PC Hardware will trail new consoles for some time?

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

It is very interesting to see how the PC market responds to the Octo-cores of PS4; and I'm assuming that the XBOX will follow up with something very similar in order to compete both on the hardware and the price fronts.

Steam Hardware Survey: January 2013

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

1 CPU: 4.96%

2 CPUS: 48.78%

4 CPUS: 41.57%

OTHER: 4.69%

According to the biggest archive of empirical stats available for PC users compiled by the Steam service on regular intervals, the most popular/common cpu configuration involves dual-cores. That is almost 49% of all Steam users still running two physical cpus. Of course, the current generation games have only began to properly utilize the power of multiple cores, but most games coming out this year probably will, and the trend will continue in that direction of course. It will take quite some time for the PC standard to reach the level of what the new consoles are bringing to the table, considering that DDR5 is not even available as PC system memory yet; as DDR3 not long ago in relative terms took over as the ram standard for DDR2 for most PCs built to play games.

I love PCs, and pretty much enjoy any platform; as the games themselves decide where I play and I don't specifically belong to any camp. It is interesting though as the "Master Race" taunt that PC gamers receive quite a bit isn't really going to be backed up by the hardware power for quite some time if we're talking in generalities, as in truth that's normally what the Master Race refers to when it stereotypes PC gamers as the smug ones always looking down on consoles when it comes to pretty much any aspect of gaming. Well, the new consoles will pack a lot of computing power now going forward; still the PCs will be able to match them, at least in terms of CPU cores and SLI GPUs; but at a very hefty cost. The price exceeds the reality of what most PC gamers are willing to pay, so unless the prices are dumped, which of course they won't be, PC will continue the slow transition its currently on.

What do you think about the current hardware status of the PC platform, and do you think it'll progress faster than what I think in terms of moving from 2CPUS/4CPUS to 8 cores and beyond?

#2 Posted by rethla (865 posts) -

We will probably see a huge boost in games being optimized for more cores and more memory so all the PC ports will take a giant leap. Becouse of that games played on your $20000 PC will start to look AWESOME instead of exacly the same as the 360version but running at 500FPS. That will surly create a higher demmand for more powerfull PC hardware aswell.

#3 Edited by pandorasbox (303 posts) -

Of course the PC will trail for a year or two, it happens with EVERY generation. Computers will technically be more impressive in terms of specs, but consoles will still outperform for a fair bit due to the lack of any OS ties. People seem to forget that using windows, OSX, or even linux uses a certain amount of memory, CPU, and GPU power at all times. That power threshold doesn't exist on consoles, hence the term "coding to the metal".

#4 Posted by KaosAngel (13764 posts) -

A high end PC right now is much stronger than the specs on the PS4.

A solid 4 core CPU is still faster than jaguar's CPU that AMD built for the PS4, and the 660 GTX is a much stronger card. Most PCs come with 8 gigs ram standard and have at least 2 gigs of GDDR5 on the video card.

The huge leap that PS3/360 had with PCs back then isn't here today.

#5 Posted by Bishna (334 posts) -

PCs big disadvantage is that everyone has different specs. Developers can count on every PS4 owner having that 8-core cpu, so they can program for it specifically. Ultimately though I don't think it will matter that much, the CPU in the PS4 is running at a substantially lower clock rate than modern PCs. And most developers probably won't even take advantage of all 8 cores because its difficult and time consuming, or they might not even need to. Ultimately, PS4 games will look and play great, PC games will look and play great, Durango 720 games will also probably look and play great.

Its a Win-Win-Win for gamers, whatever platform you play on, you will most likely get a great experience.

#6 Posted by haffy (674 posts) -

Kind of reminds me of blast processing lol. I don't quite get why it's better?

#7 Posted by ShadowSkill11 (1783 posts) -

Maybe some of your pcs will trail behind but my PC is a beast and nothing I saw running on ps4 would seem like a challenge for it at all. Much like this gen the next gen multi plats are going thru Steam and exclusives to consoles in my house.

#8 Posted by Borodin (417 posts) -

Of course, the current generation games have only began to properly utilize the power of multiple cores, but most games coming out this year probably will, and the trend will continue in that direction of course.

Multi-core CPUs have been around for years now and yet the number of games that take actual meaningful advantage of them has stayed low - and by meaningful advantage I mean being able to offload a specific task to another core like AI or physics. As @bishna points out, programming around multiple cores is difficult if the job isn't something you can easily subdivide - and games do not fit well in that category. It just isn't the case that having more cores suddenly makes it trivial to produce better graphics or more complex physics etc, if anything that's the lesson you should take from the fact nearly 50% of Steam users get by on a dual core CPU - not 'Oh man, aren't PC guys in trouble when PS4/Durango rolls round?'

