[QUOTE="mynd, post: 6197942]Wouldn't that be an drain on the friends internet though, farked if I want to be live streaming my game to friends, I barley get a good ping as it is, anyone else using our internet and its unplayable.
Still, our internet is shit in NZ.[/QUOTE]
Would probably need a 10mbit upload minimum to stream and play online at the same time.
[QUOTE="ps3freak18, post: 6197947]I'm hoping that kind of stuff can be set as optional. My internet situation sucks. I get 5 gb a month. So steaming someone's gameplay is out of the question.[/QUOTE]
I expec it is optional.
This stream is using 5mbit of my upload
http://www.twitch.tv/mrkeefor/b/457745229
Still, our internet is shit in NZ.[/QUOTE]
Would probably need a 10mbit upload minimum to stream and play online at the same time.
[QUOTE="ps3freak18, post: 6197947]I'm hoping that kind of stuff can be set as optional. My internet situation sucks. I get 5 gb a month. So steaming someone's gameplay is out of the question.[/QUOTE]
I expec it is optional.
This stream is using 5mbit of my upload
http://www.twitch.tv/mrkeefor/b/457745229
Last edited:
[QUOTE="bat0nas, post: 6197897]I have preordered it. But I have some doubts because i havent heard anything lately from Sony camp. Just a flow of good news from MS.
How do you feel?[/QUOTE]
What is this 'a flow of good news from MS' that you talk about? Whatever positive things you heard before are bunch of damage control as well as the constant 180 on their decision.
How do you feel?[/QUOTE]
What is this 'a flow of good news from MS' that you talk about? Whatever positive things you heard before are bunch of damage control as well as the constant 180 on their decision.
There are several suspicious things going on with this "good news". The 150 MHz "upclock" (MS is making a big point about it not being an overclock) or 10% CPU clock speed increase has multiple problems that prevent it from being "good news". One thing is announcing it a day before a leaked shipping boxes photo. MS is saying this "upclock" was proven out several months before production had started.
AMD stated earlier in the year, the standard clock rate for the Jaguar CPU would be 2GHz, and that 1.6GHz would be shipped for devkits. From this news straight from MS, they somehow locked in their APU design with the 1.6GHz CPU, and the "upclock" is raising it to 1.75GHz. There are no indications Sony designed the devkit CPU into the PS4 APU and their production units have the Jaguar at the standard clock rate of 2GHz. The Sony FCC report, which Sony didn't hide, showed a maximum clock frequency of 2.75GHz. Many people are insisting this is the Wifi frequency but under this number, there is a category specifically for Wifi frequencies, separate from the maximum frequency. There were rumors that Sony tested at 2.75GHz CPU and had no problems but were shipping with the standard 2GHz.
2GHz > 1.75GHz
The other problem with this "upclock" is that even MS acknowledged in their xbits presentation there was increased heat dissipation. MS said it would only result in slightly more fan noise. During this time frame, there was the announcement of the sudden shutdown of death feature, due to overheating.
AMD stated earlier in the year, the standard clock rate for the Jaguar CPU would be 2GHz, and that 1.6GHz would be shipped for devkits. From this news straight from MS, they somehow locked in their APU design with the 1.6GHz CPU, and the "upclock" is raising it to 1.75GHz. There are no indications Sony designed the devkit CPU into the PS4 APU and their production units have the Jaguar at the standard clock rate of 2GHz. The Sony FCC report, which Sony didn't hide, showed a maximum clock frequency of 2.75GHz. Many people are insisting this is the Wifi frequency but under this number, there is a category specifically for Wifi frequencies, separate from the maximum frequency. There were rumors that Sony tested at 2.75GHz CPU and had no problems but were shipping with the standard 2GHz.
2GHz > 1.75GHz
The other problem with this "upclock" is that even MS acknowledged in their xbits presentation there was increased heat dissipation. MS said it would only result in slightly more fan noise. During this time frame, there was the announcement of the sudden shutdown of death feature, due to overheating.
