Forza Motorsport creative director Dan Greenawalt has claimed that talking about console power is pointless unless you're "super informed".
So true. Original Xbox was much more powerful than PS2 with its Nvidia GPU and Intel processor and yet most games looked the same and most people couldn't tell a difference. PS3 was supposedly 2x more powerful than Xbox 360 and yet we didn't see even 00.1x the difference in power. Pretty much no difference at all. If any, Xbox 360 actually ran a lot of multiplatform games better. Go ahead Sony fanboyz, press the negative button. N4G is filled with Sonyfanboyz. It'll only prove i am right. :)
PS3 architecture was difficult to work with though, so yes, on multiplatform titles you didn't see much difference. Then again, PS3 exclusives have typically been the ones to push the boundaries in console graphics the last generation. In other words, the frame rate in Uncharted 3 is so smooth I can't believe it's not butter, and with a polygon count that high one can easily be fooled into thinking it's edible. Especially with 3D glasses on. Halo 4 on the other hand, looks good but I can't eat it because I'm full.
the xbone camp is on defense campaign xD
LoooL. MS said : "Specs dont matter". Now they're talking specs all day long. Sony isn't doing anything anymore. MS is doing all the job for them.
LoooL. MS said previously "specs dont matter". Now they are talking about specs all day long. While Sony is chilling on their side. LoooL
What's funny is that they're talking about power as if: 1. They aren't using static backgrounds in Forza 5. Having a static background is like having a wallpaper. It's not modeled in 3D like a real environment, so 60fps is easily achievable. 2. They aren't using painted clouds. Like a static background, you have static clouds too, permanently formed in one shape. 3. They aren't using pre-baked lighting. The lighting in Forza is so fake and baked, that funnily enough, it makes Forza 5 look the opposite of real. Hey Turn 10, guess what; lighting in real life is completely random. 4. No night racing. What's the matter, your light bakes didn't work in night settings? Your game is so baked that it doesn't even work at night? Guess they didn't have time to bake the night. Positioning fake lights around a static track is harder at night, isn't it? 5. No weather effects. I think this goes to show what little risk Turn 10 are willing to take just to keep their 60fps. I'm sorry Turn 10, but if the Xbone was as powerful as you're suggesting, then why does your game stink of last gen antics? Did you think no one would notice that you're so ashamed you never even talk about the technology you put into the game? Power this, power that. Show it. Forza doesn't show it at all. It's a joke in comparison to real next gen games. As of now, it graphically looks like the COD of racing sims. Enemy: Hey Turn 10, so how did you manage 60fps? Turn 10: Well... Enemy: Easy bake oven huh? Turn 10: I... Enemy: Fake and bake.
@black0o Mark my words :P prepare for the storm on 30th
I honestly don't see much of a difference between the 2 consoles. Both have amazing graphics, they both look realistic in any case.
@Enemy The F?? Stop pulling your facts out of your butt. Forza has and always had fully modeled backgrounds, with trees, buildings, people and everything else. Baked lighting ? where the f you get that from? Painted clouds? Which racing game got 3d modelled clouds?? If forza looks like COD in racing sims then I wonder why everyone who played it say it's best looking racing game ever made. Also then you automaticly admit driveclub got SNES level of graphics, since it is not on par with Forza. Stop posting wrong info around. You're just embarrasing yourself...but a hero in fanboys eyes.
Uncharted 3 ran at 30fps ....Hardly smooth as butter
So he talks about optimization on the hardware. But don't these Microsoft people understand that if you optimize your software on better hardware, the better hardware will always be on top??? It's like they think it's the PS3 all over again, not realizing that the PS4 is just as easy to develop for (if not easier) than the Xbone, on top of having more powerful specs.
"You can't talk power unless you're informed" He should be telling Penello that... MS has been nothing but defensive this whole "console war". It's like watching a crappy boxing match where one guy does nothing but guard the whole time, rarely throwing out shots. They're so concerned with all our comparisons and power discussions yet all they do is talk. SHOW US SOMETHING PHENOMENAL! Then talk. I'm still waiting to be impressed by them. https://www.youtube.com/wat... http://s18.postimg.org/cnfm... http://postimg.org/image/bv... ^Impressive stuff
@Turn10 Go tell THAT to your guy Panello. Being as uninformed as he is, he sure talks A LOT!
