Neowin: Xbox One review

By on December 9, 2013, 10:09 AM
microsoft, neowin, xbox, gaming, gaming console, xbox one

When Microsoft launched the Xbox 360 eight years ago, it was "just" a game console that could also connect to the Internet to play online and download smaller games along with DLC packs. Oh, and it could also play DVDs (or HD DVD discs if you bought the short lived add-on hardware). That was pretty much all we expected from a game console back in 2005.

It's now 2013, and things have changed enormously in terms of what we want out of a game console. Thanks to both software updates and additional hardware add-ons, the Xbox 360 can now stream videos from Netflix, Hulu and a ton of other content providers; cable companies can use it to let consumers watch regular television channels through the console. More so, independent developers can publish their own games on the console directly. There are Xbox Live avatars that people can outfit with special clothes and items for a price. Gamers can even use their hand and arm movements to control games via the first generation Kinect add-on.

Yes, the era of just being able to sit on the couch and play games on a "game console" is truly over. While purists might not care for these changes, Microsoft clearly sees the newly released Xbox One as their next step in that evolution that will offer not just games but a ton of other entertainment options, including plans for original television programming made by Microsoft itself. But the question remains: should you get an Xbox One or wait until even more features are added?

Read the full review at Neowin.

Other Xbox One reads: Xbox One Review | Xbox One vs. PS4: How they stack up today

This article is brought to you in partnership with Neowin.




User Comments: 26

Got something to say? Post a comment
wastedkill said:

Im sorry but I smelled fanboy big time in that review for the most part, I mean come on your telling me you would rather have 720P than 1080P games... thats blatant fanboyism right their.

Personally the PS4 is amazing its cheap and its can handle 1080P easily and I dont have a xbox one nor do I intend to get one for a few simple reasons: Too pricey, They screwed us over once not gonna fall for it again, NSA webcam comes with it (lol), its exclusives dont justify the cost of the console, PS4 has better exclusives that I find are more my taste.

If you can pretend to think 720P beats 1080P then you surely have things mixed up I mean come on its a big difference when devs utilize that 1080P goodness, Killzone on PS4 is actually enjoyable and graphically sexy ye dead rising looks nice but tbh first one beat second one out of water and the 3rd dead rising ok at best it doesnt have the good stuff that made dead rising 1 amazing.

1 person liked this | treeski treeski said:

Im sorry but I smelled fanboy big time in that review for the most part, I mean come on your telling me you would rather have 720P than 1080P games... thats blatant fanboyism right their.

Personally the PS4 is amazing its cheap and its can handle 1080P easily and I dont have a xbox one nor do I intend to get one for a few simple reasons: Too pricey, They screwed us over once not gonna fall for it again, NSA webcam comes with it (lol), its exclusives dont justify the cost of the console, PS4 has better exclusives that I find are more my taste.

If you can pretend to think 720P beats 1080P then you surely have things mixed up I mean come on its a big difference when devs utilize that 1080P goodness, Killzone on PS4 is actually enjoyable and graphically sexy ye dead rising looks nice but tbh first one beat second one out of water and the 3rd dead rising ok at best it doesnt have the good stuff that made dead rising 1 amazing.

  1. It doesn't say anywhere in the review that 720P is preferred.
  2. If this generation lasts anywhere near as long as the previous gen, $100 hardly makes the XB1 "expensive" compared to the PS4. If you have a hard time forking over the extra $100, maybe you need to look at your financial priorities.
  3. They screwed you over "again"? How were you screwed over? You don't remember Sony's PSN hacking scandle or how they treated the whole geohotz situation? Give me a break.
  4. Erm, if you're really that worried, you could just unplug the Kinect or, you know, cover up the camera.

If you prefer PS4, that's fine, but your little rant here is pointless.

wastedkill said:

Read it it actually does say he prefers games at 720p rather than 1080p, 2 I can't justify forking over £500 for 1-2 games maybe you can but I can't, 3 ye you clearly dont see what I'm talking about maybe you should learn and restrictions vs hacking and last one 4 was clearly a joke why so serious?

