# Nvidia: PS4 specs are low end CPU and mid range GPU



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 15, 2013)

> "Compared to gaming PCs, the PS4 specs are in the neighborhood of a low-end CPU, and a low- to mid-range GPU side,"
> 
> Tamasi also notes that consoles, by definition, are closed platforms and not upgradeable.
> "What you get today in terms of performance is what you're stuck with five - 10 years down the road. PCs don't have these problems," he told TechRadar.
> ...


 
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/consoles/nvidia-compares-ps4-specs-to-a-low-end-cpu-1138051

#shotsfired

nvidia is still butthurt after being shafted from all current consoles.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 15, 2013)

Oh, so now they're bothered by the fact that consoles have lower specs than PC's. When their chips powered the PS3 _(which had 256 RAM and 256 VRAM... in the 21st century) _everything was dandy.

Of course let's completely disregard the fact that consoles aren't PC's and don't necessarily require hardware comparable to High-End PC's to work efficiently etc.

They also seem to be forgetting that video game development gravitates around consoles - even if you invest in what they call _"the latest GPU's"_ you're still stuck with the same games - all your upgrades amount to are 10% PC exclusives and 90% _"playing on Ultra settings"_.

You're making Project Shield - we get it guys.


----------



## Snailface (Mar 15, 2013)

GBAtemp has become a mirror of neogaf.


----------



## 2ndApex (Mar 15, 2013)

Guys...please use our PC's?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 15, 2013)

shh nvidia, no tears now, only dreams.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 15, 2013)

I'm no fan of Workaholics, but I think this sums it up pretty well.


----------



## Xuphor (Mar 15, 2013)

If those earlier PS4 in-game renderings were accurate, then who fucking cares about the specs? Sony has already shown what the PS4 is capable of.


----------



## Ergo (Mar 15, 2013)

Xuphor said:


> If those earlier PS4 in-game renderings were accurate, then who fucking cares about the specs? Sony has already shown what the PS4 is capable of.



Yes, key being "if they're accurate"--since they aren't running on PS4 hardware but, rather, the PCs referenced above...

(And God knows Sony never exaggerates or embellishes what their machines are capable of before final hardware...)


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 15, 2013)

Ergo said:


> And God knows Sony never exaggerates or embellishes what their machines are capable of before final hardware...


Pretty sure they mentioned that the hardware isn't even finalized yet which is why they're not showcasing it, either on the conference itself or right after it on the post-conference show. That said, it's fair to expect that even if the specs change, they're going to aim at making the showcased software _"work"_ mainly because some of that software were future PS4 games by SCE and their associates _(Infamous, Killzone)._


----------



## Veho (Mar 15, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, so now they're bothered by the fact that consoles have lower specs than PC's.


This is the first time the Playstation will have specs lower than PCs _at launch_. When the PS2 came out, it had specs superior to any PC. Same with the PS3 (albeit by a much smaller margin). This is the first time Sony's console isn't a superior powerhouse but merely a comparable (if not inferior) machine at launch. Sure, all the "consoles aren't PCs / better use of hardware / no bulky OS / uniform hardware platform" still applies, but it applied to previous consoles as well - but they also had superior hardware on top of it. Or underneath it? In conjunction with, in any case.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 15, 2013)

Veho said:


> This is the first time the Playstation will have specs lower than PCs _at launch_. When the PS2 came out, it had specs superior to any PC. Same with the PS3 (albeit by a much smaller margin). This is the first time Sony's console isn't a superior powerhouse but merely a comparable (if not inferior) machine at launch. Sure, all the "consoles aren't PCs / better use of hardware / no bulky OS / uniform hardware platform" still applies, but it applied to previous consoles as well - but they also had superior hardware on top of it. Or underneath it? In conjunction with, in any case.


That's entirely debatable and depends on what you consider a high-end PC - you _could_ get PC's with comparable performance both in PS2 and PS3 times as far as I remember.


----------



## heartgold (Mar 16, 2013)

I already said before it's no match for PC's, unless your average general use PC by normal people. PS3 gave the highest end PC a run for their money. PS4 not in this case, still powerful to display good stuff. People look at 8 cores and say wow, but infact these are very weak processors, low consumption against the top who are just quad core.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's entirely debatable and depends on what you consider a high-end PC - you _could_ get PC's with comparable performance both in PS2 and PS3 times as far as I remember.


Agreed that PCs still beat out consoles.

But nowadays, gaming computers are much more common and much cheaper.  Back then it was like, $1000 or so for a computer that would game well.  Now you can get one for ~$600 easily, so they likely feel some pressure?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Mar 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Agreed that PCs still beat out consoles.


My Sega 32X would like to have a word with you!


----------



## FireGrey (Mar 16, 2013)

Veho said:


> This is the first time the Playstation will have specs lower than PCs _at launch_. When the PS2 came out, it had specs superior to any PC. Same with the PS3 (albeit by a much smaller margin). This is the first time Sony's console isn't a superior powerhouse but merely a comparable (if not inferior) machine at launch. Sure, all the "consoles aren't PCs / better use of hardware / no bulky OS / uniform hardware platform" still applies, but it applied to previous consoles as well - but they also had superior hardware on top of it. Or underneath it? In conjunction with, in any case.


Can't tell if trolling, or just stupid.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Mar 16, 2013)

Veho said:


> This is the first time the Playstation will have specs lower than PCs _at launch_. When the PS2 came out, it had specs superior to any PC. Same with the PS3 (albeit by a much smaller margin). This is the first time Sony's console isn't a superior powerhouse but merely a comparable (if not inferior) machine at launch. Sure, all the "consoles aren't PCs / better use of hardware / no bulky OS / uniform hardware platform" still applies, but it applied to previous consoles as well - but they also had superior hardware on top of it. Or underneath it? In conjunction with, in any case.


PS2 does NOT have superior spec compared to PC at that time; in fact PS2 is the weakest 6th gen console. Gamecube, Dreamcast, and Xbox are all stronger than PS2 if you look at computation power (although MIPS used by PS2 was the hardest to code for).

And yes, console aren't gaming PC. Console has each component integrates tightly together; console able to use hardware much more efficiently than gaming PC.


----------



## MegaBassBX (Mar 16, 2013)

Why did Sony make the PS4, I think the PS3 is more powerful even than the Wii U.

As for the choice of AMD over Nvidia this is a stupid move as every good company knows that Nvidia market share is the biggest since they are the best.


But calling the PS4 a low end PC they can go suck my Dck


----------



## zanfire (Mar 16, 2013)

Seeing as how likely both will be using AMD components, I wonder how this will play into PCs. Will AMD now get a leg up on a lot of games? It seems to me it might happen, lots of games nowadays are based around the console specs and if both are using AMD, I can see devs working to make the most out of it.

might be a stretch, but this might be something to get AMD a nice boost.


----------



## Maxternal (Mar 16, 2013)

Now AMD will release Jaguar as a Laptop chip and then we'll have people trying to dual boot laptops with PS4 firmware and Windows.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 16, 2013)

For people thinking that the new consoles are even close to competing with what is possible with building your own PC.

I present the Titan graphics card, and no this will not be coming to a console this gen....

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121724

6GB's of 384bit GDDR5 Ram just for the GPU it also features 2688 CUDA Cores and a host of other goodies. 

Expensive yes, matched by home consoles? No.


----------



## Maxternal (Mar 16, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> For people thinking that the new consoles are even close to competing with what is possible with building your own PC.
> 
> I present the Titan graphics card, and no this will not be coming to a console this gen....
> 
> ...


*wipes away the drool*


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 16, 2013)

High end PCs don't have 8-core APUs with *real* GPUs right on the same die. They also don't use GDDR5 for system RAM; that's got to count for something. If AMD released a similar 8-core chip for the PC with their latest GPU on the die, and a memory controller that can handle something faster than DDR3, Nvidia and Intel would be instantly defeated in one fell swoop.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 16, 2013)

Maxternal said:


> Now AMD will release Jaguar as a Laptop chip and then we'll have people trying to dual boot laptops with PS4 firmware and Windows.


