160 replies to this topic

[3Dude]

This video is quite interesting showing the difference between the different generations of playstation console. The racing game looks the biggest improvement on ps4. As with all games not all games push the hardware. The PS4 clearly is making a technical leap but its not the same size leap as ps2 to ps3 or ps1 to ps2 and this is to be expected as the ps4 hardware has been realistically choosen to meet a price point.
 

 
This is a great page for comparing the spec's of wii u, ps4 and xbox one. The poster keeps it upto date and seems the best reference point currently unless you want to trawl through all the neogaf postings etc.
 
http://gamrconnect.v...d.php?id=136756
 
CPU wise the xbox one and ps4 are at about 38,400 dmips for their cpu which compares to about 9,000 dmips or just under for wii u. The xenon is about 19,200 dmips and ps3 in theory is about the same as wii u for ppe but upto about 30,000 for the cell in total. Floating point performance of the xenon and cell is far in excess of the wii u cpu but the wii u gpu makes up for it. The PS4 and xbox one offload a lot of work to their gpu's same as wii u.
 
End summary is 360, PS3 and wii u are comparable in performance approximately. Xbox one is probably 3-4x as powerful as those, ps4 is about 1.5x xbox one overall.

lmfao at imaginary xenos dmips. Never change punk.

Xenon gets .59 dmips per Mhz, it comes in at 5,639 dmips for all three cores.

ppe also gets .59 dmips per mhz (its almost like the ppe and xenon are the same thing) for 1880 dmips for cell. (spe's not particularly suited for drystones)

of course, thats just peak theoretical performance, both cell and xenon are so far away from that in real world performance its comical. Thats what happens when you have in order execution, pipeline stages pushing 30 and no effective branch prediction.


750 architecture gets 2.32 dmips per mhz.

yeah.

lmfao.

so yeah, in peak theoretical dmips, its about 40-50% higher than xenon in dmip. Though real world performance would put it more like 60-70%. Xenon was horrible in realworld gp because of pipe stalls and miss penalties.

and around 5-6x cell's dmips.

And guess what? your speculative numbers for ps4/xbone are 3-4x more than wii u's dmips.

huh. 3-4x...' why does that sound so familiar... hmmmm.... 3-4x.....

Edited by 3Dude, 26 May 2013 - 02:59 PM.

[NintendoReport]

I still don't understand why some people are comparing Wii U specs against PS360. Clearly it's older VS newer architecture and the newer "out or order execution, and GPU centric" generation is upon us.

 

Strip away all of the multi-tasking, multiple OS's, streaming etc and spec to spec, the Wii U, PS4 and Xbox One are close.

 

If the Xbox One and PS4 were not being forced to do all of these other tasks you would most likely see quad cores still and 4 GB of ram  but since the graphical leap is getting smaller and smaller then previous generations, the gaming companies are trying to add more value to the console.... almost reminding me of bloatware found on PC's. I just want to play games. 

Edited by Sorceror12, 26 May 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[tboss]

PS4 looks somewhat better to me.

 

desert punk, several things on that link make me question its credability. its pretty much current rumored specs. like i expect less than 6 cores from the x1, 

[YoshiGamer9]

Still won't buy regardless of how good the graphics look, wonderful 101 looks meh... what is it?! 

 

Okay, time to stop the hating....

 

 

In terms of graphics, they look the same... then again, who really cares for graphics anymore? The Wii had pretty bad graphics but still had awesome games! The Wii U has pretty HD graphics but not many games! Don't turn into an "xbox 1" Nintendo....

 

 

 

WE NEED GAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

-Everyone

[NintendoReport]

Still won't buy regardless of how good the graphics look, wonderful 101 looks meh... what is it?! 

 

Okay, time to stop the hating....

 

 

In terms of graphics, they look the same... then again, who really cares for graphics anymore? The Wii had pretty bad graphics but still had awesome games! The Wii U has pretty HD graphics but not many games! Don't turn into an "xbox 1" Nintendo....

 

 

 

WE NEED GAMES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

-Everyone

 

Think of Wonderful 101 as in Pikmin, where Pikmin would equal action heroes. 

[BrosBeforeGardenTools]

The original Wii had games but many of them were shovelware.

[3Dude]

Think of Wonderful 101 as in Pikmin, where Pikmin would equal action heroes. 

It really doesnt work like that. There are hundreds of little people, but the similarity ends there.

