The PlayStation 4 is, on paper, faster than the Xbox One

AnandTech has performed an in-depth analysis on the Xbox One's known hardware, discovering that - on paper at least - Microsoft's next-generation console is less powerful than Sony's PlayStation 4. While a number of hardware elements are very similar between the two systems, including the AMD Jaguar-based processors that each contain eight cores at (probably) 1.6 GHz, their GPUs differ.

This is the motherboard of the Xbox One

Both systems use very similar AMD GCN-based GPUs, although Sony have beefed up their GPU while Microsoft have kept theirs relatively modest. The PlayStation 4 GPU features 1152 shader processors/GPU cores for 1.84 TFLOPS of compute power, while the Xbox One GPU features only 768 GPU cores for 1.23 TFLOPS of compute power. The result is that the PlayStation 4 has 50% greater raw shader performance than the Xbox One.

Also, while both systems implement 8 GB of RAM, Microsoft's approach differs from Sony's: the Xbox One features DDR3 RAM at 2133 MHz for 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the PlayStation 4 uses GDDR5 RAM at 5500 MHz for 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth. That said, Microsoft packs an extra 32 MB of eSRAM for 102 GB/s of embedded memory bandwidth, and although this doesn't sound like a big deal, as AnandTech points out it can greatly help while buffering frames.

The benefits for Microsoft cutting back on system memory specifications is that it both costs less to produce and consumes less power, although AnandTech has concerns that the performance gap between the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One will become more apparent with time. The full analysis is definitely worth a read if you're interested in the technical side of these consoles, so hit up the source link for more details.

Source: AnandTech | Image via Wired

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

iOS 7 will integrate Flickr and Vimeo, reports suggest

Next Story

Nokia launches LiveSight for HERE Maps on Windows Phone 8

93 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This time it's different from PS3 and 360, this time the PS4 power advantage will show. There's no troublesome hardware done by Sony getting in the way this time. Sony has played their cards right and MS has shot themselves in the foot.

helios01 said,
This time it's different from PS3 and 360, this time the PS4 power advantage will show. There's no troublesome hardware done by Sony getting in the way this time. Sony has played their cards right and MS has shot themselves in the foot.
Time will tell...right?

This will have little effect on the games actually developed. I assume that now because the two consoles will use the same architecture, most games will be cross-console and there will be little to any exclusive titles. What this means is that developers will simply develop for the lowest common denominator. They'll make the game run well on the Xone, and then simply make it compatible with the PS4. It wouldn't make economical sense to invest extra development time into making the PS4 version look better when 50% of the people buying the game will be playing the Xone version anyway.

Sadly, the only time the PS4's extra horsepower will come into play is with PS exclusive titles. But like I said, I don't predict there being many of them any more.

On paper, wasn't the PS3 faster than the Xbox 360? But at xmas when they were both released, Sony couldn't keep any on the shelf while Microsoft had no problem. People started buying what was avail and then the table turn and devs went with the consumer buying frenzy. Look today and the 360 is outselling the PlayStation and I am betting this one will too. Because once you have the best, why even look at anything else. I haven't looked at a PS since the original one which is the only one I ever owned. After having the 360, I wouldn't even consider a PS3 or 4 now. I love having Xbox live.

Xbox 360 outselling PS3? You do realize USA =/= The world. PS3 sells more worldwide than 360. More in Europe, more in Asia.
Also looking at PS4 vs Xbox One PS4 wins for me by not locking down used games having me being connected to the internet atleast once a day. Xbox Live? Playstation has free online play, can watch Netflix and other services without having to pay 60$ a year.
Calling it a game console is really a stretch. It's more like a TV box with the ability to play games on.

Karanlos said,
Xbox 360 outselling PS3? You do realize USA =/= The world. PS3 sells more worldwide than 360. More in Europe, more in Asia.
Also looking at PS4 vs Xbox One PS4 wins for me by not locking down used games having me being connected to the internet atleast once a day. Xbox Live? Playstation has free online play, can watch Netflix and other services without having to pay 60$ a year.
Calling it a game console is really a stretch. It's more like a TV box with the ability to play games on.
I do recall reading the 360 was the WORLD's top selling console for 2012.

I am aware the US isn't the world. Funny how you UK folks like to remind us of that. But what you need to realize, is the US basically holds up the world and in most cases, out of all the products sold as far as electronics, the US tends to be the leader in sales. Apple enjoys more sales HERE than anywhere else. So does Samsung, Sony, Microsoft and many others.

