NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*
- Thread starter Barso
- Start date
- Status
Define "more powerful". Isn't the PS3 "more powerful" than the 360, on paper? Personally, I don't think it's a useful metric, until you get to extreme differences, especially if the architectures have different strengths and weaknesses.
Yes but isn't Sony going with a more dev friendly approach this time?
They have learned a valuable lesson and I expect the more powerful console to be pulling ahead with the multi-plats this time.
The 360 had my attention because of this and I expect Sony to have learned a valuable lesson that they don't want a repeat of skyrim next-gen.
They have learned a valuable lesson and I expect the more powerful console to be pulling ahead with the multi-plats this time.
The 360 had my attention because of this and I expect Sony to have learned a valuable lesson that they don't want a repeat of skyrim next-gen.
I would be careful with those assumptions. The numbers I remember seeing put the multiplatform big titles as consistently selling more on the 360. (Technically I believe the 360 has been considered more dev friendly from a hardware standpoint with the PS3 being technically more powerful.)
bgassassin
Regular
itsmydamnation
Veteran
I would say the PS3's strengths don't lend themselves to multi-platform games but the 360's do. So in effect the PS3 misses out on things like better AI or physics but the 360's will get better AA or IQ settings.
They are literally so close as to be essentially exactly equal. That is precisely why 360 was able to thrive, and last well into 2012, and make lots of money, and command a steady, elevated hardware price. BECAUSE it is very competitive on power. To see people, possibly MS themselves twist that into "oh see, public perception is it's less powerful than PS3 and it still did well so that proves power doesn't matter" is just sick and twisted and literally the exact opposite of reality.
If MS is really going down this "oh we dont care about power it doesnt matter" BS road with Xbox 3, they are in for a very, very rude awakening. Mark my words. bg claims I will never criticize MS hardware. Ha, if MS comes out with dog hardware next gen, he will see absolutely scathing criticism.
They have never succeeded in anything outside of Windows/Office (monopolies so it doesn't count)/first 2 gens of Xbox, and perhaps I'm beginning to see why if they are this stupid...perhaps their brilliant minds wish to replicate windows phone's amazing 2% market share success, in the video game realm.
But it's way too early for any of that without more knowledge of the final hardware all around XB3/PS4.
I agree totally Rangers. I really do think that PS4 will be more powerful in a way that will make it more apparent early in it's life.
MS are going after a different approach and aim with nextbox and think that forza, halo, kinect and the multi-plats will carry them through and be enough for gamers. I have no doubts they are going after that coveted all-in-one-box that does everything next-gen but what I have learned is this just doesn't work.
Maybe they are right and having the HW specs less impressive than PS4 yet bundling in kinect will make it the better seller. If this is true then it will prove how short-sighted MS really are and that without windows and office they are no longer the forward thinkers they used to be.
If true then I hope PS4 is a true gaming machine then I hope Sony rise from the ashes and get all of the credit and sales they will deserve.
MS are going after a different approach and aim with nextbox and think that forza, halo, kinect and the multi-plats will carry them through and be enough for gamers. I have no doubts they are going after that coveted all-in-one-box that does everything next-gen but what I have learned is this just doesn't work.
Maybe they are right and having the HW specs less impressive than PS4 yet bundling in kinect will make it the better seller. If this is true then it will prove how short-sighted MS really are and that without windows and office they are no longer the forward thinkers they used to be.
If true then I hope PS4 is a true gaming machine then I hope Sony rise from the ashes and get all of the credit and sales they will deserve.
Both scenarios are equally possible IMO. MS could go cheap and make a well rounded machine and sell it at a good price tag. But they could also have a true beast as they have the financial resources to achieve this. Same goes for Sony, which could perfectly launch a a strong gaming machine, or a less powerful one to recover the losses it is having currently.
So a guy (Proelite) from GAF (also has account here), allegedly works for MS (but not in xbox department) says Durango is locked at 1 TFLOP GPU and 4 gigs of ram. Personally, I'm not sure if I believe that because that would really put Microsoft in difficult position next generation. Having GPU thats so far behind from its main competitor would be pretty suicidal...
Last edited by a moderator:
If Durango GPU is 1 TFLOP and PS4 is 1.8 TFLOP, thats almost twice amount of power to play with. Thats the difference between Durango GPU and Xenos, its huge.
It will show, its just that difference is not that big even though its next gen console. Later in cycle it will do things PS360 are not capable of.
It will show, its just that difference is not that big even though its next gen console. Later in cycle it will do things PS360 are not capable of.
It's not showing could be many reasons, from what we hear Nintendo's SDK is absolutely horrid, that's probably holding devs back. The CPU is probably weak and that needs to be worked around and is holding them back. Finally, we dont actually know the exact specs of Wii U anyway to say it's 50% more powerful.
So far the supposed extra RAM hasn't showed up, but tablet overhead alone could be eating a lot of that, plus the speed of the RAM, the nature of early development, on and on.