All I'm saying is Xbox one isn't all that good ps4 has better exclusives I mean you don't buy a console for the low graphics vs PC high graphics on multi platform games do you... You don't right?

2 people like this | Guest said:

It's amusing how some people scream "fanboyism" and then immediately shows how much of a fanboy they are. Do you even read what you type?

Anyone else remember Sony installing rootkits on computers several years ago? If you put a Sony produced audio CD into your PC it immediately installed a rootkit. How does that compare to the Xbox "NSA webcam" that you lack any proof exists?

Having said that, I'm not a big fan of MS either. I think both companies are equally evil in the way they want to milk as much money out of their customers and don't care too much about what their customer wants. I have not purchased either of the new consoles and even if I do it'll be after they work out the hardware bugs and release better games.

2 people like this | GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Im sorry but I smelled fanboy big time in that review for the most part, I mean come on your telling me you would rather have 720P than 1080P games... thats blatant fanboyism right their.

Personally the PS4 is amazing its cheap and its can handle 1080P easily and I dont have a xbox one nor do I intend to get one for a few simple reasons: Too pricey, They screwed us over once not gonna fall for it again, NSA webcam comes with it (lol), its exclusives dont justify the cost of the console, PS4 has better exclusives that I find are more my taste.

If you can pretend to think 720P beats 1080P then you surely have things mixed up I mean come on its a big difference when devs utilize that 1080P goodness, Killzone on PS4 is actually enjoyable and graphically sexy ye dead rising looks nice but tbh first one beat second one out of water and the 3rd dead rising ok at best it doesnt have the good stuff that made dead rising 1 amazing.

Right back at ya, I can smell fanboyism on every word you type.

First of all, the Xbox 1 can display in native 1080p, its a choice on the developer what they want to do. For instance, Ryse outputs in native 900P because that was their choice.

If your saying 100 dollar difference that inludes the camera function is too pricey especially seeing these consoles will probably be around for at least 7-10 years, then theres more wrong there. Once you put the Sony eye on the PS4, the price point is roughly 50 bucks difference, whoopty do.

Now on the NSA part with the Camera (Really), yea you have caught onto the NSA and Microsofts plot to watch sweaty gamers playing games in their living room, congrats.

Read it it actually does say he prefers games at 720p rather than 1080p, 2 I can't justify forking over £500 for 1-2 games maybe you can but I can't, 3 ye you clearly dont see what I'm talking about maybe you should learn and restrictions vs hacking and last one 4 was clearly a joke why so serious?

All I'm saying is Xbox one isn't all that good ps4 has better exclusives I mean you don't buy a console for the low graphics vs PC high graphics on multi platform games do you... You don't right?

Better exclusives and more exclusives right now? Are you kidding with me, what console have you been viewing, lets go through the list of system exclusives at launch:

PS4: Killzone

Xbox ONE: Dead Rising 3, Forza Motorsport 5, Ryse: Son of Rome, Killer Instinct

I have both consoles, but saying the PS4 has "Better and more exclusives" is a matter of opinion and also incorrect to begin with since the Xbox ONE has more exclusives on the table at the moment.

wastedkill said:

Wow you guys just took a joke then turned it into something serious.... and all I can see that xbox one has is killer instinct maybe and ryse and just 1 for PS4 really... clearly you didnt research anything and I dont want to pay £500 for the console then what 1-2games I will get for it and thats it?

With the PS4 there are more exclusives that appeal to me and People wont think "oh the xbox one is £500 but it comes with a camera that no one will use its a great deal" they will think its too expensive and requires xbox live for most features which is bad.

If it was a choice to use 900P then tell me why? if 900P is better than 1080P why isnt it soo widespread? From what I have seen and heard from devs the xbox ones special chip is very hard to use and implement in their games.

