PS4 = slightly bellow Mid range PC. Xbone = entry level PC

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by topgunmv (10136 posts) -

@topgunmv said:
@NFJSupreme said:

@topgunmv said:

@NFJSupreme:Have you never been through a console launch before? Developers didn't even know how much memory the ps4 was going to have until it was almost out.

few things here. I get your point and it's valid but I'm not talking about graphical fidelity here we're talking about performance. It is true that over the life of a console graphical fidelity improves drastically. This is well documented and I have stated this before. But it is also true that throughout the life of a console performance does not iimprove drastically. In fact it stays pretty much the same and might actually decrease as the console gets pushed to it's limits. Don't believe me? Google the resolution and fps of games like Uncharted, Halo, Call of Duty, Killzone, and other last gen PS360 games and google their resolution and fps for each of their games. You will find that not only do they stay pretty much the same with some slight improvements some of them actually had lower resolution in later installments even though the later installment clearly looked better. Yes judging performance with launch games is valid so long as the games aren't broken (if they were using AC4 or COD launch code this would be pointless cause those games launched not in their final form.) This mid range PC will outperform next gen consoles for their entire generation same way the 8800GT outperformed the PS360 through out it's life.

Well, right. The specs are the specs. My point is there are always issues with launch window multiplats, games like Quake4 and Prey ran and looked like ass on consoles, but ran great on my pentium 4 with a radeon x800.

Games later in the gen, not so much.

The reason for that was because the games were still being developed with only single core usage and non shader intensive engines. It took almost two years for the 360 to see games use all three cores and actually see engines that were more shader based(making use of the new standard of unified shader architecture) . And then for the PS3 it also took almost two years to tap into the unused SPU's from the Cell to complement the RSX. These new consoles are nothing like their predecessors.

These new consoles are cut from the same cloth as PC's using x86 based cpu's, and using current low to mid ranged gpu's. Developers know what they have and dont have to wait for the software to mature to make use of all the cpu cores nor have to design engines that can make use of the gpu's. Most of the work has been done already. The only things they have to do is tweak the minor details. While we will see improvements as time goes on it will not be anything like what happened from 7th gen or earlier since Pc has already made the standards years ago.

Also like to point out that these console's have very weak cpu's along with only 6 cores available for games and the OS+features memory allocation eats 3-3.5 gb of the 8gb.

You're already seeing ugly multiplats (titanfall) require things like stupid amounts of vram for higher graphics settings.

#102 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15887 posts) -

I disagree with the XB1 being equivalent to an entry-level PC. I don't think a PC with Intel HD graphics can hold a candle to the GPU of the XB1.

I think they're both in the midrange gaming PC class with the XB1 in the lower pack and the PS4 midpack.

#103 Posted by jake44 (1942 posts) -

Isn't this common knowledge?

#104 Posted by Cloud_imperium (2251 posts) -

@naz99 said:

@Cloud_imperium: SYBERIA 3!?!?...They are making a syberia 3?? Do you have a link,I love that game and you just made my day :)

There you go .

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/11/28/syberia-3-microids-anuman/

#106 Posted by AM-Gamer (3517 posts) -

It will never beat a 780 but it will beat the midranged setup , the hermit butthurt in this thread is amazing.

#107 Posted by lostrib (33225 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

It will never beat a 780 but it will beat the midranged setup , the hermit butthurt in this thread is amazing.

what will beat the midranged setup? and what counts as midrange?

#108 Posted by leandrro (787 posts) -

a 500 pounds PC that barely beats my 400 dollars PC, good job

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naO0daBZeRo

#109 Posted by AM-Gamer (3517 posts) -

@MK-Professor: At one time a 7800gtx also outperformed consoles , now they can barely run PS3/360 games. A 8800gtx featured significantly more raw power and more features. I'm not saying the PS4 will ever surpass a 780 but it will surpass the midranged setup they used in there test by a fair margin as time goes on.

#110 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@leandrro said:

a 500 pounds PC that barely beats my 400 dollars PC, good job

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naO0daBZeRo

what the fuck do you hump your boxes? who cares how big it is

#111 Edited by 04dcarraher (19171 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: At one time a 7800gtx also outperformed consoles , now they can barely run PS3/360 games. A 8800gtx featured significantly more raw power and more features. I'm not saying the PS4 will ever surpass a 780 but it will surpass the midranged setup they used in there test by a fair margin as time goes on.

