So Rock Paper Shotgun reported this morning of the new rumors on the hardware inside the next gen boxes.

They stated he following in their article:

"First up, CPUs. And they appear to be identical. Eight cores. 1.6GHz clocks. AMD’s Jaguar architecture. Hold that thought, we’ll come back to it. On the graphics side, there’s more of a delta. Sony has ponied up for a Radeon HD chip with 18 GCN units and therefore a grand total of 1,152 shaders. Microsoft has allegedly cheaped out with 12 units and thus 768 shaders. Memory-wise, it’s 4GB of nippy GDDR5 from Sony and 8GB of DDR3 supplemented by 32MB of dedicated EDRAM for the GPU from Microsoft. Controllers and various motion-detection paraphernalia aside, the hardware specs are rounded out by Blu-ray for both boxes."

How does this compare with your PC? If you have a 7900 series card or similar, then you should be good for a while. The article states that the PS4's GPU is between a 7850 and a 7870. The next box is worse off due to its GPU being similar to the 7770.

Honestly, I could go on restating what the article says, but that's not the main point. The article is here

The main point is that many people became new PC gamers or rediscovered it because the PC is a very powerful and versatile platform. I've personally always been a console gamer, but I feel the PC is a much more interesting and exciting platform with: indie games, AAA games and many more non-gaming uses. The next gen consoles are already dated when they come out and you have to put up with Sony or Microsoft's crappy (at times) ecosystems. Their saving graces come from their first party games (Fez, Journey).

TL;DR: if you consider yourself a PC gamer, then have these newly (IMO since I just found out) rumored specs made you excited for a console again? Are they just rumored specs and nothing more? RPS article:

12/28 1:05pm: Edited for clarity.

@A_Deep_Mushroom said:

...made you excited for a console again?

No power in the 'verse could make that so.

@Hitchenson: Except for amazing console exclusives, but even then I will be reluctant to purchase a console.

@jacksmedulla said:

@Hitchenson: Except for amazing console exclusives, but even then I will be reluctant to purchase a console.

Oh, sure. I may grab a PS4 in the future (fuck whatever MS are doing), but I'm definitely not excited to get a new console. I'm excited for this gen to finally end.

My PC is better, but it doesn't really matter.

My PC when the 360 came out was better, doesn't mean it was able to play BioShock or Crysis 2. Comparing console specs with PC is dumb, it has absolutely no impact on anything except what DirectX version they use. (if any)

Then again I think we all know if you're on a Dx9 card you're safe for a few more years, even longer if the next Xbox doesn't use Dx11.

@Sooty said:

My PC when the 360 came out was better, doesn't mean it was able to play BioShock or Crysis 2. Comparing console specs with PC is dumb.

Essentially this. They're different enough where comparing the parts directly with PC parts makes no sense.

Wow. My PC is better. But hey, like @Sooty said there are differences. Guess I'll wait to see the games they call next gen.

Actually those GPU's are on par with the mobile versions, not the desktop video cards. Also those CPU's are pretty weak when compared to even dated core i5's out there but that's beside the point.

Like I said in many other places comparing these things directly to PC hardware is wrong cuz these machines are built for games without the overhead of a PC OS and the connections between GPU, CPU, and RAM are more streamlined than in a PC. Expect these things to be good, but better yet expect these machines to make it easier for developers to make better PC ports because the console architecture is closer to the PC than ever before. The only thing that is good to know is the GPU, the comparable mobile GPU's in laptops are able to run Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 at 1080p no problem which means that the consoles will have plenty to work with to push graphics at that resolution for years to come.

I'm kind of excited regardless of the specs, I just hope they have a shorter console generation and don't make stupid U.I.'s anymore.

@Grilledcheez: Expect it to be longer or the same.

probably won't buy a new console until an amazing first party game comes out for them.

Nothing is going to top my 2006 MacBook....IT'S BLACK!!

@Sooty: Nah, I think it's basically confirmed that the next Xbox is going with DX11

Those numbers are actually pretty impressive. I am primarily excited to hear those, because I think that we can finally get out of this graphical rut that we've been stuck in. Or maybe go back to terrible PC ports. One of the two.

PC gamers need powerful new consoles - because most games are developed with consoles and the PC version as an added revenue steam. So what you are getting at the moment is console ports with higher rez and a better frame rate. What you want is games developed with the next gen in mind that will look pretty good on new consoles - launch games never look the best - and amazing on PC. With a few exceptions, games developed for PC alone just don't get those AAA budgets.

Also "writing to the metal" has become a bit of a cliche but look at games like Uncharted and Halo 4. Can you imagine them looking anywhere near as good on that 7 year old mid-to-high end PC that the 360 and PS3 are supposed to be comparable to?

The PC is going to have much more overhead, so clock for clock, you can't really compare the performance.

First generation titles may lose the jank and stutter of later generation PS360 games, but as the cycle goes on, we'll start seeing frame rates and resolutions drop in favor of eye-candy.

The biggest difference I'm hoping we'll see are games that take advantage of larger memory pools.