I think xbone is underpowered . Looking at their games make me think xbone really is 50% powerful than PS4 . Forza is the xbone best game and it has flat backgrounds , Pre renderd lighting not real time lighting and no weather effects. Killer instinct is struggling for 720p 60fps. Dead rising 3 bad frame rate. Ryse bad frame rate pop ups and dropped animation . Xbone is looking weak PS4 is looking strong . Killzone SF is 1080p 60fps insane graphics . Infamous second son is CG quality 1080p 30fps open world game. DEEP DOWN looks incredible all the XBOTS said it was CG nope real game play nothing on xbone come close to the graphic of DEEP DOWN .
@Ballseye... Enemy is referring to the fact that DriveClub has real time dynamic lighting. Every object casts its own shadow. I.E not a single shadow is baked. The clouds in DriveClub are dynamic, so yes, they are "real" they move across the sky and physically effect the lighting and shadows of the world below. And even the smallest tree in the distance has been modelled. Regardless of whether you like the game or not, it is a fact that none of the above is true of Forza 5. The shadows are pre-rendered and baked into the texture map. Distant objects are part of the environment map, along with the clouds and sky. I've no doubt that it will be a great game, it's just that, these are facts.
@jimsas If you've played Uncharted 3, you know it's smooth a margarine. Sure it's 30, but it never drops a single frame. And with so many particles and explosions, it makes other games look tame. A frame rate this slick, is enough to sedate a family of six.
@ballseye common sense u need some
@360ICE, PS3, had problems with co-op games. The split ram in the PS3 was the problem. That's why PS3 games were so linear. More proof, play Raibow6 Vegas on the PS3 & try and play 4 player co-op, then play the same game co-op on the 360 so you can eat your butter. DOOM3 remake isn't even co-op BUT, the XBOX version is co-op. Same with the old Splinter Cell series that made it to the PS3, it lacks co-op, but you can still play co-op on the 360. Borderlands was co-op but they had to hide the problems in cell shaded graphics. SONY stacked the deck with graphics because that's all they could do & make the game as linear as possible.
@ Enemy Are you a developer?
If he feels so strongly about than Microsoft has no one but themselves to blame for not "informing" the rest of us. As a Computer Scientist, I can say without a doubt the a comparison of the two specs will always favor the PS4. Programming is one thing, but architecture is a complete victory for the PS4.
@otherZinc Rainbow Six Vegas from 2006/7? That game looked incredibly ugly on PS3. Why? Because it's a terrible port. I doubt that pushed PS3s limits in any way. 360 had the better version, and it was still ugly. Anyway, PS3 exclusives aren't particularly linear next to Xbox exclusives. inFamous 2, for instance, runs great, looks great and isn't linear.
"yet we didn't see even 00.1x the difference in power. Pretty much no difference at all. If any, Xbox 360 actually ran a lot of multiplatform games better." What?! You have got to be either blind or you have never played any PS3 exclusives. Multiplats, yeah i agree 99% of the time they do look better on 360 (which is the reason i have over 100k gamerscore). We did see the difference in power, in the 1st party exclusives. That's undeniable. I wouldnt go so far as " 2x more powerful" but games like Uncharted, God Of War , The Last Of Us and Beyond Two Souls (to name a few) all prove their was a power difference that only the 1st party devs took adnvantage of. You all have a right to disagree, but i would advise using Google search to see which exclusives look better. Better yet, Youtube them, and even better than that, play them for yourself as i have. But i will be fair here and say that Forza 4 is a very good looking game and one of my favourite 360 exclusives. Looking forward to playing 5 too.
It is true that Uncharted looks better but was that that make this game so good? I mean the difference in power is not enough to make a better enjoyable game.....not in this generation, not in the next.
Lukas, I like graphics too but wasn't you impress when you saw gears of war......I was like dammmm!! Is this gameplay? Look at GTAV, isn't it impressive graphically more than anything in this generation considering that is freaking big open world and guess what, it will be the same in 360!
