John Carmack: PS4 and Xbox One Are "Essentially the Same"

[faefrost]

I think we should really wait for the actual benchmark analysis. I wouldn't expect a huge difference in processing power but other analysts have directly disagreed with this statement.

Reading the article I'm still not sure he actually said anything in terms of actual processing power so much as capabilities. Without benchmarking them, I don't know what he'd mean by that unless he has software that is specifically optimized for each console like games being developed for them will be.

It's kind of interesting though. I generally trust Carmack and am grateful for his contributions so I won't rule any of this out. But with him starting with saying he hasn't actually benchmarked them this comes across as too early an analysis to take for granted. Especially with so many other dissenters. In any event, if they are that similar then $400 vs $500 is an interesting call when you're also not a fan of the kinect.

benchmarks are really and truly just for Marketing and Advertising. At the end of the day both consoles will play the same games in a similar enough manner as to be nearly indistinguishable in terms of performance. They are close enough to each other, and both are close enough to PC's that developers will not spend a tremendous amount of time seeking to optimize for the subtle differences between one or the other.

 

[Zeckt]

They are technically the same, except the fact that all 360 has in exclusives is Gears and Halo and gives a big middle finger to japanese developers. So not the same at all.

 

[masticina]

So pretty much a repeat of 360 vs. PS3, then?

Not really the PS3 was slightly more powerful in certain areas that was certain BUT it was hard to code for so the games coming out on both platforms tended to do worse on the PS3.

With the PS4 and the Xbox One pretty much being the same console with different kind of software running it..sure there are some hardware differences but it certainly won't be huge. This means game developers won't have to worry that much. AND we gamers don't end up with ports that just run worse. Or situations like with Skyrim, remember that, remember that the PS3 didn't get the DLC, remember that with save files over 10Mbyte things turned into a super laggy mess. Yeah that was the trouble.

With these consoles being quite equal yet different we probably have equal performance. Meaning less reasons to complain "My version runs worse then yours", yeah stuff like that! It should run quite equal now!

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

4-5 GB of ram means it will have a longer game development cycle the Xbone will be hurting after 4 years....

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

So pretty much a repeat of 360 vs. PS3, then?

Not really the PS3 was slightly more powerful in certain areas that was certain BUT it was hard to code for so the games coming out on both platforms tended to do worse on the PS3.

With the PS4 and the Xbox One pretty much being the same console with different kind of software running it..sure there are some hardware differences but it certainly won't be huge. This means game developers won't have to worry that much. AND we gamers don't end up with ports that just run worse. Or situations like with Skyrim, remember that, remember that the PS3 didn't get the DLC, remember that with save files over 10Mbyte things turned into a super laggy mess. Yeah that was the trouble.

With these consoles being quite equal yet different we probably have equal performance. Meaning less reasons to complain "My version runs worse then yours", yeah stuff like that! It should run quite equal now!

Don't forget the PS3 has a hard time with textures making most 360 ports look better. The codeing issues were not as bad as the bottleneck issues IMO. Now the Xbone is limited while the PS4 is twice the system it is and its going to be alot easier to code for. MS really messed up this time around.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

I think we should really wait for the actual benchmark analysis. I wouldn't expect a huge difference in processing power but other analysts have directly disagreed with this statement.

Reading the article I'm still not sure he actually said anything in terms of actual processing power so much as capabilities. Without benchmarking them, I don't know what he'd mean by that unless he has software that is specifically optimized for each console like games being developed for them will be.

It's kind of interesting though. I generally trust Carmack and am grateful for his contributions so I won't rule any of this out. But with him starting with saying he hasn't actually benchmarked them this comes across as too early an analysis to take for granted. Especially with so many other dissenters. In any event, if they are that similar then $400 vs $500 is an interesting call when you're also not a fan of the kinect.

I think that while the numbers are different, I think I'm forced to agree with Carmack. I expect the games that come out for each console are going to end up looking very similar. But because the ps4 has a bit of an edge, I expect games (and software) to run better on the ps4. The extra wiggle room could mean higher frame rates, less texture pop ins, and less bugs so if we have buggy ports like skyrim the ps4 will probably be more stable. Not to mention, using the console's features to multitask might be snappier in theory

 

[Bvenged]

I'm curious if he is talking about the Kinect 1 or the Kinect 2. By integrating the Kinect into the system, a lot of designers I've talked to said the Kinect 2 latency was a almost a non-issue now.

To be honest, "almost" isn't good enough, and I still think the technology in gaming is a gimmick and I simply do not want it, especially considering it's not exactly cheap and I never asked for it to be forced upon me and my potential Xbox.

Exactly the reason why I'm not getting an XboxOne. Cost too much more for the same product, but most importantly it comes with a peripheral and simply do not want, which is practically worse than an controller.

