Video game news, video game reviews, walkthroughs, video game mods, and game trailers

Activity Feed

Rank: Newbie

Status

Site Activity

Default-user Matthew Bryant
Compute units in a GPU do stack perfectly. There are no diminishing returns. That's true for a CPU, but not a GPU. You can't add memory bandwidths together for separate memory pools. It makes no sense. They don't act in unison. DDR3 can send eSRAM data at 68 GB/s and then the eSRAM can send that data to the CPU (or possibly the GPU we're not sure yet) at 104 GB/s (theoretical max bandwidth is 218 GB/s, but one way is only 104 GB/s), but at no point can any RAM in the system send anything above 104 GB/s. There's no reason to add the bandwidths. It makes no logical sense and shows no information about anything the system can possibly do. It's marketing PR nonsense. Every clock speed increase also increases the rate that local cores of that device can process information. He's saying the exact same thing, but implying that the 6% is somehow more significant. It's not. It's a relatively minor increase given that increasing clock speed does not increase performance by the same percent. You'll get more TFlops, but it won't affect many other aspects of the GPU at a 1:1 ratio when talking percent. Nobody knows what clock speed the PS4 CPU runs at except Sony and developers. The same goes for the audio processor. They're making assumptions here. Sony understand GPGPU very well also. They invented a product called the Vita. It has considerably more power than the Kinect. They're adding send and receive memory bandwidth to get this number. Onion is capable of the same transfer speeds as the Xbox One's CPU memory controller as far as anyone knows.
Default-user Matthew Bryant
Your Other Homie said:
When did Microsoft, stop caring about Gamers? (don't tell me that the Casual centric Unveil, of the x1 was anything but... hell, support has died...
Obviously Sony doesn't care about us. They care about their reputation sure, but they don't care about us individually. They want our money. The difference here is that Sony is cultivating the video game industry. They're adding to the industry by funding developers like Naughty Dog and giving them the freedom to create amazing games without pressuring them to stick to the norms of the industry. Games like Heavy Rain and The Last of Us were gambles, but Sony let their developers take them anyway. That speaks a lot to me. While they may want my money, they also bother to do some work to get my money. They are in tune with what gamers want from their system. They aren't too proud to take something that works great on another console, or to pick up what used to be a first party title on another console in order to give their userbase a better experience. I love that about Sony. I won't pretend that they're perfect, and I won't pretend that Sony wants to go to my daughter's high school graduation in the future, or even cares that she's graduating. What they do is provide me with the best alternative for gaming, and I love gaming. Why shouldn't I appreciate that?
Default-user Matthew Bryant
Your Other Homie said:
When did Microsoft, stop caring about Gamers? (don't tell me that the Casual centric Unveil, of the x1 was anything but... hell, support has died...
Ryse, Crimson Dragon, and Lococycle were all shown at E3 from 2010-2011. Obviously games don't always release on time. We're still waiting for the Last Guardian, Agent, and Final Fantasy Versus XIII (which is now Final Fantasy XV). I get that it happens. The problem is that Microsoft didn't really show many other games. While Sony releases a good 90% of the games shown at E3 every year, Microsoft has released maybe 60 to 70%. It's not very good odds. Those were some of the better looking games that Microsoft showed at E3 at the time too. Games that gamers were excited for. Games that gamers may have bought a 360 to play. Releasing them 3 years later on another platform is just crap. If it was one game, I'd be fine with that. Three games? No, Microsoft did it on purpose. It's bad practice and a let down to their userbase. Buying third party exclusives adds nothing of value to their console. Why should it matter if the PS4 can't play the game now if you're buying a XBox One anyway? They did absolutely nothing to help the industry. They actually hurt the industry by buying third party timed exclusives and timed content. Instead of creating new studios and pushing out exciting new games, they simply buy out content so you have to purchase a XBox One to play what should be a third party game. I'm not pretending this has never happened before, Sony did it with GTA for instance during the PS2 days. It's still anti-consumer. It adds no value to the console. It simply takes value away from the other console. It's a monopolistic tactic that does no good to anyone but themselves. I have a gaming PC. I've played all those games on my gaming PC. Fable 3 was terrible. Witcher 2 was awesome. It doesn't overly matter. Game preference is personal opinion. Here's the problem with your statement. Microsoft didn't create any of those games except Fable 3. Microsoft needs to step up their game and show consumers that they want to contribute to the gaming industry instead of simply buying it out.
