optimized to the level of the Xbox in managing those cores.

NastySasquatch said,

Well since you are just a enthusiast I can't blame you for not understanding how a CU and a Core interact. But let me give you an analogy that might make it clearer. If you have 2 pipes feeding water into a bucket each one about half as fast as the bucket is draining you are effectively keeping the bucket at the same level. If you have 3 pipes feeding a bucket, and each pipe is feeding the bucket at about half the rate the bucket is draining, you are overfilling the bucket about 50% faster than it can drain.

That is the inherent inefficiency in having too many CUs in a multi-core processor dumbed down to a grade school level.

Most of the time it's never an issue, but as soon as you have to do something intensive, you start getting interrupts system lag.

So what you're telling me is the bottleneck here is the CPU cores..... well if that's true then why would Sony waste money adding those extra 6 CU's.

onionjuice said,

So what you're telling me is the bottleneck here is the CPU cores..... well if that's true then why would Sony waste money adding those extra 6 CU's.

Probably for the same reason they went with the cell processor with the PS3.

norseman said,
Remind me to message you and let you know how much better my Xbox One is over your PS4 bro.

I've never owned a play station. I still have my old Xbox and my 360. I don't even plan on buying either of the new consoles if you think I'm some Sony/PS fanboy you have mistaken. (Though If I were to buy a console it would be the PS4 because it's better in every way and Sony didn't try to cheat their customers unlike Microsoft who quickly realized their popularity dropped because of their extremely greedy corporate tactics and made a move to save their asses)

onionjuice said,

It may be the case but they are both using the same exact architecture with differences in processing power as clearly stated by AMD so none of what you said will make a difference.

If you are speaking about optimization there is no reason not to believe that PS4 won't be optimized to the level of the Xbox in managing those cores.

AMD didn't clearly state this...

The base design of the CPU cores are the only portions that are the same. Even how the cores interoperate, read/write RAM, cache RAM between the CPU/GPU and how the GPU operates are ALL different.

Architecturally they are x64 based, and all that does is tell you the instruction set used in the CPU Cores.

the bits race ended on the Nintendo 64/Jaguar era. The original Playstation was 32 bits and that didn't stop it from wiping the floor with the rest of that generation.

gonchuki said,
the bits race ended on the Nintendo 64/Jaguar era. The original Playstation was 32 bits and that didn't stop it from wiping the floor with the rest of that generation.

Kind of sad that it ended because we should have at least 1024 bits by now. Imagine what kind of graphics we could have with so many bits!

Has anyone seen a press release where Sony actually states the speed of their CPU? I've only seen documentation where it states that it has 8 cores. Kind of mysterious that they haven't stated the speed. Please cite source and make sure its officially from Sony if you do reply. MS on the other hand has stated that the XBox One is running at 1.75 GHz for the cores of its Jaguar CPU.

Drewidian said,
Has anyone seen a press release where Sony actually states the speed of their CPU? I've only seen documentation where it states that it has 8 cores. Kind of mysterious that they haven't stated the speed. Please cite source and make sure its officially from Sony if you do reply. MS on the other hand has stated that the XBox One is running at 1.75 GHz for the cores of its Jaguar CPU.

Good point. I'm going to see if I can find that anywhere, but I don't remember them actually discussing it themselves...?

M_Lyons10 said,

Good point. I'm going to see if I can find that anywhere, but I don't remember them actually discussing it themselves...?

Any luck? I still don't see anything after an exhaustive search. There's some speculation, but no one has a quote from Sony.

You are both right, Sony never stated the speed of either their CPU or GPU blocks. MS either has insider info or is speculating based on the stock speed that AMD set for the chip.

Drewidian said,
Has anyone seen a press release where Sony actually states the speed of their CPU? I've only seen documentation where it states that it has 8 cores. Kind of mysterious that they haven't stated the speed. Please cite source and make sure its officially from Sony if you do reply. MS on the other hand has stated that the XBox One is running at 1.75 GHz for the cores of its Jaguar CPU.

Hard number are elusive. However, it is quite reasonable that Microsoft would know.

Mobius Enigma said,
Hard number are elusive. However, it is quite reasonable that Microsoft would know.

Maybe, but I still wouldn't trust it much as I wouldn't trust Sony to be the one to give me facts about what the Xbox can do without Microsoft's official word on it.

Considering the size of the box and the relation between clock speed & heat, I can imagine there being a considerable difference. Actually, why hasn't anyone picked up on this before? People have generated the 50% based on an unannounced clock speed? Say what now?