The only reason uncharted was possible on the ps3 and not the 360 wasnt because of power ... the main reason was that sony used blu-ray which had way more storage space then the dvd-9 which Microsoft used. Uncharted 3 took up 40 gigs. Plus the 360 had a better gpu and more ram anyway while the ps3 used a better cpu
@Enemy, And other haters, Where's your link that has Forza 5 made with "baked" lighting? I know, ther e are none, you're just running your mouth. Forza 5 has "Dynamic Range Lighting"! Forza 5 is 1080p "native" @ 60fps! Turn 10 cuts ZERO corners!
People disagree with you doesn't prove you are right, it means people disagree with your opinion.
@ alb1899 Yeah i agree, power has little do with a game being fun, but im talking strictly from a graphical perspective here :)
i love you morons who always say stupid stuff like, "disagree only proves that i'm right.", as if that actually means that you're right lolz or it could be, you know, that you're just wrong and you're talking out of your ass lolz
You've obviously never played games such as The Last of Us and Uncharted 2 and 3 which have been critically acclaimed and have superior graphics which express the full power of the PlayStation 3. I'd go far as to say it looks like a PC game being played on a TV. Technically, the PS3 is the more powerful system. Unfortunately it came at a cost.
MGS5 says hello.
"I'd go far as to say it looks like a PC game being played on a TV. " Either you've never played a game on medium to ultra settings, or you've missed your date at LensCrafters months ago.
While uncharted looks great, last of us got serious downgrade in graphics since first showing. Nothing that amazing there. http://community.us.playsta... http://community.us.playsta...
All those games are graphically inconsistent throughout because of hardware limitations and they could all be done on the 360 just the same. The 360 had unified ram which was better allocated and had a superior gpu. I wish you fanboys would stop spreading fud! Theoretical performance is meaningless. Devs have clearly stated that the differences between the two are just trade-offs and which are preferred most. Developers should get credit not the hardware.
'Theoretical performance is meaningless.' If it's good enough for Microsoft this time around...
Brain dead. Play Uncharted or The Last of Us and tell me what Xbox game is '00.1x' as good. By the way, writing '00.1x' is a pretty good way of showing how educated you are.
I've played all the uncharted games and the last of us and can say categorically that gears of war 3 on the 360 looks way better. that is all.
Well I've played gears of war 3 too. So I know you're talking crap. Gears 3 looked similar to gears 1. Yes one of the best looking 360 games, nothing in those games though
Halo 4 hands down. It won best graphics of 2012 last year for a reason and the facial animation is much better than the keyframed crap we got in the last of us.
@crossingeden Halo 4 won in 2012 because it didn't have any strong ps3 exclusive to face in that year beside journey....(which also i think it look better too than any thing on xbox360) on the other hand,uncharted 3 won in the 2011 when we had gears of war 3/crysis 2/killzone 3/infamous 2/batman arkham city/portal 2.etc and please stop , the last of us facial animation was ahead of any thing we have seen this gen even DF among every single site called it a next gen game on current gen consoles : *****DF: "Next-gen now?(in the title of the article) "The Last of Us is also unrivalled in terms of its emotional portrayals: facial muscle simulations - using what looks like animated normal maps and an underlying bone structure - reveal a range of expressions that convey feelings with great subtlety. Even small changes such as eye movements are rendered with unrelenting accuracy. Emphasis on such minuscule details really make Ellie, Joel and the supporting cast feel alive and responsive, especially when they play off of each other as events occur around them." http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... ******** it pretty much a fact that most sites and gamers think it's the best looking console game and GOTG contender too if halo 4 was coming in this year aganist the last of us ,God of war ascension,beyond two souls it would lose....badly hehe, here come the disagrees
my penis is bigger than all of you in here anyway what
Lol people pressing the disagree button has nothing to do with the validation of your statement but more to do with the realistic sign of people, who may have even joined up less than a week ago, have witnessed some(if not most/all) of your previous comments and realise that you are a Grade D Xbot troll, grade D because you make it so damn obvious people probably don't even need to read your comments any more. At least ninja troll like the others do, it makes for a more interesting comment section. ;).
