100% false.
Bungie was able to push up Destiny from 800p to 1080p disabling Kinect.
Bungie said they might push it to 1080p now due to the devkits giving more resources to devs but as far as i know they never said what it was before. Maybe it was running 1080p with slightly bellow 30fps so it was not an option before but now is hitting 30fps steadily. Disabling Kinect is supposed to give about 10% performance at best, which is not that much.
Xbots keep telling themselves that if it makes them feel better but there is 100% proof out there Older 360s played games like GTA and Skyrim and such very badly compared to the newer 360s.
You are wrong. The specs never changed, the 360 never got faster. The only differentiating factor might be the type of hard and optical drive, whether you have an hard drive at all.
You do realize They did this with the Xbox 360 right? There was several upgraded 360s with better hardware.
I realize Xbox fanboys might not want to accept they paid for inferior hardware but your late to the party. Besides, they are mostly talking about upgrading the EERPOM memory to boost its ability to compete with PS4.
Also the Original 360 had 90nm CPU/GPU and by the Valhalla Upgrade, it became so much more faster by the die shrinking to 40nm. Its certainly very possible and likely for Microsoft to do such things with the Xbox one and increase its memory to keep up with the PS4.
P.S. With the 360 upgrades, there were games that only worked properly on the newer hardware and had stuttering and texture pop ins on older 360 hardware, like the infamous Grand Theft Auto releases, so Yes, they do those things because its already happened.
Seems like this has already been covered but that's not the same thing. Those were not improvements to graphical output, but instead to system build quality for cost efficiency. The same games could run on every version of the system (regardless of whatever you heard about performance issues with older hardware).
Bungie said they might push it to 1080p now due to the devkits giving more resources to devs but as far as i know they never said what it was before. Maybe it was running 1080p with slightly bellow 30fps so it was not an option before but now is hitting 30fps steadily. Disabling Kinect is supposed to give about 10% performance at best, which is not that much.
10% is actually very significant. If you think otherwise, well, congratulations on being in the 1% who's never had to push something 10% more than it's supposed to go.
I wouldn't call anything below 5% less than significant, with 2% being negligible/situational.
10% is actually very significant. If you think otherwise, well, congratulations on being in the 1% who's never had to push something 10% more than it's supposed to go.
Didn't most of the best estimates put the PS4 at somewhere between 40-50% more capable? Knowing that a10% improvement doesn't seem that signicant, especially when both consoles can be viewed as being underpowered to begin with. The PS4 versions of games should still be the clear "winners" barring unforseen or shady circumstances.
Didn't most of the best estimates put the PS4 at somewhere between 40-50% more capable? Knowing that a10% improvement doesn't seem that signicant, especially when both consoles can be viewed as being underpowered to begin with. The PS4 versions of games should still be the clear "winners" barring unforseen or shady circumstances.
Those numbers were assuming Kinect's resource hogging though, and a lot probably aren't very reliable.
The only way I could see the PS4 being 40-50% more powerful than the XB1 is if it does in fact use hUMA (or similar) technology where the XB1 does not. I don't think a slightly faster GPU and much faster RAM could create more than a 20% difference, and I feel I'm being generous.
Maybe someone who knows more about computer hardware could yell some sense at me though. All of what I'm saying is my common-language interpretation of what I read at places like Tomshardware.
10% is actually very significant. If you think otherwise, well, congratulations on being in the 1% who's never had to push something 10% more than it's supposed to go.
I wouldn't call anything below 5% less than significant, with 2% being negligible/situational.
10% is the difference between 30 and 33 frames per second, or between 990p and 1080p. Pretty insignificant at the end of the day.
And i bet much more than 1% of the population never had to push something 10% more than it's supposed to go.
10% is the difference between 30 and 33 frames per second, or between 990p and 1080p. Pretty insignificant at the end of the day.
And i bet much more than 1% of the population never had to push something 10% more than it's supposed to go.
