Xbox One exclusive Ryse runs at 900p

[Pupik]

you dont seem to understand the point of consoles,and why they are incredibly popular,and why alot of their games are not available on pc. show me a $500 pc that will play games better than these consoles. you cant? what a SHOCKER!

This will do just fine: http://i.imgur.com/R03GalD.jpg

[vcfan]

This will do just fine: http://i.imgur.com/R03GalD.jpg

 

that wont do. you will need a beefier machine to make games look as good as the console versions. the software for the consoles is specialized. they are trying to saturate every part of the system by doing heavy multithreading and so on. lets also not forget all the customizations of the hardware which exceeds what you would expect on a pc with similar specs. that $500 rig might be able to play some of those games, but they wont look as good,the case is bulky, the fan noise is going to be annoying, you dont have a blueray drive, you dont have a controller or kinect. its also not as user friendly as console user interfaces. console vs this system, its an easy choice.

[Blackhearted]

that wont do. you will need a beefier machine to make games look as good as the console versions. the software for the consoles is specialized. they are trying to saturate every part of the system by doing heavy multithreading and so on. lets also not forget all the customizations of the hardware which exceeds what you would expect on a pc with similar specs. that $500 rig might be able to play some of those games, but they wont look as good,the case is bulky, the fan noise is going to be annoying, you dont have a blueray drive, you dont have a controller or kinect. its also not as user friendly as console user interfaces. console vs this system, its an easy choice.

 

Considering both the cpu and gpu in what they posted are more powerful than the xbox one i'd say yea, that system could indeed match your beloved console's multiplatform games. The fact that 'next-gen' isn't trying very hard to target high resolutions only makes it easier for the linked system to do it.

 

Also, blu-ray drives are irrelevant, this is the pc being discussed. Most pc gamers use steam these days. Another irrelevant matter is kinect. As anyone with a clue knows that thing is useless for non-casual gaming.

[nullie]

I hear the PS4 is able to play games at 1080p no problem, and it is doing so 50% faster than the Xbox One. The Xbox One is kind of being limited to 600p or apparently 900p in order to push the graphics as high as the PS4 does at 1080p. According to the news that has been floating around, there is some problems with the Xbox One's lack of memory bandwidth and some of the CPU operations are much slower than the PS4. The PS4 DOES have nearly 3x the memory bandwidth, which is a big thing when it comes to graphics quality and rendering at high video resolutions.

 

I think this is going to be like the time NVidia screwed up and released the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra, that was half the speed of the older ATI Radeon 9700 in DirectX 9 games. They goofed and released the GeForce FX with just 4 pixel pipelines, and the Radeon had 8, making the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra half the speed.. Basically, Microsoft ****ing pulled an NVidia here and made some **** hardware that isn't going to be able to compete with the PS4.. :)

 

Here's the article to read up about it, and I think most here have already seen it. But just in case: http://kotaku.com/report-ps4-is-50-faster-than-xbox-one-1308239556

 

To the guys saying this doesn't matter and they can simple "upscale" the graphics from 600p or 900p to 1080p, you are wrong. The resolution basically correlates to how much you can fit on screen, and how sharp and detailed the image is. If you do upscaling, you're taking a smaller picture, and blowing it up, and it is not done losslessly. Furthermore, you cannot add detail that is missing, so it is never going to look like it was rendered at 1080p. It is also very noticeable, for example, on my laptop, anything I render at lower than native resolution looks big, blurry, and generally looking like it's much smaller and doesn't fit as much on screen. This happens in games, and on the desktop. They do have physically less real estate to render the game on if they first render at 600p or 900p, meaning you won't be able to see as much of the game as one that was rendered at 1080p.

[dead.cell]

Would anyone really notice sub 1080p without looking for it, or being told???

 

Nobody knew Killzone was under 1080p (at one point in development) until we were told by GG...

 

And anyone playing on a screen under 40" probably won't be to tell either way...

