how will this play older games? Will Bloodborne be the same stuttery mess?

Why are so many people but hurt over this it's the same thing as buying a gpu and having a new one out in a few months. And I very much doubt this is even going to cost the same as the old one so u still saved money over buying the neo.

Why are so many people but hurt over this it's the same thing as buying a gpu and having a new one out in a few months. And I very much doubt this is even going to cost the same as the old one so u still saved money over buying the neo.

If it were possible to use my xb1 controller on it, I would in a heartbeat.

At the same time, we managed to learn that SONY ran into a roadblock with their original PlayStation 4 plans. Just like all the previous consoles (PSX to PSOne, PS2, PS3), the plan was to re-do the silicon with a ‘simple’ die shrink, moving its APU and GPU combination from 28nm to 14nm. While this move was ‘easy’ in the past – you pay for the tapeout and NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering), neither Microsoft nor Sony were ready to pay for the cost of moving from a planar transistor (28nm) to a FinFET transistor design (14nm). The presentation suggests that the PS4 Neo wasn't really planned, and was more the result of the fact that AMD's new 14nm FinFET production lines were designed to produce the new Zen CPU cores. My interpretation is that in order to move to the new, smaller 14nm system, Sony had to choose choose between: Install customized production lines, producing an odd combination of the new 14nm FinFET process—but with the old-fashioned Jaguar cores. Since only Sony would be using these lines, they'd have to foot the entire installation cost, or: Use the AMD's new standard production lines that produce the new 14nm FinFET process paired with the new Zen cores. Since all of AMD's customers will be using these lines, there will be significant economies of scale. So Sony were in the odd, unfortunate, yet somewhat enviable position of having to choose whether to save money by upgrading their hardware. Of course, that's not really any choice at all: Their investors would have absolutely forbidden them from doing anything other than saving money. So Sony effectively had no choice but to upgrade the hardware. So the next decision they had to make was: "Do we simply leave the upgrades dormant, in order to ensure parity amongst all PS4s?". This, too, is a difficult decision: Lock out the hardware upgrades on the new PS4, thus enraging their new customers who find out their hardware is being artificially limited to around half of it's real performance. Fully utilize the hardware upgrades of the new PS4 by allowing the development of PS4-Neo-specific games that won't run on the original PS4, thus enraging their old customers. Partially utilize the hardware upgrades of the new PS4, by allowing certain measured-out performance improvements—but forbidding the development of Neo-specific games, instead mandating that all games must run on both PS4 revisions. Thus partially placating both old and new customers with compromise. I think that Option 3 is ultimately the best choice, but I think the best course of action would be to mandate that all PS4 games must run on both versions of the console, and that all aspects of a game must be identical, other than framerate and resolution. So a game could either: Run at 1080p on the Neo, and 720p on the original. Run at 60FPS on the Neo, and 30FPS on the original. Multiplayer could become a problem because of disparity. But then again, PC users have dealt with this for years. Perhaps players would have tags indicating which type of system they were using? This might partially split the player base though, so perhaps when playing multiplayer with players with different systems, the game would force parity between all players, switching everyone to 30FPS?

From what I've read so far on the upgraded specs. Is that it would save on production costs in the long term by using 14nm.