Microsoft Disputes PS4 Power Advantage

[Phrozenflame500]

He does have a decent point, aside from the dumbass "we have the best/we look better" shit.

Raw power only really matters to first-party devs who can milk it to the fullest, ease of coding and porting is far more important to third-party devs and both consoles seem about the same in that aspect.

 

[Dragonbums]

Microsoft's Albert Penello believes the technical details of the PS4 and Xbox One are irrelevant as long as they produce equivalent experiences.

Personally, I agree with that sentiment.
Sadly that is a viewpoint slowly dying off in the game industry today. It's all about power because that's all that most devs care for, and if you don't have that then they will take their ball and go home.

 

[Flunk]

Microsoft's Albert Penello believes the technical details of the PS4 and Xbox One are irrelevant as long as they produce equivalent experiences./

It sounds like Microsoft is biting and scratching for any traction because they made some mistakes with their new console. Seeing as the hardware is so similar there really isn't any way to argue that the Xbox One is actually competitive so they're just saying it doesn't matter. It's classic marketing.

That being said, seeing as almost all games are now cross-platform the performance difference is really not going to matter very much. "Experience" is not really a factor when it comes down to most cross-platform games anyway as the "Experience" is going to be the same. Developers will just program for the Xbox One's capabilities and the PS4 extra GPU resources will go to waste except in exclusives.

As for the 360 vs PS3 angle, people are forgetting that the Xbox's GPU was actually slightly more powerful than the PS3's GPU and it has a unified memory system where the PS3's was split 50/50 main vs graphics. Xbox 360 had some real performance advantages over the PS3 as will as PS3's raw FP advantage on the CPU. Comparing those two systems was apples and oranges, this time the hardware is very similar, just slanted to favour PS4.

 

[Saltyk]

Now, it's my understanding that Microsoft has inferior architecture. That the Xbox One has one chip doing the same things that PS4 has divided among three chips. And that seems to be an issue that could cause a system failure in extended play. Not helped by the less than stellar reputation that the 360 had when it came to failing.

Of course, the reason it's so big is to help with the cooling process. Still not convinced it won't fail in time. Nor am I convinced that the system can handle the same processing as the PS4. The PS4 was designed to download games in the background while you play. It seems (according to a chart I saw) that Xbox One can, too. But I'm thinking they added that after they realized it was a good idea and I'm not certain it's something that the system will do well.

Honestly, it seems that Microsoft is playing catch up already. They pulled all those 180's on the DRM and such. They added the ability to record and upload video. I think they even stated that the system doesn't need the Kinect to work (though I think others have since said otherwise).

In comparison, PS4 has not made any changes.

And with all those recent changes, I'm not certain that the system should be coming out as soon as it is. Can you completely change a system six months before it launches and have it work?

And, of course, the final question. Which system will have better processing and framerate? I doubt graphics will vary much, especially in multiplatform titles, but which is better as the putting it all together?

 

[Spearmaster]

Just remember even thought running equal quality graphics the system with more overhead will run cooler, more stable and in the end last longer. Microsoft has a history of over stressing their hardware and as a company has a history of not learning its lesson but it all really depends on if Sony can get the software end moving.

 

[Evonisia]

I don't (nor have ever) really thought that one console being more powerful than the other should even be that big of a deal.

I'd rather the two (well, four if we include the Wii U and PC, but let's not) fight over who can make either the better experience or who can make games which aren't dull-looking because dull-looking games all have mixtures of grey, brown and dust which aren't there to create effect.

 

[wooty]

Is this sort of thing even relevant anymore?

I was thinking the same thing. It hails back to the 90's sorry ass "bit wars" between Sega and Nintendo.

Just buy whatever system, play whatever system, (hopefully) enjoy whatever system and then just completely stay off any kind of internet related discussion.

 

[MCerberus]

Yah, Microsoft, you keep saying this. In the past you started screaming THE CLOUD. A while back you had your own 'blast processing' moment where you started screaming about a small trick that just sort of happened in your architecture (pro tip: devs hate it when you have to jump through hoops for specific optimizations only on one platform), and now you're overclocking a component at the last second. That'll end well.

