• 98 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Edited by Krakn3Dfx (2484 posts) -

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/xbox-update-console-full-production-improved-cpu-performance/

"Xbox chief marketing officer Yusef Mehdi just spoke at the Citi Global Technology Conference and said Microsoft is now in full production for the Xbox One and producing in mass with plans still on for a November 2013 launch.

About one month after improving the GPU clock speed, Mehdi added that Microsoft just made another technical boost by upgrading the CPU performance to 1.75 GHZ from 1.6 GHZ."

This is actually pretty minor in comparison to GPU upclocks, but probably worth mentioning.

#2 Posted by Nictel (2364 posts) -

I can't wait for the first direct comparisons to come out. Bit worried with the rumors of BF4 not being able to run at 1080p on consoles..

#4 Posted by Morningstar (2125 posts) -

Good news I guess.

#5 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

MS will achieve parody with the 360 launch. Complete with overheating problems...

#6 Posted by Kazona (3058 posts) -

How much was the gpu overclock?

#7 Posted by Nictel (2364 posts) -

MS will achieve parody with the 360 launch. Complete with overheating problems...

They can't be that stupid, can they?

#9 Posted by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

@nekroskop said:

MS will achieve parody with the 360 launch. Complete with overheating problems...

Yes, it's not like there isn't a giant vent covering 1/2 of the console or something.

A huge fan doesn't help you escape your fate, Xbox-San..

#11 Posted by Aegon (5376 posts) -

Looks like the giant bomb forums won't be escaping the console wars.

#12 Posted by chiablo (889 posts) -

@aegon said:

Looks like the giant bomb forums won't be escaping the console wars.

There's going to be a lot of locked threads on launch day, I bet.

#13 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

So basically if things stand as they are, and both consoles do indeed have identical CPUs, then this coupled with the X1's ability to offload CPU compute to the cloud, should give it an advantage in terms of CPU processing power compared to the PS4. MS has made a whole bunch of little increases since the initial specs were leaked. ESRAM, GPU and now CPU. I wonder if they're done or there is more in store.

#14 Posted by EXTomar (4442 posts) -

@chiablo said:

@aegon said:

Looks like the giant bomb forums won't be escaping the console wars.

There's going to be a lot of locked threads on launch day, I bet.

If we are lucky, moderators will be steely and ready to react....or they will be in line scrambling for consoles leaving us in a forum Lord of the Flies situation.

#15 Edited by Sergio (2034 posts) -

So basically if things stand as they are, and both consoles do indeed have identical CPUs, then this coupled with the X1's ability to offload CPU compute to the cloud, should give it an advantage in terms of CPU processing power compared to the PS4. MS has made a whole bunch of little increases since the initial specs were leaked. ESRAM, GPU and now CPU. I wonder if they're done or there is more in store.

lol

#16 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@sergio said:

@alexglass said:

So basically if things stand as they are, and both consoles do indeed have identical CPUs, then this coupled with the X1's ability to offload CPU compute to the cloud, should give it an advantage in terms of CPU processing power compared to the PS4. MS has made a whole bunch of little increases since the initial specs were leaked. ESRAM, GPU and now CPU. I wonder if they're done or there is more in store.

lol

It's not a joke.

#17 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4136 posts) -

Ooh, neat! Ina say this helps out whatever the smaller XBLA games that come out a couple of years after launch. Like say, Project Spark 2 is gonna look even more awesome. Or whatever thing they do.

#18 Posted by Khann (2761 posts) -

So basically if things stand as they are, and both consoles do indeed have identical CPUs, then this coupled with the X1's ability to offload CPU compute to the cloud, should give it an advantage in terms of CPU processing power compared to the PS4. MS has made a whole bunch of little increases since the initial specs were leaked. ESRAM, GPU and now CPU. I wonder if they're done or there is more in store.

From what I understand, none of that cloud computing is for anything real-time (which never seemed possible to me, anyway).