[QUOTE="Bligmerk, post: 6198283]There are several suspicious things going on with this "good news". The 150 MHz "upclock" (MS is making a big point about it not being an overclock) or 10% CPU clock speed increase has multiple problems that prevent it from being "good news". One thing is announcing it a day before a leaked shipping boxes photo. MS is saying this "upclock" was proven out several months before production had started.
AMD stated earlier in the year, the standard clock rate for the Jaguar CPU would be 2GHz, and that 1.6GHz would be shipped for devkits. From this news straight from MS, they somehow locked in their APU design with the 1.6GHz CPU, and the "upclock" is raising it to 1.75GHz. There are no indications Sony designed the devkit CPU into the PS4 APU and their production units have the Jaguar at the standard clock rate of 2GHz. The Sony FCC report, which Sony didn't hide, showed a maximum clock frequency of 2.75GHz. Many people are insisting this is the Wifi frequency but under this number, there is a category specifically for Wifi frequencies, separate from the maximum frequency. There were rumors that Sony tested at 2.75GHz CPU and had no problems but were shipping with the standard 2GHz.
2GHz > 1.75GHz
The other problem with this "upclock" is that even MS acknowledged in their xbits presentation there was increased heat dissipation. MS said it would only result in slightly more fan noise. During this time frame, there was the announcement of the sudden shutdown of death feature, due to overheating.[/QUOTE]
It would really come down to power budget and device yield at speed within power budget.
While AMD can crank out good functional 2GHz units, can they yield enough within power constraints that MS has set? That is what the real question becomes. The lower the yield on this, the higher the price would be.
While the design and intent to hit a power budget is there, it's not a guaranty. You're going to have a distribution of devices with varying amounts of leakage current (which becomes ever more dominant as the major power contributor as we go to smaller and smaller process nodes.) Leakage current of a nominal devices may be moderate, but the question is what the distribution of material looks like to see if you're getting > 90% of the devices within the power budget or < 50%. Going up small percentages in frequency has a direct impact to dynamic power by the square of the ratio of the frequencies, but also you need to bias the core voltage level higher to operate at the higher frequency and you can crank the dynamic power up again another factor by the square of the ratio of increase in voltage level applied. Now that's not the end of it, the higher voltage level further increases the leakage current of the device. This is basis of why in the report regarding the 150MHz increase has a potential increase of power by 66%. That number wasn't pulled of ones ass, it's realistic.
I'm sure they have a power limitation for their thermal solution of their system - If they don't they're not doing their job, and I'm sure they're doing their job. And with this, they have to look at what the yielding would be and this tends to be a steep fall off curve on todays processes. So they could have stayed 1.6GHz and had awesome yield and not the optimal performance, or go up to where they have acceptable yield and better performance.
Note that as time goes by, there will be tweaks to the process, and targeting of N2P ratio's and the like to get better yield at power. But that doesn't help you with early production.
I'd guess they planned for 1.75GHz a good while back and went with a lower yield initially, in the hopes that by the time the ramp production they'd have better yield. This would have given the option of moving forward w/ 1.75GHz for everything, or falling back to 1.6GHz (including on the units built with 1.75GHz yielded earlier units. It's would simply be a FW update to change the PLL settings of the device to run it at 1.6GHz - after all you want all production units to operate at the exact same performance level.)
AMD stated earlier in the year, the standard clock rate for the Jaguar CPU would be 2GHz, and that 1.6GHz would be shipped for devkits. From this news straight from MS, they somehow locked in their APU design with the 1.6GHz CPU, and the "upclock" is raising it to 1.75GHz. There are no indications Sony designed the devkit CPU into the PS4 APU and their production units have the Jaguar at the standard clock rate of 2GHz. The Sony FCC report, which Sony didn't hide, showed a maximum clock frequency of 2.75GHz. Many people are insisting this is the Wifi frequency but under this number, there is a category specifically for Wifi frequencies, separate from the maximum frequency. There were rumors that Sony tested at 2.75GHz CPU and had no problems but were shipping with the standard 2GHz.
2GHz > 1.75GHz
The other problem with this "upclock" is that even MS acknowledged in their xbits presentation there was increased heat dissipation. MS said it would only result in slightly more fan noise. During this time frame, there was the announcement of the sudden shutdown of death feature, due to overheating.[/QUOTE]
It would really come down to power budget and device yield at speed within power budget.