PS4's _"Jaguar"_ is exclusive - the standard CPU's in this line are up to 4 cores - the PS4 has 8. You might say it's a _"Jaguar amongst Jaguars"_.


----------



## zanfire (Mar 16, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> For people thinking that the new consoles are even close to competing with what is possible with building your own PC.
> 
> I present the Titan graphics card, and no this will not be coming to a console this gen....
> 
> ...


 
I don't think anyone would think that..especially seeing a console would cost around 400$ and that 1 singular piece is almost triple that. The thing is most games are built with consoles in mind anyways, so having something that jacked in your PC for games is just trying to have a E-peen because you have tons of money to blow.


----------



## Maxternal (Mar 16, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> High end PCs don't have 8-core APUs with *real* GPUs right on the same die. They also don't use GDDR5 for system RAM; that's got to count for something. If AMD released a similar 8-core chip for the PC with their latest GPU on the die, and a memory controller that can handle something faster than DDR3, Nvidia and Intel would be instantly defeated in one fell swoop.


Imagine a 4ghz 8-core with a 1ghz HD 7970 on the same die. VERY nice ... except you would need a block of ice resting on the proc to keep it from bursting into flames


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 16, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> For people thinking that the new consoles are even close to competing with what is possible with building your own PC.
> 
> I present the Titan graphics card, and no this will not be coming to a console this gen....
> 
> ...


What is the relationship between the Titan and GTX 780? I hope they're not the one and the same; the price sets an alarming precedent.



Maxternal said:


> Imagine a 4ghz 8-core with a 1ghz HD 7970 on the same die. VERY nice ... except you would need a block of ice resting on the proc to keep it from bursting into flames


That's why the PS4 CPU likely won't crack 2GHz.


----------



## Maxternal (Mar 16, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> That's why the PS4 CPU likely won't crack 2GHz.


And it also hopefully won't crack $1K
(which is about what those two separate chips run together without any with the cheapest supporting hardware.)



tronic307 said:


> What is the relationship between the Titan and GTX 780? I hope they're not the one and the same; the price sets an alarming precedent.


Actually, I think they are the same thing.


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 16, 2013)

Maxternal said:


> And it also hopefully won't crack $1K
> (which is about what those two separate chips run together without any supporting hardware.)
> 
> EDIT : wait, I think I had some bad sources for the prices there.


I had similar thoughts as I was watching the PS4 conference. Perhaps Sony could offer 2-year financing, maybe $199 down and $29 a month? I personally wouldn't mind if it retailed at $429, but I think Sony would lose a mint on every unit at that price.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2013)

Veho said:


> This is the first time the Playstation will have specs lower than PCs _at launch_. When the PS2 came out, it had specs superior to any PC. Same with the PS3 (albeit by a much smaller margin). This is the first time Sony's console isn't a superior powerhouse but merely a comparable (if not inferior) machine at launch. Sure, all the "consoles aren't PCs / better use of hardware / no bulky OS / uniform hardware platform" still applies, but it applied to previous consoles as well - but they also had superior hardware on top of it. Or underneath it? In conjunction with, in any case.


 
A MIPS Emotion Engine CPU with a 294 MHz clock speed and 32 MB of RDRAM was more powerful than a PC that had an AMD Athlon 1 GHz CPU with 128 MB RAM?  RDRAM has issues with severe latency, which killed the N64 hardware-wise.


----------



## Maxternal (Mar 16, 2013)

You're all looking at it wrong.
The PS4 is a *video card* ... that happens to have a CPU integrated so it can run by itself.


Connect it to the Internet and throw in a coupe of drives and dual shock 4 connections and you've got a final product.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> That's entirely debatable and depends on what you consider a high-end PC - you _could_ get PC's with comparable performance both in PS2 and PS3 times as far as I remember.


 
Yes, and if anything the PS2 was severely lacking in the specs department compared to PC's as well as the eventual competition. The PS3 was not even close to high end gaming systems back when it came out, cards like the Nvidia 9800 GTX were and still are, miles better then the chip in the PS3 in terms of raw performance capability. Heck, the 9800 GTX is still a viable card to use for some games, though most modern systems you are looking at 100-300 dollar graphics cards to run most games really well.




Psionic Roshambo said:


> For people thinking that the new consoles are even close to competing with what is possible with building your own PC.
> 
> I present the Titan graphics card, and no this will not be coming to a console this gen....
> 
> ...


 

And it's already been proven that in raw gaming performance, Titan is an absolute ripoff.


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Mar 16, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> Yes, and if anything the PS2 was severely lacking in the specs department compared to PC's as well as the eventual competition. The PS3 was not even close to high end gaming systems back when it came out, cards like the Nvidia 9800 GTX were and still are, miles better then the chip in the PS3 in terms of raw performance capability. Heck, the 9800 GTX is still a viable card to use for some games, though most modern systems you are looking at 100-300 dollar graphics cards to run most games really well.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed, might as well grab a GTX 690 or an HD 7990 with that kind of cash.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 16, 2013)

Maxternal said:


> *wipes away the drool*


I know what I want for xmas now


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 16, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> And it's already been proven that in raw gaming performance, Titan is an absolute ripoff.


 
I would have to wait for more mature drivers before I would agree to that statement. It's not uncommon for graphics cards to gain 10-30% depending on the game with just a driver update especially considering it is totally new hardware.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> I would have to wait for more mature drivers before I would agree to that statement. It's not uncommon for graphics cards to gain 10-30% depending on the game with just a driver update especially considering it is totally new hardware.


The titan is two GTX 680 cores, but clocked a bit lower.  The GTX  680 runs from $430 to $580 on Newegg right now, so assuming the titan retails at $1,000 average, it's less dollar->performance than other cards.

Which is to be expected in general.  Once you hit the high end, the price-performance line becomes a wall.


----------



## ov3rkill (Mar 16, 2013)

Consoles are still awesome. They're cheaper and won't be replaced for another 10 to 15 years. 
Just remember it's not all about the specifications, power and capability, but the library of games it carries.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

ov3rkill said:


> Consoles are still awesome. They're cheaper and won't be replaced for another 10 to 15 years.
> Just remember it's not all about the specifications, power and capability, but the library of games it carries.


> console versus pc
> console game library


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 16, 2013)

ov3rkill said:


> it's not all about the specifications, power and capability, but the library of games it carries.


with 95% of the games being released on the PC as well


----------



## shakirmoledina (Mar 16, 2013)

they are just making a fool of themselves by such comments


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Mar 16, 2013)

It's pretty hard to compete with power of PCs when you have people wiling to pay $3000 in high end PCs but you only have one PS4 that will cost about $400~$500. Taking into account the relation between power and cost the PS4 is a clear winner. But with the prices of consoles this high, I still think it's worth getting an upgrade in your PC instead of investing in a next-gen console (if you're a graphics person at least)


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> The *690* is two GTX 680 cores, but clocked a bit lower.


Fix'd that for you


----------



## Necron (Mar 16, 2013)

ov3rkill said:


> Consoles are still awesome. They're cheaper and won't be replaced for another 10 to 15 years.
> Just remember it's not all about the specifications, power and capability, but the library of games it carries.


Probably this was true ten years ago, where cross-platform was not that strong. Today, people chose consoles over gaming pcs for something easy to set up or money.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> Fix'd that for you


?


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> ?


The Titan is a single GPU, it's not two 680s. That's the 690.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Mar 16, 2013)

One thing I like about console is no ridiculous DRM that you otherwise will find on PC game.


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

trumpet-205 said:


> One thing I like about console is no ridiculous DRM that you otherwise will find on PC game.