If I am not mistaken, the Xbox is avail in less countries vs the PS. However the Japanese as with most Asians, tend to stick with their own local brands. So do we in the USA in most cases.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/0...-selling-console-worldwide/

Karanlos said,
Xbox 360 outselling PS3? You do realize USA =/= The world. PS3 sells more worldwide than 360. More in Europe, more in Asia.
Also looking at PS4 vs Xbox One PS4 wins for me by not locking down used games having me being connected to the internet atleast once a day. Xbox Live? Playstation has free online play, can watch Netflix and other services without having to pay 60$ a year.
Calling it a game console is really a stretch. It's more like a TV box with the ability to play games on.
OK

I doubt its really going to matter. Both will look fantastic. I'm not going to sit around counting pixels. I'm probably going to buy both, but I'll use the system that gives me a better overall package in the end. This generation that was the 360. We'll see in a year or so for the next generation.

There will have to be a really amazing game released on the PS4 for me to buy it. I already know I'll be getting Xbox One for Halo 5+6

I want the system with more raw power... PS4 seems to have this... But... nothing beats kinect.
I have the body i have, in part for kinect playing (yes, i enjoy playing "your shape" and "kinect sports", games that if you play a lot, your body aches at the end.
Since PS4 will not have some tracking systeam as near as good the kinect 1... i think i will follow the xbox route. Also is funier to play with people in your home. I admit i am not the old days hardcore gamer anymore.
But truly speaking, i expect versions of gamer run much more better with more textures and poligons on PS4...

Jaybonaut said,
XB1 is going to enable cloud computing, using MS' 300,000 servers to do tasks.

Are you talking about Azure? Those 300k servers are merely extra Xbox live servers, not Azure.

I_Kaplan said,
Buying PS4 no matter what?

Have u decided or not? Or are you questioning yourself over your decision to buy a PS4 no matter what?

Overall experience is all that matters. Tech specs on paper won't determine this at all. Real world use over the next couple of years will. Time will tell.

Well microsoft kinda answers this one like this:

Q: Will Xbox One be backward compatible with my existing games?
A: Xbox One hardware is not compatible with Xbox 360 games. We designed Xbox One to play an entirely new generation of games

When was the last time the most powerful console was the best supported and most dominant console of a generation?

It's usually been the opposite.

swanlee said,
When was the last time the most powerful console was the best supported and most dominant console of a generation?

It's usually been the opposite.


the ps2 was pretty darn supported for its time

swanlee said,
When was the last time the most powerful console was the best supported and most dominant console of a generation?

It's usually been the opposite.

PlayStation 2 vs Dreamcast.

PlayStation 3 was technically superior (CELL) though its GPU was weaker than the 360s so it evened out. However it was also difficult to develop for which didn't help.

the Xbox was way more powerful than the PS2.
the n64 was more powerful than the PS1
the super Nintendo was more powerful than the genesis

actually false, the GPU and CPU was better on the PS3, but the cell chip on that console wasn't really designed for gaming unlike sony claimed. Ultimately both consoles looked nearly identical.

neonspark said,
the Xbox was way more powerful than the PS2.
the n64 was more powerful than the PS1
the super Nintendo was more powerful than the genesis

He asked the last time a higher powered console dominated. I gave the answer. All those listed are irrelevant to the question.

Also yeah, the PS3 GPU was weaker than the 360s? You can find that info anywhere. Yes though both looked mostly identical but games that were multiplatform often looked slightly better on the Xbox.

swanlee said,
When was the last time the most powerful console was the best supported and most dominant console of a generation?

It's usually been the opposite.

Almost never, because before Atari washed out they always had the most powerful advanced system and could get no games or mainstream support. After Atari finally sunk, SEGA tried to be ATARI with the Dreamcast, and went kerplunk. Nintendo has always done middle of the road power, lots of features and gimmicks. While Playstation is becoming more and more like ATARI every generation, and XBOX has pushed Nintendo to the bottom of the pack and taken over the middle of the road lots of features and gimmicks dominance.

Microsoft's decision to make the Kinect a requirement was always going to lead to compromises being made to the console in raw power terms. However, that doesn't mean it won't be able to offer the best all-round experience. By all accounts Sony looked to have the more power console going into this generation yet that didn't materialise into better performance - in fact, most ports have favour the X360.

It's going to be very interesting seeing how this next-generation pans out.

The Playstation 3 was stronger than the Xbox 360, but to get that benefit you'd need to code it differently. With the Playstation 4 it's more raw power, making it easier for all developers to make use of. So I expect to see better performance on the Playstation 4.