Need to open that brain and let in some real knowledge not SW BS.

The only reason why the 7800GTX was able to perform better for the short time frame was because of non shader intensive game engines being used during that time. The 360's gpu was using a new standard in gpu architecture aka unified shader processors which were able to do vertex and shader workloads. and was using a triple core cpu when single cored coding was the norm. Now as for the PS3 it took more time to figure out a way to use the Cell's unused SPU's which were designed for gpu workloads.

Now if we look at ATI's gpu's of the same era as the 360 and PS3 release we see their gpu's were able to handle those newer games that needed more shading processing power that Nvidia's 7800 didn't have.

We have seen plenty of examples of gpu's as old as the 360/PS3 perform as well or better for example seen a ATI's x1950 able to produce comparable results with Crysis 2 vs the 360 both having nearly the same GFLOPS performance. Seen Geforce 8600's perform better at higher resolutions with multiplats then the 360 or PS3. Also to point out that on processing front the 8600's are at the same area as 7800's. Now when the 8800's came out it was game over for the consoles since the gpu series was 2-3x faster in almost every regard.

One thing that your wrong about is that their not going to able to squeeze "amazing" power out of these consoles when in fact their nothing like the 360 nor PS3 being under utilized or tapping into a unused portion of the system. These consoles are cut from the same cloth as PC's using same standard in processors using same based gpu hardware. Noting that from the hardware specs alone will not allow the PS4 nor X1 to perform better then a mid ranged pc with 7870 or GTX 660. Both consoles cpu and gpu's will not allow it. And before you scream optimization and metal coding those excuses are just that excuses. Cutting and downgrading aspects to make current games reach a set standard ie 60 fps or 1080, shows the hardware is lacking.

Now if the test setup had 7870 I would say the PS4 could become comparable over time but not actually surpass it because the 7870 has a 700 GFLOPS processing advantage over the PS4 gpu. The GPU used in the test is a GTX 760 its not mid ranged, its sits on par with a GTX 670, which those gpu's out class AMD's 7850,(PS4 sits between these two) ,7870 and 7950 let alone being on par with the 7970's. Needless to say that the 760 is a different league then the PS4.

#112 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@NFJSupreme said:

Well we new this already but Digital Foundry built a mid-range "next-gen" PC to go head to head with next gen consoles (particularly the PS4). The results aren't shocking. Midrange PC smokes next gen consoles in everything but crappy ports like COD.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-next-gen-digital-foundry-pc

PS4 gamers should be happy with their console. Xbone gamers should be happy their media box can play games this well.

Both consoles are in Radeon HD R7-2xx class GCNs with PS4's GCN solution being similar to the highest R7-265 mid-range segment.

In terms of performance, R7-265 is use to beat GeForce GTX 750 Ti "Maxwell".

-----------

From http://techreport.com/news/26125/radeon-r7-265-becomes-available-at-149-promptly-sells-out

R7-265 looks to be selling well.

------------

From http://techreport.com/news/26106/radeon-hd-7950-gets-second-life-as-radeon-r9-280

AMD hopes R9-280 model solves their availability problems.

R9-280 (Tahiti Pro)'s main competitor would be GK104 based GeForce GTX 760 and both models uses ex-flagship chip designs, which are class above the X1 and PS4.

------------

X1's 32 MB ESRAM+ 14 CU GCN chip area could have been class R9-280 GPU i.e. 8 Jaguar cores + 28 CU(26 active) GCN + 256bit 2 GB GDDR5 + 128bit 8 DDR3 setup. 28 CU GCN ~= 2X scaled 7790 with 14 CUs. Needs to have 2 CU disabled for yield issues.

Radeon HD 7870 XT has 24 CU (926 Mhz base with 975 Mhz turbo) with 185 watts and 2.995 TFLOPS. Near 700Mhz for PS4 TDP profile which yields 2.15 TFLOPS. Radeon HD 7870 XT is actually Tahiti class chip with 8 disabled CUs.

Radeon HD 7870 GE/R9-270X has 20 CU (1Ghz base) with 175 watts and 2.56 TFLOPS. Near 800 Mhz for PS4 TDP profile. Needs to have 2 CU disabled for yield issues, hence 18 CUs.

