PS4 tops Xbox One as gamers' holiday choice

[BigRedRage]

you asked!

 

[CardsFan88]

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57366319-221/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

The resolution and frame rate limits touted are wrong.

Those guys at CNET are passing off fallacies. It's like Richard Gere and gerbils. People say it, but it's not true.

I have seen graphs which show the effect it can have. I.E. There's diminishing returns on resolution when it's below a certain size or far enough away. But they still exist.

Distance does play a role, but there is no hard limit.

Basically CNET and others are saying its like there is some factual cutoff when really it's a broad range where at certain points its in balance, and outside of that, while you're not getting the full benefit of the resolution, it still looks better then something else. But again, everyone is different...and of course environmental factors as well as the quality of the television, and what it is set at effect things as well.

Here it is

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

A 1080p phone screen looks a lot better then a lesser size. It scales. Same for distance, and of course everyone is different. All the talk of 1080 HDTV's being useless under 40 inches is a complete lie.

As for frames per second, USAF did a study where they flashed a picture at pilots in 1/220th of a second, (basically 1 frame shown for the same length of time if you were at 220HZ), and the pilots could still not only make out it was an aircraft, but what model it was. Also they showed that changes in brightness levels can be detected at over 600 FPS.

There's a reason 4k, 8k, 16k are coming, and why we already have full hd displays far lower then 40 inches, because it looks better.

-----------------------------------------

As for PS4 and Xbox 1.

While I have a better PC, I have always liked consoles as well.

It's sad that both are somewhat underpowered, roughly 40-50 percent as powerful vs non-SLI/crossfire PC's, compared to what the 360/PS3 were at versus PC's when they launched. To be comparable to what they launched at, they would literally need a GTX 780 inside it, and of course since SLI/crossfire has become so big, that unlike in 2005/06 when things were close to even between consoles and PC's, now a UBER top end PC is literally ~10x as powerful as an Xbox One. Also the CPU's in both are a joke, 8 slow mobile CPU cores that are actually more like 4 dual cores put together. Luckily games these days are far more geared to GPU performance so that helps.

But PS4 is clearly the superior console by far, and can output 1080p pretty well.

Xbox One is severely underpowered. PS4 has 50 percent more power, 50 percent more ROP's and up to 400 percent more in various features such as 8 ACE's vs 2 for Xbox One and 64 Queue vs 16 for Xbox One.

Also Xbox One is majorly screwed because of the ESRAM. For two reasons.

1. ESRAM is difficult to code to for a multitude of reasons. If developers don't have the time, money, talent to do so effectively, and even the best are going to take years to learn a way to code it, the ramifications is lower bandwidth.

The Xbox One has DDR3 (horrible choice) which gives 68 gb/s second bandwidth. This is nothing for today's games. This is why how well developers can code the ESRAM will be a big deal. With it they can get another 109 or so gb/s. They can actually get more, by doing some reads and writes in certain ways, but this is really academic as it doesn't suit real live gaming situations.

So there's going to be a big range of what developers can do with it. I'd say probably 85-140 GB/S. Which is still pretty poor. It's going to be a real pain for the life of the console to code for it. It will get better, but it will ALWAYS be a major problem for the Xbox One for EVERY game.

2. ESRAM has to hold the framebuffer, and this is where they are really screwed.

Remember how I said the devs need to shuttle stuff through the ESRAM because the DDR3 bandwidth sucks? Well this can only happen with what's leftover after the framebuffer goes through the ESRAM. Problem is, 32mb's literally allow makes the Xbox One already obsolete.

32mb's really can only hold a framebuffer for a 720p/900p game. This is why 1080p games are going to be very rare. The ESRAM simply can't hold it, so they have to make a ton of sacrifices elsewhere.

So if you're framebuffer sucks up your ESRAM, even if you have more bandwidth sitting on the table, maybe a ton of it, you can't access it, because the framebuffer is sucking up the space you need to utilize it.

That's why so many games are 720p. ESRAM is a major pain to code for and is a huge bottleneck.

So even with all the 50-400 percent greater power of the PS4, if the bandwidth is lowered because of the ESRAM, that gap will only grow.

Microsoft got in this mess because they wanted...

A. Kinect included so they could bombard their users with ADS from the data mining (aka spying).
B. A media machine (which is funny because it won't play Netflix any better, and a remote control/game controller is still faster then the voice controls, and even then PS4 will be doing voice controls for UI/games...but you don't need a $135-175 camera. Like anyone with a brain has thought...all you need is a microphone input, and Sony's voice stuff can be controlled with a microphone plugged into the Dual Shock 4 (PS4controller).

This made them focus on DDR3 instead of GDDR5, which the PS4 has. Unified memory running at 176 gb/s bandwidth. Easy to code for. It will get the best version of multiplats and the difference could easily exceed 2-3x that of how the 360 pasted the PS3 last round.

