Microsoft Disputes PS4 Power Advantage

[Vivi22]

"It's been the same EVERY generation, Sony claims more power, they did it with Cell, they did it with Emotion Engine, and they are doing it again.

Actually, I don't think it's Sony making the claim at all this time around. I think it's people who have noticed that the CPU's are using the same damn architecture, but the XBone will be, according to the present rumours anyway, underclocked compared to Sony and with RAM that's substantially slower. Now I'm not saying that will necessarily make a massive difference to the end user. Hell, it probably won't, especially since every AAA publisher is basically going to be pushing all of their games to be multi-platform, but the fact is, the raw numbers say the XBone will be less powerful. And it's pretty damn obvious since we're not even comparing apples to oranges like previous console generations. They're both literally using the same type of CPU from AMD.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

In the end its not the potential of the systems (see: Dreamcast) but the library that determines what system does better than the other. And the other side of the spectrum people forget is the non-hardcore gaming crowd. The people who buy systems for their kids and don't know what RAM is and the older crowd who like games but don't know the first thing about hardware. What will attract them is what is available for the system, what they want. Sorry to tell you folks but core gamers aren't the driving force behind all sales. We are still the minority, however vocal.
Its too early to tell, and no one knows what is going to happen after release. Wait and see, wait and see.
I also feel that there are people who are always going to be Microsoft and people who are always going to be Sony and people who will be Nintendo. I happen to love all 3 and also the PC and I really don't give a rats ass who has the most powerful hardware. I'm quite happy with my dick size and whats under the hood of my consoles and PC doesn't make me feel better about myself. Its a silly argument to make anyway.

EDIT: I am reminded of the older days when PC Overclocking arguments were so heated that I called overclocking a new religion.

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

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?

I'd like to know what has influenced your opinion to give you the indication that they have inferior architecture? I may be misunderstanding what you mean by architecture, as I have no idea what you mean by the PS4 having three chips to the Xbox One's one. As far as I know (I am of course liable to be wrong, I haven't been exactly been following the news on it too closely), there's no real significant difference between the two. They're both running a custom AMD SoC with 8 cores, the main difference being the PS4 getting GDDR5 RAM, and 6 more Compute Units.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft is well aware of it's reputation with the 360 on hardware failures, they know they can't have two consoles in a row with the same sort of problems, it will be a far bigger PR problem than less powerful hardware.

Everything will fail in time, it's the nature of electronics. A bigger, cooler box merely reduces the chances of it happening. It can't handle the processing the PS4 can, they don't have the power; however downloading/storing/installing in the background is something that is not hard to do. (The network/hard-drive is far too slow to even begin to have an influence on performance).

Most of their 180's have been mostly PR moves, nothing that could really affect the console too much. The recording of video could actually be performance intensive if they were doing it in a silly way, if they simply stored the result of the draw calls into a circular buffer that's big enough to store the length of the video, then it would only be memory/hard-drive intensive, a single CPU core could handle that pretty easily. It doesn't need the Kinect, you can have it unplugged. It only ships with the Kinect, and that's because Microsoft realised that the kinect was a chicken-egg problem, people don't develop for it because not everyone has it; and people aren't picking it up because people aren't developing for it. They tried to use the new generation to change that.

Sony have played it pretty safe this generation, stronger hardware that's not radically different (i.e., not using the cell processor), no risky moves (such as DRM/Kinect), and their competitor has been making stumbles. They haven't need to make any changes, and any that they did make would make them look weaker.

As I mentioned earlier, most of their changes have been PR moves. It's mostly been minor OS edits and minor tech changes, a minor CPU clock upgrade and stripping the new DRM system out is going to mean next to nothing in terms of the bigger console picture.

The PS4 will, almost without a doubt, but it won't be by much. Developers will find a way to squeeze that extra power out, but it won't happen for a while. You won't notice it until a lot closer to the end of the consoles life-time, and the multi-platform titles will show it to an even lesser extent. Much like the current consoles the extra power will be used blindly at first while developers get used to it, then as the generation goes on they will settle in and find all the little tricks to stretching out the power (such as doing certain operations before others, building this shader operation this way because the GPU can do it .01% faster, etc, etc). It won't be as bad as this generation was because the consoles are pretty similar to PCs, unlike last time. The 360 introduced unified shaders (and a few other things) and the PS3 had the cell processor, which required a fair bit of work to get used to.

 

[Baldr]

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?

Actually it was the other way around, it was well known in the industry a couple years ago that Xbox was looking to integrate it system into it's Azure product. Why else would Microsoft be sending their chief Cloud guy Brian Prince to talk about the future of cloud gaming to Game Developer Conferences. It wasn't long after that Sony bought up Gaikai.