JonnyLH said,
Considering the size of the box and the relation between clock speed & heat, I can imagine there being a considerable difference. Actually, why hasn't anyone picked up on this before? People have generated the 50% based on an unannounced clock speed? Say what now?

I just never bothered listening to all that. Some say 33%, some say 50%, but it's all just useless figures that don't really mean anything.

I'm still curious as to how Sony can pull off such a feat by getting all that power WITH the PSU in the box by comparison to the Xbox One. I mean, I give them credit as hardware manufacturers, but that's a bit of a ridiculous difference in regards to size between the two.

dead.cell said,

I just never bothered listening to all that. Some say 33%, some say 50%, but it's all just useless figures that don't really mean anything.

I'm still curious as to how Sony can pull off such a feat by getting all that power WITH the PSU in the box by comparison to the Xbox One. I mean, I give them credit as hardware manufacturers, but that's a bit of a ridiculous difference in regards to size between the two.


Exactly.

Either its a very loud box, or its under clocked. These APU's generate a staggering amount of heat and with the PSU it'll really work a sweat. If the CU's are underclocked in the GPU, it really takes a hit. The CPU could actually benefit from it considering it would help the relationship with the GDDR and its latency. Sony, you need a hardware panel!

JonnyLH said,

Either its a very loud box, or its under clocked. These APU's generate a staggering amount of heat and with the PSU it'll really work a sweat.

or, they just have a bigger dissipation area or even use water cooling. You don´t need to go louder if you can just go heavier, nobody cares about how much the console weighs.
FWIW I run a 3.6ghz Phenom II X4 fanless because my big heatsink touches the side panel of my case, converting the entire thing into extra cooling surface (OCZ Vindicator, like a Scythe Ninja, old school!). The same tricks can be done with a console, Sony just needs to play it smart.

gonchuki said,

or, they just have a bigger dissipation area or even use water cooling. You don´t need to go louder if you can just go heavier, nobody cares about how much the console weighs.
FWIW I run a 3.6ghz Phenom II X4 fanless because my big heatsink touches the side panel of my case, converting the entire thing into extra cooling surface (OCZ Vindicator, like a Scythe Ninja, old school!). The same tricks can be done with a console, Sony just needs to play it smart.

Well to start with, anything like you suggested couldn't be done because the box is plastic. Also, there is no where near enough room for any sort of water cooling system and if Sony included it, they definitely would of said something by now and the margins on their box would plummet. The radiator would also be cracking out a ton of heat in that small space which would nullify the effects of it because it is so small. They haven't even shown inside the box yet.

JonnyLH said,

They haven't even shown inside the box yet.

That's my point actually. We could speculate all day if they either have better cooling, more noise or limited hardware specs, and all of that can be plausible until we get our hands on the real thing.
And I was not implying the case would be metal on the outside, just that a larger heat dissipation area adds a lot to a cooling system. And we won't know that until somebody opens up the PS4 and finds out if true or not.

Kalint said,
NeoGAF? Seriously...

The source is actually Albert Penello himself posting on NeoGAF, so yes seriously but then nothing wrong with that.

Yes, but MS have better things to do (like properly finalizing the hardware and software) and should just stay far away from that idiot cess pool.
NeoGAF is a bad joke these days (it's approaching N4G levels) and it's even worse that many seem to take their idiot ramblings as fact.

This is true, however the bottom line point is that these are the words of Albert Penello not some random at NeoGAF.

They are playing with fire at NeoGAF, that is and always will be primarily a Sony fan forum. The moderators banned most of the Xbox fans from the site prior to E3 to help their servers handle the E3 traffic, of course the forum still crashed and burned.

Every generation Sony plays the same game of claiming their box is infinitely more powerful, yet for the last two generations 3rd party games have ended up looking marginally better on Xbox than Playstation. Now this Gen is starting and the Xbox games already look better than PS4, yet Sony is claiming vastly superior hardware. How many times can people fall for the same trick?

aren't these the same guys who blasted for Microsoft for not caring about gaming because of presenting the box as a media device, yet Microsoft has the most solid lineup of games with more AAA titles,while sony is trying to play the numbers game by saying how many titles they are releasing,which a lot of them are small indie type games.

then they complain about the extra $100 which includes Kinect, but go crazy over a $100 accessory with no remote that lets them play sd quality primitive games and stream compressed and laggy video of their console to another room.

umm..okay

Kalint said,
NeoGAF? Seriously...

