Latest PSU headlines:

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 200
  1. #51
    Dedicated Member
    Demi_God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Icy hot of the north
    PSN ID
    Kamikaze_Krunch
    Posts
    1,426
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    7,913 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Bligmerk View Post
    Let us review the facts.

    Sony didn't request their FCC testing to be kept secret.

    The test results for the PS4 show a maximum clock frequency of 2.75GHz. This is not a Wifi frequency since the test results show the Wifi frequencies directly below and separate from the maximum clock frequency. This indicates a CPU frequency upclocked from the standard 2GHz clock of the production Jaguar.

    MS did request the FCC to keep their test results secret. Recent news straight from MS shows the XBone is using a devkit Jaguar CPU with a 1.6GHz standard clock, recently upclocked to 1.75GHz. This came at a cost of increased power consumption and heat increase, as confirmed by MS.

    What this means is the XBone can't upclock the CPU further. The Sony FCC results indicate they went in with an upclocked CPU frequency and has that capability at the power consumption levels from the testing.

    For the PS4, the CPU, the GPU and the RAM are all much faster than the XBone. A bunch of devs have essentially confirmed this. Of course, the motivation for MS to continually deny this is obvious, using words to make hardware appear more powerful than it is. TGS is the red line in the sand.

    To be mathematically correct if the PS4 CPU is 2.75Ghz, it would be 63.63% faster than the Xbox One CPU. That is a big lead the PS4 has. And that lead is based on the Xbox Ones supposed 1.75Ghz. Is my math off by any chance because so far I did it 3 times in a row just to make sure. hmmmm I'm having a moment evidently.

  2. #52
    Elite Sage
    Cuguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    PSN ID
    cuguy
    Age
    40
    Posts
    11,744
    Rep Power
    133
    Points
    3,360,835 (212,741 Banked)
    Items Joker (limited ICON)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Demi_God View Post
    To be mathematically correct if the PS4 CPU is 2.75Ghz, it would be 63.63% faster than the Xbox One CPU. That is a big lead the PS4 has. And that lead is based on the Xbox Ones supposed 1.75Ghz. Is my math off by any chance because so far I did it 3 times in a row just to make sure. hmmmm I'm having a moment evidently.

    Vulgotha's post explained, the CPU is not clocked at 2.75gHz.

  3. #53
    Dedicated Member
    John Willaford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Owings Mills, MD
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,031
    Rep Power
    18
    Points
    365,353 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    No, this has nothing to do with the CPU. It simply measures what the highest frequency generated by the machine is- and that would be the GDDR5 ram. The RAM is clocked at 2.75Ghz.
    Let me expound upon their spanking because I know the overenthusiasm is coming.
    GDDR5 is Graphics Double Data Rate 5 ram.
    First off: The timings ARE TIGHT, this is a mature technology, so, latency theorists can kiss off.
    So, it's still DDR, and that is 1/2 of a 5.5ghz number.
    2.75 ghz is the highest frequency in the system.

    Apparently our wireless will not support AGN, only GN, as if it supported 802.11a then it would have a 5.0ghz max frequency from the radio onboard the wireless.
    So, we have channel bonding 2.4ghz radio as our best choice now, i'll be wired and using wireless for remote play.

    I'm still hoping if yields are so good that the CPU will be 2.0ghz, as far as the rumors, it's 1.6. That's fine.

  4. #54
    Dedicated Member
    John Willaford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Owings Mills, MD
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,031
    Rep Power
    18
    Points
    365,353 (0 Banked)
    BTW, those who've belittled some of my technical evaluations of the ESRAM, are you starting to feel the pain yet? Just wondering.

  5. Likes Lefein likes this post
  6. #55
    Veteran
    Bligmerk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,386
    Rep Power
    96
    Points
    20,979 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulgotha View Post
    No, this has nothing to do with the CPU. It simply measures what the highest frequency generated by the machine is- and that would be the GDDR5 ram. The RAM is clocked at 2.75Ghz.
    Except you don't know that, you are speculating that. Also, you are wrong. That is not the GPU clock speed:

    "Now we turn our attention to the memory architecture. We know the PS4 uses a 256-bit memory bus and Cerny specifies 176GB of bandwidth. That works out to a GDDR5 clock speed of 1375MHz, which is comfortably within the current range of GDDR5 products already on the market."