#19 Posted by Korwin (2813 posts) -

So basically if things stand as they are, and both consoles do indeed have identical CPUs, then this coupled with the X1's ability to offload CPU compute to the cloud, should give it an advantage in terms of CPU processing power compared to the PS4. MS has made a whole bunch of little increases since the initial specs were leaked. ESRAM, GPU and now CPU. I wonder if they're done or there is more in store.

Heh, you said cloud.

#20 Posted by OGinOR (314 posts) -

@khann: At launch, no, but as I understand it, anything with a tolerance greater than 100ms can be off-loaded. So things like AI, lighting, and atmospherics could be crunched off-site and spoon-fed back to the machine. Basically we're talking servers...and of course, any game that employs 'the cloud' for these services (data crunching services) would necessarily be 'online-only'.

#21 Edited by EXTomar (4442 posts) -

@sergio said:

@alexglass said:

So basically if things stand as they are, and both consoles do indeed have identical CPUs, then this coupled with the X1's ability to offload CPU compute to the cloud, should give it an advantage in terms of CPU processing power compared to the PS4. MS has made a whole bunch of little increases since the initial specs were leaked. ESRAM, GPU and now CPU. I wonder if they're done or there is more in store.

lol

It's not a joke.

Now that is "lol"! There is two and half months left of alexglass posting about finding spare megahertz hidden in the electrolytic capacitors Microsoft bought, applying Euler equations resulting in better quantization for vivid colors, and more efficient fast controller performance due to applying Poisson summation formula in a cloud application that will all make the XBox One awesome.

#22 Posted by Sergio (2034 posts) -

@extomar said:

@alexglass said:

@sergio said:

@alexglass said:

So basically if things stand as they are, and both consoles do indeed have identical CPUs, then this coupled with the X1's ability to offload CPU compute to the cloud, should give it an advantage in terms of CPU processing power compared to the PS4. MS has made a whole bunch of little increases since the initial specs were leaked. ESRAM, GPU and now CPU. I wonder if they're done or there is more in store.

lol

It's not a joke.

Now that is "lol"! There is two and half months left of alexglass posting about finding spare megahertz hidden in the electrolytic capacitors Microsoft bought, applying Euler equations resulting in better quantization for vivid colors, and more efficient fast controller performance due to applying Poisson summation formula in a cloud application that will all make the XBox One awesome.

You had me convinced up until you mentioned the cloud.

#23 Posted by Sinusoidal (1260 posts) -

Remind me again when this thing comes out, because with the number of changes they're making, I can't see it being ready in what, a couple of months?

Considering this and the last launch with its RRoDs and YLoDs, I don't see why anyone in their right mind would pick up either of these consoles on launch.

#24 Posted by Krakn3Dfx (2484 posts) -

Remind me again when this thing comes out, because with the number of changes they're making, I can't see it being ready in what, a couple of months?

Considering this and the last launch with its RRoDs and YLoDs, I don't see why anyone in their right mind would pick up either of these consoles on launch.

Based on a picture posted on Twitter a few days ago, they've pretty much just gone into production (Major Nelson posted a pic of the first box coming off of the packing line).

To be fair, the CPU in both the XBO and PS4 are rated at 2Ghz, both Sony and MS seemed to have clocked them down to 1.6Ghz initially, and likely both have been upclocking over time once the system has been more finalized to test for potential thermal issues. There's a chance Sony has revised their CPU speeds upwards as well over time (not a given, but definitely not a given that they haven't either) in the final stages of finalizing their own system casing/cooling. Sony likely doesn't feel the need to step up and announce numbers at this point, MS has been doing it mostly as a spin tactic to rally their base in light of all the negativity surrounding the XBO's launch and everything else.

#25 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -
@extomar said:

@alexglass said:

@sergio said:

@alexglass said:

So basically if things stand as they are, and both consoles do indeed have identical CPUs, then this coupled with the X1's ability to offload CPU compute to the cloud, should give it an advantage in terms of CPU processing power compared to the PS4. MS has made a whole bunch of little increases since the initial specs were leaked. ESRAM, GPU and now CPU. I wonder if they're done or there is more in store.

lol

It's not a joke.

