Specs of next gen consoles

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by jcknapier711 (470 posts) -

After looking at the specs, I must say I'm less then impressed. I know that the GPU is what is important, but still, the CPU is absolute garbage. My grandmother could count faster than that thing. Which pretty much assures that PC will be on top graphics wise for the next decade. Last gen (ps3/x360) gave the PC a run for it's money. Well, at the time they were released. But my arguably PC is faster than this coming gen and my PC is nearly 5 years old.

I was really hoping that they would have pushed the specs really hard since they say this gen will last 10 years. This means that games will be stuck in graphical limbo for another ten years.

Then there's the fact that AMD sucks. I'm predicting mass complaints of overheating and returns because of system instability. But that's a minor point, that will no doubt be hotly contested.

#2 Posted by lundy86_4 (44328 posts) -

Well... Okie dokie.

#3 Posted by ronvalencia (15572 posts) -

@jcknapier711 said:

After looking at the specs, I must say I'm less then impressed. I know that the GPU is what is important, but still, the CPU is absolute garbage. My grandmother could count faster than that thing. Which pretty much assures that PC will be on top graphics wise for the next decade. Last gen (ps3/x360) gave the PC a run for it's money. Well, at the time they were released. But my arguably PC is faster than this coming gen and my PC is nearly 5 years old.

I was really hoping that they would have pushed the specs really hard since they say this gen will last 10 years. This means that games will be stuck in graphical limbo for another ten years.

Then there's the fact that AMD sucks. I'm predicting mass complaints of overheating and returns because of system instability. But that's a minor point, that will no doubt be hotly contested.

NVIDIA's X86 CPU is even worst than VIA. http://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html

#4 Edited by Gaming-Planet (14423 posts) -

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

#5 Edited by lostrib (42737 posts) -

NVIDIA fanboy spotted

#6 Edited by Couth_ (10324 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

#7 Posted by lostrib (42737 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

#8 Edited by psymon100 (6835 posts) -
@jcknapier711 said:

Then there's the fact that AMD sucks. I'm predicting mass complaints of overheating and returns because of system instability. But that's a minor point, that will no doubt be hotly contested.

Well, Intel's GPUs aren't up to scratch.

3DFX are long gone.

PowerVR? Eh I don't know.

Who else could have done it?

#9 Edited by Couth_ (10324 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place.. Especially the xbone. It has a massive PC sized heat sink and fan on a mobile type APU.. That thing will be chillin in the shade

#10 Edited by lostrib (42737 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

#11 Edited by musicalmac (23633 posts) -

I find it interesting when people with avatars from games as "famous" as that one make threads ridiculing anything. I'll be the first one to admit all things are not equal, but that game was.... Really not good. Final boss battle -- so bad it's the stuff of legend.

#12 Edited by Kinthalis (5340 posts) -

AMD's drivers leave much to be desired, but They've gotten a lot better recently.

#13 Posted by GotNugz (681 posts) -

To be fair after the longest console generation I did expect more from the systems. With that being said they are still a great leap over current gen. The ps4 boast 16x as much memory, a gpu that's 10x more powerful thanRSX and GCN architecture. Since there is nothing like the gpu setup on pc we really don't know the performance of the cpu yet. I don't envision the cpu being a problem many pc games still support core 2 duo, and both consoles have 8 cores and we don't even know the clockspeeds yet as jaguar can be clocked all the way to 2.75ghz . Not to mention the host of co processors the systems have, there should be no reason why they couldn't hit atleast 2ghz. And no your 5 year old pc is not superior

#14 Edited by Couth_ (10324 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

Meh.. Like I said, they let a lot of their products go at an overall loss.. Who's to say they will even make their money back on the 290x. They basically rebadged the entire 7900 series to try to get a profit back. Just because they are cheaper than nvidia/intel doesn't mean they have some secret sauce that gives them better price/performance. They are really hurting to make profit and if not for the console deal it would be a lot worse.

#15 Posted by lostrib (42737 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

Meh.. Like I said, they let a lot of their products go at an overall loss.. Who's to say they will even make their money back on the 290x. They basically rebadged the entire 7900 series to try to get a profit back. Just because they are cheaper than nvidia/intel doesn't mean they have some secret sauce that gives them better price/performance. They are really hurting to make profit and if not for the console deal it would be a lot worse.

what does that have to do with their products sucking

#16 Edited by tubbyc (3796 posts) -

I'd say they've done the best they can to have a big step up whilst keeping reliability in mind and a price which won't hurt the sales too much. The Xbox One does have Kinect 2 pushing the price up a bit, but that will still be a good console.

#17 Edited by ronvalencia (15572 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

NVIDIA's ARM Cortex A15 CPU in Tegra 4 is slower than AMD Jaguar.

#19 Posted by ronvalencia (15572 posts) -

@kingoflife9 said:

consoles work different than pcs.

AMD Mantle brings "consoles like APIs" for PCs with GCN.

#20 Edited by HavocV3 (7951 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

Meh.. Like I said, they let a lot of their products go at an overall loss.. Who's to say they will even make their money back on the 290x. They basically rebadged the entire 7900 series to try to get a profit back. Just because they are cheaper than nvidia/intel doesn't mean they have some secret sauce that gives them better price/performance. They are really hurting to make profit and if not for the console deal it would be a lot worse.

