Sony earns early victory in next generation console war

By on January 8, 2014, 1:15 PM
sony, microsoft, playstation, ces, gaming, playstation 4, xbox one, ces 2014, console sales

The numbers have all been tallied and it appears as though Sony’s PlayStation 4 has won the first battle in what will be a long running console war. Sony recently revealed at the Consumer Electronics Show that they sold 4.2 million PlayStation 4 consoles as of December 28, 2013 compared to just three million Xbox One systems sold by Microsoft through the end of the year.

There are a number of factors that could be analyzed as contributing factors to each systems' sales. Brand loyalty and launch titles aside, price and availability are perhaps the two biggest factors. Sony’s next generation system retails for $100 less than the Xbox One at $399 versus $499. Microsoft’s console does include a Kinect motion sensor, however, if that sort of thing matters to you.

The PlayStation 4 launched in North America on November 15 followed by the Xbox One a week later on the 22nd. Hitting the market a week earlier than the competition certainly helped Sony jump out to an early lead. As of writing, the PS4 is available in 53 countries and territories compared to just 13 for Microsoft’s system.

Sony may have dealt the first blow in the next generation console war but that doesn’t really mean too much at this point considering the battle is likely to carry on through most of the next decade. Ultimate success will likely come down to exclusive titles, online content and perhaps even some new features that haven’t even been conceived yet.




User Comments: 40

Got something to say? Post a comment
treeski treeski said:

They're both selling at a pretty healthy rate. Game on.

2 people like this | wastedkill said:

If a multiplay game is on pc + consoles you get it on PC as its 1 cheaper, 2 mods, 3 mods and for exclusive console games you get it on PS4 as Xbox one exclusives are well dry and not as good halo, GoW are just cash cows now last good halo was reach.

PS4 has lots of new goodies that I would love to play versus xbox ones 1-2 exclusives that appeal to me which wont justify the $599+12month xbox gold where as the PS4 has 8-12 exclusives that look good and the existing ones.... does anyone know if a new resistance is coming to PS4? I loved resistance 2!

3 people like this | GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

If a multiplay game is on pc + consoles you get it on PC as its 1 cheaper, 2 mods, 3 mods and for exclusive console games you get it on PS4 as Xbox one exclusives are well dry and not as good halo, GoW are just cash cows now last good halo was reach.

PS4 has lots of new goodies that I would love to play versus xbox ones 1-2 exclusives that appeal to me which wont justify the $599+12month xbox gold where as the PS4 has 8-12 exclusives that look good and the existing ones.... does anyone know if a new resistance is coming to PS4? I loved resistance 2!

Well that's your opinion, the exclusives for Xbox right now released out-weight the PS4 with as many there are released. I personally like them both but the Xbox ONE does a majority of things more with a lot more services. As far as PC goes, I still prefer it overall to consoles anyway but I have both because of exclusives and LAN events with friends and such.

Both consoles now need a subscription to play online games so neither wins that respect. But all the games franchises are just becoming Cash cows no matter which side you choose. God of War Ascension was nowhere near as epic as God of War 3 was and was a clearly rushed out title. Gears of War last game was a joke of a game and clearly was just there to milk some money, but I disagree with that on Halo because Halo 4 was great and had huge improvements over the problems that plagued Reach (DMR/Needle Rifle accuracy and randomness?). But this is just my opinion on the matter...

As for the Outselling, well 15 countries vs 53 is a huge difference, even if you say the 15 are the major countries, its actually right now looking like Xbox ONE is doing better and has had less time out in the world. So yea...

Guest said:

I just love the article doesnt have a single mention of the Wii U xD

so deaaaad....

1 person liked this | Guest said:

The PlayStation 4 launched in North America on November 15 followed by the Xbox One a week later on the 22nd. Hitting the market a week earlier than the competition certainly helped Sony jump out to an early lead. As of writing, the PS4 is available in 53 countries and territories compared to just 13 for Microsoft's system.

Wow, what a sensationalist headline!

Okay, lets do some simple mathematics here:

XBOX = 13 countries = 3,000,000 sales

PS4 = 53 Countries = 4,200,000 sales

lets average those out shall we:

XBOX = 3,000,000 / 15 = 200,000 sales per country

PS4 = 4,200,000 / 53 = 79245 sales per country

now assuming XBOX success so far on average scales to the same number of countries as PS4:

200,000 x 53 = 10,600,000

so, essentially, to sum it all up, the XBOX is in fact outselling the PS4 more that 2 to 1, at least on paper. Oh, and lets not forget that the PS4 had at least a weeks lead time over the XBOX.

I'll be the first to admit that these numbers are best case scenario in terms of scaling, but one cannot argue that for the XBOX to have done as well as it has in a mere 13 countries, means when it does finally get released in other countries things could get a lot more interesting. Of course, most people could have gotten fed up with waiting by that time, myself included as I am in one of those countries, and simply bought PS4's but we will have to wait and see. Personally I'm leaning towards the XBOX this generation, simply seems more intriguing. I have a PS3 that's served me well, but when it comes time to buy a new console I might simply use the cash and stick with the master race. I.e. PC gaming :-)

wastedkill said:

Microsoft limited themselves by making it only 15 countries that the xbox one gets released, personally I would want a gaming device so PS4 is the better contender here specially if you want a cheaper 50% more powerful console then ye exclusives are really gonna be realistically 50% more better versus the xbox one.