Well, I'll likely be connected via my computer monitor. I'd notice, but not sure about anyone else. It's very easy to tell, especially in MMOs when you go from buttery smooth 55+ to 30-45 fps.

[trooper11]

Considering both the cpu and gpu in what they posted are more powerful than the xbox one i'd say yea, that system could indeed match your beloved console's multiplatform games. The fact that 'next-gen' isn't trying very hard to target high resolutions only makes it easier for the linked system to do it.

 

Also, blu-ray drives are irrelevant, this is the pc being discussed. Most pc gamers use steam these days. Another irrelevant matter is kinect. As anyone with a clue knows that thing is useless for non-casual gaming.

 

Two problems with your statement:

 

1.  He was referring to both consoles, so your attempt to paint him as a fanboy fails

 

2.  Your statement about Kinect is standard fair from someone that might be called a fanboy himself considering its a subjective opinion.

 

If you can't refrain dropping to the level of a silly fanboy, then maybe its time to move on.  People get upset by Sony or MS fanboys, this should be no different.  If you want to point out where his idea of a pc not matching the next gen consoles, that makes sense, but all this flame bs is a waste.

 

 

 

 

I hear the PS4 is able to play games at 1080p no problem, and it is doing so 50% faster than the Xbox One. The Xbox One is kind of being limited to 600p or apparently 900p in order to push the graphics as high as the PS4 does at 1080p. According to the news that has been floating around, there is some problems with the Xbox One's lack of memory bandwidth and some of the CPU operations are much slower than the PS4. The PS4 DOES have nearly 3x the memory bandwidth, which is a big thing when it comes to graphics quality and rendering at high video resolutions.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, your claims have not be borne out in the real world where you have PS4 games not running at 1080p and you have X1 games running at 1080p.  Its clear that both consoles are capable of 1080p.  If the difference is as vast as is claimed, then maybe the difference will show up in frame rate, not resolution.  You have ps4 developers that are not aiming for 1080p, but we all know the console can do it.

 

I saw the same stories as you have, but there is only the single story that came out a few days ago that has painted the most direct picture of the X1 being very inferior performance wise.  I'm happy to accept that, but since we have conflicting info from other sources posting about the specifics of the X1, I'm waiting to see if we see yet another article come out that is a rebuttal to this one painting the X1 in such a bad light.  I'm sure you have seen the articles on the X1 hardware that was put out a couple weeks ago, that had some detail that MS released regarding how their chips worked, etc.  That info would seem to be contradicted by the article that slams that X1 hardware, so we will see who is right.

 

The reason I'm waiting is because apparently there is some kind of NDA that expires on Sept 28th regarding the X1 hardware.  That is probably why there has been so little push back from MS regarding these claims.  So if the claims are true, then we will hear little from MS, but if we see them come back with a  credible argument for their hardware, then we are back to an unclear difference between the two.

 

 

I think this is going to be like the time NVidia screwed up and released the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra, that was half the speed of the older ATI Radeon 9700 in DirectX 9 games. They goofed and released the GeForce FX with just 4 pixel pipelines, and the Radeon had 8, making the GeForce FX 5800 Ultra half the speed.. Basically, Microsoft ****ing pulled an NVidia here and made some **** hardware that isn't going to be able to compete with the PS4.. :)

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but that line comes off as more than slightly fanboyish.  So the X1 is **** hardware?  I don't claim to understand what all the tech specs mean, but how exactly is the X1 ****?  Even the article that really laid this all out made the point to say that there were situations where the X1 configuration had advantages for some game development techniques.  That's hardly what I would call **** hardware.

 

Also, are we now claiming that the PS4 is 100% faster than the X1?  As in, the PS4 is twice as fast as the X1?  I mean your talking about an ATI card that was twice as fast as the Nvidia card.  I haven't seen any article claim that's the case for the X1 vs PS4.