And your issues seem to be with sub-par gRAM at the moment. Not as bad as having not enough or shared RAM, but not good for your next-gen cloud fish AI swarms.

 

[NiPah]

I was going to say that! Well the first sentence. Yeah, it does seem pointless to argue over power when the Wii out sold both 360 and PS3 with inferior power in comparison. An people never by a console for graphics alone, its whether a specific console has the games you want.

Although im waiting for when the sales figures come in. It will be obvious that PS4 will sell more, mostly due to being released in more territories that the XB1. Though i will be interested in comparisons of sales in those specific territories that both consoles sell in.

http://microsoft-news.com/sony-playstation-pre-order-sales-ahead-of-xbox-one-on-amazon-should-microsoft-react/
In America, Germany, Britain, France, Italy, and Spain Playstation 4 has outsold Xbox1, all are territories which both systems can function. Note that the PS4 also sells in territories that the Xbox1 cannot function in, so this is accurate data showing Xbox1 selling fewer then PS4 across the board.

More recent data maybe in Microsoft's favor though since most outlets have stopped pre-orders (even after day-one preorders) of the PS4 but the Xbox1 is still available.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Frankly, I don't care about power nowadays. At least not graphically. Just make an engine that can render more then two rooms at a time (looking at you Dead Space 3) and I'll be happy.

 

[deadish]

So he is effectively dodging the issue with weasel talk ...

"I'm not dismissing raw performance," said Penello. "I'm stating - as I have stated from the beginning - that the performance delta between the two platforms is not as great as the raw numbers lead the average consumer to believe."

So there is a performance delta.

"Microsoft has some of the smartest graphics programmers IN THE WORLD,"

Which help you in hardware design how?

 

[Alfador_VII]

I see where MS are coming from with their argument. I don't agree with it of course. I'm sure Sony will have good programmers too. However the 2 machines are so similar in basic architecture that the hardware of the PS4 is unquestionably better than the XBone. Maybe not hugely better though.

However, my real problem with this is MS are being stupid in getting bogged down with specs.

What they should do is say "We Got Halo, Forza, other exclusives and timed exclusive content" because fundamentally the software is what will sell both consoles

 

[weirdee]

well o course it's easy to make these claims when you have something to prove...

but when publishers go out of their way to diss the wii u for not running their bloomtek 3000 engine, we don't hear a peep out of you bastards at all

i am skeptical of these points and their motivation

 

[masticina]

Fun...

Well they have to sell their product.

Look TECHNICALLY the PS4 is more powerful then the Xbox One. TECHNICALLY! But as some have said before in brilliant editorials. The most powerful console is almost never the winner. PS2 won for instance where seen the power the xbox should have taken a win. But it is in the games.

And that is the situation, the "problem" here is. A first world problem really, is that the consoles are so equal now that the games on them will be rather equal to. And as much as I am happy that Sony hasn't gone for a HydrohexaMultiCellTurboChache core or something like that. Something that would be horrible tough to program for. It is true both consoles are pretty equal in hardware. So the difference now will be software, the games!

No more "My console has Sonic and blast processing" nope.

It just isn't that much different now. And another good thing, or bad thing depends how you see it, this will force game designers to learn to code for multi cores. And that is good very good, very very good! Because we have 4 or 8 cores in our pc's these days. And no that isn't only to let the anti virus and background tasks be out of the way. It would be nice if more parts of the game engine also could use the possible speed boost from multi core game design. I know we already are asking so much but .. eh it is hard to push the sales of octo cores if that really doesn't adds that much.

Also that 32Mbyte of ERAM, cool.. but that would be enough for "free" anti-aliasing at 720p. WHAT again do seek this generation? Oh yes 1080p gaming!

 

[Bad Jim]

Ahh yes, it was never about the hardware, it was always about the games. Let's hear what they have to say about games.


That dog had better be good.

 

[The White Hunter]

I know this is undeserved, blind MS hatred but... Oh, so you've got the smartest programmers in the world, eh? Too bad your PR guys were scraped from the bottom of the barrel, eh? Maybe your programmers should be doing all your PR if they're so smart...

