Not trolling I recall reading an article indicating a headset would be included with XB1 but perhaps it was mis-reported and perhaps I'm dreaming.Originally Posted by AustinWolv
Not trolling I recall reading an article indicating a headset would be included with XB1 but perhaps it was mis-reported and perhaps I'm dreaming.
FWIW, I thought the Xbox One was going to come with a headset as well, so the recent 'no headset' news was a surprise. However, there's been so many rumors about this console for so long, it's tough to actually know what will be included.
Good riddance. That thing that was included with the 360 was the biggest piece of garbage ever.
Guys guys at least the mix was free. I never had to buy thanks to it being included. I'm glad Sony is including one.
Amen. I hate using this damn thing when talking with friends in party chat, but haven't dropped the money on a real headset, and at this point I won't until I get upgraded to Xbox One and know the good headsets will plug in and work with it.
Xbox 360 Headsets May Work With Xbox One
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/27/xbox-360-headsets-may-work-with-xbox-one
Xbox Exec: Comparing Console Specs Is 'Meaningless'
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/...is-meaningless
Isn't that what all dudes with "spec issues" say?
He has a point, but he sounds like a pretentious ass hat with the way he said it.
I think that's MS' actual strategy. Act like pretentious asses is the way to win the console war. Funny thing, that almost never works.
I thought their standard retort was that they "know how to use it", which is what that M$ guy was doing. LOL!Isn't that what all dudes with "spec issues" say?
precisely. saying something is irrelevant when someone else is touting it is an ADMISSION that your measurement in the "irrelevant" category of comparison aren't up to the "bragger's" stuff.I thought their standard retort was that they "know how to use it", which is what that M$ guy was doing. LOL!
Yep. To OU's point and the M$ guy's point, the specs *may* not be as cut and dry as Sony is touting...........there have been many times I've encountered how computer specs and benchmarks reveal how a competitor's product doesn't stack up to what my products my company provides, but they are marketing it a certain way that makes their product look dominant. Corner cases that they PROACTIVELY hone in on and then boast and get the market/customer to buy into, and then attack a competitive product for not matching up despite that competitive product being more capable and dominating them in all other areas.precisely. saying something is irrelevant when someone else is touting it is an ADMISSION that your measurement in the "irrelevant" category of comparison aren't up to the "bragger's" stuff.
Regardless, Marketing dept at M$ is getting killed and heads should be rolling. I think they have the money to hire some better people.
RAM in One Much Faster than Originally Stated, Rumors of Down Clocking Debunked
Good to hear that no production issues are present. I know Smooth was potentially worried about that, so those worries can be put to rest.Well-placed development sources have told Digital Foundry that the ESRAM embedded memory within the Xbox One processor is considerably more capable than Microsoft envisaged during pre-production of the console, with data throughput levels up to 88 per cent higher in the final hardware.
Bandwidth is at a premium in the Xbox One owing to the slower DDR3 memory employed in the console, which does not compare favourably to the 8GB unified pool of GDDR5 in the PlayStation 4. The 32MB of "embedded static RAM" within the Xbox One processor aims to make up the difference, and was previously thought to sustain a peak theoretical throughput of 102GB/s - useful, but still some way behind the 176GB/s found in PlayStation 4's RAM set-up. Now that close-to-final silicon is available, Microsoft has revised its own figures upwards significantly, telling developers that 192GB/s is now theoretically possible.
So how could Microsoft's own internal tech teams have underestimated the capabilities of its own hardware by such a wide margin? Well, according to sources who have been briefed by Microsoft, the original bandwidth claim derives from a pretty basic calculation - 128 bytes per block multiplied by the GPU speed of 800MHz offers up the previous max throughput of 102.4GB/s. It's believed that this calculation remains true for separate read/write operations from and to the ESRAM. However, with near-final production silicon, Microsoft techs have found that the hardware is capable of reading and writing simultaneously. Apparently, there are spare processing cycle "holes" that can be utilised for additional operations. Theoretical peak performance is one thing, but in real-life scenarios it's believed that 133GB/s throughput has been achieved with alpha transparency blending operations (FP16 x4).
The news doesn't quite square with previous rumours suggesting that fabrication issues with the ESRAM component of the Xbox One processor had actually resulted in a downclock for the GPU, reducing its overall capabilities and widening the gulf between graphical components of the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4. While none of our sources are privy to any production woes Microsoft may or may not be experiencing with its processor, they are making actual Xbox One titles and have not been informed of any hit to performance brought on by production challenges. To the best of their knowledge, 800MHz remains the clock speed of the graphics component of the processor, and the main CPU is operating at the target 1.6GHz. In both respects, this represents parity with the PlayStation 4.
In terms of what this all means with regards multi-platform titles launching on both next-gen consoles, our information suggests that developers may be playing things rather conservatively for launch titles while dev tools are still being worked on. This is apparently more of an issue with Xbox One, where Microsoft developers are still in the process of bringing home very significant increases in performance from one release of the XDK development environment to the next. Our principal source suggests that performance targets are being set by game-makers and that the drivers should catch up with those targets sooner rather than later. Bearing in mind the stuttering performance we saw from some Xbox One titles at E3 such as Crytek's Ryse (amongst others), this is clearly good news.