[trooper11]

Well, I'll likely be connected via my computer monitor. I'd notice, but not sure about anyone else. It's very easy to tell, especially in MMOs when you go from buttery smooth 55+ to 30-45 fps.

 

 

I agree on the frame rate part.  Its much easier for me to see a difference in 60 vs 30 than 1080 vs 720 or 900, etc. 

 

Now, on my big screen (65"), I can see the difference easily, but on my 32", its very hard to distinguish it. 

 

If a developer has to choose between 60 or 1080, it may come down to what type of game it is and if the frame rate matters more than a higher res.  Both consoles seem to be forcing developers to pick one or the other unless they want to cut back in another area to hit those targets.  I have a feeling this will improve, as it does with all new consoles.  I expect to see many more 1080p/60 titles as part of the second wave of releases for both consoles. Developers need time to play with the custom bits both consoles have that make them different from off the shelf x86 hardware.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

As someone who has the XBox One preordered and paid in full, along with the PS4, I cannot help but be slightly disappointed at this news.
I did not expect a huge graphical leap in this next generation, but I was really counting on true 1080p gaming finally.
Granted is not a huge difference between 1600 x 900 and 1920 x 1080, but there is a difference nonetheless, mainly with details (in the screenshots below, the only difference is the details in the grass).

 

I
expect we will be hearing more of these types of stories for both consoles for the first year or two after launch. 
Again, not the end of the world, but I was really hoping the next generation of consoles would easily do true 1080p. Obviously that is going to be an issue for awhile.

[vcfan]

Considering both the cpu and gpu in what they posted are more powerful than the xbox one i'd say yea, that system could indeed match your beloved console's multiplatform games. The fact that 'next-gen' isn't trying very hard to target high resolutions only makes it easier for the linked system to do it.

 

you will need a beefier system for it to compete. you paper spec warriors dont seem to understand how thats not how it works.

[trooper11]

I don't know, after hearing Mark Cerny admit that its unlikely that this first wave of games will be able to make full use of the hardware and hearing similar from MS before that, I get the sense that both consoles could end up supporting it properly if a developer wants to use it.

 

One thing to keep in mind though, 1080p or 60fps are not the only pieces that make up a game's visuals.  Even on the pc, sometimes you have to adjust settings down in order to get the fps you want @ 1080p.  Devs could still decide they want to sacrifice hitting that 1080 number in order to raise those other values.  I don't think MS or Sony are going to tell devs to make 1080p the minimum, so there is nothing stopping them.

[Blackhearted]

Two problems with your statement:

 

1.  He was referring to both consoles, so your attempt to paint him as a fanboy fails

 

2.  Your statement about Kinect is standard fair from someone that might be called a fanboy himself considering its a subjective opinion.

 

If you can't refrain dropping to the level of a silly fanboy, then maybe its time to move on.  People get upset by Sony or MS fanboys, this should be no different.  If you want to point out where his idea of a pc not matching the next gen consoles, that makes sense, but all this flame bs is a waste.

 

I don't have to try to paint him as a fanboy. He's done that well enough on his own ever since... atleast late may. Speaking of fanboys, your own fanboy side is running quite rampant in this post. Maybe you should get yours in check before calling others one. Of course though, that's probably too much to ask from people like you.

 

The statement about kinect isn't a subjective opinion, it's a fact. The only people who believe it has any relevance in actual gaming are those who, like i said, don't have a clue.

 

 

you will need a beefier system for it to compete. you paper spec warriors dont seem to understand how thats not how it works.

 

I guess we'll see this fall when the multiplatform games come out and my 7850(the same card linked) is capable of matching your console games without a problem.

[blerk]

So much anger in this thread...

 

(Also - I don't get all the hate for the Kinect. I don't see why Kinect Sports isn't "actual gaming" and I don't see why things like head tracking are useless gimmicks when done by Kinect. It's not like there's no precedent for head tracking in games...)