I am not a fanboy I just see consoles as exclusive only gaming rigs the ONLY good games they are gonna have are exclusives otherwise your best to stick for pc unless a pc port is that bad, PS4 for me is worth the money as I will be buying around what 5-10 exclusive games that I will know I will like where as xbox one has the boring old stuff... and 1-2 new games I dont know about you but when I spend £500 I dont want to use it for 1-2 games which I will probably only play for a week each...

Also just curious but is dead rising really a exclusive? I heard it was for a short time then it will be ported to pc and possibly ps4 is that correct?

2 people like this | GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Wow you guys just took a joke then turned it into something serious.... and all I can see that xbox one has is killer instinct maybe and ryse and just 1 for PS4 really... clearly you didnt research anything and I dont want to pay £500 for the console then what 1-2games I will get for it and thats it?

With the PS4 there are more exclusives that appeal to me and People wont think "oh the xbox one is £500 but it comes with a camera that no one will use its a great deal" they will think its too expensive and requires xbox live for most features which is bad.

If it was a choice to use 900P then tell me why? if 900P is better than 1080P why isnt it soo widespread? From what I have seen and heard from devs the xbox ones special chip is very hard to use and implement in their games.

I am not a fanboy I just see consoles as exclusive only gaming rigs the ONLY good games they are gonna have are exclusives otherwise your best to stick for pc unless a pc port is that bad, PS4 for me is worth the money as I will be buying around what 5-10 exclusive games that I will know I will like where as xbox one has the boring old stuff... and 1-2 new games I dont know about you but when I spend £500 I dont want to use it for 1-2 games which I will probably only play for a week each...

Also just curious but is dead rising really a exclusive? I heard it was for a short time then it will be ported to pc and possibly ps4 is that correct?

Let me just go in order again, first of all at the start theres 4 system exclusive games for Xbox 1, Forza motorsport, Killer instinct, Ryse, and Dead Rising 3 (Its owned by microsoft now so its only going to be Xbox, no confirmation on a PC release). I researched plenty, if you read the list that's the only games out for the pair that are not cross platform.

The choice for 900P in Ryse was the developers choice, its probably the best out of all the system exclusive games out now for the consoles in terms of graphics and thats at 900P resolution. The choice was clearly done because they had to make choices for certain points to make the game do what they wanted. Just because Sony advertises killzone at 1080p which has a slight issue with frame dropping because its rendering 1080p. The only competing game in terms of graphics is the Killzone game which has gotten poor scores. Each console is very similar in terms of the specs and the chips, they are both AMD apu's and neither is much harder to program on than the other.

The consoles are brand new, the devs have not gotten used to the new platform yet and are still learning how to push the consoles to their limits.

As for the system exclusives, thats a choice and opinion, both consoles have a fair share of system exclusives that appeal to a wide variety of crowds. Whether you find the exclusives boring or not, others find those amazing, and vice versa. Both consoles show promise, but the truth of the matter is, the Xbox ONE launched with more launch titles, more features, and more equipment which in truth has made it a much better launch than the PS4 which Sony said is focusing on Gaming only, yet they released only 1 system exclusive with it.

Im not calling you an ***** for buying the PS4, because if thats what people think, then ill join you as an ***** because I bought one as well and love it.

wastedkill said:

Launch day titles mean nothing to be honest specially if your not there for launch day lol and they used 900P because 1080P was too intense for the console to handle and in a years time will show what console truely is king.

Also lets take note ryse was developed from crytek... they cant exactly deliver anything less than spectacular its hard for them and they already stated if the tools for the job were correct and worked they would have been able to have it at 1080P but still that small chip on the xbox is worrying about how hard the devs are saying its hard to develop with.

The PS4 has roughly 50% more juice than the xbox one which will show in exclusives anyone knows this and thats why I say consoles for multiplatform games are null judge them on exclusives and specially not launch day exclusives as its just more of a demo of what the console can do.