Default-user Matthew Bryant
Matthew Bryant said:
First off, the PS4 is considerably more powerful. Pretending otherwise is just wishful thinking. Second, this isn't exactly something that...
There is nothing fanboyish about my comment. I provided logical reasons for my opinion. Gamers have been upset at Microsoft for a while. Many people were willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and then Microsoft did the equivalent of slapping a lot of gamers across the face. They were upset. Microsoft may have changed their policies, but they still haven't addressed many of the concerns. You're pretending that it's an equal playing field now and that it's just Sony fanboys on the forums complaining. That's sheer nonsense. Interest polls and known pre-orders show an almost 2:1 difference in interest between the PS4 and the Xbox One. That's the exact opposite from last generation in the US. This isn't just fanboys talking smack on the forums, this is half of the former XBox userbase switching over to the Playstation. There's no trolling here. It's real. It's happening. You can pretend that it's unfair all you'd like, but Microsoft made plenty of inappropriate comments and showed no interest in listening to gamers until sales data forced them to do so. I understand that it's their device, and they're free to do anything they'd like. I don't hate Microsoft, nor do I think they were in the wrong. I do think they need to show consumers why they should buy a XBox One over a PS4, and so far they've shown us nothing. The PS4 is more powerful, more consumer friendly, and Sony has a track record of providing a lot more support for their consoles. Why should we both a XBox One when everything looks better on Sony's side right now? If you like the games on the XBox One that much more, then that would be your reason, but it's not enough for most people. Why should anyone be badmouthed for expressing their opinions? A lot of gamers feel let down by Microsoft. Why shouldn't they feel that way? They're not wrong in their feelings. Microsoft needs to change their attitude toward consumers. If they can't do that, they'll learn how quickly they can become irrelevant in the industry. Sony almost learned this with the PS3 launch and Sega already learned this. Microsoft needs to cater to us, not the other way around. That's one lesson they'll either learn the hard way or the easy way. It's up to them, but right now they aren't showing a lot of interest in changing. They're grudgingly doing what they have to do. There's a big difference, and people can see it.
Default-user Matthew Bryant
Aaron T. Starks said:
I'm glad that you're correctly pointing out that this "hate the rival more than you love yourself" attitude is primarily driven by Sony fans. They...
No, what Microsoft tried to do is remove consumer choice which is why they met such strong resistance to their new policies. If Microsoft simply decided to have a disc based plan and a digital plan (hell, they could even have two different consoles, one which is digital only, and another which allows both so that their vision could be maintained) then there wouldn't have been a problem. Microsoft was trying to force the future. Yes, eventually disc based gaming will probably die out, but it's likely a good 15-20 years in the future. Digital purchases will almost definitely be more popular than disc based by the end of next generation, but we won't see disc based gaming disappear for some time to come. Microsoft makes more money from digital purchases. As do developers. I can understand why they push toward the future, but if consumers aren't ready for the future and want to enjoy the present for a while longer then deal with it. Microsoft isn't evil for their policy changes. I don't hate them or dislike them for that particular purpose, although I'm not a big fan of Microsoft for various other civil rights violations in other countries (particularly China), but neither will I buy their product. While every corporation has to put business first and the consumer second, Microsoft has the consumer a much more distant second than Sony right now. I can tell. Most consumers can tell. It's nothing personal against them, but I'd rather be a close second. Sony definitely hurt their image at the launch of the PS3, but they've come back in spades and they've done an amazing job of giving as much value as possible to the consumer while keeping their bottom line positive with the Playstation division. This is in direct opposition to Microsoft which offers a bare minimum, just as much as they have to in order to keep gamers, and sees a higher profit margin. I understand Microsoft's decision, but again Sony gives me a better value. That's just the way it is.
Default-user Matthew Bryant
sonofzeus said:
1.8 teraflops vs 1.2 teraflops of raw power is a gap no matter how you might dress up the weaker hardware. Even though I own both a 360 and PS3,...