Why do you make multiple accounts and spam the comment section with the same comment? Damage control much...
Hmmm I guess you should tell major nelson that ---> http://majornelson.com/2005... Because by his logic X360 has more bandwidth than the XB1 or PS4.
You do realize this time around it's the biggest gap we've had (not counting sprite consoles). And there's no mystery with the x86 architecture, it's straightforward and we already know which machine will preform better, just by hardware fact sheets, there's no disputing this. It's like comparing two PCs this time around, no "secret architecture sauce" nothing. Fact, the PS4 is more powerful and it will show in all games this time around, whether it'll be higher resolution or more fps, be sure of one thing - it's an indisputable fact that the PS4 will have better performing(!) games and probably better looking (talking Multiplat) so really no, there is no "We have to wait till the games get released for comparison", there are no reason why the PS4 wouldn't come out on top every time
Its not the biggest gap, how can you say that? The systems are not out yet!! And the games have yet to be played. Wait till both systems are taken apart. I agree the ps4 sounds like its the more powerful system of the two, but to say its 50% more powerful with out the systems out is crazy talk. I remember the whole ps3 before it was out was suppose to be more powerful because of the cell, all the people on here were touting that cell was this technical marvel. But then people were talking about the cell being a super computer, and sounds to me they googled the info. Anyways 360 had the unified ram, which made it on par. Just wait till both are out, some guy will give a technical breakdown of the two. Im buying both day one,
This shit is like a sports franchise having a great off season just cuz they signed great free agents. Looks promising on paper but only time will tell if the potential is ever met.
Did you read what I said? There is no secret sauce we know exactly how these machines will preform, for the first time it's plain and simple x86 architecture. There is no need to wait, ask any computer wiz
I can give everyone keys to the same Ferrari, does not mean they will all know how to drive it as good as the next person. All this stuff is great for both consoles if you know how to use the power given to you
Exactly, 3rd party devs were given the exact same PS3 that 1st party devs had, but because the 1st party devs took the time to learn the architecture, they produced the best looking exclusives.
Also, i find it extremely ironic that you say "so true" when agreeing with Dan Greenwalt about not speaking about power unless you are informed and then you go ahead and make up numbers like "2x" and "00.1x" and try to pass them off as fact. Haha.
Everyone at Xbox seems like a giant ass hole at the moment. I don't think I have had more hate for a single company in my life. GTFO
Hahaha, so angry! Go MS!
no way, the original xbox had better graphics. the 360 initialy ran multiplats better but we started seeing games like crysis and battlefield 3 look better and also mass effect 2 and 3 in fact look up the comparisons now.
- Original Xbox games looked much better Than PS2. If you couldn't tell the difference then it's your own eyes you need to examine. - The sad truth (people were reluctant to hear for so long) is that the PS3 wasn't even 1x as powerful as the Xbox 360. That is why again we saw multiplatform games on the 360 eclipsing the PS3 counterparts. Nothing to do with lazy dev, simply with a more limited and restrictive hardware: less ram, less solid architecture and weaker GPU. This is why fanboys always stuck to talking about exclusives graphics: when a game is running on just one platform, you can never see how much better or worse it would run on the other platform, and comparing different games to discuss graphic tech is pointless when people don't understand what they're talking about (exactly what Dan says here). However, when two copies of the same game run in parallel... that's where the facts speak for themselves. - And this is the first time things are just the other way round: The PS4 is stronger no matter how you look at things. Maybe it's not 50%, maybe it's not 40%, but the difference in performance can't be ignored and multiplat games this time will look better on the PS4.
