Which bit of Xbox One is not as powerful as PS4 is anyone not yet understanding at this point?
The sooner everyone accepts this the sooner you can forget about it and get back to the game content. Mainly because who really wants these articles still in like 2 years time saying the same thing?
Cos that's what will happen
Thing is, even a 7970ghz is not going to be better than midrange 9 months from now. That was only really my observation.
RE: Xbox One, I'm fairly confident of my Titanfall bet lets just say that.
If it only runs 720p/60FPs on Xbox One, I wouldn't be entirely shocked if Radeon 7850 can do the same sort of settings @ 1080p
I have found that a 40 percent estimate for console optimisation is optimistic. I seriously doubt Xbox One will ever be able to match a 7850, merely because it hasn't got remotely enough memory bandwidth.
Even badly coded PC games seem to run easily better on a Radeon 7850 than they do on Xbox One.
We have to remember here that COD and BF4 are still only 720p, something a 7850 will do on ANY game with lots of performance to spare. I have already made a be...
You probably run it on water cooling then jdiggitty, because it is vastly hotter running than an i7 4770k and consumes more than twice as much power for less performance.
The SOLE reason to buy a 9590 is because you own an AMD platform already and want to buy the fastest stock CPU.
However, the FX8350 is still by far the better buy, simply because you just overclock it up to 9590 speeds.
9590 makes basically zero sense to any enthusiast. The ...
If anything it is skewed in favour of the consoles. Namely because the fastest £100 class GPU you can buy right now is a Radeon 7850. http://www.dabs.com/product... this one is les...
Agrees. The 9590 is a retarded choice. If you are going that high end, you HAVE to buy Intel.
The 9590 is just far too hot and power thirsty to make any sense against a 4770k or even a 4670k. Which both overclock ridiculously better and stay far cooler without blowing up your PSU.
The team is barely big enough for GT. They don't have enough modellers. They have barely half the staff of Turn 10 when you count contract work.
Considering GT is by far and away the biggest racing sim in turns of revenue and sales, you would have thought Sony would give Polyphony the budget to increase their manpower a lot more than they have.
"There is no way we’re giving up a 30%+ advantage to Sony. And ANYONE who has seen both systems running could say there are great looking games on both systems. If there was really huge performance difference – it would be obvious"
This was the comment that started this debate.
Are we seeing a difference, where PS4 can perform 30+ percent better on the same games? Is it an obvious difference?
I don't see a way around this, it...
@ Pekka
I'm fully aware that high end semiconductor lithography gets cheaper with time. I probably understand that better than most on these forums. I am also aware that these specs are total nonsense, for just a few of the reasons I outlined besides the price.
The cost of them is only another factor that would make a console like this not viable for a very long time. Even with a new generation of graphics processors this year, an R9 290X style core will ...
I expected a bit more from the hardware for the price, so that is a bit of a disappointment.
But I'll have to reserve judgement for some time yet to call it a 'great' disappointment. It's only 2 months old and hasn't got hardly any worthwhile games! Be a few years before you can say it's that disappointing.
I still expect quality games on the machine in the future, if it doesn't get them, then it will be.
No, it isn't indyman. It's about the advantages of DDR4, which includes power consumption (lower voltage).
You just didn't read. I directed you to the PRECISE relevant bandwidth performance comparison graph at the top of the third page. The large graph directly below "Lower power memory consumption with higher capacity and performance"
That graph is the total bandwidth of different memory types/speeds, based on a 128 bit bus. It compares...
Glad you said you were no DDR4 expert. I'm not either but I know for a fact that DDR4 cannot support this GPU performance.
http://www.samsung.com/glob...
Try scrolling down, to the DDR3 and DDR4 bandwidth comparison graph at the top of the third page.
Incredibly fast, incredibly expensive DDR4 3200 (this is the fastest, highest s...
I am fully aware this is SUPPOSED to be an early phase.
But its still wrong. The specs are blatantly incorrect/useless as I pointed out. There is no getting around that whatsoever.
No systems engineer worth his salt would consider only DDR4 memory with a GPU that powerful, let alone the floating point performance quoted being flat out WRONG for the core suggested.
These are plain and obvious signs the specs are mocked up and imagined by someo...
Reads like a wishlist rather than a genuine spec sheet. Someone wrote them (badly) during a wet dream.
2816 shaders @ 960 MHz, 4.60 TFLOP/s, Fillrates: 60.6 Gpixel/s, 170 Gtexel/s)
2816 shader GPU based on the R200 series? In short, that's an R9 290X.
That's a $550 GPU alone.
For a start, the fillrates and floating point performance quoted don't match to the performance of the core specs.
The slow...
Whereas I am sure it was a minor consideration the fact the machine is barely 150 watts shows that it wasn't particularly engineered to stay under 250 watts specifically.
Original PS3 was only 210 watts on its original design but had a 3 prong for headroom sake I suspect. For the machine to be close to 250 watts or even 200 watts it would probably be far too expensive to make anyway, let alone the size of a power port being a major factor.
A 200+ Watt PS4...
360's dominance in North America prevented PS3 from rapidly outselling Xbox 360. What it meant however, that in Europe and Japan, PS3 easily beat Xbox 360, and the balance came from 360's impressive sales performance in NA.
If PS4 ends up just 50/50 in NA, and every other territory follow the previous generation, PS4 sells a lot more machines worldwide.
However, the trend appears to me that favour and market will swing to PS4 virtually worldwide, and ...
The game looks distinctly previous generation to me, ported onto the new consoles. That's not to say bad. It looks superb. That is just to say this game's roots are without doubt in the PS3/360 era.
It seems fairly obvious this game was designed for PS3/360, and then the decision was made to make enhanced versions for Xbox One/PS4.
This is no bad thing I suppose, GTA5 could easily do the same sort of thing if Rockstar are working on next gen versions....
Legit PC version?
What I found most interesting from that video was that it apparently used 1Gb of memory @ 16 x 10 with what could be near max settings but at least very high.
That makes the game much more realistic to run than GTA4.
GTA4 actually used a similar amount of memory, but that was way back in 2008, when most graphics cards still only had 1Gb or less VRAM.
Now everything decent has at least 2Gb, so this should run...
Sarcastic? Certainly there was no hint of that in your post, none at all.
This game isn't out for at least 6 months. That's minimum, It probably won't be out for a good 9 or more really.
There is lots of time to polish, it's amazing it is at the stage it is at now.
PC beta is cool. Get to see if I can play it before spending any money hopefully