PS5 Is Reportedly More Powerful Than Xbox Scarlett

>this estimated performance is better than this other estimated performance
OMG SONY WINS

They said processing power for a reason. It oculd mean anything, presumably CPU power in this case.

While Xbone has a faster CPU, bigger cache, gives games more RAM and has a better graphics API, PS4 has more memory bandwidth and a better GPU, and when you put them all together the PS4's advantages slightly outweigh the Xbone's

Nope, the base xbone is slightly weaker despite being more expensive because Kinect.

An estimated win is better than an estimated loss.

Ah fair enough, nice to know thanks anons

And all of that will be immediately overtaken by a mid-range PC.

>>PS2 slaughtered by Xbox
PS2 is literally the most successful home console ever made

I think he's talking about power

>(and perhaps rather pointless)

Female detected

>using 120fps in their marketing
I thought console plebs can only see up to 30fps?

>buying a console

This is why you'll never leave the trailer park

Sony does this shit all the time, they did it with ps4 and ps3 and like 2 games on either console were higher than 28 fps

>has some AMD-made innards
Quality journalism.

999$

>believe in Sony's lies

Attached: 3-23-14.gif (3470x2470, 2.35M)

There actually was one game that could do it.

name that

>wanting 120 fps on a console
clueless zoomer detected

>journalists spamming a quote made by another journalist based on a rumor
Propaganda is the final nail in societies coffin

Nah, the only thing that will see a noticeable bump in overall performance in these consoles will be the CPUs.
The GPUs will be maybe 20-30% faster than what's in the XboneX, which would put them about on par with an RTX 2060.
These consoles will not be 12 TFLOPs or 13 TFLOPs, they won't even be 10 TFLOPs, considering the highest-end current Navi GPU isn't even 9 TFLOPs and has a TDP of 225W (in other words, it won't be going in a tiny console with shitty airflow).

The PS3 was more powerful than the xbox360 though. It's issue is the architecture was so different any games ported to it looked and played like ass.

Just marketing speak. It's probably "capable" at running something at 120 FPS but it's sure as hell not going to be new releases or flagship titles.

Again with this thread? Dont you guys have other things to do than to console war shitpost?

Reminder that Sony lies through their teeth every single fucking gen

Games will likely still run at upscales 4k (or variable) and 30fps (or variable), while looking atrocious (like the vast majority of games from the last 2 generations). Gameplay isn't likely to improve any great deal and I would expect the additional cost of producing games will result in consumers taking the additional cost hit, as RRPs standardly become £60/$70.

On top of all that, since there are incremental qualities in consoles now (as standard) I would expect it will not have two uniquely designed sets of assets (as almost everyone will claim), but will instead work like a lazy 2008 PC game where there are "low" and "high" settings in which low suddenly has half resolution, stretched textures everywhere.

By setting the bar for games so high (8K, 120fps) the next Switch system would only need 1/72, or 1.3%, of the processing power to run the same game at 720p 60FPS.

Good luck marketing that advantage.

>actual games differs from tech demos and marketinng material
How could this had happened?

Kek

Who the fuck cares? Arguing about "which console is stronger" is the most autistic shit ever. If you're concerned with performance, get a PC. Otherwise it's like arguing if shit tastes better than piss. Consoles are inevitably going to have relatively terrible performance, even might be slightly less terrible than the other sometimes. You're gonna be enjoying 720p 20fps regardless.

I'm pretty sure it has been rumored that it is actually weaker than the scarlet and nothing in your article says otherwise, OP

No it wasn't. The 360 had a way more powerful GPU and way more powerful single threaded CPU performance. The 360 CPU was essentially 3 ps3 CPU cores stuck together without the shitty extra FPUs or whatever they're called that the ps3 had which made it hard to code for. The ps3 had a single core.

My dad is stronger than your dad, bitch.

>Console wars featuring PS4 vs XBox are returning

Oh no

Attached: 893EA8D7-A310-43FA-A3C7-1996013B897E.jpg (500x346, 27K)

This, both next gen consoles are already outdated hardware and they are still over a year and a half from release. If you care about power buy a PC.

>doubting the powet of the cell

Super Stardust 3D.

Who cares when neither has any games?

>120fps on console when most TVs on that era didn't even did well 60
You just showed us that you're more stupid than a woman.

This. I am very sure Microsoft is going for the "strongest console to this day" title yet. Don't think they will make the same mistake like with the Xbox one

>It's issue is the architecture was so different
Bullshit
They are both PowerPC. Infact, they are both based of the same Cell CPU design, just that Xenon was a tri-core version without the slow and hard to program SPEs.

It really doesn't matter, they'll basically be the same with basically the same games again.

Attached: 0dead2a6.png (645x368, 260K)

yeah man I truly believe sony will btfo xbone and pc ecks deee ecks dee tbhsmhfambalam

Attached: sony lies.jpg (2000x2470, 1.4M)

> Console peasants fighting over which console is morem powerful but they are still vastly inferior to PC

Why even bother

Attached: 1552504796340.jpg (750x750, 108K)

>Super Stardust 3D.

>Super Stardust HD is the first 3D game for the PS3 that runs at 720p resolution at 60 frames per second for each eye (120 frames per second).
>720p resolution at 60 frames per second for each eye (120 frames per second).
>60 frames per second for each eye (120 frames per second).
>each eye (120 frames per second).
>dat overly delusional
wew lad....

Another gem

>The 2D version supports full 1080p resolution at 60 frames per second.
>2D version
topkek

At least they have games unlike the shitch

cope

Attached: 1449692971246.png (634x1019, 310K)

It doesn't matter, didn't you learn your lesson with the ps4 and xbox 1 ? They make games optimized for the shittiest console so they can sell more.

>Sony's hardware
>good
It was never true in any gen.

The fuck?

Attached: ps4-firstp.png (670x1191, 1.25M)

Yet Deadly Premonition runs at a solid 10 fps on PS3, while on 360, it has additional post processing and is smooth

*blocks your shitpost*

Attached: vita.jpg (1024x576, 162K)

Bad news for Nintendo and MS, Sony is set to win next gen by simply doing nothing.

Attached: sony.png (1071x764, 222K)

How many of those will you play more than once?
Where are the niche AA games like what we used to get on the PS1, PS2 & PSP

Bloodborne has more replay value than any Switch game.

Cry more.

PCs are for virgins. I have people over at my place and we use consoles to have fun

99% of consolefags don't give a fuck which console is 10% more powerful. It's all about games and Microsoft lost last gen so hard it's hilarious.

>41 million Xbones sold worldwide
>96 million PS4's sold
Yeah, rumored specs being inferior to rumored specs is what makes it look bad

All that power and no games to play.

>now post the handhelds

Hmmst

>all those pctards now have to spend atleast $600 in upgrades

Attached: ph01bevdjq3y.jpg (1920x1080, 75K)

>PS4
>No gamepass
Yikes, and you say it's the Xbox that looks bad

Since Pascal even fucking gaming laptops rape consoles.

But that's wrong. Games are optimised for the base PS4 and Xbone games routinely run like shit.

>people don't want to own their games

>cope

You dont know who you're talking to buddy

Attached: 1559280104074m.jpg (1024x768, 84K)