    2.75GHz is obviously twice 1375MHz but that is not a raw clock frequency, which is what the FCC deals with, not leading edge and falling edge clocking.

    The fact is there is nothing indicating that Sony locked in their PS4 APU at the same time MS locked in the XBone APU. In fact, all indications point to MS locking in their APU design several months before Sony locked in their APU design. This is a basic of console design, the configuration must be locked into stone at some point, defining the base configuration. This should be common knowledge among even the most technically casual console gamer after all these years. The GPU is a clear indicator of what generation the console locked into and it is obvious the XBone locked into the tail end of the previous generation and the PS4 locked in at the beginning of the next (now current) generation. This can be inferred that the same was done for the CPU. The standard Jaguar clock for production is 2GHz which it appears Sony waited for, compared to MS locking the CPU to the 1.6GHz pre-production standard.

    Just starting to see the difference between how much more and faster the PS4 is performing specific highly intensive compute functions is more than enough proof to estimate it is at least 50% more powerful and faster than the XBone.
    Pacing in wait of Sony's imminent DOOM!...since 2006
    PS4 - The Only Hardcore Gaming Console = All Your Baserape Are Belong To Us

  7. #56
    Dedicated Member
    Demi_God's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Icy hot of the north
    PSN ID
    Kamikaze_Krunch
    Posts
    1,426
    Rep Power
    16
    Points
    7,913 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Cuguy View Post
    Vulgotha's post explained, the CPU is not clocked at 2.75gHz.
    All it says is maximum clock frequency in the system. It doesn't say anything about the RAM or even the CPU. Since CPU also uses the term clock frequency, I'm going to go by that since RAM numbers are always shown as 1866, 2133, etc etc to put it as an example. I have never seen ram stated as being 1.86Ghz or 2.4Ghz.

    granted it probably isn't 2.75 but that is sure an odd way to put RAM on a tech spec'd sheet. Until I hear otherwise I will say it's cpu
    Last edited by Demi_God; 09-13-2013 at 18:08.

  8. #57
    Dedicated Member
    John Willaford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Owings Mills, MD
    Age
    39
    Posts
    1,031
    Rep Power
    18
    Points
    365,353 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bligmerk View Post
    Except you don't know that, you are speculating that. Also, you are wrong. That is not the GPU clock speed:

    "Now we turn our attention to the memory architecture. We know the PS4 uses a 256-bit memory bus and Cerny specifies 176GB of bandwidth. That works out to a GDDR5 clock speed of 1375MHz, which is comfortably within the current range of GDDR5 products already on the market."

    2.75GHz is obviously twice 1375MHz but that is not a raw clock frequency, which is what the FCC deals with, not leading edge and falling edge clocking.

    The fact is there is nothing indicating that Sony locked in their PS4 APU at the same time MS locked in the XBone APU. In fact, all indications point to MS locking in their APU design several months before Sony locked in their APU design. This is a basic of console design, the configuration must be locked into stone at some point, defining the base configuration. This should be common knowledge among even the most technically casual console gamer after all these years. The GPU is a clear indicator of what generation the console locked into and it is obvious the XBone locked into the tail end of the previous generation and the PS4 locked in at the beginning of the next (now current) generation. This can be inferred that the same was done for the CPU. The standard Jaguar clock for production is 2GHz which it appears Sony waited for, compared to MS locking the CPU to the 1.6GHz pre-production standard.

    Just starting to see the difference between how much more and faster the PS4 is performing specific highly intensive compute functions is more than enough proof to estimate it is at least 50% more powerful and faster than the XBone.


