PlayStation 4 gives up to 5.5GB of RAM to game developers

[BajiRav]

8-Core X86, Also known as a X86-64 not the same as X64.

Read first line of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Update: Brian Provinciano, head of confirmed PlayStation 4 developer Vblank Entertainment, has called the Digital Foundry rumors ?absolutely false.?

 

?It?s absolutely false,? he said in response to the rumors. ?Absolutely ridiculous.?

 

Provinciano went up with an editorial on the drama, in which he provides insight. He wouldn?t confirm how much memory is used, however.

 

Meanwhile, over on NeoGAF, known insider Thuway hinted PlayStation 4 will reserve six gigabytes of RAM for games and two for the operating system (Update within update: ?There are games in development that are using 6 GB of RAM.?)BruceLeeRoy, another known insider, and forum admin Kagari corroborated Thuway?s report.

 

Obviously, nothing?s confirmed until Sony says something themselves. But considering they didn?t confirm numbers to Digital Foundry, I wouldn?t expect that at this point.

 

 

Source: http://gematsu.com/2013/07/rumor-update-ps4-5gb-ram-games

[soniqstylz]

Also that quote of Kaz Hirai is a fake parody account on twitter and not real. (The actual twitter account itself even states it)

 

 

I realize that.  I posted it because it's funny.  I've posted his stuff before, he's a GAF user I believe.

[dead.cell]

   Sony is basically trying to get people to believe that they only focus on gaming and that is all.  They are trying to make people believe that they are the ONLY ones that care about gamers and the games.

 

   That is false.  The Xbox One plays games and it was built for gaming as well.   The WII U was also built for gaming.

 

   It's a giant marketing scheme to get people to buy their console.   Their Feb 20th event was marketing for this, their E3 event was marketing for this.

 

   I have heard that the Xbox One is not a gaming machine, but a media box and that somehow even though proof of a lot of games have been shown at E3 and will be more at GamesCom people still ignore that fact.   They don't even count the Wii U in the picture, it's like it doesn't exist.   It's like Sony has people brainwashed with their marketing.

 

Wasn't that the Xbox 360's focus back in the day too? Not worried about Bluray, just gaming?

 

Secondly, last time I checked, it wasn't Sony that was touting how the Xbox One was a media centric device; that was all done by Microsoft. I'm not saying the Xbox One is going to fail or something silly like that, but any PR hit they took on this was definitely from them shooting themselves in the foot. They've had success in focusing on gaming in the past, they should know what their fan base wants to hear. Although some people love the new media features, fact of the matter is that most people want to hear more about games and how the new console will feature more benefits to them as a gamer first and foremost.

 

TL;DR: You're blaming the wrong company...

 

If you don't believe me, check out all those YouTube parodies on how many times Microsoft et al said "TV" and "sports".

[kaotic]

It comes down to personal preference to me the exclusives are better on the PS4, cause the titles on the Xbox One I like are also available on PC if not on PS4.

 

What? Basically everything on the ps4 is on pc (Free to Play) or is also on the Xbox. Sony really fubared their launch by not having a lot of true exclusives. If FF and KH 3 were actually exclusive to Sony then I would have pe-ordered the ps4 as well. 

[vcfan]

It no doubt has faster RAM and better GPU but I think XB1 has additional features that might give it an edge. I am not sure if one or more of these are available on PS4 too.

- XB1 has dedicated Audio processing hardware

- streams DTS audio to all controllers.

- ESRAM + Move Engines : we don't know how and if these will help the weaker GPU.

- Wifi Direct for controllers and smartglass

- Miracast support (not directly gaming related but may be used for smartglass?)

 

whats funny is, people think the amount of extra compute units equals a linear performance gain,which cant be further from the truth. Digital Foundry did a test on 2 exact systems with different gpus with similar compute unit power differences(50% faster on the beefier one),and found actual real world game performance difference an average of about only 20%. people forget there is overhead in the chip,and scheduling isnt as simple as dumping something on a CU.

 

Now back to ESRAM. Nobody has a clue how its implemented,not the leaks,nothing. Its all speculation. AND Esram has the potential to give a bandwidth advantage way over 20% if its implemented certain ways. If its used as another level of cache,that would be brilliant,and the move engines can feed this cache everytime the shader cores do a data fetch,always keeping it saturated with the most relevant information,and keeping the bandwidth advantage for alot of data fetches.

 

Bandwidth is equally important as having more shader cores/compute units. If your compute units get their data quicker, they can potentially finish work the same amount of time or quicker than more compute units who get their data later. its like having a head start in a race against a faster runner,but since you had the head start,you can potentially win the race.

