The ps4 shows again its weakness.

@commander: Do you have links for any of the shit you just posted? And unlocking a 7th core? Is that going to make the OS which already runs like shit run even worse? And does it matter the X1 will perform much better when it's doing it with half the resolution and lower quality assets the whole time? Not taking into account if gpu compute is used it won't even perform better.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-microsoft-gives-more-cpu-power-to-xbox-one-developers-blog

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-bloodborne-performance-analysis

@commander: Nothing says anything about your 35% claim on the PS4 gpu. And why do games like MGS Ground Zeroes look and run better on PS4?

The limitation for Dead Rising 3 and it running the way it does and at the resolution it does is the AI, are you actually so ignorant that you don't think that those zombies are AI? Get a clue man...

Do you know what AI does? It bottlenecks a CPU when there is a ton of active AI on screen, do you know what a bottlenecked CPU can't do? Send proper instructions to the GPU, do you know what a GPU that is not receiving instructions can't do? Achieve a higher resolution or performance even though the GPU may be capable. Do you know what console has a weaker CPU? It's the PlayStation 4, Dead Rising 3 would run worse on the PlayStation 4 just as Assassin's Creed Unity does simply because of the AI calculations bottlenecking the CPU more easily than the Xbox One.

This is not a debate.

@nyadc: It would also look better on PS4 while not maintaining a 720p resolution.

The esram does certain gpu tasks making the x1's gpu more performant. I said the gap was still about 30-35 percent instead of 50 percent, not an increase of 35 percent.

You can find esram articles all over the internet but you won't find a lot of them using specific numbers,. You have make that synthesis yourself. It's pretty obvious when you look at certain games like battlefield hardline for instance. 900p vs 720 is roughly 30-35 percent.

A lot of games in the beginning weren't using the esram , since the sdk wasn't ready and there the ps4 was 50 percent stronger on the gpu side but that time is long gone.

Of course battlefield hardline isn't cpu bound, assassins creed unity for instance is and there the framerate is lower on the ps4.

You don't seem to understand how computer hardware works man, you're talking above your pay grade right now....

@commander: The ESRAM is to make up for the much slower DDR3. It doesn't give it a magical gpu boost.

@nyadc: I seem to more then you. You are implying that 720p launch title on X1 would look and run worse on PS4 which is hilarious.

Yes, but the eSRAM in most cases has not been properly made use of in most games, if it were there would be a performance increase due to there no longer being a RAM bottleneck.

The game is 720p because of the AI calculations overloading the CPU and not allowing it to send proper instruction to the GPU, how are you not understanding this? The PlayStation 4 has a weaker CPU, it would be even worse on it, just like Assassin's Creed Unity, which also has a lot of AI.

LOL! Really?

1.75 Ghz vs 1.6 Ghz is a severe handicap now?

@nyadc: How are you not understanding that not one game has ever had to run at 720p on the PS4. You keep using one game to support your argument , which by the way has about a 5 fps advantage. Let's forget the host of other NPC heavy titles that run similar while looking better on the PS4. No cpu bottleneck is going to make the PS4 run in 720p. You have the X1 weak gpu for that and that is not up for debate that's just a fact.

That much slower ddr3 also has less latency on the cpu side, increasing the gap when it comes to cpu performance with the ps4. The esram doesn't work as just a ram boost, it can do specific things like texture tiling something that will be even more used in dx12. It can do it faster than gddr5. That may sound magical to you, but it's just some form of optimization.

If the gpu performance difference was really 50 percent, how come the ps4 isn't able to output more than 900 p on the battlefield hardline then , while the x1 can do 720p. That difference is only 30 ish percent difference and the game isn't cpu bound.

Like I said, that 50 percent gpu performance difference is calculated without considering the esram (those numbers are from 2013, when some people still believed the esram wasn't going to do anything). Even if it was just a ram boost , the difference wouldn't be 50 percent.

The gap on the gpu side will even become smaller with dx12.

dude wut.

Yes... Look at AC:U. Not to mention that PS4 allocates 2 cores to the OS, and Xbox One 1. Although we have to say, that developers can only use 50-80% of the power of that 7th CPU. But still, at first there was a gap of +9%, but now the gap is +18%, just in CPU power of course.

@commander: Why does MGS ground zeroes run with better res ,higher frame rates and better assets? You keep saying what the X1 can do but the PS4 wins about 90% of the time.

You seem to think the X1 will keep getting gains and the PS4 will do nothing.

In games where the cpu isn't bottlenecked or not much the ps4 will always be the better system because of the gpu advantage but the moment the cpu is bottlenecking it shifts to the x1, not much because the x1 will bottleneck as well then since there's only a cpu performance difference of 10 percent but that will change significantly with games that make use of that 7th core.

The x1 won't gain if the cpu doesn't have to do much but I doubt that will stay that way. Numerous games already push these cpu's to its limits but that 7th core in the x1 will drastically improve overall performance

First, AC:U is a terrible example, since it had performance issues on all platforms including PC. Second, AC:U did not perform that much greater because of a 7th core, but because of the slightly higher clock, which really amounted to about 2-5 frames better. This is not a huge difference. Lastly, 18% better CPU is not a handicap, especially in instances where the CPU isn't heavily relied upon. Neither console is severely handicapped when compared to each other. There are advantages to one over the other, but they are not severe.

lol stfu.