No ridiculous DRM _yet_


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> The Titan is a single GPU, it's not two 680s. That's the 690.


It's a single GPU with double the 680's cores but clocked lower?


----------



## Hadrian (Mar 16, 2013)

Snailface said:


> GBAtemp has become a mirror of neogaf.


It's been like that for several years, pay more attention. Also we have added GoNintendo, IGN and Kotaku! You don't need to load any other gaming site ever!


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> It's a single GPU with double the 680's cores but clocked lower?


Both have one GPU core. If you mean CUDA cores, the 680 has 1536 and the Titan has 2688, which is not double. 680's GPU core clock is 1006 mhz, and the Titan's is 837 mhz.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> Both have one GPU core. If you mean CUDA cores, the 680 has 1536 and the Titan has 2688, which is not double. 680's GPU core clock is 1006 mhz, and the Titan's is 837 mhz.


Well that makes it even worse on the price-performance graph then.


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Well that makes it even worse on the price-performance graph then.


Yeah, the higher up you get, the more diminishing returns you get. At this current time, the 7950 looks to be the best card, price/performance, on the high end anyway. It can easily be OC'd to perform like a 7970/680.


----------



## MegaBassBX (Mar 16, 2013)

Psionic Roshambo said:


> For people thinking that the new consoles are even close to competing with what is possible with building your own PC.
> 
> I present the Titan graphics card, and no this will not be coming to a console this gen....
> 
> ...


 

I know about this one , just imagine having two of this monster,that's a 12GB GDDR5 that's true over the shit even top game don't need more than 2GB of GPU.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 16, 2013)

MegaBassBX said:


> I know about this one , just imagine having two of this monster,that's a 12GB GDDR5 that's true over the shit even top game don't need more than 2GB of GPU.


I know, isn't it glorious?!


----------



## ForteGospel (Mar 16, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> No ridiculous DRM _yet_


shhh, they are watching! don't give them ideas


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 16, 2013)

ForteGospel said:


> shhh, they are watching! don't give them ideas


rumor has it that the 720 will need a permanent online connection


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> The titan is two GTX 680 cores, but clocked a bit lower. The GTX 680 runs from $430 to $580 on Newegg right now, so assuming the titan retails at $1,000 average, it's less dollar->performance than other cards.
> 
> Which is to be expected in general. Once you hit the high end, the price-performance line becomes a wall.


It is capable of three card SLI and SLI is four cores max. This may be the GTX 685; the 780 will likely be more advanced.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 16, 2013)

RodrigoDavy said:


> It's pretty hard to compete with power of PCs when you have people wiling to pay $3000 in high end PCs but you only have one PS4 that will cost about $400~$500. Taking into account the relation between power and cost the PS4 is a clear winner. But with the prices of consoles this high, I still think it's worth getting an upgrade in your PC instead of investing in a next-gen console (if you're a graphics person at least)


 
There isn't even a set in stone price point for the PS4. Don't expect it to be cheap by any means either, we all know what Sony is like when it comes to pricing their systems at release. For what the cost of a PS4 or Xbox is going to cost next generation, including all the hardware required to fully utilize the system like Kinect and Move, you are just going to push the cost of the system higher and higher. The cost of buying a PC might be a bit more expensive but in the long term if you invest a lot initially, you don't have to invest anything for quite some time. If you spent 1500 dollars on a system now, you don't have to do any upgrading for at least 2 years, people seem to have this fool notion that you need to upgrade processors and graphics cards every single year when they usually don't get pushed until a couple of years after they hit the market.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> There isn't even a set in stone price point for the PS4. Don't expect it to be cheap by any means either, we all know what Sony is like when it comes to pricing their systems at release. For what the cost of a PS4 or Xbox is going to cost next generation, including all the hardware required to fully utilize the system like Kinect and Move, you are just going to push the cost of the system higher and higher. The cost of buying a PC might be a bit more expensive but in the long term if you invest a lot initially, you don't have to invest anything for quite some time. If you spent 1500 dollars on a system now, you don't have to do any upgrading for at least 2 years, people seem to have this fool notion that you need to upgrade processors and graphics cards every single year when they usually don't get pushed until a couple of years after they hit the market.


 
If you buy a Playstation 4 you don't have to "upgrade" for probably 5-7 years.

Also "boohoo sony is evil they'll overprice it." Get a grip. Instead of having the asspull notion of "Sony will overprice the thing because Sony", maybe either A) keep your trap shut until an official announcement is made or B) find facts to support this claim. Currently the strongest rumor is a $430 minimum price (for a "basic" model) and a $530 max price (for a "premium" model) although these are apparently conversions from yen (so it'll probably go down to $400 and $500 respectively). Which isn't overpriced at all.

EDIT: And yeah, if I spend like $2000 on a PC I won't have to upgrade it for a while but I'm spending *2000 fucking dollars on a PC*. For $2000 I could buy a Playstation and like at least 20 brand spankin' new games and still have money to spare.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> EDIT: And yeah, if I spend like $2000 on a PC I won't have to upgrade it for a while but I'm spending *2000 fucking dollars on a PC*. For $2000 I could buy a Playstation and like at least 20 brand spankin' new games and still have money to spare.


 
But on a 2K PC you can emulate a LOT of older game consoles, play every PC game going as far as you want and do work and ten thousand other things. 

*insert troll gif here* lol


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> rumor has it that the 720 will need a permanent online connection


 
Well of course! Everyone in the wold has a stable OC3072 fiber optic connection with FTTP that never drops, right??? Surely Microsoft and Sony would _never_ overlook that!


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> It is capable of three card SLI and SLI is four cores max. This may be the GTX 685; the 780 will likely be more advanced.


SLI/Crossfire just cause even more sliding off the proper end of the price-performance scale (which is why you never see it in consoles or any setup that's cost-efficient).


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> If you buy a Playstation 4 you don't have to "upgrade" for probably 5-7 years.
> 
> Also "boohoo sony is evil they'll overprice it." Get a grip. Instead of having the asspull notion of "Sony will overprice the thing because Sony", maybe either A) keep your trap shut until an official announcement is made or B) find facts to support this claim. Currently the strongest rumor is a $430 minimum price (for a "basic" model) and a $530 max price (for a "premium" model) although these are apparently conversions from yen (so it'll probably go down to $400 and $500 respectively). Which isn't overpriced at all.
> 
> EDIT: And yeah, if I spend like $2000 on a PC I won't have to upgrade it for a while but I'm spending *2000 fucking dollars on a PC*. For $2000 I could buy a Playstation and like at least 20 brand spankin' new games and still have money to spare.


 
At least the PC is backwards compatible with older games, and you don't have to pay a fucking subscription to play online, you aren't forced to use proprietary hardware like the Xbox hard drives or laptop drives like in the PS3 that all run at 5400 RPM and use SATA2 connectivity, which is slow in this day in age with mechanical drives. Tell me, is there any justification in buying a console when, after 5 years, the graphics are horribly dated and the games have 60 second loading times? Sorry, but even if you don't upgrade a PC for 5 years, you can get better performance out of it graphics wise then a console if you invest more initially. Hell, dump 3 grand into a system and it will last at least 6 years before starting to look obsolete.

I can't even being to imagine how butthurt console fanboys are going to be if the PS4 and Xbox are priced in the 600+ dollar range.




Bladexdsl said:


> rumor has it that the 720 will need a permanent online connection


 

If they do cloud gaming, I would imagine so. People would be so pissed off over that!