There is no exploring the levels finding stuff bringing it back, there is no rts gameplay.

The levels are over the top roller coaster rides of batcrap crazy, you fight as one character (unless you are low on power, or certain enemies), using the people to form your attacks. More people, bigger fist, more pow.

It feels a lot like a 3d viewtuful joe.

[Nintyfan86]

I believe it is reasonable to expect a lack of support as the main concern over and beyond power. Other than that, my impression is this:

 

Ultra Hd

High-End PC-Very High

Mid Range PC-High

 

1080p

PS4-Medium

Xbone-low to medium

 

720p

Wii U- Low to Medium

 

This is, say, 2 years from now. Of course, we need sales and third parties in order to prove any kind of theory. The current 'toss on something old since those Wii owners don't have other consoles' thing is not helping. However, anyone with a PC now can try bumping graphics up and down, with a controller in hand, and seeing how large of a difference it makes to the game experience. It just isn't the big deal it used to be.

 

So, underpowered, compared to what? Certainly not to the extent Wii was incompatible with the current generation. 

 

 

 

 

[DexterousGecko]

imho, the power of the Wii U has no bearing on whether or not it will be successful. As people have said, it will rise and fall depending on the success of the games Nintendo provide. Notice, i said Nintendo because Nintendo games sell Nintendo consoles. They might have started this generation thinking otherwise, but i think Nintendo realizes that it would be too difficult to change their ways so much as to be a true open platform. And that's OK! Power to them. Although some innovation in their games is going to be needed fairly soon. Despite what most people think, I don't think of Nintendo as great innovators. Years ago? Sure. Now? No. They hooked a ds to a wii (simplification obviously). The games are basically the same as they've always been. Not a lot of innovation there.

 

That said, Nintendo will be just fine. There is always going to be a market for fun, family friendly games.

[SoldMyWiiUAndLeftTheForums]

Power is just one of those things that doesn't bother me anymore, my Wii U looks awesome and I enjoy the games that are on it, to me that's all that matters, but yes you are right there is hardly any difference at all.

[Desert Punk]

lmfao at imaginary xenos dmips. Never change punk.

Xenon gets .59 dmips per Mhz, it comes in at 5,639 dmips for all three cores.

ppe also gets .59 dmips per mhz (its almost like the ppe and xenon are the same thing) for 1880 dmips for cell. (spe's not particularly suited for drystones)

of course, thats just peak theoretical performance, both cell and xenon are so far away from that in real world performance its comical. Thats what happens when you have in order execution, pipeline stages pushing 30 and no effective branch prediction.


750 architecture gets 2.32 dmips per mhz.

yeah.

lmfao.

so yeah, in peak theoretical dmips, its about 40-50% higher than xenon in dmip. Though real world performance would put it more like 60-70%. Xenon was horrible in realworld gp because of pipe stalls and miss penalties.

and around 5-6x cell's dmips.

And guess what? your speculative numbers for ps4/xbone are 3-4x more than wii u's dmips.

huh. 3-4x...' why does that sound so familiar... hmmmm.... 3-4x.....

 

 

3dude, you are a delusional fanboy who has no sense of reality.  The wii u's cpu architecture dates back to the last century and it was powerful then but things have moved on. The PS3 and 360 cpu's don't compare well to the wii u cpu on a mhz vs mhz basis but then both ps3 and 360 are running their cpu's at 3.2ghz not 1.25ghz and the ps3 has 2 threads and 7 support processors all running at 3.2ghz not 3 at 1.25ghz. The 360 has 6 threads at 3.2ghz in total not 3 at 1.25ghz. Clearly if the wii u cpu was at 3.2ghz then it would be a different story but its running at close to 1/3rd the speed with just 3 processes. Your view that somehow a very dated cpu x3 run at a very low speed is somehow a competitive cpu design in 2013 is totally unrealistic and only acceptable to the most demented of fanboys. 

 

The PS4 and xbox one have all the advantages of an even more modern gpu than wii u so their weak cpu performance still represents a huge increase over ps3, 360 and wii u in real terms and they are still at least 4x as powerful as wii u in integer performance and a huge massive increase in performance in other areas.

