Xbox One vs PS4 vs Mobile GPUs

Taking a launch title to make a comparison, are you really serious ?
No optimisation, no finalised sdk, short amount of time, no knowledge on hardware...

Take a better example plz :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow2cL-pp6p8

@1080p/60fps.

 

^^ You are taking a game Sony is sponsoring, uhmm, forget about it, there are no other platforms..

EDIT: Just watched the video, why people are so amazed by a million QTEs I really don't know, it is a QTE heaven, press D!! COME ON! PRESS MORE! OMG look at the movie! (not a video game anymore at that point..). Not saying the visuals aren't impressive (though not nearly as good as the maxed AssCreed:Unity). But less QTEs please, as soon as he enters combat, it is a QTE fest..

 

Wow /facepalm. Your example is even worse because it's a platform exclusive. What else is there to compare it to? Are you really serious?

Welcome to Uncharted. Never understood what's the big deal about it. The graphics maybe, which are supposedly pretty good for a console game?

 

What just makes me sad is the "60fps@1080p" statement. Take a game with good textures, amazing AA and post processing support, though 720p. It looks much better than, say CS:GO on 1080p.. The same way they managed to sell Halo Masterchief edition, tweak the game a bit so that it runs at 1080p on Xbone, and boom! You made yourself a billion dollars on pure advertisement, Halo at 1080p!!! Console people thinks 1080p and 60fps are the only things that matter (but what do you expect without the choice of graphics settings, this is the only thing they get to talk about... sad).

 

Graphics are overrated anyway. The endless pursuit of eye candy at all costs is a big part of the reason the AAA game industry is eating itself to death right now.

 

Uncharted games are so fun. Graphically impressive as well. Great world, characters, and story.

 

Yeah but gameplay is "meh." Too linear, scripted, and heavy on the QTEs and cinematics. Feels more like an interactive movie than a game to me.

 

Exactly how I felt about the new Tomb Raider, but for some reason I liked it way more than I've expected.

 

Not denying that such games can be very enjoyable, but they have no replay value. Go through them once and I'm done with them forever.

 

I think the experience playing on consoles is a whole lot different than on PC.
Sure the hardware on consoles are not stellar, but they more than make up for it with easy to use interface, console exclusive games, hand controller and chilling on the couch. Plus although the graphics are worse, the devs go great depths in optimizing the hardware so the games doesnt look so bad anyway.

For $400 they are undoubtly a good buy. I sometime miss my old Playstation so I might pick up PS4. I know the craving will be too much when Bloodborne launch. As a diehard Dark Souls fan, I would buy PS4 just for that game alone

 

Spoiler

 

Not so different if you don't want it to be.

Steam Big Picture Mode. Windows 8 Metro UI. :laugh:

Waayyy more PC exclusives.

Xbox 360 controller...

...plug laptop into TV. Done.

 

Fixed it for you .

Whatever you say chief!

 

Its not the same with using a PC with Windows anyway. Although PC got more exclusives, there are many many fun games that isnt available PC.
Emulation brought some Nintendo games to PC that I had fun playing with a nunchuck, but the experience was still not the same. Many settings, booting up Windows and launching various programs, frame drops etc.

Steambox and Alienware Alpha was suppose to be death to consoles but neither of them interest me.

 

Steambox not out yet and Alienware Alpha overpriced and under-speced as expected.

 

Nothing can 'kill' consoles. Nothing. Why? PSN/Xbox Live - that's why. People have invested too much into these services to let them go. Just like with Steam. I have far too many games on Steam to ever abandon PC gaming in favour of consoles. It won't ever happen now. They have all learnt the art of turning customers into lifetime revenue streams. None more so than Valve and the mighty Gaben, who have mastered this to perfection. Who would ever give up their gazillion Steam games for consoles? It will never happen. Also, the friend network is a huge factor. If all of your mates are playing on PS4, you aren't going to go to PC if you are a fan of multiplayer games. Also the hugely important fact that some people just love the simplicity of consoles and PC can never be as simple to operate as a console, ever - a modular open platform will always have more strange quirks and added complexity than a closed one.