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> At least the PC is backwards compatible with older games, and you don't have to pay a fucking subscription to play online, you aren't forced to use proprietary hardware like the Xbox hard drives or laptop drives like in the PS3 that all run at 5400 RPM and use SATA2 connectivity, which is slow in this day in age with mechanical drives. Tell me, is there any justification in buying a console when, after 5 years, the graphics are horribly dated and the games have 60 second loading times? Sorry, but even if you don't upgrade a PC for 5 years, you can get better performance out of it graphics wise then a console if you invest more initially. Hell, dump 3 grand into a system and it will last at least 6 years before starting to look obsolete.
> 
> I can't even being to imagine how butthurt console fanboys are going to be when the PS3 and 360 are priced in the 600+ dollar range.


 
Where's that source on the forced online subscription? Oh, lemme guess, it was a rumor that has had no follow up from months ago. It is because I read it.

You buy a console because you're not jaded enough to spend $2000 on a PC. Like if you make a disgusting amount of money and want to spend it, good for you. But for someone like me who doesn't make a whole lot, a PS4 is truly next gen gaming at an affordable price.

I think the PC is a great platform but I sometimes find its fans to have too much of a pompous stick up the ass. Congratulations on spending $1000+ on your gaming console. I'll have just as much fun with my $400 console.

The justification for buying a console is that it's not like $1000+. Some people are adults and they have expenses to pay for. Like living and stuff. Sometimes they want to get entertainment but not starve for a couple of weeks. That's where consoles come in.

EDIT: And yes, keep telling yourself that next gen consoles will be $600+. If it helps you sleep at night in some delusional state of mind where Sony is worse than the mafia, then do so.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 16, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> you aren't forced to use proprietary hardware like the Xbox hard drives



For the record the original 360 used a custom case, which cost next to nothing, around a laptop sata drive and the slim is also sata but with a custom shell.
Admittedly there are very few models of hard drive you can use with them unless you properly hack it and I will be first in line to join a bitching session about how they think they can charge as much as they did during the times they did but fully proprietary is a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> For $2000 I could buy a Playstation and like at least 20 brand spankin' new games and still have money to spare.


You couldn't because:

PS4 has no gaems.
$599 DORRARS 2.0.
Sony is worse than the mafia.
...am I doin' it right, guys?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> For the record the original 360 used a custom case, which cost next to nothing, around a laptop sata drive and the slim is also sata but with a custom shell.
> Admittedly there are very few models of hard drive you can use with them unless you properly hack it and I will be first in line to join a bitching session about how they think they can charge as much as they did during the times they did but fully proprietary is a bit of a stretch.


 
Also the Xbox lets you use your own external hard drives up to 16GB as a Xbox hard drive.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Also the Xbox lets you use your own external hard drives up to 16GB as a Xbox hard drive.


 
I eat 16 GB of data for breakfast. That amount of storage is almost irrelevant now, and it will certainly be next gen when games are using huge installs on consoles because optical media is too slow to stream the kinds of data that we are getting into these days. DLC included, many games are pushing 16 GB of storage use, hell Dragon Age Origins: Ultimate Edition on Steam is over 24 GB.


----------



## chyyran (Mar 16, 2013)

NVIDIA, it's a console, what do you expect? It doesn't really matter, if the PS4 is comparable to a low-end PC, the WiiU is comparable to the shit I use at school.

Specs don't matter very much for consoles as long as the games, especially multi-plats, are optimized enough to run well on one or more consoles of the same generation. As long as, theoretically, a game from one console can be ported to another without loosing too much fidelity, we won't end up with the Wii situation this gen, and for console gamers, it won't matter as much either.

As for PCs, members of the holy master race must have the best, and therefore, specs do matter, simply because we care about them, and we care about the increase in visual fidelity and choice that requires higher-end specs, as well as running a heavyweight OS and background programs.

Console gamers don't care as much, setting aside blatant fanboyism, about graphics, as long as it's comparable to the other consoles. They chose consoles for ease of access and price, not for the satisfaction of knowing that your $800 PC can run most games at higher settings than PCs, that you have a superior selection of control methods and games, but that they can simply boot up the console, take up a controller, and play their favourite games. 

They don't really care for choice or graphics that much, just that it looks reasonably nice, it's easy to use, it doesn't cost $800 dollars, and that it has games that they want to play.

Specs don't matter as much for consoles than they do for PCs simply because consoles don't require high-end specs as much as a PC does.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Where's that source on the forced online subscription? Oh, lemme guess, it was a rumor that has had no follow up from months ago. It is because I read it.
> 
> You buy a console because you're not jaded enough to spend $2000 on a PC. Like if you make a disgusting amount of money and want to spend it, good for you. But for someone like me who doesn't make a whole lot, a PS4 is truly next gen gaming at an affordable price.
> 
> ...


 
lol, my PC didn't cost more then 1200 dollars and I am running two graphics cards. It's not hard to build a good system if you know what you are looking for and are willing to wait for deals to buy it. I never buy my parts at regular price, I paid 75 dollars for a memory module set that is regularly 115 for instance. Everyone can afford a decent gaming computer and only morons think you actually need to spend a 2,000 dollars on a system in order to get good performance. Everything except for BF3, Far Cry 3 and Crysis 3 runs at maximum settings on my computer and even then, BF3 runs better on Nvidia cards then it does AMD.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> I eat 16 GB of data for breakfast. That amount of storage is almost irrelevant now, and it will certainly be next gen when games are using huge installs on consoles because optical media is too slow to stream the kinds of data that we are getting into these days. DLC included, many games are pushing 16 GB of storage use, hell Dragon Age Origins: Ultimate Edition on Steam is over 24 GB.


 
Well yeah but I don't know why you're criticizing hard drive space on the PS3 when I think the only models in production offer 250GB or 500GB. That's ample storage.

You're crying over nonexistent information. If the delusion of Sony as terrible designers who are worse than the mafia keeps you running, then go for it. Just don't try to pass off the information you make up as "facts".


----------



## chyyran (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well yeah but I don't know why you're criticizing hard drive space on the PS3 when I think the only models in production offer 250GB or 500GB. That's ample storage.
> 
> You're crying over nonexistent information. If the delusion of Sony as terrible designers who are worse than the mafia keeps you running, then go for it. Just don't try to pass off the information you make up as "facts".


 

GBAtemp has finally created a proper Sony meme of it's own!


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> $2000
> [...]
> $1000+
> [...]
> $1000+


For calling somebody out on their misinformation in that post, you surely seem misinformed here.  And dare I say... *trollish*?  Especially considering I specifically pointed out a prebuilt gaming PC to you in a previous thread that was much less than these numbers you're *pulling out of your ass*.

Here's some more links, as a refresher.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883227437
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883256203
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229390
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883220258

If you don't like people that purposely stretch the truth and spout misinformation in order to push their own ideas *make sure you're not doing it too*.


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

Keep in mind that every PC games ever cost like $5 bucks, console games cost like $60. You pay more for the hardware with PCs but much less for the software.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> Keep in mind that every PC games ever cost like $5 bucks, console games cost like $60. You pay more for the hardware with PCs but much less for the software.


I wouldn't go nearly that far.  Software on the PC is relatively cheaper, but games on consoles get discounted at retail too eventually, if they sell long enough (Playstation Greatest Hits and whatever).  Take note that part of the reason Steam and such can offer such deals is due to the lack of physical transport (and for example Wiiware+VC and PSX-on-PSP titles are cheap using the combination of ideas).  When talking physical deals, PC game sales are more in-line with the console ideas in that they get discounted later, and to a lesser degree.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Software on the PC is relatively cheaper.


 
You ever buy an Adobe product? Odds are you'll pay more for the Adobe Master Collection than your next two PCs.

And I say "$1000+" because a friend of mine built his for $1200 years ago.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> You ever buy an Adobe product? .


no you don't need to buy appz on the pc


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> no you don't need to buy appz on the pc


 
Well if you're a good little boy then it'll set you back roughly $2,600.

Hell I think even Microsoft Office is a bit pricey. I thought it was $100+ but its been years since I bought it (I mostly use OpenOffice now).

BUT I DIGRESS.