Guest said:

Am fine with my PS4.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

"the Xbox One SoC features 14 CUs (with 64 stream processors per unit), two of which are reserved for redundancy; the PlayStation 4 SoC sports 20 CUs (with 64 stream processors per unit), two of which are also reserved for redundancy"

In short, the Xbox ONE contains 896 Stream Processors where as the PS4 technically has 1280. But the Xbox ONEs core clock for the GPU is higher than the PS4's which closes the gap to roughly around 25% difference. They are both pretty much exactly the same, neither are harder to program on because they are in a sense the same thing. Its like saying its harder to program on a GTX 770 over a GTX 780 or an HD 7850 over an HD 7870.

Launch day titles mean nothing to be honest specially if your not there for launch day lol and they used 900P because 1080P was too intense for the console to handle and in a years time will show what console truely is king.

Also lets take note ryse was developed from crytek... they cant exactly deliver anything less than spectacular its hard for them and they already stated if the tools for the job were correct and worked they would have been able to have it at 1080P but still that small chip on the xbox is worrying about how hard the devs are saying its hard to develop with.

The PS4 has roughly 50% more juice than the xbox one which will show in exclusives anyone knows this and thats why I say consoles for multiplatform games are null judge them on exclusives and specially not launch day exclusives as its just more of a demo of what the console can do.

So were supposed to buy a brick in the hopes of games coming out eventually...The PS4 has been underwhelming to say the least, Sony has taken features that the PS3 even had and scrapped it saying that they are focused on straight gaming then released a system with 1 exclusive at launch...You know what other console did that, the Sega Saturn, and we all know how well that system turned out.

wastedkill said:

The GPU might have a higher core clock but lets be honest that doesnt matter when its using the old ddr3 ram vs gddr5 that is currently out which widens the gap by quite a bit, you say they are neither harder to program but did you forget that 32mb or something chip they implemented to play catch up? from what I hear its pretty hard to use a lot harder than without it.

Trust me the xbox one is more geared toward TV then gaming where as the PS4 is more towards... well gaming plus atleast it doesn't have most of its features locked and it doesnt require xbox live to watch netflix lol its like asking for 3 payments to access it (broadband+netflix+xbox live broadband)

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

The GPU might have a higher core clock but lets be honest that doesnt matter when its using the old ddr3 ram vs gddr5 that is currently out which widens the gap by quite a bit, you say they are neither harder to program but did you forget that 32mb or something chip they implemented to play catch up? from what I hear its pretty hard to use a lot harder than without it.

Trust me the xbox one is more geared toward TV then gaming where as the PS4 is more towards... well gaming plus atleast it doesn't have most of its features locked and it doesnt require xbox live to watch netflix lol its like asking for 3 payments to access it (broadband+netflix+xbox live broadband)

That debate is null, the 32mb sram adds to the system for caching options. The GDDR5 is faster in bandwidth, but thats not going to make much of a difference overall in the graphics category, only in the area of system performance. Adding that does not make it much harder to program on.

The Xbox ONE is geared at being an all in one system doing all kinds of things. Features locked...are you kidding, ok lets see here...:

Feature list for consoles

Xbox ONE: DVR, TV streaming, Game Console, Blu-Ray Player, Media Center/streaming device from PC, Music Player.

PS4: Game Console, Blu-ray Player

The Music service costs extra and requires playstation Plus, and theres no streaming capabilities other than netflix. So lets not bring up which console has more open features at the moment.

Even the PS3 has more features, it could do alot of things, but they have basically removed the features that gave it some cool extras on top of game playing for adding all these features that require subscriptions.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Actually, GDDR5 gives a HUGE performance boost over DDR3 for graphics, since bandwidth is what the GPU cares about. W.r.t system performance, DDR3 is faster due to the lower latencies.