 

You need to look at what the wii u is achieving in performance. It is ridiculous to make your claims when the wii u is still getting beaten by 360 and PS3 in performance terms. There is no golden horizon to come when suddenly the wii u will outperform 360 and PS3 for all games and go on to challenge xbox one and ps4. The 360 and PS3 still have more cpu performance than wii u and where games need this the wii u will underperform. For gpu centric games the wii u will be able to make a small step ahead of ps3 and 360 but its a marginally increase. The wii u is using a 45nm process, Sony had already moved to 40nm for the rsx sometime before the wii u was released. Everything we know about the wii u including developer leaks like the metro developer stating the wii u has a 'horrible slow cpu', performance, power consumption, fabrication process, x-ray image examination supports the view that the wii u performs to current gen performance.

 

Surely you realise its utterly moronic to create a fantasy image of the wii u technically that has zero connection with the reality of how wii u games are performing. It's also pointless attacking me when the information I'm posting is widely available from a huge number of sources where as the 'wii u is actually very powerful' articles are strangely absent on the internet.

[Cloud Windfoot Omega]

3dude, you are a delusional fanboy who has no sense of reality.  The wii u's cpu architecture dates back to the last century and it was powerful then but things have moved on. The PS3 and 360 cpu's don't compare well to the wii u cpu on a mhz vs mhz basis but then both ps3 and 360 are running their cpu's at 3.2ghz not 1.25ghz and the ps3 has 2 threads and 7 support processors all running at 3.2ghz not 3 at 1.25ghz. The 360 has 6 threads at 3.2ghz in total not 3 at 1.25ghz. Clearly if the wii u cpu was at 3.2ghz then it would be a different story but its running at close to 1/3rd the speed with just 3 processes. Your view that somehow a very dated cpu x3 run at a very low speed is somehow a competitive cpu design in 2013 is totally unrealistic and only acceptable to the most demented of fanboys. 

 

The PS4 and xbox one have all the advantages of an even more modern gpu than wii u so their weak cpu performance still represents a huge increase over ps3, 360 and wii u in real terms and they are still at least 4x as powerful as wii u in integer performance and a huge massive increase in performance in other areas.

 

You need to look at what the wii u is achieving in performance. It is ridiculous to make your claims when the wii u is still getting beaten by 360 and PS3 in performance terms. There is no golden horizon to come when suddenly the wii u will outperform 360 and PS3 for all games and go on to challenge xbox one and ps4. The 360 and PS3 still have more cpu performance than wii u and where games need this the wii u will underperform. For gpu centric games the wii u will be able to make a small step ahead of ps3 and 360 but its a marginally increase. The wii u is using a 45nm process, Sony had already moved to 40nm for the rsx sometime before the wii u was released. Everything we know about the wii u including developer leaks like the metro developer stating the wii u has a 'horrible slow cpu', performance, power consumption, fabrication process, x-ray image examination supports the view that the wii u performs to current gen performance.

 

Surely you realise its utterly moronic to create a fantasy image of the wii u technically that has zero connection with the reality of how wii u games are performing. It's also pointless attacking me when the information I'm posting is widely available from a huge number of sources where as the 'wii u is actually very powerful' articles are strangely absent on the internet.

way to put the blinders on dude.  Like the  architecture  (which is NOT 100 years old) has just been in idle for a decade and a half. But then again.... the new xbox and ps3 are using  architecture  traced back to the k9 which is also a decade and a half old. Just brcause something is based on older architecture does not make it the same, limited to, or less powerful than newer architectures.

[3Dude]

3dude, you are a delusional fanboy who has no sense of reality. The wii u's cpu architecture dates back to the last century and it was powerful then but things have moved on. The PS3 and 360 cpu's don't compare well to the wii u cpu on a mhz vs mhz basis but then both ps3 and 360 are running their cpu's at 3.2ghz not 1.25ghz and the ps3 has 2 threads and 7 support processors all running at 3.2ghz not 3 at 1.25ghz. The 360 has 6 threads at 3.2ghz in total not 3 at 1.25ghz. Clearly if the wii u cpu was at 3.2ghz then it would be a different story but its running at close to 1/3rd the speed with just 3 processes. Your view that somehow a very dated cpu x3 run at a very low speed is somehow a competitive cpu design in 2013 is totally unrealistic and only acceptable to the most demented of fanboys.

The PS4 and xbox one have all the advantages of an even more modern gpu than wii u so their weak cpu performance still represents a huge increase over ps3, 360 and wii u in real terms and they are still at least 4x as powerful as wii u in integer performance and a huge massive increase in performance in other areas.