That's also something most don't realize. While the PS3 was more powerful, it was really hard to code for. So 1st party developers took the time to put out some great games made specifically for them. Microsoft on the other hand with the Xbox One has both far less power AND is harder to code for, and the ESRAM is a major bottleneck. All for redundant tv applications, and a Kinect no one wants. (oh and with those weak specs 10 percent of the Xbox One power is dedicated to Kinect...but recently they said they'll allow developers to unlock this...but you can't have your cake and eat it too of course.)

What's really sad is that voice controls make up a significant percentage of what Kinect actually does in games, and you don't even really need the camera. So if you take that away, Kinect brings even less. It's still a zero button mouse with lag, and used in a way where the human body making motions also produces lag compared to a controller.

Also the fantasy football stuff only works with NFL.COM, so if you use yahoo, espn, or whatever else you're out of luck....but this stuff is always easier on a PC, and scoring updates via a smart phone is far better then taking up a bunch of the screen, especially if the benefit of taking up all that space only applies to one person in the house.

Top that off with $100 more and how badly they are rushing this console and online infrastructure and some real bad stuff could happen. That's another thing. Whatever PS+ and Xbox Live are for PS3 and 360, none of this applies to the new networks. Both could be better or worse or mixed compared to the previous generation's network. Some rumors floating around there are some problems with disconnecting on the new Xbox Live for Xbox One network, but we'll see. Sony decided on 2013, while Microsoft were clearly targeting 2014 and is in a mad dash to make up the difference.

They claim they won't have RRoD, and it's very unlikely something like that would happen again, BUT, if there is a major problem lurking, all the good any planning could do starts going out the window when you rush. We also know Microsoft has no problems pumping out broken consoles like they did at the 360 launch.

The cloud is completely bull, and it isn't 300,000 servers...it's 300,000 virtual servers, whenever they get around to implementing that. (Virtual servers means they can but '100' of whatever number of those servers on 1 actual server). Just more bad math from Microsoft, which loves to count wrong when it makes them sound better.

Both services will have dedicated servers, so while both networks should be quite good at some point, only one was designed to be released in 2013, so people shouldn't take for granted or that it is a fact that XBL will be better, especially early on.

I wanted to buy both consoles, but when the rumors came out about DRM/24 check-in, mandatory Kinect and all the rest of the 180's, I knew if they tried that, I wouldn't be buying one. Then a few months later after the internet exploded from these rumors that would make Microsoft look like a bunch of fools, they confirmed all of this existed, and they indeed were fools.

Which is sad, because I really liked my 360....when it was working and not scratching discs, having a hd failure, etc. I may buy one when the price goes WAY down, years from now, for 1st party games only, and yes no way in hell will I let them data mine me with Kinect and sell the data, while also bombarding me with ads and thus I wouldn't plug it in. Until that 180 removing mandatory Kinect, there was no chance in hell of me buying one.

So when E3 came and the preorders started I preordered my PS4 on Jun 11th, and Amazon will deliver it on launch day. I'm looking to get KZ:SF, BF4, CoD: Ghosts, and Madden 25.

Whatever people choose I hope they enjoy it, but also remember to inform oneself before they charge your account. Challenge your assumptions as both are brand new consoles and networks. Also stay safe, because Kinect 2.0 is a major trojan horse that I will not even attempt to go into with any great detail here.

 

[puckhead]

The resolution and frame rate limits touted are wrong.

Those guys at CNET are passing off fallacies. It's like Richard Gere and gerbils. People say it, but it's not true.

I have seen graphs which show the effect it can have. I.E. There's diminishing returns on resolution when it's below a certain size or far enough away. But they still exist.

Distance does play a role, but there is no hard limit.

Basically CNET and others are saying its like there is some factual cutoff when really it's a broad range where at certain points its in balance, and outside of that, while you're not getting the full benefit of the resolution, it still looks better then something else. But again, everyone is different...and of course environmental factors as well as the quality of the television, and what it is set at effect things as well.

I don’t know if it is on purpose, but you make it sound like a grand conspiracy. I think for CNET’s audience and in this general context, from your article:

“ …However, if you are an average consumer with a flat panel on the far wall of your family room, you are not likely to be close enough to notice any advantage”,

that their advice is sound for your average viewer.

Videophiles on the other hand will feel differently and that’s perfectly fine and great for debates on AVS Forum between those with dedicated theaters. As you point out earlier, diminishing returns. Further, considering that to date the only high bitrate 1080p content out there is Blu-Ray, at wildly differing levels of visual quality, we should really put some of these games to real world tests before we decide raw resolution's importance.

Here it is

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

I like this site a lot. In fact I have printed out that exact chart for my own uses while shopping for projectors. The screen size calculator is fantastic.

A 1080p phone screen looks a lot better then a lesser size. It scales. Same for distance, and of course everyone is different. All the talk of 1080 HDTV's being useless under 40 inches is a complete lie.