 

[Saltyk]

Spoiler: Spoiled to save room

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?

I'd like to know what has influenced your opinion to give you the indication that they have inferior architecture? I may be misunderstanding what you mean by architecture, as I have no idea what you mean by the PS4 having three chips to the Xbox One's one. As far as I know (I am of course liable to be wrong, I haven't been exactly been following the news on it too closely), there's no real significant difference between the two. They're both running a custom AMD SoC with 8 cores, the main difference being the PS4 getting GDDR5 RAM, and 6 more Compute Units.

I can't remember where I read it, as it was a while back, but I remember it was implied that since the Xbox One only had one chip to use for processing, it would likely run much hotter. Which is why it is a bigger system to allow it to cool off the system. But, assuming the system really does run hotter, it would probably reduce it's lifespan. Hence why I said that to my understanding the architecture is inferior.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft is well aware of it's reputation with the 360 on hardware failures, they know they can't have two consoles in a row with the same sort of problems, it will be a far bigger PR problem than less powerful hardware.

Everything will fail in time, it's the nature of electronics. A bigger, cooler box merely reduces the chances of it happening. It can't handle the processing the PS4 can, they don't have the power; however downloading/storing/installing in the background is something that is not hard to do. (The network/hard-drive is far too slow to even begin to have an influence on performance).

I'd say that everything that happened with the 360 says otherwise. They pretty much never fixed the RROD issue. Even much later consoles were still dying due to the same issue. And, Microsoft has never released any statistics on the failure rate. But I know I have heard estimates as high as 50% [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_technical_problems]. Even the low end is around 20% which is still very high. And when they did fix it, the E74 issue sprang up.

As for how capable either system is at downloading, I can't say. But I do know that while PS3 would let me download in the background, that would stop if I booted up a game. So, it couldn't have been that trivial.

Most of their 180's have been mostly PR moves, nothing that could really affect the console too much. The recording of video could actually be performance intensive if they were doing it in a silly way, if they simply stored the result of the draw calls into a circular buffer that's big enough to store the length of the video, then it would only be memory/hard-drive intensive, a single CPU core could handle that pretty easily. It doesn't need the Kinect, you can have it unplugged. It only ships with the Kinect, and that's because Microsoft realised that the kinect was a chicken-egg problem, people don't develop for it because not everyone has it; and people aren't picking it up because people aren't developing for it. They tried to use the new generation to change that.

Are you implying that backtracking on the Online Requirement and DRM was a PR move? I actually hope you're wrong. As that would imply they would be willing to put those back in at a later date. Something that would piss off a lot of people. The mere threat of that is enough to turn several people I know off of the system. And we don't know the details of the DRM (and yes, it was DRM). But considering the original intent was to completely copy the game to the systems hard drive and render the disc effectively useless, I would say they had to make some pretty big changes since it now reads the disc to play it (or does it? I've just read otherwise). Big enough to require a Day One patch.

And honestly, I don't even think Microsoft knows what's the deal with Kinect. I've heard it was required and the system absolutely wouldn't work without Kinect. Then, I heard it could be turned off, but not completely. Then, that it could be completely turned off. Then, that it wasn't required. Then, I heard it actually is required. Now, there's rumor of a Kinect-less Xbox One next year.

They seriously don't even know what they are selling or what it needs to work.

Sony have played it pretty safe this generation, stronger hardware that's not radically different (i.e., not using the cell processor), no risky moves (such as DRM/Kinect), and their competitor has been making stumbles. They haven't need to make any changes, and any that they did make would make them look weaker.

As I mentioned earlier, most of their changes have been PR moves. It's mostly been minor OS edits and minor tech changes, a minor CPU clock upgrade and stripping the new DRM system out is going to mean next to nothing in terms of the bigger console picture.

They played it safe? No. Microsoft played it stupid. They tried to force Online requirements and DRM on console gamers. They made their console inconvenient to the general player. They forgot that people had other options. Sony actually gave a Gaming System. Most of the things that Microsoft touted as "Game Changing" Sony also has. And without a Pay Wall.

Coupled with PR disaster after PR disaster, Microsoft hurt their image in the gaming community. And if you don't believe me, check out PS4 and Xbox One vids on Youtube. PS4 generally garners 90% or better likes while Xbox has a two-thirds dislikes.

Making sure your console is easy to develop for is not playing it safe. I'm not saying Sony is a master of Chess in this regard. Merely that they didn't screw up and have been wise to capitalize on the competitions fumbles.