 

[Baldr]

I'm curious if he is talking about the Kinect 1 or the Kinect 2. By integrating the Kinect into the system, a lot of designers I've talked to said the Kinect 2 latency was a almost a non-issue now.

To be honest, "almost" isn't good enough, and I still think the technology in gaming is a gimmick and I simply do not want it, especially considering it's not exactly cheap and I never asked for it to be forced upon me and my potential Xbox.

Exactly the reason why I'm not getting an XboxOne. Cost too much more for the same product, but most importantly it comes with a peripheral and simply do not want, which is practically worse than an controller.

A majority of console controller have latency issues that almost non-issue with consumers, so yeah almost is good enough. No one is forcing you to buy a Xbox. The planet doesn't revolve around you and your entitled attitudes.

 

[Madman123456]

"A bit of a witchhunt"? Really? I resent that. This word is generally being used when the crowd gets overly angry over something that doesn't deserve it.

Calling it a "Witchhunt" would mean that we where being way too angry over Microsofts bumbling attempt to wrestle even more control from the customers away, to eventually no longer sell any games but licenses to play the games.

I do not think the gaming community was being too angry about the attempt to indirectly do inconceivable damage to the medium.

Allow me to expand: It is my choice when i don't want to play a game anymore. Microsoft would have taken that decision away from me; there would be a point where i could no longer play a game because it was server shutdown day and with microsofts pre 180 policies that wouldn't just cut me off from multiplayer but from the rest of it as well.
This "threat" would be always hovering over the customer. One day, the servers will shutdown and you can't play this game anymore.
This would only touch nostalgia (which is bad enough) if the servers went down long after i'm done playing.
But we've had a few cases where servers went down quite early.

"Freelancer" was pretty much the last big space shooter. If you want to fly around in space now you'll have to get Eve online or play that one level in Halo 4.

There where quite a few ideas in that game on which one could improve, to make an entirely different game.

You could play this game now and improve on how things are done in there. Find out what goes on and how freelancer does things. Maybe you can find out where things went wrong and avoid those before your game suffers.

You can play all sorts of old games and maybe bring some genres back, with new and improved ideas.


Well, that wont be happening with the current console generation because the hardware is shit and falls apart if you look at it wrong. You could play the games until the hardware breaks down, which could be happening before the multiplayer servers for your favorite games where taken down.
With the next generation microsoft would have liked to outright make it impossible to play the games.


With no past, there is no future.
Eventually, we would be paying for a license to play the newest game and realize that it is basically the previous title with a new gun or something.
But we'd play it anyway because there's nothing else to play.

More and more people would eventually just get bored with gaming.
Gaming would eventually become a niche hobby for few people.



While i agree with the rest of the statement i don't like the implication that microsoft did a little whoopsie and the world got way too angry about it.

 

[Something Amyss]

<
And although he said the backlash against the Xbox One was "a bit on the side of a witch hunt,"

A witch hunt generally implies someone being wrongfully persecuted. Microsoft received backlash for exactly what they were doing.

The response may have been over the top (even then, I'm not sure I agree), but calling this anything close to a witch hunt is like crying persecution because someone doesn't share your favourite colour.

Huh, I actually hadn't considered the lag issue with the Kinect. That's a really fair point. You have to move, the Kinekt has to see it, process it and convert it into something the game can recognize... I still want to see what people do with it, but I'll be avoiding it personally.

The latency is supposed to be much better on the Bone. Part of that will be it's not leeching off resources that would otherwise go to a system not originally designed with it in mind. I don't know if the Kinect has any onboard processing power or the like, but it would help.

Carmack's words put PS4 and Xbone on the same level.

Which is probably a bad thing, given how one is $100 cheaper.

And a worse thing, since the Kinect is "half the price" of the unit, reportedly.

 

[loc978]

Huh. Interesting and unexpected. I will of course be waiting for proper benchmarks, but didn't initial reports put the PS4 at about 30% more processing power than the Xbone? That's hardly close in capability. I wonder if Carmack just hasn't managed to figuratively stretch either new console's legs yet, or if those initial benchmarks were bullshit.

Either way, it's a win for the industry that both major core console platforms are finally running on x86 hardware.

 

[masticina]

So pretty much a repeat of 360 vs. PS3, then?

...

Don't forget the PS3 has a hard time with textures making most 360 ports look better. The codeing issues were not as bad as the bottleneck issues IMO. Now the Xbone is limited while the PS4 is twice the system it is and its going to be alot easier to code for. MS really messed up this time around.

An interesting point indeed and to make it simple this generation will be interesting for such reasons that the hardware at least isn't bottlenecking in the worst of places.

I was kinda not to happy to hear that the PS4 used more then 2,5Gbyte of memory for its OS and system [caches, video, etc] but eh.. both systems have around 5Gbyte of space left for actual games. So it isn't bad news.