I dont think 50% more power is something that will "not show up". Ask yourself if say, the PS3's GPU was suddenly downclocked from 500 mhz to 350 mhz (and literally nothing else was changed!), you dont think it would have a major effect? We pore over the most subtle differences in PS360 multiplats, now we knock 33% off the PS3 GPU can you imagine?
But yes I agree, it's easy to imagine in the abstract, "ehh, 1.2 vs 1.8, all the games will look spectacular next gen anyway". But the reality on the pavement will be quite different, the differences would be there, and they would grow and grow in importance the closer the next consoles become to reality. It's easy to say "ehh" in abstract, different when you start hearing "next gen game GTA VI in development is rumored to look far better on PS4". And you WILL start hearing that in such a hypothetical case (all else fairly equal of course, which it may not be say if PS4 ends up with only 2GB RAM)
IF Durango had a "1 teraflop GPU" It would probably point nicely at a down clocked 7770 Cape Verde. Which comes in at something like 1.28 TF at 1 ghz stock (7750 only comes in at 819 gflops though). The problem I see there is you dont disable any functional units for yield. Of course the real GPU might be something from the 8000 series in actuality.
If it makes it sound any better it's 1.7B transistors which sounds good next to 232m of original Xenos parent die :/ The GPU would surely come with a hunk of ESRAM attached.
It almost makes me think back to those 6670 rumors :/ Which is supposedly only 570 Gflops.
Xenos stands at 0.24 TFLOP/s, which are also harder to use than the rumored GCN setup of Durango. That means the performance factor is probably closer to 6 or even more, not just 2 (in case the 1 TFLOP number would be correct in the first place).
Maybe. I think if the architectures are almost identical (AMD CPU/GPU with GCN cores) then porting would be a lot less painful and so more time and resources could be dedicated to make the version on the other system run better (higher FPS, better IQ) than porting between two different architectures.
I imagine it would be something like Crysis 3 running on the next xbox 1536x1020 (then interpolated to full 1080p) @ sub 30fps vs PS4 at 1920x1090 locked at 30fps.
If absolute differences would have any meaningful value in this context ...
Yea, it has little value in context, I'm just trying to paint a picture how much is 800 GFLOP difference.If absolute differences would have any meaningful value in this context ...
That was my point. On paper, the PS3 is twice as "powerful". (2TF to 1TF), but architecture differences not related to "power" made enough of a difference that in practice, the machines are very comparable. It's also why I don't see any huge issues with a 1.2->1.8 TF GPU difference. If there is such a difference, we _still_ don't know how other architecture decisions could factor into how the final games will look. A much beefier CPU could be used to offload GPU processing, like the PS3 did. More memory could be used to precalculate more stuff, reducing CPU/GPU requirements. Faster memory could be used to be able to feed the CPU/GPU at peak efficiency. Bad design decisions could also be a factor. A single number will not tell us whether one machine will be able to match another.
Bkilian, I don't know where you got that info from but ain't no where in hell that PS3 or 360 have something like 1-2 TFLOPS. PS3 has more FLOPS on CPU side, and less on GPU. GPU wise, in terms of FLOPS, Xenos has slightly more theoretical performance, 240 GFLOPS and RSX is around 232 TFLOP. On top of that, Xenos is considerably more efficient GPU.
Cell is around 200 GFLOPS and Xenon is around 100 GFLOPS. So, while on whole PS3 has more theoretical performance, 360 has more "where it matters". Until you tap those "100 GFLOPS" from SPUs to help RSX, 360 is in clear advantage.
Not to turn this into another "vs", I only meant to post this so there wouldn't be any misunderstanding in thinking PS3 has on whole twice more FLOPS, thats just not true. I would seriously question MS decision to make CPU centric console after the success they had with 360, especially having GPU with almost twice less theoretical performance. There isn't any CPU in the world thats going to get you out of that "mess". Offloading something that GPU should do, on CPU, while the same transistors could be spent on graphics unit seems wasteful. Well, if you are not Sony and working on new CPU design that you plan to use on in the future devices that is.
Cell is around 200 GFLOPS and Xenon is around 100 GFLOPS. So, while on whole PS3 has more theoretical performance, 360 has more "where it matters". Until you tap those "100 GFLOPS" from SPUs to help RSX, 360 is in clear advantage.
Not to turn this into another "vs", I only meant to post this so there wouldn't be any misunderstanding in thinking PS3 has on whole twice more FLOPS, thats just not true. I would seriously question MS decision to make CPU centric console after the success they had with 360, especially having GPU with almost twice less theoretical performance. There isn't any CPU in the world thats going to get you out of that "mess". Offloading something that GPU should do, on CPU, while the same transistors could be spent on graphics unit seems wasteful. Well, if you are not Sony and working on new CPU design that you plan to use on in the future devices that is.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
