........................
...................
.............
........
....
oh nevermind me... I'm just waiting for the master race to show up and tell us that all consoles suck and are kiddy toys. Gotta laugh how some people come running into a topic that's not even directed towards them only to tell us how much better the 'rival' system is.
If you look at the screen that close your eyesight will go... lol.
I've had my PS4 for a couple of weeks now and graphically there's not a lot in it. It could be because I'm too used to the XB1 but I prefer the Xbox One UI to the PS4 and it's missing some features the xbox one have. But overall I am liking both consoles.
I had both sold the PS4 missed it so got another one. PS4 has the graphical edge but most games on the Xbox One match the PS4. Need for Speed rivals looks dull on the XB1 so got the PS4 one instead. Drive Club matches Forza.
PS4 all around for me guys, I found the graphics on XBone only slightly better than Xbox 360 and PS4 just kills it with true 1080p. Far Cry 4 looks good until you get close to the screen when you really do see it is only 900p. Still low quality textures, jaggies etc.
So you need to be right up against the screen to notice any real difference then? what a strange way to play games.
MS are chucking everything at the XB1 (probably inc the kitchen sink) to try and get something to stick. Monthly updates to the console are probably introducing as many bugs as they fix, but at least it looks like they're doing something. With the aggressive price cuts and bundles, MS had a better end to the year, but I don't think they'll be able to sustain it.
If you prefer the XB1, then fine, but ultimately, the PS4 is the more powerful console, and as time goes on, the games will reflect this. The PS4 has far more AAA titles scheduled for 2015 as well. By the end of 2015 (two years in), we'll know for sure, but at the moment, the PS4 has an almost unassailable lead.
As ex-Xbox head Don Mattrick said 12 months after the XB360 release "History has shown that the first console to reach 10m sales will win the war" - obviously that was when the 360 had reached 10m ahead of the PS3. Surprisingly, MS never said that this time round.
MS are chucking everything at the XB1 (probably inc the kitchen sink) to try and get something to stick. Monthly updates to the console are probably introducing as many bugs as they fix, but at least it looks like they're doing something. With the aggressive price cuts and bundles, MS had a better end to the year, but I don't think they'll be able to sustain it.
If you prefer the XB1, then fine, but ultimately, the PS4 is the more powerful console, and as time goes on, the games will reflect this. The PS4 has far more AAA titles scheduled for 2015 as well. By the end of 2015 (two years in), we'll know for sure, but at the moment, the PS4 has an almost unassailable lead.
As ex-Xbox head Don Mattrick said 12 months after the XB360 release "History has shown that the first console to reach 10m sales will win the war" - obviously that was when the 360 had reached 10m ahead of the PS3. Surprisingly, MS never said that this time round.
And what has this got to do with this thread which is asking are you happy you bought an X1? :p
MS are chucking everything at the XB1 (probably inc the kitchen sink) to try and get something to stick. Monthly updates to the console are probably introducing as many bugs as they fix, but at least it looks like they're doing something. With the aggressive price cuts and bundles, MS had a better end to the year, but I don't think they'll be able to sustain it.
'Probably'. Ah, I love speculation. Nope. At least I've never encountered any issues that relate to the OS or the console itself. I'm even in the early access participation thingy.
I've said it before (a hundred times!) and I'll say it again. As someone who owns both consoles, the PS4 may be more powerful, surfe, but in pretty much every other way, the XBO is by far superior.
PS4 all around for me guys, I found the graphics on XBone only slightly better than Xbox 360 and PS4 just kills it with true 1080p. Far Cry 4 looks good until you get close to the screen when you really do see it is only 900p. Still low quality textures, jaggies etc.
Think your wrong there fella.
Yes it runs in 900p on X1 but the graphics are otherwise the same. Textures included
Nowt wrong with the X1! (Great graphics & unbeatable media functionality!) 👍 ... Besides It's abit sad folk arguing over a daft £300 bit of plastic aint it? 😇
(Let's all just hate the PC t*ats & enjoy ya console of choice!) 👏
I own both consoles, and use the X1 slightly more than the Ps4 and if I had to pick between the 2 I would pick the X1 as at least I can stream stuff from my NAS.
I'm glad I got the X box one for forza horizon alone. However I'm less than impressed with the dashboard at the minute. Also it was only last night I discovered that you can no longer send voice messages. A huge step back from the 360 .