 

There is even more to the overall performance of the system. There is a balance needed. For example,microsoft could have only used the 12 CU,because based on the CPU,bus designs, Audio and I/O accesses, adding more CU would be useless because there arent enough resources for these CU to perform at their potential. This would be such a waste. Instead,they can use up this die space for Esram,add some data move engines,etc...

 

Then there is software,im not even gonna go there.

[George P Global Moderator]

So it's "absolutely false" but I won't give you the exact numbers, that's cute.   If the real number ends up being 4.5 or 5.5 or even 6GB, the number is still not much different between it and the XB1.  And if you want to hang on to the idea that Sony will manage to shrink the OS over time and free up more to developers then the same applies to MS and the XB1 of course.  It's still looks like what a few developers said a month or so ago about the two systems being very close is holding true regardless of theoretical  hardware limits.

[Thief000]

Yeah, it's so funny that Brian Provinciano of all people is the person those NeoGAF fanboys are clinging to after mentions from previous people on there that have been banned before for lying.

Another indie developer full of hubris that never made a power hungry system seller and is known for talking trash at MS after releasing only ONE game.

NeoGAF is a bad joke now (it has more outsiders talking trash than insiders giving useful info) and it's actually sad that they fall for it like a bunch of lemmings, even sadder that we have people like that here that frequent that fanboy mess of a site.

Until there are good real world system benchmarks out there that don't favor specific parts, it's all BS!

Supposedly Eurogamer is now banned from NeoGAF discussions, what a bunch of pauperhypocrites.

[kaotic]

Supposedly Eurogamer is now banned from NeoGAF discussions, what a bunch of pauperhypocrites.

 

Really? That's dumb.

[trooper11]

 

 

It comes down to personal preference to me the exclusives are better on the PS4, cause the titles on the Xbox One I like are also available on PC if not on PS4. (e.g TitanFall / Fable (all have been released to Windows PC so far so am assuming next will be also)) this is why I will buy the PS4 and I will buy the Xbox for the kinect features. (I hated playing PS3 move with the orb controller) The controller-free Kinect is a much better option and also the heart rate monitoring could be useful in exercise type games, the IR camera which allows you to use Kinect in low-light / dark rooms (theater room)  the microphone on the kinect which can be used in games like Dead Rising 3 so zombies can hear you is also a great new features I want to use and its improved latency and accuracy should clear up the minor issues I had with the original Kinect.

 

 

 

You hit on the best point. You laid out why you don't like the X1 and prefer the PS4: the games

 

This has much less to do with the specs. The gpu has more raw power on the ps4, but the ram system is still very much debatable. MS and Sony aren't using the same ram system, so its not as clear cut as gddr5 vs ddr3.

 

Basically we will all buy a console for its games. If you actually like games coming to the X1, you would be more interested.

 

I just don't get the motivation to argue these superficial or silly points when what really matters is the games. That answer will be subjective, meaning its not a point to debate.

 

This argument over ram amounts illustrates the silliness of console wars. What does it matter if the ps4 has 4.5 or 6gb of ram for gaming? What does it matter if the X1 is the same? Nothing. You will still only want the console with the games you like.

 

 

 

Source: http://gematsu.com/2013/07/rumor-update-ps4-5gb-ram-games

 

Ok so now unless the original stories is further corroborated, we are back to not knowing.

 

Its really frustrating to find out the truth here.

 

 

 

I would say this regarding marketing, Sony and MS will work hard to get the right message out. For me personally, I like to drill down beyond that, to the raw facts.

 

When I stop listen to Sony and MS pr, I see two next gen gaming consoles. I see more than enough evidence that both 'care' about gaming and catering to gamers. I see them both trying to reach non gamers and gamers that also consumer other media. Argue the pr all you want, but pr does not make a console good or bad unless you only follow pr.

[Yogurtmaster]

Wasn't that the Xbox 360's focus back in the day too? Not worried about Bluray, just gaming?

 

Secondly, last time I checked, it wasn't Sony that was touting how the Xbox One was a media centric device; that was all done by Microsoft. I'm not saying the Xbox One is going to fail or something silly like that, but any PR hit they took on this was definitely from them shooting themselves in the foot. They've had success in focusing on gaming in the past, they should know what their fan base wants to hear. Although some people love the new media features, fact of the matter is that most people want to hear more about games and how the new console will feature more benefits to them as a gamer first and foremost.

 

TL;DR: You're blaming the wrong company...

 

If you don't believe me, check out all those YouTube parodies on how many times Microsoft et al said "TV" and "sports".

 

  No, I am not really blaming the wrong company at all.   See, here is something HUGE you missed.

