Hey MS, whats the thought process in being considerably less powerful than the..

#1rizzerPosted 5/25/2013 7:56:26 AM
Hey MS, whats the thought process in being considerably less powerful than the PS4?

I mean if you launch at the same time and you know what they are bringing to the table (mostly) where's/what's the justification for coming out so clearly inferior?

Now, I still feel that this will be a helluva lot closer than people think but so far, on paper, why would you allow this kind of mess to happen, why Xbox, why!?

Also, I wish you called yourself the "Xbox Entertainment System" since that is what you are going for, "all-in-one system" or "Xbox One" is just juvenile IMO

I have never owned a Playstation and been a Xbox since day one and a beta live subscriber but I'll be damned if I will spend $400 plus for a totally inferior machine, say it isn't so MS, say it isnt so!

/end rant
#2YeomanlyPosted 5/25/2013 7:59:44 AM
No one knows which machine will be inferior, even the 50% more shader power of the PS4 may not make it more powerful, GDDR5 could be laggy as hell once pushed, ddr3 and esram could push more bandwidth under less power.

E3 will show us... :D
#3rizzer(Topic Creator)Posted 5/25/2013 8:04:34 AM(edited)
^^ I agree, I have my hopes that it isn't true BUT all this negative press is off the charts, MS really blew this reveal, it only hurt them...

Just don't get this :( The reveal was supposed to be positive and this turned out to be the most negative situation I can't even begin to understand lol
#4knightimexPosted 5/25/2013 8:03:36 AM
After seeing ps4 games in action im not going to be worried at all.
---
Old School Style Games FTW!
XBL, PSN, NNID: KnightimeX
#5bessy67Posted 5/25/2013 8:04:20 AM
Yeomanly posted...
No one knows which machine will be inferior, even the 50% more shader power of the PS4 may not make it more powerful, GDDR5 could be laggy as hell once pushed, ddr3 and esram could push more bandwidth under less power.

E3 will show us... :D


I doubt we'll truly know until some years have passed. With previous hardware generations all graphics started off pretty similar and got better as time progressed. Like the current generation, xbox 360 and PS3 started off very similar graphically, both got better as time went on, but PS3 reached a higher ceiling especially on first-party games. I expect a similar scenario this generation where the two systems start out neck and neck and get better as time goes on, but one will probably end up being slightly but noticeably better in terms of graphical fidelity. Based on the specs we know that will probably be the PS4, but only time will tell.
---
"Immigrants. That's all they do, you know. Just driving around, listening to raps, shooting all the jobs." - Malory Archer
GT: Bessy67
#6YeomanlyPosted 5/25/2013 8:07:10 AM
bessy67 posted...
Yeomanly posted...
No one knows which machine will be inferior, even the 50% more shader power of the PS4 may not make it more powerful, GDDR5 could be laggy as hell once pushed, ddr3 and esram could push more bandwidth under less power.

E3 will show us... :D


I doubt we'll truly know until some years have passed. With previous hardware generations all graphics started off pretty similar and got better as time progressed. Like the current generation, xbox 360 and PS3 started off very similar graphically, both got better as time went on, but PS3 reached a higher ceiling especially on first-party games. I expect a similar scenario this generation where the two systems start out neck and neck and get better as time goes on, but one will probably end up being slightly but noticeably better in terms of graphical fidelity. Based on the specs we know that will probably be the PS4, but only time will tell.


There was huge reasons why the last gen started off so slowly, strange machines to developers especially the Cell at first, now they are both PC's running DirectX11, they should be great at the start as well this time, unless we get last gen ports.
#7rizzer(Topic Creator)Posted 5/25/2013 8:09:24 AM
^^^ Well as long as it's close, i couldn't care less.. I am not one who thought a second about graphics 360 vs ps4, they are/were the same, in most cases 360 games ran better whereas some ps4 games looked slightly better (meh, i guess)

All the constant comparisons for the last 7 years was a joke to me, the games looked the same period (imo) and was all a big waste of time

So the new xbox better be competitive or ps4 will be the gamers choice, where as ms will be the wii's choice.. which may be what ms is looking for long term, the broader market rather than the gamer market
#8Foxx3kPosted 5/25/2013 8:10:20 AM
I hate that people try to reduce the complexities and nuances of software design to "% power."
---
[LanParty nF4 Ultra-D] [AMD64 3700+ San Diego] [2x 1gb Corsair XMS 3-3-3-8] [2x 250gb Barracuda] [Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS] [X850XTPE]
#9ZeroArcheryPosted 5/25/2013 8:13:57 AM
Foxx3k posted...
I hate that people try to reduce the complexities and nuances of software design to "% power."


It does sort of scream "I don't know what I'm saying" doesn't it?
---
Official President of the NST
'But Neku, I thought you couldn't afford to lose? Give up on yourself, and you give up on the world.' - Joshua
#10EoinPosted 5/25/2013 8:19:40 AM
Sony and Microsoft took two slightly different approaches. They went for basically the same CPU and almost the same GPU, but their designs differed in terms of RAM.

Much of the rest of this post is speculative, but everything matches what is known and everything is plausible.

When thinking about memory, Sony and Microsoft wanted different things.

Microsoft primarily wanted lots of memory to let their machine do as much at once as possible - hence the 3GB reserved for the OS. Getting lots of GDDR5 memory didn't seem realistic, do they decided on DDR3, included 32MB of ESRAM to partially compensate for the slower speed. If they heard about Sony's plans (they probably did - at the very least they definitely heard the same reliable rumours we did) then they probably figured that the slower GPU and RAM would be cancelled out by having more RAM than Sony and having the ESRAM.

Sony primarily wanted a single unified fast pool of RAM. They knew that this meant GDDR5 and were prepared to go with that, knowing that it probably meant having a lower amount of RAM. The rumours back this up - initial rumours gave the PS4 2GB of RAM, and the 0.5GB reserved for the system is a realistic ceiling for a system with just 2GB of RAM. Sony figured that the single pool of fast RAM would make a developer's life easier, and if they heard about Microsoft's plans (as with Microsoft, they probably did), they probably figured that their lower amount of RAM would be compensated for by having fast RAM, and having a better GPU.

Then GDDR5 RAM prices fell and module sizes increased and suddenly it was possible for them to put 4GB into their system. Sony were probably happy enough with that - 3.5GB of GDDR5 (for games) with a better GPU was a capable match for 5GB of DDR3 (again, for games) and 32MB of ESRAM and a lower-end GPU.

After that, it seems Sony got lucky - module sizes increased again and they were able to go to 8GB of GDDR5 at the last minute (it's unclear how "last minute" it was, but the rumours nailed the specs apart from the RAM and the only 8GB rumour only happened a few days before the announcement, and the announcement itself took developers by surprise.

So in summary, Microsoft wanted lots of memory and went with the only type of RAM that could guarantee, Sony wanted fast RAM and lucked out and got lots of memory in the end anyway.