However, Microsoft is betting on the fact that their console is more of a multimedia machine than a pure gaming console, so this war won't be decided by raw power alone. Sony still has to show what else they intend to bring to their platform, can it compete with the multimedia features of the Xbox One?

I am gonna go for the console that gives me the best mix of multimedia features, raw power and exclusives. So far Xbox One looks like a strong option, but I have yet to see what Sony has to show.

MSFT is sticking to direct X which is the standard in PC gaming, and their toolset is always superior. So it is unlikely the PS4 will be easier than the xbox. but essentially both consoles will be even once you take into account all the customizations they make internally. neither is significantly faster to make a big difference and it will all come down to software.

the media stuff on xbox is nothing but a side-show.

There was an article discussing this before the consoles were revealed and this article made the same mistake. You can't compare the PS4's GDDR5 with the One's DDR3 That is comparing the xbox's system RAM with the PS4's graphics RAM. The one will probably have GDDR as well probably GDDR5. This spec was not really released as far as I know, but it would be safe to assume it has it. The PS4 will have standard RAM as well, because as far as I know CPU's don't use GDDR RAM in any way (which is why you can't buy GDDR to put in your computer, because it is only used in the making of On board GPU memory. And as far as the transistors go the PS4 is faster, but the 32 MB eSRAM cache on the one will close the gap on the benefits of that speed, if not over come it. You don't need to process things that fast when you have that much eSRAM to hold all the processed data.

Both systems use a unified memory architecture, similar to AMD's "Trinity" APUs. There's no distinction between system and graphics memory now, it's all just memory.

..... this comment really lacks information, and FYI, GDDR5 memory can be used as conventional memory too, just because you can't buy it doesn't mean you can't use it. Seriously, read other sources before commenting.

Nicholas Payne said,
There was an article discussing this before the consoles were revealed and this article made the same mistake. You can't compare the PS4's GDDR5 with the One's DDR3 That is comparing the xbox's system RAM with the PS4's graphics RAM. The one will probably have GDDR as well probably GDDR5. This spec was not really released as far as I know, but it would be safe to assume it has it. The PS4 will have standard RAM as well, because as far as I know CPU's don't use GDDR RAM in any way (which is why you can't buy GDDR to put in your computer, because it is only used in the making of On board GPU memory. And as far as the transistors go the PS4 is faster, but the 32 MB eSRAM cache on the one will close the gap on the benefits of that speed, if not over come it. You don't need to process things that fast when you have that much eSRAM to hold all the processed data.

No... To everything you said. No.

Asik said,
Both systems use a unified memory architecture, similar to AMD's "Trinity" APUs. There's no distinction between system and graphics memory now, it's all just memory.
Actually let me rectify that: Trinity is not a unified memory architecture, even though the GPU uses the system ram; its memory is still reserved and the CPU still has to copy back and forth to it. "Kaveri" (successor to Richland, itself successor to Trinity) should bring a truly unified memory architecture similar to what we'll see on PS4 and Xbox One.

additionally, GDDR5 has really bad latency compared to DDR3, so sony is making that trade off. furthermore, very few code is actually bandwidth constrained and the xbox has a total bandwidth of 160gbps since it can read from both ESRAM and main memory. that figure is not that far apart from the PS4.

then there is cost, sony could very well be looking at the most expensive console to date due to the big cost of GDDR4.

if all sony is banking on is memory speed to define the console race, they are in for a big surprise as it will prove to be a minor, if not trivial advantage.

At about 1.58TFLOPS, yes the PS4 is more powerful than the GTX 580 while the Xbox One is not.

However, the GTX 580 came out in November 2010 - by the time the PS4 actually launches, it'll be 3 years old.

The GTX 680, released just over a year ago, has just a smidge over 3TFLOPs of power.
The GTX 780, released this year, is over twice as powerful at just shy of 4TFLOPS.

Kushan said,
At about 1.58TFLOPS, yes the PS4 is more powerful than the GTX 580 while the Xbox One is not.

However, the GTX 580 came out in November 2010 - by the time the PS4 actually launches, it'll be 3 years old.

The GTX 680, released just over a year ago, has just a smidge over 3TFLOPs of power.
The GTX 780, released this year, is over twice as powerful at just shy of 4TFLOPS.

You also have to take account that these are APU's, the data can flow directly between cpu and gpu unlike with desktop cpu's and desktop apu's. These have been specifcally designed to share the workload and do it with low latency and without slow buses. It still won't be as powerful as the gtx 680 but it will still be very good.

