Console quality PC

  • 49 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

I always hear things like a $400 PC can outplay a "to avoid getting into console war territory I will just say consoles"

So I had a look around, and I am struggling to get a $600 PC of the same spec, and that's without mouse, keyboard and OS.

What is the cheapest PC that can get the same level of performance?

#2 Edited by PredatorRules (7591 posts) -

It's hard to define same level of performance comparing PC to consoles; It's a fact you can build a PC so strong that in terms of hardware that consoles would never have in the near of 20 years, problem is developers are going for the fast money and build with more dedication optimized games for consoles - I don't blame them - I'd do the same thing where's money flowing.

But you can build pretty decent gaming rig for 700$ with medium-high graphics.

#3 Posted by kraken2109 (13010 posts) -

$530, similar to the new consoles (If possible aim for a GTX760 instead to get nicely ahead of them).

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2qkdB

#4 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

@PredatorRules:

Yh I was finding that for around $700-750 is the price range for solid 60fps 1080 on most games like the new consoles promise.

but the OS and peripherals bump that up quickly.

My first build was great but unfortunately broke and im not sure what to go for.

#5 Edited by NFJSupreme (5199 posts) -

Before AMD card prices got inflated by miner demand it was possible to do it with about $450 or even less. But you can't do that anymore so $500ish is what you would need now to surpass the PS4.

#6 Posted by HavocV3 (7934 posts) -

I don't understand this $400 limitation.

-$400 gives you a PS4 with only a 1 year warranty. Most computer parts are 3 years +. (I'm not saying that you NEED to buy an extended warranty, but that's a large advantage from the get-go.)

-$400 gives you a PS4 that can't play any games online except for a few select F2P games. PC would give you free online for all of those other games. (excluding subscription MMOs, of course)

-$400 gives you a PS4 without any games. Anyone who claims they payed $400 just to play F2P games.....

-Most GPUs come with free games. Note: This is the kind of free where you get to actually KEEP them. There's no ongoing subscription required.

-PC games are generally cheaper. Finding them for $35-$45 near launch day isn't even hard.

-Steam/Amazon/GoG/GG/GMG/etc. sales. Again, you don't have to pay a subscription just to access these amazing deals.

This video covers the rest.

#7 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

@HavocV3:

yh but you are paying for OS and peripherals that are free with a console, and in the lifespan of a console you will upgrade 2-4 times to keep up with game demands

im not saying i want it for 400, but that is what people keep saying

im struggling to build a nice PC of the same quality with OS and keyboard/mouse for under 750 british pounds

#8 Edited by HavocV3 (7934 posts) -
@mattamomo said:

@HavocV3:

yh but you are paying for OS and peripherals that are free with a console, and in the lifespan of a console you will upgrade 2-4 times to keep up with game demands

im not saying i want it for 400, but that is what people keep saying

im struggling to build a nice PC of the same quality with OS and keyboard/mouse for under 750 british pounds

Cheaper games and free online will offset the more expensive hardware/upgrades easily. And upgrading shouldn't be spun as a total con either since you can end up with far superior versions of games in a few years time. Upgrading can be seen as good and bad.

People that do $400 builds are as stupid as the ones that keep demanding $400 builds. The ones that demand them @ $400 conveniently ignore the cost of games and subscriptions. The ones that do $400 builds ignore things like KBM & OS in an attempt to meet those idiotic demands.

Point is: Gaming is more expensive than what these people claim and you're wasting your time listening to them.

And I think another part of your problem is that you're dealing with GBP. Consoles and PC parts cost way way more after you convert GBP to USD.

Using $400 as your original claim isn't helping yourself and it's not helping those who're trying to give builds. Your experience over there could vary wildly from what we have going on over here.

It makes things overly confusing, to say the least.

#9 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

@HavocV3:

i understand your point but i dont think your getting my question

i know i cant build one that cheap . . . Whatvim asking is the cheapest possible components to get the equivalent or slightly better performance than consoles, and how much that will cost

#10 Posted by PredatorRules (7591 posts) -

$530, similar to the new consoles (If possible aim for a GTX760 instead to get nicely ahead of them).