And the different types of memory and memory speeds..we have to see just how much difference that will offer in the games we end up buying. But yes I think that Sony is going to do good this run. The basis it runs on is good!

And now we wait and see what the game developers can do with it. Mmm maybe a Skyrim version he, one can hope. Lets open up the graphics and get things running better shall we.

 

[Lightknight]

I think we should really wait for the actual benchmark analysis. I wouldn't expect a huge difference in processing power but other analysts have directly disagreed with this statement.

Reading the article I'm still not sure he actually said anything in terms of actual processing power so much as capabilities. Without benchmarking them, I don't know what he'd mean by that unless he has software that is specifically optimized for each console like games being developed for them will be.

It's kind of interesting though. I generally trust Carmack and am grateful for his contributions so I won't rule any of this out. But with him starting with saying he hasn't actually benchmarked them this comes across as too early an analysis to take for granted. Especially with so many other dissenters. In any event, if they are that similar then $400 vs $500 is an interesting call when you're also not a fan of the kinect.

I think that while the numbers are different, I think I'm forced to agree with Carmack. I expect the games that come out for each console are going to end up looking very similar. But because the ps4 has a bit of an edge, I expect games (and software) to run better on the ps4. The extra wiggle room could mean higher frame rates, less texture pop ins, and less bugs so if we have buggy ports like skyrim the ps4 will probably be more stable. Not to mention, using the console's features to multitask might be snappier in theory

The thing is, while they are very similar developers will use the next few years to start optimizing software for the console hardware and the machines are different enough to give one (likely the ps4) and advantage over the other.

At the end of the day though, they are just computers. The ps3 gave up its hardware advantages when game assets got to be so large that juggling them amongst the ps3's asset categories became a real difficulty but in this generation, you have two roughly equal machines with one that has much better RAM. It's just a question of how much better it is. It may not be enough to really notice but I'd expect at least some advantages. Skyrim wasn't a particularly buggy game. It had a particularly large problem with bloating assets. That, as I stated, is the ps3's weakness. If any of those asset categories get too bloated, the system crashes. That's what was happening. I was testing the environment when the game first came out and came across all kinds of things like stacking nirnroot blooms and even the dungeons were not resetting before the first major patch. The ability to refresh the outside world and dungeons would have gone a long way to resolve the problem.

In any event, without running benchmarks for both consoles and especially benchmarks that are customized for the respective machines (like the games will be) then we simply won't know. One thing that's for sure is that these consoles are a ton better than their predecessors so we will see a lot of advancement in the line of the average game's capabilities.

 

[jut22]

Gee thanks now there's no decision to be made. Motion gaming is lame, I'm still mad I spent money on the the Move...much less pay $100 for a camera peripheral.

PS4 all the way.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I think we should really wait for the actual benchmark analysis. I wouldn't expect a huge difference in processing power but other analysts have directly disagreed with this statement.

Reading the article I'm still not sure he actually said anything in terms of actual processing power so much as capabilities. Without benchmarking them, I don't know what he'd mean by that unless he has software that is specifically optimized for each console like games being developed for them will be.

It's kind of interesting though. I generally trust Carmack and am grateful for his contributions so I won't rule any of this out. But with him starting with saying he hasn't actually benchmarked them this comes across as too early an analysis to take for granted. Especially with so many other dissenters. In any event, if they are that similar then $400 vs $500 is an interesting call when you're also not a fan of the kinect.

They'rs so similar architecturally that you can guess at their relative performance from the specifications alone. On that basis, the PS4 is almost certainly faster.

But probably only by a factor of 2-4 at most. And to a PC developer (And remember who Carmack is here...) that's nothing.

(Dealing with 10x performance gaps has been routine for years. Modern PC's even force 100x performance gaps to be an issue - which is pretty demanding, and seems to have led to a lot of lower performance systems being unable to run games...)

For a point of reference, the Wii was about 20 times less powerful than the 360 and PS3.
That gap is huge compared to what the PS4 Xbox one gap is likely to be even in the worst case scenario.

Hell, even the Wii U is unlikely to even get much past 5-6 times slower than the fastest of these systems at the most...
Which is why thr claims that it can still compete with them aren't as crazy as some people make it sound...
(Remembering that a 10x performance gap was routinely handled by PC developers for quite a long period.)

 

[freedash22]

I doubt both consoles will have a similar performance. PS4, we know will work really well and have improved graphics. We already saw that at E3. It played games (Specs wise it is superior to a slightly considerable degree). Xbox One on the other hand didn't. All of the demos were played on gaming rigs (PCs). Not really sure what to expect but the latter wasn't a good sign, especially if they intend to sell that thing this holiday season.

 

[jut22]

So pretty much a repeat of 360 vs. PS3, then?