On topic: I think that the 980M will favour well in comparison to the PS4 versions of multi-platform games. 780M is already powerful enough to have a slight edge over the PS4, even without DX12. Are we at the point where the most powerful mobile GPUs can run games at 60fps that run on the PS4 at 30fps with comparable settings?

 

This doesn't matter if there are console exclusives someone wants to play, it's still up to the individual.

That's why you just use both.. Why so absolute that at has to be one or the other? I like games, all games.. All platforms..

 

Not everyone has enough money to go for all platforms. I certainly don't seeing as I invest all my spare money into beastly (and very expensive) laptops

 

I find quite amusing that some people think that there is come kind of hidden power in the new consoles, this consoles are x86, so they don´t have to learn how to program for them, because they are just computers.

Uncharted 4 is good, but not THAT good, it has a great artistic design though, that makes it look better than really is. Also is easier to do good graphics on a linear and script game than for example a Sandbox game

 

The XBOX One is better than the PS4.

Just when you thought the thread was going to be buried in the next page...

 

I don't know about you, but I invested a good bit into XBL back in the 360 days. Also invested a lot of time building up my profiles in the games I played (hell, I had an amazing MW3 account). However, I still gave it all up because

1) I got tired of paying ~$40-$60/yr for XBL service.
2) I got tired of playing on XBL.

Sunk cost fallacy isn't going to stop me from moving to a different system . Just my two cents though.

 

So, when I originally started this thread I think there were several off topic discussions in the Maxwell rumors thread of "how will you think the 860M maxwell compare to the XB1 or PS4?" and just wanted to try offload that from the thread.

This should have been a "will my mobile card provide an experience that is on par or better than the XB1 or PS4." The only fear that should exist if you are running hardware that cannot support what is now becoming the "base level" for game development as previous generation consoles are not being developed for. Will it be good enough for today, tomorrow, a month, a year or 3-5 years from now?

Myself, I've now decided that my primary gaming experience will be on the PC. I justify my consoles now on their exclusive titles.

 

I think this 'base level' currently appears to be between the 860M & the 680M/7970M. Is that fair to say? Is this likely to increase as time goes on, as the low level optimisations in the consoles gets deeper?

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

Increase, yes, but the hardware remains the same, so don't expect a tremendous increase.

 

Yes, they seemed to have tapped them out already.

I think we all know by now that everything 680M/7970M and upwards will be absolutely fine (providing devs don't go full on idiotic in their optimisations for PC). The much more interesting question is whether the 860M and equivalents (including the upcoming 960M/965M) can keep up or not.

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

Here are some further news about these AMD based consoles:

AMD to Give 20 nm Optical Shrinks to Console SoCs First | techPowerUp

AMD Readies 20nm Console Chips, Puts GPUs and APUs/CPUs Second - Softpedia

It looks as if AMD is doing pretty well in this area, and shrinking the process down to 20nm for the consoles can only be a good thing... however... perhaps it would have been better if AMD actually then put Carrizo-L into the new consoles (at least the CPU part) - that would have certainly provided a good boost I think... then again, to be honest, the consoles are a lot more powerful compared to where the previous generation was... the PC ports on the other hand are a completely different story and lack proper porting - resulting in un-optimized games that have exceedingly high hardware requirements.

Now, personally, I don't have a problem with games being relatively demanding on the hardware... but only if its actually justified in that area as opposed to be a result of poor porting and coding.

 

My Xbox One has been making a weird fan noise. It seems to get louder the longer it's on.

Must've been damaged in transport... People are so careless. Gonna take it to Best Buy and try to get a replacement tomorrow. It's annoying.

 

They can't boost anything. Performance potential has to stay constant the life of the console. That's actually one of the benefits, you'll never have to wonder if the game is going to perform well and look identically the same on a day 1 unit vs day 2000 unit.

 

I don't think there is any contra reason as to why the consoles couldn't be upgraded with a better baseline CPU side such as Carrizo-L.
Its still x86, and would still have 8 cores, but there would be a pretty high increase in terms of overall computational performance compared to Jaguar.