 

1) You can do all of those media functions and still play games.  The focus is GAMES (for an example of this see E3, where Microsoft SHOWED GAMES and SONY SHOWED VERY LITTLE).  People buy a gaming console for um games and Microsoft showed them very well.

 

2) Microsoft told people what they were going to do ahead of time, people just didn't listen.  Microsoft said that they were focusing games at E3, which is what they did.  In fact they showed 3-4 games at their may 21st conference and said that E3 would be all about games.  Again, people skipped right over that and didn't listen.  Most of them probably didn't listen because they already had bought Sony's line about Sony being for the hard core gamer and people wanted to hear what they wanted to hear.  It's not rocket science here and it's pretty simple to figure out.

 

3) History shows us that E3 was in fact all about the games.  In fact the Xbox One had better graphical titles than Sony and more titles than Sony and has a higher quality launch as it stands currently.  We haven't had GameCom yet or the Tokyo game show yet so this is how it stands currently.  Most people will agree that Microsoft had a far better showing at E3 when it comes to the GAMES.  No doubt about it.  No fanboy propaganda, no trying to manipulate anything, the facts are the facts.  The truth is the truth.

 

Microsoft's problem at E3, wasn't the games.  It was that Sony's console wasn't going to have DRM and the price was lower for the PS4.  For the final time, you are wrong.

[Yogurtmaster]

Source: http://gematsu.com/2013/07/rumor-update-ps4-5gb-ram-games

 

By the way Brian Provinciano's article wasn't saying that the PS4 only allows up to 5 Gigabytes of ram for developers.

He was saying that it didn't have half of the memory for developers (ie 4 Gigabytes available for developers).  I am sure all of you know that 4 is exactly half of 8 right?

 

This is all the article is saying.  Brian was making a claim that the DF article said half the memory was used up by the OS and other features and this isn't true and he is right.

 

So, to make a long story short, the 5 gigabyte still stands.  NO matter what stupid neogaf says.  Remember guys, Neogaf is a bunch of Sony fanboys so they are going to try to

make things look a "certain" way, when it's not.   That is what fanboys do.  The denial will set in after launch and at GDC (Game Developers Conference) in March of 2014.

 

I am sure over time over the next few years memory will be freed up, that is possible and I am fine with that.   I don't know how much can be freed up, probably not 6 gigabytes, but we will see.  In the meantime I would really stay away from neogaf as they become unstable.

 

It's so bad that they will label you as a Microsoft Shill if you don't post everything as roses.  Don't take my word for it, go to beyond3d (where there is real intelligence going on) and they are complaining about neogaf too.  It used to be a great forum and a well balanced forum, well those days are gone. 

 

NeoGaf is the PS4 equivalent to Fox News

Yeah, it's so funny that Brian Provinciano of all people is the person those NeoGAF fanboys are clinging to after mentions from previous people on there that have been banned before for lying.

Another indie developer full of hubris that never made a power hungry system seller and is known for talking trash at MS after releasing only ONE game.

NeoGAF is a bad joke now (it has more outsiders talking trash than insiders giving useful info) and it's actually sad that they fall for it like a bunch of lemmings, even sadder that we have people like that here that frequent that fanboy mess of a site.

Until there are good real world system benchmarks out there that don't favor specific parts, it's all BS!

Supposedly Eurogamer is now banned from NeoGAF discussions, what a bunch of pauperhypocrites.

 

I agree with you.  I used to love NeoGaf as it had a lot of intelligent discussion and news for the industry and it even had developers of a lot of the big titles out there.  However, it's gone down a lot.

 

If you disagree about the PS4 you are now banned and labeled a Microsoft Shill (Paid mouth piece of Microsoft).

[Yogurtmaster]

Sony confirmed they weren't putting blocks on game sharing, used games and forcing online checks during E3. (Its one of the main reasons why most declared PS4 a winner over Xbox at E3)

 

The GPU and RAM are better on paper, the CPU is the same. Hardware wise the PS4 is better.

The OS being better or not is opinion based on nothing because neither are actually available to try at the moment. (You can say the UI on the Xbox One looks better but that's an opinion again, but an opinion I'd agree with).

Please don't tell me Xbox One wins innovation because of the TV features or the cloud because I will never use the tv features and the cloud doesn't do graphics processing and the cloud is on both the PS4 and Xbox One)

(e.g Destiny 'cloud/online' based game on both consoles) The ghosting/shadow features that others have mentioned has been available to online games for a long time, even ios games do it.. so if that's another cloud feature you'd like to mention I'm sure various PS4 games will use it also.

