Xbox exec claims comparing console specs is "meaningless"

Xbox executive Albert Penello has come out claiming that comparing the specifications of the Xbox One and PlayStaion 4 is "in some ways meaningless", as he believes consumers will end up choosing their preferred console based on the games that are available for it, not how it's technically equipped on paper. 

Speaking to OXM he says that "this isn't like 1990, when it was 16-bit versus 32-bit", also suggesting that the PlayStation team will "talk about how proud they are about their off-the-shelf parts" while Microsoft will discuss how they "touched every single component in the box and everything there is tweaked for optimum performance". Penello claims that, at the end of the day, the specification discussion is "not going to matter" and that the Xbox One's "games and experiences are going to be every bit as good, if not better, technically"

Penello's comments come after it was discovered by AnandTech that the PlayStation 4 is, in fact, faster than the Xbox One on paper, having approximately 50% more raw shader performance and considerably more memory bandwidth. This difference, according to Penello, won't matter in the slightest when the systems go to market and games are the focus.

Source: OXM | Image via GameSpot

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft teases 32 Xbox 360 games for sale next week

Next Story

TechSpot: Google Reader Dies Monday, Here Are The Best Alternatives

52 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Isn't it a little strange that the actual quote from the article reads 'in some ways meaningless' while the title of the story reads 'is meaningless'?

It sure seems like the author of this story intended to catch people's attention by making it look like the guy was claiming an absolute, when in fact he did not. Almost as if it was meant to stir up an argument.

I get it that some of you want a raging console war, but frankly, its lame.

This guy didn't say anything outrageous nor did he make any scandalous attacks against Sony. He actually articulated a decent point. Most consumers don't care about tech specs, they care about final product.

So if both consoles have high quality games, then gamers will buy it. The ps4 has a raw specs advantage on the gpu side, so that should show up in the games. Does that mean the X1 can't have good games? Not at all, but it will matter to those that value graphics enough to pick one console over another. That's actually a small group though.

The reality is that as long as both consoles have compelling games, they should both sell well to gamers. Even with the gpu advantage for the ps4, the X1 has plenty of power to offer good games. As a long time multiplatform owner, it seems to me that both have a lot of potential to tap into.

Both consoles are going to look amazing. Just like the current gen, pretty much all games look and play the same on PS3 and 360. It really doesn't matter.

Even if one console was to bring slightly more pixels to the screen, its a moot point, for me at least. I'm going with the console that provides the best overall experience and bang for my buck.

ps3 also had better specs on the paper than xbox 360 but definitely xbox is hotter. its not only about console. their network is better, kinect is a nice addition and controller is just better in xbox. game selection is also very nice.

He's correct. You always have the fanboy boy religious wars types that play the spec combat game but must people don't care or even know what the numbers mean. An obvious example is how well the Wii did when it had far less capable hardware.

A lot of people are just, so focused on the console specs and fanboys will always try to look down on the competing consoles regardless of how much more advance they are compared to the current generation, they fail to realize it will be up to the developers to decide whether or not they will be maxing these consoles resources. Will it be worth it for them to spend another 3-6-12 months in development time and increase their budget by so and so amount just to make the game look better, if the return on profit would be the same as what they would make on current generation consoles.

Right now only a handful of first party developers can claim they are maxing the consoles resources, very few multiplatform games are pushing these consoles to their limits and if you combine indie developers into the mix, there is actually a very small percentage of games that max consoles resources vs the majority budget titles. This percentage will likely get smaller as they move onto the next gen as the increased cost and development time to max those consoles will increase and might not be worth it for the developers. So in a sense, what good is all this amazing tech, if it is only really being utilized by what 4-7 % of the titles. Besides most casual gamers don't care for graphics and most gamers know game play and fun factor are much more important.