While AMD can crank out good functional 2GHz units, can they yield enough within power constraints that MS has set? That is what the real question becomes. The lower the yield on this, the higher the price would be.
While the design and intent to hit a power budget is there, it's not a guaranty. You're going to have a distribution of devices with varying amounts of leakage current (which becomes ever more dominant as the major power contributor as we go to smaller and smaller process nodes.) Leakage current of a nominal devices may be moderate, but the question is what the distribution of material looks like to see if you're getting > 90% of the devices within the power budget or < 50%. Going up small percentages in frequency has a direct impact to dynamic power by the square of the ratio of the frequencies, but also you need to bias the core voltage level higher to operate at the higher frequency and you can crank the dynamic power up again another factor by the square of the ratio of increase in voltage level applied. Now that's not the end of it, the higher voltage level further increases the leakage current of the device. This is basis of why in the report regarding the 150MHz increase has a potential increase of power by 66%. That number wasn't pulled of ones ass, it's realistic.
I'm sure they have a power limitation for their thermal solution of their system - If they don't they're not doing their job, and I'm sure they're doing their job. And with this, they have to look at what the yielding would be and this tends to be a steep fall off curve on todays processes. So they could have stayed 1.6GHz and had awesome yield and not the optimal performance, or go up to where they have acceptable yield and better performance.
Note that as time goes by, there will be tweaks to the process, and targeting of N2P ratio's and the like to get better yield at power. But that doesn't help you with early production.
I'd guess they planned for 1.75GHz a good while back and went with a lower yield initially, in the hopes that by the time the ramp production they'd have better yield. This would have given the option of moving forward w/ 1.75GHz for everything, or falling back to 1.6GHz (including on the units built with 1.75GHz yielded earlier units. It's would simply be a FW update to change the PLL settings of the device to run it at 1.6GHz - after all you want all production units to operate at the exact same performance level.)
[QUOTE="UkHardcore, post: 6198062]I think if your only buying one console at launch it comes down to which has the better launch line up, Which pad is better and which online service is the best! Im lucky enough to be getting both but if i could only afford one then the One seems the better option at launch.[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that Sony has about 3-4 times more studios pumping out exclusive games than MS. You might like MS's lineup now but you'll be waiting a lot longer to get new games from them.
Keep in mind that Sony has about 3-4 times more studios pumping out exclusive games than MS. You might like MS's lineup now but you'll be waiting a lot longer to get new games from them.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="TAZ427, post: 6198379]It would really come down to power budget and device yield at speed within power budget.
While AMD can crank out good functional 2GHz units, can they yield enough within power constraints that MS has set? That is what the real question becomes. The lower the yield on this, the higher the price would be.
While the design and intent to hit a power budget is there, it's not a guaranty. You're going to have a distribution of devices with varying amounts of leakage current (which becomes ever more dominant as the major power contributor as we go to smaller and smaller process nodes.) Leakage current of a nominal devices may be moderate, but the question is what the distribution of material looks like to see if you're getting > 90% of the devices within the power budget or < 50%. Going up small percentages in frequency has a direct impact to dynamic power by the square of the ratio of the frequencies, but also you need to bias the core voltage level higher to operate at the higher frequency and you can crank the dynamic power up again another factor by the square of the ratio of increase in voltage level applied. Now that's not the end of it, the higher voltage level further increases the leakage current of the device. This is basis of why in the report regarding the 150MHz increase has a potential increase of power by 66%. That number wasn't pulled of ones ass, it's realistic.
I'm sure they have a power limitation for their thermal solution of their system - If they don't they're not doing their job, and I'm sure they're doing their job. And with this, they have to look at what the yielding would be and this tends to be a steep fall off curve on todays processes. So they could have stayed 1.6GHz and had awesome yield and not the optimal performance, or go up to where they have acceptable yield and better performance.
Note that as time goes by, there will be tweaks to the process, and targeting of N2P ratio's and the like to get better yield at power. But that doesn't help you with early production.