Now that is "lol"! There is two and half months left of alexglass posting about finding spare megahertz hidden in the electrolytic capacitors Microsoft bought, applying Euler equations resulting in better quantization for vivid colors, and more efficient fast controller performance due to applying Poisson summation formula in a cloud application that will all make the XBox One awesome.

And how many months until you can find a sense of humor?

#26 Posted by subyman (587 posts) -

I doubt it will really matter that much, much less than the 50% more shaders the PS4 has. It is hard to say at all until both come out and they've been out for 1-2 years for all the devs to work through console-specific issues.

#27 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@subyman said:

I doubt it will really matter that much, much less than the 50% more shaders the PS4 has. It is hard to say at all until both come out and they've been out for 1-2 years for all the devs to work through console-specific issues.

I think X1 exclusives that take offload processing and take advantage of its unique advantages like this CPU bump, will have a pretty comparable advantage to that of the PS4 exclusives that take advantage of its GPU. Just in different areas.

#28 Edited by Dizzyhippos (1349 posts) -

I really hope that the spec bump does cause more Xboxs to red ring or whatever the fuck xbones do when they break. Microsoft wont get away with that shit twice

#29 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

I really hope that the spec bump does cause more Xboxs to red ring or whatever the fuck xbones do when they break. Microsoft wont get away with that shit twice

Have you seen the size of the fan? The system was designed to be on for 10 years they wont make the same mistake.

#30 Edited by MonkeyKing1969 (2518 posts) -

People keep worrying about overheating, but that is not very likely to be a problem. The problem is going from 1.6 GHz to 1.75 GBHz is tiny, it is an insignificant change. That right, what MS did was pretty much meaningless in term of displayable power. It just looks good on paper, or should have if people didn't over react. With all this overheating talk they have probably dismayed just as many people as they impressed.

The Xbox One will likely work just fine, these changes won't help much...but the system was going to do just fine anyway.

#31 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@alexglass: this has popped up on gaf http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=81325693&postcount=454

#32 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@the_laughing_man said:

@alexglass: this has popped up on gaf http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=81325693&postcount=454

Yeah I saw it and face palmed. .5 Tflops equals a 90fps to 15fps difference...now we're getting somewhere. I'm waiting for the nukes correlation now. Can it launch Mars One?

Here's what I've noticed on GAF's objectivity on this issue.

Former developer...PS4 is 50% faster. I heard it from some devs.

GAF: OMG, holy shit, that's amazing.

Albert: The power differences are overstated:

GAF: Proof! Let your engineers back it up. We want documents. We want it spelled it out! You minxed your words. Technically here's how it should be. Benchmarks or stfu.

Random Indie developer: I heard in the stalls of E3 that some developer got the PS4 to run 75 frames faster, 90 to 15!

GAF: Holy shit this is amazing. OMG! You rock dude!

Basically.

#33 Edited by jgf (381 posts) -

To be fair, Albert was very unspecific. He only said that the gap is not so big. How about "we ran a performance test with the cry engine / unreal engine and the differences are about 25%". Instead he tries to back it up with some general talk about the specs. On the other hand the developers talked about their experience when they tried to port their game engine. Of course you can't trust anonymous internet people that report from hearsay, but similar claimes popped up more than once.

So I can understand where that critique is coming from.

#34 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@jgf said:

To be fair, Albert was very unspecific. He only said that the gap is not so big. How about "we ran a performance test with the cry engine / unreal engine and the differences are about 25%". Instead he tries to back it up with some general talk about the specs. On the other hand the developers talked about their experience when they tried to port their game engine. Of course you can't trust anonymous internet people that report from hearsay, but similar claimes popped up more than once.

So I can understand where that critique is coming from.

I don't see why they should get a pass. If you're going to be objective you should treat both sides with the same level of scrutiny. Especially when those comments are just as vague and quite a bit more far fetched.

#35 Posted by jgf (381 posts) -

@alexglass: My point is that PS4/Xone are game consoles. So obviously what matters most is how good they are at running games. Several devs said their game runs X% slower on Xone. The counter-argument was something like "but on paper our memory bandwith is Y% larger".