The PS4 will, almost without a doubt, but it won't be by much. Developers will find a way to squeeze that extra power out, but it won't happen for a while. You won't notice it until a lot closer to the end of the consoles life-time, and the multi-platform titles will show it to an even lesser extent. Much like the current consoles the extra power will be used blindly at first while developers get used to it, then as the generation goes on they will settle in and find all the little tricks to stretching out the power (such as doing certain operations before others, building this shader operation this way because the GPU can do it .01% faster, etc, etc). It won't be as bad as this generation was because the consoles are pretty similar to PCs, unlike last time. The 360 introduced unified shaders (and a few other things) and the PS3 had the cell processor, which required a fair bit of work to get used to.

This is true of all consoles. Compare early Genesis games to later ones. Compare early PS One games to later ones. As developers get used to the hardware, they learn how to push it and take advantage of it. It even shows up in things like loading.

 

[masticina]

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.

Ah yes isn't that true being early is a gain. Hence why the xbox 360 was brought in in a half broken state. Yes I am talking about the RRoD. If any of the original xbox 360's still run it will be a wonder.

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.

Yup that is what happened, we got some lovely PS3 exclusives that did deal with the complexity of the hardware and made it shine. Multi console games though

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.

But Fantasy Football on GDDR5? Who can be against that.. I guess it will now be stuck on DDR3

 

[Yuuki]

I guess we will see later down the road when the hardware really starts getting utilized. Perhaps some developers will start increasing framerates/resolution on PS4 while keeping things the same on XBone, simply because PS4 can handle it? Time will tell.

Also it's not that PS4 is more powerful than XBone. It's that PS4 is more powerful than XBone while costing $100 less. Overall you're just getting a slightly better deal with PS4.

 

[TiberiusEsuriens]

"It's been the same EVERY generation, Sony claims more power, they did it with Cell, they did it with Emotion Engine, and they are doing it again. And, in the end, games on our system looked the same or better."

Same yes, better? Nope.

 

[Callate]

So... The PS4 has, as I understand, 8 GB of RAM made available to whatever the game's programmers chose to do with their game, while the XBox One has 5 (out of a total of 8, but 3 permanently out of the picture to allow non-game functions to be on-call in the background.)

And the PS4's RAM is faster.

Fair enough... the computer I type this on has the somewhat odd arrangement of having 3 GB of RAM, and it's run everything I've thrown at it so far, including some games like Saint's Row IV and Far Cry 3 that claimed they needed 4.

So I'd like to believe that whether programmers are working with 8 gigs or 5, they'll still have a fair amount of ceiling clearance to work with, at least in the early days of the thing when everyone is lowballing so games can still be ported to the PS3 and XBox 360 anyway.

However, it would be unwise to suggest that in the "long game", an extra 3 gigabytes of memory aren't going to make a difference. Or that it's faster memory.

And there's still the matter of the PS4 costing $100 less.

 

[faefrost]

...technical details...are irrelevant as long as they produce equivalent experiences.

Yes? I mean that's pretty obvious if they both provide the same experiences they are equal in those terms?

Also David Carmack already said they were more or less the same in terms of practical power.

So their hardware is technically faster in raw speed? But these technical details are irrelevant as they both deliver an equivalent user experience?

But yours costs $100 more for that same user experience on lesser hardware? (Bonus! We just found ways to make our more expensive hardware with even lower quality components to up those meaningless numbers by a small fraction of 1%!)

 

[faefrost]

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.

Developers will not even bother "optimizing the graphics" this generation. In prior generations developers had to create actual true hardware specific ports for their games. So a game developed for one platform may not always have ported well onto the other. But this generation the base hardware platform is the same. And it's a PC. The differences between them are marginal hardware differences you see between differently built pc's. developers will make the game for the base x86 platform. The only thing they are going to bother porting or tweaking will be that little bit needed to run the game under Xbone's Windows OS or PS4's more Linux based one. Unless MS or Sony are paying them for a true console exclusive no one is going to bother making any use of the hardware differences between the two consoles, ever. And that includes coding for the idiotic Kinect.

The games will look and perform virtually the same on either console this generation. The only time this will ever come up will be something that takes a ton of available RAM for keeping a massive data set in memory at once, such as Skyrim. So the PS4 may be better for something like Skyrim. Otherwise, no real difference at all.

 

[Fox12]

First of all, Sony DID have better graphics with the PS3 than Microsoft had with the 360.

However, I don't care about one console being marginally superior tech wise, I care about two consoles being almost identical, and yet one costs a hundred dollars more. Sony passed the savings onto the consumer, and Microsoft didn't. I know which system I will be purchasing this Christmas.