Also, i think it was a smart move for Microsoft to make the kinect mandatory despite the increased cost Making use of the voice commands and motion gesture as a natural user interface for both gaming and outside of gaming. Long term wise developers will much more likely use it and with the kinect being more advanced and able to detect simple emotions, heartbeats, etc; hopefully, developers can start creating new biometric type game playing experiences. Meanwhile, it looks like Nintendo isn't really investing in this space and Sony hasn't revealed much about what the new eye move could do. Biometric type gaming is the future of gaming with kinect leading the way.

I don't think single digit numbers will apply on these consoles, they won't be nearly as difficult to master as they all share x86. I think you're going to see some very good stuff coming out from all over the place. I think you're about right for the current gen though.

I think people reasonably expect both Sony and Microsoft to maximize their hardware, so while all that may or may not be critically important in bottom line performance, normally the better hardware delivers better visuals in games. I've seen games side by side on the 360 and PS3 and to me it's clear the PS3 looks better (but you do have a point in that they need to take advantage of the hardware to achieve this).

So to say it's "meaningless" is just a stupid thing to say, especially when they destroyed their own credibility in the very recent past with other equally stupid comments. Someone needs to tell them to just STFU and revert to canned cliches and avoid more of these blunders.

Joswin said,
Oh the company with the inferior hardware in their console is claiming specs are meaningless?

You don't say.

The 360 was inferior as well...
Ya don't say...

Joswin said,
Oh the company with the inferior hardware in their console is claiming specs are meaningless?

You don't say.

Yet we really do NOT have the specification for the PS4. At best we can just use the off the shelf information of the CPU/GPU Sony is using, and with their FreeBSD running it, it could be a faster or slower than the same CPU/GPU/RAM configuration in comparison to its desktop equivalent.

We also do NOT know the Xbox One technical specifications of how the SoC changes Microsoft made help performance, or how the NT kernel technologies building from a mature driver might give it a significant edge.

If you take an Intel i5 with HD4000 graphics that uses shared RAM for the CPU/GPU, it performance graphically up to several HUNDRED times faster running on Windows 7/8 as it does running FreeBSD or Linux or OS X.

This is because of how the NT's WDM/WDDM video stack is designed around system/vram sharing and how efficient it is at prioritizing graphical assets to effectively use the available RAM dynamically.

The OS difference alone should give the PS4 fans pause, as Microsoft is ahead of them by having been shipping an OS technology since 2006 that is designed around the shared RAM model and has mature drivers to start with.


Take anything that involves performance. On paper a car can have x,y,z specifications, but unless it can get that power to the rear tires and push it forward, the numbers are meaningless.

This is why you see Motrotrend and other publications actually TEST cars instead just look at the HP, Weight Ratio, etc and declare that one is going to be faster.

I have cars with incredible specifications, but because they cannot get this to the tires as efficiently they are slower than cars with far less impressive specifications.

Looking at numbers means nothing on so many levels. If Microsoft TRULY knew that they were going to be outperformed by the PS4, they would CHANGE the RAM to GDDR5.

Microsoft knows something, and they KNOW they are faster than the PS4, no matter if they are using GDDR3 or GDDR5. If not, they would change it, as the Xbox One is not set in stone and this is something that can be changed even in this stage of production.

Mobius Enigma said,

Yet we really do NOT have the specification for the PS4. At best we can just use the off the shelf information of the CPU/GPU Sony is using, and with their FreeBSD running it, it could be a faster or slower than the same CPU/GPU/RAM configuration in comparison to its desktop equivalent.

We also do NOT know the Xbox One technical specifications of how the SoC changes Microsoft made help performance, or how the NT kernel technologies building from a mature driver might give it a significant edge.

If you take an Intel i5 with HD4000 graphics that uses shared RAM for the CPU/GPU, it performance graphically up to several HUNDRED times faster running on Windows 7/8 as it does running FreeBSD or Linux or OS X.

This is because of how the NT's WDM/WDDM video stack is designed around system/vram sharing and how efficient it is at prioritizing graphical assets to effectively use the available RAM dynamically.