You need to look at what the wii u is achieving in performance. It is ridiculous to make your claims when the wii u is still getting beaten by 360 and PS3 in performance terms. There is no golden horizon to come when suddenly the wii u will outperform 360 and PS3 for all games and go on to challenge xbox one and ps4. The 360 and PS3 still have more cpu performance than wii u and where games need this the wii u will underperform. For gpu centric games the wii u will be able to make a small step ahead of ps3 and 360 but its a marginally increase. The wii u is using a 45nm process, Sony had already moved to 40nm for the rsx sometime before the wii u was released. Everything we know about the wii u including developer leaks like the metro developer stating the wii u has a 'horrible slow cpu', performance, power consumption, fabrication process, x-ray image examination supports the view that the wii u performs to current gen performance.

Surely you realise its utterly moronic to create a fantasy image of the wii u technically that has zero connection with the reality of how wii u games are performing. It's also pointless attacking me when the information I'm posting is widely available from a huge number of sources where as the 'wii u is actually very powerful' articles are strangely absent on the internet.

lmfao. Nice strawman. Whats the matter? found out you cant actually touch my real argument so you had to try to change what i said from ps4/xbone 3-4x more powerful in dmips than wii u to me saying wii u was on par? You do realize people can read what we say right?

xenon gets .59 dmips per mhz per core. Thats what its rated at by ibm. That includes its 2 threads per core. You just tripled its actual performance because you are a hilariously raging fanboy.

Whetstone performance (flops) and dhrystone (dmips/gp) performance are two very different things.

Wii u's cpu destroys cell/xenon in dhrystone, but because of its low clock and lack of simd focus, falls short on flop performance AS DOES BOTH THE PS4 AND XBONE, THEY ALL HAVE LOWER CPU FLOP THROUGHPUT THAN PS360. Especially cell. Why do you think there is no backwards compatability whatsoever? ps4 has to stream ps3 games from the cloud.

Which is why they are all setup to be covered by gpgpu for flop performance.

Every day something comes out that puts your same old disproven arguments further and further to shame. Yet you cling to them like they are a golden terd of salvation. June 11th is going to be hilarious.

Edited by 3Dude, 27 May 2013 - 07:05 AM.

[GAMER1984]

Let's just stop talking until after June 11th. But make no mistake ALL of the excuses are out the door then. If we see graphics that are on par with the best of this gen then IMO its on the same level as ps360 and lots of people were right. If itshows graphics that melt our eyes and are clearly above ps360 then Nintendo look like geniuses again and we might have gamecube part 2 on our hands. I'm at a toss up I don't know what this console can do graphically or how powerful it truly is.. But make no mistake I'm holding people like 3dude accountable.

[MorbidGod]

way to put the blinders on dude. Like the architecture (which is NOT 100 years old) has just been in idle for a decade and a half. But then again.... the new xbox and ps3 are using architecture traced back to the k9 which is also a decade and a half old. Just brcause something is based on older architecture does not make it the same, limited to, or less powerful than newer architectures.

But I thought the PS4 and X1 is based off brand new processors from AMD! [/sarcasm]

On a serious note, these processors in the new generation aren't very strong either.

3dude, you are a delusional fanboy who has no sense of reality. The wii u's cpu architecture dates back to the last century and it was powerful then but things have moved on. The PS3 and 360 cpu's don't compare well to the wii u cpu on a mhz vs mhz basis but then both ps3 and 360 are running their cpu's at 3.2ghz not 1.25ghz and the ps3 has 2 threads and 7 support processors all running at 3.2ghz not 3 at 1.25ghz. The 360 has 6 threads at 3.2ghz in total not 3 at 1.25ghz. Clearly if the wii u cpu was at 3.2ghz then it would be a different story but its running at close to 1/3rd the speed with just 3 processes. Your view that somehow a very dated cpu x3 run at a very low speed is somehow a competitive cpu design in 2013 is totally unrealistic and only acceptable to the most demented of fanboys.

The PS4 and xbox one have all the advantages of an even more modern gpu than wii u so their weak cpu performance still represents a huge increase over ps3, 360 and wii u in real terms and they are still at least 4x as powerful as wii u in integer performance and a huge massive increase in performance in other areas.

