• Xbox One exec: Hardware specs are "meaningless"
    94 replies, posted
This is like what the Ouya did, It was shitty hard-ware and it ran some games. But with the recent quality of games, Is that really good?
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41233384]Over the entire industry, however, specs are very important. We've been stagnating on ancient specs now for the past decade. This is most evident in PC games where shitty ports happen and developers rarely utilize the full power available because they are forced to make the game function for the lowest common denominator. Over time, this lack of power holds developers back, and it should not be ignored. Also why does this person in the video sound like a child who just discovered a dollar store voice changer?[/QUOTE] That's not the fault of the console. Blame developers for being lazy on creating PC ports. (Or going from console to PC in the first place) Specs not mattering doesn't mean you can get away with the specs of a NES but rather it just means better specs doesn't automatically mean your console will beat your competition. Besides, do games really need the latest and greatest graphics? Nintendo seems to be the only company that understands that you don't need the best specs to make great games. The 3DS destroying the Vita despite being a generation behind in hardware power is a testament to this.
[QUOTE=Kaabii;41233383]Except all these consoles use AMD's architecture. The comparisons are completely legitimate. Also AMD is SLOWER than Intel for a given clockspeed, not the other way around. [/QUOTE] Way to completely miss the point. The fact of the matter is that knowing surface characteristics like clock speed and memory capacity does not inform you or me or anyone well enough to make sweeping proclamations about the relative power of two different machines. And more importantly it is completely irrelevant since minor differences in computing power do not determine the 'winner' of a console generation. The 360 was significantly underpowered compared to the PS3 yet it still held a majority market share. Focusing on the computing power of the Xbox One versus the PS4 is stupid because A., we don't yet have enough information to meaningfully compare them, and B., it ultimately matters far less than the degree of optimization put into software development for each console and the exclusive titles and overall support provided for the console. Unless buying it for a server farm I don't think anyone buys a console on the basis of its hardware specs.
[QUOTE=Van-man;41232765]So they're giving up and surrendering to the WiiU? OK.[/QUOTE] Naw, there are giving up to the silver stallion, the Ouya.
[quote]For me, I'd rather not even have the conversation, because it's not going to matter.[/quote] where do microsoft get their PR guys from?
Keep telling yourselves that Microsoft when multiplatform games are capped at 30FPS two years in (Ryse is already capped at 30FPS it seems but I'll take into account that was an early demo build). Meanwhile Sony and their exclusive titles will look better and play better. [editline]28th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Noss;41233845]where do microsoft get their PR guys from?[/QUOTE] Seriously, it's sickening. I'd work my ass off to be a Microsoft spokesperson and I'd answer every single goddamn question to the best of my knowledge, yeah I might be off on a thing or two once in a while but I would never act like this. Unprofessional and cuntish behavior to say the least. [editline]28th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ashxu;41232754]Can anyone name one generation where the console with the best hardware has won? Specs don't win console wars, exclusives do. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyAjZd1trAY[/media][/QUOTE] Good video but the N64 was clearly inferior when it came to media, not to mention it came out years later than the Playstation 1 (1994 vs mid-1996 and 1997 if you lived in Europe). The reason why the PSX won over the N64 was because of CD-Roms and the earlier release definitely helped. I mean, it was brilliant to use that format over cartridges because they held a lot more data, they allowed for higher resolution and higher quality content (sounds and textures mainly) and people could use their CDs without needing to buy a CD player (which was somewhat still obscure technology back in 1994/1995).