To doubt NeoGAF as a whole is ignorant. They have some very knowledgeable people posting there and is one of the main sources of breaking news in the industry.

NeoandGeo said,

To doubt NeoGAF as a whole is ignorant. They have some very knowledgeable people posting there and is one of the main sources of breaking news in the industry.

"Some" being the keyword there as NeoGAF NOW is no longer a gamer's forum that is often frequented by the industry, but mostly by Sony fanboys with an agenda because it USED to be a forum frequented by the industry to give their FUD more credit. Rumors from there aren't really considered sources anymore either as very little is truly from insiders these days.

Edited by Thief000, Sep 11 2013, 5:31pm :

NeoandGeo said,

To doubt NeoGAF as a whole is ignorant. They have some very knowledgeable people posting there and is one of the main sources of breaking news in the industry.

Been a while since that site wasn't populated by fanboys and fud lovers.

NeoandGeo said,

To doubt NeoGAF as a whole is ignorant. They have some very knowledgeable people posting there and is one of the main sources of breaking news in the industry.

Clearly since your boy Albert is taking heat on NeoGAF for that post.

Now this Gen is starting and the Xbox games already look better than PS4

lolwut? Please show me where the games on the two consoles are compared - not to mention neither console is 100% ready yet for consumer use.

Kalint said,

Clearly since your boy Albert is taking heat on NeoGAF for that post.

I didn't mention Albert, I said as a whole. There are many fanboys, but it is still one of the best boards on the internet for gaming news and discussions.

Thief000 said,
Yes, but MS have better things to do (like properly finalizing the hardware and software) and should just stay far away from that idiot cess pool.
NeoGAF is a bad joke these days (it's approaching N4G levels) and it's even worse that many seem to take their idiot ramblings as fact.

Yeah, it's pretty bad. And everyone there acts like they're a computer engineer. lol

MikeChipshop said,

Been a while since that site wasn't populated by fanboys and fud lovers.

>Bashes site for fanboyism and fud.

>Posts on Neowin.

Avatar Roku said,

Every generation Sony plays the same game of claiming their box is infinitely more powerful, yet for the last two generations 3rd party games have ended up looking marginally better on Xbox than Playstation. Now this Gen is starting and the Xbox games already look better than PS4, yet Sony is claiming vastly superior hardware. How many times can people fall for the same trick?
Unfortunately fell for this last generation, although on launch XMB was far superior to the Xboxes GUI at the time. Was stuck for years playing glitch ports of Xbox games until I cracked it and bought a 360. If I cared about tiny spec differences like the One vs PS4, I'd buy a bloody gaming PC.

Thief000 said,
...
NeoGAF is a bad joke these days (it's approaching N4G levels) and it's even worse that many seem to take their idiot ramblings as fact.

replace 'GAF' with 'win'. and the above statement still holds true. funny.

Athernar said,

>Bashes site for fanboyism and fud.

>Posts on Neowin.

Home of such disillusioned fan-boys as Athernar... just saying man, you help make it that way. Also, Neowin isn't comparable to NeoGAF.

MikeChipshop said,

Home of such disillusioned fan-boys as Athernar... just saying man, you help make it that way. Also, Neowin isn't comparable to NeoGAF.

Considering I'm a PC Gamer, I think the more the likely reality is you're a Microsoft fanboy in denial, and you don't like being called on your double standard.

Athernar said,

Considering I'm a PC Gamer, I think the more the likely reality is you're a Microsoft fanboy in denial, and you don't like being called on your double standard.

Not quite sure why any of what you just said makes any sense but i'll bite... When have you ever seen me being a fanboy? No really, go through the forums, go through the news comments and come back when you've actually got something to back up the twaddle you're typing.

MikeChipshop said,

Not quite sure why any of what you just said makes any sense but i'll bite... When have you ever seen me being a fanboy? No really, go through the forums, go through the news comments and come back when you've actually got something to back up the twaddle you're typing.

Bwahaha, that's a yet another nice double standard you have there. Do you actually think your posts through?

Athernar said,

Bwahaha, that's a yet another nice double standard you have there. Do you actually think your posts through?

I spy another nonsense answer, keep trying

MikeChipshop said,

I spy another nonsense answer, keep trying

Just because you're too unintelligent to see the hypocrisy in your own posts, doesn't make something nonsense. But please, I'm sure you have plenty of kettles to call black, so don't let me distract you from your important schedule.