I'd guess they planned for 1.75GHz a good while back and went with a lower yield initially, in the hopes that by the time the ramp production they'd have better yield. This would have given the option of moving forward w/ 1.75GHz for everything, or falling back to 1.6GHz (including on the units built with 1.75GHz yielded earlier units. It's would simply be a FW update to change the PLL settings of the device to run it at 1.6GHz - after all you want all production units to operate at the exact same performance level.)[/QUOTE]
The PS4's ram is Graphics Double Data Rate RAM 5. The 2.75Ghz MAX clock of the system is the clock speed of the video ram. 2.75 on the up and downtick of each cycle, yielding a double data rate of 5.5Ghz.
I see no reason why the Jaguar can't be at 2.0Ghz in final kits, because there seems to be less silicon used (due to the die requirements of that 32MB ESRAM cache, it's made 'different' and requires lots of transistors). It's almost over and the details are nearly all out anyway.
Does anyone know what process SONY is using? .22 or .28 nm?
If .22, the Jaguars could be 2.0ghz. Who knows, i've heard 1.2ghz, 1.6ghz, and 2.0ghz. BLAH!
While AMD can crank out good functional 2GHz units, can they yield enough within power constraints that MS has set? That is what the real question becomes. The lower the yield on this, the higher the price would be.
While the design and intent to hit a power budget is there, it's not a guaranty. You're going to have a distribution of devices with varying amounts of leakage current (which becomes ever more dominant as the major power contributor as we go to smaller and smaller process nodes.) Leakage current of a nominal devices may be moderate, but the question is what the distribution of material looks like to see if you're getting > 90% of the devices within the power budget or < 50%. Going up small percentages in frequency has a direct impact to dynamic power by the square of the ratio of the frequencies, but also you need to bias the core voltage level higher to operate at the higher frequency and you can crank the dynamic power up again another factor by the square of the ratio of increase in voltage level applied. Now that's not the end of it, the higher voltage level further increases the leakage current of the device. This is basis of why in the report regarding the 150MHz increase has a potential increase of power by 66%. That number wasn't pulled of ones ass, it's realistic.
I'm sure they have a power limitation for their thermal solution of their system - If they don't they're not doing their job, and I'm sure they're doing their job. And with this, they have to look at what the yielding would be and this tends to be a steep fall off curve on todays processes. So they could have stayed 1.6GHz and had awesome yield and not the optimal performance, or go up to where they have acceptable yield and better performance.
Note that as time goes by, there will be tweaks to the process, and targeting of N2P ratio's and the like to get better yield at power. But that doesn't help you with early production.
I'd guess they planned for 1.75GHz a good while back and went with a lower yield initially, in the hopes that by the time the ramp production they'd have better yield. This would have given the option of moving forward w/ 1.75GHz for everything, or falling back to 1.6GHz (including on the units built with 1.75GHz yielded earlier units. It's would simply be a FW update to change the PLL settings of the device to run it at 1.6GHz - after all you want all production units to operate at the exact same performance level.)[/QUOTE]
The PS4's ram is Graphics Double Data Rate RAM 5. The 2.75Ghz MAX clock of the system is the clock speed of the video ram. 2.75 on the up and downtick of each cycle, yielding a double data rate of 5.5Ghz.
I see no reason why the Jaguar can't be at 2.0Ghz in final kits, because there seems to be less silicon used (due to the die requirements of that 32MB ESRAM cache, it's made 'different' and requires lots of transistors). It's almost over and the details are nearly all out anyway.
Does anyone know what process SONY is using? .22 or .28 nm?
If .22, the Jaguars could be 2.0ghz. Who knows, i've heard 1.2ghz, 1.6ghz, and 2.0ghz. BLAH!
Obviously the right choice. It is leaps and bounds above the XB1 as far as I'm concerned. Microsoft is playing the catch up game at this point. Still waiting for them to unveil some feature that Sony hasn't already. At this point it's "look at us dance as to take your mind off of what we just tried to do to you not 4 months back! Gamers! Woot woot woot!"
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. I don't forgive so easily. The $500 price tag is still a blatant slap in the face if you ask me. Lower specs for a higher price. Not gonna happen.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. I don't forgive so easily. The $500 price tag is still a blatant slap in the face if you ask me. Lower specs for a higher price. Not gonna happen.