The OS difference alone should give the PS4 fans pause, as Microsoft is ahead of them by having been shipping an OS technology since 2006 that is designed around the shared RAM model and has mature drivers to start with.


Take anything that involves performance. On paper a car can have x,y,z specifications, but unless it can get that power to the rear tires and push it forward, the numbers are meaningless.

This is why you see Motrotrend and other publications actually TEST cars instead just look at the HP, Weight Ratio, etc and declare that one is going to be faster.

I have cars with incredible specifications, but because they cannot get this to the tires as efficiently they are slower than cars with far less impressive specifications.

Looking at numbers means nothing on so many levels. If Microsoft TRULY knew that they were going to be outperformed by the PS4, they would CHANGE the RAM to GDDR5.

Microsoft knows something, and they KNOW they are faster than the PS4, no matter if they are using GDDR3 or GDDR5. If not, they would change it, as the Xbox One is not set in stone and this is something that can be changed even in this stage of production.

You didn't just start using car analogies....

Microsoft KNOW they are slower. Not faster. Else they wouldn't have fluffed the specs as '5 Billion Transistors' aka 'Totally Meaningless'.

This isn't PS3 vs 360. Not two different architectures, one being hard to fully utilize (CELL). Both consoles are x86. Except one has more bandwidth and a better GPU. Its pretty simple - all the presumptions on magic drivers or OS optimizations don't change cold hard facts. PS4 hardware is better and aimed squarely at gaming. I'm sure the better specs took Microsoft by surprise and now they obviously have to say *something* and its not going to be "Yeah. PS4 will likely be better at games than XB1. But hey... TV! SPORTS! NFL."

Joswin said,

You didn't just start using car analogies....

Microsoft KNOW they are slower. Not faster. Else they wouldn't have fluffed the specs as '5 Billion Transistors' aka 'Totally Meaningless'.

This isn't PS3 vs 360. Not two different architectures, one being hard to fully utilize (CELL). Both consoles are x86. Except one has more bandwidth and a better GPU. Its pretty simple - all the presumptions on magic drivers or OS optimizations don't change cold hard facts. PS4 hardware is better and aimed squarely at gaming. I'm sure the better specs took Microsoft by surprise and now they obviously have to say *something* and its not going to be "Yeah. PS4 will likely be better at games than XB1. But hey... TV! SPORTS! NFL."

Worse case scenario... all PS4 games look slightly better (and it will be slightly..)...

Now you got a graphics card increase and saved $100... What's else do you have to hang your hat on for the next 8+ years???
Gaikai will not result in huge PS Vita sales... Unless Sony does a huge bundle and almost gives it away ($499 sku perhaps)

300K dedicated servers... You can laugh now, but each year that goes by, jealousy will cinch in...
TV, Sports, Skype, and snap back to my game in seconds... YES PLEASE...
My Son playing a game with his friends while I'm doing something else via snap in feature..l at the same time... YES PLEASE!!!

Yeah your games will look slightly better... But not much better...

But the XB1 overall experience will be truly immersive...

Illumi-room not ready ready yet... But it doesn't need to be for what the XB1 has right out the gate...

Here Sony goes not having things in order yet...
So they show u a graphics boost and y'all suck it up...

Sony's never ready with big gun features until years later...

PSN sucked for 2-3yrs... Oh yea, they had to look how Live was operating, and use XB Live as a starting point...
Cell too hard to code for (who's fault is that)...
PS Store horrid during first 2-3yrs.. Oh yea once again, have to base it off of Live marketplace, because they have no clue on where to start...
Trophies... No comment... Everyone know the reason for that one... (acheivments serve absolutely no purpose) but Sony was just blatant at copying something so cheesy...

PS+ is good (for what it gives you)...

I do dog Sony, but all my rants are legit....
I'm tired of Sony getting free passes...
But every time the name Microsoft comes up, there's the mob with their pitchforks and torches...