BTW, I do think the next gen consoles are going to be able to produce some amazing looking games and easily nicer looking than anything I can run on my current PC - I'm just saying from a technical stand point you're barking up the wrong tree to attribute that to a bunch more CPU cores than last gen

#9 Posted by Slaegar (740 posts) -

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

#10 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

#11 Posted by Scroll (602 posts) -

You don't need a PS4 spec'ed machine to run League of Legends so I don't expect the steam survey results to change drastically over the next few years. Just using a general survey like that does not serve your point well and if you were serious about this you could put the effort into doing more in depth research.

The PS4 real time demo of the Unreal Engine 4 had cut backs compared to the same demo on pc so you could take that to suggest the next gen is already behind, it just depends on the perspective you choose to take.

When it comes down to it the performance doesn't matter all that much anyway, developers will make great games for each platform regardless of the number cores or how much unified RAM it has.

#12 Posted by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

#13 Posted by Jams (2966 posts) -

Will troll trail new console for some time?

#14 Edited by Funkydupe (3321 posts) -

How many gamers own high-end PCs now and how many can afford to keep them on the high-end? 10%? 5%? You don't see the average PC gamer running three high-end GPUs and 8 CPU cores with 32GB DDR3. The consoles provide a solid package this time around, that's at least my impression. Steam draws its data from millions of PC users, casual and hardcore gamers alike.

#15 Edited by MikkaQ (10344 posts) -

I think the DDR5 RAM is more to overcome the fact that the memory is shared, since the PS4 has an APU. Since modern gaming PCs have discrete RAM for the video card and the system itself it doesn't really matter. PS4 is cleverly overcoming a hurdle that integrated graphics solutions have always had to contend with.

#16 Edited by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@pandorasbox said:

Of course the PC will trail for a year or two, it happens with EVERY generation. Computers will technically be more impressive in terms of specs, but consoles will still outperform for a fair bit due to the lack of any OS ties. People seem to forget that using windows, OSX, or even linux uses a certain amount of memory, CPU, and GPU power at all times. That power threshold doesn't exist on consoles, hence the term "coding to the metal".

I don't think you really understand how this works.

There is only so much you can do due to hardware constraints. Regardless of what OS you are using, you are still stuck with what you can possibly do with what you have.

At this point, even the slowest current PC will be able to run any OS without much problem. You are trying to use obsolete scenarios that don't even really exist these days, and hasn't for a while. We're way past the the "coding to the metal" phase, and have been for a good decade or so.

Lets put it this way: The PS4 is basically an x86-based computer. Games are made for the PS4 are being made on current x86-based architecture computers. The hardware in the PS4 will be based on the x86-based architecture hardware.

So you're trying to say that an x86-based console with around $700 worth (give or take) of hardware is going to trail an x86-based PC with $1000-$2000 dollars worth of hardware (that is probably going to be at least a generation ahead)?

#17 Posted by Scroll (602 posts) -

How many gamers own high-end PCs now and how many can afford to keep them on the high-end? 10%? 5%? You don't see the average PC gamer running three high-end GPUs and 8 CPU cores with 32GB DDR3. The consoles provide a solid package this time around, that's at least my impression. Steam draws its data from millions of PC users, casual and hardcore gamers alike.

This is the flaw of your argument, over generalizing data taken from a large unspecific survey and making assumptions. Do you honestly believe that it would take a triple sli system with 8 cores and a 32 gigs of ram to match up to the PS4?

I think this topic has run out of steam.

#18 Posted by RollingZeppelin (2118 posts) -

@funkydupe: There's a difference between DDR and GDDR memory. A lot of PC owners already own graphics cards with GDDR5 memory, the same that the PS4 will use. DDR5 memory doesn't exist.

#19 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

#20 Posted by AlexW00d (6448 posts) -

The PS4 having an 8 core CPU means nothing considering the PS3 also had an 8 core CPU. An 8 core CPU that ran at twice the clock.

The only thing that matters is if developers will put in the effort with the PC version of their games or not.

#21 Edited by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

#22 Edited by Crysack (348 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

I think you're underestimating just how far PCs have moved ahead of current-gen consoles in the time they've been out. Even now, a moderately high-end PC out-strips the PS4's specs.