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2qkdB

I looked at it and was saying at 1st hey you picked up a shitty RAM brand... and after a second thought I was wondering except for CPU/GPU, what brands do Sony and Microsoft choose for their hardware? I've google for hardware specs on both and couldn't find any, so my guess they pick shitty HDD, shitty CD drive, shitty RAM; And as far as I know mass productions - making contracts via huge amounts of units makes them even cheaper to buy - to sell us at even higher prices.

#11 Edited by farrell2k (5824 posts) -
#12 Edited by PredatorRules (7591 posts) -
#13 Edited by 560ti (154 posts) -

I actually made a build for a friend a month ago (late November) and it was priced near the console level. The FX 6300 with motherboard, OS, and dvd drive at microcenter was $200. Rest of the parts added another $200 (powersupply, case, harddrive, ram) and it brought the total to $400. The 7870ghz edition (Sapphire Dual X) was on sale for $130 so we got that (good price).

So we spend about $550 and got a system with more ram, a CPU that's a good amount faster than the consoles, and a GPU that's slightly faster than the ps4's (a good amount faster than the xbox ones) for $550

$550 isn't bad considering the xboxone with tax and a year of online is about $600 (ps4 with tax and a year of online is $500).

We spent in-between xboxone/ps4 in terms of price and got a CPU that's a good amount faster, more ram, and a good GPU (we could of bumped the budget to $650 and gotten a GPU that was 2x as fast as the consoles).

$650 would of still only been about $150 more than the ps4 on day 1 and we would of gotten 2x the GPU power + $100 worth of games (assassins creed red flag + the new splinter cell comes with the graphics card that we would of gotten if the budget was stretched to $650).

#14 Edited by mattamomo (920 posts) -

@560ti:

not bad but although you had more ram gb . . . The ps4s gddr5 surely tops it, and the fact the cpu and gpu of ps4 work together and can access memory means spec wise it might not seem so good but performance wise it can handle a lot.

will this gddr5 configuration be avaliable for PCs anytime soon?

#15 Edited by PredatorRules (7591 posts) -

@mattamomo said:

@560ti:

not bad but although you had more ram gb . . . The ps4s gddr5 surely tops it, and the fact the cpu and gpu of ps4 work together and can access memory means spec wise it might not seem so good but performance wise it can handle a lot.

will this gddr5 configuration be avaliable for PCs anytime soon?

I doubt they're using real GDDR5 this piece of hardware alone would cost over 100$.

Either they're faking the specs or they're using real GDDR5 which is so slow in speed that the speed of GDDR3 and 5 is about the same.

PS: fastest world winner RAM is by G.skill 3000Mhz which only available on Z MOBOs and the cost of the RAM alone is 550$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231687

I really really really doubt their telling the true specs.

#16 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

@PredatorRules:

im not sure, the ps4 has been tested and its shown just how insane the ram in it is, plus if they were lying or misguiding people we would know about it now and there would be an insane lawsuit going on. Its well known tey take a big loss on each console which when they are mass produced . . . Is saying quite a lot about what has gone into them

#17 Edited by KHAndAnime (13517 posts) -

A $400 build that will outperform the PS4, barely.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2pI0Z

And yes, before anyone mentions it, these are bottom of the line parts.

Certainly not capable of outperforming the PS4 with 4gb of RAM or that videocard. Can that PC play Trine 2, max settings, 4k resolution, at 30 FPS? PS4 can.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2qsiH this is as close as it gets to Xbox One specs (CPU is almost twice faster though)

Definitely up there with the X1 specs and relatively close to PS4. 7790 can run AC3 @ 1080p, Very High settings around 30 fps, but probably couldn't do AC4 around 30 fps.

#18 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

Would this be good enough for console quality

http://www.amazon.co.uk/registry/wishlist/4G6TJ1I24HEK

#19 Edited by farrell2k (5824 posts) -

Would this be good enough for console quality

http://www.amazon.co.uk/registry/wishlist/4G6TJ1I24HEK

That's much better than the PS4.

#20 Posted by farrell2k (5824 posts) -

Certainly not capable of outperforming the PS4 with 4gb of RAM or that videocard. Can that PC play Trine 2, max settings, 4k resolution, at 30 FPS? PS4 can.

