You guys keep forgetting that this is a console 1.86Tflops in a console could be as powerful as 3Tflops in a PC because of optimization.

A lot of people don't know that and it's really a shame. Perhaps it won't happen this coming generation of consoles but may happen the generation after this. Where a console is far less powerful then PC's yet are nearly equal in IQ/gameplay (60 fps, etc). It all boils down to getting rid of unnecessary processes to get the image you see on the screen (more simplified then need be but it makes the point). It's called direct to metal. And it's been something consoles have been doing for a long time now. Once development for games is more mainstream (and it's inevitable) you will see games look, play and feel just as you do on the PC. However, there needs to be a sweet spot for what kind of console is powerful enough. Perhaps it will take 2.5Tflops to 3.0Tflops of power to achieve this. However, it will take a PC almost double that to bring the same experience if game development on the PC environment doesn't change. Here are some article about it: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/2 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-21-pcs-have-10x-console-horsepower-amd http://www.tomshardware.com/news/API-DirectX-11-Shader-Richard-Huddy-PC-gaming,12418.html http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/21/pcs-are-10x-more-powerful-than-consoles/ The general idea is simple it's API programming versus Direct-to-Metal programming. Furthermore, do to the nature of development on the console (only 2 different arch types) developers can draw 10,000-20,000 or more chunks of geometry in a frame while on the PC (API) can only draw about 3000 or so (or 1/10th) of that without having performance issues. Keep in mind it depends on the kind of game being developed.

I thought it would be a lot higher mhz as the xone doesn't have an internal power supply, the ps4 does and is smaller, just thought the xones lack of internal psu would help to cool it, also in gaming terms on an average what kind of performance increase would 150mhz give you on a similar spec pc to the xone.

It's still a DDR3 gpu. PS4 is at least using DDR5

You're missing the point, they'll advertise it as faster because of higher clocks

Exactly - enough people out there are dumb enough to believe every MHz counts (especially when it starts out at a lower number like this one). On a separate thought, I also find it surprising how many people here have no clue about how console optimizations are made, acting as though the hardware on either console is abysmal and won't be able to handle 1080p TVs.

Is there an official clock rate for either ps4/xone and how many cores they have.

Yes, 1.6ghz for the ps4 and 1.75ghz for the X1, both have the same 8 core jaguar cpu.

This entire Xbox One affair was brought about by Microsoft being utter greedy bastards and it all serves them right.

It is worth noting that we still don’t know the clock speed of either the CPU or GPU in the PS4 http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/165630-xbox-one-cpu-speed-boosted-by-10-in-vain-attempt-to-keep-up-with-ps4

The narrower the gap between the two, the better for all of us.

A lot of people don't know that and it's really a shame. Perhaps it won't happen this coming generation of consoles but may happen the generation after this. Where a console is far less powerful then PC's yet are nearly equal in IQ/gameplay (60 fps, etc). It all boils down to getting rid of unnecessary processes to get the image you see on the screen (more simplified then need be but it makes the point). It's called direct to metal. And it's been something consoles have been doing for a long time now. Once development for games is more mainstream (and it's inevitable) you will see games look, play and feel just as you do on the PC. However, there needs to be a sweet spot for what kind of console is powerful enough. Perhaps it will take 2.5Tflops to 3.0Tflops of power to achieve this. However, it will take a PC almost double that to bring the same experience if game development on the PC environment doesn't change. Here are some article about it: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/03/16/farewell-to-directx/2 http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-21-pcs-have-10x-console-horsepower-amd http://www.tomshardware.com/news/API-DirectX-11-Shader-Richard-Huddy-PC-gaming,12418.html http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/21/pcs-are-10x-more-powerful-than-consoles/ The general idea is simple it's API programming versus Direct-to-Metal programming. Furthermore, do to the nature of development on the console (only 2 different arch types) developers can draw 10,000-20,000 or more chunks of geometry in a frame while on the PC (API) can only draw about 3000 or so (or 1/10th) of that without having performance issues. Keep in mind it depends on the kind of game being developed.

Play games on PC at 720p or less and at console like settings, the gap isn't as huge as people make it out to be. Day 1 optimization is usually better on console, at least on a new engine; but nvidia and amd work really hard on drivers and optimize games and game engines over time. It only takes a dual core cpu and an 8800 gpu to put a thrashing on current consoles at similar graphic quality. The console specs this time around are pretty weak when compared to PC, it already apparent when battlefield 4 is running at 720p... There is no super complex architecture to figure out here, just a fairly weak cpu with 8 cores and a mobile gpu. On top of that these consoles will be running a bunch of things in the background which is going to use up a couple of cores and a good chunk of ram. Coding to the metal means coding at a lower level, closer to machine code... console developers aren't doing a whole lot of this. Oh and your quote is referring to DX9 and its draw calls, DX11 is much better at this. Based on what we have seen so far, these jaguar processors are going to be much slower than a current core i5 anyway, especially at such a slow clock speed.