And sorry for my PC price overestimations if they truly are that, I wasn't "trolling", that was just my ignorance I suppose.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 16, 2013)

WHO buys apps?! 

maybe windows is only app you need to buy the rest aw yeh


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> WHO buys apps?!


 
Companies, professionals in the industry, people who actually don't like to pirate, don't know how to pirate, or don't trust piracy.

Adobe is still a thing so yeah, people buy apps.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> You ever buy an Adobe product? Odds are you'll pay more for the Adobe Master Collection than your next two PCs.


... so?  That's not really relevant to gaming, even if you try to call in the "you want an image editor if you do reviews", really expensive software isn't needed.  Time-lapse of a full digital painting illustration made by some french guy, with only free and open-source programs.



Guild McCommunist said:


> And I say "$1000+" because a friend of mine built his for $1200 years ago.


But I'm not looking at 360 Elite Hyper 2TB With Seven Games bundles and listing them as the console price to be fair, I'm mentioning the price for the retail consoles themselves. 



Guild McCommunist said:


> Hell I think even Microsoft Office is a bit pricey. I thought it was $100+ but its been years since I bought it (I mostly use OpenOffice now).


Most people use alternatives or get student discounts nowadays if they really need Legit Office For Closed-Source Tasks™.


----------



## Veho (Mar 16, 2013)

FireGrey said:


> Can't tell if trolling, or just stupid.


Whichever makes you feel better.  



trumpet-205 said:


> PS2 does NOT have superior spec compared to *PC *at that time; in fact PS2 is the weakest 6th gen* console*.


Both of those consoles launched two years after the PS2, so it's not surprising they had superior specs, and it doesn't say how the PS2 compared to contemporary PCs.  
Also, technically, the Dreamcast was the weakest 6th gen console   



the_randomizer said:


> A MIPS Emotion Engine CPU with a 294 MHz clock speed and 32 MB of RDRAM was more powerful than a PC that had an AMD Athlon 1 GHz CPU with 128 MB RAM?  RDRAM has issues with severe latency, which killed the N64 hardware-wise.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth  
The major issue with the N64's RAM was the small bus size resulting in a low bandwidth, which only compounded the latency problem. The PS2 offset the latency (and, to an extent, the small size) with an enormous memory bandwidth. 

Fact is, when the PS2 came out, graphically, it was above anything else. Consoles used to be more powerful compared to the PC. It used to be "oh sure, it's powerful now but the PC will overtake it in a few years." 

Now it's "oh well, at least it's cheap."


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

I meant game prices, not stuff like that Adobe whatever that 3 people use.


----------



## emigre (Mar 16, 2013)

Well I'm sticking to the console sub-race cause I actually really like the console exclusives.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 16, 2013)

Checked the dates.  The PS2 was back in the days of the Geforce 2.

Geforce 2.

I feel old now.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2013)

Veho said:


> Whichever makes you feel better.
> 
> 
> Both of those consoles launched two years after the PS2, so it's not surprising they had superior specs, and it doesn't say how the PS2 compared to contemporary PCs.
> ...


 
I'm well aware of the MHz Myth, I was saying that 294 MHz wasn't that groundbreaking since the Dreamcast had a 200 MHz CPU back in late 1998, neither was the 32 MB of RAM. The Gamecube slaughtered the PS2 when it came out in 2001 when it comes to specifications, there's no refuting that. Graphically, the first wave of games look pretty bad with horrible aliasing issues, but later PS2 games looked very crisp as the life cycle went on (Shadow of the Colossus and Gran Turismo 3 comes to mind).

The major advantages of the PS2 was the fact it was a cheap DVD player, and had one helluva game library (with some of the best RPGs in existence) despite being the weakest of the three.


----------



## marcus134 (Mar 16, 2013)

The thing I hate the most on gaming forum is all those kiddies that come upon the realization (one at the time) that gaming consoles are just easy to pick-up cheap piece of hardware that are meant to create an efficient gaming environment to get some gaming going and not the holy grail TeraFLOPs crunching machine they thought it was.

console are:
fun to play with
affordable
easy to get some gaming going
provides lot gaming experience we'll remember in the years to come.

but they're also a compromise between available tech and a price point which will give them a good market penetration, in order to generate profit.


----------



## smf (Mar 16, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm well aware of the MHz Myth, I was saying that 294 MHz wasn't that groundbreaking since the Dreamcast had a 200 MHz CPU back in late 1998, neither was the 32 MB of RAM. The Gamecube slaughtered the PS2 when it came out in 2001 when it comes to specifications, there's no refuting that.


 
You're aware of the MHz Myth and then compare them? The PS2 architecture was more advanced than either the dreamcast & gamecube http://www.philvaz.com/games/PS2.htm

The gamecube might have had more brute force cpu speed, but it had a lot of limitations that made sure it wasn't going to become popular as a main stream console.
The dreamcast had other limitations but it might have been able to struggle on and fight the gamecube for 2nd place, there was no way it could survive piracy for the cost of a blank cd-r's.

Consoles can be better with cheaper hardware than PC's, it's always been the same. You could outperform a SNES or a PS1 with a PC back in the day if you were willing to spend the money. There might not have been any decent games to play though.


----------



## mightymuffy (Mar 16, 2013)

Ha, another PC vs console thread! And the PC geeks are the ones with the biggest gobs I see - surprise surprise!
Console gamer here and proud of it! I'm not poor either, and could quite easily blow $2k on a good PC rig and think nothing of it, but ewww no... that would put me in the same genre as some of the PC knobheads on here, and frankly if I started talking like that I'd have to kill meself! 

So, instead do I spend ~$500 for a 'low end' console, that in reality will be producing the same quality graphics as these 'wonderful' PCs (coz let's face it dearies, for the next three years at least, all you'll be getting are ports of PS4 games with minutely better framerates/textures et al....  )??? Hell, for the price of a Titan card alone you can probably pick up a PS4, next Xbox AND a Wii U... not exactly brain surgery is it, of course it's the PS4 for me!


----------



## Veho (Mar 16, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> The Gamecube slaughtered the PS2 when it came out in 2001 when it comes to specifications, there's no refuting that.


I'm not disputing that, but the Gamecube came out two years after the PS2 (and it was still a time when Nintendo was making powerful consoles   )  I was talking about the launch period. 



> The major advantages of the PS2 was the fact it was a cheap DVD player, and had one helluva game library (with some of the best RPGs in existence) despite being the weakest *of the three*.


But we're not comparing it other consoles here.


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

/pc master race


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 16, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> Keep in mind that every PC games ever cost like $5 bucks, console games cost like $60. You pay more for the hardware with PCs but much less for the software.


Good luck trading those $5 Digitally Distributed games - boxed PC games in stores have prices equivalent to their console counterparts.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2013)

I play PS2 and Gamecube games on my PC. HA!

Haters gonna hate.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 16, 2013)

If you think Adobe is expensive on the PC you should see the prices they charge for the PS3 version... heheheh

Myself I like having a PC and a couple of consoles from each gen. I do miss when there was a little more separation of the two though. Genesis and SNES, PS1 and N64 where far better machines than the PC's of the day for the games that they had. These days it's getting harder and harder to tell them apart so at some point it's going to get hard to justify spending the money on multiple machines.  

Also M.A.M.E. FTW!!!! lol


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 16, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> I play PS2 and Gamecube games on my PC. HA!


Enjoy the sub-par experience of inaccurate emulation then, I play them on their original hardware. 

...practically two generations later, I might add.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Enjoy the sub-par experience of inaccurate emulation then, I play them on their original hardware.


 
Oh, I will  I'll enjoy all the inaccuracies and not brag about them.



Spoiler



I have Dios Mios; no way in hell I'm going to spend the time finding all my games and swapping all the discs back an and forth when I have a 500 GB HDD instead, it's so much easier


.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 16, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> I meant game prices, not stuff like that Adobe whatever that 3 people use.