You need to look at what the wii u is achieving in performance. It is ridiculous to make your claims when the wii u is still getting beaten by 360 and PS3 in performance terms. There is no golden horizon to come when suddenly the wii u will outperform 360 and PS3 for all games and go on to challenge xbox one and ps4. The 360 and PS3 still have more cpu performance than wii u and where games need this the wii u will underperform. For gpu centric games the wii u will be able to make a small step ahead of ps3 and 360 but its a marginally increase. The wii u is using a 45nm process, Sony had already moved to 40nm for the rsx sometime before the wii u was released. Everything we know about the wii u including developer leaks like the metro developer stating the wii u has a 'horrible slow cpu', performance, power consumption, fabrication process, x-ray image examination supports the view that the wii u performs to current gen performance.

Surely you realise its utterly moronic to create a fantasy image of the wii u technically that has zero connection with the reality of how wii u games are performing. It's also pointless attacking me when the information I'm posting is widely available from a huge number of sources where as the 'wii u is actually very powerful' articles are strangely absent on the internet.

[Happy Monk]

Let's just stop talking until after June 11th. But make no mistake ALL of the excuses are out the door then. If we see graphics that are on par with the best of this gen then IMO its on the same level as ps360 and lots of people were right. If itshows graphics that melt our eyes and are clearly above ps360 then Nintendo look like geniuses again and we might have gamecube part 2 on our hands. I'm at a toss up I don't know what this console can do graphically or how powerful it truly is.. But make no mistake I'm holding people like 3dude accountable.

You will not see Wii U games that look mind-blowingly impressive next to 360 and PS3 games, just like you will not see Xbox One or PS4 games to the same effect. The Wii U is more powerful than the 360 and PS3, but less powerful than their successors.

 

Not linked to your quote (just the first paragraph is). Finger pointing to launch games that underperform compared to their PS/360 counterparts is not going to make you look or sound clever, quite the opposite. It should be simple enough. Launch games never account for the console's power, how many times do people need to refer to 360 launch games compared to 360 games now. Take a game like Assassin's Creed 3 for example. it has been shown that the Wii U version runs at a slightly more erratic framerate but pretty much looks identical to the other two versions. This is a game that would've been ported from different architecture in around six months, which is very fast for game development, for the game to look visually on par and run slightly under par (see-very slightly) is very impressive. It was Iwata who said Assassin's Creed 3 is only utilising around 50% of the Wii U's hardware. I think that says it all doesn't it?

[MorbidGod]

Let's just stop talking until after June 11th. But make no mistake ALL of the excuses are out the door then. If we see graphics that are on par with the best of this gen then IMO its on the same level as ps360 and lots of people were right. If itshows graphics that melt our eyes and are clearly above ps360 then Nintendo look like geniuses again and we might have gamecube part 2 on our hands. I'm at a toss up I don't know what this console can do graphically or how powerful it truly is.. But make no mistake I'm holding people like 3dude accountable.

I think our argument gets lost in Desert Punks straw man argument. So let's be clear:

The Wii U is capable of producing some amazing visuals. The Wii U is underpowered by the newer entries coming into this new generation of consoles, but you won't be able to tell the difference. Funny thing is, as 3Dude pointed out, Desert Punk agrees with us. He keeps saying the Wii U is 3 - 4 times powerful than PS3, talks about how the machine isn't able to produce better visuals than the last generation. Then uses the same measurement with how powerful the PS4 and X1 are compared to Wii U, and then says oh but the PS4 can produce jaw dropping visuals.

I'm sorry. If your expecting that from any console this generation, then your going to be disappointed.

So our main argument is two fold. Yea, the Wii U is more powerful than the last generation. That has all ready been shown since EVERY launch title uses TWO of the THREE cores Wii U has to produce what the last generation did with a faster core. Imagine if all three where used, and they used the GPU more? Second, the X1 and PS4 are less powerful than everyone thinks. More powerful than Wii U, and thus previous generation too? Of course. It's newer technology. A weak CPU with a powerful GPU. AMD sucks at CPU (they are budget CPUs usually) but they rock at video cards thanks to ATi. IBM however doesn't suck at making CPU's, but development of the Wii U CPU ended sometime in 2012, while I bet AMD is still developing their APU for both consoles.

So that's what we are saying.

You will not see Wii U games that look mind-blowingly impressive next to 360 and PS3 games, just like you will not see Xbox One or PS4 games to the same effect. The Wii U is more powerful than the 360 and PS3, but less powerful than their successors.