The Xbox has 32MB of ultra-fast cache. If devs don't start using this (and using it properly) the Xbox will never be as pretty as PS.

Xbone features outside of USA are not a drawcard, because most don't work.

tl;dr only buy an Xbone (at this stage) if you really want some of the exclusives, and/or desperately want some half-baked media centre duties in USA.

Skidmarksdeluxe Skidmarksdeluxe said:

I never bothered to read the review because I'm not remotely interested in consoles and what they can or can't do but the fact of the matter remains, you pay your money and you make your choice. It doesn't matter which is the better console, it's buyers preference (and fanboyism) but both MS & Sony are laughing all the way to the bank. Good for them.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

@St1ckM4n Or if you want to play some actual games more than 1 exclusive...

The GDDR5 in Theory will help with the Graphics processor on the PS4 only in the point of high resolution. Really in terms of the 720p, 900p, or 1080p, we will likely not gain much of a difference in this case. The proven point of this is if you compare using the AMD APU with DDR3 1600 all the way to 2133, the only difference is the GDDR5 will have that extra bandwidth which will help out but in the end game only, not where we are now. The same issues that was reported at launch of the 360 vs PS3, the PS3 was vastly superior but we rarely saw this as being actual benefit to the gaming experience.

wastedkill said:

@St1ckM4n Or if you want to play some actual games more than 1 exclusive...

The GDDR5 in Theory will help with the Graphics processor on the PS4 only in the point of high resolution. Really in terms of the 720p, 900p, or 1080p, we will likely not gain much of a difference in this case. The proven point of this is if you compare using the AMD APU with DDR3 1600 all the way to 2133, the only difference is the GDDR5 will have that extra bandwidth which will help out but in the end game only, not where we are now. The same issues that was reported at launch of the 360 vs PS3, the PS3 was vastly superior but we rarely saw this as being actual benefit to the gaming experience.

if game developers actually did something good for once we would see those benefits and trust me when your developing games DDR ram vs GDDR makes a big difference it all depends on how skilled your team is as a whole to utilize those extra benefits its like instead of graphics ram we are gonna use the ram we stick in our motherboard lol

If consoles didn't exist at all we would be 20-30yrs in the future in terms of graphics but thanks to consoles developers got lazy and started making games that use 7yr old hardware so we the gaming community suffered as a whole.

1 person liked this | St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

@GhostRyder What exclusive game? I didn't mention any games.

Also, negative, faster RAM means more bandwidth, which is key to an APU at any resolution:

[link]

The above is difference from 1600MHz to 2600MHz, which is a minimal bandwidth increase on a pretty weak APU. The huge bandwidth increase for GDDR5 RAM will only compound this.

Add in the fact that the GPU core on the Xbone has half as many cores (some of them) and it becomes clear that the Xbone is lagging behind heavily. Sure, a higher clock on CPU and GPU will help alleviate some of this gap, but you simply have less cores to deal with.

The embedded memory cache on the Xbone is the only saving grace. The PS4 is easier to code for this time, since it doesn't have any quirks like eSRAM. You can't compare it to previous-gen, where the architectures were vastly different.

2 people like this | Puiu Puiu said:

"the Xbox One SoC features 14 CUs (with 64 stream processors per unit), two of which are reserved for redundancy; the PlayStation 4 SoC sports 20 CUs (with 64 stream processors per unit), two of which are also reserved for redundancy"

In short, the Xbox ONE contains 896 Stream Processors where as the PS4 technically has 1280. But the Xbox ONEs core clock for the GPU is higher than the PS4's which closes the gap to roughly around 25% difference. They are both pretty much exactly the same, neither are harder to program on because they are in a sense the same thing. Its like saying its harder to program on a GTX 770 over a GTX 780 or an HD 7850 over an HD 7870.

