Top
420°

Xbox One: +53 mhz Is a Safe Upclock, but It Might be Way Too Little to Compete with PS4

According to a report by Gamespot the GPU of the Xbox One has been upclocked from 800 to 853 mhz. To those unfamiliar with overclocking that may sound like a big deal. Giuseppe Nelva from DualShockers.com explains that unfortunately it isn't.

Read Full Story >>
dualshockers.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Alexious1092d ago

53 mhz really isn't much. It seems like another PR swing; clearly Microsoft is trying to get back at Sony on every level, but their copycat efforts might be rushed.

sobotz1092d ago

If it's a PR swing, why only 53Mhz? they can said it's increased to 1000Mhz+ to compete with Sony

iamnsuperman1092d ago (Edited 1092d ago )

That isn't a PR spin. That would be lying and misinforming the public.

Edit I think I just jumped into your trap but never mind

darthv721092d ago

it may not seem like much but improving the speed coupled with efficiency of the OS and memory resources leads to an overall performance gain.

Seeing this as a bad thing makes no sense. It isnt like they are going to increase the price by the same margin they increased the performance.

HardcoreGamer211092d ago

xbox one is already bigger than the ps4 so it will produce more heat than the ps4, over clocking it too muck will be a bad idea.
I think 53Mhz is a good choice so it won't overheat or become louder(fan) or diminish the life expectancy of the xbox one.
But ps4 is still way more powerfull than the xbox one.

bicfitness1092d ago (Edited 1092d ago )

But it is a PR play. Not a bad one either. In case you haven't noticed the past few weeks have seen a barrage of positive MS tech articles starting with the DF RAM nonsense (192 GB "theoretical output". They're trying to claw back from the perceived - and quite real - technological inferiority against their direct competitor.

At least this beats Mattick's ramblings or the schizophrenic PR we've been treated to since the unveiling of the X1. Truth is, neither an X1 nor a PS4 stands a chance against anything equipped with an i7, 670m (yes, mobile) or higher. Heck, even two 780ms gives you more than the performance of a Titan in a laptop shape. Still, when it comes down to it and leaving PCs out of the equation, the two consoles are quite similar in parts only one has more TF: PS4. And its $100 cheaper. That right there, is what MS should be attacking or spending their PR $ on: their own price tag.

This is just tech-fluff for the internet hordes to fight over.

creatchee1092d ago

I don't know why Microsoft can't do anything to improve their console without people comparing it to Sony.

Is 853MHz better than 800MHz, even if it only means 2-4 frames per second in terms of improvement? YES. So who cares what it is in relation to Sony?

Besides - some people act like the difference between X1 and PS4 graphics is going to be comparable to the one between an Atari 2600 and a high end PC of today. Can't we just enjoy each console for what it is instead of CONSTANTLY worrying about any perceived differences in graphical fidelity?

HammadTheBeast1092d ago

Cause the general public has 0 clue about what a Mhz is.

mewhy321092d ago

micro$oft has really been caught with their pants down here. They are trying everything to come back against the wildly superior PS4 spec but to anyone who knows about hardware this little bump wont even be noticeable. But to the layman it's going to look like they are now using a better GPU than Sony. Just another way of manipulation by micro$oft.

GameSpawn1091d ago (Edited 1091d ago )

@bicfitness

Three words: Operating System Overhead

PCs while they outpace consoles in terms of technology for a short while (until the next console comes out) are HORRIDLY inefficient machines. Why are they so inefficient? Well, PCs are designed to be flexible to be able to perform a variety of different tasks.

Why is it that consoles with less powerful hardware than higher spec'ed can put out games that are on par or sometimes better? They are designed to be efficient at doing one thing...playing games. Consoles are streaming systems that you won't be typing a word document on, creating an image in Photoshop, or playing flash based Facebook games while updating your Twitter.

With a little knowledge of operating systems, computer organization and computer architecture you would understand and respect this a little more. If you'd like a little reading here are the wiki articles on those subjects:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

I've lived in both worlds and supported both console gaming and PC gaming. Both have their Pros and Cons. The ultimate reason console gaming has become so large and has begun to compete with PC gaming is simply the cost and ease of use. Consoles are still VERY cheap compared to gaming PCs (and NO a $500 gaming-rig will not last very long or play games any better than a console, especially given the next console advantage) and require no fussing with incompatibilities due to drivers or specific hardware that may be installed to cause a conflict.