Oh wait, weren't these the same guys who came out and said "Look, our console is powerful enough to make fish who swim around and react to the player"?

Edit: Well now I feel stupid. Turns out it was the COD devs who did that. Sorry guys, I'll try to make my blind hatred a little more educated in the future.

According to an interview (forgive me but i can't remember where I saw it ): ) that fish thing wasn't even a devs idea to make a point out of, it was some management guy walking past who saw it on somebodies monitor and said "Hey that's cool, we should talk about that in the reveal event!".

And yes having more shaders and a higher clock and higher bandwidth memory doesn't necessarily mean it's better, but since they're using very similar architectures I imagine it does make a deal of difference, though it'll only ever be demonstrated by say, the PS4 having a higher res texture here, or a higher set filter there.

 

[Griffolion]

In a nutshell:

PS4 with GDDR5 - Significantly higher memory bandwidth available to the processor than the Xbox 360

XB1 with GDDR3 - Lower bandwidth than the PS4, but a lower latency as well, meaning requests will be delivered to the CPU quicker

Both have advantages and disadvantages. From what I can see, the PS4 pips the XB1 in power, but not significantly so.

The most powerful console is almost never the winner.

The more powerful console in previous generations was almost never the "winner" because it used a particularly powerful set of hardware that made it incredibly expensive. See: PS3. The PS4 and XB1 both use off the shelf, X86 architecture hardware. They are both going to be relatively the same in manufacture and R&D since they are both on an established platform. The main differences will come in services offered and extraneous hardware features. So even though the PS4 is more powerful than the XB1, we probably wont see the "more powerful yet prohibitively expensive" effect we've seen in the past.

I feel like bringing up DirectX but I'm just getting tired of this now.

For what reason would you bring up Direct X?

 

[Something Amyss]

Is this sort of thing even relevant anymore?

It was impressive back in the 80's and 90's to throw around stats full of bits and megabytes, but that was because of the limitations of the day. Somehow I doubt your average Joe or Jane nowadays is going to notice, much less care, if one console is less powerful than another, since they all offer high fidelity performance and visuals.

Of course, this is coming from someone who thinks Xbox/PS2/GameCube era visuals still look pretty dang nifty.

Early on, it probably does matter. There were a ton of games that performed markedly better on one console or the other early last gen. Even about halfway through the cycle we'd see some notable differences.

Microsoft may know how to optimise their graphics, but will developers? There might be a noticeable difference in visuals and performance as they start pushing for true next-gen titles.

and I think that's why Microsoft is doing damage control.

 

[loc978]

So his argument is "Our hardware may be weaker, but we're wizards!"

As if Sony's graphical programmers aren't as good as Microsoft's. Also, the matter of memory bandwidth for DDR5 is going to be good for more than graphical fidelity. Between it and higher clock speeds the PS4 will be able to render and track more objects at a time in a given game. Very big deal for things like destructible environments or large open-world maps. I forsee frame drops on the Xbone that won't be there, or at least as bad, on the PS4. Especially on early multiplatform releases.

 

[Something Amyss]

The most powerful console is almost never the winner. PS2 won for instance where seen the power the xbox should have taken a win.

Having a year's lead probably didn't hurt either. Or being THE franchise at that point. Hell, the disparity in asking price is also a factor. They both launched for the same but a year later, the PS2 had seen price cuts. And then there's the games.

But it is in the games.

Which is why it's so irrelevant to point out the power/lead comparison. Far from brilliant, it's an utterly specious comparison.

Now, games is only half the story. I mean, the power of the console may actually cause one to be developed over the other. In fact, one of the big problems with the PS3 was that the power came with added complexity that developers didn't like. Once they got used to it, we saw more PS3-lead games and more PS3 exclusives.

Part of the reason the Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiu is having games troubles right now is that developers turned their noses up at it. And a good chunk of that is a perceived lack of power. There won't be THAT big a shift between the Bone and the PS4, but still, power can fuel the games.

In any case, it's about the games.

Which is why it's such a good thing that a lot of Microsoft's PR doesn't even mention games. Unless you count things like fantasy football, because they've totally got that covered.