Ohh the power of the cloud.. you mean internet? Or are you in marketing? Anyway, no true features have been specified about how Internet computing is going to benefit any real-time rendering/calculations on the "One". Unless I missed something, it's just them throwing around fancy numbers and jargon, if anything the ONLY thing MS hinted at was the capacity for the Live/Media services.

I'm not downing the unit, because I am going to buy one for sure, but I just like how everyone falls for the mythical magical "cloud" talk being spewed at them.

Chris Rollason said,
Isn't this semi meaningless, when you factor in the Xbox cloud computing opportunity?

It is meaningless when you figure in 1080p/60 displays and cloud computing, yes.

Chris Rollason said,
Isn't this semi meaningless, when you factor in the Xbox cloud computing opportunity?

Depending on the game yeah. If a game dev takes advantage of the cloud to process parts of the game and send them back to you then it could counter some of the differences.

xendrome said,
Ohh the power of the cloud.. you mean internet? Or are you in marketing? Anyway, no true features have been specified about how Internet computing is going to benefit any real-time rendering/calculations on the "One". Unless I missed something, it's just them throwing around fancy numbers and jargon, if anything the ONLY thing MS hinted at was the capacity for the Live/Media services.

I'm not downing the unit, because I am going to buy one for sure, but I just like how everyone falls for the mythical magical "cloud" talk being spewed at them.

Sure we don't have details but they said cloud computing will help them offer bigger worlds and more players at the same time. If you can offload much of the MP work to the cloud and not have the "host" being the linchpin so to speak then we could be in for some really killer MP or SP with ever-changing online worlds.

very hard to synchronize the remote computed parts with the locally computed parts. That alone would probably make it a futile exercise.

XerXis said,
very hard to synchronize the remote computed parts with the locally computed parts. That alone would probably make it a futile exercise.

Wouldn't it depend on what is being worked on and when? What if you're processing bits for the next level or part of the map before the current local stuff is done? I mean we're starting to see more and more web apps and services that let you work like it's native, and we have/had things like OnLive which does work more or less. We'll just have to wait and see.

xendrome said,
Ohh the power of the cloud.. you mean internet? Or are you in marketing? Anyway, no true features have been specified about how Internet computing is going to benefit any real-time rendering/calculations on the "One". Unless I missed something, it's just them throwing around fancy numbers and jargon, if anything the ONLY thing MS hinted at was the capacity for the Live/Media services.

I'm not downing the unit, because I am going to buy one for sure, but I just like how everyone falls for the mythical magical "cloud" talk being spewed at them.

Agreed. But it was also mentioned that they were extending Azure services to these developers, so if you can have some of the logic to run an online world running on Azure instead of all on the machine, it could be a significant step. We'll have to see of course, but this I thought was one of the better features being hinted at / discussed.

XerXis said,
very hard to synchronize the remote computed parts with the locally computed parts. That alone would probably make it a futile exercise.

But that is already being done in most games as they have a "host"... If the host is in the cloud, that is less that that machine needs to handle...

GP007 said,

Wouldn't it depend on what is being worked on and when? What if you're processing bits for the next level or part of the map before the current local stuff is done? I mean we're starting to see more and more web apps and services that let you work like it's native, and we have/had things like OnLive which does work more or less. We'll just have to wait and see.

That's all you got? All that means is shorter loading screens. No, there is actually huge potential in the cloud computing aspect but it won't be as simple as that. It's more like a game such as Watch_Dogs could theoretically use Azure to actually run a fully living, breathing city while you play it. GTA5, with it's 3 main characters, currently lets you jump between them but as you do it, you get a fancy loading screen and the character you picked will be doing a set activity - not literally waiting where you left off. The cloud on the Xbox One could let the 3 characters live out their lives in real time. Will it make you games look better? Probably not. But there is potential there.

Oh cloud processing like the highly successful Sim City and it's Cloud processing that helps the game.

Give me a break. What meaningful data can we send down the 10MB/s pipe(if you are lucky) vs the 1746944MB/s pipe.
That rounds to a 0% improvement in throughput of data.

Factor in the overheads of the network processing and thread waiting for the undetermined delay due to the nature of tcp/ip, well cloud helper threads will only slow down things.

Kushan said,

The cloud on the Xbox One could let the 3 characters live out their lives in real time. Will it make you games look better? Probably not. But there is potential there.

err, are you aware that "the cloud" is just software right? It's not something built into the console, nor something you wouldn't be able to do with a 386. As long as you have internet, you can plug in the "cloud powered" marketing speech anywhere.