You are entitled to this opinion and the debate is fairly moot because you can’t even find a new TV under 1080p anymore. So, when resolution is equal across the board, this quote makes perfect sense to me, from your article:

“ISF states the the most important aspects of picture quality are (in order): 1) contrast ratio, 2) color saturation, 3) color accuracy, 4) resolution.”

So why does resolution get top billing in all advertisements? Bigger number equals better, right? Especially when the salesman can simply say, ‘you need more pixels don’t you?’ The consumer gets that logic and then it's on to the Monster cables section.

I always think back to when we were kids and all TV’s were 480i (OMGZ! how did we survive?) Well, all TV’s weren’t exactly the same because of resolution then either. It always came down to better quality in points 1-3 so these are the things to concentrate on in my opinion.

As for frames per second, USAF did a study where they flashed a picture at pilots in 1/220th of a second, (basically 1 frame shown for the same length of time if you were at 220HZ), and the pilots could still not only make out it was an aircraft, but what model it was. Also they showed that changes in brightness levels can be detected at over 600 FPS.

I would love to see this study! Do you have a link handy? I do believe there is a lot more to our perception of frame-rates than is widely known. If implemented properly, I think this holds the most potential for in-game visual improvement.

There's a reason 4k, 8k, 16k are coming, and why we already have full hd displays far lower then 40 inches, because it looks better.

I would argue it’s because it sells more TV’s, but we’ll see. In my opinion, it’s like halitosis and Listerine, you need to have a disease before you can sell the cure.

Regarding the “Great Console War of 2013”, I’ll see where everyone is at 6 months in before I buy anything.

 

[HeavyB3]

What you will never see on the internet...

"I prefer the PS4"
"That's cool, I'm more of an Xbox One fan, but I'm glad you enjoy your PS4""
"Thank you, I'm glad there are two really great products on the market for us to choose from. I respect your choice."

 

[BigRedRage]

What you will never see on the internet...

"I prefer the PS4"
"That's cool, I'm more of an Xbox One fan, but I'm glad you enjoy your PS4""
"Thank you, I'm glad there are two really great products on the market for us to choose from. I respect your choice."

lol

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Regarding the “Great Console War of 2013”, I’ll see where everyone is at 6 months in before I buy anything.

Agreed.

The video game industry has become an overly bloated cash cow predicated upon the pre-release purchase IMHO. I, for one, will wait and see which system best fits my needs before I take the plunge on a purchase that could initially end up costing as much as a mortgage payment.

Of course, I'm still at 4% complete on Arkham Asylum so take my agreement with the appropriate grain of salt.

As for "Resolutiongate" (as it's become known as), here's an interesting article regarding a possible reason as to why the XboxOne's native resolutions are coming in at 720p.

Kinect to blame for Xbox One launch titles only being 720p

 

[BigRedRage]

good to hear it will improve over time either way. Its an est 8 year life cycle so plenty of time to expand and improve and if 360 was any indicator they do a great job of it IMO

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

You must be registered for see images

I saw plenty of reports from folks about bricked PS4's on social media, but Sony insists it's more like 0.04% failure rating experienced by customers.

Sony Addresses Reports Of Failed PlayStation 4 Units

 

[Covert Rain]

Interesting. I am sure this will go back and forth for years to come to spark many a conversation with fan boys. LOL. XBOX ONE appears to outsell PS4 during holiday shopping. Now what is interesting is so did the XBOX 360.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/12/03/analyst-xbox-one-outsells-ps4-on-black-friday

 

[BigRedRage]

Interesting. I am sure this will go back and forth for years to come to spark many a conversation with fan boys. LOL. XBOX ONE appears to outsell PS4 during holiday shopping. Now what is interesting is so did the XBOX 360.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/12/03/analyst-xbox-one-outsells-ps4-on-black-friday

thats interesting. I have noticed a lot of 360 games going for very cheap too. I figured the two new consoles would be a wash due to already being sold out - I mean, who even had xbox ones on black friday after the initial preorder rush?

Also - 360 and ps3 sold something like 200k units launch day. The new consoles are over a million. They obviously are putting far more into production these days.

 

[Covert Rain]

thats interesting. I have noticed a lot of 360 games going for very cheap too. I figured the two new consoles would be a wash due to already being sold out - I mean, who even had xbox ones on black friday after the initial preorder rush?

Also - 360 and ps3 sold something like 200k units launch day. The new consoles are over a million. They obviously are putting far more into production these days.

I did noticed the XBOX 360s flying off the shelf. When I was at Best Buy on Black Friday, I must have seen 3 or 4 people snatching up the 360 Bundle.

Wait...I actually did come across a 5th person at the customer service desk. However, she evidenteally didn't know anything about video game systems. I heard her tell the person handling the return "my son told me I bought the wrong system". LOL.