You are forgetting something more important than the CUs... the ROPs.The games on Xbox are ROP bound. Xbone only has 16 ROPs vs 32 on the PS4. This is the reason why devs have such a better time getting higher resolutions on the PS4. Also the ESRAM is too little (I agree that it's fast) to be able to do anything worthwhile in higher resolutions. There's just too big of a limit of how much they can do with 32MBs of RAM without having to access the slower 8GB DDR3 (you have to remember that they also don't have access to the full 32MB, just a portion of it).

From Anandtech: "The ROPs (render outputs/raster operations pipes) are responsible for final pixel output, and at the resolutions these consoles are targeting having 16 ROPs definitely puts the Xbox One as the odd man out in comparison to PC GPUs. Typically AMD's GPU targeting 1080p come with 32 ROPs, which is where the PS4 is, but the Xbox One ships with half that."

As for you saying that it's not harder to program... yes it is. You have less raw power to work with (CUs), 2x less ROPs and an embedded RAM that is to little to help with the important memory intensive parts. And not to mention that the system reserves a huge chunk of the already limited hardware for the Kinect. Good luck with that.

vX Jedi vX Jedi said:

Im sorry but I smelled fanboy big time in that review for the most part, I mean come on your telling me you would rather have 720P than 1080P games... thats blatant fanboyism right their.

Personally the PS4 is amazing its cheap and its can handle 1080P easily and I dont have a xbox one nor do I intend to get one for a few simple reasons: Too pricey, They screwed us over once not gonna fall for it again, NSA webcam comes with it (lol), its exclusives dont justify the cost of the console, PS4 has better exclusives that I find are more my taste.

If you can pretend to think 720P beats 1080P then you surely have things mixed up I mean come on its a big difference when devs utilize that 1080P goodness, Killzone on PS4 is actually enjoyable and graphically sexy ye dead rising looks nice but tbh first one beat second one out of water and the 3rd dead rising ok at best it doesnt have the good stuff that made dead rising 1 amazing.

I'm not sure where you're getting you're info but the Xbox One outputs in 1080p/60fps. Games may vary like CoD: Ghosts is 720p upscaled and BF4 is 720p, but most games that will be released for strictly next-gen will be 1080p.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

You are forgetting something more important than the CUs... the ROPs.The games on Xbox are ROP bound. Xbone only has 16 ROPs vs 32 on the PS4. This is the reason why devs have such a better time getting higher resolutions on the PS4. Also the ESRAM is too little (I agree that it's fast) to be able to do anything worthwhile in higher resolutions. There's just too big of a limit of how much they can do with 32MBs of RAM without having to access the slower 8GB DDR3 (you have to remember that they also don't have access to the full 32MB, just a portion of it).

From Anandtech: "The ROPs (render outputs/raster operations pipes) are responsible for final pixel output, and at the resolutions these consoles are targeting having 16 ROPs definitely puts the Xbox One as the odd man out in comparison to PC GPUs. Typically AMD's GPU targeting 1080p come with 32 ROPs, which is where the PS4 is, but the Xbox One ships with half that."

As for you saying that it's not harder to program... yes it is. You have less raw power to work with (CUs), 2x less ROPs and an embedded RAM that is to little to help with the important memory intensive parts. And not to mention that the system reserves a huge chunk of the already limited hardware for the Kinect. Good luck with that.

That all depends on what review your looking at and the dates, some articles are out of date at this point or are running off the supposed specs. The release power for both consoles changed over time and we now have different specs and core clocks compared to when they were first announced.

At this point the specs run like this according to Anandtech state this

Xbox One:

8 core at 1.75ghz

GCN Cores AMD GPU with 768 Stream Processors at 853mhz

8gb DDR3 at 2133mhz

Embedded Memory 32mb at 102gbs x2 (Total 204)

System memory Bandwidth 68.3 (without Embedded Memory)

PS4:

8 Core at 1.6ghz

GCN Cores AMD GPU with 1152 Stream Processors at 800mhz

8gb GDDR5 at 5500mhz

No Embedded Memory

System Memory Bandwidth 176

In all actuality, the difference in power for resolution is going to be miniscule or unseen just like before till closer to the end of the consoles life or roughly 60% similar to our last generation offerings. ROP's as you were mentioning actual depend more on the Core clock than just straight up amount of CU's inside the system. The increased core clock may not look like much, but it bumped its actual performance levels higher than most give credit for and closed the gap. The eSRAM is nothing new to Xbox, the previous 360 contained a similar 10mb of eDRAM before with a similar purpose in mind.