The Kinect has been upgraded with new features and it is innovative, also the scale-able Azure cloud/dedicated-servers is also innovative for gaming.

 

I like the Kinect and am happy with the improvements but for the scale-able Azure servers not so much, because I don't think it will affect me. It will affect developers who could save money on server hosting because Azure can shrink and expand as the player base decreases or increases. But for me as a gamer, I'm assuming the developers on PS4 will just pay for servers they think will be utilized and then expand or decrease as time goes by depending on player base movements. Sony may even introduce similar servers or just let developers host their own servers or let them find a organisation which can (Like Microsoft who already let game developers on different platforms use it).

- Also for PC games which require dedicated servers, lots of ISP's decide to host games for their customers so its possible they would do the same for next-gen consoles.

Its a selling point for them 'Come to Telstra, Optus, iiNet, etc we host so-and-so games' lower latency on direct connection to ISP host. (These are AUS ISP's not sure about other countries).

 

I'm not sure if the Azure servers will always keep game data on servers and therefore wont need to close down dedicated servers which means your 5yr old game can still be played online which would be a good benefit with the Xbox.

But Microsoft haven't discussed this so far.

 

I will check back to see what you consider the benefits, but whatever they are please provide known facts (or sources which supplement your choices if they are hearsay like majority of 'the cloud' features).

I'm a pretty logical person with an open-mind so any strong-points you make with substance I will take on-board and am happy to echo on later posts.

 

I'm not a loyalist and I just buy whatever I think is better at the time; for the consoles I want the Xbox for some of its exclusives (Fable) and the kinect features (Just Dance, Dead Rising 3) and the PS4 for some of its exclusives (Infamous) and graphics advantage (Multi-Platform Games). To be honest if the PS4 Eye is anything like the Kinect I won't even buy the Xbox One and get Fable for PC (Using a X360 controller to play via Windows). I'm not that big of a Halo fan in-case anyone was wondering, I liked the first two but it got repetitive after that. As for Forza or Gran Turismo I don't like either, I prefer the multi-plat racing games like NFS, Carmageddon and Destruction Derby, fighting and sports games are also multi-plat like Street Fighter and Fifa. 

 

It comes down to personal preference to me the exclusives are better on the PS4, cause the titles on the Xbox One I like are also available on PC if not on PS4. (e.g TitanFall / Fable (all have been released to Windows PC so far so am assuming next will be also)) this is why I will buy the PS4 and I will buy the Xbox for the kinect features. (I hated playing PS3 move with the orb controller) The controller-free Kinect is a much better option and also the heart rate monitoring could be useful in exercise type games, the IR camera which allows you to use Kinect in low-light / dark rooms (theater room)  the microphone on the kinect which can be used in games like Dead Rising 3 so zombies can hear you is also a great new features I want to use and its improved latency and accuracy should clear up the minor issues I had with the original Kinect.

 

NOTE: For the record, I am not exaggerating or doing "Damage Control" okay....  I am going to give you MY Personal Opinion here and try to back up with facts when I can.

 

Currently there are only 2 things that are better than the Xbox One on the PS4.  The GPU on paper is better and the price is better.

 

1) I claimed the GPU on the PS4 is better on paper, but that doesn't always translate to real world performance.  I see the Xbox winning out for three basic reasons.

 

     A) The developer tools and API support.  Microsoft makes Direct X which is a set of tools for building games but also building anything graphical.  They own these tools which are used by just about every PC developer on the planet and is also used on Xbox 360 and all the way back to the original Xbox.  Direct3D is a part of direct X and it deals with graphical features.  Because Microsoft owns this tool as well as other tools such as "Visual Studio" they can make compiler modifications and other changes to the API just for the Xbox One console.   So, they can not only add in hardware features, but support directly into D3D 11.  The new Xbox uses D3D 11.2 which is the very latest that comes with Windows 8.1 and it has been heavily modified for the Xbox One to get the most out of the features.  Even Final Fantasy XV is using D3D 11 and that can be a problem for Sony.  It's not just hardware features, but it's also supported in the API to support those hardware features.

 

         Now please correct me if I am wrong that Sony on the other hand uses a wrapper for OpenGL and they don't have the finite level of control over their tools as Microsoft has, Microsoft has control over the entire programming pipeline.   This is a *** HUGE *** Deal.

 

    B) Microsoft has hardware that was made specifically for their goals.  Most of their architecture is not simply off the shelf, but heavily, heavily modified to get most out of that performance.  Microsoft has planned the architecture really well.  You will see this over the next few years and I will post a few examples down below.   The 8 Gigabytes of DDR3 + ESRAM is actually a better way to go than GDDR5, people just don't know this yet.  They will over time.   Also by allowing the ram to read and write simultaneously you can get 192 GB per second out of production hardware.  