The 7850 is just about 3% slower than the GPU in the PS4. The PC OS can use 1GB ram and the remaining 3 + 1 GB video ram are used by software. That's exactly on par with how the PS4 used the 4.5 gb ram it has left when its OS eats up 3.5 GB. That CPU is also much more powerful than the laptop style APU in the PS4. That system will outperform the PS4 every single day of the week!

#21 Edited by PredatorRules (7591 posts) -

Would this be good enough for console quality

http://www.amazon.co.uk/registry/wishlist/4G6TJ1I24HEK

Again by means of hardware/performance the consoles are clear winners because devs making optimized games so well for their hardware that it's insane.

To get the same performance on PC you need to throw double the money

#22 Posted by 560ti (154 posts) -

@560ti:

not bad but although you had more ram gb . . . The ps4s gddr5 surely tops it, and the fact the cpu and gpu of ps4 work together and can access memory means spec wise it might not seem so good but performance wise it can handle a lot.

False (you fail to realize how the Ram works). The ps4 has 176mb/s for the CPU/GPU combined which isn't that much and the system ram actually has a bandwidth cap that's runs about what DDR3 system ram typical runs....... (DDR3 + 7870ghz has a higher bandwidth than 176mb/s).

So basically the system ram is capped (having GDDR5 provides no benefit for the system ram) and the GDDR5 on the ps4 GPU is whats already on graphics cards currently (GDDR5 has been on graphics cards for the last 2-3 years, not only that but most graphics cards have higher bandwidth since there not using a lowend GPU like the PS4)

So no, the whole "buh buh GDD5" talk is much ado about nothing

#23 Edited by 04dcarraher (19328 posts) -

@560ti said:

@mattamomo said:

@560ti:

not bad but although you had more ram gb . . . The ps4s gddr5 surely tops it, and the fact the cpu and gpu of ps4 work together and can access memory means spec wise it might not seem so good but performance wise it can handle a lot.

False (you fail to realize how the Ram works). The ps4 has 176mb/s for the CPU/GPU combined which isn't that much and the system ram actually has a bandwidth cap that's runs about what DDR3 system ram typical runs....... (DDR3 + 7870ghz has a higher bandwidth than 176mb/s).

So basically the system ram is capped (having GDDR5 provides no benefit for the system ram) and the GDDR5 on the ps4 GPU is whats already on graphics cards currently (GDDR5 has been on graphics cards for the last 2-3 years, not only that but most graphics cards have higher bandwidth since there not using a lowend GPU like the PS4)

So no, the whole "buh buh GDD5" talk is much ado about nothing

Mistake 176Gb/s on gpu bus, The Cpu side only has a 20gb/s lane from the GDDR5, bus and then the the bus's between the cpu and gpu in the APU are only two 10gb/s lanes. Dual channel DDR3 1333mhz can move 21Gb/s, while 2133mhz can do nearly 35 gb/s.

#24 Posted by 560ti (154 posts) -

@560ti said:

Mistake 176Gb/s on gpu bus, The Cpu side only has a 20gb/s lane from the GDDR5, bus and then the the bus's between the cpu and gpu in the APU are only two 10gb/s lanes. Dual channel DDR3 1333mhz can move 21Gb/s, while 2133mhz can do nearly 35 gb/s.

Yeah that makes sense (I remember hearing mid 170s and then a 20 cap for the system/cpu side). So basically its nothing groundbreaking (DDR3 1600 which is the standard and then a midrange GPU will easily get the job done).

#25 Edited by KHAndAnime (13517 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@KHAndAnime said:

Certainly not capable of outperforming the PS4 with 4gb of RAM or that videocard. Can that PC play Trine 2, max settings, 4k resolution, at 30 FPS? PS4 can.

The 7850 is just about 3% slower than the GPU in the PS4. The PC OS can use 1GB ram and the remaining 3 + 1 GB video ram are used by software. That's exactly on par with how the PS4 used the 4.5 gb ram it has left when its OS eats up 3.5 GB. That CPU is also much more powerful than the laptop style APU in the PS4. That system will outperform the PS4 every single day of the week!