Last gen, I bought a PS3/360/wii on their launch dates. This time, I'm just going to get the new Playstation and even then, it won't be until revision 2 hardware with a price drop. I've come to the point in my life where I've come to accept the last console with a killer first year in terms of games I like was the Dreamcast.

@billyhoush said:

Nothing is going to top my 2006 MacBook....IT'S BLACK!!

Sounds powerful

@nintendoeats: I don't see that happening, the hardware in those machines are too similar to PC's for there to be many barriers to porting games over plus Steam isn't in the same place it was back when this gen first started. The PC market is viable again.

My current PC is more powerful than these new consoles and I'm upgrading whenever haswell comes out. I am looking forward too all the great ports though.

@alternate said:

PC gamers need powerful new consoles - because most games are developed with consoles and the PC version as an added revenue steam. So what you are getting at the moment is console ports with higher rez and a better frame rate. What you want is games developed with the next gen in mind that will look pretty good on new consoles - launch games never look the best - and amazing on PC. With a few exceptions, games developed for PC alone just don't get those AAA budgets.

Also "writing to the metal" has become a bit of a cliche but look at games like Uncharted and Halo 4. Can you imagine them looking anywhere near as good on that 7 year old mid-to-high end PC that the 360 and PS3 are supposed to be comparable to?

I'm close to the same mindset. My PC is definitely showing its age, with its Frankenstein's monster combination of a Core 2 Duo CPU and a Radeon HD 6870 GPU. But it'll still play nearly everything I want to play on it. Will it run Unreal Engine 4 and id Tech 6? Probably not. So I'm waiting for developers to start making games with new engines that my current build won't have a chance to run. And then I'll upgrade. I'll also probably get one new console a little further from launch, assuming there are games/experiences on that platform that I can't meet with a PC.

My PC is still better, but it doesn't matter i'm still really looking forward to the new consoles. I may not buy one right away, but it's still exciting to see the new things going on.

@Colourful_Hippie: I'll agree on the Steam point, but as stated earlier comparing PC and console specs is pointless. Console games are made for a very specific set of hardware, PC games are made for a bunch of driver-layer abstractions.

@nintendoeats: That's when you're comparing processing power and stuff, those systems are not as unique as they have been in the past. There will just be less hurdles to overcome than there have been before.

That's a lot of memory, which is awesome. Hopefully both sides take advantage of how damned cheap memory is, because it can really

@Colourful_Hippie: Keep in mind that the CPUs will vary WILDLY based on architecture. That's why CPU performance improves from generation to generation without significant changes in clock speeds most of the time. A 4Ghz process of architecture A is not going to perform even any where near a 4Ghz processor of architecture B, at least not necessarily. Plus, keep in mind that most PC games don't really take advantage of even 2 cores, much less 4 or 8. If someone really uses those cores, it could be just fine. The tech just needs to use the hardware correctly. Remember, even though I might have 8 cores thanks to hyperthreading, that's only useful for doing multiple things at once. PC's aren't designed to "spread the load" in a way that allows a single program to use many cores, but rather a couple. If they can really take advantage of having over twice as many cores, and a much newer architecture, it could turn out decently. Will it be amazing? No. But to be fair, console games aren't usually of the ArmA variety with horrible AI over a huge space that takes into account every possible piece of cover in their bloody view.

We will kind of have to wait and see what people do with it, really.

I have to say though, I'm always cautious about AMD rumors. These are suggesting that ATI will be doing all the heavy lifting in both of these? I don't see Microsoft AND Sony going to a floundering company for arguably the most important components. I wouldn't want to go that way with it, for sure.

And of course, look at what they have accomplished with the old ass hardware in the current consoles. Those games look far better than you'd ever get out of a PC with the same power, because PC games aren't perfectly honed for a specific build. So general performance will be lower. There's also more going on with a PC beyond the game, etc. So a CPU is much more important, as is RAM.

If it were up to me, the next consoles would be running Kepler and i5s, or something along those lines.

PC is dead.

Long live the true next gen: PC.

I only play consoles when a.) They have a title that is literally awesome such as Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch b.) Provide an experience that I cannot get on PC (which is super rare) and c.) Great as a DVD player.

Other than that, I will not be buying day one consoles. I have my first hand experience with the Red rings of death (Three times that happened) as well as my first PS3 dying within a month of purchase. Additionally, consoles have always had poor launch titles, I will not be shocked when there is nothing there at launch date besides Madden, CoD, and some other shovelware to please the family.

Oh, my rig will be more powerful than the next-gen consoles. Building in May.

@MordeaniisChaos said:

If it were up to me, the next consoles would be running Kepler and i5s, or something along those lines.

Might as well stick to PC cuz we would all be forced to buy sub $1000 consoles. And I agree with what you said about the CPU, it just comes down to how it's used by the devs and that will probably be the only major difference when bringing those games over to PC. There doesn't appear to be anything too special about the GPU's being used.