PS4 will be beautiful... The games will look that good...

But the XB1 will be a better experience overall...

If Sony is just now adding things the 360 had several years ago...,

Just imagine the thins the XB1 pack vs the PS4...

Here we go again... People look at what's on paper and make their assumptions...
Screw what's on paper...

Functionality, performance, GUI, SOFTWARE.... That's what people should be looking at...

Both MS & Sony showed good games... But games are games though... U know what ur getting with that... U fire them up and play...

What about when ur not in a game... What can ur system do...???...

How is ur GUI laid out?
How is ur Marketplace designed?
How fluid is navigation?
Is navigation easy?
What if I've been on a 4hr gaming binge, and I want to do something else on my console, what else does it offer???
How is ur browser performance???

Netflix, and Amazon are what's expected now..l a standard...

I have a Wii U in my household...
It's GUi load out is very slow (there have been updates to fix this) and its still very slow...
It's not fluid at all when going from menu to menu....
There's always a loading circle showing...

I DON'T WANT TO SEE A LOADING ANYTHING WHEN ON THE DASHBOARD....

Sony hasn't showed there GUI fully yet...

But the MS reveal showed me fast and fluid...
And the GUI can be altered as needed to make the console feel fresh
I didn't like the look of every dashboard update on the 360... But it always seemed to make the 360 seem fresh...

I can't wait to see the full GUI on the PS4.... And performance...
I personally got tired of the XMB on the PS4... Yes it was simple...
But it was exfremely boring...

Edited by Showan, Jun 29 2013, 3:48pm :

Specs actually mean something to maybe what, 1% of people tops? You know what really matters? Overall experience. Sony rode the DRM pony around like they'd just won the Triple Crown. MS backtracked on DRM and killed off some nice features in the process but I digress.

For me there isn't a spec war. Computer specs matter to me but console specs don't. XB1 has plenty for me and I'm sure BOTH systems will perform just fine.

Yeah, I agree.

People forget quickly... when PS3 / XBOX 360 were being released, everyone was saying that XBOX is doomed because of PS3's advanced cell processor, XBOX 360 has lesser specs and all that. They, however, did not take into the account that programming for PS3 in some respects took a rocket scientist, while programming for XBOX did not. Look how that turned out.

Specs themselves don't sell consoles. It's the whole package that does / marketing / shiny stuff that woos the consumer.

Developer tools are super-important. Online experiences. And with this generation, connected services are absolutely important. They might not matter to core gamers but don't make a mistake thinking that those consoles are intended to only core gamers.

We'll see how all this shakes out, I'd say it is unpredictable. There is definitely space for two competitors in this space and really - it would be a loss if any of them folded as it would be ultimately our loss. I hope they both do well.

he can't really judge about the spec yet because when both console game come out then it's time too see how well the spec become relevant to the game performance in the long run and it's still too early to comment whether or not it's meaningless at this point.

Xbox exec claims comparing console specs is "meaningless"

that's the usual response when you have been out-spec-ed. lmao.

Correct me if I´m wrong but I think that on PCs, people get the best results in gaming by buying the graphics card with the highest memory bandwidth.

AldoMC said,
Correct me if I´m wrong but I think that on PCs, people get the best results in gaming by buying the graphics card with the highest memory bandwidth.

GPU's on PC's today use GDDR5 but they use DDR3 for system memory. The reason for this from what I understand is that DDR3 is better for CPU timings which is better for multitasking and there was no benefit outside of graphics to use DDR5.

I don't think we have ever seen an integrated graphics solution that uses GDDR5. Will be interesting to see how it does.

That's basically it. GDDR excels in operations that can be easily and predictably parallelized. Multiple operations are lined up and given a portion of the bandwidth (typically a 32-bit pipeline) at the same time. Graphical computations are perfect for this scenario. DDR is much better for general computation, where latency is lower and single operations take turns but get the full amount of bandwidth available. Creating an architecture to use GDDR with a CPU would result in much worse performance for typical desktop applications, because of the higher latency and difficulty keeping pipelines filled.