For me and may others certain xbox exclusives/launch titles are just not as good as what PS4 is offering or will be offering. I like many others will only use both consoles for exclusives so it really comes down to which games you prefer and what your budget is.

3 people like this | Adhmuz Adhmuz, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Okay, lets do some simple mathematics here:

XBOX = 13 countries = 3,000,000 sales

PS4 = 53 Countries = 4,200,000 sales

lets average those out shall we:

XBOX = 3,000,000 / 15 = 200,000 sales per country

PS4 = 4,200,000 / 53 = 79245 sales per country

now assuming XBOX success so far on average scales to the same number of countries as PS4:

200,000 x 53 = 10,600,000

so, essentially, to sum it all up, the XBOX is in fact outselling the PS4 more that 2 to 1, at least on paper. Oh, and lets not forget that the PS4 had at least a weeks lead time over the XBOX.

Congrats on the simple mathematics, but honestly the crack you people are smoking must be top notch to believe the stuff your shoveling. BECAUSE Microsoft DID NOT launch in enough markets/country they lost, PERIOD, no simple math will change the fact that the PS4 outsold the Xbox 1 by over a million units. People love to play this game of delusional hypotheses and then think it means anything. On paper 4.2 Million is bigger than 3.0 Million, so no, on paper the Xbox still isn't winning

P.S. Arguing over exclusives as a point is like arguing over the food you like to eat, it's your preference. Just like I'm going to insist I don't like either console at this point in time so I'm not playing favorites.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

Microsoft limited themselves by making it only 15 countries that the xbox one gets released, personally I would want a gaming device so PS4 is the better contender here specially if you want a cheaper 50% more powerful console then ye exclusives are really gonna be realistically 50% more better versus the xbox one.

For me and may others certain xbox exclusives/launch titles are just not as good as what PS4 is offering or will be offering. I like many others will only use both consoles for exclusives so it really comes down to which games you prefer and what your budget is.

The PS4 is not 50% more powerful that the Xbox One, the Xbox one has a higher clocked 8 core processor, Higher clocked GPU which cuts the slightly less amount of stream processor difference down, and has Esram available. So the difference in performance only comes down the slightly higher amount of stream processors and the DDR5 ram. But with more CPU power comes the fact that pushing off more power from the games to the CPU like how mantle does and what game companies have been doing for years in the green zone for the Xbox ONE. So in actuality, they are more even in terms of power.

The GPU does not matter as much on consoles as it does on a PC, the GPU's inside the 360 and PS3 were lower powered then even the most basic computer integrated graphics you can get right now. The processors was where the power came from that the consoles could still perform well, the GPU has actually played a lower role than the one given to our PC graphics cards.

wastedkill said:

The PS4 is not 50% more powerful that the Xbox One, the Xbox one has a higher clocked 8 core processor, Higher clocked GPU which cuts the slightly less amount of stream processor difference down, and has Esram available. So the difference in performance only comes down the slightly higher amount of stream processors and the DDR5 ram. But with more CPU power comes the fact that pushing off more power from the games to the CPU like how mantle does and what game companies have been doing for years in the green zone for the Xbox ONE. So in actuality, they are more even in terms of power.

The GPU does not matter as much on consoles as it does on a PC, the GPU's inside the 360 and PS3 were lower powered then even the most basic computer integrated graphics you can get right now. The processors was where the power came from that the consoles could still perform well, the GPU has actually played a lower role than the one given to our PC graphics cards.

GDDR5 vs DDR3 Massive difference when it comes to gaming, sorry but those 53Mhz extra will give you what 5-10% increase so lets call ps4 40% more powerful now, 1.84TF/s PS4 vs 1.31TF/s Xbox one ye TF dont exactly help real world but still helps you get an idea.

Which ever way you take it 40-50% bigger space on PS4 to make a game look better or have more better features aka more advanced AI, the 32MB Esram wont make much difference to be honest and from looks of it developers are having a hard time with it already and 1152 vs 768 shaders is actually quite a lot when you think about it.

Saying the CPU is more of a big player when it comes to games versus GPU is a massive understatement I might not be a game developer but I know for a fact that most things 3D are easier on a GPU and perform a ton better on the GPU hence why avatar and big films arent using CPU's to render and why stuff like 3D modeling software performs better and renders a ton faster on GPU's.

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Congrats on the simple mathematics, but honestly the crack you people are smoking must be top notch to believe the stuff your shoveling. BECAUSE Microsoft DID NOT launch in enough markets/country they lost, PERIOD, no simple math will change the fact that the PS4 outsold the Xbox 1 by over a million units. People love to play this game of delusional hypotheses and then think it means anything. On paper 4.2 Million is bigger than 3.0 Million, so no, on paper the Xbox still isn't winning

Shame, did I touch a nerve. Where does it hurt, do you want me to rub it better while I sing you a lullaby?