Though, the main reason why there would be issues about this would likely be 'time'.
It would be fundamentally easier to simply recreate the existing thing on a smaller manufacturing process, which should alone increase overall efficiency in terms of power consumption, etc.
So basically, instead of altering the existing design, they stick with what is already there.
I was simply thinking that while they are already doing this, a replacement of the CPU part might have been in order - I wonder just how much of an increase it would actually mean going from Jaguar to Carrizo-L.

One thing I'm wondering about is whether these 20nm AMD based consoles will have things optimized for HSA or not.
I think there have been conflicting reports about this before, but I also didn't hear anything conclusive about it.

 

Go back one post and read my reply again. Will never happen. Never. The point of consoles is static platform performance target for the life of the product. Simply cannot increase its performance. You do that and it's essentially a brand new product with wasted improvements. Games will have to perform identically to the day 1 console for many reasons.

You basically want a PC.

 

I completely agree. There's no way in hell the existing current gen consoles are gonna get upgraded to higher-performance hardware during their lifetime. Die shrinks will allow them to keep the same level of performance but in a smaller/slimmer and quieter chassis due to the reduced power draw and heat output. Same as previous gens, we will get XB1 and PS4 slim and slimmer editions before it's all said and done.

However, I think this console life cycle will be much shorter than previous ones owing to the extremely anemic hardware inside the PS4 and XB1. The PS5 and Xbox Deuce will probably arrive in record time by my estimation. And that's where the next-gen AMD silicon comes in.

 

But they still probably be around till 4K tech (TVs, GPUs, etc.) become more available aka cheap, so that's like what, 2-3 years? Give another year for development, advertising and such stuff.

 

Yeah, I was quite surprised with the power (or lack of) in these new consoles considering 4k is quickly making inroads into the general market. They are quite affordable and easily a consideration for someone going to purchase a new TV. But I guess give them another couple of years for tech to advance so we can get to a single GPU solution that can push 4k/60 without a whole lot of power and noise and then they can release a new console. It's clear that the XBone and PS4 will likely have only a 5 year shelf life compared with 7-8 of past generation of consoles. Although I'm still tempted to buy another Xbox 360 since my kids play it so much, I hate to lose those games when this console fails (and it eventually will).

 

Moreover, they can maintain the architecture for a future console release, that will facilitate backwards compatibility, so that next gen consoles can push 4K without breaking a sweat.

And I actually can see a "stronger" version of the consoles as a possibility. Similar to how the PSP Go and future PSP versions sported more RAM etc, and they all played the same game, just the new ones had added features. This won't happen for years though.

But considering the architecture they are using, I say this time it is not that far fetched as before.

 

Backwards compatibility would go a long way towards pushing new console sales, especially if the refresh cycle is shorter. Now, if they can find a way to emulate the PPC hardware used in previous gen consoles, that would also help sales. Anyways, at this point, I think we can all agree that nothing will beat PC hardware on the high end, be it mobile or desktop.

It may not seem like it, but consoles use some tricks to run their games fluidly, less objects in the background, etc. I remember a screenshot of a Metro game (I think) on console vs PC. That said, I'm cool with it as long as I can play the games I want where I want (there is something to be said for playing games on the couch with a controller). I find the whole hardware and setting debate a bit silly at times. Who cares what you're playing your games as long as it suits your needs perfectly.

 

They simple don´t have the power to emulate 360 and PS3, a modern i7 won´t be able to run a PS3 or 360 emulator smoothly, much less the tablet CPU on PS4 and Xbox One

But from now on is probable that they are going to keep using X86 architecture, which was used for a reason: games development costs

 

Emulators don't require huge amounts of extra power unless they're doing guesswork emulation. If you know the all the code, you can get it running on a very weak system. A good example is BSNES versus NO$SNES emulators. BSNES tried to force-emulate perfectly, and NO$SNES basically wrote the whole thing in I think it was assembly language? Needs a 200MHz CPU to run, versus BSNES which asks for an i7 for perfect performance.

Dolphin had some advancements too, where they significantly sped up the emulator and cut down resources because someone figured out ways to stop making the CPU do so much forced guesswork calculations. Basically, if microsoft wanted to put a Xbox 360 emulator on the Xbox 1, they could do it right now. With utter ease.