Hardware and software doesn't work on that kind of linear scale. A 10% increase in processing power doesn't translate directly into a 10% gain. It can translate into more or less depending on how the software is built. And in the world of Console Gamers, you're always up against your hardware limits. I mean, from personal experience, overclocking my processor 10% was the difference between running Sins of a Solar Empire at 32fps(avrg) and 57FPS(avrg) so yeah.
Didn't most of the best estimates put the PS4 at somewhere between 40-50% more capable?
The GPU has about 40% more shading power. But the console doesn't consist of a GPU only, there's also the CPU, which might be slightly faster on the Xbox due to a slightly higher frequency. As far as the memory goes, it's difficult to measure how much the ESRAM of the XBox can compensate for the slower DDR3 RAM compared to the GDDR5 of the PS4.
Plus, the hardware specs to visual fidelity usually is not a linear curve, meaning 50% more powerful doesn't necessarily mean 50% more frames for instance, usually less.
Hardware and software doesn't work on that kind of linear scale.
I know. Coincidentally, i just wrote something similar in my post below yours.
As for your 10% overclock, there must have been something else going on. You sure you didn't change the drivers or something? Usually, the "visual gain" is less than the power gain. I have gone through countless PC hardware comparison graphs in my days.
Plus, the hardware specs to visual fidelity usually is not a linear curve, meaning 50% more powerful doesn't necessarily mean 50% more frames for instance, usually less.
I still think games should go for 60Frames per second first, and 1080p second. I don't care if it's Xbox360, PS4 or PC, 60Frames per second is a marked increase in both visuals and gameplay.
I know. Coincidentally, i just wrote something similar in my post below yours.
As for your 10% overclock, there must have been something else going on. You sure you didn't change the drivers or something? Usually, the "visual gain" is less than the power gain.
Yes, it was a heavy CPU bottleneck obviously, and Sins of a Solar Empire is a CPU hog with terrible multicore support. I guess my incident suffers a bit from the "Anecdotal Fallacy" if I step back and look at it objectively.
The GPU has about 40% more shading power. But the console doesn't consist of a GPU only, there's also the CPU, which might be slightly faster on the Xbox due to a slightly higher frequency. As far as the memory goes, it's difficult to measure how much the ESRAM of the XBox can compensate for the slower DDR3 RAM compared to the GDDR5 of the PS4.
Plus, the hardware specs to visual fidelity usually is not a linear curve, meaning 50% more powerful doesn't necessarily mean 50% more frames for instance, usually less.
Thanks, but I wasn't assuming any of that. Just pointing out how unlikely this notion that some have of a 10% power increase on a console that was already outclassed to begin with as being some huge game changer. Even if most games have resolution parity now the Xbox will still lag behind in other areas. Framerate, image quality, etc.
Thanks, but I wasn't assuming any of that. Just pointing out how unlikely this notion that some have of a 10% power increase on a console that was already outclassed to begin with as being some huge game changer. Even if most games have resolution parity now the Xbox will still lag behind in other areas. Framerate, image quality, etc.
Who was arguing that? It certainly wasn't me.
I was only saying there was a quantifiable (And I will argue significant) difference without having the Kinect eating up resources. XB1 is still outclassed by PS4 and of course any PC of reasonable hardware specs.
Who was arguing that? It certainly wasn't me.
I was only saying there was a quantifiable (And I will argue significant) difference without having the Kinect eating up resources. XB1 is still outclassed by PS4 and of course any PC of reasonable hardware specs.
You're right, but I wasn't really addressing you there. More of a pre-emptive statement in preperation for the direction these conversations always go in.
It's known that Developers could "turn off" Kinect features in game and have access ot most of the resources freed up by not having kinect plugged in at all.
That's why I said the difference is negligible. The actual difference is probably- in the realm of 4%. Not significant. Who knows what other concessions Bungie is making to allow the game to run at 1080p. My guess is low resolution shadowing and shader effects and probably- lower quality LOD's.
Retour en haut