    Quote Originally Posted by Demi_God View Post
    All it says is maximum clock frequency in the system. It doesn't say anything about the RAM or even the CPU. Since CPU also uses the term clock frequency, I'm going to go by that since RAM numbers are always shown as 1866, 2133, etc etc to put it as an example. I have never seen ram stated as being 1.86Ghz or 2.4Ghz.

    granted it probably isn't 2.75 but that is sure an odd way to put RAM on a tech spec'd sheet. Until I hear otherwise I will say it's cpu
    GDDR5 has 2 separate clocks, Write Clock is the higher one.
    "GDDR5 operates with two different clock types. A differential command clock (CK) as a reference for address and command inputs, and a forwarded differential write clock (WCK) as a reference for data reads and writes. Being more precise, the GDDR5 SGRAM uses two write clocks, each of them assigned to two bytes. The WCK runs at twice the CK frequency. Taking a GDDR5 with 5 Gbit/s data rate per pin as an example, the CK clock runs with 1.25 GHz and WCK with 2.5 GHz. The CK and WCK clocks will be aligned during the initialization and training sequence. This alignment allows read and write access with minimum latency."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR5
    http://www.skhynix.com/products/grap...No=H5GQ1H24BFR

  9. Likes MonkeyClaw, Vulgotha likes this post
  10. #58
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    23
    Posts
    15,948
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    105,482 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Thank you John. <3


  11. #59
    Master Guru
    IWAO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Copenhagen
    PSN ID
    DynamicSun
    Posts
    6,198
    Rep Power
    74
    Points
    5,664 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by victorijapoosp View Post
    I'd say the PS4 exclusives will be on another level!

  12. #60
    Veteran
    Bligmerk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,386
    Rep Power
    96
    Points
    20,979 (0 Banked)
    The fact of the FCC test sheet is that it states "maximum clock frequency in the system". The simple fact of where that is located is all speculation until it is confirmed. Yes, 2.75GHz is conveniently twice the GPU base clock frequency but that does not necessarily mean it is for the GPU WCLK.

    This is a table from AMD on their latest APU:


    Notice even AMD references the GPU by its base clock, not by its write clock. Nobody ever refers to a GPU clock with the write clock. Also, notice the clock specs for the CPU. The APU CPU clock has doubled since the Jaguar. Also notice, how they refer to the CPU clock: MAX/BASE. This has been AMD's practice for quite awhile. So, the production Jaguar has a BASE CLOCK of 2GHz, with an unidentified MAX CLOCK. Looking at the chart above, notice how much CPU clock frequency has increased since Jaguar.

    There is just as much evidence for the PS4 having a MAX CPU clock of 2.75GHz as there is for that being the GPU write clock. And that is the point there, the PS4 is showing evidence of performing much faster with much more compute power than the XBone.

    Again, TGS is the line in the sand for no more bull$#@! make-up specs, called "putting lipstick on the pig" in the industry.
    Last edited by Bligmerk; 09-13-2013 at 20:07.
    Pacing in wait of Sony's imminent DOOM!...since 2006
    PS4 - The Only Hardcore Gaming Console = All Your Baserape Are Belong To Us

  13. #61
    Elite Guru
    TAZ427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    PSN ID
    TAZ427
    Age
    43
    Posts
    5,076
    Rep Power
    73
    Points
    20,689 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Demi_God View Post
    To be mathematically correct if the PS4 CPU is 2.75Ghz, it would be 63.63% faster than the Xbox One CPU. That is a big lead the PS4 has. And that lead is based on the Xbox Ones supposed 1.75Ghz. Is my math off by any chance because so far I did it 3 times in a row just to make sure. hmmmm I'm having a moment evidently.
    Uhm... That's 57.14% faster than PS4 or 63.63% of the PS4 clocking speed. 63.63% faster than 1.75GHz -> 2.864GHz. To be mathematically correct that is



  14. #62
    Superior Member
    TEST SUBJECT 83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    PSN ID
    TEST SUBJECT 83
    Posts
    521
    Rep Power
    9
    Points
    4,876 (0 Banked)
    Ok, I know what is says on paper, but c'mon guys, we know how this works, we've gone thorough many console releases.
    There's no way one console will be 50% faster than the other. 50% is quite a bit of a difference.
    Exclusive titles will see better graphics, just like PS3 exclusives, but IMO that's as far as it will go.
    Next gen will be just like this gen in terms of quality differences, IMO. Even if the PS4 is powerful enough to ramp up 3rd party games to look 50% better than XBO, I seriously doubt they will make them look any different from each other.
    Do you really think there will be a significant difference between the two?
    I don't, because if there was such a difference, the moment the word got out that the PS4 is actually 50% better than everyone from then on would buy a PS4 over the XBO. The XBO would flop after that.
    Maybe I'm wrong, but this is just my opinion, please don't take any of this as fact.