So on the one side there are developers with access to both consoles and both running the same game and they tell us how those compare. On the other side there is the MS guy pointing at a spec sheet. Thats why I can understand (part) of the critique. Of course the whole thing has gotten out of hand - people are simply banging their heads against each other instead of using argument. Thats sad, but I can at least understand where they are coming from.

#37 Edited by Corvak (831 posts) -

Running slower can also be a bunch of fluff.

If one system runs your game at 120fps, and another system only runs it at 90fps - and the release version is locked at 60fps anyway...who cares?

This is basically what comparing high end ($350+) video cards on PC has become. All of them utterly destroy their benchmarks so hard that they don't show a noticeable difference anymore.

EDIT: That said, hopefully GB or some other part of the media can get a couple devkits running the same software side by side and give us some solid numbers...PC hardware reviewers do this sort of thing a lot, but it isn't too prevalent in the console world.

#38 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@jgf said:

@alexglass: My point is that PS4/Xone are game consoles. So obviously what matters most is how good they are at running games. Several devs said their game runs X% slower on Xone. The counter-argument was something like "but on paper our memory bandwith is Y% larger".

So on the one side there are developers with access to both consoles and both running the same game and they tell us how those compare. On the other side there is the MS guy pointing at a spec sheet. Thats why I can understand (part) of the critique. Of course the whole thing has gotten out of hand - people are simply banging their heads against each other instead of using argument. Thats sad, but I can at least understand where they are coming from.

My point is that neither one of those guys are actually current devs nor do they back it up with anything at all other than hearsay. But they seem to take their words at face value irrelevant of how ridiculous some of the things they say are...like the 90fps vs 15fps. Give me a break.

#39 Posted by jgf (381 posts) -

My point is that neither one of those guys are actually current devs nor do they back it up with anything at all other than hearsay. But they seem to take their words at face value irrelevant of how ridiculous some of the things they say are...like the 90fps vs 15fps. Give me a break.

The 90fps vs. 15fps is a very extreme case and its probably not true, but maybe it really happend in a first quick'n dirty port of the engine. This does not reflect in any way the actual "power gap", obviously the programmer f**cked up. But it supports 2 rumors that I believe are true. 1. The power of the PS4 is easier to leverage. Thus even quick'n dirty work will perform ok. 2. The libraries of the Xone are currently not as mature (stable and fast) as their counterparts on the PS4. Not because MS doesn't have good programmers (they have some of the best), but because they started late and due to the trickier hardware it is tougher to get things right and fast.

Therefore I believe most of these performance gap statements - even those that go even far beyond what one would assume - are true. Its a mixture of less power, trickier hardware and bad optimization. Of course Albert is also right when he points out that the gap is not so big as some people claim it to be. My critique is that in order to really support his statement, he should do the same as these developers and prove them wrong: Port a game/engine to Xbox and PS4, and then show us the numbers he could accieve. He can't do it for obvious reasons. So he must argue with the spec sheet and some hand waving.

#40 Edited by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

@jgf said:

@alexglass: My point is that PS4/Xone are game consoles. So obviously what matters most is how good they are at running games. Several devs said their game runs X% slower on Xone. The counter-argument was something like "but on paper our memory bandwith is Y% larger".

So on the one side there are developers with access to both consoles and both running the same game and they tell us how those compare. On the other side there is the MS guy pointing at a spec sheet. Thats why I can understand (part) of the critique. Of course the whole thing has gotten out of hand - people are simply banging their heads against each other instead of using argument. Thats sad, but I can at least understand where they are coming from.

My point is that neither one of those guys are actually current devs nor do they back it up with anything at all other than hearsay. But they seem to take their words at face value irrelevant of how ridiculous some of the things they say are...like the 90fps vs 15fps. Give me a break.

So I looked at all the COD ghosts video..and I remembered something. Arnt they using some super old ass engine? Isnt it also the worst looking game coming to next gen?