Nowt wrong with the X1! (Great graphics & unbeatable media functionality!) 👍 ... Besides It's abit sad folk arguing over a daft £300 bit of plastic aint it? 😇
(Let's all just hate the PC t*ats & enjoy ya console of choice!) 👏
Think it was due to the 360 being easier to program. If I recall correctly developers struggled for the first few years trying to understand the cell processor. Sort of like this time round with the X1 and ESRAM.
This time around, Sony's console is the more powerful AND the easiest to program. They've certainly learned from their mistakes.
MS seem to be throwing Xbox One's unique features overboard as quickly as they can to try and close that power gap. Personally I think it's a waste of time. It's powerful enough to deliver great games. Creating some exclusive, world beating experiences should be Xbox One's priority at the moment.
This time around, Sony's console is the more powerful AND the easiest to program. They've certainly learned from their mistakes.
MS seem to be throwing Xbox One's unique features overboard as quickly as they can to try and close that power gap. Personally I think it's a waste of time. It's powerful enough to deliver great games. Creating some exclusive, world beating experiences should be Xbox One's priority at the moment.
PS3 was more powerful than the 360.
Personally, I don't think MS can catch up at this point, BUT I do think a lot of 360 owners who went to PS4 because of MS' initial mess up will come back next gen. The amount of time PSN is down is just unacceptable. It's unreliable and unstable. I know Live isn't perfect, but in comparison to PSN.............
Yeah. Read the whole first sentence, I was saying this time they've got the double whammy, power AND accessibility, a (technically speaking) unbeatable combination.
According to digital foundry the gap between the PS4 and X1 is closing from a 1080 resolution on both consoles perspective. I don't know if that's in the name of parity or game makers are making better use of the X1, everyone will draw their own conclusions depending on which side of the fence.
I think the only thing MS really need to do, is get the exclusives rolling out and stay competitive on console price, then any power difference will fade into the background.
Think it was due to the 360 being easier to program. If I recall correctly developers struggled for the first few years trying to understand the cell processor. Sort of like this time round with the X1 and ESRAM.
The 360 GPU, RAM solution and overall bandwidth absoluety hammered the PS3. Why are people so reluctant to admit this? Everyone is happy to talk about this fact for the PS4 and X1 but not 360 and PS3?? Even today multiplatform games are showing the differences in hardware, parity was never reached, even with 8 years of familiarity.
The 360 GPU, RAM solution and overall bandwidth absoluety hammered the PS3. Why are people so reluctant to admit this? Everyone is happy to talk about this fact for the PS4 and X1 but not 360 and PS3?? Even today multiplatform games are showing the differences in hardware, parity was never reached, even with 8 years of familiarity.
it's not about admitting anything, it's about what you believe to be the true based on the facts available.
I, like many others, believe the PS3 was more powerful, at least on paper. However, the 360 was easier to program for and had the bigger install base for a significant amount of time. As a result it was the lead platform for the vast majority of multi-plat games which goes a long way to explain the often superior performance.
According to digital foundry the gap between the PS4 and X1 is closing from a 1080 resolution on both consoles perspective. I don't know if that's in the name of parity or game makers are making better use of the X1, everyone will draw their own conclusions depending on which side of the fence.
I also believe they were able to get a bit more power by removing Kinect as that was always taking up a bit of CPU/RAM performance.
Removing the Kinect camera from the X1 has nothing directly to do with the additional resources being made available all Microsoft has done is to allow developers to disable certain Kinect features if they don't and use the freed up resources for other functions.
Think it was due to the 360 being easier to program. If I recall correctly developers struggled for the first few years trying to understand the cell processor. Sort of like this time round with the X1 and ESRAM.
I can't find the article right now but I'm sure I read that one of the reasons MS chose to go down the ESRAM route was that there were suggestions that there might have been a GDDR5 shortage.
As I understand it, if developers want to use that 7th core then it means they can't use in-game voice commands and it shuts down the Kinect motion sensors. Fair enough, as most games don't use them. But if the user decides to use a system-level voice command such as "Xbox record that" the OS grabs 50% of that 7th core back from the game which is going to hit game performance. Developers can't even account for that, as the current SDK a doesn't let them know how much of that core they are using.
Not exactly ideal for Kinect users. Not that it matters to me as I don't have one, and at £130 I'm not ever likely to.
Something else to think about though - there's talk of developers embracing GPGPU in the coming years, and that's an area that PS4 is really going to excel at. When it comes to the parity, this CPU tinkering may well count for nothing in the end.
Comments
...................
.............
........
....
oh nevermind me... I'm just waiting for the master race to show up and tell us that all consoles suck and are kiddy toys.