PS3=30FPS@720P while the new Xbone/Ps4 will be 30FPS@19x10. Oh well, as long as the eye candy and smoothness is there people wouldn't even notice/care. 😉

PS4/Xbone are targetting 60fps@720p

nice market strategy with no real benefit except financial benefits for ms anyway welcome the new form of red ring of death:banana::banana::banana:

PS4/Xbone are targetting 60fps@720p

If this is true, well, I new this for BF4 but, if this is true in general, this is going to make my YEAR, I SCHEISSE YOU NOT. I can handle the weaker res/gfx specially for the convenience and BAZZILIONS less money, AND ZERO busting my ass on forums trying to get a game to 'WORK' - the REAL console destroyer for me was 30FPS (on a good day) I am sorry but my eyes cannot take that.

market strategy with no real benefit except financial benefits for ms

Yep - no question.

Can't polish a turd.

Jamie Hyneman and Adam Savage would like to have a word with you. 😎

If this is true, well, I new this for BF4 but, if this is true in general, this is going to make my YEAR, I SCHEISSE YOU NOT. I can handle the weaker res/gfx specially for the convenience and BAZZILIONS less money, AND ZERO busting my ass on forums trying to get a game to 'WORK' - the REAL console destroyer for me was 30FPS (on a good day) I am sorry but my eyes cannot take that. Yep - no question.

I actually kind of agree with you, I can deal with 720p and 60 fps. Maybe I can get used to a controller as well, but if I start gaming mostly on console it will not be a Microsoft one. Ill keep my current PC for current games that run like turd on current consoles.

After reading upon it and although I had different opinion I believe I will go with 720P@60FPS too if they can provide the best eye candy with it. Well all I can say is: "I really hope they do their best so they can provide us with the best user experience possible. Just that."

Play games on PC at 720p or less and at console like settings, the gap isn't as huge as people make it out to be. Day 1 optimization is usually better on console, at least on a new engine; but nvidia and amd work really hard on drivers and optimize games and game engines over time. It only takes a dual core cpu and an 8800 gpu to put a thrashing on current consoles at similar graphic quality. The console specs this time around are pretty weak when compared to PC, it already apparent when battlefield 4 is running at 720p... There is no super complex architecture to figure out here, just a fairly weak cpu with 8 cores and a mobile gpu. On top of that these consoles will be running a bunch of things in the background which is going to use up a couple of cores and a good chunk of ram. Coding to the metal means coding at a lower level, closer to machine code... console developers aren't doing a whole lot of this. Oh and your quote is referring to DX9 and its draw calls, DX11 is much better at this. Based on what we have seen so far, these jaguar processors are going to be much slower than a current core i5 anyway, especially at such a slow clock speed.

I think we all know that consoles are played on HDTV and the like playing at 720/1080 and still providing similar IQ using a lower spec device (Direct to Metal) vs trying the same thing on a PC (using API/win7/8/8.1) simply won't yield the same results. In order to say that DX11 is offering performance improvements that would compete with DTM we need the developers to exclusively use multithread rendering (for example) and gpu drivers (some sort of driver command list) would have to support it. I don't recall the thread I read this in but even though it improved draw calls it didn't do so in order of magnitude equivalent to DTM approach. If it has by all means let me know because I haven't seen or read more about this. So we are still back at the beginning of all this. DTM gaming development on a slower device has the potential to provide very good gaming experience. A SoC solution that I would guess is very inexpensive to make allowing for what should be a very good gaming experience when compared to PC solutions. Although you see it as weak CPU (APU) it's far from it based on techniques used to create games on it. Now the real question (IMO) would be if the PS4 is more powerful will they implement more eye candy to the same games played on xbox to show that their system is better.

....Now the real question (IMO) would be if the PS4 is more powerful will they implement more eye candy to the same games played on xbox to show that their system is better.

Here they advertise of being faster(Xbox) just their GPU has higher clocks. So we can safely assume that both they will pull every trick they have for showing each other advantages. Being just a marketing or a real one. Its the same ol story. Mine can do this, yours can't. :P

Gonna need a watercooling set up for this.

I was around when the NES commercials were bombarding TV viewers - I saw the Sega Master System declare that it was the zenith of what video game consoles could and would ever achieve... and on and on, N64, PS(1), xbox, GameCube, PS2 .... - and yet never have I owned or known of a console that was truly next-gen within a year of its release. Never. OK, the PC wasn't a real competitor to gaming consoles until more recently, but two things are going on that might burst some bubbles: firstly, the lines between PC and consoles are more blurred now than ever before. Xbox and PS4 are basically non-upgradable PCs; and secondly, PCs are still upgradable so which will remain superior? Not to mention that you will still get crappy, inferior, horrible 2003ish looking games on both the XBO and PS4, simply because we all know that they happen and will continue to happen so it's not like every single game on these "next-gen" consoles will look like the demos that Sony and Microsoft marketing firms are feeding us.