For the love of god, all MMOs are "cloud powered" and even Diablo III and (to some degree) Simcity are in that category. It's not rocket science, it's simply having a server to process common calculations in a shared world. But then all of you gullible kids jump in tears when they mention the Xbox One will be cloud powered... duh.

gonchuki said,

But then all of you gullible kids jump in tears when they mention the Xbox One will be cloud powered... duh.

Kinda like "blast processing"…

Kushan said,

That's all you got? All that means is shorter loading screens. No, there is actually huge potential in the cloud computing aspect but it won't be as simple as that. It's more like a game such as Watch_Dogs could theoretically use Azure to actually run a fully living, breathing city while you play it. GTA5, with it's 3 main characters, currently lets you jump between them but as you do it, you get a fancy loading screen and the character you picked will be doing a set activity - not literally waiting where you left off. The cloud on the Xbox One could let the 3 characters live out their lives in real time. Will it make you games look better? Probably not. But there is potential there.

That was just one thing that came to mind, I have no doubt that the developers have more ideas and ways to use it.

That is meaningless, the PS3 on paper was more powerful then the X360 yet the better games were primarily on the 360 it's not how much power you got, is how accessible it is and how you use it that counts.

Xerxes said,
That is meaningless, the PS3 on paper was more powerful then the X360 yet the better games were primarily on the 360 it's not how much power you got, is how accessible it is and how you use it that counts.

I don't recall Killzone 2 and 3 being on Xbox ... 'better' is very in the eye of the beholder. I preferred Killzone to Halo and I enjoyed my PS3 immensely compared to my Xbox at the time. Now I'm getting back into gaming, I've realised I just need to buy them all and will buy both PS4 and Xbox One when they come out... you simply can't play ALL the best games unless you own them all

Spirit Dave said,

I don't recall Killzone 2 and 3 being on Xbox ... 'better' is very in the eye of the beholder. I preferred Killzone to Halo and I enjoyed my PS3 immensely compared to my Xbox at the time. Now I'm getting back into gaming, I've realised I just need to buy them all and will buy both PS4 and Xbox One when they come out... you simply can't play ALL the best games unless you own them all

I don't recall killzone ever being a good game

Spirit Dave said,

I don't recall Killzone 2 and 3 being on Xbox ... 'better' is very in the eye of the beholder. I preferred Killzone to Halo and I enjoyed my PS3 immensely compared to my Xbox at the time. Now I'm getting back into gaming, I've realised I just need to buy them all and will buy both PS4 and Xbox One when they come out... you simply can't play ALL the best games unless you own them all

I said primarily, not all of cause there were exceptions. Killzone and Uncharted are good examples of games that took advantage of the power available. However, due to the PS3's difficult architecture it meant many devs struggled to make the most of it.

I have a PS3 and X360 and enjoyed them both (still do) and although I'd like to get both a X1 and PS4, due to the expected high launch prices (here in Australia) probably just go for the cheaper of the two but I agree, you can't experience the full greatness of the next-gen without owning both systems, as both will have some great games on them

Xerxes said,
That is meaningless, the PS3 on paper was more powerful then the X360 yet the better games were primarily on the 360 it's not how much power you got, is how accessible it is and how you use it that counts.

Yes, but in that case it was because the XBox 360 was selling so well. Given some other questionable choices Microsoft made with the XBox One, that is not as sure a thing as it was a week ago...

They really do need to rethink things a bit as the restrictions are only going to hurt them in the end.

That would all be true if it wasn't for the fact that the PS4 and Xbox One share nearly identical hardware. PS3 had CELL (a brand new, unknown processor) while the 360 was the much better-known Power arch. Both the PS4 and Xbox One use x86 (seemingly identical CPU actually) and AMD graphics. If you can find a better way of doing something on one console, it'll almost certainly translate directly to the other.

spudtrooper said,

I don't recall killzone ever being a good game

Shame for you then. Killzone games are absolutely brilliant. But then, opinions are like backsides ... you probably love games I think are utter tripe

interesting, but paper specs only reveal so much - I very much doubt we'll see much if any differences in actual games due to both systems sharing so much architecture the devs will simply make them identical - think of it this way, PC games can play on a bunch of different GPU's and the main difference is FPS (when all effects are turned on full and we condense down to a small subset of the cards available and not the whole spectrum).