#23 Posted by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@crysack Exactly. That's the point I'm trying to make here.

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to shit all over the new consoles, I'm just trying to explain that it isn't going to be as crazy-powerful like so many people want to believe it is.

#24 Edited by Slaegar (740 posts) -

@crysack: There was a piece on Eurogamer where they ran games on an AMD APU to see how it handled. They set Battlefield 3 to the lowest it would go and noticed the textures still looked better than either console version.

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/battlefield-3-amd-trinity-vs-playstation-3-video

http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/battlefield-3-amd-trinity-vs-xbox-360-video

#25 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

#26 Posted by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

#27 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

#28 Posted by Daveyo520 (7008 posts) -

8 Cores is where it is at.

#29 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

I believe the average gaming PC user will get a worse experience on PC in terms of game fidelity compared to PS4 users, when it comes to multiplatform games. Overall, the industry as a whole is about to make substantial leap in fidelity - we're all in for a treat, unless the Wii U is your one and only platform of choice.

What's even more interesting? Carmack's push for VR goggles, which might spawn such technology within this upcoming generation - I foresee first party attempts at VR implementation within the next two years. Carmack will likely make a killing selling his tech to the highest bidder. If successful, that's naturally where the core gaming market will be going.

The quantum leap akin the shift from 2D sprites to 3D polygonal graphics, that the gaming industry is so desperately in need of. Virtual reality goggles.

#30 Posted by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

#31 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

#32 Edited by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

#33 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

Im still pretty sure youre pushing it with each new set of graphics card being a "generation" of consoles, most consoles have a bigger jump then people always expect

Like at the begging of every generation when PC gaming dies down for another couple of years then comes back for awhile at the end

Youre forgetting this has happened at the end of every generation of systems.

#34 Edited by Levio (1786 posts) -

I wonder how Sony is going to react when PC's can run 4K games 3 to 4 years from now and the PS4 can't.

#35 Edited by believer258 (12209 posts) -

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

Barely in some cases.

A console can run modern games at half the framerate of the PC version, as well as at a much lower resolution. Your 360 might say 1080p but it's actually just upscaling games to that resolution, it's not natively running them at 1080p. Textures, draw distances, lighting, and other things are also of a much lower quality on the 360 and PS3 as opposed to the PC.

#36 Posted by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

Im still pretty sure youre pushing it with each new set of graphics card being a "generation"

"Generation" is the technical term.

Just like the next "generation" of iPhones or Macbooks

the next evolution, I guess you could say.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing console generations with hardware generations. Those are two completely different things.

#37 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

Barely in some cases.

A console can run modern games at half the framerate of the PC version, as well as at a much lower resolution. Your 360 might say 1080p but it's actually just upscaling games to that resolution, it's not natively running them at 1080p. Textures, draw distances, lighting, and other things are also of a much lower quality on the 360 and PS3 as opposed to the PC.

I still think its pretty ridiculous that people are already somehow predicting this so early

#38 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

Im still pretty sure youre pushing it with each new set of graphics card being a "generation"

"Generation" is the technical term.

Just like the next "generation" of iPhones or Macbooks

the next evolution, I guess you could say.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing console generations with hardware generations. Those are two completely different things.

So even if some peoples PCs are ahead what percentage will have ones better than new consoles 5-10%? Most people don't have all of the most cutting edge graphics cards and processors.

#39 Posted by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

Im still pretty sure youre pushing it with each new set of graphics card being a "generation"

"Generation" is the technical term.

Just like the next "generation" of iPhones or Macbooks

the next evolution, I guess you could say.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing console generations with hardware generations. Those are two completely different things.

So even if some peoples PCs are ahead what percentage will have ones better than new consoles 5-10%? Most people don't have all of the most cutting edge graphics cards and processors.

Way more than that. The whole point I'm trying to make here is that you don't need very much to be able to do that. Even building a relatively cheap (say, $800-$1,000) machine will do the trick. It's not like the old days where just to have a decent system you would need to spend $3,000 every 2 years to have something usable. These days a solid $1,000 machine will last you a good 2 or 3 years at least.

I don't think the new consoles are going to surpass current PCs by any amount, but rather parody them. And a year or two down the line when new PC hardware comes out again and machines get upgraded again, the PC will be just that much more powerful.

#40 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

Im still pretty sure youre pushing it with each new set of graphics card being a "generation"

"Generation" is the technical term.