As for the reserving the system for the Kinect, I would love to know where you get that idea from, the only thing that the Xbox ONE reserves is 3gb for its Apps and OS and 10% for its OS and Kinect when needed. I don't see any of that mentioned being a huge chunk, plus your not even forced to use the Kinect. The PS4 however reserves 3.5gb of the Ram for the OS (Game developers confirm only access to 4.5GB of ram on the pS4, so there is no difference between the systems reserves for either console.

I'm not sure where you're getting you're info but the Xbox One outputs in 1080p/60fps. Games may vary like CoD: Ghosts is 720p upscaled and BF4 is 720p, but most games that will be released for strictly next-gen will be 1080p.

Right on, it outputs in 1080p natively, its up to the game developer which resolution to choose to output at.

wastedkill said:

OK so you 2 seem to think the developers dont want or like running games at 1080P which lets just say is wrong the developers would have loved to get the xbox one running at 1080P but lets be honest here microsoft made it the biggest pain in the ass so they cant.

The xbox one is pretty much half as powerful as the PS4 so exclusives on PS4 will looks miles better than Xbox ones exclusives. ALSO if what you say is true then how come the exclusive ryse is not 1080P/60FPS? Its running at 900P and upscales not sure what frames but still 900P doesnt look nice and its not 1080P like you said it was

If exclusive games arent 1080P then what hope do you have for the xbox one? It might be a good console but overall if microsoft makes it hard for devs then heck its not gonna be all that good.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

OK so you 2 seem to think the developers dont want or like running games at 1080P which lets just say is wrong the developers would have loved to get the xbox one running at 1080P but lets be honest here microsoft made it the biggest pain in the *** so they cant.

The xbox one is pretty much half as powerful as the PS4 so exclusives on PS4 will looks miles better than Xbox ones exclusives. ALSO if what you say is true then how come the exclusive ryse is not 1080P/60FPS? Its running at 900P and upscales not sure what frames but still 900P doesnt look nice and its not 1080P like you said it was

If exclusive games arent 1080P then what hope do you have for the xbox one? It might be a good console but overall if microsoft makes it hard for devs then heck its not gonna be all that good.

So far your only argument seems to be that Ryse Son of Rome is running at 900P instead of 1080p, a fact you would never have noticed without looking it up or hearing it from somewhere else. If no one told you that you would never know and its pretty clear because of the way you only mention it after I have mentioned it. The Xbox ONE runs all games at 60FPS so don't even try to bring that up which is funny because the ONLY PS4 exlcusive right now Killzone is running at 60 with random frame skipping.

In actuality, you keep saying the PS4 is twice as powerful, yet you obviously never read the specs clearly and keep acknowledging the amount of Stream Processors being the defining factor along with the GDDR5. The facts are this, the Xbox ONE has a higher clocked version of the same processor so it in fact has more brute force than the PS4 counterpart, the GPU core clock is higher which knocks it up to keep up with the higher amount of stream processors in the PS4. The other defining factor is the eSRAM actually makes the memory bandwidth higher in reality for when a developer needs it. In Actuality, the Xbox has more brute force to utilize the GPU in the long run than the PS4 has overall, the PS4 is running off of its higher GPU and the fact that it actually gives developers less ram to work with just at a higher speed.

You keep trying to pull down saying Xbox ONE game cant/wont run natively at 1080p 60FPS, well guess what, Forza Motorsport 5 runs 1080p 60FPS natively on the Xbox ONE.

