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

[Veho]

Can't tell if trolling, or just stupid.

Whichever makes you feel better.

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

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]

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

 

[emigre]

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

 

[Rydian]

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

Geforce 2.

I feel old now.

 

[the_randomizer]

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.
Also, technically, the Dreamcast was the weakest 6th gen console


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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

/pc master race

 

[Foxi4]

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]

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

Haters gonna hate.

 

[Psionic Roshambo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Ew, OpenOffice.

Google Docs is the way to go.

 

[AceWarhead]

Ew, OpenOffice.

Google Docs is the way to go.

Notepad.