Now if your reading skills were any better than your analytical skills then you may have noticed my last paragraph whereby I stated, quite clearly that I admit that this is only on paper and purely hypothetical but your hate of Microsoft must run deep. I apologise for provoking your ire and cutting you that way by daring to suggest that despite the totals (yes, 4,200,000 is bigger than 3,000,000, congratulations), and strictly speaking of per country sales (13 vs. 53), that the fact that Microsoft did as well as it did despite the massive handicap is beyond remarkable. However, by all means, don't read and comprehend and if it makes you feel any better go stroke that insulting ego of yours some more.

2 people like this | wastedkill said:

Shame, did I touch a nerve. Where does it hurt, do you want me to rub it better while I sing you a lullaby?

Now if your reading skills were any better than your analytical skills then you may have noticed my last paragraph whereby I stated, quite clearly that I admit that this is only on paper and purely hypothetical but your hate of Microsoft must run deep. I apologise for provoking your ire and cutting you that way by daring to suggest that despite the totals (yes, 4,200,000 is bigger than 3,000,000, congratulations), and strictly speaking of per country sales (13 vs. 53), that the fact that Microsoft did as well as it did despite the massive handicap is beyond remarkable. However, by all means, don't read and comprehend and if it makes you feel any better go stroke that insulting ego of yours some more.

Tell me your joking... I know tons of die hard fan boys that will always be by microsofts side no matter how much bad stuff they stuff down their throats, Microsoft limited themselves and gave the middle finger to all their customers so please stop being a fan boy and to everyone including investors 4.2mill is 1billion times better than 3mill... it could make or break microsoft.

2 people like this | MilwaukeeMike said:

*sigh* well, this didn't take long to devolve into a 'my-console-is-better-than-yours' discussion. I don't understand the obsession with having to convince yourself you own the 'better' console. Is it because you don't want to regret not having bought the 'best' system? There is no bad choice here, the comparisons I've seen online with side-by-side screenshots are difficult to tell apart.

Also, you guys can throw specs around all you want, the improvements will come when developers learn to program for these consoles and if/when new 3D engines are built. From what I've read Unreal Engine 4 will do more for your games than any 8 core, overclocked, 8GB of DDR5 RAM tera-flopping bull-shizzle.

1 person liked this | GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

GDDR5 vs DDR3 Massive difference when it comes to gaming, sorry but those 53Mhz extra will give you what 5-10% increase so lets call ps4 40% more powerful now, 1.84TF/s PS4 vs 1.31TF/s Xbox one ye TF dont exactly help real world but still helps you get an idea.

Which ever way you take it 40-50% bigger space on PS4 to make a game look better or have more better features aka more advanced AI, the 32MB Esram wont make much difference to be honest and from looks of it developers are having a hard time with it already and 1152 vs 768 shaders is actually quite a lot when you think about it.

Saying the CPU is more of a big player when it comes to games versus GPU is a massive understatement I might not be a game developer but I know for a fact that most things 3D are easier on a GPU and perform a ton better on the GPU hence why avatar and big films arent using CPU's to render and why stuff like 3D modeling software performs better and renders a ton faster on GPU's.

Well first of all, 768 is not half of 1152 anyway so 50% more powerful does not work in the GPU terms at all. Plus we have seen that overclocking on a GPU does make significant differences as we have seen cards like the 7970 go to the GHz edition which was only 75mhz yet it bumped its scores way up. It does not make it more powerful than the PS4's GPU, but closes that narrow gap a bit. The Esram is nothing new to developers, the 360 had similar Edram in the past, the main reason developers had an issue with it was the fact the Esram was a late add on and could not be properly implemented in a short spam since they had already acted like it was not there. Its actually contains a high bandwidth which is very helpful to the devlopers and the DDR3 already inside is a decent speed. Albeit the DDR5 was a very helpful edition to the PS4 because of the bandwidth options available to the developers. The Esram actually has a higher bandwidth than even the DDR5 which is why mixing that with the DDR3 actually puts it in a good spot because like I said, developers are already used to it before so its just rinse and repeat essentially (Though Esram is different from Edram so they will have to still get used to it).

As for the CPU argument, I actually have some experience in XNA and the Xbox 360 (I cant speak for PS3), im not an expert mind you but the CPU was pretty much the most important part when trying to make a game run smooth on the 360. There is a reason why the 360 has a Tri-Core Processor back in 2005 that ran 6 threads and the PS3 has what could be called an 8 Core processor. The GPU was important to making a game, however you hit a brick wall pretty fast if you try and just use the GPU for everything on the console. Utilizing the Multi-Core processors to take the load off the GPU is why games like God of War 3 and Halo Reach looked so fantastic on such dated hardware and why the companies chose to put in that much power into the console. That is again why the CPU inside both of the consoles here are 8 core processors (Albeit only 6 cores are available at the time for the devs for both systems) because using that much power in multi-core performance will be the defining factor on keeping a game smooth and silky. Having a more powerful GPU does matter because if does give you more leniency in the realm of high resolution, but most devs push as much work as possible onto those 6 Cores they have access to to balance out the game and keep it running smoothly. When you see a Frame rate drop in game on a console, its usually because the developer pushed to much onto the GPU and it hit its max threshold and could not keep up.

wastedkill said:

GPU+CPU is The solution to use but exclusives show how good a console really is not a release day but a game developed 5yrs after the console has been released as we say resistance 1 vs 2 massive changes. The PS4 IS 40-50% better when it comes to developing a exclusive game due to the higher shader count+ GDDR5 ye you could argue that its equal with both consoles but in reality its not specially if you could utilize TF lol which doesnt look like it will in the near future.