If anything, the specs have made me less excited for the next-gen consoles. I was expecting to have to spend a significant amount to upgrade my PC, but it seems like that won't be the case. I might need a new videocard in a year or two, but that's about it.

Of course, it's the games that really matter, but I don't think I'll be diving in until there's a significant amount of exclusives I care about that aren't being released on PC/Wii U and I suspect that will be a while.

I've got a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX, where does that put me in relation to these spec rumours? Same tier, better, lesser?

Probably doesn't matter much, without the consoles having to run OSes and such they have direct access to everything so great developers can really push them far.

Current aim is to computer game for the next year, maybe 2. Then when some games start to pull away and I spend more time figuring out if a game will run than playing it i'll probably try a console.

Got a PS3 & an XBox at the moment and won't decide until they both show their hands and the reviews are in. However I'm nervous Microsoft want to sell me a console, sell me games and sell me to advertisers. Sony seems slightly more interested in a great gaming experience.

@Metzo_Paino: The GPU's in those machines are comparable to high end mobile GPU's so you're fine but expect to have to upgrade that card in a couple years when games continue to be more demanding (just like it's alway been in the past) especially when DX 11 will be standard on consoles or at least on the next Xbox.

Roughly the same, but since these are dedicated gaming machines, they're effectively much more powerful - especially since games will be built and optimized from the ground up for them. Next gen console games will look better and do more than anything we've seen thus far, even on far more powerful PCs, outside of rendering resolution and framerate.

...but since these are dedicated gaming machines...

@ProfessorEss said:

@Seppli said:

...but since these are dedicated gaming machines...

How true this turns out to be is a bigger concern to me than any of the specs.

Well the next xbox apparently will be locking away power for unknown apps of their own, I know one of them will be the Kinect 2 or whatever but who knows what the other stuff could be.

@MordeaniisChaos said:

Plus, keep in mind that most PC games don't really take advantage of even 2 cores, much less 4 or 8.

If you have a single core machine you won't be playing many games from recent years, so I'm not too sure what you mean by that as dual core is a mandatory requirement.

Quad core isn't but it still shows a performance gain in some games.

I remember when we had these same threads for the 360 and PS3. And the DC, PS2 , and Xbox. And the Saturn and PS1. Instead of making a new thread, we should just go find old dead forums and copy/paste all the "Well my PC is more powerful" comments into a mega-thread so people can just quote the one thats relevant and move on.

At the end of the day only one thing matters anyways and you are all ignoring it. How many bits will these new consoles be?

@Sooty said:

@MordeaniisChaos said:

Plus, keep in mind that most PC games don't really take advantage of even 2 cores, much less 4 or 8.

If you have a single core machine you won't be playing many games from recent years, so I'm not too sure what you mean by that as dual core is a mandatory requirement.

Quad core isn't but it still shows a performance gain in some games.

Okay? None of the CPUs mentioned have less than two cores. Far more in fact. And the number of games that have native support for more than two cores is pretty small. My argument had nothing to do with performance gains but weather or not any software makes use of those extra cores. 95% of games don't use more than two cores. So as a result, you only see the small and very basic boost that anything that PC does will see, because of how computers work with CPUs handing out instructions (in essence) to other components. A lot of games will see no or a negligible improvement in performance on a Quad Core. Most of which have 8 separate threads. That's a lot of shit to put to work for a single application.

The main reason that dual core is "mandatory" these days is because no one has made a single core with current architectures. However, some games actually run BETTER if you restrict the cores it makes use of because of poor programming/optimization. I'm not shitting you, some games are just better on even a single core. Again, it goes to architecture. That is the only difference in performance between multicore and single core CPUs. If you make a 3770k with a single core it wouldn't be nearly as good, but if you have nothing else running in the background, you'll be fine in most games that aren't CPU intensive. It won't be great, but it'll do the trick for most games.

@Colourful_Hippie: Oh, I agree completely, I have a PC worth almost $2000 right now, and won't ever look back. PC all the way. And hopefully they make good use of the CPUs. I'm not too worried about it, and I'm also not super confident in this rumor. I'll just wait until we get closer to summer before I pay any attention to next gen hardware rumors.

Still getting new consoles i could care less about specs and and all that shit

I JUST WANT TO PLAY VIDEO GAMES

My PC is pretty great- I probably won't be investing in new consoles until they've got the games to back it up (that includes the WiiU- it's getting there.)

The major boost from a quad core (over dual core) isnt the game performance, but the rest of your OS. A big example here, is streaming. The game might not use all four cores, but often, applications are designed to do so.

The Intel i5 3570k is pretty much the barrier where you hit diminishing returns, and the extra $$ doesn't translate into performance.

WISE PEOPLE JUST PLAY VIDEO GAMES

These new consoles have hardware comparable to current high-end PC's, but due to developers having complete access to the hardware they can take things much farther (they got Far Cry 3 to run on a PS3 with 256mb or RAM! That kind of optimization is impossible on a PC.) Comparing hardware in PC's vs consoles has always been silly in my book, though I am excited that developers will start making nicer looking games on the PC now!