Yet the 7850 only gets 40 FPS average at BF4 1080p Max settings (no AA of any sort), and that's inside a PC with 4x the amount of RAM (which is way better than the RAM you linked), and an extremely expensive processor compared to what you recommended. The 7850 in your PC would get what...25 FPS? If even that? If you could even play with that the microstuttering due to the major lack of RAM...

1920

PS4 does a mix of high/ultra settings at 900p (with post-processing AA on high), and pretty much locked at 60 FPS in singleplayer (where that benchmark is taken from). It doesn't seem like your more expensive PC solution stacks up at all. It would need to be pulling 40+ FPS on BF4 at 1080P and no AA to be equal to the PS4's 900P + high post processing AA settings - and it hardly does that in a PC that's way more souped up than the one you linked. Looking at this chart...you could estimate that your PC would be getting half the performance of that former benchmark's 7850.

bf4 proz 2

#26 Edited by Gammit10 (2254 posts) -

@mattamomo said:

@HavocV3:

yh but you are paying for OS and peripherals that are free with a console, and in the lifespan of a console you will upgrade 2-4 times to keep up with game demands

im not saying i want it for 400, but that is what people keep saying

im struggling to build a nice PC of the same quality with OS and keyboard/mouse for under 750 british pounds

While the OS and peripheral claim is true, you don't have to upgrade 2-4 times to keep up with game demands. The consoles are not upgrading their hardware, so if a new game wants to play well on a console the software must either become much more efficient (which can translate to other gaming platforms) or the game has to dial-down some of the effects (which you can also do on the PC).

Forgive the "peasant" thing, but this in a nutshell: http://i.imgur.com/XcEWPbm.png

#27 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

@Gammit10:

yes but you are forgetting, consoles are all the same, so developers can squeeze every last ounce of performance out of it and make it work perfectly, where as pcs dont have that luxury and a new video card or gpu is going to be needed at least once in a consoles lifespan if your looking at the lower end budget like a console

#28 Edited by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

@mattamomo said:

@Gammit10:

yes but you are forgetting, consoles are all the same, so developers can squeeze every last ounce of performance out of it and make it work perfectly, where as pcs dont have that luxury and a new video card or gpu is going to be needed at least once in a consoles lifespan if your looking at the lower end budget like a console

You keep giving the consoles to much credit (first you talk about GDDR5 like its magic and now your talking about dev kits/optimization).

Optimization is extremely overrated. My 8600GTS was barely faster than the xbox 360s GPU yet I was able to play every multiplatform game from 2005-2010 with better graphics than the consoles (even with the consoles using the worse dev kits arguably in the history of gaming).

So I spent 5 years in the generation with better graphics using a GPU that was BARELY faster specs wise even tho the consoles used god awful dev kits last generation.......

This generation (ps4/xboxone) the consoles are actually using pc architecture/dev kits (optimization is going to be incredible since there using pc architecture in all there parts + there using PC dev kits). They will get a little boost by being a single unit but its not going to be a lot

Your completely wrong about needing a new video card at least once (your giving the weak ass console SO much credit and I don't know why). The GTX 670 OC/680/7970/7950OC graphics cards are all almost two years old yet there twice as faster as the next gen consoles....... (there's freaking mid range cards on the market now that are twice as fast, you won't need to really upgrade unless you really want to or you want to move to higher resolutions such as 1600p/4K)

#29 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

Yes but what the main point of the topic is for the price, the performance that is squeezed out of a console is by far and away more efficient than any pc, the cards you listed alone cost almost as much as a console! Then take into acount everything else and the claim that PC gaming can be just as affordable is nonsense, I have nothing against PCs and am building my second soon, but the statement that bang for your buck PC can match a console is incredulous. i was enjoying the last of us on PS3 and yes its not unreal framerates, but its a bloody beauty considering a PS3 alone costs about as much as a graphics card and has been around for far longer

#30 Edited by James161324 (8315 posts) -

@PredatorRules said:

@kraken2109 said:

$530, similar to the new consoles (If possible aim for a GTX760 instead to get nicely ahead of them).