In all fairness if the xbox one had a more easier OS like the PS4 in terms of usage then xbox one MIGHT ye big might be better but then again its hard to work out.

[link]

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

GPU+CPU is The solution to use but exclusives show how good a console really is not a release day but a game developed 5yrs after the console has been released as we say resistance 1 vs 2 massive changes. The PS4 IS 40-50% better when it comes to developing a exclusive game due to the higher shader count+ GDDR5 ye you could argue that its equal with both consoles but in reality its not specially if you could utilize TF lol which doesnt look like it will in the near future.

In all fairness if the xbox one had a more easier OS like the PS4 in terms of usage then xbox one MIGHT ye big might be better but then again its hard to work out.

[link]

That review is completely wrong because they are ignoring facts they don't care about and focusing on only the ram and GPU. Even on paper if you were to ignore everything, saying theres a 50% performance difference is completely untrue and the fact they just shrugged off the processor without even mentioning it as being any different shows that they are not doing an actual comparison of consoles. Lets just for arguments sake say that the GPU's are an HD 7790 and a HD 7870 since thats what they are comparable to. Here's the performance differences for HD 7790 and HD 7870, thats not 50% anything and those are reference specs comparison. Adding in the Extra 53mhz since these are both same architecture changes the game because these cards are essentially exactly the same minus the shaders and core clocks. The GDDR5 makes the PS4 have a higher bandwidth on its ram, but while the Xbox ONE has GDDR3 2133, both consoles only give 5gb to devs and the Xbox ONE on top of the has super high speeds Esram again that is way faster than the GDDR5. You can say its hard to utilize all you want, but its there and thats the point plus in actuality while its no piece of cake, its not hard enough that it will be ignored.

The processor having that extra power will give the GPU more of a break and is the reason the Xbox chose to have a lower GPU because its not needed. Sony is screaming the specs out by saying we have GDDR5 and a higher GPU because people will see that and go "OMG ITS SOOO MUCH MOAR POWERFUL ZOMG" but in reality, devs know the truth and dont rely on the GPU for everything. Consoles and PC's are totally different in the gaming world, when we play a game on PC, even on CPU intensive games the GPU is struck with most of the workload because when you develop on a PC, you cant pick out how many cores or what clock speed each person is running at so you cant develop based on that. You have to focus on the GPU because while there are different GPU's the formula is much more easier GPU to GPU than CPU to CPU. On a console, you know exactly whats inside so you program based on the exact amount of power you have.

Guest said:

The maths of the guy from the leading post are good but......the xbox sales mor eon the us, I mean its one, if not he only console supported by united statians hardcore players?. its a fact that they dont sale to much outside of the US

wastedkill said:

GDDR3 you serious either you work for microsoft and know a secret or your missing the big picture, its DDR3 MASSIVE difference as I said.The 7790 has GDDR ram not DDR so thats a difference there. and I am sure the PS4 has more ram to space being well less "TV to skype then to game" which btw uses a LOT of resources. Esram might be waaay faster than GDDR5 but there is a reason why we dont exactly see it in PC's.

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

GDDR3 you serious either you work for microsoft and know a secret or your missing the big picture, its DDR3 MASSIVE difference as I said.The 7790 has GDDR ram not DDR so thats a difference there. and I am sure the PS4 has more ram to space being well less "TV to skype then to game" which btw uses a LOT of resources. Esram might be waaay faster than GDDR5 but there is a reason why we dont exactly see it in PC's.

First off, typo my bad was typing about ram to much that I started adding GDDR to every topic. Either way you can't just pick out the specs that are better while ignoring others and saying that makes it better. Also in actuality, the PS4 has 4.5gb available to Devs with 512mb open to be used if needed (Not quite sure the phrasing, however this was spoken by the devs and Sony). Esram is fast, thats the point and why Xbox chose to have DDR3 and Esram over just investing a huge sum in including GDDR5 ram which is pricey. In actuality, it has just as much or less according to the reports but that does not matter either way because Ram is Ram and having the extra ram is very beneficial, but the Esram is also just as beneficial. You dont need much ram for games, hence why both consoles stuck with 8gb and only allow up to 5gb's of usage which is a fact for both consoles. As for why we don't see it in PC's...Its because we don't need it, simple as that. The order of importance in a console matters, and most devs (meaning like companies like viceral, Rockstar, or the likes) need a powerful processor and multi-thread to relieve stress off the GPU. If the GPU was all that mattered, the consoles would have dropped having 8 cores and gone for having things like a 7970 or whatever instead. Look at GTA 5, that game which is known for being beautiful, expansive, and supporting a huge online multiplayer while running on a 512mb ATI card with only I believe 40 shader units. But the 360 specifically had Edram and 3 core 3.2ghz processor supporting 6 threads which made this possible.

Xtreme gamer said:

All I know is... All the PC GPU's that still run DDR3 and not DDR5 are rubbish slow cheap ones...