 

[The Lunatic]

It's really irrelevant.

Developers for a game are going to ensure their game looks the best it can, on the weakest hardware they can.

If they release a game for the consoles, it's going to be optimised to ensured that it runs the best it can, and looks the best it can on the Xbox. Because it's not good business practice to have one version of your game look significantly worse than the other.

So, basically, yeah, the PS4 is going to run the games better, the Xbox might look marginally worse.

But, ultimately, if you give a shit about how a game looks, why the fuck are you playing on the consoles?

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

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.

You mean totally made-up nonsense stuff like 'blast processing'?

Sorry, that should have read

BLAST PROCESSING!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, right, better.

It's not quite the same thing. GDDR5 is real, and it's pretty awesome. Depending on how well it's handled by ye coders wielding ye code, there could easily be noticeable, if not dramatic differences in how a single title 'feels' or presents itself on the two different platforms. Right off the bat, I wouldn't expect any hardcore optimized titles to be available, and I would expect some rather minor noticeable differences (like the grass or lighting effects currently being noticeably better on 360 than on PS3 if the devs put in some extra effort).

 

[That Annoying Guy]

This guy just completely dodged the bullet on this one. (and most certainly not in the good way!) Seriously he went from talking about the power of the console(s) to how, god-forbid, they have "THE BEST PROGRAMMERS IN THE WORLD!"

*Sarcastic-ass voice* Yeah, nice one Albert.

 

[gamegod25]

Of course you know they are just saying that because their system isn't as powerful. If it was the other way around you know they would be trumpeting how their console is the most powerful and how much better that makes them.

"Do you really think we don't know how to build a system optimized for maximizing graphics for programmers? Seriously?"

Well i would have thought you would know how to make a good OS and console by now...and yet here we are with Win 8 and the Xbox One.

 

[Something Amyss]

But Fantasy Football on GDDR5? Who can be against that.. I guess it will now be stuck on DDR3

I doubt most of the fantasy football crowd knows a stick of RAM from a stick of gum.

I mean, their loss. I hear fantasy football runs 43% smoother for GDDR5....

Developers will not even bother "optimizing the graphics" this generation. In prior generations developers had to create actual true hardware specific ports for their games. So a game developed for one platform may not always have ported well onto the other. But this generation the base hardware platform is the same. And it's a PC. The differences between them are marginal hardware differences you see between differently built pc's. developers will make the game for the base x86 platform. The only thing they are going to bother porting or tweaking will be that little bit needed to run the game under Xbone's Windows OS or PS4's more Linux based one. Unless MS or Sony are paying them for a true console exclusive no one is going to bother making any use of the hardware differences between the two consoles, ever. And that includes coding for the idiotic Kinect.

The games will look and perform virtually the same on either console this generation. The only time this will ever come up will be something that takes a ton of available RAM for keeping a massive data set in memory at once, such as Skyrim. So the PS4 may be better for something like Skyrim. Otherwise, no real difference at all.

Haven't we had developers say just the opposite? That they're all PCs, but that doesn't mean they'll play well together?

Besides, they're going to need optimsation eventually. 8GB is a decent amount of RAM now, but in 5 years? Remember, this is a console. A closed system. No upgrades to RAM, processer, etc. I can drop in new RAM on my PC, or swap out the CPU, GPU, or even the motherboard if I have to. The Xbone can't even add internal HDD space.

Yeah, optimisation will be an issue, even if it isn't day one.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

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

Are you actually suggesting that Microsoft are bastards for not defending Nintendo in the press?

I understand that Microsoft hate is pretty much on auto-pilot at the moment. And Gamer Rage has a way of becoming a self-sustaining beast. But this is the absolute most absurd complaint I have seen.

I mean you no offense personally, but I just don't find any logic in your statement.

 

[shrekfan246]

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.

Today?

Surely you mean "since 1988 when Sega did what Nintendon't"?

The industry has been "all about power" for a long time.

That said, I agree with the sentiment that the technical details of these consoles aren't so drastically different that they should actually impact someone's purchasing decision.

 

[Something Amyss]

Today?

Surely you mean "since 1988 when Sega did what Nintendon't"?

The industry has been "all about power" for a long time.

That said, I agree with the sentiment that the technical details of these consoles aren't so drastically different that they should actually impact someone's purchasing decision.

Nintendo was boasting about the power of the NES over competitors earlier than that, too. And let's not forget power was somewhat of a factor in the 1983 crash gamers keep comparing this day and age to, because consoles were having trouble keeping up with PC capacities even then.

So yeah, when exactly wasn't this industry "all about power?"