#113 Posted by xboxiphoneps3 (2273 posts) -

@NFJSupreme said:

@FoxbatAlpha said:

LOL, no.

what exactly were you expecting the results to be? PS4 coming out on top? lol

In every test i have run (with all layers of the SOC unlocked and DX12 implemented) THE ONE comes out on top. Every single time.

Right now the civilian version of THE ONE is still pretty much in beta.

what the hell is this?

#114 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

on this topic I want to make sure everyone understand that antiquated and sales figures are two totally different subjects.

On the innovation scale Desktop PCs are far from antiquated. I would say that the input devices on PCs are antiquated and i would say that the PC itself has been somewhat ignored because developers know full well what would be expected of them over an HTML 5 phone app.

IDC didn't separate gaming PCs from the basic desktop PCs.

For example http://techreport.com/news/26125/radeon-r7-265-becomes-available-at-149-promptly-sells-out

AMD's Radeon HD R7-265 ($149) was sold out.

#115 Posted by HaloinventedFPS (4704 posts) -

I don't like the fact they had to benchmark unoptimized ports to make PS4 seem better, even then AC4 & Ghosts still run & look better on that PC they built, but they act like PC not blowing it out of the water means a loss for PC

They also used TresFX on the Nvidia card when everyone knows TresFX runs much worse on Nvidia, Eurogamer forgot this little fact, once again to make PS4 seem a bit better

#116 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (3951 posts) -

The difference between entry level and mid range is much bigger than that. At most you could then say the X1 is halfway between entry level and mid range and the PS4 is 3/4 way to mid range. And by the looks of things both are falling fast as PC tech moves on.

Whose been blowing smoke up Playstation fans asses that they think the PS4 is so vastly more powerful?

#117 Posted by silversix_ (13899 posts) -

LOL, no.

It hurts isn't it? Don't blame anyone else but MS themselves, they're the ONE selling something as outdated.

#118 Edited by The_Last_Ride (69731 posts) -
#119 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (6052 posts) -

@silversix_: it is just a public illusion to create a false sense that it is "outdated". As more components are unlocked and more software updates are imposed, this thing is going to take off and leave the PS4 in the dust.

Call me crazy but that is their plan. E3 will give a taste of this but it is only going to get more impressive from there!

#120 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (3951 posts) -

@FoxbatAlpha said:

LOL, no.

It hurts isn't it? Don't blame anyone else but MS themselves, they're the ONE selling something as outdated.

Less powerful and outdated mean two completely different things. There is nothing outdated in the X1. And the GPUs in the PS4 and X1 are pretty much the same except the X1s is a less capable variant.

#121 Posted by tormentos (16754 posts) -

Well we new this already but Digital Foundry built a mid-range "next-gen" PC to go head to head with next gen consoles (particularly the PS4). The results aren't shocking. Midrange PC smokes next gen consoles in everything but crappy ports like COD.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-next-gen-digital-foundry-pc

PS4 gamers should be happy with their console. Xbone gamers should be happy their media box can play games this well.

The results are clear enough. The 270/270X mostly delivers the 1080p60 experience we crave, but under stress both cards fall behind the PS4 performance. Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

#122 Edited by zeeshanhaider (2351 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@NFJSupreme said:

Well we new this already but Digital Foundry built a mid-range "next-gen" PC to go head to head with next gen consoles (particularly the PS4). The results aren't shocking. Midrange PC smokes next gen consoles in everything but crappy ports like COD.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-next-gen-digital-foundry-pc

PS4 gamers should be happy with their console. Xbone gamers should be happy their media box can play games this well.

The results are clear enough. The 270/270X mostly delivers the 1080p60 experience we crave, but under stress both cards fall behind the PS4 performance. Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You just self owned your self. See I told you that the 900pStation is made up of cheap ass tablet CPU and a GPU barely matching a mid-range 570 from 2010. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Very soon we will have tablets more powerful in specs than the 900pStation and 720pBox which have a good probability of becoming 720pStation and SubHD box in the coming years. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh and did you get a PS4? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#123 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2351 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: At one time a 7800gtx also outperformed consoles , now they can barely run PS3/360 games. A 8800gtx featured significantly more raw power and more features. I'm not saying the PS4 will ever surpass a 780 but it will surpass the midranged setup they used in there test by a fair margin as time goes on.