@Alex15: It's higher than 1.2 tflops, but it's not 1.32 tflops. That's a misunderstanding of journalists. They think that there's a direct ratio between overclocking and performance. That isn't true at all. You're probably looking at around 1.23 or 1.24 tflops. Performance increase from overclocking is usually around 15-25%. It's definitely not 100%. DDR3 is pretty terrible for graphic use. He's right about that. The eSRAM will help minimally, but as useful as a cache can be to minimize redundancy and speed up access to commonly used data, 32 MBs isn't going to make up for the much slower bandwidth when it comes to common more memory intensive GPU practices like texture streaming. Basically, the XBox One is at a significant disadvantage in terms of graphics. Obviously it won't be anywhere near the difference between Wii U and PS4, but it'll still be noticeable.
Default-user Matthew Bryant
doogus said:
@sonofzeus firstly lets talk memory, developers have a guaranteed 4.5 GB to play with on the PS4, and 5 GB on the One. Advantage: Xbox. Now the...
Sony hasn't released the amount of RAM available to deveopers. While it might be true that 4.5 GBs is the amount readily available, there's another 512 MBs that are available upon request and an addition 512 MBs of virtual memory available (this amount can easily be increased) which is accessible straight from the HDD without swapping it back into physical memory due to ATI's PS4 unified memory (a feature that the XBox One does not have). Second, GDDR5 is faster for almost every aspect of graphical work. While it's true that it will have more latency for some tasks (like AI and physics) it's still fast enough to update with the framerate so it won't make any difference. eSRAM is a cache that will most likely only be used for operations that can be performed on a completed image (like MSAA). It is not an answer to the much smaller bandwidth of GDDR5. There's a difference between 32 MBs and 8 GBs. You can't add the bandwidth of eSRAM and DDR3 together. It doesn't work like that. It's just a way to quickly access data that's used more often or get free MSAA. It's not as useful as people pretend. It's definitely better than nothing, but it's like putting a bandaid on a sliced artery. It won't make DDR3 into GDDR5. DDR3 runs considerably slower than 68 GB/s. Not sure where you got that number, but it's arund 32 GB/s. You obviously have no idea how the eSRAM works. It's much more underwhelming than you pretend. Adding bandwidth together makes no sense. The RAM is completely separate from each other. While they can talk to each other through read and write commands, you won't get any increased performance from DDR3 by having eSRAM in the console. You can swap out RAM from DDR3 at 32 GB/s and put it into eSRAM where it can then be accessed by the GPU and CPU at 192 GB/s, but that only accounts for 32 MBs worth of data. So you just place data that you use very often in cache so you can access it more quicky. 32 MBs is a very small amount of data though, and won't be useful for any components that require larger files like textures, meshes, and the like. It'll have very limited use. Anyway, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, but you sure like to pretend you do.
Default-user Matthew Bryant
El Mon said:
Unfortunately Call of Duty wont' be the same on both systems. One has dedicated servers.
Granted I could care less about Call of Duty or Titanfall, but neither is helping the XBox One sell better.
Default-user Matthew Bryant
neal29 said:
my answer is the red ring of death. I'll never forgive M$ for screwing me over. I won't bother going over the details of my 360 death but that...
@Kelvin Roy Leek: Microsoft didn't extend the warranty. A class action lawsuit extended the warranty. In all fairness, the same thing happened to Sony with the PS2's laser eye, but let's not pretend that Microsoft did it out of the kindness of their heart or for consumers. They were required to by law.
Default-user Matthew Bryant
Your Other Homie said:
When did Microsoft, stop caring about Gamers? (don't tell me that the Casual centric Unveil, of the x1 was anything but... hell, support has died...
@Alex15: 3 of their new exclusives were first shown at E3 2010 or 2011 as games that should've released a year ago, if not longer, for the 360. Not to mention that most of that $1 billion probably went to making Titanfall and Dead Rising 3 a XBox One exclusive. Meanwhile Sony is actually releasing the games they promised for the PS3 and has a ton of exclusives (far more than Microsoft) in development for the PS4. I'm sorry, but while it's true that Microsoft is pulling out all the stops right now, Sony still has a lot more studios and all of them have considerable talent. Microsoft has too many shells that were once great studios (Lionhead and Rare for instance). They need to give their developers more freedom, stop pushing Kinect and cloud integration in EVERY game, and stop pushing deadlines. They could learn a lot from Sony as a publisher.
Show Older Activity