1 person liked this | Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

@wastedkill and @GhostRyder

Your both forgetting that the Kinect also takes 10% of the GPU power away automatically, so the clock boost on the Xbox was a compensator for the Kinect.

384 core difference between the two GPU wise (PS4: 1152 Xbox: 768 Cores, Same architecture)

The CPU core count is 8 on both consoles, 6 available to games.

Xbox One is clocked at 1.75GHz vs PS4's 1.60GHz

PS4 GPU clocked at 800MHz vs Xbox One's 853MHz

Now the facts are all in one list this makes everything a little easier xD

So lets compare the closest PC parts for the GPU's:

Xbox One = Radeon HD 7790 (896)

PS4 = Radeon HD7870 (1280)

This is the same 384 core difference, just for arguments sake, here's a Youtube Video of Crysis 3 on High, 7790 vs the lower 7850:

Clearly Microsoft could have really done with a bit of extra power in the GPU department, video's online don't do it justice due to HDCP issues on the PS4, but I am one of the luckier people who has seen the PS4 and Xbox One play BF4 side-by-side, the Framerates seem pretty much the same to me on both sides, Graphics settings seem to be very similar, but the resolution was a massive bug bear to me on the Xbox, Guns in particular just had soo many jag-idies it wasn't even funny compared to the PS4 version which overall looked much smoother.

Now CPU, this is where GhostRyder can have some brownie points xD

The PS3 Cell processor was extremely hard to program for, It took years for developers to crack it, but once they did, just look at games like The Last of Us and Gran Turismo 6, They look very good for such an old console, the key was in the CPU power, not the GPU power, if you want some specs, the PS3's Cell Processor runs at 3.2GHz and has 7 cores, 1 core was reserved for redundancy during manufacture.

Xbox 360 similarly, but was much easier to program for and bring the best out of, hence why cross platform games were generally better on it.

Now to the PS4 and Xbox One CPU's, they now both are the same architecture and same core count with the same limitations, only difference is 0.15GHz difference on the clock.

Since they are comparable to PC hardware, and they are AMD CPU's, I don't think such a small clock difference is going to make much of a difference and (this is just theoretical now) Since the Xbox One OS is using the Windows 8 Kernel, a customized version of DX11 & Kinect services, this might create a little more overhead compared to PS4's custom built OS and 2 different API's, one's similar to OpenGL, the other is far more bare metal programming.

Now Memory, this is a tricky one, because yes, The PS4 has GDDR5 and yes the Xbox has ESRAM to make up for the bandwidth loss using DDR3 BUT, unless I can't google very well, I cannot find how much bandwidth the Xbox One has to the CPU.

The PS4 has 20GBps link speed between CPU and memory I Believe, the Xbox I have no clue, this could be it's greatest weapon though, if you can feed the CPU more data, the more that can be processed, this could give it the advantage over the PS4 CPU purely because they can use more of it, in the long run, say 5 years down the line, this could mean Xbox One and PS4 cross platform games look very similar, just the PS4 has a resolution bump.

Overall, the PS4 does have a power advantage, in a year or two and most cross platform games, we'll find the PS4 has either smoother framerates or looks substantially better on a 4k monitor over the Xbox, but it will never end up like the Wii did in the last round, the PS4 doesn't have enough extra power to completely dwarf the Xbox and memory reserved for the OS can change on both platforms over time, it did for the PS3 and I believe the Xbox as well, so why not the new gen?

Conclusion, If I was to give it a number, which I don't want to do, because we haven't seen any game really test both consoles substantially yet, PS4 probably has anything from 20% to 5% performance lead over the Xbox. This is my Opinion based on what I've read, seen, played and calculated, Basically, there's not a whole lot in it at the end of the day.

Anyway, I don't really care and have purchased neither, I'm waiting on a game that grabs my attention, if last gen is anything to go by though, the PS4 may be my purchase purely because I've had more fun from the 1st party devs Sony own, over Microsofts. That's just my opinion, not fact. I'll probably be waiting a while as no set dates have been made on any games that interest me yet :/

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

@wastedkill

Honestly, I began disregarding your arguments when you said the last good halo was reach.

1 person liked this | GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

@wastedkill and @GhostRyder

Your both forgetting that the Kinect also takes 10% of the GPU power away automatically, so the clock boost on the Xbox was a compensator for the Kinect.

384 core difference between the two GPU wise (PS4: 1152 Xbox: 768 Cores, Same architecture)

The CPU core count is 8 on both consoles, 6 available to games.

Xbox One is clocked at 1.75GHz vs PS4's 1.60GHz

PS4 GPU clocked at 800MHz vs Xbox One's 853MHz

Now the facts are all in one list this makes everything a little easier xD

So lets compare the closest PC parts for the GPU's:

Xbox One = Radeon HD 7790 (896)

PS4 = Radeon HD7870 (1280)

This is the same 384 core difference, just for arguments sake, here's a Youtube Video of Crysis 3 on High, 7790 vs the lower 7850:

Clearly Microsoft could have really done with a bit of extra power in the GPU department, video's online don't do it justice due to HDCP issues on the PS4, but I am one of the luckier people who has seen the PS4 and Xbox One play BF4 side-by-side, the Framerates seem pretty much the same to me on both sides, Graphics settings seem to be very similar, but the resolution was a massive bug bear to me on the Xbox, Guns in particular just had soo many jag-idies it wasn't even funny compared to the PS4 version which overall looked much smoother.

