PS4 vs Xbox One Comparison
14.07.2013 @ 10:53 #1
Nice article comparing the next gen consoles and what they mean for consumers can be found here http://www.guardian....n-4-at-a-glance . Also contains a lot of embedded links to other sites .
14.07.2013 @ 17:20 #3
As for the PS4. There are a lot of exclusives this generation I never played that'll surely be brought to the network so that plays into it for me. The price tag is very nice. Though I hate that our friends across the pond get screwed on that, with either system that is. PSN I feel had a slow start, but really gained momentum with the plus member system as well. The new PS also has better looking exclusives IMO. So I'll be getting a PS4 as my secondary. And maybe I'll get an Xbox way later down the road.
14.07.2013 @ 17:50 #4
Eliphas the Inheritor said:
Well that has nothing to do with the consoles thats just the way it is. You can always start a vote to get rid of the pound if you want.
14.07.2013 @ 20:18 #6
14.07.2013 @ 21:01 #8
It's always been most important to have enough RAM, no matter whether it's the fastest. RAM is what keeps your computer from reading disk too often.
But in some cases, like VRAM, really fast memory becomes important, because you have to move a lot of data while not missing frame deadlines. This is why the PS4 is using GDDR5 and a whopping 8GB of it.
Microsoft is using slower DDR3 but has an additional 32MB cache (ESRAM), which has turned out to perform much better than expected. Overall, the two are going to be about equal on memory performance.
14.07.2013 @ 22:54 #9
In the end I game on PC primarily and will get both consoles in the long run, but for launch I fail to see what the PS4 will offer, features or games, that I can't already do on my PC. There's still about 5 months left until the next gen consoles launch so I'm sure both Sony and M$ still have surprises left to show to push people to get their console this holiday season.
Overall nextgen is looking pretty good for games.
14.07.2013 @ 23:13 #10
C'mon, just on the hardware and exclusives alone, it has xbone beat.
Whether or not Microsoft rises to the challenge remains to be seen, so I'll stay plugged in.
I know, however, that MS is not going to do away with kinect or make buying it optional, and I have issues with that.
Not to mention, PS4 also has plans to allow you to access your library on more than two consoles, which is a plus.
So, at the end of it, I'll just get a PS4 for the superior projected performance and better titles.
15.07.2013 @ 14:42 #11
Becouse whatever application they tested wasnt optimized for 2300mhz. Its like adding aerodynamics to a prius, you sure as hell wont see an improvement but try telling an F1 driver that downforce is worthless....
15.07.2013 @ 16:06 #12
Or the application wasn't dependent on memory speed or bandwidth. Like driving a McLaren down Wilshire Boulevard. You see that in badly written benchmark studies all the time, where the author ran a GPU-limited application to compare CPU or memory.
15.07.2013 @ 18:47 #14
No, it's not the same. The developers may do nothing of the kind, or they may create a bottleneck elsewhere. The likelihood of them optimizing for RAM use in a way that gives a decisive advantage to a big field of fast RAM is actually small. It contradicts a lot of other optimizations that are more important.
Memory has a pretty straightforward and limited use. It stores stuff until you need it. You can't use data from memory faster than you can perform computations with it. And you always want to use the fastest memory for that, which is not the general RAM but the CPU cache.
Furthermore, memory use in real programs has a property called locality. Well-written programs don't actually try to use data from all over a big 8GB field of RAM at once. Most of the time, they use data from consecutive locations and data from a much smaller region. They try to arrange it so that most memory accesses are satisfied from the CPU cache, and the only access to RAM is when a whole line of cache must be read or written. That fast RAM is much slower than cache, so applications that depend too much on reading and writing RAM will perform so badly that there is no question of using them for much beside artificial benchmarks.
There are exceptions where you must do computation over entire large datasets, such as image and video processing, but games do not and should not behave that way.
16.07.2013 @ 15:29 #16
You need RAM to hold data you used or will use, but all computations are performed on CPU registers and moved on to cache. You read blocks from RAM when your data is not in cache, but the idea is to load an entire section (cache line) instead of reading randomly all across your RAM, assuming relevant data is contiguous in RAM. Otherwise you'd have many reads for every little chunk of data, slowing everything down massively.
So while you don't read/write on RAM chaotically and actual computations are affected by factors other than just RAM "speed", you can benefit from having enough RAM because it is much faster than disk access.
So ideally, next gen games could use better programming techniques, preload things on RAM that you will most likely need, and have it ready for processing, intelligently moving the right blocks to cache and so on. You'd be surprised how much better it is to have efficient algorithms than strong hardware with poor algorithms.
*Do not add extra DRM to your game. Support Linux Gaming!*
PC does not equal Windows. PC games should be available for all major platforms. Utilize standard, cross-platform technologies!
16.07.2013 @ 16:04 #17
Strong hardware with poor algorithms is daily bread for an PC gamer so we all know what that means.