Next-gen consoles will struggle to beat PC, say industry insiders. PCGamer

My point of view on the subject is that consoles will never beat PC's in terms of power/performance, because consoles are computers, build specifically for gaming.

They may beat PC's in terms of popularity, as gaming devices and have a whole lot more developers creating games for them and they might have beat my or your PC's in the pastbut let's be honest there was no point, when let's say PS2 or PS3 did beat computers in general, because there's constanly new hardware developed. How could consoles had better hardware, when it's creators (Intel/AMD/Nvidia) make money by manufacturing and selling it?

It would be like "yeah, we can make a ton of money for selling our CPU/GPU's as parts but nah, let's give Your product a head start, just for the fun of it."

I may be wrong but I see no sence in it otherwise.

Mareczek99

No...just no.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/20/next-gen-consoles-will-struggle-to-beat-pc-say-industry-insiders/

Is PC starting winning the war ?:twisted:

jhonMalcovich

Consoles has lower TDP and PCB cost limit.

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="slipknot0129"]

Its all rumors but I think the consoles will be around gtx 680 in power.

slipknot0129

Plus cpu's are much more power efficient too. If they dont use a igp then that cpu uses so little power. Igp's is where a lot of the power in a cpu goes to nowadays.

If the cpu has a igp in it then it will be even easier for the system to have graphics as powerful as a gtx 680. The main gpu would use less energy due to there being another gpu in the cpu. This would allow for more watts for graphics due to the heat being more spread out.

You haven't factored in why Xbox 1, Xbox 360 and PS3 still sports 128bit wired VRAM on the PCB. Your "improved GPU cooling" haven't restored to 1 slot configuration.

[QUOTE="Addict187"]I got to play halo 4 the other day it i was like wow they can make games look that good now.the_bi99man

That was seriously your reaction? Haven't play games on a competent PC in a few years, have you?

I don't really understand why anyone would bother to make the point. Unless the nature of PCs somehow changes or consoles become modular with upgrades the fact that PCs will be more powerful will stay the same. I feel that if anything the range of fidelity on a PC is more important than how high that fidelity ceiling is.

I'd argue whether the difference in hardware even matters any more. Outside of a select few genres (RTS for instance) the PC doesn't really display many games that offer much more than higher fidelity versions of their console counterparts (and where the differences are significant it is normally a case of shoddy console optimisation or signs that a console is very late in its life cycle). Where are the gameplay differences that the new technology is supposed to bring on? In the past PC games used to have much bigger worlds, far more voice acting and text than console games (partly due to being able to install up-to multi-disc installs for a single game).,.where is that advantage now? Looking at the last 5-6 years or so we haven't seen that because consoles are where the general direction of the industry is decided, not PCs. What is it that PC's are doing with that extra hardware that is allowing them to provide different (not just higher fidelity) AAA quality experiences? The PC may will be more powerful than next-gen consoles, but that isn't going to mean the materialisation of games that take advantage of that in a compelling way.

If anything what the PC has going for it is a wider-range of developers (including mid-size and the 'super-indies' that have more or less been killed off from console development)...and funnily enough what is keeping those developers on the PC is that they don't have to match a high fidelity standard to compete as they would on a console.

Well, hardware wise there's no way a plastic box will be (or stay) stronger than continually updated parts from China.

After the strongest thing is built, 6 months later there is something even stronger.

But we are reaching the point where hardware is beginning not to matter, whereas development matters about 1000x more.

For example you can take low rez, upscale it and use some visual tricks and to the user in motion, it will appear to look like the coolest thing in the world.

All graphics are illusion.

What matters is acquiring the talent to use these illusions to good effect, the programmers, artists, composers, storytellers, etc and the console market picks the best and brightest from the PC gaming world and says "come work at Santa Monica Studios, come work at Rockstar" leaving the PC gaming world to regenerate talent while all the Picassos and Bachs and Mark Twains are working on console games.

In this sense, the 800 pound gorilla (PC gaming) is kicked in the nuts and brought to its knees, and no amount of hardware compensates for that.

Add to that the fact that 1920x1080 is the gold standard, nobody wants to buy a new TV every 5 years, there's severe diminishing returns on what the human eye can perceive.

Once you get to a certain hardware level, anything above that level is moot. And we're very close to that already.

When was this article published, like ten years ago?

For pete's sake, when will people realize A.) its not a competition, and B.) PC is here to stay.

The only thing I really fear is the "indie bubble" collapsing