Just like the next "generation" of iPhones or Macbooks

the next evolution, I guess you could say.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing console generations with hardware generations. Those are two completely different things.

So even if some peoples PCs are ahead what percentage will have ones better than new consoles 5-10%? Most people don't have all of the most cutting edge graphics cards and processors.

Way more than that. The whole point I'm trying to make here is that you don't need very much to be able to do that. Even building a relatively cheap (say, $800-$1,000) machine will do the trick. It's not like the old days where just to have a decent system you would need to spend $3,000 every 2 years to have something usable. These days a solid $1,000 machine will last you a good 2 or 3 years at least.

I don't think the new consoles are going to surpass current PCs by any amount, but rather parody them. And a year or two down the line when new PC hardware comes out again and machines get upgraded again, the PC will be just that much more powerful.

The point im trying to make is like you said the new consoles will run the games the same at half the amount for a good two years and it sounds alot more appealing to alot of people.

But what do i know were all just gonna fight for whichever one we use :P

#41 Posted by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

Im still pretty sure youre pushing it with each new set of graphics card being a "generation"

"Generation" is the technical term.

Just like the next "generation" of iPhones or Macbooks

the next evolution, I guess you could say.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing console generations with hardware generations. Those are two completely different things.

So even if some peoples PCs are ahead what percentage will have ones better than new consoles 5-10%? Most people don't have all of the most cutting edge graphics cards and processors.

Way more than that. The whole point I'm trying to make here is that you don't need very much to be able to do that. Even building a relatively cheap (say, $800-$1,000) machine will do the trick. It's not like the old days where just to have a decent system you would need to spend $3,000 every 2 years to have something usable. These days a solid $1,000 machine will last you a good 2 or 3 years at least.

I don't think the new consoles are going to surpass current PCs by any amount, but rather parody them. And a year or two down the line when new PC hardware comes out again and machines get upgraded again, the PC will be just that much more powerful.

The point im trying to make is like you said the new consoles will run the games the same at half the amount for a good two years and it sounds alot more appealing to alot of people.

But what do i know were all just gonna fight for whichever one we use :P

I guess. I don't really care either way. I have a gaming PC, and I'll end up buying both consoles anyway when they come out so I'm set. :D

I'm just trying to explain all this stuff to the people on here who are like "ahhh teh news PS4 and XBOX COMMING OUT YEAHHH!!! ITZ GUNNA BE SO MUCH FASTERZ!!!!11"

and I'm like "no, not really. It will be a big improvement over what we have now, but it's not the earth-shattering think you expect it to be so clam the fuck down"

#42 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

Im still pretty sure youre pushing it with each new set of graphics card being a "generation"

"Generation" is the technical term.

Just like the next "generation" of iPhones or Macbooks

the next evolution, I guess you could say.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing console generations with hardware generations. Those are two completely different things.

So even if some peoples PCs are ahead what percentage will have ones better than new consoles 5-10%? Most people don't have all of the most cutting edge graphics cards and processors.

Way more than that. The whole point I'm trying to make here is that you don't need very much to be able to do that. Even building a relatively cheap (say, $800-$1,000) machine will do the trick. It's not like the old days where just to have a decent system you would need to spend $3,000 every 2 years to have something usable. These days a solid $1,000 machine will last you a good 2 or 3 years at least.

I don't think the new consoles are going to surpass current PCs by any amount, but rather parody them. And a year or two down the line when new PC hardware comes out again and machines get upgraded again, the PC will be just that much more powerful.

The point im trying to make is like you said the new consoles will run the games the same at half the amount for a good two years and it sounds alot more appealing to alot of people.

But what do i know were all just gonna fight for whichever one we use :P

I guess. I don't really care either way. I have a gaming PC, and I'll end up buying both consoles anyway when they come out so I'm set. :D

I'm just trying to explain all this stuff to the people on here who are like "ahhh teh news PS4 and XBOX COMMING OUT YEAHHH!!! ITZ GUNNA BE SO MUCH FASTERZ!!!!11"

and I'm like "no, not really. It will be a big improvement over what we have now, but it's not the earth-shattering think you expect it to be so clam the fuck down"

Just let people have their fun man >:[

And most people who dont own PCs will thinks its a great improvement anyways

#43 Edited by Stonyman65 (2873 posts) -

Oh it will be an awesome improvement!

I'm really happy for you guys because now you'll get what the PC guys have had for the last few years lol.

#44 Edited by believer258 (12209 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid said:

@believer258 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

Barely in some cases.