Point proven just by that alone.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that a 0.15GHz boost in CPU and 53MHz boost in GPU clocks makes up for half-speed RAM and half ROPs.

Additionally, the reserves for OS and Kinect are much higher than on PS4 (I haven't seen proof of 3.5GB RAM required for PS4 OS - and I call BS on that one anyway [PS4 has much more lightweight OS]).

There's not much else for me to say. Refer to the Anandtech article that was linked for an expert opinion.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that a 0.15GHz boost in CPU and 53MHz boost in GPU clocks makes up for half-speed RAM and half ROPs.

Additionally, the reserves for OS and Kinect are much higher than on PS4 (I haven't seen proof of 3.5GB RAM required for PS4 OS - and I call BS on that one anyway [PS4 has much more lightweight OS]).

There's not much else for me to say. Refer to the Anandtech article that was linked for an expert opinion.

You can disagree all you want, the proof is there in the power and graphics showcased at launch including in Ryse and Forza.

Ok heres proof Link, now it seems that on updates they are now claiming up to 5.5gb available.

Sony claims you can utilize up to 5gb of ram, the developers are claiming only 4.5 is available. A couple of sites (Trying to see if this is proven) even claim that 2 cores are reserved for the OS. But I don't see anything I would count as proof of this claim.

I pulled most of my information on specs from the Anandtech article. I have read many reviews on the different articles. If your not willing to believe 53mhz difference (Which is more significant than you give credit, most overclocked versions of cards only go up to 30mhz so that's more a an actual overclock). Look at the difference between video cards like the GTX 680 and 670, they had very different amounts of Cuda cores yet with a bit of overclocking you could make a 670 smoke a 680. Cuda Cores and Stream processors are not the only thing in a video card that matters.

St1ckM4n St1ckM4n said:

Damn, 4.5GB isn't much! Very weird, and I'd place a bet on most of that being reserved for the constantly-recording cache. It uses RAM so as to not be bottlenecked by the HDD - and also reduces wear and space used on the HDD.

But, you say:

the proof is there in the power and graphics showcased at launch including in Ryse and Forza.

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that proof. AV4 runs 1080p on PS4, runs 720p (or 900p?) on Xbox. You can't just throw out a single in-house title and a driving game and use it as 'proof'.

Additionally, 53MHz boost is a far cry from the 7970 vs 7970GHz edition: that's 925MHz vs 1000MHz. On top of that, the 7970 has the same core count and isn't hindered by half-ROP count or similar, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.

There's only so much power you can pull from a 4-cylinder engine as compared to a V8.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Damn, 4.5GB isn't much! Very weird, and I'd place a bet on most of that being reserved for the constantly-recording cache. It uses RAM so as to not be bottlenecked by the HDD - and also reduces wear and space used on the HDD.

But, you say:

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that proof. AV4 runs 1080p on PS4, runs 720p (or 900p?) on Xbox. You can't just throw out a single in-house title and a driving game and use it as 'proof'.

Additionally, 53MHz boost is a far cry from the 7970 vs 7970GHz edition: that's 925MHz vs 1000MHz. On top of that, the 7970 has the same core count and isn't hindered by half-ROP count or similar, so it's an apples to oranges comparison.

There's only so much power you can pull from a 4-cylinder engine as compared to a V8.

First off, your probably right on what its reserved for, but yea its still a bunch in general.

Whats AV4? Are you talking about Black Flag? If so what can be gotten from those multi-platform games is time. It was pretty clear that time constraints got both consoles. Ryse and FM5 were developed in house for these consoles hence why they had more time to optimize a bit more. The PS4 gave the devs more time (it was clear on that with the speed of the announcements) to work on their games, but Sony was relying obviously too much on multi-platform games and being first to the punch.

But also, I compared GTX 670 to 680 not 7970-ghz edition. However in those cases as well the boost was noted.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.