Why even launch in Japan? I think it's been pretty well established by now that no MS console, no matter what it's like, is going to sell there.

[QUOTE="tormentos"]

[QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

 

PS4's audio chips aren't on the APU because Sony's engineers had common sense. Who cares about the audio? Seriously, how many debates about audio capabilities have ya seen around here? The APU is the most important part of the console. Ya should cram it with as many CPU and GPU resources as possible. That's what Sony did. MS, meanwhile, puts stuff like audio chips on there and runs out of room for ROPs and CUs. Stupid! But obviously they knew what they were doing. They had to know that crap like audio chips on the APU was going to mean less important stuff on the APU like CUs. But apparently they didn't care. They could have put the audio chips somewhere else but chose not to. This console is weak on purpose. If a weak console is what they wanted why are they trying to talk themselves out of it now?

Sonysexual1

It actually surprice me to see MS fit the audio block inside the APU,rather than put it outside with all the room the xbox one has inside on that board it should have been quite more easy to fit that audio chip outside and actually have more room for GPU.

It was lack of direcetion what hurted MS,is the reason Mattrick was kick out,i really believed that the 3rd console curse only happen to those who won 2 generations in a row,but it has strike MS big time,after they sold so many 360's they dropped the ball.

Well, I think the audio chip is for Kinect voice recognition, not for gaming. Kinect is going to have to be running in the background 24/7 keeping track of 50+ commands at many different languages. The audio block will be used for decoding verbal commands on the fly (Microsoft stressed OS smoothness).

It's just so strange that Microsoft would invest in sound rather than graphical computing power. Kinect is the only explanation.

Maybe that's why. Power gimped for Kinect ... good grief. :(

[QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

[QUOTE="Spartan070"] I don't care how many "TFLOPS" it has. Is it going to be a fun gaming machine? Yep, then here's my cash. You guys are way too into specs...wasn't like this prior to last gen, we were gamers then. :PSpartan070

They're charging $100 more for lesser hardware. Perhaps that's OK with you but not with me. Considering how far behind it is it shouldn't even be the same price, let alone $100 more. If it were $300 I'd be OK with it considering that PS4 will be $400. But $500 is absurd. And yes, Kinect is included but I, and plenty of others, don't even want it.

I think that's what a lot of people will do. Even if they aren't particularly fond of the brand. MS really isn't giving them much of an alternative this time around.

[QUOTE="Wickerman777"]

[QUOTE="Spartan070"] ...by then you'll be whining and moaning that the tech isn't worth $300 in 2016... :roll:

Spartan070

Considering that they'll be launching in late 2013 these consoles should have been 2 tflops bare minimum. PS4 falls short but is at least in the ballpark. Xbox One is ridiculously weak for a console released at this time. Considering that I haven't owned a Sony console since the original Playstation I really don't want to go back to them. But MS is forcing it on me. I've been waiting for months for some kind of secret sauce to emerge but apparently there is none to be had.

They're charging $100 more for lesser hardware. Perhaps that's OK with you but not with me. Considering how far behind it is it shouldn't even be the same price, let alone $100 more. If it were $300 I'd be OK with it considering that PS4 will be $400. But $500 is absurd. And yes, Kinect is included but I, and plenty of others, don't even want it.

We have at least 10% more CPU. Not only a faster processor, but a better audio chip also offloading CPU cycles. The PS4 CPU has not had its CPU clockspeed revealed as far as I am aware, 1.6Ghz does seem the most likely though. The PS4 also has audio chips, just no on the APU.btk2k2

PS4's audio chips aren't on the APU because Sony's engineers had common sense. Who cares about the audio? Seriously, how many debates about audio capabilities have ya seen around here? The APU is the most important part of the console. Ya should cram it with as many CPU and GPU resources as possible. That's what Sony did. MS, meanwhile, puts stuff like audio chips on there and runs out of room for ROPs and CUs. Stupid! But obviously they knew what they were doing. They had to know that crap like audio chips on the APU was going to mean less important stuff on the APU like CUs. But apparently they didn't care. They could have put the audio chips somewhere else but chose not to. This console is weak on purpose. If a weak console is what they wanted why are they trying to talk themselves out of it now?