 
Premiere Pro, Photoshop, and After Effects are almost industry standards.

So it's a lot more than "3 people".

Games can be cheaper after a while and when there's sales but at launch they're, at most, $10 cheaper.

Steam sales are great and all but games for the consoles (especially factoring in used games) are pretty cheap after a while too. You can also trade in your console games towards newer ones.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 16, 2013)

I'm glad that this chit-chat is still going, it's quite amusing.

I see that people are still happily chanting away about the PC Master Race being superior and hell, for all intents and purposes, a PC is superior _if_ you can afford a High End one. Most of the bread eaters have Mid End ones though and with the OS on-top of the hardware, their capabilities are greatly limited.

All consoles in the history of ever had comparable or better performance than strong PC's for the first year or two since their release despite weaker hardware simply because on a console you don't have to bother with a number of _"PC Woes"_ such as programming for a wide range of builds etc. - you have one piece of hardware for which you can optimize your software - on a PC, you have to prepare the software to work on a variety of builds _"wasting"_ resources _"just in case"_.

Moreover, consoles have another benefit and that benefit is simpicity - you pop the game in and it _"just works"_. There are no hardware upgrades entailed _(unless you require perhaptials like a camera or whatnot, but you can just plug them in)_.

For all intents and purposes, you get more _"bang"_ for the buck - when you get a console you have 100% certainty that the software you buy for it is going to work just dandy regardless of your setup. With PC, it's not always so obvious.

PC's are like amphibian vehicles - they do a wide range of things. Consoles are streamline - they're made for the sole purpose of entertainment. You're entirely entitled to using an expensive swiss spork for all your spooning and forking needs but if someone just wants to eat a cup noodle, a fork alone is sufficient and it's likely to be much more cost-effective than your swiss wonder.


----------



## Lanlan (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Premiere Pro, Photoshop, and After Effects are almost industry standards.
> 
> So it's a lot more than "3 people".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm


----------



## chyyran (Mar 16, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well if you're a good little boy then it'll set you back roughly $2,600.
> 
> Hell I think even Microsoft Office is a bit pricey. I thought it was $100+ but its been years since I bought it (I mostly use OpenOffice now).
> 
> ...


 
Ew, OpenOffice.

Google Docs is the way to go.


----------



## AceWarhead (Mar 16, 2013)

Ron said:


> Ew, OpenOffice.
> 
> Google Docs is the way to go.


Notepad.


----------



## chyyran (Mar 16, 2013)

AceWarhead said:


> Notepad.


 
Notepad doesn't have autosaves and cloud access 

Also, Notepad++.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm glad that this chit-chat is still going, it's quite amusing.
> 
> I see that people are still happily chanting away about the PC Master Race being superior and hell, for all intents and purposes, a PC is superior _if_ you can afford a High End one. Most of the bread eaters have Mid End ones though and with the OS on-top of the hardware, their capabilities are greatly limited.
> 
> ...


Mid-Ends still have greater graphical fidelity and choices than consoles. At least, as a reference point, I consider my i5-2500K @ 3.3GHz , HD7770 @ 1GHz and 16GB RAM mid-end, But yeah, I agree with everything else you wrote. That, and PCs are good for people who want to learn about the intricacies of building, maintaining, troubleshooting, and sometimes programming for a PC as well. It may not be simple, but it's more of an educational experience than consoles.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2013)

Ron said:


> Notepad doesn't have autosaves and cloud access
> 
> Also, Notepad++.
> 
> ...


 
Syncing/auto saves are for those who have non-crappy reliable internet connections; notepad + FTW


----------



## chyyran (Mar 16, 2013)

the_randomizer said:


> Syncing/auto saves are for those who have non-crappy reliable internet connections; notepad + FTW


 
I find Google Docs wonderful for when I'm working on an essay. I can do some at home on my desktop, my laptop, anywhere at school, my phone in the car for those times where you desperately need to finish.

It's wonderful.

Even when coding, I make sure my IDE autosaves and I push to github often, so I can continue anywhere, and not loose any data.


----------



## the_randomizer (Mar 16, 2013)

Ron said:


> I find Google Docs wonderful for when I'm working on an essay. I can do some at home on my desktop, my laptop, anywhere at school, my phone in the car for those times where you desperately need to finish.
> 
> It's wonderful.
> 
> Even when coding, I make sure my IDE autosaves and I push to github often, so I can continue anywhere, and not loose any data.


 
It's wonderful if you have a good connection. My apartment complex's ISP and connection suck donkey balls; my docs never sync properly and I'm forced to use other means. At my university, it works great what with the 100 mbps connection and all.


----------



## narutofan777 (Mar 16, 2013)

Surely it is blindingly obvious that pc's will always have the advantage.. I thought everyone knew that?

Why is Nvida statin' the obvious?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 17, 2013)

Ron said:


> Mid-Ends still have greater graphical fidelity and choices than consoles. At least, as a reference point, I consider my i5-2500K @ 3.3GHz , HD7770 @ 1GHz and 16GB RAM mid-end, But yeah, I agree with everything else you wrote.


Bet you $100 your Mid-End wouldn't run the software showcased on the presentation and that's my whole point.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Mar 17, 2013)

emigre said:


> Well I'm sticking to the console sub-race cause I actually really like the console exclusives.


exclusives huh you might get maybe a dozen games that are exclusives and the rest are multiplat with 95% of the time a PC version that's how it was last gen and it will be exactly the same this gen. the days of needing to own every console to play every game are over.


----------



## Minox (Mar 17, 2013)

Ok, surely I can't be the only one not giving a fuck about whether a console or a PC is better?


I use a PC by choice. Not because it's superior in any kind of way, but because I personally do not have any interest in owning a new console. Both consoles and PCs have their merits, and in this case the merits of a PC just happened to suit me as a person better. That however does not in any kind of way invalidate a console's merits.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 17, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> exclusives huh you might get maybe a dozen games that are exclusives and the rest are multiplat with 95% of the time a PC version that's how it was last gen and it will be exactly the same this gen. the days of needing to own every console to play every game are over.


 
Minus the much more than a dozen console exclusives.

Also if I end up posting this like five thousand times then it's not my fault, the site's still a bit wonky.


----------



## emigre (Mar 17, 2013)

Bladexdsl said:


> exclusives huh you might get maybe a dozen games that are exclusives and the rest are multiplat with 95% of the time a PC version that's how it was last gen and it will be exactly the same this gen. the days of needing to own every console to play every game are over.


 
Half the games I own for my PS3 are console exclusives...


----------



## LockeCole_101629 (Mar 17, 2013)

people rant about anything
people fuss about over everything

this kind of thing why news is so excited.
it's not the news, it's people reaction.

few years from now (if this forum is still exist) all of you would be so embarrassed looking at your own post.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Mar 17, 2013)

emigre said:


> Half the games I own for my PS3 are console exclusives...


 
Half of zero equals...?


----------



## emigre (Mar 17, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Half of zero equals...?


 
Fuck off Guild McPCMASTERRACEISt!!!


----------



## Gahars (Mar 17, 2013)

The way I see it, PC is the inherently better platform - but they're not always the best choice. It's the difference between a chainsaw and a hacksaw - sure, that chainsaw's always going to cut better, but it isn't always the appropriate tool to use.

Consoles have a low barrier of entry price wise (While a gaming PC may pay off in the long run, paying upfront can still be difficult), and they're easy to manage. A console owner doesn't have to worry about graphics card compatibility, upgrading, settings, etc. They can just slap their game into the game machine and have a grand old time. They're very convenient, and for a lot of people, that's enough.

So can we stop arguing this already?


----------



## emigre (Mar 17, 2013)

Gahars said:


> So can we stop arguing this already?