Console games are GUARANTEED to run when you put the disc in (unless you're an idiot trying to run a 360 game in your PS3). PCs you can run into problems with drivers that you may not know about until you install and try to run the game. Personally I had issues for a short time with Skyrim (PC - I like to mod) and my AMD graphics drivers for my dual 7770's (the issue being related SPECIFICALLY to Crossfire - it was eventually corrected in a newer AMD driver).

If money is no object you could always build a high-end gaming rig that will always rival console, but remember you will be giving up good console exclusive games (the PC gaming market is kind of drab game-wise compared to the consoles). Although, if money was no object you could have both a high end gaming rig and a console or two making the whole argument moot.

NewsForge1091d ago

The Xbox One is now at 1310GFLOPS still 530 GFLOPS
behind the PS4.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1091d ago
adorie1092d ago

Talking about 53mhz in a way that would highlight it as something major would constitute PR fluff, more-so than spin.

To me,Spin is saying RRoD wasn't an issue..
or that we will work 2 jobs just to afford the $599.00 PS3...

Cmk01211092d ago

only 50 mhz separated xbox 360 and ps3 last gen and ps3 was lauded as way more powerful. there are more things that go into the consoles than clockspeed. also added new driver NOT mentioned in the article. in the end if you only play games on console with 5-5 percent better graphics your missing the point

sAVAge_bEaST1092d ago

yea, that's how you increase clock speed,.. by adding a driver,..what's your point exactly?

hollabox1092d ago

@HardcoreGamer21

I wouldn't say the PS4 is way more powerful than XB1. Its not even 50 percent, way more powerful would be 3-5 times the performance or the difference between X360 and the orginal Xbox. PS4 biggest advantage will be its pixel fill rate, something Sony has always had the advantage dating back to the PS2 vs Xbox. The ram seem about even with 5-6 GB being used for games by both systems. The bandwidth will allow greater pixel shader anti aliasing performance for the PS4.

AngelicIceDiamond1092d ago

And at the end of the day after all the theory's flying around, wellsaids all the way to somebody trolling.

The games between the two will look exactly the same. I don't need crystal ball, just knowledge of what happened this gen.

CuddlyREDRUM1091d ago

Yeah, seems like a slightly meaningless PR jab at Sony.

Personally, I would rather them not mess with it this late in the game. The least they can do is a working console at launch.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1091d ago
sobotz1092d ago

It's a good small 6.62% increased, that's good. but it's still inferior than PS4's GPU

Wizziokid1092d ago

At the point there's nothing they can do in regard to matching the power of PS4 unless they put a delay on the console which no one in there right mind would do.

Nik_P7571092d ago

Since this has come out I've wondered if it's possible for the PS4 CPU to up clock at all? I'm gonna have to do some research on this.

Abriael1092d ago

It's possible to upclock everything that has a clock. Is it safe or useful? That's another story.

Nik_P7571092d ago

At this point it probably wouldn't serve to big of a purpose. If it's not broke don't fix it I guess.

golding891092d ago

Lol. Another article that's there to sway away people from getting xbox one.

I'll get both system but those articles against xbox one..sheesh lol

Abriael1092d ago

Or maybe its intent is just to inform. Nowhere in the article it says "don't buy the Xbox one" or anything to that effect.

tuglu_pati1092d ago

Its just websites looking for hits.

Gimmemorebubblez1092d ago

Its true clocking the Oc'ing the Xbone will do nothing. The PS4 has more CU's ACE's, VU's making it better no matter what the Xbones clock speed.

@nickp757

I don't think Sony will increase the clock speed, increasing it will bare little or no difference. If they do it will be purely for marketing.

zebramocha1092d ago (Edited 1092d ago )

@gimme while a small increase in core frequency,there still a performance jump.
Here is an example for the xbone and a ps4 adjustment.

Xbone 800-853MHz. Ps4 800-853
Tflops 1.2-1.3. Tflops 1.8-1.9
P fill rate 12.8-13.6. 25.6-27.2 P/s
T fill rate 38.4-40. 57.6-61 T/s

To get flops you do gpu core count x base frequency x 2. (12 CU x800 MHz x2)
To get fill rate you do base frequency x rops for pixels and tmu x frequency texture fill rate.

Gimmemorebubblez1092d ago (Edited 1092d ago )

@Zebra but the performance difference will be next to nothing but I suppose its better than nothing.

sarcastoid1092d ago

Sometimes... just reporting actual facts can lead people away from systems.

Clarence1091d ago

The article could be just to inform people.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1091d ago
pyramidshead1092d ago

it's trying to compete? :/