[QUOTE="EG101"]

 No thanks MS. Not going to pay $500 for this or even $400. when its down to a reasonable $300 then I'll bite and that is if the PS4 weakling hardware didn't get to $300 first. 1.2 TF's is beyond terrible for an 8 year wait and 1.8 TF's not much better either. First to $300 gets my money.

Spartan070

Considering that they'll be launching in late 2013 these consoles should have been 2 tflops bare minimum. PS4 falls short but is at least in the ballpark. Xbox One is ridiculously weak for a console released at this time. Considering that I haven't owned a Sony console since the original Playstation I really don't want to go back to them. But MS is forcing it on me. I've been waiting for months for some kind of secret sauce to emerge but apparently there is none to be had.

Albert struck again:

I see my statements the other day caused more of a stir than I had intended. I saw threads locking down as fast as they pop up, so I apologize for the delayed response.

I was hoping my comments would lead the discussion to be more about the games (and the fact that games on both systems look great) as a sign of my point about performance, but unfortunately I saw more discussion of my credibility.

So I thought I would add more detail to what I said the other day, that perhaps people can debate those individual merits instead of making personal attacks. This should hopefully dismiss the notion I'm simply creating FUD or spin.

I do want to be super clear: I'm not disparaging Sony. I'm not trying to diminish them, or their launch or what they have said. But I do need to draw comparisons since I am trying to explain that the way people are calculating the differences between the two machines isn't completely accurate. I think I've been upfront I have nothing but respect for those guys, but I'm not a fan of the mis-information about our performance.

So, here are couple of points about some of the individual parts for people to consider:

18 CU's vs. 12 CU's =/= 50% more performance. Multi-core processors have inherent inefficiency with more CU's, so it's simply incorrect to say 50% more GPU.
Adding to that, each of our CU's is running 6% faster. It's not simply a 6% clock speed increase overall.
We have more memory bandwidth. 176gb/sec is peak on paper for GDDR5. Our peak on paper is 272gb/sec. (68gb/sec DDR3 + 204gb/sec on ESRAM). ESRAM can do read/write cycles simultaneously so I see this number mis-quoted.
We have at least 10% more CPU. Not only a faster processor, but a better audio chip also offloading CPU cycles.
We understand GPGPU and its importance very well. Microsoft invented Direct Compute, and have been using GPGPU in a shipping product since 2010 - it's called Kinect.
Speaking of GPGPU - we have 3X the coherent bandwidth for GPGPU at 30gb/sec which significantly improves our ability for the CPU to efficiently read data generated by the GPU.

Hopefully with some of those more specific points people will understand where we have reduced bottlenecks in the system. I'm sure this will get debated endlessly but at least you can see I'm backing up my points.

I still I believe that we get little credit for the fact that, as a SW company, the people designing our system are some of the smartest graphics engineers around they understand how to architect and balance a system for graphics performance. Each company has their strengths, and I feel that our strength is overlooked when evaluating both boxes.

Given this continued belief of a significant gap, we're working with our most senior graphics and silicon engineers to get into more depth on this topic. They will be more credible then I am, and can talk in detail about some of the benchmarking we've done and how we balanced our system.

Thanks again for letting my participate. Hope this gives people more background on my claims.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=80951633&postcount=195

What especially strikes me as absurd about that is his first claim about more GPU cores. The way he puts it one could be the left with the impression that less graphics cores > more graphics cores. Ughh, what?!!! If that's the case I guess if you're building a gaming PC you'd be better off with a Radeon 7770 than you would be a Radeon 7970 since a 7770 has just 10 cores to the 7970's 32, lol.

[QUOTE="v13_KiiLtz"]The Japs know how to use their small devices so I'm sure there'll be plenty of stuff coming out of it.MoneySha

Please don't say "Japs"... That is so racist! 

When I saw that comment earlier I KNEW some plastic flake would end up complaining about it. The word police are always watching.

I still can't get over those audio processors on the APU. Cracks me up every time I think about it. The APU is the most valuable real estate in the console. You put the most important things there. How important is the audio? Seriously, how many threads have you seen on system wars where folks are debating the audio capabilities of the consoles? Nobody cares! They could have put those audio processors anywhere in the box! It's because of nonsensical decisions like this that they were only able to fit 12 CUs and 16 ROPs on an APU nearly as large as an AMD Radeon 7970 graphics card.