"Original Xbox was much more powerful than PS2 with its Nvidia GPU and Intel processor and yet most games looked the same and most people couldn't tell a difference. " Are you serious, Have you ever played an Original Xbox game, did you jump the boat this gen ? EVERYTHING looked better on the original Xbox EVERYTHING, not only that but everything, performed better, faster load times,sharper texures, SMARTER AI, just watch every single Gamespot video review on multiplats from 2001-05 almost always they stated the Original Xbox version was the best. I spent allot of time on all 3 consoles of the 6th gen especially the Xbox, most people I knew owned a PS2 yet they were still aware of the fact that they're favourite games like GTA looked marginally better on the Original Xbox. I think the only exceptions were games like MGS2 I think that suffered from a dodgy framerate, besides that almost everything looked better on the original Xbox, the Splinter Cell games are a perfect example of this especially Chaos theory, games like FarCry, Ninja Gaiden, Doom 3 , Half-Life 2 were actually planned to appear on the PS2/GC were scrapped because those systems plain and simply couldn't handle them. And seeing as those games were the best looking on that system I can see why. When you look at the gap between console's in terms of power, the Original Xbox (next to the Neo Geo) was easily the most powerful console in gaming history heck there are original Xbox games that visually smoke anything on the Wii, you and the 23 people that agreed with you are beyond misinformed
Ps3/xbox360. are you referring to multiplats? Anyway. Anything Micro says has to be the truth huh. Micro: We have the most exclusives... Mbots: We have the most exclusives. If you think otherwise you are a dumb fanboy Micro: We have the best looking games. Last of Us what!? Mbot: Nothing looks better than 360 games. The cell is over rated. Last of us looks like trash. If u think otherwise you are a dumb fanboy Micro: We have the best selling console for 30 years straight. Mbot: Ps3rd is trash! Will never pass 360 in sales. Sony is doomed and will go out of business... Muah hahahahaha.... Pretty much the thinking of most hardcore xbox360 fans this gen Ps. There were some multiplates that performed better on ps3. Not one xbox game looks better than Uncharted. Not gonna go thru the others. Would embarrass somebody
I pressed the agree button Ksar because you say nothing but the truth. Wishfull thinking is indeed "en vogue" these days if people think they can distinguish a pixel less or more from one another. Games will virtually look the same. I do agree exclusive may make the difference but muilti plats will looks identical and almost to impossible to tell apart for the naked eye.
And yet PS3 exclusives were graphically better than the 360
• 18 CU's vs. 12 CU's =/= 50% more performance. Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU's, so it's simply incorrect to say 50% more GPU. • Adding to that, each of our CU's is running 6% faster. It's not simply a 6% clock speed increase overall. • We have more memory bandwidth. 176gb/sec is peak on paper for GDDR5. Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM). ESRAM can do read/write cycles simultaneously so I see this number mis-quoted. • We have at least 10% more CPU. Not only a faster processor, but a better audio chip also offloading CPU cycles. • We understand GPGPU and its importance very well. Microsoft invented Direct Compute, and have been using GPGPU in a shipping product since 2010 - it's called Kinect. • Speaking of GPGPU - we have 3X the coherent bandwidth for GPGPU at 30gb/sec which significantly improves our ability for the CPU to efficiently read data generated by the GPU.
If you're going to copy/paste Penello's NeoGAF BS, it's only fair to direct people to the place they can see it torn apart: http://www.neogaf.com/forum... I'll summarize: 1) Graphical processes are inherently parallel. Scaling inefficiencies are not nearly as apparent with highly parallel computations. Regardless, is "only," say, a 30% performance disadvantage for the Xbone anything to brag about? 2) What's the difference? How do you get greater than 6% overall increase with just 6% increase per core? 2b) So 50% more CUs results in less than a 50% performance gain, but a 6% CU clock increase results in *more* than a 6% performance gain? Wha? 3) Magic Micro-Math! Magic Micro-Math says the 360 has higher bandwidth than the Xbone! Fact is that the *vast, vast, vast* majority of memory (32MB eSRAM is *0.4%*... LESS THAN HALF OF 1 PERCENT... of the 8GB DDR3) is stuck at 68GB/s. 4) Apparently MS and their friends at the NSA are doing a little industrial espionage. How else could Penello claim a 10% advantage when Sony hasn't released their final CPU clock or their audio chip details? Not saying it's necessarily going to happen, but I'm gonna laugh my balls off if Sony comes in at 1.8GHz+ 5) No one cares what you "understand," MS. Your software engineers aren't God's gift to programming. This bullet is nothing more than saying "but we're so awesome!" as if it's some kind of technical argument. 6) See point 4. Tell me, E24G... do you also know a wizard? I mean "Technical Fellow?" Just like so many said on GAF... MS needs to give up the spec war. It is already lost, and Micro-Math won't save it. Focus on your games and other features. Trying to argue that the Xbone has more horsepower, or even horsepower parity, is a farce and does you no favors. http://i.minus.com/ilERlIua...