 

     http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware

 

    Also you have features like PRT (Partial Resident Textures) in hardware and exposed via D3D 11.2 so all developers get to use this hardware for any game they like.  A lot of people bending over backwards like on NeoGaf (yeah I read the thread) that Sony has this feature as well.  Well, nobody has mentioned it and if they do, it still has to be exposed by an API and I haven't heard about this yet.  Sony fans of course jump to conclusions and say yes they are using it, but Sony fans will claim anything so that isn't really helpful.

 

    C)  Microsoft has built the Xbox One for low electrical power on purpose and they have built the system where it evolves over time.  If you look at the Xbox 360, it evolved greatly over time.  It started with the blade system and after a lot of content that system couldn't keep up and they added in avatars and such over time as well.  Go back and look when the original Xbox 360 came out in November 2005 and then look at it today in 2013, it's completely different.   The reason I mention this is that is how they are going to not just evolve the OS, not just evolve Kinect, but also the power of the machine.

 

          Up until this generation, you could not evolve a machine beyond what it was capable of.  It is static and is fixed function.  You can get more out of the machine over time, but only up to a point and that it is.  Well, for the first time this is now possible.  Azure servers working together to solve the problems. 

 

          You might be saying that Microsoft did this cloud thing as a marketing tool because they came up short over the GPU on paper, but this would be wrong thinking and I can prove it.   I saw someone mention on YouTube about this file "92821757-XBox-720-9-24-Checkpoint-Draft-1.pdf" (3.5 mb so I can't attach it), I checked it out and they were right.  This file goes back to September 2010 and mentions the cloud being for 2015.  Now 2010 was a long time ago when it comes to planning and technology and this document it turns out is all over the Internet and was out on the Internet freely before Sony took over GaiKai in July of 2012 and that is why I speculated (like the guy on YouTube) that Sony saw this and knew the guys at GaiKai and bought them out.

 

           Cloud processing is laughed at, but it's real.  Here is Nvidia using it for light... Watch the entire video, actually goes up to 1000 milliseconds of latency over the Internet.   http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/papers/CloudLight13/CloudLightTechReport13.mp4

 

       I am going to end it here before going on....  With the rest of the information.

[vcfan]

Yogourtmaster, this is the reason PS4 games like killzone,drive club,knack,thief, were all running sub 30fps at e3 on real ps4 hardware,while xbox one games running on real xbox one hardware like forza 5 and killer instinct were running 1080p 60fps.

[dead.cell]

  No, I am not really blaming the wrong company at all.   See, here is something HUGE you missed.

 

1) You can do all of those media functions and still play games.  The focus is GAMES (for an example of this see E3, where Microsoft SHOWED GAMES and SONY SHOWED VERY LITTLE).  People buy a gaming console for um games and Microsoft showed them very well.

 

2) Microsoft told people what they were going to do ahead of time, people just didn't listen.  Microsoft said that they were focusing games at E3, which is what they did.  In fact they showed 3-4 games at their may 21st conference and said that E3 would be all about games.  Again, people skipped right over that and didn't listen.  Most of them probably didn't listen because they already had bought Sony's line about Sony being for the hard core gamer and people wanted to hear what they wanted to hear.  It's not rocket science here and it's pretty simple to figure out.

 

3) History shows us that E3 was in fact all about the games.  In fact the Xbox One had better graphical titles than Sony and more titles than Sony and has a higher quality launch as it stands currently.  We haven't had GameCom yet or the Tokyo game show yet so this is how it stands currently.  Most people will agree that Microsoft had a far better showing at E3 when it comes to the GAMES.  No doubt about it.  No fanboy propaganda, no trying to manipulate anything, the facts are the facts.  The truth is the truth.

 

Microsoft's problem at E3, wasn't the games.  It was that Sony's console wasn't going to have DRM and the price was lower for the PS4.  For the final time, you are wrong.

 

1. I never said you couldn't do games on the Xbox One. That was actually not my claim at all, but rather pointing out how the Xbox One is capable of games and more, which isn't a bad thing at all. After all, the PS3 was more of a full media push by being a Bluray player as well.

 

2. I never mentioned E3. I was talking about their console reveal. Sony saying they're for the hard core gamer? Golly gee, ya think? Should I also be surprised when Nintendo says their console is fun for the whole family? Give me a break. Marketing is marketing, and it's the same across the board. My point was that Sony didn't have to say diddly squat after Microsoft's CONSOLE REVEAL (note: not E3) because Microsoft did their job for them. The public reacted based upon what MICROSOFT told them; it had nothing to do with Sony. In fact, people like myself were expecting Microsoft to blow Sony out of the water since Sony's reveal kinda sucked as well...