Look at the difference in shader counts on high end AMD and Nvidia cards - its the way things are done overall that makes the majority of the difference and not the individual specs of this and that.

Even if Devs target the same graphics on both platforms, theoretically the PS4 should still load faster and have fewer dips in FPS. There may even be enough of a difference to have some PS4 games running at 60FPS where Xbox One games stick to 30.

Your nvidia/AMD comparison isn't really fair here as it's really an AMD/AMD comparison. The consoles are practically identical machines except one has faster RAM and a bigger GPU. That'll never even out. Things won't be done differently, they'll be done the same.

Kushan said,

Your nvidia/AMD comparison isn't really fair here as it's really an AMD/AMD comparison.

There's still one difference that might level out the field or increase the advantage for the PS4: The XBOX One uses a modified DirectX 11.1, while the PS4 will run on libGCM/OpenGL. It will mostly depend on AMD to provide proper drivers for both systems, and then game developers to make correct use of both APIs.
On paper libGCM should be more powerful (it is at least for the 360/PS3 generation), but with the next gen we won't know until we see the games, expecially because both GPUs have the same architecture.

Kushan said,
Even if Devs target the same graphics on both platforms, theoretically the PS4 should still load faster and have fewer dips in FPS. There may even be enough of a difference to have some PS4 games running at 60FPS where Xbox One games stick to 30.

Your nvidia/AMD comparison isn't really fair here as it's really an AMD/AMD comparison. The consoles are practically identical machines except one has faster RAM and a bigger GPU. That'll never even out. Things won't be done differently, they'll be done the same.

FPS will be about it, loading times will be mainly (totally) dictated by the storage medium - both HDD. The speed of RAM will not come into effect when loading as the HDD is significantly slower than both (all) RAM types.

I seriously cant see it having much of an overall effect if any.

sanke1 said,
I laughed out loud. I may still purchase XBox One due to better exclusives.

Also, the PS3 is stronger than the Xbox 360. But experience is what counts at the end in my opinion. That's why I'll probably buy an Xbox.
And yes, there are some interesting exclusives (and 8 new IP !)

Jarrichvdv said,

And yes, there are some interesting exclusives (and 8 new IP !)

And since when did Sony not have any exclusives for their console? Sonly already shown 4 or 5 exclusives back in February, and if I'm not wrong all of them but Killzone are new IPs.
Keep waiting for your 10 Kinect exclusives and 5 real games

sanke1 said,
I laughed out loud. I may still purchase XBox One due to better exclusives.

Xbox has never had better exclusives.

Goldfire86 said,

Master race? What are you, eleven?

Valid point though. Console users worrying about raw power is like talking about how fast your Honda Civic is to the owner of a Ferrari.

If you want superior graphics and processor performance you buy a PC. The same PCs that have had things like Internet Explorer, Skype and TV on them for um...years.

I would think that those consoles could outpace current PC's at the moment thanks to being optimized for gaming rather than general purpose computing. So they're laughing in PC gamers faces right now!

Well, until they launch anyway, we'll probably have better components by then

ChristopherSmith said,
I would think that those consoles could outpace current PC's at the moment thanks to being optimized for gaming rather than general purpose computing. So they're laughing in PC gamers faces right now!

Well, until they launch anyway, we'll probably have better components by then

Every console launch that is heard. And PCs always end up better because, unlike an xbox, PCs don't go through 6+ year upgrade cycles.

AWKM said,

Every console launch that is heard. And PCs always end up better because, unlike an xbox, PCs don't go through 6+ year upgrade cycles.

True but an 8 year old Xbox 360 can still play the latest games. If you can forget about having the absolute best graphics in the world I found i've had a much better gaming experience on consoles. Some great exclusives and good multiplayer experiences with friends.

PC's have a lot more power but your never going to see a massive difference. The PC can improve or include more elements with the extra power but the limiting factor is the engine and the developers. The consoles never really fall more than 1-2 years behind graphically apart from the FPS and resolution.

Jarrichvdv said,

Also, the PS3 is stronger than the Xbox 360. But experience is what counts at the end in my opinion. That's why I'll probably buy an Xbox.
And yes, there are some interesting exclusives (and 8 new IP !)

Experience, what experience? PS4's console and U.I haven't been shown yet. The only experience i can think of is kinect. I'd rather press a button on the controller than wave my hands around to scroll through menu's and i don't want to talk to a console for it to do things, that is just a horrible gimmick.

There's nothing to stop you from pressing the button on the controller. lol, it's still a controller based console when playing games.