Not linked to your quote (just the first paragraph is). Finger pointing to launch games that underperform compared to their PS/360 counterparts is not going to make you look or sound clever, quite the opposite. It should be simple enough. Launch games never account for the console's power, how many times do people need to refer to 360 launch games compared to 360 games now. Take a game like Assassin's Creed 3 for example. it has been shown that the Wii U version runs at a slightly more erratic framerate but pretty much looks identical to the other two versions. This is a game that would've been ported from different architecture in around six months, which is very fast for game development, for the game to look visually on par and run slightly under par (see-very slightly) is very impressive. It was Iwata who said Assassin's Creed 3 is only utilising around 50% of the Wii U's hardware. I think that says it all doesn't it?

Also, AC3 didn't run well on the PS3 or 360 well. It had frame rate issues and pushed the last generation close it's max. And the Wii U was able to run that with two cores. I'd agree with you, it's impressive.

Edited by MorbidGod, 27 May 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[Happy Monk]

Like many have said before:

Wii U: PS2

Xbox One: Gamecube

PS4: Xbox

 

The Wii U will look similar enough, but the differences will be obvious. The Wii U should be able to keep up to some extent, just in lower resolution or less impressive textures etc...

 

The sales should be like that also!

 

In answer to MorbidGod, that's why I said very slightly under par (digital foundry's video showed a slightly lower framerate, but it is barely noticeable).

Edited by Happy Monk, 27 May 2013 - 10:17 AM.

[MorbidGod]

Like many have said before:
Wii U: PS2
Xbox One: Gamecube
PS4: Xbox

The Wii U will look similar enough, but the differences will be obvious. The Wii U should be able to keep up to some extent, just in lower resolution or less impressive textures etc...

The sales should be like that also!

Well, I hope the Wii U wins the race. PS4 I think might end up winning. Xbox One ... Who knows.

[Cloud Windfoot Omega]

I think our argument gets lost in Desert Punks straw man argument. So let's be clear:

The Wii U is capable of producing some amazing visuals. The Wii U is underpowered by the newer entries coming into this new generation of consoles, but you won't be able to tell the difference. Funny thing is, as 3Dude pointed out, Desert Punk agrees with us. He keeps saying the Wii U is 3 - 4 times powerful than PS3, talks about how the machine isn't able to produce better visuals than the last generation. Then uses the same measurement with how powerful the PS4 and X1 are compared to Wii U, and then says oh but the PS4 can produce jaw dropping visuals.

I'm sorry. If your expecting that from any console this generation, then your going to be disappointed.

So our main argument is two fold. Yea, the Wii U is more powerful than the last generation. That has all ready been shown since EVERY launch title uses TWO of the THREE cores Wii U has to produce what the last generation did with a faster core. Imagine if all three where used, and they used the GPU more? Second, the X1 and PS4 are less powerful than everyone thinks. More powerful than Wii U, and thus previous generation too? Of course. It's newer technology. A weak CPU with a powerful GPU. AMD sucks at CPU (they are budget CPUs usually) but they rock at video cards thanks to ATi. IMB however doesn't suck at making CPU's, but development of the Wii U CPU ended sometime in 2012, while I bet AMD is still developing their APU for both consoles.

So that's what we are saying.


Also, AC3 didn't run well on the PS3 or 360 well. It had frame rate issues and pushed the last generation close it's max. And the Wii U was able to run that with two cores. I'd agree with you, it's impressive.

If he thinks that  the wii u is 3-4 times as powerful as the xbox 360 and ps3 what does he think  that makes the newer consoles

 

 

bearing in mind that a late last year nvidia announced that  PC's has just passed the last gens  by 10 times(entering pcs in the relm of  emulation for those consoles). And  the ps4 and  x1 are  most argueably not in the same range as those

 

(for arguments sake,  my 2[a year before the nvidia announcemnt] year old gpu has 2.4tflops and the ps4 is said to have 1.84tflops)

 

 

 

i would also like  all of you to mind that a large  portion of the power of each device will be locked to certain features such as streamins support (which is a intensive task that cannot be left unchecked, les you expect the console preform diffrently  with it on vs off) also mind  console develops  would (or rather should) want the console to run the same at all times, allwoing the share service to be used without slowing down any game.

Edited by Cloud Windfoot Omega, 27 May 2013 - 10:21 AM.