Beyond a joke.

PS4 also has a split RAM pool: 5GB for games. X1 has 5.5GB for games.

 

[quote user="A Virtual Duck"]

PS4 also has a split RAM pool: 5GB for games. X1 has 5.5GB for games.

[/quote] This is a speculated number with zero hard fact to back up.

By split ram I mean 2 ram types operatiing the apu, that in itself cause programming concerns and CPU overhead.

Both the ps4 and xbox one have arm chips that help with OS functions, but the ps4 has dedicated ram (256mb of ddr3)

Xbox One Teardown

PlayStation 4 Teardown

This is the only things we know about OS ram overhead.

 

I'm not as big into Halo MP as I was with Halo 1 with all the LAN parties I hosted or the amount of online play I put into Halo 2, however, they are still fun co-op. My online competitive urge has been in decline for Halo just like COD, but still doesn't
mean I can't find enjoyment out of Co-op. HALO 4s Spartan Ops is a pure blast and hopefully they expand upon it with the next. Also COD Ghosts has a great coop mode called Extinction which is a freaking blast playing with friends. ALL great fun with good friends,
and the display of any or all of these games does not take away the fun factor whatsoever.

 

[quote user="CollapseControl"]

I'm not as big into Halo MP as I was with Halo 1 with all the LAN parties I hosted or the amount of online play I put into Halo 2, however, they are still fun co-op. My online competitive urge has been in decline for Halo just like COD, but still doesn't
mean I can't find enjoyment out of Co-op. HALO 4s Spartan Ops is a pure blast and hopefully they expand upon it with the next. Also COD Ghosts has a great coop mode called Extinction which is a freaking blast playing with friends. ALL great fun with good friends,
and the display of any or all of these games does not take away the fun factor whatsoever.

[/quote] Halo 1 and 2 were awesome games. I agree.

 

[quote user="ICN3D"]]Why did the TV say 720p and then put it in the whole frame?[/quote]The same reason mine does - the TV scales the input to fit the screen.

Distance from screen
and screen size matters. At longer distances, 720p and 1080p are effectively the same thing.

No idea why you'd rename it, but ok...

If one can't see
it, it's just a waste of pixels.

Then why are you stating 1080p is better across the board?

The difference between 480p and 720p is greater than the difference between 720p and 1080p. At the screen sizes and distances the masses sit from their TVs, 1080p provides little to no benefit over 720p.[quote user="SunwardSquire26"]Upscaling causes artifacating
a picture degradation,[/quote]That's not what Wikipedia says. It says it can result in. It does not say it does result in.

The scaling method and device doing the scaling matters.

 

[quote user="IceStorm III"]

[quote user="ICN3D"]]Why did the TV say 720p and then put it in the whole frame?[/quote]The same reason mine does - the TV scales the input to fit the screen.

Distance from screen
and screen size matters. At longer distances, 720p and 1080p are effectively the same thing.

No idea why you'd rename it, but ok...

If one can't see
it, it's just a waste of pixels.

Then why are you stating 1080p is better across the board?

The difference between 480p and 720p is greater than the difference between 720p and 1080p. At the screen sizes and distances the masses sit from their TVs, 1080p provides little to no benefit over 720p.[quote user=""]Upscaling causes artifacating
a picture degradation,[/quote]That's not what Wikipedia says. It says it can result in. It does not say it does result in.

The scaling method and device doing the scaling matters.

[/quote] And just because it says can does not mean it doesn't either.

there is native 1080p content for a reason. Scaling devices only go so far.

 

[quote user="SunwardSquire26"]there is native 1080p content for a reason.[/quote]There is. There are people who can take advantage of it. Standards are not built as point-in-time snapshots, they're built with an eye towards the future. As people replace
their tiny 42" TVs with 65-80" TVs they may find they're sitting close enough to see a difference.

If you can't see it, it doesn't matter.

 

[quote user="IceStorm III"]

[quote user=""]there is native 1080p content for a reason.[/quote]There is. There are people who can take advantage of it. Standards are not built as point-in-time snapshots, they're built with an eye towards the future. As people replace
their tiny 42" TVs with 65-80" TVs they may find they're sitting close enough to see a difference.

If you can't see it, it doesn't matter.

[/quote] Gamers sit closer to monitors and panels than movie watchers. You can now parrot those useless charts you post in other threads that do nothing to talk bout the context of a gaming setup.

I do not know of one person who does not either pull up a bean bag or stool or park their monitor or panel close to them when playing games.

I'm sure there are people who play games at the same distance as they watch movies but I know for a fact myself and others I know sit much closer when gaming. Im 3 feet from a 60 inch myself.

 

[quote user="SunwardSquire26"]Gamers sit closer to monitors and panels than movie watchers.[/quote]You'll have to back that one up with actual numbers. Couches don't move too much. The masses aren't going to rearrange their living rooms regularly just to
game.

I know plenty.

Consoles are targeting a Mass Market. The Mass Market doesn't do things like you describe.

And if you're as hardcore a gamer as you're making yourself out to be you have no console dog in this fight. You're not using consoles for anything but actual exclusives because multiplatform games have significantly better visuals on PC, have for years, and
will continue to do so.

 

[quote user="IceStorm III"]

[quote user=""]Gamers sit closer to monitors and panels than movie watchers.[/quote]You'll have to back that one up with actual numbers. Couches don't move too much. The masses aren't going to rearrange their living rooms regularly just to
game.

I know plenty.

Consoles are targeting a Mass Market. The Mass Market doesn't do things like you describe.

And if you're as hardcore a gamer as you're making yourself out to be you have no console dog in this fight. You're not using consoles for anything but actual exclusives because multiplatform games have significantly better visuals on PC, have for years, and
will continue to do so.

[/quote] The console ease expeince out weighs having to pay out big dollars for a pc and the maternice of dealing with it. ( I own a 3000 dollar lan pc. and a 8000 dollar pc collecting dust as all I see on steam is early accsess early accsess early accsess)

I don't need to link a study, cause like the one you barf up they are flawed and lack context. pulling up a beanbag chair or stool is a common sight I see when people are playing games. That hardly "rearranges their living rooms"

"the mass market doesn't do things like you describe" again you only back this up with opinionated evidence (from internet sources it has to be true!!!!) that lacks context.

"I know plenty."

You know nothing.

 

If MS are 6 months behind at launch how long will they be behind now ? any way the 6 month behind thing really doesn't hold much substance. Maybe it was a excuse used by MS to keep Onesies happy? till they can get their act together. Basically MS was caught
with their pants down wasn't they ? they didn't think Sony were ready to launch = which equals complacency on MS part. Look it like this one company chose to build a hardcore games console the other chose to make a media hub system. Something has to give
when you taking a jack of all trades approach. If MS wanted to go more powerful it would of cost more to buy.