Is that why a 900pStation already have games from first party below/= 900p? Keep dreaming.

#124 Edited by tormentos (16754 posts) -

I get that you love your consoles but no need to go into full DC mode. Just letting you know how your console stacks up to the rest of its weight class.

In the here and now, we're wondering whether we did achieve a truly transformative gameplay experience over PlayStation 4 and Xbox One? In a number of cases, we categorically did not. Need for Speed: Rivals boasts only minor refinements over the console versions and was pegged to the same 30fps, while Call of Duty: Ghosts is a genuinely poor experience on PC. With Assassin's Creed 4, we had a great deal of leeway in exploring higher-quality visual settings, but again, the feeling of the game was very similar. On Tomb Raider, we could beat the 1080p performance of the PS4 game, but only with careful settings management - and the disabling of the showcase TressFX technology.

Hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..1080p without tressFX to beat the PS4 frame wise

1/2 TressFX on both PC and console incurs a highly significant GPU hit. It's especially an issue at close-range. Turning it off helps, but we're still not at the frame-rate we want on PC.

2/2 Turning down the shadows from ultra to normal frees up a huge amount of GPU time in places, getting us to the performance level we demand from the game. As you can see, dialing back hair and shadows almost doubles performance.

Up to 32 FPS hit on PC From TressFX.?

It dropped to 28 FPS that lower than the PS4 version ever dropped..lol

Pretty good for the PS4 as you can see,that is a stronger than PS4 GPU on a stronger than PS4 PC and a more expensive than PS4 to.

lol, the Sony fanboys skew the polls/reviews with their exclusives, and most review sites are console bias to begin with.... So your point is void.

While the game was good it didnt deserve game of the year

To tell you the truth the story was very cliche until it's let-down ending.The game's gameplay was very overrated with AI issues, and the game was really is a step down from UC3 graphics wise, and its blurry backgrounds in some the darker areas was awful. also the replay value is nil.

Just to imitate a certain troll here,Prove it...hahahaa

http://www.gamerankings.com/browse.html

How can gamers skew reviews toward consoles.? Poll ok i believe that but reviews.?

Na dude..

When was the last time something PC relevant make it into gamerankings to scored games.? It is basically owned by consoles even that PC had more games,having 1,000 crappy games doesn't change the fact they are crappy..

#125 Edited by zeeshanhaider (2351 posts) -

@tormentos:

That's very rude of you for ignoring me. I feel like crying. :(

#126 Edited by NFJSupreme (5126 posts) -

@tormentos: I have stated numerous times that the price per performance of the ps4 is unmatched in gaming. No need to DC the fact that on average the midrange PC beats the ps4. Ps4 owners should be very pleased with their purchase. Its the best deal in gaming right now and my thread actually proves it. PC is the optimal experience but ps4 is the recommended experience if look at it like they do hardware requirements. Xbone is the minimum requirements.

#127 Posted by AM-Gamer (3517 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: At one time a 7800gtx also outperformed consoles , now they can barely run PS3/360 games. A 8800gtx featured significantly more raw power and more features. I'm not saying the PS4 will ever surpass a 780 but it will surpass the midranged setup they used in there test by a fair margin as time goes on.

Need to open that brain and let in some real knowledge not SW BS.

The only reason why the 7800GTX was able to perform better for the short time frame was because of non shader intensive game engines being used during that time. The 360's gpu was using a new standard in gpu architecture aka unified shader processors which were able to do vertex and shader workloads. and was using a triple core cpu when single cored coding was the norm. Now as for the PS3 it took more time to figure out a way to use the Cell's unused SPU's which were designed for gpu workloads.

Now if we look at ATI's gpu's of the same era as the 360 and PS3 release we see their gpu's were able to handle those newer games that needed more shading processing power that Nvidia's 7800 didn't have.

We have seen plenty of examples of gpu's as old as the 360/PS3 perform as well or better for example seen a ATI's x1950 able to produce comparable results with Crysis 2 vs the 360 both having nearly the same GFLOPS performance. Seen Geforce 8600's perform better at higher resolutions with multiplats then the 360 or PS3. Also to point out that on processing front the 8600's are at the same area as 7800's. Now when the 8800's came out it was game over for the consoles since the gpu series was 2-3x faster in almost every regard.