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/2qkdB

I looked at it and was saying at 1st hey you picked up a shitty RAM brand... and after a second thought I was wondering except for CPU/GPU, what brands do Sony and Microsoft choose for their hardware? I've google for hardware specs on both and couldn't find any, so my guess they pick shitty HDD, shitty CD drive, shitty RAM; And as far as I know mass productions - making contracts via huge amounts of units makes them even cheaper to buy - to sell us at even higher prices.

Foxcom is where most of the stuff comes from

#31 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

Yes but what the main point of the topic is for the price, the performance that is squeezed out of a console is by far and away more efficient than any pc, the cards you listed alone cost almost as much as a console! Then take into acount everything else and the claim that PC gaming can be just as affordable is nonsense, I have nothing against PCs and am building my second soon, but the statement that bang for your buck PC can match a console is incredulous. i was enjoying the last of us on PS3 and yes its not unreal framerates, but its a bloody beauty considering a PS3 alone costs about as much as a graphics card and has been around for far longer

Its all about the experience if you want 1080p and 60 fps, with the best graphics you have to pay the price. You can't have the best on a budget. Do to digital sales your easierly cover the difference. Right now on steam Deadpool is 10 dollars its 30 or more on consoles.

#32 Edited by mattamomo (920 posts) -

@James161324:

agreed

but bargain bin games are easy to find for consoles to, and sharing games is free, in the last year of playing on console i dont think i paid more than £20 for 5 games i played solidly.

#33 Edited by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

I always hear things like a $400 PC can outplay a "to avoid getting into console war territory I will just say consoles"

So I had a look around, and I am struggling to get a $600 PC of the same spec, and that's without mouse, keyboard and OS.

What is the cheapest PC that can get the same level of performance?

If it is about money just buy a console. You don't go PC if you are concerned about money, consoles were made for you.

#34 Edited by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

#

@mattamomo said:

Yes but what the main point of the topic is for the price, the performance that is squeezed out of a console is by far and away more efficient than any pc

LOL no.

The xboxone with tax and a year of online is $600. My current $700 computer has 2x the CPU power, more ram, and a graphics card that's twice as fast (7870XT at 1200mhz).

$100 more and I have twice the power, free online for the remainder of the generation, and games that are $10-15 cheaper at launch (I save $80-150 every year by buying multiplatform games on the PC instead of my consoles).

I think you have it backwards (consoles are using low-end hardware and then charging $500-600 all while making you pay hundreds more to play online).

Low end hardware with mediocre performance (advanced settings turned off, 30FPS cap on most games, 1080P maximum with most games up scaled to 1080p.....ect) isn't what I would call efficient......

The consoles comparatively speaking aren't that efficient (your paying 80-85% of the cost of a nice PC to play BELOW the resolution/framer rates that people have been enjoying for almost a decade all while having advanced settings turned off..... what a freaking deal !).

#35 Posted by mattamomo (920 posts) -

@mastershake575:

so this $700 dollar pc you are on about

has that lasted you 8 years?

#36 Posted by vfibsux (4205 posts) -

@mastershake575:

so this $700 dollar pc you are on about

has that lasted you 8 years?

How about you just go get you a console and take this bullshit over to system wars.

#37 Edited by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

@mattamomo said:

@mastershake575:

so this $700 dollar pc you are on about

has that lasted you 8 years?

Its last me about two (bought most parts in 2011) and judging how games are currently running/console specs, I could easily go another 4-5 years easily (especially at 1080/1200p).

My 8600GTS which was comparatively weaker than my current card (by about 80%) all while being used in a generation with WORSE dev kits, was able to last about 5 years (I currently have about two years on my system and easily 4-5 years left which should be how long the current generation should last).

Please don't talk what you don't know

#38 Posted by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

How about you just go get you a console and take this bullshit over to system wars.

He really should. Where listing facts/giving him criticism and he wants none of it (what was the point of making this thread then ?).

I was able to play the first 5.5 years of xbox360 games on a GPU that was barely faster than the Xenos (along with me using an average CPU at the time)

He thinks its a conspiracy that a much faster card comparatively speaking (7870XT at 1200mhz currently versus 8600GTS back in the day) paired with a better CPU comparatively speaking ALL while have better dev kits won't last me

I think he needs to leave the PC hardware board and just go buy a console since he so obsessed on this so called "$500-600 low-end hardware giving bang for your buck....."