 
No.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Mar 17, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> Keep in mind that every PC games ever cost like $5 bucks, console games cost like $60. You pay more for the hardware with PCs but much less for the software.


 
PC games average from 5 dollars up to 60 depending on the game. Some games that are released on the PC later, like Resident Evil 6 and Crysis 2 Maximum Edition for instance, are sold at a lower price, both those games were 39.99 at release. At least when it comes to content, you see a lot of stuff that you won't find on consoles as well because of the openness that is the PC platform and services like Steam allowing people to easily get their new games on the market.



marcus134 said:


> The thing I hate the most on gaming forum is all those kiddies that come upon the realization (one at the time) that gaming consoles are just easy to pick-up cheap piece of hardware that are meant to create an efficient gaming environment to get some gaming going and not the holy grail TeraFLOPs crunching machine they thought it was.
> 
> console are:
> fun to play with
> ...


 
I don't see how anyone can deem a console as affordable at a 700 dollar price point like the PS3 was here in Canada at launch. That was an absurd amount of money at the time and still is a lot. People can say "oh they are cheap" all they want now, but we are talking about systems that have been out for several years now, of course they are cheap NOW! If they were as expensive today as they were at release people wouldn't be buying the damn things.


----------



## heartgold (Mar 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Bet you $100 your Mid-End wouldn't run the software showcased on the presentation and that's my whole point.


Eh seriously? What was so special that couldn't be done on today's PC? I saw nothing spectacular in the graphics field and res, framerate seems to not so godly outstanding. The killzone game was rendering at 1080P/30FPS.


----------



## marcus134 (Mar 17, 2013)

DSGamer64 said:


> I don't see how anyone can deem a console as affordable at a 700 dollar price point like the PS3 was here in Canada at launch.


 
And that also prevented Sony from keeping up with Microsoft market penetration.


----------



## chyyran (Mar 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Bet you $100 your Mid-End wouldn't run the software showcased on the presentation and that's my whole point.


 
There are a whole bunch of variables that would allow or not allow my Mid-End to run the software. Including what language it's coded in, how the effects are handled, how optimized the the game is, what resolution you intend to run it in, what framerate is considered acceptable, overclocking of my CPU/GPU/RAM, what OS I have installed on my PC, and more. It's likely that, my mid-end would be able to at least run some, perhaps not much though, of the software showcased at an acceptable framerate.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 17, 2013)

Ron said:


> There are a whole bunch of variables that would allow or not allow my Mid-End to run the software. Including what language it's coded in, how the effects are handled, how optimized the the game is, what resolution you intend to run it in, what framerate is considered acceptable, overclocking of my CPU/GPU/RAM, what OS I have installed on my PC, and more. It's likely that, my mid-end would be able to at least run some, perhaps not much though, of the software showcased at an acceptable framerate.


By _"run"_ I meant _"run at a comparable performance"_ since that's the whole point. I can _"game on Ultra"_ too except why would I do that at 2FPS?


----------



## chyyran (Mar 17, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> By _"run"_ I meant _"run at a comparable performance"_ since that's the whole point. I can _"game on Ultra"_ too except why would I do that at 2FPS?


 
By "run at an acceptable framerate", I meant at about, or at a slightly lower than the same visual quality at around 24 to 30 fps. As well, something I haven't mentioned before, you have to consider the ever changing definition of "Mid-End", "High-End", and "Low-End" PCs.

In a few years when the PS4 (hopefully) picks up steam, Mid-Ends could have surpassed the PS4 in comparable performance anyways. That's the beauty of a PC, you can always upgrade yours, whereas in a console, you don't need to deal with upgrading your console. It all depends on what floats your boat, do you want to deal with the intricacies of maintaining a PC every so often for an advantage, or do you want to buy a nice, cheaper, "batteries included" device that will allow you to stay relevant for the next 5-7 years? Of course, the best choice is both, so you catch most, if not all exclusives, but that's beside the point.


----------



## Hielkenator (Mar 17, 2013)

Veho said:


> This is the first time the Playstation will have specs lower than PCs _at launch_. When the PS2 came out, it had specs superior to any PC. Same with the PS3 (albeit by a much smaller margin). This is the first time Sony's console isn't a superior powerhouse but merely a comparable (if not inferior) machine at launch. Sure, all the "consoles aren't PCs / better use of hardware / no bulky OS / uniform hardware platform" still applies, but it applied to previous consoles as well - but they also had superior hardware on top of it. Or underneath it? In conjunction with, in any case.


What? Ha ha, that's absolutely NOT true at all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 17, 2013)

...Just to lighten up the atmosphere, lads:



_#February 20th 2013_
_#Still Ballin'_


----------



## BORTZ (Mar 17, 2013)

>Nvidia is butthurt over not being given the job, says things that everyone knows to make it sound bad. 

Cool.


----------



## heartgold (Mar 18, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> By _"run"_ I meant _"run at a comparable performance"_ since that's the whole point. I can _"game on Ultra"_ too except why would I do that at 2FPS?


You must have a crappy PC Foxi4. I kid. 

Anyhow as the PS4 is releasing later this year, the next GPU card is going to be double the flops also releasing around the same time meaning PS4 will be left behind by PC by miles.

Those 8 cores jaguar cores are targeted for mobile or low end laptops, they don't have a comparable performance again real desktop processors that's why they are low end. Think of atom, but yeah I'm sure it's better than that. I heard on neogaf forum A15 is closer to jaguar cores performance, than jaguar is against current desktops CPU's. With 8 cores it should be fine, it's more capable and more advance features making it no match for A15. Just saying performance wise.

We already have quad core jaguars for netbooks confirmed, also we will be seeing tablets with 2-4 x64 jaguar cores sometime later. Which is nice.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Mar 18, 2013)

I kinda feel the 8-cores on the CPU are giving in to high diminishing returns. Sure, they can be used for games, but I honestly don't see them being used efficiently, in that only 3 may be maxed out while each additional core gets used less than the previous one.


----------



## heartgold (Mar 18, 2013)

DiscostewSM said:


> I kinda feel the 8-cores on the CPU are giving in to high diminishing returns. Sure, they can be used for games, but I honestly don't see them being used efficiently, in that only 3 may be maxed out while each additional core gets used less than the previous one.


Each core isn't very powerful by itself, you are not going to get a good performance, together you can split up the tasks and be very efficient. As I already mentioned these are very low end CPU that will get used in tablets and low end laptops. 8 cores will be supper effective performance wise, don't forgot Cell was overpowered, most of cells work is done on modern days GPU. With a decent powerful GPU you can pump out nice graphics.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 18, 2013)

heartgold said:


> Each core isn't very powerful by itself, you are not going to get a good performance, together you can split up the tasks and be very efficient.


*Not for gaming though*, which is why you see gaming PCs are still predominantly dual-core or quad-core.  More cores go unused, or used not for the game process.

The only part of gaming that can be run highly-parallel is the video rendering, and that's already offloaded to the GPU to be run way more parallel than any CPU can do.


----------



## Qtis (Mar 18, 2013)

Dedicated platform for gaming vs a multi-use platform for a various amount of different tasks. Guess which one uses the available resources more efficiently? While this is apples and oranges, I can see a company like Nvidia complaining like this. Sure they have a point, but the PS4/WiiU/Durango (or whatever it'll be called) will use resources solely for the purpose of gaming. There will of course be multimedia support, but the platform doesn't have to run 3D modeling, audio mixing, video editing, photo editing or games not meant to be played on a certain hardware configuration.

In other words, games will be developed with the known specs instead of a thousand variables. Less variables means possibility for optimization and thus better use of resources. Specs by themselves don't mean as much, but the related SDK does show the possibilities or restrictions of games at a certain timeframe.