Says the man who finishes with the magic power of the cloud.

PS2 hype was all power.

Xbox was power

More HD consoles sold this generation.

http://majornelson.com/2005/05...box-360-vs-ps3-part-1-of-4/

http://majornelson.com/2005/05...box-360-vs-ps3-part-2-of-4/

http://majornelson.com/2005/05...box-360-vs-ps3-part-3-of-4/

http://majornelson.com/2005/05...box-360-vs-ps3-part-4-of-4/

Yes, it does matter. If the shoe was on the other foot you couldn't shut up MS.

Considering both platforms are so similar and x86, any power gap is easily exploited. There is going to be a difference as the PS4 has the better GPU and memory.

MS were stuck with an inflexible design and kinect. Sony were lucky with GDDR5 availability and put more money into the GPU. No denying it.

WooHoo!!! said,
*Snip*
Yes, it does matter. If the shoe was on the other foot you couldn't shut up MS.

Considering both platforms are so similar and x86, any power gap is easily exploited. There is going to be a difference as the PS4 has the better GPU and memory.

MS were stuck with an inflexible design and kinect. Sony were lucky with GDDR5 availability and put more money into the GPU. No denying it.

Inflexible design lol... MS seem to not know what the specs of their system really are. They only today discovered that their esRAM was capable of 88% more throughput than before. I'd call their system *very* flexible...maybe they'll also find that their RAM is actually DDR4 or something

What? Original Xbox had twice the specs of PS2 but solf 1/6 the amount of units. The generatiom after it Sony and MS switched roles. Sony delayed to release a superior product, spec-wise. MS released a console early that had games people wanted at an acceptible price.

Of course the specs need to be acceptible. Wii U is a good example. Sure it ws earlier but its no where near the others so developers dont want to take that as the standard. PS4 and Xbone are more similar and they will decide the standard. Most games (multiplatform games) will look the same on both consoles.

The exclusives will use the full strength of both platforms. But do you really think the exclusive graphical power of a few games will decide whether someone gets a certain console? I think it will be the exclusive gameplay that this game offers. The previous two generation support this assumption. Of course there are other factors such as price.

In short: desirable games under acceptable conditions (price, console restrictions, etc) are the most important factors when deciding what console to purchase.

WooHoo!!! said,
Says the man who finishes with the magic power of the cloud.

PS2 hype was all power.

Xbox was power

More HD consoles sold this generation.

http://majornelson.com/2005/05...box-360-vs-ps3-part-1-of-4/

http://majornelson.com/2005/05...box-360-vs-ps3-part-2-of-4/

http://majornelson.com/2005/05...box-360-vs-ps3-part-3-of-4/

http://majornelson.com/2005/05...box-360-vs-ps3-part-4-of-4/

Yes, it does matter. If the shoe was on the other foot you couldn't shut up MS.

Considering both platforms are so similar and x86, any power gap is easily exploited. There is going to be a difference as the PS4 has the better GPU and memory.

MS were stuck with an inflexible design and kinect. Sony were lucky with GDDR5 availability and put more money into the GPU. No denying it.

Inflexible???...
Lol...
XB1 is designed around flexibility....at least on a software level...
The 360 was flexible, that's why features can be added... And it worked well for MS...
U think they gonna abandon that???

I think Sony is goin to borrow some designs from MS...

Sony already learned that RAW horse power alone won't cut it...

Sony will almost always make more POWERFUL HARDWARE than MS... It's what they do... Sony is. Hardware manufacture...

But no one can or will convince me that Sony's programmers are better than MS...

The hardware design was inflexible.

Microsoft decided GDDR3 and esram was the better option as it was cheaper and the best option at the time.