Now CPU, this is where GhostRyder can have some brownie points xD

The PS3 Cell processor was extremely hard to program for, It took years for developers to crack it, but once they did, just look at games like The Last of Us and Gran Turismo 6, They look very good for such an old console, the key was in the CPU power, not the GPU power, if you want some specs, the PS3's Cell Processor runs at 3.2GHz and has 7 cores, 1 core was reserved for redundancy during manufacture.

Xbox 360 similarly, but was much easier to program for and bring the best out of, hence why cross platform games were generally better on it.

Now to the PS4 and Xbox One CPU's, they now both are the same architecture and same core count with the same limitations, only difference is 0.15GHz difference on the clock.

Since they are comparable to PC hardware, and they are AMD CPU's, I don't think such a small clock difference is going to make much of a difference and (this is just theoretical now) Since the Xbox One OS is using the Windows 8 Kernel, a customized version of DX11 & Kinect services, this might create a little more overhead compared to PS4's custom built OS and 2 different API's, one's similar to OpenGL, the other is far more bare metal programming.

Now Memory, this is a tricky one, because yes, The PS4 has GDDR5 and yes the Xbox has ESRAM to make up for the bandwidth loss using DDR3 BUT, unless I can't google very well, I cannot find how much bandwidth the Xbox One has to the CPU.

The PS4 has 20GBps link speed between CPU and memory I Believe, the Xbox I have no clue, this could be it's greatest weapon though, if you can feed the CPU more data, the more that can be processed, this could give it the advantage over the PS4 CPU purely because they can use more of it, in the long run, say 5 years down the line, this could mean Xbox One and PS4 cross platform games look very similar, just the PS4 has a resolution bump.

Overall, the PS4 does have a power advantage, in a year or two and most cross platform games, we'll find the PS4 has either smoother framerates or looks substantially better on a 4k monitor over the Xbox, but it will never end up like the Wii did in the last round, the PS4 doesn't have enough extra power to completely dwarf the Xbox and memory reserved for the OS can change on both platforms over time, it did for the PS3 and I believe the Xbox as well, so why not the new gen?

Conclusion, If I was to give it a number, which I don't want to do, because we haven't seen any game really test both consoles substantially yet, PS4 probably has anything from 20% to 5% performance lead over the Xbox. This is my Opinion based on what I've read, seen, played and calculated, Basically, there's not a whole lot in it at the end of the day.

Anyway, I don't really care and have purchased neither, I'm waiting on a game that grabs my attention, if last gen is anything to go by though, the PS4 may be my purchase purely because I've had more fun from the 1st party devs Sony own, over Microsofts. That's just my opinion, not fact. I'll probably be waiting a while as no set dates have been made on any games that interest me yet :/

@Burty117, Logic flows from your mouth, you hit the nail on the head. I never claimed the Xbox One was more powerful, but more or less closer than reviewers like the one posted above comparing the specs because reviewers like that choose to ignore certain specs claiming as they make no difference when in reality they do.

The core clock on the CPU will help the games because devs tend to push more onto the CPU, hence why we got these 8 core CPU's inside the consoles. I dont think night and day with the 150mhz difference, but there is a difference. I think its more like a 10-20% from a 5-20% performance difference in all honestly because you have to also account for the fact the PS4 gives 3gb of ram to the system and 512mb for...Not quite sure honestly but its supposidly open to devs as well as the 4.5gb (Im actually still confused by the statements ive seen about that). Devs rely on the CPU, thats why games look good on consoles even when their GPU hardware was so obsolete.

wastedkill said:

@wastedkill

Honestly, I began disregarding your arguments when you said the last good halo was reach.

Last halo I played was reach.... cant say any of the newer halos are any good without playing them can I? xD

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Logic flows from your mouth, you hit the nail on the head. I never claimed the Xbox One was more powerful, but more or less closer than reviewers like the one posted above comparing the specs because reviewers like that choose to ignore certain specs claiming as they make no difference when in reality they do.

Agreed, Reviewers use Bandwidth numbers from the memory system to the GPU but almost all fail to mention the bandwidth from the memory system to the CPU, which as proven by last gen consoles, is actually incredibly important. Another reason the PS3 was so hard to program for was because it had 2 memory systems, one for CPU & one for GPU and both had different bandwidths, this meant devs could never fully utilize every last MB, they can now on PS4.

The core clock on the CPU will help the games because devs tend to push more onto the CPU, hence why we got these 8 core CPU's inside the consoles. I dont think night and day with the 150mhz difference, but there is a difference. I think its more like a 10-20% from a 5-20% performance difference in all honestly because you have to also account for the fact the PS4 gives 3gb of ram to the system and 512mb for...Not quite sure honestly but its supposidly open to devs as well as the 4.5gb (Im actually still confused by the statements ive seen about that). Devs rely on the CPU, thats why games look good on consoles even when their GPU hardware was so obsolete.