#41 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@jgf said:

@alexglass said:

My point is that neither one of those guys are actually current devs nor do they back it up with anything at all other than hearsay. But they seem to take their words at face value irrelevant of how ridiculous some of the things they say are...like the 90fps vs 15fps. Give me a break.

The 90fps vs. 15fps is a very extreme case and its probably not true, but maybe it really happend in a first quick'n dirty port of the engine. This does not reflect in any way the actual "power gap", obviously the programmer f**cked up. But it supports 2 rumors that I believe are true. 1. The power of the PS4 is easier to leverage. Thus even quick'n dirty work will perform ok. 2. The libraries of the Xone are currently not as mature (stable and fast) as their counterparts on the PS4. Not because MS doesn't have good programmers (they have some of the best), but because they started late and due to the trickier hardware it is tougher to get things right and fast.

Therefore I believe most of these performance gap statements - even those that go even far beyond what one would assume - are true. Its a mixture of less power, trickier hardware and bad optimization. Of course Albert is also right when he points out that the gap is not so big as some people claim it to be. My critique is that in order to really support his statement, he should do the same as these developers and prove them wrong: Port a game/engine to Xbox and PS4, and then show us the numbers he could accieve. He can't do it for obvious reasons. So he must argue with the spec sheet and some hand waving.

And my point still remains...what developers and what engine? The guy from that company that I overheard mentioning over in the corner at E3 working on that engine? That one?

Yeah, sounds legit.

#42 Edited by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@the_laughing_man said:

@alexglass said:

@jgf said:

@alexglass: My point is that PS4/Xone are game consoles. So obviously what matters most is how good they are at running games. Several devs said their game runs X% slower on Xone. The counter-argument was something like "but on paper our memory bandwith is Y% larger".

So on the one side there are developers with access to both consoles and both running the same game and they tell us how those compare. On the other side there is the MS guy pointing at a spec sheet. Thats why I can understand (part) of the critique. Of course the whole thing has gotten out of hand - people are simply banging their heads against each other instead of using argument. Thats sad, but I can at least understand where they are coming from.

My point is that neither one of those guys are actually current devs nor do they back it up with anything at all other than hearsay. But they seem to take their words at face value irrelevant of how ridiculous some of the things they say are...like the 90fps vs 15fps. Give me a break.

So I looked at all the COD ghosts video..and I remembered something. Arnt they using some super old ass engine? Isnt it also the worst looking game coming to next gen?

They're upgrading the current gen engine, yeah. But I actually don't think the game looks bad. I say wait until people play it.

Graphics isn't just about making the best looking scene with the highest res textures to me. The simpler the scene, the easier it is to get great image quality. But the more I see of COD the more I'm impressed with the sheer amount of variety in their objects and amount of actual individual geometry pushed around. Also pushed around with some pretty nice collision physics.

You can use 130k triangles to make Marius Titus. You can also take those and create 7-8 buildings. Obviously the first is going to look better at first sight, but the second might have more depth. You can use a super high res texture on a piece of cloth or sweater and make it hyper realistic, or create 10-12 smaller res textures out of that same budget, but have more unique, individually textured objects. It's a matter of choice.

There's a lot going on in COD and runs at 60fps.

#43 Edited by jgf (381 posts) -

@alexglass said:

And my point still remains...what developers and what engine? The guy from that company that I overheard mentioning over in the corner at E3 working on that engine? That one?

Yeah, sounds legit.

Names can't be called, because the developer could loose his job over this. So you can't decide how legit a claim is based on that. I see that many of those rumors stem from neogaf. A place where many high caliber developers hang out. So there is the possibility that at least some of them know what they are talking about or really have connections to someone who does. Then all rumors point in the same direction. There is no one claiming the opposite e.g. 50% advantage for Xbox in early tests. In combination with the arguments in my previous post I think it is ok to assume that at least some of these rumors are true. Again, I do not claim that PS4 is 50% more powerful, but that these differences may have been observed during an early stage of the development.

#44 Edited by Istealdreams (148 posts) -

Ill just leave this nice new article from edge online

Clicky Clicky

#45 Posted by Sergio (2034 posts) -

@corvak said:

Running slower can also be a bunch of fluff.