I had both sold the PS4 missed it so got another one. PS4 has the graphical edge but most games on the Xbox One match the PS4. Need for Speed rivals looks dull on the XB1 so got the PS4 one instead. Drive Club matches Forza.
So you need to be right up against the screen to notice any real difference then? what a strange way to play games.
If you prefer the XB1, then fine, but ultimately, the PS4 is the more powerful console, and as time goes on, the games will reflect this. The PS4 has far more AAA titles scheduled for 2015 as well. By the end of 2015 (two years in), we'll know for sure, but at the moment, the PS4 has an almost unassailable lead.
As ex-Xbox head Don Mattrick said 12 months after the XB360 release "History has shown that the first console to reach 10m sales will win the war" - obviously that was when the 360 had reached 10m ahead of the PS3. Surprisingly, MS never said that this time round.
And what has this got to do with this thread which is asking are you happy you bought an X1?
'Probably'. Ah, I love speculation. Nope. At least I've never encountered any issues that relate to the OS or the console itself. I'm even in the early access participation thingy.
I've said it before (a hundred times!) and I'll say it again. As someone who owns both consoles, the PS4 may be more powerful, surfe, but in pretty much every other way, the XBO is by far superior.
So, yeah, I'm glad with my console choice
Think your wrong there fella.
Yes it runs in 900p on X1 but the graphics are otherwise the same. Textures included
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-far-cry-4-face-off
Nowt wrong with the X1! (Great graphics & unbeatable media functionality!) 👍 ... Besides It's abit sad folk arguing over a daft £300 bit of plastic aint it? 😇
(Let's all just hate the PC t*ats & enjoy ya console of choice!) 👏
Both collect dust very well, so 10/10 score there
Lol, good luck making it run on only plastic
It was? Multiplats told a very different story.
Think it was due to the 360 being easier to program. If I recall correctly developers struggled for the first few years trying to understand the cell processor. Sort of like this time round with the X1 and ESRAM.
MS seem to be throwing Xbox One's unique features overboard as quickly as they can to try and close that power gap. Personally I think it's a waste of time. It's powerful enough to deliver great games. Creating some exclusive, world beating experiences should be Xbox One's priority at the moment.
PS3 was more powerful than the 360.
Personally, I don't think MS can catch up at this point, BUT I do think a lot of 360 owners who went to PS4 because of MS' initial mess up will come back next gen. The amount of time PSN is down is just unacceptable. It's unreliable and unstable. I know Live isn't perfect, but in comparison to PSN.............
Yeah. Read the whole first sentence, I was saying this time they've got the double whammy, power AND accessibility, a (technically speaking) unbeatable combination.
I think the only thing MS really need to do, is get the exclusives rolling out and stay competitive on console price, then any power difference will fade into the background.
Easier said then done
The 360 GPU, RAM solution and overall bandwidth absoluety hammered the PS3. Why are people so reluctant to admit this? Everyone is happy to talk about this fact for the PS4 and X1 but not 360 and PS3?? Even today multiplatform games are showing the differences in hardware, parity was never reached, even with 8 years of familiarity.
it's not about admitting anything, it's about what you believe to be the true based on the facts available.
I, like many others, believe the PS3 was more powerful, at least on paper. However, the 360 was easier to program for and had the bigger install base for a significant amount of time. As a result it was the lead platform for the vast majority of multi-plat games which goes a long way to explain the often superior performance.
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/01/05/xbox-one-developers-given-more-cpu-power
I also believe they were able to get a bit more power by removing Kinect as that was always taking up a bit of CPU/RAM performance.
Removing the Kinect camera from the X1 has nothing directly to do with the additional resources being made available all Microsoft has done is to allow developers to disable certain Kinect features if they don't and use the freed up resources for other functions.
I can't find the article right now but I'm sure I read that one of the reasons MS chose to go down the ESRAM route was that there were suggestions that there might have been a GDDR5 shortage.
At a cost though.
As I understand it, if developers want to use that 7th core then it means they can't use in-game voice commands and it shuts down the Kinect motion sensors. Fair enough, as most games don't use them. But if the user decides to use a system-level voice command such as "Xbox record that" the OS grabs 50% of that 7th core back from the game which is going to hit game performance. Developers can't even account for that, as the current SDK a doesn't let them know how much of that core they are using.
Not exactly ideal for Kinect users. Not that it matters to me as I don't have one, and at £130 I'm not ever likely to.
Something else to think about though - there's talk of developers embracing GPGPU in the coming years, and that's an area that PS4 is really going to excel at. When it comes to the parity, this CPU tinkering may well count for nothing in the end.