 

3. I have no idea why you're arguing this to me, so I'll just stop to say...

 

 

...as that had nothing to do with anything I was arguing. At all.

[blerk]

Yogourtmaster, this is the reason PS4 games like killzone,drive club,knack,thief, were all running sub 30fps at e3 on real ps4 hardware,while xbox one games running on real xbox one hardware like forza 5 and killer instinct were running 1080p 60fps.

What is/was? 

[Yogurtmaster]

1. I never said you couldn't do games on the Xbox One. That was actually not my claim at all, but rather pointing out how the Xbox One is capable of games and more, which isn't a bad thing at all. After all, the PS3 was more of a full media push by being a Bluray player as well.

 

2. I never mentioned E3. I was talking about their console reveal. Sony saying they're for the hard core gamer? Golly gee, ya think? Should I also be surprised when Nintendo says their console is fun for the whole family? Give me a break. Marketing is marketing, and it's the same across the board. My point was that Sony didn't have to say diddly squat after Microsoft's CONSOLE REVEAL (note: not E3) because Microsoft did their job for them. The public reacted based upon what MICROSOFT told them; it had nothing to do with Sony. In fact, people like myself were expecting Microsoft to blow Sony out of the water since Sony's reveal kinda sucked as well...

 

3. I have no idea why you're arguing this to me, so I'll just stop to say...

 

 

...as that had nothing to do with anything I was arguing. At all.

 

Well, the console reveal which was supposed to be a little bit at the May 21st event and then the games at E3 and then bits and pieces including more games at gamescom and the Tokyo game show tell the entire story.  A console reveal doesn't have to show the games when it's simply 2 weeks away from E3.  In fact I would say its irrelevant.

 

So, your point is entirely moot.  Again, it's people making stuff up and overreacting.

[Yogurtmaster]

Yogourtmaster, this is the reason PS4 games like killzone,drive club,knack,thief, were all running sub 30fps at e3 on real ps4 hardware,while xbox one games running on real xbox one hardware like forza 5 and killer instinct were running 1080p 60fps.

 

  Yes, I agree.  In my opinion I think the Xbox One video game console is designed in a way that is optimal.  It is efficient, it is ready to evolve into the future and it has been designed for future hardware in mind.  I know this sounds like a commercial, but I will go in detail when they respond.  I don't want to throw out a wall of text to people who don't bother to read it all.

 

  I should go and make a blog, but I have one already that I update each week and it's hard to keep enough content as it is.

 

  By the way, I am not employed by Microsoft.  I am not a marketing expert for them.  I am doing my own company that is related to wireless Internet and data and thus has nothing to do with Microsoft.  I do a lot of research though and research is my thing.   I am always researching for different things and I research PS4 and Xbox One.

[GotBored]

NOTE: For the record, I am not exaggerating or doing "Damage Control" okay....  I am going to give you MY Personal Opinion here and try to back up with facts when I can.

 

Currently there are only 2 things that are better than the Xbox One on the PS4.  The GPU on paper is better and the price is better.

 

1) I claimed the GPU on the PS4 is better on paper, but that doesn't always translate to real world performance.  I see the Xbox winning out for three basic reasons.

 

     A) The developer tools and API support.  Microsoft makes Direct X which is a set of tools for building games but also building anything graphical.  They own these tools which are used by just about every PC developer on the planet and is also used on Xbox 360 and all the way back to the original Xbox.  Direct3D is a part of direct X and it deals with graphical features.  Because Microsoft owns this tool as well as other tools such as "Visual Studio" they can make compiler modifications and other changes to the API just for the Xbox One console.   So, they can not only add in hardware features, but support directly into D3D 11.  The new Xbox uses D3D 11.2 which is the very latest that comes with Windows 8.1 and it has been heavily modified for the Xbox One to get the most out of the features.  Even Final Fantasy XV is using D3D 11 and that can be a problem for Sony.  It's not just hardware features, but it's also supported in the API to support those hardware features.

 

         Now please correct me if I am wrong that Sony on the other hand uses a wrapper for OpenGL and they don't have the finite level of control over their tools as Microsoft has, Microsoft has control over the entire programming pipeline.   This is a *** HUGE *** Deal.