  15. Likes darky89 , Cuguy likes this post
  16. #63
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    23
    Posts
    15,948
    Rep Power
    143
    Points
    105,482 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bligmerk View Post
    The fact of the FCC test sheet is that it states "maximum clock frequency in the system". The simple fact of where that is located is all speculation until it is confirmed. Yes, 2.75GHz is conveniently twice the GPU base clock frequency but that does not necessarily mean it is for the GPU WCLK.

    This is a table from AMD on their latest APU:


    Notice even AMD references the GPU by its base clock, not by its write clock. Nobody ever refers to a GPU clock with the write clock. Also, notice the clock specs for the CPU. The APU CPU clock has doubled since the Jaguar. Also notice, how they refer to the CPU clock: MAX/BASE. This has been AMD's practice for quite awhile. So, the production Jaguar has a BASE CLOCK of 2GHz, with an unidentified MAX CLOCK. Looking at the chart above, notice how much CPU clock frequency has increased since Jaguar.

    There is just as much evidence for the PS4 having a MAX CPU clock of 2.75GHz as there is for that being the GPU write clock. And that is the point there, the PS4 is showing evidence of performing much faster with much more compute power than the XBone.

    Again, TGS is the line in the sand for no more bull$#@! make-up specs, called "putting lipstick on the pig" in the industry.
    I think, in this instance, you're wrong Blig. In particular, for the CPU and GPU to work optimally (and really make the whole GPGPU thing possible) the GPU clock must be about half the CPU clock. At present (1.6Ghz CPU, 800Mhz GPU) this is the exact ratio. This is why the Xbox One had to do a CPU upclock in addition to its GPU upclock proportionately.

    For the PS4, this isn't so simple. First, it is a much smaller case thus the thermal headroom (unless I'm totally missing something) just 'isn't there' compared to the Xbox One.. Which has a huge case. Secondly, unlike the Xbox One, the PS4's GPU is simply much bigger. An upclock applied to it will result in heightened power consumption and thermals in considerable excess to the Xbox One.

    For what you're proposing to 'really work' the GPU on PS4 would have to be clocked in at roughly 1375Mhz or 1.37 Ghz. That's over a 50% increase lol.

    What you're suggesting is simply unrealistic.

    Even a bump to 2Ghz would require a GPU clock of 1Ghz.


  17. Likes Cuguy likes this post
  18. #64
    Super Moderator
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    26
    Posts
    13,573
    Rep Power
    141
    Points
    78,677 (190,439 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XCall of Duty: Black OPSDragon Ball ZPS3 SlimGoogle Chrome
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    So reverse of last generation is what its looking like. But it's a bit different this time around. ESRAM more difficult to develop for but the system is weaker this time around. Not sure how this will pan out but the raw specs seem to be translating as such. I know there are more complex things going on but many are saying 50% now. Must be something to it. Not to mention I had a feeling that quote about ports being close to avoid politics was going to happen. Which honestly is BS. If the game runs better and you don't have to do much optimization to make it look much better, why dumb it down because the competition can't keep up.




    Currently Playing: ​ Watch Dogs
    Currently Waiting For: ​​ ​Destiny

  19. #65
    Superior Member
    TEST SUBJECT 83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    PSN ID
    TEST SUBJECT 83
    Posts
    521
    Rep Power
    9
    Points
    4,876 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by ps3freak18 View Post
    If the game runs better and you don't have to do much optimization to make it look much better, why dumb it down because the competition can't keep up.
    I completely agree, but unfortunately that's no how it works.
    Like I said in my previous comment, there's no way devs would make one version of a game noticeably better than the other, because if they did people would just stop buying the weaker console and the weaker console would fail.
    On the other hand maybe this is the first generation that ramping up 3rd party games for the better console is possible?
    Even so, I still don't think devs would even be allowed to make one version significantly better than the other.