 

Nintendo have gone and done it with the New 3DS. Even going so far as to develop an exclusive game for the new version that simply won't run on existing 3DS's. I have mixed feelings about that. It definitely did need a speed boost (modern smartphones put it to shame when loading apps and the time it takes to navigate the system's menus) but I don't think it should have an exclusive game - at the very least, make it so that the existing 3DS's can run the title at lower settings, not cut it off completely.

I'm probably going to buy a New 3DS once they are available in the UK though. For the greatly enhanced 3D viewing angles - the Achilles heel of the original system.

Sent from my Nexus 5

 

Are you kidding me? We're talking a major architectural change. Have you seen the state of Xbox 360/PS3 emulation (hint: almost nothing), or even Xbox/PS2 emulation for that matter? And it's not for a lack of effort. How much stronger is PC now? 100x Xbox 360? 1000x Xbox?

The current-gen consoles are nowhere near strong enough hardware-wise, so forget about emulation of last-gen consoles. There are only two solutions for backward compatibility. Build an actual Xbox 360/PS3 inside the XB1/PS4, similar to how early (and much coveted) PS3's had PS2 hardware inside so they could play PS2 games. This would obviously increase the BOM cost of the current-gen boxes, which may or may not translate into higher prices for consumers. Or stream last-gen games over the Internet like what Sony is doing now, this way they can monetize it and fill their coffers with more $$$.

 

Well, it's true, they would need a stronger CPU than last gen because it still needs to run the OS and all the functions of the current-gen hardware while running the emulation. Their CPUs are probably not good enough. But even so, if you check up on the recent improvements of Dolphin in its Gamecube and Wii emulation (and the Wii is stronger than the PS2/Xbox even by a little), it's been helped FAR more along by one lady who joined and helped them out a lot. But as I was saying: GUESSWORK emulation is a thing. I'm trying to say if it was NOT heavy guesswork emulation (I.E. if Sony or Microsoft did it, as they have the assembly language and should know how to ACTUALLY do something properly) then you don't need that many times stronger of a system for it. Like I said, a good example is NO$SNS which has the sys reqs as follows:

Then compare to BSNES, which also was formed by ripping apart old SNES systems, but still uses guesswork to force the SNES code:

And the guy has even said that i7s are best to get it running without a hitch. (Back on my old i7-950 that emulator could use upwards of 20% CPU, and that was only with one game that I ever tested on it; Earthbound).

But anyway, I was actually referring to PC-based emulation of the last-gen systems. I'm saying we have more than enough power now; just nobody knows how to even begin the emulation, or at least, nobody knows how to do it properly enough.

 

LOL Dolphin pretty much proves my point. Both GameCube and Wii are weaker than the original Xbox. And what kind of hardware does Dolphin recommend? Recent i5/i7 and GTX 460/Radeon 5770. AMD CPUs are not recommended as Dolphin is single-threaded (just like the GameCube and Wii) so it's all about IPC.

Now Dolphin is only emulating GameCube and Wii. Imagine what kind of hardware is needed to successfully emulate Xbox 360 and PS3 knowing that they are over an order of magnitude more powerful than the two Nintendo consoles (Xbox 360 was roughly 10x Xbox). Plus the emulator would need to be well-made like Dolphin is, which is a tall order given the comparatively lacking dev scene for 360 and PS3 emulators.

And yes, taking about PC emulation of last-gen consoles ofc. The low IPC, low clock speed weak sauce AMD tablet CPUs in the PS4 and XB1 wouldn't stand a chance.

 

Weird though. My i7-950 and 280M ran Dolphin (pre uber update) pretty well in everything I tried except Tatsunoko vs Capcom. If I take that performance and think about the improvements we have here, a 460/5770 being the recommended GPU is more like "to make sure it'll never have a problem" rather than being a minimum requirement per se. An i7-950 at stock would get trounced so hard by a 4670K that it'd be recorded and put on youtube for laughs XD.

But yes, the problem is finding people who CAN do it that efficiently. But the point is that it COULD be done that efficiently. Just, nobody really knows how, I suppose. But MS and Sony, if they really wanted, could just release a bloody emulator for PC users and make it cost something and people'd probably lap it up, especially if it allowed playing online.