One thing that your wrong about is that their not going to able to squeeze "amazing" power out of these consoles when in fact their nothing like the 360 nor PS3 being under utilized or tapping into a unused portion of the system. These consoles are cut from the same cloth as PC's using same standard in processors using same based gpu hardware. Noting that from the hardware specs alone will not allow the PS4 nor X1 to perform better then a mid ranged pc with 7870 or GTX 660. Both consoles cpu and gpu's will not allow it. And before you scream optimization and metal coding those excuses are just that excuses. Cutting and downgrading aspects to make current games reach a set standard ie 60 fps or 1080, shows the hardware is lacking.

Now if the test setup had 7870 I would say the PS4 could become comparable over time but not actually surpass it because the 7870 has a 700 GFLOPS processing advantage over the PS4 gpu. The GPU used in the test is a GTX 760 its not mid ranged, its sits on par with a GTX 670, which those gpu's out class AMD's 7850,(PS4 sits between these two) ,7870 and 7950 let alone being on par with the 7970's. Needless to say that the 760 is a different league then the PS4.

You are the same person who I debated this very same argument last gen. Its funny to watch you change your tune. When bringing up bad ports like Prey and Quake you said nothing about the processing cores , you said it was because of the consoles gimped CPU's and lack of Ram. When in reality it was because the game was made to run on one core. You even posted a thread comparing Prey on 360 vs pc to act as if consoles were not capable of beating a 6800 series if it had more ram. Its hard for me to take you seriously when I had to educate you on this subject several years ago in hear you are telling me what I already told you , and now you are trying to act as if just because this gen is based off a PC architecture that the consoles will offer no advantages which is simply not true.

Once the GPU is used for Computational purposes it will far outclass what they are doing now. I could easily see it beating a GTX660 yes there will be that limit where the GPU range simply becomes more powerful but to say consoles offer no advantage and that codding to the metal is just is fictional is utter BS. Cutting and downgrading aspects to hit 60fps shows rushed port jobs for next gen console launch titles. These are first year titles , don't ever judge a systems capabilities by there launch window titles. Look at the room for improvement you are already seeing on titles such as MGS:Ground Zeroes and Infamous SS. Games that feature better visuals in open worlds with no performance problems.

#128 Posted by AM-Gamer (3517 posts) -

@tormentos:

That's very rude of you for ignoring me. I feel like crying. :(

Why would anyone acknowledge you? You just said Tablets will beat the PS4 soon? Um try about 4 to 5 more years. You also call it the 900p station when it only has "ONE GAME" in 900p . Every other game is running in 1080.

@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: At one time a 7800gtx also outperformed consoles , now they can barely run PS3/360 games. A 8800gtx featured significantly more raw power and more features. I'm not saying the PS4 will ever surpass a 780 but it will surpass the midranged setup they used in there test by a fair margin as time goes on.

Need to open that brain and let in some real knowledge not SW BS.

The only reason why the 7800GTX was able to perform better for the short time frame was because of non shader intensive game engines being used during that time. The 360's gpu was using a new standard in gpu architecture aka unified shader processors which were able to do vertex and shader workloads. and was using a triple core cpu when single cored coding was the norm. Now as for the PS3 it took more time to figure out a way to use the Cell's unused SPU's which were designed for gpu workloads.

Now if we look at ATI's gpu's of the same era as the 360 and PS3 release we see their gpu's were able to handle those newer games that needed more shading processing power that Nvidia's 7800 didn't have.

We have seen plenty of examples of gpu's as old as the 360/PS3 perform as well or better for example seen a ATI's x1950 able to produce comparable results with Crysis 2 vs the 360 both having nearly the same GFLOPS performance. Seen Geforce 8600's perform better at higher resolutions with multiplats then the 360 or PS3. Also to point out that on processing front the 8600's are at the same area as 7800's. Now when the 8800's came out it was game over for the consoles since the gpu series was 2-3x faster in almost every regard.

One thing that your wrong about is that their not going to able to squeeze "amazing" power out of these consoles when in fact their nothing like the 360 nor PS3 being under utilized or tapping into a unused portion of the system. These consoles are cut from the same cloth as PC's using same standard in processors using same based gpu hardware. Noting that from the hardware specs alone will not allow the PS4 nor X1 to perform better then a mid ranged pc with 7870 or GTX 660. Both consoles cpu and gpu's will not allow it. And before you scream optimization and metal coding those excuses are just that excuses. Cutting and downgrading aspects to make current games reach a set standard ie 60 fps or 1080, shows the hardware is lacking.