[QUOTE="unicron7, post: 6198424]Obviously the right choice. It is leaps and bounds above the XB1 as far as I'm concerned. Microsoft is playing the catch up game at this point. Still waiting for them to unveil some feature that Sony hasn't already. At this point it's "look at us dance as to take your mind off of what we just tried to do to you not 4 months back! Gamers! Woot woot woot!"
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. I don't forgive so easily. The $500 price tag is still a blatant slap in the face if you ask me. Lower specs for a higher price. Not gonna happen.[/QUOTE]
So then how do you explain the PS3?
Because outside of a few exclusives, it has delivered a subpar experience with most multiplat titles compared to the 360.
Pretty pathetic if you ask me. I don't forgive so easily. The $500 price tag is still a blatant slap in the face if you ask me. Lower specs for a higher price. Not gonna happen.[/QUOTE]
So then how do you explain the PS3?
Because outside of a few exclusives, it has delivered a subpar experience with most multiplat titles compared to the 360.
[QUOTE="bat0nas, post: 6197897]I have preordered it. But I have some doubts because i havent heard anything lately from Sony camp. Just a flow of good news from MS.
How do you feel?[/QUOTE]
I think you should go ahead and cancel your pre-order and go with a Xbox One, this will at least free up one more PS4 for someone that truly is excited for the system!
How do you feel?[/QUOTE]
I think you should go ahead and cancel your pre-order and go with a Xbox One, this will at least free up one more PS4 for someone that truly is excited for the system!
[QUOTE="MATRIX 2, post: 6198433]So then how do you explain the PS3?
Because outside of a few exclusives, it has delivered a subpar experience with most multiplat titles compared to the 360.[/QUOTE]
No need to bring up the past. This is the PS4 were talking about, which is a better choice than the XBO.
Sony has showed us that they've learned from there mistakes that they have made, MS has showed me nothing that has impressed me one bit. MS is crossing there fingers at this point and hoping they have enough loyal fans and enough uneducated people buying consoles this holiday. MS has done nothing but fix mistakes, Sony has stayed the same throughout.
Because outside of a few exclusives, it has delivered a subpar experience with most multiplat titles compared to the 360.[/QUOTE]
No need to bring up the past. This is the PS4 were talking about, which is a better choice than the XBO.
Sony has showed us that they've learned from there mistakes that they have made, MS has showed me nothing that has impressed me one bit. MS is crossing there fingers at this point and hoping they have enough loyal fans and enough uneducated people buying consoles this holiday. MS has done nothing but fix mistakes, Sony has stayed the same throughout.
You've already made a decision. Move forward with it.
[QUOTE="MATRIX 2, post: 6198433]So then how do you explain the PS3?
Because outside of a few exclusives, it has delivered a subpar experience with most multiplat titles compared to the 360.[/QUOTE]
If the past has you so troubled act on such if it suites you. Honestly if one is actually paying attention this shouldn't even be a question. Besides if your into multiplats anyway what good is that?
[QUOTE="MATRIX 2, post: 6198433]So then how do you explain the PS3?
Because outside of a few exclusives, it has delivered a subpar experience with most multiplat titles compared to the 360.[/QUOTE]
If the past has you so troubled act on such if it suites you. Honestly if one is actually paying attention this shouldn't even be a question. Besides if your into multiplats anyway what good is that?
[QUOTE="D3seeker, post: 6198467]You've already made a decision. Move forward with it.
If the past has you so troubled act on such if it suites you. Honestly if one is actually paying attention this shouldn't even be a question. Besides if your into multiplats anyway what good is that?[/QUOTE]
What good is that? Well seeing as most games are multiplat, that would make it rather important.
If the past has you so troubled act on such if it suites you. Honestly if one is actually paying attention this shouldn't even be a question. Besides if your into multiplats anyway what good is that?[/QUOTE]
What good is that? Well seeing as most games are multiplat, that would make it rather important.