[QUOTE=The freeman;41232653]Mind you, the WiiU, Wii, DS, and 3DS are underpowered when compared to their competitors yet they are (or will be) more successful or as successful as their competitors. He also said that they are meaningless in "some" ways, but whatever floats the sensationalism boat.[/QUOTE] I dunno about the WiiU, but I guess it would be silly to doubt the power of idiots who flock to the same Nintendo shlock
all this is meaningless, the age of PC is returning peasants! :v: but seriously PC has already won this new gen.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41233353]Anyone who works with hardware on a daily basis knows that you can't just compare high-level stats and immediately know everything there is about the platform. Too many self-proclaimed experts are harping on about specs that don't tell anything like the full story. Who here can tell me why AMD processors tend to be slightly more powerful than Intel counterparts for a given clock speed? Why is a GPU able to perform certain calculations an order of magnitude faster than a CPU of the same speed? What's a CPU cache and why should you care? What does timing mean for GDDR RAM? And most importantly, was it the more powerful or less powerful console that dominated the previous generation? Penello is absolutely right. Fancy tech doesn't make a console successful, and the difference in hardware between the two consoles is minor compared to some previous generations.[/QUOTE] This is the EXACT same architecture, like, the PS4 and the Xbox One are fundamentally the same thing, running literally the same 8 core processor and GPU, with the PS4 simply packing more of the same GPU, having literally more physical units. In terms of memory, they pack the same capacity for main memory, with the PS4 having more memory bandwidth. That's literally all there is to a computer, lol, in terms of raw power, the PS4 just has more of it. As for the AMD/Intel debate, that varies QUITE a lot depending on the application you're benchmarking, and since both AMD and Intel have several various architectures doing several different things and holding several different technologies this comparison isn't set in stone nor it's really up that much for debate, lol. You even went for the common fallacy that clock rate has anything to do with it other than throughput. A GPU is a designated piece of hardware that does a bunch of fundamentally different things from a CPU, because it's optimized, like it's name says, for graphics, so it has pipelines for all this sorts of stuff that a regular CPU ALU wouldn't need. Clock frequency, like I said before, doesn't matter, in fact, NVIDIA GPUs have a separate shader clock for ALU operations, it also has like a billion more transistors packed into a far larger die, GPUs are allowed that kind of stuff. GPUs are dedicated processors by themselves, that's why they're faster for [I]certain[/I] tasks. CPU cache is actually a technique, not really a thing, although yeah, it's a designated, very fast, low capacity memory unit that keeps a copy of a small block of the main memory, this works because of something called locality of reference, which basically says if you access a position in memory it's more likely that you'll access neighboring ones (spatial locality), or that you will access it again sometime in the future (temporal locality). Since accessing main memory is quite slow, the cache (or any of it levels, in reality it all does the same thing) works as a middle man for the CPU, a quickly accessed copy of the data that it's accessing, or that it is about to access. And yeah, if you wanna look at it in terms of tech, consoles have always been all about it, it's success is always related to the way new technologies are implemented. Last gen, the Xbox 360 was released first, and it outperformed every single console on the market at the moment, it had fantastic sales because of that. The PS3 came by, and it had even better hardware than the Xbox 360, which drove it's initial sales, it performed rather badly originally because of a poor software library, but as you can see nowadays it's tech continues to outperform the Xbox 360. The Wii is the exception to the rule, only that not really, although it has noticeably less power than basically every other last gen console (about the same than a GameCube, if not better), it brought some new tech in terms of how games are played, it's motion controls were entirely new at the time, that, combined with a change on target audience, in the end, was innovation, and made the Wii a top seller console where it wasn't expected to sell anything. So yeah, innovation, or fancy tech as you see it, is actually the driving force in console sales. This is what they do. If it was JUST a console to play games on, then you would just keep one of the several dozen consoles JUST to play games that have existed before. You need stuff to change, be it just hardware being updated, or absolutely new features and new ways to play games, otherwise you wouldn't feel compelled to buy a new console.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41233828]Way to completely miss the point. The fact of the matter is that knowing surface characteristics like clock speed and memory capacity does not inform you or me or anyone well enough to make sweeping proclamations about the relative power of two different machines. [/QUOTE] The primary difference between the two consoles is the eDRAM and the main memory type, beyond that they use similar CPUs.
[QUOTE=Lyoko774;41232649]He has a point, sort of. The thing that makes a console great isn't necessarily the specs as much as the games and developer support. [/QUOTE] No. All that makes consoles better is the convenience. You don't need to check specs or do much when it comes to maintaining it.
Bullshit. Hardware matters as much as the games. If you disregard either or both, there will be issues.
[quote]"The problem is that Sony decided to go out and publish a bunch of numbers, which are [b]in some ways[/b] meaningless.... [explanation][/quote] He has a point, though. Hardware isn't really an issue with consoles, because you can't exactly upgrade them or get less faulty components. Shit may matter to us as PC gamers, but not to console gamers. The only reason people really compared the 360 and PS3's hardware back in the day was to go "look my game system has a better GPU and this architecture." The fact that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360 didn't stop developers from making good looking and well performing games. The only issues gamers experienced on the last generation were shoddy ports and having to use multiple disks, which is more of the publisher and developers' fault than Sony or Microsoft's. Developers will be forced to optimize their games for the XB1 and PS4 for the next decade. Not even Sony and their supposed ~infinite kindness~ can change that.
the better hardware has the opportunity to create more graphically intensive beautiful exclusives. It happened somewhat for the ps3, i don't see much of a reason for it to happen for the ps4 as well.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;41232647]wow, one step forward, two steps back[/QUOTE] That has been like the 10th step back so far
u
Considering that the PS3 and Xbox 360 have much, much worse specs, and are able run many games smoothly, the new gen should not disappoint. Of course the specs limit the developer, but console games are so heavily optimized that the upcoming specs will accommodate for their needs.
In the end, AMD will have a shitload of money for making the GPUs for all 3 major consoles, put more money into their PC division, make better products, provide intel and nvidia with competition which will drive down prices and increase quality. In the end, the PC gamer will win no matter what.