[nullie]

Unfortunately, your claims have not be borne out in the real world where you have PS4 games not running at 1080p and you have X1 games running at 1080p.  Its clear that both consoles are capable of 1080p.  If the difference is as vast as is claimed, then maybe the difference will show up in frame rate, not resolution.  You have ps4 developers that are not aiming for 1080p, but we all know the console can do it.

There is nothing but the lack of performance preventing the Xbox One from driving games at 1080p. Yeah, sure, the hardware can output a 1080p signal, but it cannot do so with adequate performance while keeping things looking good, without cutting back. That is almost guaranteed to be due to the memory bandwidth issues. And contrary to what Microsoft says, this does matter. Take a look at the spec: Xbox One has 68.3GB/s memory bandwidth for both GPU and CPU to share. The PS4 has a whopping 176GB/s. Nearly triple! This comes in handy when moving large textures back and forth between the main memory and GPU, and the higher 1080p resolution must be making it hard to move this data around quickly with the Xbox One's limited bandwidth.

TRUST ME. This is a huge failure for Microsoft. If you go and look at GPUs; memory bandwidth really matters there. And the 176GB/sec number on the PS4 is already pretty low; PC single GPUs have upwards of 300GB/sec (The Radeon 7970 has 264GB/s - the Radeon 7990 has 576GB/s) just to themselves, while the CPUs have another dedicated 25.2GB/sec in most systems (systems with DDR3 1600MHz dual-channel RAM do), or more. I think Microsoft made too many trade offs, and screwed the design of the Xbox One up by thinking they could do what they did with the Xbox 360 and previous consoles, which was making a system that didn't have adequate memory bandwidth and thus limited entire system performance quite a bit.

from: http://kotaku.com/report-ps4-is-50-faster-than-xbox-one-1308239556

 

Our contacts have told us that memory reads on PS4 are 40-50 per cent quicker than Xbox One, and its ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit) is around 50 per cent faster. One basic example we were given suggested that without optimisation for either console, a platform-agnostic development build can run at around 30FPS in 1920?1080 on PS4, but it?ll run at ?20-something? FPS in 1600?900 on Xbox One. ?Xbox One is weaker and it?s a pain to use its ESRAM,? concluded one developer.

 

The reason I'm waiting is because apparently there is some kind of NDA that expires on Sept 28th regarding the X1 hardware.  That is probably why there has been so little push back from MS regarding these claims.  So if the claims are true, then we will hear little from MS, but if we see them come back with a  credible argument for their hardware, then we are back to an unclear difference between the two.

Microsoft already responded. They have choosen to go into complete denial mode, "specs don't matter," was their response. Here's the quote:

 

?Ten years ago, you could argue that a console?s power was summed up in terms of a few of its specs, but Xbox One is designed as a powerful machine to deliver the best blockbuster games today and for the next decade.

Xbox One architecture is much more complex than what any single figure can convey. It was designed with balanced performance in mind, and we think the games we continue to show running on near-final hardware demonstrate that performance. In the end, we?ll let the consoles and their games speak for themselves.?

Microsoft claims the design of the Xbox One is complex. bull****, the design is no different from PC hardware, and there is no "secret" juice in these things. The specs do matter, fill rate and memory bandwidth determine graphics performance. And this is exactly why the Xbox One is junk, cause it IS limited, and the specs for both already prove that.

 

 

I'm sorry, but that line comes off as more than slightly fanboyish.  So the X1 is **** hardware?  I don't claim to understand what all the tech specs mean, but how exactly is the X1 ****?  Even the article that really laid this all out made the point to say that there were situations where the X1 configuration had advantages for some game development techniques.  That's hardly what I would call **** hardware.

 

Also, are we now claiming that the PS4 is 100% faster than the X1?  As in, the PS4 is twice as fast as the X1?  I mean your talking about an ATI card that was twice as fast as the Nvidia card.  I haven't seen any article claim that's the case for the X1 vs PS4.