Sony went with GDDR5 and luckily for them the market matured and they could stick 8GB in there instead of 4GB.

Microsoft couldn't be flexible as it would need to be redesigned and delayed, Sony luckily could just upgrade with no fuss.

Nothing to do with raw hardware power or software or Sony versus Microsoft.

It's clear as day that the PS4 has the spec advantage and there is no exotic hardware to contend with in either platform. It matters more than it ever has. Devs have it easy, more power, great, I'll use it rather than jumping through hoops, wasting time and money to exploit the obscure design of one platform.

Ronnet said,
What? Original Xbox had twice the specs of PS2 but solf 1/6 the amount of units. The generatiom after it Sony and MS switched roles. Sony delayed to release a superior product, spec-wise. MS released a console early that had games people wanted at an acceptible price.

Of course the specs need to be acceptible. Wii U is a good example. Sure it ws earlier but its no where near the others so developers dont want to take that as the standard. PS4 and Xbone are more similar and they will decide the standard. Most games (multiplatform games) will look the same on both consoles.

The exclusives will use the full strength of both platforms. But do you really think the exclusive graphical power of a few games will decide whether someone gets a certain console? I think it will be the exclusive gameplay that this game offers. The previous two generation support this assumption. Of course there are other factors such as price.

In short: desirable games under acceptable conditions (price, console restrictions, etc) are the most important factors when deciding what console to purchase.

PS2 had already won and make no mistake, Xbox would have got nowhere if power didn't allow them to push better games.

PS3 was exotic to a fault and gimped by the split ram even if Cell could do good things to a point.

That doesn't compare to this coming generation that is x86 based with the same CPU. It will take no effort to use the extra power of the PS4.

True, games do matter but so does price and what you think you are getting. PS4 is cheaper and more powerful. Is a less powerful console and Kinect enough for some people, I dunno. Is Halo, each to their own. Time will tell of course but to a COD, football fan, what would be enough for them?

WooHoo!!! said,

PS2 had already won and make no mistake, Xbox would have got nowhere if power didn't allow them to push better games.

PS3 was exotic to a fault and gimped by the split ram even if Cell could do good things to a point.

That doesn't compare to this coming generation that is x86 based with the same CPU. It will take no effort to use the extra power of the PS4.

True, games do matter but so does price and what you think you are getting. PS4 is cheaper and more powerful. Is a less powerful console and Kinect enough for some people, I dunno. Is Halo, each to their own. Time will tell of course but to a COD, football fan, what would be enough for them?

Better graphics =/= better games. Halo and KOTOR were known for their gameplay not their graphics. Of course games like Halo 2 and Fable looked better then anything PS2 could do at the time but I don't see how it that creates a cause and effect between Xbox's power and Xbox's succes. In fact it did not succeed.

It was a nice first attempt. They brought traditional PC genres to console (FPS, wRPG) and they also brought online multiplayer to consoles. This unique offer also gave them some brand awareness. They used those three things to make the X360 an attractive offer that was affordable and launched on time.

Even with its split ram PS3 games designed exclusively for PS3 could look much better then on X360. And before PS3's launch people didn't know it was gimped. Yet they didn't wait for the wonder that was PS3. And even after launch, with the promise of some realistic looking PS3 games, more people bought X360.

I do think its true that if your console is beyond anything the competition can do in terms of graphics/performance, it will make a difference. Take the Wii U as an example. If all developers had decided that they like Wii U and take its weaker specs as the standard. Then most multiplatform games on PS3 and Xbone would look much worse then they will now. But then PS4 and Xbone exclusives would look divine in comparison and people would notice this and not get Wii U.

But the difference in specs between PS4 and Xbone is not that big. As I said, It will be desirable games under acceptable conditions that will decide which console to purchase (as it has been so far). Your last paragraph is a bit strange as you use it as an counterargument but it is exactly what I've been saying. Price is one of the important conditions. Games are most important but again under the right conditions.