Now if the test setup had 7870 I would say the PS4 could become comparable over time but not actually surpass it because the 7870 has a 700 GFLOPS processing advantage over the PS4 gpu. The GPU used in the test is a GTX 760 its not mid ranged, its sits on par with a GTX 670, which those gpu's out class AMD's 7850,(PS4 sits between these two) ,7870 and 7950 let alone being on par with the 7970's. Needless to say that the 760 is a different league then the PS4.

You are the same person who I debated this very same argument last gen. Its funny to watch you change your tune. When bringing up bad ports like Prey and Quake you said nothing about the processing cores , you said it was because of the consoles gimped CPU's and lack of Ram. When in reality it was because the game was made to run on one core. You even posted a thread comparing Prey on 360 vs pc to act as if consoles were not capable of beating a 6800 series if it had more ram. Its hard for me to take you seriously when I had to educate you on this subject several years ago in hear you are telling me what I already told you , and now you are trying to act as if just because this gen is based off a PC architecture that the consoles will offer no advantages which is simply not true.

Once the GPU is used for Computational purposes it will far outclass what they are doing now. I could easily see it beating a GTX660 yes there will be that limit where the GPU range simply becomes more powerful but to say consoles offer no advantage and that codding to the metal is just is fictional is utter BS. Cutting and downgrading aspects to hit 60fps shows rushed port jobs for next gen console launch titles. These are first year titles , don't ever judge a systems capabilities by there launch window titles. Look at the room for improvement you are already seeing on titles such as MGS:Ground Zeroes and Infamous SS. Games that feature better visuals in open worlds with no performance problems.

#129 Posted by NFJSupreme (5126 posts) -

@AM-Gamer: let's wait till we get our hands on those games before you proclaim no performance issues. Every game has no performance issues before launch. Let's stick to talking about what we know and not what we hope will happen or anticipate will happen.

#130 Posted by Cyberdot (3512 posts) -

A £500 PC beats PS4 and X1 there by maintaining 60fps at 1080p. Consoles are below 1080p and they struggle to maintain consistent framerate, lol.

Obviously, the PC has much better value for your money.

#131 Edited by 04dcarraher (19171 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:
@zeeshanhaider said:

@tormentos:

That's very rude of you for ignoring me. I feel like crying. :(

Why would anyone acknowledge you? You just said Tablets will beat the PS4 soon? Um try about 4 to 5 more years. You also call it the 900p station when it only has "ONE GAME" in 900p . Every other game is running in 1080.

@04dcarraher said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@MK-Professor: At one time a 7800gtx also outperformed consoles , now they can barely run PS3/360 games. A 8800gtx featured significantly more raw power and more features. I'm not saying the PS4 will ever surpass a 780 but it will surpass the midranged setup they used in there test by a fair margin as time goes on.

You are the same person who I debated this very same argument last gen. Its funny to watch you change your tune. When bringing up bad ports like Prey and Quake you said nothing about the processing cores , you said it was because of the consoles gimped CPU's and lack of Ram. When in reality it was because the game was made to run on one core. You even posted a thread comparing Prey on 360 vs pc to act as if consoles were not capable of beating a 6800 series if it had more ram. Its hard for me to take you seriously when I had to educate you on this subject several years ago in hear you are telling me what I already told you , and now you are trying to act as if just because this gen is based off a PC architecture that the consoles will offer no advantages which is simply not true.

Once the GPU is used for Computational purposes it will far outclass what they are doing now. I could easily see it beating a GTX660 yes there will be that limit where the GPU range simply becomes more powerful but to say consoles offer no advantage and that codding to the metal is just is fictional is utter BS. Cutting and downgrading aspects to hit 60fps shows rushed port jobs for next gen console launch titles. These are first year titles , don't ever judge a systems capabilities by there launch window titles. Look at the room for improvement you are already seeing on titles such as MGS:Ground Zeroes and Infamous SS. Games that feature better visuals in open worlds with no performance problems.

Again out of context and misinformed.