The PS4 is 50% faster, and it doesn't need to cut the resolution or graphics quality in order to run at 1080p. That's the deal here. Also, I think the masses agree, the Xbox One also appears to be doing quite poorly in presales compared to the PS4, if this poll over on GameFAQs is to be believed:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/5269

5026 people have preordered PS4's, compared to only 1126 people who preordered Xbox Ones. Another 811 people preordered both. Furthermore, 12514 plan to buy a PS4, whereas only 1518 plan to buy an Xbox One, and only 848 people plan to buy both. Another 20502 people don't plan to buy either... must be PC gamers, or something, cause there's not much else out there to buy. The Wii U pretty much failed already.. lol.

Total votes: 42345 at the time of this post.

[Xerxes]

Pretty sad state of affairs when people care more about native resolution and frame rates :/ seems you can make or break a game purely by what resolution it runs at  :wacko: Personally I don't care what resolution a game runs at (eg GT5 was native 1080p while Forza 4 was *only* 720p, yet in most cases (in my opinion) Forza 4 looks alot better - I'm a fan of, and have, both games) as specs on a sheet mean nothing in the real world. Gameplay and the enjoyment factor are what mean most to me, not meaningless specs. That is my 2 cents, take with a grain of salt.

[vcfan]

snip

your info seems outdated. xb1 has 218GB/S esram + 68GB/S DDR3 which are independent buses that operate simultaneously giving the ram system a peak bandwidth of 286GB/S. And if you still have doubts about the esram's role, in the sdk diagrams, each of the 4 8MB chunks plugs directly into each of the 4 L2 cache blocks in the gpu. Since the GCN architecture works on  small "tiles" of jobs(wavefronts), and is not an out of order architecture, the esram prefetching works beautifully to get the required data from ddr3 ram. And when the ddr3 is not busy helping the esram, it is out doing other chores like helping the audio system,and so on,because it is independent. You're also forgetting the fact that xbox one has 3x the coherent bandwidth between cpu and gpu,giving gpgpu computations quite an edge.

 

for a guy that loves to talk about all this bandwidth,and bandwidth on other cards, based on your paper spec assumptions, im guessing that you probably didnt bother to read the GCN architecture docs,and im also guessing that you probably didnt read what the theoretical bandwidth capacity of 18 compute units. It is something like 450GB/S,whereas the gddr5 ram only has a theoretical ceiling of 176GB/S. you can add all the compute blocks you want,if you dont have the bandwidth to fill them, then they are sitting idle a lot of the time.

[blerk]

 

Microsoft claims the design of the Xbox One is complex. bull****, the design is no different from PC hardware, and there is no "secret" juice in these things. The specs do matter, fill rate and memory bandwidth determine graphics performance. And this is exactly why the Xbox One is junk, cause it IS limited, and the specs for both already prove that.

 

AMD does not agree with you: 

 

They are quite different relative to architecture, they use sort of similar IP, so like our Jaguar core and our Radeon graphics but in terms of the architectures you know sort of how they decided to put it together, they really are custom designs. 

[CygnusOrion]

It's looking like development is harder on the XBox One than the PS4. This is very very bad news for Microsoft.

[trooper11]

I don't have to try to paint him as a fanboy. He's done that well enough on his own ever since... atleast late may. Speaking of fanboys, your own fanboy side is running quite rampant in this post. Maybe you should get yours in check before calling others one. Of course though, that's probably too much to ask from people like you.

 

The statement about kinect isn't a subjective opinion, it's a fact. The only people who believe it has any relevance in actual gaming are those who, like i said, don't have a clue.

 

 

Come on, how is my statement coming off as a fanboy?  What do I need to check exactly?

 

He clearly said both consoles, so he was talking about consoles vs pcs.  Argue that he is a fanboy all you want, I was referring to that one quote and you pounced on him. I'm sorry if you misread something more than that.

