[QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

I'm worried about Xbox One altogether. Everything hardware-wise was done wrong, not just Kinect. Software and policy decisions can be changed on the fly but choices you make with hardware you're stuck with. There was a few hardware-related things I didn't like about Xbox 360. The arcade model was silly and its existence held back the potential of 360 forever. And to a lesser extent I didn't care for them going with DVD instead of HD-DVD. But the silicon they did right. Hell, they did VERY WELL there. But they've screwed up Xbox One's chips badly. And this is coming from someone that's been a Xbox fanboy for the last 10+ years. They've managed to turn even me off.

shawn30

. Kinect seems to need some work, but thats why its games have been delayed to work out the kinks. There have been positive and negative previews of it, but most all of them agree the tech is much better so they will fix it. Im very impressed by the Xbox One so far. Hardware wise if Forza 5 and Ryse are representative of first gen graphics likely built on older dev kits as the final ones only were done in the last month, i see a bright future ahead. Just my two cents.

Of course the games look good. It's weak compared to PS4 but it ain't like the thing only has the power of a pocket calculator. Heck, there's plenty of PS3 and Xbox 360 games that look good. Wether the games look good or not is not the question. It's how they look compared to PS4 games. And yeah, they seem to be holding up so far but these are launch games. The drivers for both systems are horrible at this point and that's an equalizer. But a year or two down the road PS4 is gonna pull ahead ... well ahead. It has to happen that way cuz the specs say so. If ya understand the specs ya don't even need to see game footage to know which hardware is superior. PS4 is somwhere in the ballpark of 30%-40% more powerful. No doubt about it. There's no way that's not going to show up on the screen eventually.

Semiaccurate's take on Xbox One hardware:

"The system as a whole has a massive chunk of hardware devoted to AV tasks, enough to make background encoding, decoding, playback, scaling, and the rest about as seamless as possible to the gamer. AV should just work and gaming should just work regardless of what the other is doing, something the PS4 should do as well but in a very different way. Then again the majority of this functionality is available in a <$100 Android box so it isnt a standout feature if you follow tech at all.

Then there are the GPUs themselves, the Achilles heel of the XBox One. While there is nothing wrong with them per se, they are a slightly older revision than used in the PS4 but the differences are small enough to be ignorable. What does matter is that the PS4 has about 50% more units at roughly the same clocks, 1152 at ~800MHz vs 768 at 853MHz, a massive difference. Couple this with the vastly more user-friendly 8GB GDDR5 memory design and you have a clean kill for Sony on performance.

Microsoft made a really impressive SoC that is a multimedia monster with a bit of gaming ability, technically speaking it is quite impressive that they pulled it off. Not to take anything away from the hardware designers but Microsoft management simply aimed wrong. Sony made a gaming machine, Microsoft did not. Sony made a clean design for coders, Microsoft did not. Microsoft made a complex technical masterpiece that is in a no-mans land between a far <$100 Android media center and the PS4. Sony just did right for gamers and won the battle."

http://semiaccurate.com/2013/09/03/xbox-ones-sound-block-is-much-more-than-audio/

Very well put and that's why I'm getting a PS4.

$100 more for a weaker system bcuz of crappy kinectTheKingIAm

Yep, there's 8 audio processors on the APU. 8!!! There's only 12 CUs and 16 ROPS on it (PS4 has 18 CUs and 32 ROPs), amounts that are clearly lacking, yet instead of choosing to put more on there they waste a crapload of valuable APU space with 8 fargin audio chips! Kinect has to be the reason. Nothing else makes sense.

I'm worried about Xbox One altogether. Everything hardware-wise was done wrong, not just Kinect. Software and policy decisions can be changed on the fly but choices you make with hardware you're stuck with. There was a few hardware-related things I didn't like about Xbox 360. The arcade model was silly and its existence held back the potential of 360 forever. And to a lesser extent I didn't care for them going with DVD instead of HD-DVD. But the silicon they did right. Hell, they did VERY WELL there. But they've screwed up Xbox One's chips badly. And this is coming from someone that's been a Xbox fanboy for the last 10+ years. They've managed to turn even me off.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

sure the are :roll:

FoxbatAlpha

OMG! You're still on that misterxmedia thing? STILL?!!!

For the thousandth time, if graphics are most important to you, why are you gaming on consoles? PC wrecks them. cainetao11

Sigh, because PCs that have better graphics than consoles cost a freakin' fortune and you have to keep up maintenance on them. With a console it works or it doesn't. But with a PC the slightest little thing slows it down. Then if you're not keeping on top of it ya end up with a kzillion different things slowing it down. Before long the thing is running much, much slower than when you bought it. It's simply a lot more of a hassle than a console is. But having said that I might end up putting together a gaming PC eventually. Not sure yet.

Anyone who buys a console strictly on hardware is no gamer; Just a fan of tech. You buy a console for games, no more.

Puckhog04

People always say that but do ya really believe there isn't going to be games for either of these consoles? Both have established track records, ain't like it's someone new to the industry. Both will have games aplenty so might as well decide based on hardware. That's not to say I don't have a preference outside of the specs. I'd rather get Xbox One cuz I prefer the brand. If it were just a little weaker I would. But the gulf is so wide I feel I'm being forced to pick the competetor.

ill get an xb1 later on the road, ill support ms, bc i was very happy with my 360, but i just dont want a weak console. the ps4 is a beast, the xb1 is alot weaker in terms of gpu... if the xb1 gpu was upgraded id get that instead of the ps4, but it is not...

 

 

so yea.. im getting a ps4. who else is like me and only getting a ps4 due to the 40% stronger gpu?

Pitbulllova

That's the reason I'll be getting PS4. Haven't owned a Sony console since PS1 and don't care for the controller but while I find PS4's specs underwhelming Xbox One's are lacking to a ridiculous degree.

OK, when ya say it has 13 CUs I assume you mean those are functional CUs. Xbox One doesn't have 14 of them, it has 12. Sure, it has an additional 2 that are turned off to help with manufacturing yields but if they're not doing anything there's no sense in counting them.

You are a day late and a dollar short.

 

The best parts out of that interview are.

 

New word for weak = balance balance balance even when the system more unbalance than the competition system.

Gimped 7790 confirmed to be the GPU on the xbox one.

Memory will be 140 to 150 GB/s not 204GB/s.

GDDR5 is bad some how.

MS biggest reason for ESRAM + DDR3 = cheaper.

MS claiming that 14 CU is the right balance but they only have 12 CU 2 disable.

MS claim that sony agree with them based on Vgleaks wrong info about the PS4 been 14+4 CU.

MS wanting to imply that more CU mean less performance do to diminishing returns.

 

That is about it.

tormentos

Yeah, they used the word balance repeatedly. But it's bs, damage control. I don't believe them when they say they chose DDR3 and ESRAM because of cost and it being a natural evolution of 360. I think it was all about them feeling they had to have 8 gigs because of all the multimedia stuff they wanted to do and 8 gigs of GDDR5 wasn't a sure thing. Then there was the bs about a slight overclock being better than adding CUs. First of all I don't believe they could have added CUs so easily (And if you could why not add them AND do the upclock?) but even if they could have it's silly to say that a 53 mhz upclock is better than that. They say it wouldn't have been balanced that way. Well duh, if you add any CUs ya also need to add some ROPs and some of the other stuff ya cheaped out on to go along with it. I don't disagree that they did as good a job with DDR3, ESRAM, 12 CUs and 16 ROPs as they probably could have but the system simply needs more of that stuff than what it has. PS4 probably isn't 50% more powerful but it's at least 33% more powerful and no spin is gonna change that.