 

    B) Microsoft has hardware that was made specifically for their goals.  Most of their architecture is not simply off the shelf, but heavily, heavily modified to get most out of that performance.  Microsoft has planned the architecture really well.  You will see this over the next few years and I will post a few examples down below.   The 8 Gigabytes of DDR3 + ESRAM is actually a better way to go than GDDR5, people just don't know this yet.  They will over time.   Also by allowing the ram to read and write simultaneously you can get 192 GB per second out of production hardware.  

 

     http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-xbox-one-memory-better-in-production-hardware

 

    Also you have features like PRT (Partial Resident Textures) in hardware and exposed via D3D 11.2 so all developers get to use this hardware for any game they like.  A lot of people bending over backwards like on NeoGaf (yeah I read the thread) that Sony has this feature as well.  Well, nobody has mentioned it and if they do, it still has to be exposed by an API and I haven't heard about this yet.  Sony fans of course jump to conclusions and say yes they are using it, but Sony fans will claim anything so that isn't really helpful.

 

    C)  Microsoft has built the Xbox One for low electrical power on purpose and they have built the system where it evolves over time.  If you look at the Xbox 360, it evolved greatly over time.  It started with the blade system and after a lot of content that system couldn't keep up and they added in avatars and such over time as well.  Go back and look when the original Xbox 360 came out in November 2005 and then look at it today in 2013, it's completely different.   The reason I mention this is that is how they are going to not just evolve the OS, not just evolve Kinect, but also the power of the machine.

 

          Up until this generation, you could not evolve a machine beyond what it was capable of.  It is static and is fixed function.  You can get more out of the machine over time, but only up to a point and that it is.  Well, for the first time this is now possible.  Azure servers working together to solve the problems. 

 

          You might be saying that Microsoft did this cloud thing as a marketing tool because they came up short over the GPU on paper, but this would be wrong thinking and I can prove it.   I saw someone mention on YouTube about this file "92821757-XBox-720-9-24-Checkpoint-Draft-1.pdf" (3.5 mb so I can't attach it), I checked it out and they were right.  This file goes back to September 2010 and mentions the cloud being for 2015.  Now 2010 was a long time ago when it comes to planning and technology and this document it turns out is all over the Internet and was out on the Internet freely before Sony took over GaiKai in July of 2012 and that is why I speculated (like the guy on YouTube) that Sony saw this and knew the guys at GaiKai and bought them out.

 

           Cloud processing is laughed at, but it's real.  Here is Nvidia using it for light... Watch the entire video, actually goes up to 1000 milliseconds of latency over the Internet.   http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/papers/CloudLight13/CloudLightTechReport13.mp4

 

       I am going to end it here before going on....  With the rest of the information.

 

The RAM is also better, GDDR5 is a lot faster and has more bandwidth than DDR3.

 

1)  A). Sony is free to use OpenGL, Direct API or DirectX, they even said they made improvements to DirectX for the PS4.

 

http://www.geek.com/games/sony-iimprove-directx-11-for-the-ps4-blu-ray-1544364/

 

So they can modify / fix it as they like and have full control over it. 

 

Any development Microsoft does on DirectX needs to be released to public under its Microsoft Public Licensing, while on the other hand whatever improvements Sony does to DirectX it doesn't need to show Microsoft.

Microsoft definitely don't have the edge here.

 

As for development tools, its been said numerous times that Sony will focus on these because they want developers to be able to create games faster and easier than ever before. I dont think Microsoft has the edge because they make Visual Studio

 

B). The PS4 has been in development for a lot longer than the Xbox One, PS4 started in 2008, Xbox One started in 2010 so planning wise PS4 was planned for a lot longer. Neither have off-the-shelf hardware and are modified greatly for there needs - eg GDDR5 Ram isn't even used outside of Video Memory except in the PS4. (Big risk was taken by Sony during development over the RAM and it ending up in there favor at the end).

 

In the same way Macromedia made flash to sell its development tools for it, Microsoft does the same for D3D, DirectX, PRT. Anyone can have access to them and I'm sure game developers are willing to buy Microsoft tools to assist building a PS4 game if they think it would be useful.

 

C). The Xbox Operating system evolved over time? All OS's evolve over time, even the PS3's. They can make software improvements but they can't improve hardware unless they sell a Xbox 1.5 in a few years time.

I feel like your starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel here.

 

The Xbox was code named 'Durango' not 720. So that document you saw was likely doctored and even if it weren't a reference to the cloud doesnt really tell me much.

 

I saw that cloud processing video you posted, it required a 200ms latency for simple lighting and 150ms latency for spotted lighting. So if you want it to do any graphics processing of relevance (Not something which would take a minuscule amount of local processing power) you'll need about 0.00001 ns latency right?