Don't confuse my objections against your assumptions about the importance of graphics/performance with Xbone enthusiasm. I do think PS4 is the better offer because it offers exclusive games at better conditions than Xbone. Kinect is a cool (especially voice command for non-gaming entertainment) but I will only get one IF I get that promotion I'm after AND Xbone gets must-have exclusives. I don't think most consumers appreciate Kinect's value or have the financial means to accept the pricetag. Microsoft is making an mistake.

Sly_Ripper said,
I think they're just being silly claiming that Sony are using off-the-shelf parts and Microsoft aren't.

Kinect isn't off the shelf, the eSRAM and audio engine are not off the shelf.

I doubt Sony is either but MS definitely isn't.

Sly_Ripper said,
I think they're just being silly claiming that Sony are using off-the-shelf parts and Microsoft aren't.

Microsoft isn't using off the shelf parts, like the differences between the PS3 and Xbox 360.

The PS3 used 'off the shelf' Geforce GTX 7900 (clocked slightly lower)
The Xbox 360 created a new GPU architecture that all Video cards use as a base model today.

With the Xbox One, MS Engineers literally 'redesigned' the CPU/GPU technology, and it is not a stock technology you can buy from AMD.
(Remember it was Microsoft Engineers that created the base technology the SoC CPU/GPU that AMD uses, as it is based on Microsoft integration of the CPU/GPU in the S series release of the Xbox 360, beating both Intel and AMD to successfully create the first high performance class set of SoC technologies. Reference this in Engineering publications around 2007/2008/2009 that is a bit above the average IT or web site conversation of hardware techology.)

The PS4 is using the VERY SAME CPU/GPU you can buy from AMD for your PC.

By doing this Microsoft was able to add in new features and functionality, reduce latency and go away with legacy features in the architecture that the 'console' does not need to be held back with.

As more about the Xbox One is reveal, you will find that the CPU/GPU technology has some clever advances that will impact the entire computing industry, just as the Xbox 360's GPU recreated the entire Video Card industry. (Unified Shader, New DMA model, New Bus model for transfer between CPU/GPU, etc.)


People are also not paying attention to the additional 'caches' in the Xbox one and how the OS handles RAM VERY DIFFERENTLY than the PS4, just as Windows7/8 PC handles GPU RAM very differently than OS X or Linux.

There are also the 'development tools' issues, where Sony failed to get the PS3 up to the speeds the hardware was in theory capable of using.

Also remember the PS4 is FreeBSD based and getting information to the GPU is not easy as Sony and AMD are having to create to wrappers for FreeBSD and new drivers. At most Microsoft only has to tweak existing Windows NT drivers for the changes they have made to the GPU technology in the Xbox One.

The only advantage is the slight clock speed difference of the RAM, and if you do any research, you will notice that in building a gaming PC, the GDDR5 speed advantages are often not even measurable in a single FPS difference. (Besides Microsoft could dump in something different if they really can't compete with Sony, it isn't set in stone yet.)

If the PS4 can graphically 'compete' let alone out perform the Xbox One, I will eat my hat.

DaveGreen93 said,

There's this component inside a PC, called a Graphics Card. They often use GDDR5 RAM

That's not the point. The system memory isn't GDDR5 so games won't be compatible with your standard PC.

He would say that considering their gpu is 50% less power and their memory being way slower. The $100 lower price tag is a big factor for gamers, i think microsoft will struggle selling many consoles for the first 2 years compared to sony. If they release an SKU without a kinect then they can become a serious competitor to the ps4 as the price would be similar and there would be no privacy problems.

torrentthief said,
He would say that considering their gpu is 50% less power and their memory being way slower. The $100 lower price tag is a big factor for gamers, i think microsoft will struggle selling many consoles for the first 2 years compared to sony. If they release an SKU without a kinect then they can become a serious competitor to the ps4 as the price would be similar and there would be no privacy problems.