A console can run modern games at half the framerate of the PC version, as well as at a much lower resolution. Your 360 might say 1080p but it's actually just upscaling games to that resolution, it's not natively running them at 1080p. Textures, draw distances, lighting, and other things are also of a much lower quality on the 360 and PS3 as opposed to the PC.

I still think its pretty ridiculous that people are already somehow predicting this so early

Predicting that high end PC's now are at the very least equal to or more powerful than what the PS4 will offer?

Yes. It was a similar story with the 360. Ever tried to play FEAR or Oblivion on a 360 or PS3? Have you seen Quake 4's framerate issues on the 360? You can explain some of that away with "it was a bad port", but it wasn't just because it was a bad port. Those games don't run very well on current consoles because they were made with more powerful PC's in mind (with the possible exception of Oblivion). Most games these days are ports, made for the consoles and then given extra bells and whistles for the vastly more powerful PC's. No one is kidding when they tell you that PC's are several generations ahead of the consoles in terms of computing power. Not console generations, by the way, graphics card generations, which update every year (GTX 400, 500, 600, etc.)

The PS4 will be no weak machine at launch, but it will not outmatch something like an i5 3570k and a GTX 670 or 680, hardware available now for PC's.

Does that clear things up a bit? You must understand that consoles have to be marketable at the sub-$400 range if the PS3's lower sales at the beginning of this generation are any indication, and you also must understand that PC hardware keeps getting better every year by a noticeable amount.

EDIT: Also, holy fuck at the quote trees in this thread.

#45 Edited by DarthOrange (3908 posts) -

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@stonyman65 said:
@connerthekewlkid said:

@slaegar said:

Its also worth pointing out that the leaked clock speed for these CPU cores only 1.6 GHz. That's less than half of a modern desktop clock speed. With some fiddling you can get an AMD piledriver to 4.8GHz meaning the same amount of cores at three times the speed.

I'm happy to see consoles with a lot of cores, though, because it means future console ports will be optimized for multiple CPU cores as opposed to the two we've been stuck on for a while now.

PS4 games are going to look amazing, but a super high end PC will beat it day one. The difference is about $2000 dollars to work with.

The most impressive part of the PS4 is the GDDR5 RAM.

When people talk about new consoles beating PCs, they don't mean a real gaming PC, they mean a 17 inch monster laptop with a junk graphics card and slow CPU that's probably shooting fire out of the side vent.

I think they mean real PCs

I seriously doubt that will happen.

Even if the new consoles would come out tomorrow, much less a year from now, the typical gaming PC's hardware would be anywhere from 2-3 generations ahead of them.

If you understand how R&D timelines work, you're looking at

at least

a year between conception and machines ready to ship out to store shelves. A year in PC hardware is a LONG time these days.

Will the new PS4 and Xbox-whatever games look good? Yes.

Will the play good at 1080p? Yes.

Can they compare technically with the typical performance of a high-end gaming PC? Not even close.

Im pretty sure its impossible to 2-3 generations ahead and just because they have lower specs doesnt mean they cant run games better considering theyre dedicated to that and PCs have to run alot of extra items

Actually it's very easy to do that. As of right now, the current PC's are 9 generations ahead of the 360 and ps3. Generally, PC graphics and CPUs change generations every 12-18 months.

Lower spec'd hardware does mean that it won't run. Like I said in another post, you can only do so much with what you've got. Even if you "code to the metal" like someone else said (which basically means optimizing a closed system), you are still limited to what that hardware can do. It's that simple.

As far as "the PC runs a lot of extra items", yes it does, but not to any extent that would matter performance-wise. And while the main purpose of the console is to play a game, the console itself still has to run the OS and all the background services to make everything work, so your argument here isn't really valid. The console is essentially doing the same thing a PC does, but on a closed-end smaller scale.

Are you Trolling me? how exactly do you measure that its 9 generations ahead?

Actually it's 8 generations. The 360 and ps3 used the equivalent of the GTX7900 graphics card. As of right now we are on the GTX900 series of cards, which is technically 8 generations ahead.

The 360's CPU was an 3-core Xenon processor using a 65nm die. Currently we are using Intel i5/i7 chips with quad or hex cores with a 22nm die.

You can read up on all the specs and stuff here. Either way, that stuff is OLD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_3_hardware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon_(processor)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(microprocessor)

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

...PCs don't use that type of hardware...

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

So youre telling me that if you somehow manged to get those parts into a working PC they could run most new games like a console?

Yup. They would run exactly like the consoles are now because that's all they are capable of.