If one system runs your game at 120fps, and another system only runs it at 90fps - and the release version is locked at 60fps anyway...who cares?

This is basically what comparing high end ($350+) video cards on PC has become. All of them utterly destroy their benchmarks so hard that they don't show a noticeable difference anymore.

EDIT: That said, hopefully GB or some other part of the media can get a couple devkits running the same software side by side and give us some solid numbers...PC hardware reviewers do this sort of thing a lot, but it isn't too prevalent in the console world.

However, if it's one runs a game at 30fps @ 720p, while another runs it at 60fps @ 1080p, it might be noticeable. Just throwing out numbers though, since nobody knows what these machines are capable of yet, and the former doesn't make the game itself worse.

#46 Edited by Sergio (2034 posts) -

@alexglass said:

And my point still remains...what developers and what engine? The guy from that company that I overheard mentioning over in the corner at E3 working on that engine? That one?

Yeah, sounds legit.

While I can see your point, it's a question that is dumb in the sense that no one would ever answer it. His anecdote might be legitimate, but he's not about to throw any friends/colleagues under the bus to answer some random guy on the internet.

@jgf: Should also be pointed out that Microsoft can only point to their own numbers and whatever Sony has publicly released. They don't give each other the other's dev kits to compare how things run. Developers creating multiplatform games before launch are the only ones right now who know how these two consoles stack up against one another.

#47 Posted by jgf (381 posts) -

@sergio: I bet MS has access to some PS4 devkits, as well as Sony has access to Xone devkits. Perhaps through a third-party involvement. There is so much money on the line, it would be stupid not to check out the competition. They can't admit it though for legal reasons, but I would be surprised if no one at MS had laid their hands on a PS4 devkit.

#48 Posted by AlexGlass (688 posts) -

@sergio said:

@alexglass said:

And my point still remains...what developers and what engine? The guy from that company that I overheard mentioning over in the corner at E3 working on that engine? That one?

Yeah, sounds legit.

While I can see your point, it's a question that is dumb in the sense that no one would ever answer it. His anecdote might be legitimate, but he's not about to throw any friends/colleagues under the bus to answer some random guy on the internet.

@jgf: Should also be pointed out that Microsoft can only point to their own numbers and whatever Sony has publicly released. They don't give each other the other's dev kits to compare how things run. Developers creating multiplatform games before launch are the only ones right now who know how these two consoles stack up against one another.

The problem isn't just not revealing the source though, but rather the statement. It's not self evident, which is what it would need to be, to be taken seriously with a unanimous source. Verifiable by either including logical explanations, context, or referencing other verifiable facts or numbers.

As it was made, it's just junk and meaningless and does nothing to clarify the issue everyone's talking about, but rather throws more questions and confusion into the mix.

#49 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

The power gap is going to be very similar to the current one between the 360 / PS3, probably even less since the specs are so similar. Expect multiplats to look virtually the same on both systems, and PS4 first party titles to be noticeably shinier though not impressively so.

#50 Posted by jgf (381 posts) -

The problem isn't just not revealing the source though, but rather the statement. It's not self evident, which is what it would need to be, to be taken seriously with a unanimous source. Verifiable by either including logical explanations, context, or referencing other verifiable facts or numbers.

As it was made, it's just junk and meaningless and does nothing to clarify the issue everyone's talking about, but rather throws more questions and confusion into the mix.

I pretty much told you my logical explanations to why those performance gaps may actually have been observed. Those explanations were not included in the rumored statements though. But have you read the Edge article? It pretty much supports my assumptions and the rumors. They are a well respected source.

So while I think these rumors are true, I agree with you that they cannot be used to determine the absolute performance gap. The only things I read from those rumors are:

  • PS4 is more powerful - how much exactly we don't know yet.
  • Xbox is harder to program/optimize for.
  • When programmed with minimal effort, the performance gap is significant.
  • The spec numbers lead to believe that the gap should be smaller when both systems are fully utilized.