With Quake and Prey is was the lack of VRAM with along with their weak cpu's Quake engine had multicore support called Symmetric MultiProcessing. You dont understand that Prey/Quake ate more then half the 360's memory pool which affected its texture quality. The 360 had equal effects as 6800's or whatever but their texture detail suffered. the 360's triple core cpu was slower then Athlon X2's and by 2006 C2D onward it was game over

Doing Compute work loads on gpu's do not increase graphics ability nor increase gpu;s processing power the compute workloads are for offloading cpu based workloads to do on gpu's and do things like real time physics etc. and in fact lowers the gpu's total processing power available for graphical rendering.

No your not understanding what I meant with the optimization and metal coding, these things are not magic as many claim them to be and to the fact that to metal coding and low level API like Mantle and DX 12 is lowering the overhead relieves cpu resources not actually making gpu faster. the gpu has set processing abilities based on the hardware design. Also these cross generational games on these consoles are not something to gauge but native direct x 11 games made for pc are the starting point to gauge these consoles because they are based from the same type of hardware.

#132 Posted by Cyberdot (3512 posts) -
@clyde46 said:

@Motokid6 said:

Console exclusives blow big donkey bawls.

Someone hasn't played TLOU.

If I'm honest, the game cause me to fall asleep.

A bit boring and it's more like a movie than a game.

#133 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4084 posts) -
@Cyberdot said:
@clyde46 said:

@Motokid6 said:

Console exclusives blow big donkey bawls.

Someone hasn't played TLOU.

If I'm honest, the game cause me to fall asleep.

A bit boring and it's more like a movie than a game.

yea i didn't finish it either.

but some console exclusives are pretty good.

#134 Edited by NFJSupreme (5126 posts) -

@Cyberdot: pc will always beat consoles in terms of value. They just do more. But as of now the ps4 performance per dollar isn't matched right now. Not until the $500 steambox is launched anyway.

#135 Posted by tormentos (16754 posts) -

You just self owned your self. See I told you that the 900pStation is made up of cheap ass tablet CPU and a GPU barely matching a mid-range 570 from 2010. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Very soon we will have tablets more powerful in specs than the 900pStation and 720pBox which have a good probability of becoming 720pStation and SubHD box in the coming years. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh and did you get a PS4? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You don't even understand why i was laughing...hahahahaaaaaaaaa

If you guess i give you a cookie...hahahaaaaa

#136 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2351 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:
@zeeshanhaider said:

@tormentos:

That's very rude of you for ignoring me. I feel like crying. :(

Why would anyone acknowledge you? You just said Tablets will beat the PS4 soon? Um try about 4 to 5 more years. You also call it the 900p station when it only has "ONE GAME" in 900p . Every other game is running in 1080.

One? Crapzone: Shadow Fail is Sub HD. The Order is 800p and runs like a slide show. The Witcher 3 is also rumored to be 900p. Yup, definitely 900pStation because cleary the games have problems running on it in 1080p and developers are cutting corners already. Keep crying. Doesn't seem good for the next gen, if you ask me.

Ah, so you finally agreed that tablets are going to beat the 900pStation in 4 years. Well that's still pathetic if you ask me.

#137 Posted by zeeshanhaider (2351 posts) -

@zeeshanhaider said:

You just self owned your self. See I told you that the 900pStation is made up of cheap ass tablet CPU and a GPU barely matching a mid-range 570 from 2010. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Very soon we will have tablets more powerful in specs than the 900pStation and 720pBox which have a good probability of becoming 720pStation and SubHD box in the coming years. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh and did you get a PS4? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You don't even understand why i was laughing...hahahahaaaaaaaaa

If you guess i give you a cookie...hahahaaaaa

Will the cookie be in 900p or SubHD? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#138 Edited by ronvalencia (15109 posts) -

@zeeshanhaider said:

@tormentos said:

@NFJSupreme said:

Well we new this already but Digital Foundry built a mid-range "next-gen" PC to go head to head with next gen consoles (particularly the PS4). The results aren't shocking. Midrange PC smokes next gen consoles in everything but crappy ports like COD.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-next-gen-digital-foundry-pc

PS4 gamers should be happy with their console. Xbone gamers should be happy their media box can play games this well.