#39 Edited by mattamomo (920 posts) -

Actually the only guy posting stats is KHAandanime and that was in favour of console

All you are doing is saying yours is better with no actual argument behind it

refer back to his post

and i have both a console and a PC (well PC is broken at the minute but will have a new one built in about a week)

And i love it all, i just despise the statement that PCs can be as cheap and get that same performance

it wasnt me who went off topic here, i wanted a genuine recommendation of a PC with that can perform the same as a console with reasonable price.

#40 Edited by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

@mattamomo said:

Actually the only guy posting stats is KHAandanime and that was in favour of console

All you are doing is saying yours is better with no actual argument behind it

And i love it all, i just despise the statement that PCs can be as cheap and get that same performance

it wasnt me who went off topic here, i wanted a genuine recommendation of a PC with that can perform the same as a console with reasonable price.

1. Its in favor of the console because the guy posted a crap PC that's NOTIHNG like the PC I have or the PC I posted (I'm not even sure 2x7850s in crossfire at those speeds can even beat the 760SC/7870XT at 1200mhz which where the two cards I mentioned). A 7850 at 860mhz isn't that great and he posted a rig with only 4GB of ram (Of course his post is in favour of the consoles. the guy posted a weak PC.......).

2. Are you on drugs ? I told you about the computer I built in late November and how it would of been $650 with the GTX 760 SC (I even listed the prices). FX 6300 is way faster than the consoles CPU, 8 gigs of ram is more than the consoles, and the GTX 760 SC is about as fast as both the ps4/xboxone's GPU combined (how in the hell is listing the price of the computer along with showing you that its cleary more powerful "no actual argument" ? ). Am I being trolled ?

3. A $650 PC with $100 in free games + $10-15 cheaper games for the entire generation + not having to pay for online sounds like a pretty good deal over a $600 xboxone........ (better performance with free games for basically the same price isn't "cheap with same performance ? Are you freaking blind ?)

4. And I gave you a PC I built in late November with much better specs at a reasonable price ($650 + $100 in free games).

I listed a reasonable prices PC, told you the specs where clearly better and even did a comparison to last generation with a weaker GPU and worse dev kits...... (I don't understand how in the hell I can make myself more clear, this is pretty basic stuff.......)

#41 Posted by PredatorRules (7591 posts) -

Actually the only guy posting stats is KHAandanime and that was in favour of console

All you are doing is saying yours is better with no actual argument behind it

refer back to his post

and i have both a console and a PC (well PC is broken at the minute but will have a new one built in about a week)

And i love it all, i just despise the statement that PCs can be as cheap and get that same performance

it wasnt me who went off topic here, i wanted a genuine recommendation of a PC with that can perform the same as a console with reasonable price.

You know it's really hard to determine a PC that will be on same performances as on Consoles, quite few reasons for that:

A) Developers lean toward money, and money is flowin real heavy from consoles, therefore devs optimize their games very good on consoles and just throw crappy ports to PCs.

B) Max quality on consoles and on PC are not the same. Many multiplatform games are reduced in graphics to be able to run on consoles unlike on PC where you can customize your graphics settings in order to determine which you want to see on highest quality and which you don't.

(Like me on my old 5770 where I maxed games but did not even once turned AA or shadows which boost performance a lot)

#42 Posted by GeminonTraveler (155 posts) -

mattamomo marked this as the best answer

@mattamomo said:

@560ti:

not bad but although you had more ram gb . . . The ps4s gddr5 surely tops it, and the fact the cpu and gpu of ps4 work together and can access memory means spec wise it might not seem so good but performance wise it can handle a lot.

will this gddr5 configuration be avaliable for PCs anytime soon?

I doubt they're using real GDDR5 this piece of hardware alone would cost over 100$.

Either they're faking the specs or they're using real GDDR5 which is so slow in speed that the speed of GDDR3 and 5 is about the same.

PS: fastest world winner RAM is by G.skill 3000Mhz which only available on Z MOBOs and the cost of the RAM alone is 550$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231687

I really really really doubt their telling the true specs.

this is just..... rofl.... ffs

the PS4 uses GDDR5... even insinuating otherwise just makes you look like a fool. its not even slow GDDR5... the specs are well known at this point. the system has been torn apart dozens of times on dozens of websites...