 

You know, this is part of the bs that makes the console wars fairly lame. I point this out and suddenly I'm the fanboy.  I don't get it.  Why not just say explain why you made your point and not resort to and old tactic?  I'd love to actually discuss these things.

 

Your comment about Kinect is indeed subjective.  A fact would be if Kinect had some mechanical issue or defect.  You say Kinect has zero value.  Its cool if you think that, but its not a universal opinion.  The fact that you want to insult anyone that disagrees with you is just more bs. 

[trooper11]

There is nothing but the lack of performance preventing the Xbox One from driving games at 1080p. Yeah, sure, the hardware can output a 1080p signal, but it cannot do so with adequate performance while keeping things looking good, without cutting back. That is almost guaranteed to be due to the memory bandwidth issues. And contrary to what Microsoft says, this does matter. Take a look at the spec: Xbox One has 68.3GB/s memory bandwidth for both GPU and CPU to share. The PS4 has a whopping 176GB/s. Nearly triple! This comes in handy when moving large textures back and forth between the main memory and GPU, and the higher 1080p resolution must be making it hard to move this data around quickly with the Xbox One's limited bandwidth.

TRUST ME. This is a huge failure for Microsoft. If you go and look at GPUs; memory bandwidth really matters there. And the 176GB/sec number on the PS4 is already pretty low; PC single GPUs have upwards of 300GB/sec (The Radeon 7970 has 264GB/s - the Radeon 7990 has 576GB/s) just to themselves, while the CPUs have another dedicated 25.2GB/sec in most systems (systems with DDR3 1600MHz dual-channel RAM do), or more. I think Microsoft made too many trade offs, and screwed the design of the Xbox One up by thinking they could do what they did with the Xbox 360 and previous consoles, which was making a system that didn't have adequate memory bandwidth and thus limited entire system performance quite a bit.

from: http://kotaku.com/report-ps4-is-50-faster-than-xbox-one-1308239556

 

 

Microsoft already responded. They have choosen to go into complete denial mode, "specs don't matter," was their response. Here's the quote:

 

Microsoft claims the design of the Xbox One is complex. bull****, the design is no different from PC hardware, and there is no "secret" juice in these things. The specs do matter, fill rate and memory bandwidth determine graphics performance. And this is exactly why the Xbox One is junk, cause it IS limited, and the specs for both already prove that.

 

 

The PS4 is 50% faster, and it doesn't need to cut the resolution or graphics quality in order to run at 1080p. That's the deal here. Also, I think the masses agree, the Xbox One also appears to be doing quite poorly in presales compared to the PS4, if this poll over on GameFAQs is to be believed:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/5269

5026 people have preordered PS4's, compared to only 1126 people who preordered Xbox Ones. Another 811 people preordered both. Furthermore, 12514 plan to buy a PS4, whereas only 1518 plan to buy an Xbox One, and only 848 people plan to buy both. Another 20502 people don't plan to buy either... must be PC gamers, or something, cause there's not much else out there to buy. The Wii U pretty much failed already.. lol.

Total votes: 42345 at the time of this post.

 

 

 

Look, I'm not even going to try and get into the weeds over these specs.  I'm not an expert on these things and so trying to debate it would be a waste of your time. 

 

The only reason I wasn't ready to jump to your side is that articles like this would seem to contradict some of your points:

 

 

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/29/a-deep-dive-into-microsofts-xbox-ones-architecture/

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/08/30/a-deep-dive-in-to-microsofts-xbox-one-gpu-and-on-die-memory/

 

But hey, even they sum up their analysis in a third article that the ps4 has  clear 50% advantage due to its gpu.  Just reading through the info lead me to believe things weren't as far apart as the other article later claims.

 

Look, I agree with the overall idea that ps4 is more powerful for gaming, I'm just not sure what the difference is.

 

All I know is that Forza is going to be 1080p/60, so the X1 is capable of 1080p gaming. I also know there are PS4 games that are not running 1080p native. 