 

Maybe Microsoft are going to install servers in our homes with every purchase of an Xbox One with a hardwired connection so the latency is low enough for the 'cloud' dream to actually work. Except instead of cloud on the intranets its the cloud hardwired into the Xbox at home.

 

Cloud processing is laughed at for a reason.

 

 

What? Basically everything on the ps4 is on pc (Free to Play) or is also on the Xbox. Sony really fubared their launch by not having a lot of true exclusives. If FF and KH 3 were actually exclusive to Sony then I would have pe-ordered the ps4 as well. 

 

Sony has more exclusives than the Xbox One at this stage and the fact Sony has four F2P games as console exclusives doesn't mean they stuffed up. The more options the better I'd say.

 

Yogourtmaster, this is the reason PS4 games like killzone,drive club,knack,thief, were all running sub 30fps at e3 on real ps4 hardware,while xbox one games running on real xbox one hardware like forza 5 and killer instinct were running 1080p 60fps.

 

Battlefield 4, Assassins Creed, Call of Duty: Ghosts and many other games are coming to the Sony PS4 as 1080p/60fps. Its just developer preference.

 

You hit on the best point. You laid out why you don't like the X1 and prefer the PS4: the games

 

This has much less to do with the specs. The gpu has more raw power on the ps4, but the ram system is still very much debatable. MS and Sony aren't using the same ram system, so its not as clear cut as gddr5 vs ddr3.

 

Basically we will all buy a console for its games. If you actually like games coming to the X1, you would be more interested.

 

I just don't get the motivation to argue these superficial or silly points when what really matters is the games. That answer will be subjective, meaning its not a point to debate.

 

This argument over ram amounts illustrates the silliness of console wars. What does it matter if the ps4 has 4.5 or 6gb of ram for gaming? What does it matter if the X1 is the same? Nothing. You will still only want the console with the games you like.

 

 

I think you missed the point, I like both consoles but for different reasons. I play mostly multi-platform games which means a graphics advantage is important because everything else in the game will be the same between the two consoles.

 

The RAM matters because games utilize the ram and having more ram available means it can have more stored textures, higher anti-aliasing (AA), post-processing, and even more normal mapping..

If your going to argue against stronger hardware or available memory of hardware you might as well go back to playing Quake 1, Wolfenstein or Doom 1 because without the hardware improvements we've had since then all the games would look like those except maybe be longer / have more missions.

[JonnyLH]

The RAM is also better, GDDR5 is a lot faster and has more bandwidth than DDR3.

Can people stop saying this, it makes me cringe every time I read it. Higher Bandwidth <> Better.

 

GDDR is a completely different type of RAM, its primary function is a graphical RAM for applications which write and read huge amounts data at ridiculously fast rates. There's some disadvantages to that which cast a negative effect on games and the overall processing of the unit. For instance, compared to DDR3, GDDR5 has awful latency which has a HUGE detrimental effect in terms of general processing.

[Brian M. Veteran]

Thread cleaned

 

Last warning. If you can't discuss this maturely, you wont be able to discuss it at all.

[xWhiplash]

Guys, I really do not think the amount of ram matters.  As people have pointed out, look at the ram at the current generation.  Now look at the games we have.  I seriously doubt one console having 1 GB or so more than another is going to be a massively huge deal.  It will not matter anyway with multi-platform games.  Chances are they will program for the lowest amount of ram.  But as was pointed out, this is a massive improvement over the 512MB of what we have now.

[Thief000]

I'd just lock it TBH Brian, it's the same fanboy flame topic starters over and over again.

[illage3]

Hey the PS4 and Xbox One might even free up some RAM for developers as future OS updates reduce the load the OS's put on the system.  Its always a possibility.  As for the cloud processing I'm still not convinced its the right way to go where games are concerned.

 

You mean to tell me that these consoles have all this nice hardware, yet they're willing to let it go to waste by using the cloud?  You thought Crysis 3 looked good on consoles now? You should see it with the PS4/X1 hardware.  Also with the cloud we have the issues of always needing an internet connection? What was that Microsoft said about not needing an internet connection?

Edited July 29, 2013 by illage3

[BajiRav]

Can people stop saying this, it makes me cringe every time I read it. Higher Bandwidth <> Better.

 

GDDR is a completely different type of RAM, its primary function is a graphical RAM for applications which write and read huge amounts data at ridiculously fast rates. There's some disadvantages to that which cast a negative effect on games and the overall processing of the unit. For instance, compared to DDR3, GDDR5 has awful latency which has a HUGE detrimental effect in terms of general processing.

I've seen this said before but can you elaborate further? Xbox 360 uses GDDR3 IIRC so why is GDDR5 considered bad?