[QUOTE="MATRIX 2, post: 6198690]What good is that? Well seeing as most games are multiplat, that would make it rather important.[/QUOTE]
If multiplats are your concern, they'll obviously be better on PS4 this gen. Easy to dev for and more raw power than the XB1. No reason whatsoever for titles to perform better on the Microsoft platform this upcoming generation.
If multiplats are your concern, they'll obviously be better on PS4 this gen. Easy to dev for and more raw power than the XB1. No reason whatsoever for titles to perform better on the Microsoft platform this upcoming generation.
[QUOTE="unicron7, post: 6199120]If multiplats are your concern, they'll obviously be better on PS4 this gen. Easy to dev for and more raw power than the XB1. No reason whatsoever for titles to perform better on the Microsoft platform this upcoming generation.[/QUOTE]
MS still have the software advantage, I hate to admit it but they do have the best engineers in the field working on making it as easy/efficient to program for.
That said Ps4 will definitely get the end advantage. Ps3 developers have almost everything in terms of software and hardware working against them and even then they managed to at least match the 360's efforts. A slightly different less mature development environment on similar hardware will cause little trouble at all.
MS still have the software advantage, I hate to admit it but they do have the best engineers in the field working on making it as easy/efficient to program for.
That said Ps4 will definitely get the end advantage. Ps3 developers have almost everything in terms of software and hardware working against them and even then they managed to at least match the 360's efforts. A slightly different less mature development environment on similar hardware will cause little trouble at all.
[QUOTE="mistercrow, post: 6199372]/thread.[/QUOTE]
Really the best way to end this thread is simple. Yes Ps4 is still a good choice, it's a great choice! But so is X1. Just because one starts making some good moves doesn't mean that the other is suddenly bad.
If you want what Ps4 offers then go for that, it's that simple.
Really the best way to end this thread is simple. Yes Ps4 is still a good choice, it's a great choice! But so is X1. Just because one starts making some good moves doesn't mean that the other is suddenly bad.
If you want what Ps4 offers then go for that, it's that simple.
[QUOTE="Jabjabs, post: 6199411]Really the best way to end this thread is simple. Yes Ps4 is still a good choice, it's a great choice! But so is X1. Just because one starts making some good moves doesn't mean that the other is suddenly bad. If you want what Ps4 offers then go for that, it's that simple.[/QUOTE] Granted better is subjective (for game lineup for example) but I'm not forgetting the anti-consumer policies that MS intially tried to implement. It really showed me what MS thinks of their Xbox fans. Others may disagree but thats my viewpoint on it. MS only changed their policies after catching massive backlash and seeing the preorder numbers.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="mistercrow, post: 6200012]Granted better is subjective (for game lineup for example) but I'm not forgetting the anti-consumer policies that MS intially tried to implement. It really showed me what MS thinks of their Xbox fans. Others may disagree but thats my viewpoint on it. MS only changed their policies after catching massive backlash and seeing the preorder numbers.[/QUOTE]
this is how i feel regardless that they took it back. hell the only reason in my eyes they took those back was because of the lack of pre-sales. gamers voted with their wallets and looked what happened. now, if their numbers were up and the policies were still implemented, then MS would have never backtracked
this is how i feel regardless that they took it back. hell the only reason in my eyes they took those back was because of the lack of pre-sales. gamers voted with their wallets and looked what happened. now, if their numbers were up and the policies were still implemented, then MS would have never backtracked
[QUOTE="mistercrow, post: 6200012]Granted better is subjective (for game lineup for example) but I'm not forgetting the anti-consumer policies that MS intially tried to implement. It really showed me what MS thinks of their Xbox fans. Others may disagree but thats my viewpoint on it. MS only changed their policies after catching massive backlash and seeing the preorder numbers.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the way I look at it. They remained stern in their ways. Not what the consumers wanted. Until massive criticism they finally thought better. I might get one down the road but right now I'm not buying. They are going to have to show me something before I buy. Right now I personally don't see reason to adopt both. That's just me though.
That's exactly the way I look at it. They remained stern in their ways. Not what the consumers wanted. Until massive criticism they finally thought better. I might get one down the road but right now I'm not buying. They are going to have to show me something before I buy. Right now I personally don't see reason to adopt both. That's just me though.