  20. #66
    Veteran
    unicron7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A little place called none of your **** business. United States.
    Age
    28
    Posts
    4,756
    Rep Power
    78
    Points
    6,658 (0 Banked)
    Items 360 SlimPS3 SlimNaughty Dog
    Quote Originally Posted by TEST SUBJECT 83 View Post
    Even if the PS4 is powerful enough to ramp up 3rd party games to look 50% better than XBO, I seriously doubt they will make them look any different from each other.
    Do you really think there will be a significant difference between the two?
    I don't, because if there was such a difference, the moment the word got out that the PS4 is actually 50% better than everyone from then on would buy a PS4 over the XBO. The XBO would flop after that.
    Maybe I'm wrong, but this is just my opinion, please don't take any of this as fact.

    I really hope devs don't gimp the PS4 version of a third party title due to "being fair" to each console. If they do this I'll be slightly irritated. Devs should be getting the most out of a system, not holding it back for another to catch up to.

    PS3 3rd party titles weren't given a fair shake this generation due to the complexity of the PS3 hardware, so i honestly don't think devs should bend over backwards for inadequate Xbox One hardware this upcoming gen either.


    I don't really need a water cooler/remote control as of right now.

  21. #67
    PSU Live Streamer
    YoungMullah88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte
    PSN ID
    xShadow__WoIf | YoungMullah88
    Posts
    14,227
    Rep Power
    111
    Points
    30,783 (1,800 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by unicron7 View Post
    I really hope devs don't gimp the PS4 version of a third party title due to "being fair" to each console. If they do this I'll be slightly irritated. Devs should be getting the most out of a system, not holding it back for another to catch up to.
    The crew devs already said they can't do what they intended to do because they have to cater to both consoles

    Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

  22. #68
    Veteran
    unicron7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A little place called none of your **** business. United States.
    Age
    28
    Posts
    4,756
    Rep Power
    78
    Points
    6,658 (0 Banked)
    Items 360 SlimPS3 SlimNaughty Dog
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMullah88 View Post
    The crew devs already said they can't do what they intended to do because they have to cater to both consoles

    Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk
    What a $#@! load of $#@! that is.


    I don't really need a water cooler/remote control as of right now.

  23. #69
    Power Member
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,366
    Rep Power
    124
    Points
    55,698 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TEST SUBJECT 83 View Post
    Ok, I know what is says on paper, but c'mon guys, we know how this works, we've gone thorough many console releases.
    There's no way one console will be 50% faster than the other. 50% is quite a bit of a difference.
    Exclusive titles will see better graphics, just like PS3 exclusives, but IMO that's as far as it will go.
    Next gen will be just like this gen in terms of quality differences, IMO. Even if the PS4 is powerful enough to ramp up 3rd party games to look 50% better than XBO, I seriously doubt they will make them look any different from each other.
    Do you really think there will be a significant difference between the two?
    I don't, because if there was such a difference, the moment the word got out that the PS4 is actually 50% better than everyone from then on would buy a PS4 over the XBO. The XBO would flop after that.
    Maybe I'm wrong, but this is just my opinion, please don't take any of this as fact.
    Depends on the dev team.

    COD looked pretty similar across xbox PS3 and even PC, PC main differences were, slightly higher res textures and as much AA ans resolution as the system could handle.

    PC does look better but it snot OMG WOW better is it?
    http://images.eurogamer.net/articles...tures1.jpg.jpg

    http://images.eurogamer.net/articles...tures1.jpg.jpg
    Last edited by keefy; 09-13-2013 at 21:08.

  24. #70
    Legend
    F34R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    PSN ID
    F34RTEHR34PER
    Posts
    40,072
    Rep Power
    243
    Points
    142,969 (0 Banked)
    Items BullySteamGran Turismo 5LiverpoolAppleJoker (limited ICON)Naughty DogMaster ChiefAssassins Creed EzioGears of WarHeavy RainDiablo III
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by YoungMullah88 View Post
    The crew devs already said they can't do what they intended to do because they have to cater to both consoles

    Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk
    That's their excuse as to not take the time and take advantage of what each console has in terms of power, etc. They could also go exclusive. They are being $#@!es about it.