 

My thinking through all of this spec talk was that both consoles could do 1080p gaming, but that the ps4 titles would run at higher fps.  Something like an X1 game that runs at 1080p/30 would run 1080p/45 on the PS4.  Now I don't know what to think.  The latest article is claiming it would be 1080p vs 900 or 600p?!  That is a ridiculous difference.  Shouldn't that be obvious day one though?  That's a drastic difference.  And yet Forza seems to be breaking the predicted model.  Its just weird.

[HawkMan]

At most the GPU provides a 40% hardware advantage that at best provides 20% in game performance.

But as has been pointed out and some people refuse to accept though it's basic logic, total performance is more than just the GPU. It's the whole system design. And the Xbox is doing some incredible stuff to alleviate the GPU advantage of the ps4. And even former ps game designers are saying the difference is negligible.

[Houtei]

wtf is the big deal with resolution.  I mean wtf happened to gameplay??? Some of you are just crazy.  I mean you act like if some game came out for xbox one or ps4 and was the all time greatest game ever but it only runs at 900p or it runs at 1080p but 30 fps you be like f that crap 60fps or gtfo.... Also I get so tired of PC only gamers who like to chime in to get a chance to tell us how big ther epenis is and how they can run crysis at 2560x1440 on max settings.    5 of my top 10 games of all time don't even run higher than 640x480 and look like shat but play wonderful.  

[vcfan]

wtf is the big deal with resolution.  I mean wtf happened to gameplay??? Some of you are just crazy.  I mean you act like if some game came out for xbox one or ps4 and was the all time greatest game ever but it only runs at 900p or it runs at 1080p but 30 fps you be like f that crap 60fps or gtfo.... Also I get so tired of PC only gamers who like to chime in to get a chance to tell us how big ther epenis is and how they can run crysis at 2560x1440 on max settings.    5 of my top 10 games of all time don't even run higher than 640x480 and look like shat but play wonderful.  

 

dont worry, the pc guys have alot of free time to bug the console guys while they wait for their port of gta V that may or may not be coming anytime soon

[trooper11]

At most the GPU provides a 40% hardware advantage that at best provides 20% in game performance.

But as has been pointed out and some people refuse to accept though it's basic logic, total performance is more than just the GPU. It's the whole system design. And the Xbox is doing some incredible stuff to alleviate the GPU advantage of the ps4. And even former ps game designers are saying the difference is negligible.

 

 

Well the problem is that for more people to believe that, there needs to be articles written up detailing the reasons why its not as simple as saying the ps4 has a 50% advantage, preferably with technical reasoning.

 

I see these articles with people claiming to know about this stuff and with various sources.  The latest paints a bleak picture for the X1.  So there would need to be some evidence going the other way to convince more people.

[theyarecomingforyou]

dont worry, the pc guys have alot of free time to bug the console guys while they wait for their port of gta V that may or may not be coming anytime soon

I'd rather wait for a proper port than play the console version as it stands now. I've seen GTA5 in person and the graphics are terrible by PC standards and the framerate is capped at 30fps. The PC has plenty of exclusives of its own and multi-platforms titles looks miles better, so you get what you pay for.

 

I just think it's disappointing that the X1 and the PS4 can't even manage 1080p at 60fps for most games. It's not really Next Generation? but more like Current Generation+?.

[trooper11]

I'd rather wait for a proper port than play the console version as it stands now. I've seen GTA5 in person and the graphics are terrible by PC standards and the framerate is capped at 30fps. The PC has plenty of exclusives of its own and multi-platforms titles looks miles better, so you get what you pay for.

 

Don't forget about modding.  Using mods is a big reason that I still play a lot of games on pc, even though I own the consoles as well.  Sometimes I'll buy a game on the consoles first and then later when its cheap on the pc for modding and such.

 

There is little reason for people to argue over which way is better honestly.  These things have coexisted for decades and both sides seem to do pretty well.