The results are clear enough. The 270/270X mostly delivers the 1080p60 experience we crave, but under stress both cards fall behind the PS4 performance. Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Bearing in mind that the AMD cards are still delivering a massive 44 per cent boost in resolution over the PS4 game.

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You just self owned your self. See I told you that the 900pStation is made up of cheap ass tablet CPU and a GPU barely matching a mid-range 570 from 2010. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Very soon we will have tablets more powerful in specs than the 900pStation and 720pBox which have a good probability of becoming 720pStation and SubHD box in the coming years. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh and did you get a PS4? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

UK designed ARM SoCs has to beat Intel Haswell IGP before touching X1.

The strongest tablet chips are still from the AMD (with two GCN CUs), Intel and Nvidia camp (K1 with one Kepler SMX unit).

#139 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6618 posts) -

.....and the average PC? Slightly below mid range. It all equals out.

Even further below average than you think. Consider all the gamers that play on laptops, and those who have high end PCs from 4-5 years ago without upgrading. That's definitely below mid range today.

#140 Posted by KittenNose (372 posts) -

Isn't below mid ranged and entry level the same thing?

Also, this is great news for the Hardcore Casuals! (Rawr peoples, I play Gnomoria for hours on end!) With the best selling games being multiplats, in three years anyone will be able to turn a bargain basement PC into a gaming rig that will play 99% of games on high for like a hundred bucks. With Steam sales now publisher driven gaming is going to become the most inexpensive hobbies you can have. If in five years there is a netflix like service for audiobooks I will be able to rock strat/sims while listening to every book I can think of for like thirty bucks a month.

#141 Posted by naz99 (1151 posts) -

@naz99 said:

@Cloud_imperium: SYBERIA 3!?!?...They are making a syberia 3?? Do you have a link,I love that game and you just made my day :)

There you go .

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/11/28/syberia-3-microids-anuman/

How the hell did i miss that....Thank mate ;)

#142 Posted by SolidGame_basic (16468 posts) -

I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars more on a new computer so I can get slightly better graphics, it's just silly.

#143 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (15887 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic said:

I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars more on a new computer so I can get slightly better graphics, it's just silly.

You already spent money on another device though. I doubt you're posting on this forum from a console. You don't have to do that with a gaming PC.

#144 Posted by xdluffy (23 posts) -

@NFJSupreme: power obviously isnt everything since based on those videos the pc version didnt play or look any better than the ps4 and x1

#145 Posted by naz99 (1151 posts) -

I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars more on a new computer so I can get slightly better graphics, it's just silly.

Yes because all of us know especially us PC gamers that the only advantage to PC's is slightly better graphics...there are no other possible benefits whatsoever....right guys?

#146 Posted by tormentos (16754 posts) -

Will the cookie be in 900p or SubHD? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So no guess.?

I knew you didn't have the intellect for it..hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa....

#147 Edited by zeeshanhaider (2351 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@zeeshanhaider said:

Will the cookie be in 900p or SubHD? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So no guess.?

I knew you didn't have the intellect for it..hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaa....

So, SubHD, I suppose then? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you will be a fool to think that I wouldn't know why you were jumping up and down but you do know why I quote you, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#148 Posted by tormentos (16754 posts) -

So, SubHD, I suppose then? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

And you will be a fool to think that I wouldn't know why you were jumping up and down but you do know why I quote you, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Your PC probably considering that you hype xbox one games and pretend to be a hermit..hahaha

So once again did you even know why i was laughing.? Or you still pretending you do.?

Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... I still have the cookie here..hahaaaa

#149 Edited by locopatho (20131 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic said:

I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars more on a new computer so I can get slightly better graphics, it's just silly.

You already spent money on another device though. I doubt you're posting on this forum from a console. You don't have to do that with a gaming PC.

He could easily be using a console, phone, tablet, laptop or netbook. None of which would be suitable for gaming.

Desktops are declining in use for families/casual users.

#150 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (15887 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@SolidGame_basic said:

I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars more on a new computer so I can get slightly better graphics, it's just silly.

You already spent money on another device though. I doubt you're posting on this forum from a console. You don't have to do that with a gaming PC.

He could easily be using a console, phone, tablet, laptop or netbook. None of which would be suitable for gaming.

Desktops are declining in use for families/casual users.

I doubt most console gamers would post on a forum from a console. All those other devices are additional expenses.