  25. Likes JDizzleNO1 likes this post
  26. #71
    Super Moderator
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    26
    Posts
    13,573
    Rep Power
    141
    Points
    78,677 (190,439 Banked)
    Items Final Fantasy XIIIFinal Fantasy XCall of Duty: Black OPSDragon Ball ZPS3 SlimGoogle Chrome
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by TEST SUBJECT 83 View Post
    I completely agree, but unfortunately that's no how it works.
    Like I said in my previous comment, there's no way devs would make one version of a game noticeably better than the other, because if they did people would just stop buying the weaker console and the weaker console would fail.
    On the other hand maybe this is the first generation that ramping up 3rd party games for the better console is possible?
    Even so, I still don't think devs would even be allowed to make one version significantly better than the other.
    I understand it. I just don't agree with it. Some games will likely be inferior to what it would have been from the sounds of it. If they are having trouble with the Esram, hopefully they will get more accustomed to it over the generation like cell. Then there should be less of a drop off. Either way, 50 percent faster is tremendous but they will pump out everything they can to get them close as they can. I have a feeling there will be a much bigger gap in first party than this gen. In no way will x1 games look bad though.




    Currently Playing: ​ Watch Dogs
    Currently Waiting For: ​​ ​Destiny

  27. Likes TEST SUBJECT 83 likes this post
  28. #72
    Superior Member
    JDizzleNO1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    where the sun don't shine
    PSN ID
    JDizzleNO1
    Posts
    872
    Rep Power
    29
    Points
    2,273 (0 Banked)
    Items Diablo IIIMetallicaUser name styleDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverPS3 Fat
    Quote Originally Posted by F34R View Post
    That's their excuse as to not take the time and take advantage of what each console has in terms of power, etc. They could also go exclusive. They are being $#@!es about it.
    exactly, but i fear that we will have what happened this coming generation as we did last, $#@!ty ports



  29. #73
    Master Sage
    Bitbydeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    31
    Posts
    14,031
    Rep Power
    128
    Points
    41,164 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    MS have finally conceded to it.

    UPDATE: A Microsoft spokesperson has responded to Kotaku's request for comment with the following statement:

    “Ten years ago, you could argue that a console’s power was summed up in terms of a few of its specs, but Xbox One is designed as a powerful machine to deliver the best blockbuster games today and for the next decade.
    Xbox One architecture is much more complex than what any single figure can convey. It was designed with balanced performance in mind, and we think the games we continue to show running on near-final hardware demonstrate that performance. In the end, we’ll let the consoles and their games speak for themselves.”


    http://kotaku.com/report-ps4-is-50-f...ium=Socialflow

  30. #74
    Superior Member
    TEST SUBJECT 83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    PSN ID
    TEST SUBJECT 83
    Posts
    521
    Rep Power
    9
    Points
    4,876 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by ps3freak18 View Post
    I understand it. I just don't agree with it. Some games will likely be inferior to what it would have been from the sounds of it. If they are having trouble with the Esram, hopefully they will get more accustomed to it over the generation like cell. Then there should be less of a drop off. Either way, 50 percent faster is tremendous but they will pump out everything they can to get them close as they can. I have a feeling there will be a much bigger gap in first party than this gen. In no way will x1 games look bad though.
    I feel the same way.

  31. #75
    Legend
    F34R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    PSN ID
    F34RTEHR34PER
    Posts
    40,072
    Rep Power
    243
    Points
    142,969 (0 Banked)
    Items BullySteamGran Turismo 5LiverpoolAppleJoker (limited ICON)Naughty DogMaster ChiefAssassins Creed EzioGears of WarHeavy RainDiablo III
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by JDizzleNO1 View Post
    exactly, but i fear that we will have what happened this coming generation as we did last, $#@!ty ports
    I don't think so. This generation had the port problems due to the hard development aspects of the PS3. That won't be the issue this time around.

    This sums up what I said earlier... and is the only thing that matters to me. I think he plagiarized me lol
    In the end, we’ll let the consoles and their games speak for themselves.




Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

PSU

Playstation Universe

Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Abstract Holdings International Ltd. prohibited.
Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.