#43 Posted by PredatorRules (7591 posts) -

@PredatorRules said:

mattamomo marked this as the best answer

@mattamomo said:

@560ti:

not bad but although you had more ram gb . . . The ps4s gddr5 surely tops it, and the fact the cpu and gpu of ps4 work together and can access memory means spec wise it might not seem so good but performance wise it can handle a lot.

will this gddr5 configuration be avaliable for PCs anytime soon?

I doubt they're using real GDDR5 this piece of hardware alone would cost over 100$.

Either they're faking the specs or they're using real GDDR5 which is so slow in speed that the speed of GDDR3 and 5 is about the same.

PS: fastest world winner RAM is by G.skill 3000Mhz which only available on Z MOBOs and the cost of the RAM alone is 550$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231687

I really really really doubt their telling the true specs.

this is just..... rofl.... ffs

the PS4 uses GDDR5... even insinuating otherwise just makes you look like a fool. its not even slow GDDR5... the specs are well known at this point. the system has been torn apart dozens of times on dozens of websites...

It uses shared GDDR5 from the GPU, this my friend isn't good...

#45 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -
@PredatorRules said:

@geminontraveler said:

@PredatorRules said:

mattamomo marked this as the best answer

@mattamomo said:

@560ti:

not bad but although you had more ram gb . . . The ps4s gddr5 surely tops it, and the fact the cpu and gpu of ps4 work together and can access memory means spec wise it might not seem so good but performance wise it can handle a lot.

will this gddr5 configuration be avaliable for PCs anytime soon?

I doubt they're using real GDDR5 this piece of hardware alone would cost over 100$.

Either they're faking the specs or they're using real GDDR5 which is so slow in speed that the speed of GDDR3 and 5 is about the same.

PS: fastest world winner RAM is by G.skill 3000Mhz which only available on Z MOBOs and the cost of the RAM alone is 550$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231687

I really really really doubt their telling the true specs.

this is just..... rofl.... ffs

the PS4 uses GDDR5... even insinuating otherwise just makes you look like a fool. its not even slow GDDR5... the specs are well known at this point. the system has been torn apart dozens of times on dozens of websites...

It uses shared GDDR5 from the GPU, this my friend isn't good...

GDDR5 is good e.g. Intel Xeon Phi which is a "many core" X86 based processor.

The issue with PS4 is the connection between CPU's I/O and main memory which is only about 20 GB/s aggregate i.e. it's roughly similar to a dual channel DDR3-1333 memory setup.

Like a gaming PC, most of PS4's memory bandwidth is allocated for the GPU.

@mattamomo said:

I always hear things like a $400 PC can outplay a "to avoid getting into console war territory I will just say consoles"

So I had a look around, and I am struggling to get a $600 PC of the same spec, and that's without mouse, keyboard and OS.

What is the cheapest PC that can get the same level of performance?

For BF4 PS4 multi-player , you would need an extra $50 PSN+ annual subscription.

With 1 year PSN+ annual subscription, the total cost would be $450.

With 2 year PSN+ annual subscription, the total cost would be $500.

#46 Posted by Gammit10 (2254 posts) -

@mattamomo said:

@Gammit10:

yes but you are forgetting, consoles are all the same, so developers can squeeze every last ounce of performance out of it and make it work perfectly, where as pcs dont have that luxury and a new video card or gpu is going to be needed at least once in a consoles lifespan if your looking at the lower end budget like a console

You keep giving the consoles to much credit (first you talk about GDDR5 like its magic and now your talking about dev kits/optimization).

Optimization is extremely overrated. My 8600GTS was barely faster than the xbox 360s GPU yet I was able to play every multiplatform game from 2005-2010 with better graphics than the consoles (even with the consoles using the worse dev kits arguably in the history of gaming).

So I spent 5 years in the generation with better graphics using a GPU that was BARELY faster specs wise even tho the consoles used god awful dev kits last generation.......