The reason I've put 5% is because if you look at Forza on Xbox One, It actually runs at 1080p and 60fps and it runs well, I know it's a car game but still, shows the Xbox One does have the might to reach 1080p and still have some nice graphical fidelity. Currently on the PS4 Killzone Shadow Fall runs at 1080p and 60fps and also looks amazing and personally the graphical fidelity in Killzone seems more impressive but they are two completely different games, it's not an Apple to Apples comparison, In about 2 years time we'll start to see exclusives on both consoles that actually tap some of this power we've been discussing, that is when these extra bits of power here and there may make a difference

1 person liked this | ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

@wastedkill

Halo 4 was alright (definitely not a leap over any in the series) but halo reach was terrible compared to the original (or halo anniversary if you count remakes). Personally, I miss the old school multiplayer of halo 2. Nothing beat getting 15 friends around and playing some truly epic multiplayer on halo 2.

1 person liked this | Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

@ghasmanjr I have to agree with you there, Halo 2 multiplayer was the best Halo has ever been.

I personally liked the first one, loved the 2nd, liked Halo 3 and I even liked Halo reach more than 3 but I hated ODST (it never happened) and disliked Halo 4. I now won't buy any more Halo for much the same reason I stopped buying CoD games at Modern Warefare 2, there's only so much of the same I can take, Halo has actually stood the test of time quite well compared to it's "rivals". I'll wait until Destiny is out to see if that's worth the fuss

GhostRyder GhostRyder said:

@ghasmanjr I have to agree with you there, Halo 2 multiplayer was the best Halo has ever been.

I personally liked the first one, loved the 2nd, liked Halo 3 and I even liked Halo reach more than 3 but I hated ODST (it never happened) and disliked Halo 4. I now won't buy any more Halo for much the same reason I stopped buying CoD games at Modern Warefare 2, there's only so much of the same I can take, Halo has actually stood the test of time quite well compared to it's "rivals". I'll wait until Destiny is out to see if that's worth the fuss

Eh, ODST was never meant to be a full game, I actually liked the Firefight in ODST the best of the 2 games (Reach and ODST). I liked Halo 4, its actually quite fun with the huge assortment of weapons and the feeling the game gives this go round.

Oh @Burty117 forgot to mention, BF4 does not run at 1080p on PS4, it runs at 900p. CoD is the only cross platform game at 1080p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox ONE that im aware of at the moment (I cant remember is AC4 is).

wastedkill said:

Eh, ODST was never meant to be a full game, I actually liked the Firefight in ODST the best of the 2 games (Reach and ODST). I liked Halo 4, its actually quite fun with the huge assortment of weapons and the feeling the game gives this go round.

Oh @Burty117 forgot to mention, BF4 does not run at 1080p on PS4, it runs at 900p. CoD is the only cross platform game at 1080p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox ONE that im aware of at the moment (I cant remember is AC4 is).

You'd think CoD being the lowest graphical game available it would hit 1080P 60FPS on xbox one lol.. well if we looked at the PC version where 2 titans cant run it without going below 30FPS then that might allow us to understand how the xbox one cant run ghosts at 1080p xD

ghasmanjr ghasmanjr said:

Eh, ODST was never meant to be a full game, I actually liked the Firefight in ODST the best of the 2 games (Reach and ODST). I liked Halo 4, its actually quite fun with the huge assortment of weapons and the feeling the game gives this go round.

Firefight was a lot of fun but overall, the game was just terribly short and had a half-baked single player. I played it coop the first time through and I made a joke *SPOILER ALERT* "now that they got that little slimy thing onto the Pelican, the game is probably going to end hahaha"...then the game actually ended...total play time of about 3.5 hours. What a waste of $60.

1 person liked this | Hankhendrix Hankhendrix said:

Yes!

If a multiplay game is on pc + consoles you get it on PC as its 1 cheaper, 2 mods, 3 mods and for exclusive console games you get it on PS4 as Xbox one exclusives are well dry and not as good halo, GoW are just cash cows now last good halo was reach.

PS4 has lots of new goodies that I would love to play versus xbox ones 1-2 exclusives that appeal to me which wont justify the $599+12month xbox gold where as the PS4 has 8-12 exclusives that look good and the existing ones.... does anyone know if a new resistance is coming to PS4? I loved resistance 2!

JC713 JC713 said:

When you have a console that is $100, that alone will attract buyers.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Sony learned from the PS3 launch. This is an affordable, gamer focused console with performance in mind that makes no efforts to force voice or movement but has the ability. The new gamepad is spot on, storage is easy to upgrade/improve/change & there are less strings attached. For what its worth; I seen a PS4 for the first time the other day and they are god damn beautiful.

I like the PS4's...how do you say.... mojo better.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Eh, ODST was never meant to be a full game, I actually liked the Firefight in ODST the best of the 2 games (Reach and ODST). I liked Halo 4, its actually quite fun with the huge assortment of weapons and the feeling the game gives this go round.

Oh @Burty117 forgot to mention, BF4 does not run at 1080p on PS4, it runs at 900p. CoD is the only cross platform game at 1080p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox ONE that im aware of at the moment (I cant remember is AC4 is).