I love the misleading title. He says in some ways hardware is meaningless. He's not saying "Oh, we're just going to throw in a dual core, a 7800 and 1GB of memory into the console." He's right that at a certain point, hardware is meaningless. I saw a post from a dev on reddit explaining why the memory difference in the PS4 and the Xbox One really won't mean anything. I'm totally butchering what he said, but this is what (in a very sloppy way) he was trying to say. He mentioned it having something to do with how they currently make games that are limited to 256mb of memory usage at any point in time and that many developer teams already struggle (due to their small size) to reach that bar. He also went on to say that having something like 8GB of memory in a console is awesome, but they won't likely be creating games even utilizing a 1/3 of that power within 3-4 years, excluding AAA titles, simply because the dev teams are not large enough to utilize everything they have been given. Simply going off his statements, MS is right that hardware is not always the most important aspect of a console, but to even infer that MS states that hardware is "meaningless" is extremely poor reading comprehension.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;41232647]wow, one step forward, two steps back[/QUOTE] we go together cause opposites attract
[QUOTE]"You bought a system to play great games and have great experiences"[/QUOTE] Which is why I'm getting a PS4.
I always get annoyed when people say this, and while I'm probably wrong, I think that's not true. The amount of power a console has available allows more complex gameplay features to be added and better graphics. Graphics may not be everything, but if a game looks like shit then it's not a good thing. Nintendo may have done well with their 'innovative' games but honestly I believe the Wii sold well because it wasn't aimed at young adult gamers, it was for families with a few young adult games thrown in for those who happened to have one. While having the most powerful console around may not be the absolute factor, it's certainly a major one. The current gen of consoles were starting to seriously show their age and were limiting the progression of games. I think most people have seen the consoles, seen their friends' PCs and decided to go down that route. I know so many people who are asking me about PC gaming now they've seen the consoles.
"I feel like our games and experiences are going to be every bit as good, if not better, technically - on top of all the magic we're going to add with the instant switching, and the power of the cloud." This is the important quote, he thinks instant switching and "THE CLOUD" will save a more expensive, worse console.
Um it kinda does, 512 mb of memory was shit even for 2005, game devs couldn't make the large open games without comprimising on stuff...
Hardware [u][b]DOES[/b][/u] matter: [url]http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/06/29/the-road-to-the-playstation-4[/url]
Hardware really does matter in a console, you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Evilan, If you would have watched the video, you would know that developers want better hardware specs. Go to minute 34. Oh, I didn't realize it was you. Carry on rating dumb.
[QUOTE=itchyflakes;41243220]Evilan, If you would have watched the video, you would know that developers want better hardware specs. Go to minute 34. Oh, I didn't realize it was you. Carry on rating dumb.[/QUOTE] I wanted to use the "bad reading" rating because that is exactly what both of your posts imply, that you just read the thread title. The MS rep clearly says more hardware is "in some ways meaningless" which the OP decided to skew as just "meaningless." The MS rep is exactly right, having 8GB of memory in a console does not mean devs will take advantage of all 8GB of that memory, its unheard of in the gaming industry unless the game has a memory leak to use more than a fraction of that amount. Keep repeating that "devs want better hardware" specs because you are right, but as of currently and into the twighlight years of this 8th gen, only exceptionally large studios will be able to take advantage of all the new hardware present in these consoles.
I feel this is getting bombed with boxes because it's "xbox one dev says something which can sensationalised" He's absolutely right. The consoles are similar enough in spec that it doesnt fucking matter. The specs aren't going to be a deciding factor in purchase and/or game development. All next gen games will be able to run on both consoles if they weren't exclusives. It makes no fucking difference. Stop bandwagoning.
[quote]"Here's what you care about," he said. "You bought a system to play great games and have great experiences. I feel like our games and experiences are going to be every bit as good, if not better, technically - on top of all the magic we're going to add with the instant switching, and the power of [b]my butt.[/b]"[/quote] [editline]29th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;41233353]Anyone who works with hardware on a daily basis knows that you can't just compare high-level stats and immediately know everything there is about the platform. Too many self-proclaimed experts are harping on about specs that don't tell anything like the full story. Who here can tell me why AMD processors tend to be slightly more powerful than Intel counterparts for a given clock speed? Why is a GPU able to perform certain calculations an order of magnitude faster than a CPU of the same speed? What's a CPU cache and why should you care? What does timing mean for GDDR RAM? And most importantly, was it the more powerful or less powerful console that dominated the previous generation? Penello is absolutely right. Fancy tech doesn't make a console successful, and the difference in hardware between the two consoles is minor compared to some previous generations.[/QUOTE] The things you just said don't really make you seem intelligent about the matter at all. 4GB of GDDR5 RAM will not beat 8GB of DDR5 RAM if the latter is used to its full potential. You can compare numbers like this in certain instances.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.