Both consoles are being reserved in droves... XB1 is tops on amazon.com... Where as PS4 I believe is tops at GameStop...
Panello is only partially correct.... MS took the Apple approach... Sure it's off the shelf parts for the XB1 as well... But main parts have MS design llanguage written to it...
AMD produced the SoC for the XB1, but it's written in MS design language...

Having your design language written in can be beneficial...

Sony's RAW horsepower approach will produce gorgeous looking games...
Their 1st party games are going to look and play amazingly...
The system will be fast....

I just hope Sony's programming team fix that horrid looking UI/dashboard...
Definitely fix the bandwidth pipe on their backend...
I swear there better not be a 15mb file that takes 20minutes to download, and 15minutes to install...

As much as I dog Sony, I do have a PS4 on order...

Hmmm. I believe Xbox One is firs than PS4 because the PS4 has an abnormal amount of SKUs. If you add all other SKUs, they should surpass Xbox One sales.

It wasn't until the Kinect came out that the Xbox 360 really took off in the USA. Before Kinect Wii was selling more.

Gaming consoles do not appeal to the majority of people but an all in one entertainment device does.

Xbox One will sell itself, Kinect mixed with that fast multitasking OS setup feels like it is from the future. "Xbox watch Mad Men", "Xbox snap twitter", people will see things like this being done in living rooms and have to have it.

Playstation on the other hand really has nothing to sell it except games. Last gen it was the best BluRay player for many years and they sold a ton of units because of that but this generation Xbox will have the best BluRay experience due to Kinect.

Playstation will have a tough time I feel. Probably sell well at first due to lower price but as people see the missing functionality it will be a very tough sell.

Showan said,

Both consoles are being reserved in droves... XB1 is tops on amazon.com... Where as PS4 I believe is tops at GameStop...
Panello is only partially correct.... MS took the Apple approach... Sure it's off the shelf parts for the XB1 as well... But main parts have MS design llanguage written to it...
AMD produced the SoC for the XB1, but it's written in MS design language...

Having your design language written in can be beneficial...

Sony's RAW horsepower approach will produce gorgeous looking games...
Their 1st party games are going to look and play amazingly...
The system will be fast....

I just hope Sony's programming team fix that horrid looking UI/dashboard...
Definitely fix the bandwidth pipe on their backend...
I swear there better not be a 15mb file that takes 20minutes to download, and 15minutes to install...

As much as I dog Sony, I do have a PS4 on order...

XB1 is top at Amazon but there is just one SKU. There are like 5 PS4 SKUs on Amazon so we really don't know which has more pre-orders.

torrentthief said,
He would say that considering their gpu is 50% less power and their memory being way slower. The $100 lower price tag is a big factor for gamers, i think microsoft will struggle selling many consoles for the first 2 years compared to sony. If they release an SKU without a kinect then they can become a serious competitor to the ps4 as the price would be similar and there would be no privacy problems.

Where the hell are people getting these percentages? Seriously, i've seen 15, 30, 40, 50, even 60% in terms of how much stronger the PS4 is to the Xbox1.

scaryrobots said,

Where the hell are people getting these percentages? Seriously, i've seen 15, 30, 40, 50, even 60% in terms of how much stronger the PS4 is to the Xbox1.

I am curious too especially since Killzone is running at 30fps. I haven't seen a single bench mark for either system.

incendy said,

I am curious too especially since Killzone is running at 30fps. I haven't seen a single bench mark for either system.

They follow blindly behind the staff at IGN & Kotaku...

Specs mean nothing without a great programming team...

Like I said, I'll take the better programmers any day of the week..,
They can build a box around the software...

But I don't want an excellent piece of hardware, being coded by a team who can't code for the life of them..,

Once again I'll use this analogy: what flood is a pitch who can throw 110mph if all he does is hit batters???

The proof is always in the pudding. The most important factors are that the console has what the consumer wants. Game wise, you won't see any performance issues on either console.