This generation (ps4/xboxone) the consoles are actually using pc architecture/dev kits (optimization is going to be incredible since there using pc architecture in all there parts + there using PC dev kits). They will get a little boost by being a single unit but its not going to be a lot

Your completely wrong about needing a new video card at least once (your giving the weak ass console SO much credit and I don't know why). The GTX 670 OC/680/7970/7950OC graphics cards are all almost two years old yet there twice as faster as the next gen consoles....... (there's freaking mid range cards on the market now that are twice as fast, you won't need to really upgrade unless you really want to or you want to move to higher resolutions such as 1600p/4K)

You twist words very well.

I know that your claim of "optimization is extremely overrated" is not only a highly subjective claim on your part, and being a software engineer, completely false.

You turn my definition of a console lifespan (about 8 years) into a claim that you won't need a new video card. Yes, the GTX 670 OC/blah/blah (I see you're picking outliers here) are faster, but will most PC gamers keep their video card for 8 years? The last data I saw said no.

You're full of it.

#47 Posted by mastershake575 (8354 posts) -

@Gammit10 said:

You twist words very well.

I know that your claim of "optimization is extremely overrated" is not only a highly subjective claim on your part, and being a software engineer, completely false.

You turn my definition of a console lifespan (about 8 years) into a claim that you won't need a new video card. Yes, the GTX 670 OC/blah/blah (I see you're picking outliers here) are faster, but will most PC gamers keep their video card for 8 years? The last data I saw said no.

You're full of it.

You bumped a week old thread to argue with a person who never even quoted ANYTHING that you wrote in this thread ? (wtf ?).

How did I turn your definition when I never even quoted a word from you ?

I'm full of it ? Your the guy bumping a week old thread to try to turn/twist an argument of another user into your own personal battle..... If anything YOUR the one whose full of it

#48 Edited by KHAndAnime (13517 posts) -

@mattamomo said:

Actually the only guy posting stats is KHAandanime and that was in favour of console

All you are doing is saying yours is better with no actual argument behind it

refer back to his post

and i have both a console and a PC (well PC is broken at the minute but will have a new one built in about a week)

And i love it all, i just despise the statement that PCs can be as cheap and get that same performance

it wasnt me who went off topic here, i wanted a genuine recommendation of a PC with that can perform the same as a console with reasonable price.

We are in a forum that is largely perpetuated by a System War. There aren't a large amount of people here that own a PS4 and an expensive gaming PC. The people who actually own both a PS4 and nice gaming PC are in the minority. One thing I have noticed though is that of those people that I've confirmed to own a PS4 (me and BluRayHiDef), we both agree that the PS4 is more equivalent to a mid-end system (~$600-$700) and not a low end system (~$400-$500). A low end system simply will not run BF4 at decent settings at a smooth framerate. No PC linked here for that amount comes even close.

There's much more to performance than Teraflops. A lot of PC hardcore hard-heads are forgetting that optimization does in fact go a long way. Developers can make games that will take perfect advantage of the PS4 and XB1's resources - no developer can ever do the same for a PC title - and that's the main thing you need to keep in mind. If you're going to get a PC, it's best that you do it when you can spend $800+. That's just my opinion. If you spend less than that, you're likely buying a dead-end system that might as well be a console anyways. You want to buy a PC that's proofed for the future, not a PC that's trying to keep up with what's out now.

#49 Posted by Gammit10 (2254 posts) -

@Gammit10 said:

You twist words very well.

I know that your claim of "optimization is extremely overrated" is not only a highly subjective claim on your part, and being a software engineer, completely false.

You turn my definition of a console lifespan (about 8 years) into a claim that you won't need a new video card. Yes, the GTX 670 OC/blah/blah (I see you're picking outliers here) are faster, but will most PC gamers keep their video card for 8 years? The last data I saw said no.

You're full of it.

You bumped a week old thread to argue with a person who never even quoted ANYTHING that you wrote in this thread ? (wtf ?).

How did I turn your definition when I never even quoted a word from you ?

I'm full of it ? Your the guy bumping a week old thread to try to turn/twist an argument of another user into your own personal battle..... If anything YOUR the one whose full of it

I just discovered the reply recently. I mis-quoted/replied and should have responded to the other person, you're right. Although the first sentence is applicable to your post, the rest is not.

#50 Posted by MdBrOtha04 (1822 posts) -