Our information suggests that Microsoft's strategy with the Xbox One operating system and supporting software is to implement all the features first and then to aggressively pursue optimisation - a process that is ongoing and will continue beyond launch. As the performance levels of both next-gen consoles are something of a moving target at the moment, differences in multi-platform games may not become evident until developers are working with more mature tools and libraries. At that point it's possible that we may see ambitious titles operating at a lower resolution on Xbox One compared to the PlayStation 4.
However, clearly it's still early days, and right now these machines remain very much uncharted territory - even for those who've been working with prototype hardware for a long time. Microsoft tells developers that the ESRAM is designed for high-bandwidth graphics elements like shadowmaps, lightmaps, depth targets and render targets. But in a world where Killzone: Shadow Fall is utilising 800MB for render targets alone, how difficult will it be for developers to work with just 32MB of fast memory for similar functions? On the flipside, Xbox One's powerful custom audio hardware - dubbed SHAPE (Scalable Hardware Audio Processing Engine) - should do a fantastic job for HD surround, a task that sucks up lots of CPU time on current-gen console. How does PS4 compare there? And just how much impact does the GDDR5 memory - great for graphics - have on CPU tasks compared to Xbox One's lower-latency DDR3?
While next generation of consoles finally arrive in a matter of months, the launch games will have mostly been developed on incomplete hardware - a state of affairs that was blatantly obvious from titles seen so far. On paper, Sony retains a clear specs advantage, but it was difficult to see that reflected in the quality of the games at E3. Based on what we're hearing about the approach to next-gen development, it could be quite some time before any on-paper advantage translates into an appreciably better experience on-screen.
Unless full theoretical power is achieved, the PS4's RAM is still going to be faster, but it's using GDDR5, so that's to be expected. Sony's GPU is a good bit more powerful as well (last I heard, it had a 50% power advantage over the chip in the One). The processor in both of them are virtually the same.
Like the article says, you'll probably eventually see differences between the graphics capability, but it'll be years before we do and even then, it wont be a major difference (for example, a PS4 game may be able to go 1080p 60 frames per second and the same game on Xbox One might be at 60 frames per second and only 900p...no one would be able to tell the difference).
Good to hear the production problems aren't true.
Actually, now that I've re-read it, those numbers don't add up to me. If the eSRAM was theoretically capable of 102.4 GB/s with single read/write operations, then it would theoretically be capable of 204.8 GB/s if the read/write functions are simultaneous, not 192 GB/s like the article states. Something doesn't jive there.
Always be wary of any article that appeals to "sources" that are unnamed. That article does so twice.
Well, I get the numbers now, but using their final theoretical speed of 192 GB/s, it would mean that they DID down clock the speed of the GPU from 800 MHz to 750 MHz. If that's the case, then you'd have 750MHz*128, which equates to 96 GB/s for a single read/write function. Since it's reportedly capable of doing both simultaneously, you'd multiply that by 2, which does give you the 192 GB/s that the article stated was possible.
So, at least one of those things in the article is wrong. It either didn't get down clocked like the article stated but is actually theoretically capable of 204.8 GB/s, or it did get down clocked to 750MHz and is capable of the 192 GB/s read/write speed. It'll be interesting to find out which one it is.
WOOOO! BEST FEATURE EVA! That's it Sony CANCELLING my ps4 pre-order NOW!
A whole lot of love for Titanfall in E3 awards.
http://www.gamecriticsawards.com/winners.html
Best of Show
Titanfall
(Respawn/EA for PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Best Original Game
Titanfall
(Respawn/EA for PC, XBox 360, Xbox One)
Best Console Game
Titanfall
(Respawn/EA for PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Best Handheld/Mobile Game
Tearaway
(Media Molecule/SCEA for PSVita)
Best PC Game
Titanfall
(Respawn/EA for PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Best Hardware/Peripheral
Oculus Rift
(Oculus VR)
Best Action Game
Titanfall
(Respawn/EA for PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Best Action/Adventure Game
Watch Dogs
(Ubisoft Montreal/Ubisoft for PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Wii-U)
Best Role Playing Game
The Elder Scrolls Online
(Zenimax Online/Bethesda Softworks for PC, PS4, Xbox One)
Best Racing Game
Need for Speed: Rivals
(Ghost Games/EA for PC, PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Best Sports Game
NHL 14
(EA Canada/EA Sports for PS3, Xbox 360)
Best Strategy Game
Total War: Rome II
(Creative Assembly/Sega for PC)
Best Social/Casual Game
Fantasia: Music Evolved
(Harmonix/Disney Interactive for Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Best Online Multiplayer
Titanfall
(Respawn/EA for PC, Xbox 360, Xbox One)
Best Downloadable Game
Transistor
(Supergiant Games for PC, PS4)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks