Oh Man Which One!!

[exlink]

He should just get his nephew a $400 gift card to Amazon, as was mentioned on the first page, and let him decide. Everyone has varying opinions on which system better for them, including his nephew. Could have avoided the feast of inevitable fanboyism that comes with asking the internet which console to get.

 

[next-Jin]

PowerPC was used until 2006 in computers. Xbox came out in 2003, so I am not sure exactly what you mean by that? I didn't miss anything, Sony had been designing special processors for some time for their gaming systems. MS came out and decided to use parts that were already out and being used. It made the manufacturing process easier and the system cheaper to build. When it was proved they could keep up with the gaming on it, it forced Sony's hand. Remember Sony still scoffed at the original Xbox and thought they could beat out it and its successor by again designing a unique chip with the Cell processor. It cost Sony a ton of money and they lost out in the end. So they finally realized they couldn't compete that route and decided to go a similar route as MS had already done. It was a smart decision and should prove quite fruitful for them now. But it was still following MS's lead.

The funny is how much misinformation there is with people claiming stuff about the PowerPC how it "wasn't" meant for gaming and how it wasn't in general use. First off, "meant for gaming" is a misnomer, that largely depends on the infrastructure, mostly the OS and development tools made for the system to support gaming, not really the CPU. The CPU just chunks data. In fact now you see that more of the gaming is down on GPUs. Finally they are making systems that meld the CPU and GPU better. Secondly, even though Apple may only have had a small section of the market, its PowerPCs were very popular among schools and many homes, meaning it still had a large distribution and had been around and tested for over a decade.

The simple point is that MS went to those routes first, showed they worked and it was cheaper, and Sony ended up following suit. That is really all there is to it. You can try to brush it off with saying any company would be foolish not to go that route, but Sony did not go that route with the PS3 when they had the chance.

And neither did Microsoft with the 360, if your opinion is "hey Sony went with off the shelf" then I don't know what to say. The console market no longer supports that philosophy, games cost way too much to have development teams to keep coding for various hardware, it's vastly more complicated,etc.

If you're simply stuck on it and want to play favorites I can do that too. Sonys console is more powerful than the One and is simpler to code for. That must anger you to no end that Sony copied Microsoft, stole their .... Something rather and released a superior product earlier, is almost double in world wide sales, and has a neat vertical stand that looks cool.

 

[Choopyplz]

At the end of the day it comes down to the games, and if he likes the games on XB1 (sports are typically multiplatform so that doesn't matter) and has friends who potentially will get a XB1 later, AND also already has Xbox live with maybe stuff already purchased on the account, then the XB1 seems like the best option IMO. It's especially better now since it's also selling for $400 without the kinect.

 

[NoOther]

And neither did Microsoft with the 360, if your opinion is "hey Sony went with off the shelf" then I don't know what to say. The console market no longer supports that philosophy, games cost way too much to have development teams to keep coding for various hardware, it's vastly more complicated,etc.

You are kidding right? The whole point of the Xbox was to make a gaming system that more closely matched PCs, which is what Microsoft was used to developing for

If you're simply stuck on it and want to play favorites I can do that too. Sonys console is more powerful than the One and is simpler to code for. That must anger you to no end that Sony copied Microsoft, stole their .... Something rather and released a superior product earlier, is almost double in world wide sales, and has a neat vertical stand that looks cool.

That is simply hilarious, I am not the fanboy here, I simply stated the way things are, its you and others who are on this kick on how all things Sony are magical and then attacking others for having any opinion that varies even in the slightest. I have fairly described both systems and companies and what they are capable of. It is not my problem you are blinded by simple horsepower and not seeing the whole picture. Also in my experience its the ones that have to resort to baseless attacks that are usually the people foaming at the mouth. Why are you so angry about something so trivial that you feel the need to attack over it?

 

[next-Jin]

You are kidding right? The whole point of the Xbox was to make a gaming system that more closely matched PCs, which is what Microsoft was used to developing for

Are you not reading the part where the 360 was PowerPC based? It has been said multiple times by folks in the thread. The whole picture is as simple as Microsoft used off the shelf PC parts with the OG Xbox then followed that by going the opposite route. What you are suggesting simply does not make sense.

That is simply hilarious, I am not the fanboy here, I simply stated the way things are, its you and others who are on this kick on how all things Sony are magical and then attacking others for having any opinion that varies even in the slightest. I have fairly described both systems and companies and what they are capable of. It is not my problem you are blinded by simple horsepower and not seeing the whole picture. Also in my experience its the ones that have to resort to baseless attacks that are usually the people foaming at the mouth. Why are you so angry about something so trivial that you feel the need to attack over it?

What's the whole picture? You have fairly described both systems, but your time line is backwards and you're not understanding what we are trying to say.

Original Xbox - x86 Off the Shelf parts
Xbox 360 - PowerPC custom designs for GPU utilizing DX APIs
Xbox One - x86 AMD APU

The 360 had Microsoft getting off the x86 bandwagon and going with a more (at the time) traditional console. For instance the 360 was PowerPC based and the PS3 Cell was actually a custom PowerPC design.

So let's break this down over the last 3 generations.

5th Generation:

PS1, Sega Saturn, N64 - PowerPC/RISC

6th Generation:

PS2, Dreamcast, Gamecube - PowerPC/RISC
OG Xbox - x86 (off the Shelf entry level console)

7th Generation:

PS3, 360, Wii - PowerPC/RISC

8th Generation:

Wii U - PowerPC/RISC
PS4, Xbox One - x86 APU

Do you see where we are coming from? You're saying Sony followed suit because Microsoft went with more traditional hardware. The difference here is that actually Sony just likes modifying the designs to fit their requirements.

They did it with PS4 as well, the APU in the PS4 is way different under the hood than the Xbox Ones more traditional 7XXX design.

There was nothing easier with either design as far as costs, software development sure but not hardware. Sony having a much easier to program for machine has more to do with it being on the x86 architecture now and not being required to deal with an embeded memory solution.

 

[NoOther]

Original Xbox - x86 Off the Shelf parts
Xbox 360 - PowerPC custom designs for GPU utilizing DX APIs
Xbox One - x86 AMD APU

The 360 had Microsoft getting off the x86 bandwagon and going with a more (at the time) traditional console. For instance the 360 was PowerPC based and the PS3 Cell was actually a custom PowerPC design.

So let's break this down over the last 3 generations.

5th Generation:

PS1, Sega Saturn, N64 - PowerPC/RISC

6th Generation:

PS2, Dreamcast, Gamecube - PowerPC/RISC
OG Xbox - x86 (off the Shelf entry level console)

7th Generation:

PS3, 360, Wii - PowerPC/RISC

8th Generation:

Wii U - PowerPC/RISC
PS4, Xbox One - x86 APU

Do you see where we are coming from? You're saying Sony followed suit because Microsoft went with more traditional hardware. The difference here is that actually Sony just likes modifying the designs to fit their requirements.

They did it with PS4 as well, the APU in the PS4 is way different under the hood than the Xbox Ones more traditional 7XXX design.

There was nothing easier with either design as far as costs, software development sure but not hardware. Sony having a much easier to program for machine has more to do with it being on the x86 architecture now and not being required to deal with an embeded memory solution.

PS1
CPU - 32-bit MIPS (33mhz)
GPU - 32-bit R800A (33mhz)

PS2
CPU - 64-bit 'Emotion Engine' (299mhz)
GPU - 'Graphics Synthesizer' (147mhz)

PS3
CPU - 'Cell' with 6-core equivalent architecture (3.2ghz)
GPU - 'Reality Synthesizer' (500mhz)

PS4
CPU: low power x86-64 AMD “Jaguar”, 8 cores
GPU: 1.84 TFLOPS, AMD Radeon™ Graphics Core Next engine

Xbox
CPU 733 MHz x86 Intel Celeron/Pentium III Custom Hybrid CPU 3.2 GHz
GPU 233 MHz nVidia custom GeForce 3 NV2A DirectX 8.0 based GPU 500 MHz

Xbox 360
CPU IBM PowerPC tri-core CPU codenamed "Xenon" 1.75 GHz
GPU ATi custom Radeon X1800 DirectX 9.0c based GPU codenamed "Xenos" 853 MHz

Xbox One
CPU AMD x86-64 eight-core CPU codenamed "Jaguar"[37]
GPU AMD Radeon HD 7000 series DirectX 11.1 based GPU codenamed "Durango"

I am sorry, did you seriously just say that PS1 and PS2 had PowerPC? PS1 used the R3000A MIPS processor. PS2 used the 'Emotion Engine' which was developed by Sony and Toshiba. PS3 used the Cell Multiprocessor, which was designed by Sony, Toshiba, IBM. It was not at all a common PowerPC chip, it had elements of PowerPC in it, but wasn't that closely related. It consisted of a main chip (PPE) and then several subordinant chips (SPEs). Also only the PPE portion was PowerPC based, the SPEs were different. Now with the 360 Microsoft did contact IBM and IBM did make a modified version of that PPE as a single unit not requiring SPEs, which was then was called Xenon. But Microsoft's goal was still as much simplicity as possible. Remember also that the CPU is just one component. MS has always used a GPU, which was also derived from common components for PC. MS allowed the other companies to do the design portions of their chips, while Sony has always been the lead and sunk a lot of R&D into their chips for both CPU AND GPU. It wasn't until the PS4 they finally realized this was too expensive and was driving up the costs of their units. Plus it was harder for developers to properly develop games for these systems as opposed to the more common architectures in MS consoles, which were far more similar to PCs.

So I don't at all see where you are coming from. It isn't like this is news, this has always been the case and difference between the 2 companies focus. It has been talked about over and over again the past few generations. MS focused on cheaper more common components for their system, Sony focused more on designing something new and original. The latter is the reason I purchased a PS3, I liked that initiative, but it just didn't pan out in performance and sales. It was too hard to design for that model. This is the first system that Sony used much more common parts for both CPU and GPU. It also consequently became much easier to code for than their previous generation. The fact that it does have more power also gives developers a little more leeway in how they make their games. So as I have stated, for purely gaming purposes that makes it a better system. But they neglected trying to bring in any other market. Meanwhile MS having a lot of success with the 360 decided to branch out and see what other markets they might capture, focusing a bit more on multimedia after noticing a bigger trend for people wanting more out of their devices. Now we all just have to see how that plays out.

 

[elzeus]

He should just get his nephew a $400 gift card to Amazon

That's how they end up with Beats headphones.

 

[VladDracule]

PS1
CPU - 32-bit MIPS (33mhz)
GPU - 32-bit R800A (33mhz)

PS2
CPU - 64-bit 'Emotion Engine' (299mhz)
GPU - 'Graphics Synthesizer' (147mhz)

PS3
CPU - 'Cell' with 6-core equivalent architecture (3.2ghz)
GPU - 'Reality Synthesizer' (500mhz)

PS4
CPU: low power x86-64 AMD “Jaguar”, 8 cores
GPU: 1.84 TFLOPS, AMD Radeon™ Graphics Core Next engine

Xbox
CPU 733 MHz x86 Intel Celeron/Pentium III Custom Hybrid CPU 3.2 GHz
GPU 233 MHz nVidia custom GeForce 3 NV2A DirectX 8.0 based GPU 500 MHz

Xbox 360
CPU IBM PowerPC tri-core CPU codenamed "Xenon" 1.75 GHz
GPU ATi custom Radeon X1800 DirectX 9.0c based GPU codenamed "Xenos" 853 MHz

Xbox One
CPU AMD x86-64 eight-core CPU codenamed "Jaguar"[37]
GPU AMD Radeon HD 7000 series DirectX 11.1 based GPU codenamed "Durango"

I am sorry, did you seriously just say that PS1 and PS2 had PowerPC? PS1 used the R3000A MIPS processor. PS2 used the 'Emotion Engine' which was developed by Sony and Toshiba. PS3 used the Cell Multiprocessor, which was designed by Sony, Toshiba, IBM. It was not at all a common PowerPC chip, it had elements of PowerPC in it, but wasn't that closely related. It consisted of a main chip (PPE) and then several subordinant chips (SPEs). Also only the PPE portion was PowerPC based, the SPEs were different. Now with the 360 Microsoft did contact IBM and IBM did make a modified version of that PPE as a single unit not requiring SPEs, which was then was called Xenon. But Microsoft's goal was still as much simplicity as possible. Remember also that the CPU is just one component. MS has always used a GPU, which was also derived from common components for PC. MS allowed the other companies to do the design portions of their chips, while Sony has always been the lead and sunk a lot of R&D into their chips for both CPU AND GPU. It wasn't until the PS4 they finally realized this was too expensive and was driving up the costs of their units. Plus it was harder for developers to properly develop games for these systems as opposed to the more common architectures in MS consoles, which were far more similar to PCs.

So I don't at all see where you are coming from. It isn't like this is news, this has always been the case and difference between the 2 companies focus. It has been talked about over and over again the past few generations. MS focused on cheaper more common components for their system, Sony focused more on designing something new and original. The latter is the reason I purchased a PS3, I liked that initiative, but it just didn't pan out in performance and sales. It was too hard to design for that model. This is the first system that Sony used much more common parts for both CPU and GPU. It also consequently became much easier to code for than their previous generation. The fact that it does have more power also gives developers a little more leeway in how they make their games. So as I have stated, for purely gaming purposes that makes it a better system. But they neglected trying to bring in any other market. Meanwhile MS having a lot of success with the 360 decided to branch out and see what other markets they might capture, focusing a bit more on multimedia after noticing a bigger trend for people wanting more out of their devices. Now we all just have to see how that plays out.

Fair warning, dont go down this Path. Its not worth it and you'll accomplish nothing

 

[next-Jin]

Granted I didn't bother to spend time researching my response because it's not worth it. My intent was to show trending patterns. It was either PowerPC or custom RISC designs up until the original Xbox, followed by yet another generation of RISC/PowerPC designs.

Now we have x86 designs (other than the Wii U).

Sony didn't "copy" Microsoft, that's asinine logic. They went with a design that would work in the current economy and various release markets. They properly researched the product just like Microsoft did.

Sony having custom RISC designs or Power PC derivatives was historically the norm from all console makers, including Microsoft with their 360. The original Xbox is the only outlier here and that was specifically because it gave Microsoft an easy entry point to the market. Release a PC with a custom MS OS. Once they got their footing they indeed went on to develop a console using historical trends (360).

And yet now we see both companies using x86 which I'm sure Nintendo will use with their next platform.

I'd also like to point out that the guy who designed the PS1 through PS3 retired after the 599.99 fiasco and will never touch console designs again. The PS3 leads the 360 in worldwide sales and performance is a toss up with games after Uncharted 2, though I would imagine that overall profitability is still in Microsofts favor even with r RROD issues earlier.

I agree that what Microsoft tried to do made sense, but they went about it all wrong on every aspect. I was thrilled and preordered a One when they announced Cable capability but later canceled it because they failed to have a DVR. Because of that the only thing they really brought to market was a 500 dollar WebTV box that plays games and has voice controls.

I am really hoping with their external HD capability they take another look at Cable DVR functionality but I don't see how it's possible without multiple tuners.

EDIT: I also wanted to clarify My response to your CPU and GPU statement.

The PS3 I know used a custom Nvidia GPU, the PS2 was not done in the same fashion. The outlier again being the original Xbox and being a basic PC with custom OS for entry to the market.

It's all based around the market and time of design.

 

[next-Jin]

Fair warning, dont go down this Path. Its not worth it and you'll accomplish nothing

Vlad please, he is confused just like you were once. If you're any indication he will pop his head around every now and then, make a snide comment then disappear again.

But I doubt that happens as he has made good arguments elsewhere in the forums unlike the drivel you used to push with Xbox One parity, power and market performance.

 

[VladDracule]

Vlad please, he is confused just like you were once. If you're any indication he will pop his head around every now and then, make a snide comment then disappear again.

But I doubt that happens as he has made good arguments elsewhere in the forums unlike the drivel you used to push with Xbox One parity, power and market performance.

Yet its strange how pretty much every single person on these boards responds in the exact same way? Here is a completely separate person who reaches the exact same conclusion that I did months ago about your bias and self proclaimed infallible nature? Interesting how that works out

 

[next-Jin]

Yet its strange how pretty much every single person on these boards responds in the exact same way? Here is a completely separate person who reaches the exact same conclusion that I did months ago about your bias and self proclaimed infallible nature? Interesting how that works out

Actually I agree with NoOther other than them copying Sony. He has merit in many posts, I just do not agree with the copying claims.

You're the only one who gets the same response Vlad, every forum you goto you meet the same brick wall called reality. Be it here in console discussion, news or elsewhere. You even dipped your toe over in neoGAF and hilarity ensued.

Bias is in the details and no one has ever accused me of such because it's impossible. Your post history has been vetted in detail by many on this forum and you my friend are well known.

You can say I'm bias till you're blue in the face, pointing out facts and being right the vast majority of the time doesn't make it so. I'd almost venture to say what you are trying to accomplish amounts to reverse bias. You're angry your arguments hold no water and have been wrong countless times, since you can't argue the merits of MS you take pot shots every now and then at Sony for whatever reason and for months have refused get into any of those types of conversations after it being hammered home over and over again that you're wrong and everyone else was right.

 

[VladDracule]

Actually I agree with NoOther other than them copying Sony. He has merit in many posts, I just do not agree with the copying claims.

You're the only one who gets the same response Vlad, every forum you goto you meet the same brick wall called reality. Be it here in console discussion, news or elsewhere. You even dipped your toe over in neoGAF and hilarity ensued.

Bias is in the details and no one has ever accused me of such because it's impossible. Your post history has been vetted in detail by many on this forum and you my friend are well known.

You can say I'm bias till you're blue in the face, pointing out facts and being right the vast majority of the time doesn't make it so. I'd almost venture to say what you are trying to accomplish amounts to reverse bias. You're angry your arguments hold no water and have been wrong countless times, since you can't argue the merits of MS you take pot shots every now and then at Sony for whatever reason and for months have refused get into any of those types of conversations after it being hammered home over and over again that you're wrong and everyone else was right.

I'm not even the ones who called you biased. The exact person were talking about called you a fanboy before I said a word in this thread. Frankly people like you just need to be outright banned from this forum its a joke how bad of a joke you make the console subforum here

 

[next-Jin]

^ nice closing argument Vlad, you've said it about a lot of people now but in my case why exactly should I be banned? Having a history of calling it like it is and posting facts?

Back on topic what did the OP do? Hopefully he got the gift card.