...

Don't forget the PS3 has a hard time with textures making most 360 ports look better. The codeing issues were not as bad as the bottleneck issues IMO. Now the Xbone is limited while the PS4 is twice the system it is and its going to be alot easier to code for. MS really messed up this time around.

An interesting point indeed and to make it simple this generation will be interesting for such reasons that the hardware at least isn't bottlenecking in the worst of places.

I was kinda not to happy to hear that the PS4 used more then 2,5Gbyte of memory for its OS and system [caches, video, etc] but eh.. both systems have around 5Gbyte of space left for actual games. So it isn't bad news.

And the different types of memory and memory speeds..we have to see just how much difference that will offer in the games we end up buying. But yes I think that Sony is going to do good this run. The basis it runs on is good!

And now we wait and see what the game developers can do with it. Mmm maybe a Skyrim version he, one can hope. Lets open up the graphics and get things running better shall we.

The 2.5 GB for The PS4 OS was a rumor...and a false one at that.

The actual true distinction is that:

"Direct Memory" is memory allocated under the traditional video game model, so the game controls all aspects of its allocation

"Flexible Memory" is memory managed by the PS4 OS on the game's behalf, and allows games to use some very nice FreeBSD virtual memory functionality. However this memory is 100 per cent the game's memory, and is never used by the OS, and as it is the game's memory it should be easy for every developer to use it.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/26/35gb-of-playstation-4-ram-reportedly-reserved-for-os

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

The thing is, while they are very similar developers will use the next few years to start optimizing software for the console hardware and the machines are different enough to give one (likely the ps4) and advantage over the other.

At the end of the day though, they are just computers. The ps3 gave up its hardware advantages when game assets got to be so large that juggling them amongst the ps3's asset categories became a real difficulty but in this generation, you have two roughly equal machines with one that has much better RAM. It's just a question of how much better it is. It may not be enough to really notice but I'd expect at least some advantages. Skyrim wasn't a particularly buggy game. It had a particularly large problem with bloating assets. That, as I stated, is the ps3's weakness. If any of those asset categories get too bloated, the system crashes. That's what was happening. I was testing the environment when the game first came out and came across all kinds of things like stacking nirnroot blooms and even the dungeons were not resetting before the first major patch. The ability to refresh the outside world and dungeons would have gone a long way to resolve the problem.

In any event, without running benchmarks for both consoles and especially benchmarks that are customized for the respective machines (like the games will be) then we simply won't know. One thing that's for sure is that these consoles are a ton better than their predecessors so we will see a lot of advancement in the line of the average game's capabilities.

I agree with that. When it comes to 2 devices with about a "50%" (finger quotes here) difference in power, its not really that much on paper but the whole goal of consoles is to squeeze out as much performance as possible on these machines. Eventually that 50% will be huge. Moar reasons to love the ps4!

 

[masticina]

... a quotebomb from hell, if you quote to deep things break up

Anyhow I am going to wait and see it out myself. Yes to many rumors go around and yes to many things are still being changed.

In the end we have two platforms that both will pull gaming up to 1080p standards.. finally.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

So pretty much a repeat of 360 vs. PS3, then?

...

Don't forget the PS3 has a hard time with textures making most 360 ports look better. The codeing issues were not as bad as the bottleneck issues IMO. Now the Xbone is limited while the PS4 is twice the system it is and its going to be alot easier to code for. MS really messed up this time around.

An interesting point indeed and to make it simple this generation will be interesting for such reasons that the hardware at least isn't bottlenecking in the worst of places.

I was kinda not to happy to hear that the PS4 used more then 2,5Gbyte of memory for its OS and system [caches, video, etc] but eh.. both systems have around 5Gbyte of space left for actual games. So it isn't bad news.

And the different types of memory and memory speeds..we have to see just how much difference that will offer in the games we end up buying. But yes I think that Sony is going to do good this run. The basis it runs on is good!

And now we wait and see what the game developers can do with it. Mmm maybe a Skyrim version he, one can hope. Lets open up the graphics and get things running better shall we.

I been reading more(bbwwaaiinnsssss.....) and it seems the Xbone is not that far off from the PS4 but ya it all will come down to their real world bottle necks, I've not seen a huge difference in 4GB of DD2 and DDR3 but ddr3 and ddr5 might make a difference in loading times but that's a minor issue. The PS4 might do a bit better with graphics and loading but there again there is not a huge gap between them. All in all it seems Sony put out more effort but since they approximate each other in power most devs will not use any extra power.

I'm watching the hardware should be interesting to see what all they can do.

At this point and time I wish they would license their older console tech so people can build all in one units... I'd rather put 400$ into a PS3 that played Xbox/PS1/PS2 games with some filtering and resolution tweaks than get a PS4 or Xbone.....