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 18, 2013)

A lot of this talk about games being unable to take full advantage of multi-core computer architectures may have been relevant a decade ago, but makes little sense in an era where even a simple browser can use hundreds of threads. The paradigm shift away from the 'ideal' uniprocessor computing model has been complete for years. Surely a 10GHz single-core would be superior to a 2GHz, 8-core processor, but the point is mooted by the fact that the former is highly impractical for consumer use at this time. Many PC games may use 2 or 4 cores max, but the fact that PC games are coded to run on the most machines possible has to be recognized.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 18, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> A lot of this talk about games being unable to take full advantage of multi-core computer architectures may have been relevant a decade ago, but makes little sense in an era where even a simple browser can have hundreds of threads. The paradigm shift away from the 'ideal' uniprocessor computing model has been complete for years. Surely a 10GHz single-core would be superior to an 8-core 2GHz processor, but the point is mooted by the fact that the former is highly impractical for consumer use at this time. Many PC games may use 2 or 4 cores max, but the fact that PC games are coded to run on the most machines possible has to be recognized.


No, that's not how it works.  Browsers have multiple threads for segregation issues, not CPU usage issues.  It doesn't matter what platform it runs on, most game engines only have two or three main threads, period (if even more than one).  It's not about catering to people with low-core machines, it's literally that the extra cores go unused because there's no extra threads on them, because more threads would not make their tasks any faster.


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 18, 2013)

Rydian said:


> No, that's not how it works. Browsers have multiple threads for segregation issues, not CPU usage issues. It doesn't matter what platform it runs on, most game engines only have two or three main threads, period (if even more than one). It's not about catering to people with low-core machines, it's literally that the extra cores go unused because there's no extra threads on them, because more threads would not make their tasks any faster.


Point noted, but I'm sure Sony's engineers would beg to differ. Unless, of course their reason for specifying 8 cores was nothing more than **ZOMG 8 CORES!!1!one!** I don't know about Sony, but I'd rather lose a pissing contest than potentially *billions* of dollars.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 18, 2013)

heartgold said:


> Those 8 cores jaguar cores are targeted for mobile or low end laptops, they don't have a comparable performance again real desktop processors that's why they are low end. Think of atom, but yeah I'm sure it's better than that. I heard on neogaf forum A15 is closer to jaguar cores performance, than jaguar is against current desktops CPU's. With 8 cores it should be fine, it's more capable and more advance features making it no match for A15. Just saying performance wise.


Keep in mind that strong integer maths are not exactly required for gaming purposes - we should be concerned with Floating Point which will be performed by the GPU. Moreover, the more cores the more _simultaneous_ operations the CPU can perform _(pipelines and whatnot )_. Most of graphics-related calculations are performed by the GPU - the CPU bothers with memory allocation, A.I. etc.


----------



## heartgold (Mar 18, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Keep in mind that strong integer maths are not exactly required for gaming purposes - we should be concerned with Floating Point which will be performed by the GPU. Moreover, the more cores the more _simultaneous_ operations the CPU can perform _(pipelines and whatnot )_. Most of graphics-related calculations are performed by the GPU - the CPU bothers with memory allocation, A.I. etc.


Indeed as I related  to the expensive Cell Sony created for the PS3, newer GPU can perform those tasks with more ease. Regarding multi core use, *Rydian* tells me most cores will go unused like PC gaming. I can see it happening, not all 8 cores will be used for gaming, maybe spare a couple for OS and other additional features.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 18, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> Point noted, but I'm sure Sony's engineers would beg to differ.


Not for gaming, no.  The tasks game engines do, CPU-wise, are not tasks that can be run parallel beyond ~2-3 threads.  Games are often limited in CPU per-core performance (where more cores does jack shit since it's one thread causing the issue) or GPU performance.



tronic307 said:


> Unless, of course their reason for specifying 8 cores was nothing more than **ZOMG 8 CORES!!1!one!** I don't know about Sony, but I'd rather lose a pissing contest than potentially *billions* of dollars.


Stuff other than gaming _while gaming_ is the main guess.  Likely the ability to bring up a browser (or whatever) while a game is paused without having to halt the game's execution (since the cores it's on don't need to be freed), stuff like that, or motion capture data processing runs on the CPU instead of the actually input device used for it, etc.


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 20, 2013)

My PC only has half as many cores as a PS4 but this game seems to be using every core I can throw at it. Admittedly, even if I had hyperthreading I would leave it off. That usage valley is from when I went to the map screen.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 20, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> My PC only has half as many cores as a PS4 but this game seems to be using every core I can throw at it. Admittedly, even if I had hyperthreading I would leave it off. That usage valley is from when I went to the map screen.


Doesn't look like it to me.  25% CPU usage on a four-core machine is one main thread full-on, Windows likes to take processes and swap the cores they run on around.

You can right-click a process in the task manager and use "Set Affinity" to lock it to just one core, preferably one of the later/unused ones, though if it can only use one core it'll just try to max that one out anyways, maybe seeing how it bounces between two cores would be better?


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 20, 2013)

I still think Sony would have been better off with a 4 core CPU with more Mhz than 8 cores... But I am not an engineer so take it with a grain of salt. lol


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 20, 2013)

This is what a single core app looks like; the core usage graphs are independent.


----------



## Pluupy (Mar 20, 2013)

After all these years, people are still complaining about system specs? Seriously? All the current and next gen consoles can run games beautifully. They're not trying to compete with the Titan and start conducting science experiments. Jeez.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 20, 2013)

tronic307 said:


> This is what a single core app looks like; the core usage graphs are independent.View attachment 2100


Can you use something like Process Explorer to see which threads are where from the process?
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653.aspx


----------



## mightymuffy (Mar 20, 2013)

Interesting point by Pluupy there: the PS3 has already given us Uncharted 3 - quite the looker! 360? Off the top of my head, Forza Horizon, another super looking game! Imagine both of these games running at 1080p and 60fps: jaw dropping! And that would require what, 3x more oomph? 4x maximum?Maybe even less than that..
PS4 is more than 4x the power of the PS360 - a quick gander would suggest pushing 8x based on the half rumoured/half confirmed specs as a random figure... sure it might not top a comp with Titan cards running in SLi, but maybe it's still offering more than enough for the next few years anyway?


----------



## Rydian (Mar 21, 2013)

Well that's what consoles tend to do.  They put acceptable graphics in an acceptable price range.  It's a limited/locked system so you don't get access to nearly as much on any single one, but it's easier to use.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Mar 21, 2013)

Rydian said:


> Well that's what consoles tend to do. They put acceptable graphics in an acceptable price range. It's a limited/locked system so you don't get access to nearly as much on any single one, but it's easier to use.


 
As long as they don't dip into NeoGeo or 3DO price ranges...  lol


----------



## iFish (Mar 21, 2013)

The whole point of consoles is to not worry about specs and being able to run all the current games.
I don't know why you care about this kinda thing. If you care about specs just build a gaming PC and be done with it. 
I'm so sick and tired of people comparing console specs to their highest end gaming PCs.


----------



## Rydian (Mar 21, 2013)

iFish said:


> The whole point of consoles is to not worry about specs and being able to run all the current games.
> I don't know why you care about this kinda thing. If you care about specs just build a gaming PC and be done with it.
> I'm so sick and tired of people comparing console specs to their highest end gaming PCs.


Games get ported between consoles and PCs.  If one console lacks enough power for a game, odds are it'll not get the game, or only get a cut-down version of it.

People don't want the PS4 to be the next Wii.


----------



## tronic307 (Mar 21, 2013)

Hey, I got Tomb Raider to run on one core! If I changed the affinity while it was running it would use 100% of one core and still run at like 1/4 frame rate. I had to create a shortcut with this command in the target line: C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe /C START "Tomb Raider" /high /affinity 8 "I:\TombRaider\TombRaider.EXE". Runs OK. For some reason, it seems to use more system services than multi-core. Less threads & overall cpu % though.


----------