Like someone said earlier - I think you guys are REALLY underestimating just how far modern PC's have come from what they were just a few years ago.

Hell, an iPhone is more powerful now than the $2,000 PC I built back in 2006.

Im still pretty sure youre pushing it with each new set of graphics card being a "generation"

"Generation" is the technical term.

Just like the next "generation" of iPhones or Macbooks

the next evolution, I guess you could say.

I think the problem here is that you are confusing console generations with hardware generations. Those are two completely different things.

So even if some peoples PCs are ahead what percentage will have ones better than new consoles 5-10%? Most people don't have all of the most cutting edge graphics cards and processors.

Way more than that. The whole point I'm trying to make here is that you don't need very much to be able to do that. Even building a relatively cheap (say, $800-$1,000) machine will do the trick. It's not like the old days where just to have a decent system you would need to spend $3,000 every 2 years to have something usable. These days a solid $1,000 machine will last you a good 2 or 3 years at least.

I don't think the new consoles are going to surpass current PCs by any amount, but rather parody them. And a year or two down the line when new PC hardware comes out again and machines get upgraded again, the PC will be just that much more powerful.

The point im trying to make is like you said the new consoles will run the games the same at half the amount for a good two years and it sounds alot more appealing to alot of people.

But what do i know were all just gonna fight for whichever one we use :P

I guess. I don't really care either way. I have a gaming PC, and I'll end up buying both consoles anyway when they come out so I'm set. :D

I'm just trying to explain all this stuff to the people on here who are like "ahhh teh news PS4 and XBOX COMMING OUT YEAHHH!!! ITZ GUNNA BE SO MUCH FASTERZ!!!!11"

and I'm like "no, not really. It will be a big improvement over what we have now, but it's not the earth-shattering think you expect it to be so clam the fuck down"

Just let people have their fun man >:[

Yea! >:[

#46 Posted by RollingZeppelin (2118 posts) -

this thread is 90% unreadable, I say lock it

#47 Posted by tourgen (4542 posts) -

The memory speed in the PS4 along with the low-level hardware access (closer to the metal than OpenGL/DX11) will give the PS4 a huge advantage over current-tech PCs. The low-level access alone is very significant. I don't see PCs catching up for a year or two.

#48 Posted by planetfunksquad (536 posts) -

Just out of curiosity PC guys, if one were to build a PC right now with equivalent specs to a PS4, would that mean that you could run all console ports on it, at least on low quality settings, from now until the day the PS5 is released?

#49 Edited by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

@believer258 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

@believer258 said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

But unlike PCs with that hardware they can still manage to run newer games albeit not as high as PCs

Barely in some cases.

A console can run modern games at half the framerate of the PC version, as well as at a much lower resolution. Your 360 might say 1080p but it's actually just upscaling games to that resolution, it's not natively running them at 1080p. Textures, draw distances, lighting, and other things are also of a much lower quality on the 360 and PS3 as opposed to the PC.

I still think its pretty ridiculous that people are already somehow predicting this so early

Predicting that high end PC's now are at the very least equal to or more powerful than what the PS4 will offer?

Yes. It was a similar story with the 360. Ever tried to play FEAR or Oblivion on a 360 or PS3? Have you seen Quake 4's framerate issues on the 360? You can explain some of that away with "it was a bad port", but it wasn't just because it was a bad port. Those games don't run very well on current consoles because they were made with more powerful PC's in mind (with the possible exception of Oblivion). Most games these days are ports, made for the consoles and then given extra bells and whistles for the vastly more powerful PC's. No one is kidding when they tell you that PC's are several generations ahead of the consoles in terms of computing power. Not console generations, by the way, graphics card generations, which update every year (GTX 400, 500, 600, etc.)

The PS4 will be no weak machine at launch, but it will not outmatch something like an i5 3570k and a GTX 670 or 680, hardware available now for PC's.

Does that clear things up a bit? You must understand that consoles have to be marketable at the sub-$400 range if the PS3's lower sales at the beginning of this generation are any indication, and you also must understand that PC hardware keeps getting better every year by a noticeable amount.

EDIT: Also, holy fuck at the quote trees in this thread.

Maybe stop making your responses wall of text? Im sure you could make your point in a couple of sentences. Here ill do it for you:

I think PCs will be stronger. There made it alot easier for you. :]

#50 Posted by believer258 (12209 posts) -

@connerthekewlkid: Maybe I was trying to support that idea and not just plainly stating it?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.