Ok, I'll give you Firefight, that was pretty good, but still, overall as a game, compared to the rest of the Halo series, it was pretty aweful as an overall package :P

Also, I know BF4 runs at 900p, I never said it didn't? But seriously, or at least when I saw it, 900p looks very different on a decent 1080p TV than 720p does, it's the jagidies, anti aliasing would have been a big plus for the Xbox had it been able to stretch to it.

Blue Falcon said:

GPU+CPU is The solution to use but exclusives show how good a console really is not a release day but a game developed 5yrs after the console has been released as we say resistance 1 vs 2 massive changes. The PS4 IS 40-50% better when it comes to developing a exclusive game due to the higher shader count+ GDDR5 ye you could argue that its equal with both consoles but in reality its not specially if you could utilize TF

You are arguing semantics about whether or not developers can utilize all of the power of the PS4's GPU over XB1's. It's the same argument for both consoles. On paper, the GPU inside PS4 is at least 50% more powerful.

HD7870 is 50% faster than HD7790 at 1080P with AA:

[link]

Setting eSRAM vs. GDDR5 aside, the GPU in XB1 has 16 ROPs instead of 32 ROPs on PS4. The memory bandwidth bottleneck on the GPU will not be offset by eSRAM either (but I am not even penalizing XB1's GPU for that). 10% of XB1's GPU resources are also allocated towards the OS. We don't even need to talk about eSRAM since XB1's OS has an automatic 10% penalty for the GPU!!!

Therefore, it's easy to conclude that the GPU in PS4 is at least 50% more powerful. Since the GPU architecture is identical, game developers will be able to utilize the GPU in PS4 just as well as in XB1. It will actually be more efficient since the way PS4 is designed is closer to the PC (GCN + GDDR5).

1 person liked this | Guest said:

Rich folks happy to waste money on overpriced substandard hardware with a whopping "two" titles available - makes perfect sense.

Xclusiveitalian Xclusiveitalian said:

Xbots arguing over statistics and numbers and mad that PS4 sold more? Seriously guys, it's pretty sad. PS4 clearly won. If you want numbers, join the PC gamer, We are 1 billion strong tho=p

1 person liked this | howzz1854 said:

If a multiplay game is on pc + consoles you get it on PC as its 1 cheaper, 2 mods, 3 mods and for exclusive console games you get it on PS4 as Xbox one exclusives are well dry and not as good halo, GoW are just cash cows now last good halo was reach.

PS4 has lots of new goodies that I would love to play versus xbox ones 1-2 exclusives that appeal to me which wont justify the $599+12month xbox gold where as the PS4 has 8-12 exclusives that look good and the existing ones.... does anyone know if a new resistance is coming to PS4? I loved resistance 2!

I don't agree with the PC being cheaper tho. I am a PC gamer myself, I don't think you can build an equivalent station with $399, you can come real close but I don't think you can get there. PC I still my preferred platform, but for most families console still dominates.

Blue Falcon said:

@howzz1854,

CyperPower is proposing a system with AMD quad core, 8GB of ram, 500GB HDD and R9 270 for $499 and up.

[link]

There are 2 key points though in favour of each platform.

On Steam/PC, the more games you buy, the cheaper PC hardware gets since the price of PC games is far cheaper on Origin/Steam than it is on consoles. If say you buy $1000 PC, in 7-8 years of gaming, the savings on PC games will more than offset the hardware + upgrade costs.

On consoles though, there will be awesome exclusives that you cannot play anywhere else.

For that reason I do not view PC gaming and console gaming as mutually exclusive. I plan on picking up PS4 myself in 2-3 years once there are enough exclusives and prices of titles drop to $19.99-29.99. For now, the PC is more than enough to keep me satisfied.

I think once more families try out Big Picture and see that you can build a PC much faster than PS4 for $500-700, they will realize that given the much lower cost of games, it is a decent alternative especially long-term.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I don't agree with the PC being cheaper tho. I am a PC gamer myself, I don't think you can build an equivalent station with $399, you can come real close but I don't think you can get there. PC I still my preferred platform, but for most families console still dominates.

Aah, but for the price of the Xbox Though? That's exactly what I did for my younger brother this Christmas, if you buy an Xbox One plus a single game and a year of Xbox Live your looking at £520, I built my brother a computer (Core i3, 8GB RAM, Nvidia 660, 640GB HDD, 430 watt PSU) for £460, micro ATX case so it's a tad bigger than the xbox, but quieter and actually cooler, or at least less heat seems to be generated, the remaining money left over he spent on games, it was the steam sale, he got tons of games!

He plays BF4 with an Xbox 360 controller and plays at 1080p 60fps on High, I'm sorry but the new consoles have got nothing on even today's PC's, once developers start really optimising there engines for the new consoles we might see an improvement but since a cheaper PC than the consoles can do a better job in the same games, it really is going to be down to exclusives this round.

yukka, TechSpot Paladin, said:

If the xbox one had the ability to remote play on something like a vita (or Microsoft handheld) I would be more interested. Also if it could stream older xbox 360 games and if it was 100 dollars cheaper. If it could do all those thing AND have GDDR5 and a hard rice you can change out easily without voiding the warranty, wow that's me sold.

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.