AC:U didn't use the 7th core already, as far as I know. I agree with you on the rest.

I heard the consoles use Sata 2 interface for the storage, possibly why the differences aren't huge.

It's alright about the CPU, teh GPGPU will save it.

Right that's what I meant.

Consoles are rather weak.

GTA5 patch was just to improve overall general performance and fluidity. Both xboxone and PS4 needed it.

A patch is being made to fix the load times of bloodborne.

PS4 and Xboxone have the same CPU. I believe PS4 has a second CPU. Xboxone is slightly clocked higher. The slight increase in CPU performance isn't going to make up for the larger difference in GPU performance.

What I don't understand is why MS decided to cheap out of the GPU.

Xeon series on the lga1366 socket were the best thing to happen to that socket. They are so cheap right now.

The other xeon series on the lga1150 socket are clock locked. Most aren't compat (unless designed for it).

I miss intel's lga1366 socket. So much processor support.

>he thinks I'm a console gamer
>Lel

http://steamcommunity.com/id/Captain_cannonfodder/

I hope they'll patch the loading times in Bloodborne. They're pretty lengthy, and it's not like it has item descriptions to read. Which is ironic, considering how much time you would have to do so.

@clyde46: he'd probably shit his pants if he saw the build you're working on

That doesn't mean that you know what you're talking about

You don't really have room to talk.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, little troll

'Prepare to die and fall asleep' hahahahaha

Says the guy who thinks 150MHz is a severe difference in computing power.

No it's only 15 percent on 6 cores lmao

@commander: 15%??? Woah that's like 100% only 85% less!

Boners never cease to amuse me.

Well, we do have some cows who don't know what they are chatting about however they hold the higher ground. I.e. the PS4 is actually more powerful.

I'm not denying that at all, but the boners are really a special breed. The amount of faith they've placed in dx12 and software optimization to make up for a pretty severe hardware gap is just funny.

Well according to From they are already working on the long load times. Since even on a SSD it's slow I suppose it must be something in the code they can fix.

Well it is somewhat plausible.... compared to "The Cloud"....

What I really want to know is, who the hell went to all the effort to put a stop watch on the loading times of this game and was it carried out accurately and scientifically? I find this disturbingly sad ;)

Actually 31 seconds to load a save point on a SSD is pretty bad, my PC boots in under 20 seconds.

Taken from digital foundry,

"And yet something is awry when playing Bloodborne. Its sub-30fps frame-rate drops may be infrequent, but on close analysis the bigger issue here is in its frame-pacing. As it turns out, From Software's implementation of a 30fps cap means that, as promised, we do get an average refresh at that number near-constantly throughout Yarnham city. The problem? As we've seen with the launch builds of Need for Speed: Rivals and Destiny, an incorrect ordering of frames can cause a nasty stuttering to motion.

Though its 30fps average is technically correct, Bloodborne often produces two unique frames followed by two duplicates - rather than one after another - creating a perception of frame-rate drops throughout. It's not smooth in motion at all as a result, and frame-time updates swing erratically between 16ms and 66ms - and sometimes higher. It's an unfortunate oversight by From Software. However, we have seen both Bungie and EA Gothenburg react to the issue in each case, correcting their games soon after launch. We hope this will be the case for Bloodborne as well."

Sorry to burst the hater bubble, but there you have it. I would recommend to those talking shit, to do some research before blindly spewing garbage about something they know nothing about.

People using Ass Creed Unity as a basis for PS4's poor CPU performance have now become invalid.

Lets be clear here though, the game was a broken mess. Slightly more broken on the PS4. But.............................

............

.........

.......

WOW guys, waddayknow?! PS4's frame rate was patched and optimised up to the broken state of the Xbone version which is still dire in general.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-latest-assassins-creed-patch-boosts-performance

They actually did it on all the levels

44 seconds is not even the highest number. Another level you have to wait for a staggering 53 seconds.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-bloodborne-performance-analysis

PS4 version now more closely matches the Xbox One

Nice one, read the article next time. PS4 still loses.

It's a software issue, not a hardware one. Desperation seems to be setting in among the lems. Granted, if they were knowledgeable about hardware, they wouldn't be dangling from MSes ball sack this gen. So, there is that.

You just highlighted the point I was trying to make. LOL. Not once did I refute that the Xbone had a superior CPU, only that with optimisations you can improve performance of the PS4's which at first was fucking terrible in regards to this game. Proves its more of a developer fault.

Plus ''closely matches' is pretty much the same difference Xbone has with all the multiplats it loses in, except the ones with 720p res.

Fast to post. Slow to think: Fastrobby.

Actually with 64 player mp BF games does become much more cpu bound. getting a steady 60 fps in SP can drop into the 40's during intense MP action.

Lemz so jelly ps4 got the best game of the year so far