P.S. Xbox One GPU: 768 GCN shader cores with 853MHz 48 TMUs 16 ROPs 1.31 TFLOPS 40.9 GTex/s 13.6 GPix/s 8GB DDR3 with 68GB/s + eSRAM voodoo (min. 109 GB/s, max. 204 GB/s) 2 compute command processors something between 2 and 16 parallel compute queues GPU cache bypass: no PS4 GPU: 1152 GCN shader cores with 800MHz 72 TMUs 32 ROPs 1.84 TFLOPS 57.6 GTex/s 25.6 GPix/s 8GB GDDR5 with 176GB/s 8 compute command processors 64 parallel compute queues GPU cache bypass: yes
P.P.S. Microsoft exec defends Xbox One from accusations it’s “underpowered” http://arstechnica.com/gami... Penello: "18 CUs [compute units] vs. 12 CUs =/= 50% more performance. Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CUs, so it's simply incorrect to say 50% more GPU." Ars: "The entire point of GPU workloads is that they scale basically perfectly, so 50% more cores is in fact 50% faster." Penello: "Adding to that, each of our CUs is running 6% faster. It's not simply a 6% clock speed increase overall." Ars: "What the hell does that even mean?" Penello: "We have more memory bandwidth. 176gb/sec is peak on paper for GDDR5. Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM). ESRAM can do read/write cycles simultaneously so I see this number mis-quoted." Ars: "Just adding up bandwidth numbers is idiotic and meaningless. While the Xbox One's ESRAM is a little faster, we don't know how it's used, and the PS4's GDDR5 is obviously a lot bigger." Penello: "We have at least 10% more CPU. Not only a faster processor, but a better audio chip also offloading CPU cycles." Ars: "Maybe true." Penello: "We understand GPGPU [general processing on GPU] and its importance very well. Microsoft invented Direct Compute, and have been using GPGPU in a shipping product since 2010—it's called Kinect." Ars: "Who cares about the API? It really doesn't make much difference." Penello: "Speaking of GPGPU—we have 3X the coherent bandwidth for GPGPU at 30gb/sec which significantly improves our ability for the CPU to efficiently read data generated by the GPU." Ars: "I don't know if that's even true."
You could definitely tell the dofference, ghost recon comes to mind when comparing ps2 and xbox original titles
The only ones that are insecure around here imo are Sony fans at the moment. Xbox can't do this, its fake. Xbox can't do that, its fake. Albert Panello is a liar and everything is fake. Greenawalt says: "So when you're building the game and you make a bespoke engine that was built for the platform, and the platform is optimised for the type of work you're doing, it's very important where the power is and where the optimisations are. "So we have 1080p resolution, we have 60 frames per second and more than that we have the Cloud. And the Cloud allows us to deliver things that I've wanted to deliver for ten years now." Also fake don't listen to any devs of MS, because they don't know what they're talking about its a PR circle. That's the impression of Sony fans right now. Super Duper insecure. Whatever, I'm done arguing I know what I'm buying I don't need to push my justifications in peoples faces. I play great games not specs and insecurity, that's yalls thing not mine.
I know... right? MS's less powerful box and trainwreck PR sure does leave me feeling insecure.
@Shwanky If you don't like it, then don't worry about it and buy PS4 like you were planning to do. Your not buying it so concentrate on the console that your buying and don't have night sweats over the X1. Take your "insecurities" else where. Btw thank you for proving my point lol.
I don't like the Xbone, I certainly don't "worry" about the Xbone, and I "concentrate" on the PS4 by reading the articles that are posted about it. But console wars/fanboy wars are damn entertaining. And who doesn't stop and gawk at a train wreck?
@Shwanky Hey at least you admit you don't like it that's ok. Everyone has a preference. My goal is to have both. I wanna enjoy all the offerings.