-The GTX 770 & 760 are rebadges. I guess that means AMD is better since they made 2 new cards with their new line. (sadly this logic is still better than what you've presented in the above post)

-Except the 290x is performing better than the 780 and it costs $100-$150 less. Even lower-end 7970s/280x's are performing on par with 770s and those even cost $100-$150 more...which is even more pathetic than 780 vs. 290x.

-If their products are sold at a loss...that means it's a win for the consumer. The last-gen consoles were sold for $300-$350 losses...and look at that...they had better price:performance for their time compared to this gen.

And I doubt AMD is selling their GPUs at a loss. Nvidia is just price gouging with $1000 Titans & $650-$700 flagships. And it looks like you're fine with that.

AMD is getting killed in CPUs though. That's more than obvious.

#21 Edited by ronvalencia (15572 posts) -

@HavocV3 said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

Meh.. Like I said, they let a lot of their products go at an overall loss.. Who's to say they will even make their money back on the 290x. They basically rebadged the entire 7900 series to try to get a profit back. Just because they are cheaper than nvidia/intel doesn't mean they have some secret sauce that gives them better price/performance. They are really hurting to make profit and if not for the console deal it would be a lot worse.

-The GTX 770 & 760 are rebadges. I guess that means AMD is better since they made 2 new cards with their new line. (sadly this logic is still better than what you've presented in the above post)

-Except the 290x is performing better than the 780 and it costs $100-$150 less. Even lower-end 7970s are performing on par with 770s and those even cost $100-$150 more...which is pretty sad.

-If their products are sold at a loss...that means it's a win for the consumer. The last-gen consoles were sold for $300-$350 losses...and look at that...they had better price:performance for their time compared to this gen.

And I doubt AMD is selling their GPUs at a loss. Nvidia is just price gouging with $1000 Titans & $650-$700 flagships. And it looks like you're fine with that.

AMD is getting killed in CPUs though. That's more than obvious.

R9-290X's chip size is smaller than GK110, hence AMD can engage NVIDIA in flagship GPU price war.

AMD's notebook APUs are doing well. http://jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/amd-winner-in-q2-intel-up-nvidia-down/

AMD’s shipments of desktop heterogeneous GPU/CPUs, i.e., APUs declined 9.6% from Q1 and increased an astounding 47.1% in notebooks. The company’s overall PC graphics shipments increased 10.9%.

#22 Posted by ronvalencia (15572 posts) -

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

AMD's loss is mostly due to PC CPU side not with the GPU side. NVIDIA doesn't have a large R&D expenses for CPUs.

R9-290X R9-290X's chip size is smaller than GK110, hence lower price.

#23 Edited by jcknapier711 (470 posts) -
@GotNugz said:

To be fair after the longest console generation I did expect more from the systems.

Yea, I guess I was being a little hyperbolic. But it was just my disappointment, as I was hoping that since consoles are the anchor of the video game industry that they would have pushed the specs much much higher. But I suppose, nobody is going to want to buy a 1000$ console. Well, unless they live in Brazil...

And the Duke rocks. I don't care what anyone says, they're just player hatin'.

#24 Posted by silversix_ (16151 posts) -

Cerny was building the ps4, im sure he knew wtf he was doing. MS on the other hand, with not a single person who gives a flying f about gaming is another story...

#25 Posted by TheFadeForever (2221 posts) -

They make good GPU they just need better drive support

#26 Edited by 04dcarraher (20573 posts) -

@HavocV3 said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

Meh.. Like I said, they let a lot of their products go at an overall loss.. Who's to say they will even make their money back on the 290x. They basically rebadged the entire 7900 series to try to get a profit back. Just because they are cheaper than nvidia/intel doesn't mean they have some secret sauce that gives them better price/performance. They are really hurting to make profit and if not for the console deal it would be a lot worse.

-The GTX 770 & 760 are rebadges. I guess that means AMD is better since they made 2 new cards with their new line. (sadly this logic is still better than what you've presented in the above post)

-Except the 290x is performing better than the 780 and it costs $100-$150 less. Even lower-end 7970s/280x's are performing on par with 770s and those even cost $100-$150 more...which is even more pathetic than 780 vs. 290x.

-If their products are sold at a loss...that means it's a win for the consumer. The last-gen consoles were sold for $300-$350 losses...and look at that...they had better price:performance for their time compared to this gen.

And I doubt AMD is selling their GPUs at a loss. Nvidia is just price gouging with $1000 Titans & $650-$700 flagships. And it looks like you're fine with that.

AMD is getting killed in CPUs though. That's more than obvious.

Um the GTX 760 is not a rebadge, only the 770 which is a tweaked 680

You know that 290x is not a clear cut winner over the 780? The 290x in games like Crysis 3 at 2560x1440 both gpu's are virtually the same, and in BF3 same resolution they both are on par... its only the multi-monitor/ 4k resolutions where the bus and memory allows the 290 to get ahead. and do you think Nvidia wont cut prices....

Also do you know that when AMD releases a new line of cards that Nvidia does not have anything out to compete AMD jacks up the price on their cards until Nvidia releases theirs???? AMD has to sell at a loss to lure in people when Nvidia has products out that can compete. Thinking that AMD selling at a loss is win for you is funny since it hurts them more and in the end hurts their abilities to get R&D into overdrive.

lol when the 7970 released it was a $550 card and they didnt lower prices until Nvidia released the GTX 680 and 670 for $500 and under that creamed the 7970 until they upclocked it and came out with 12 based drivers many months after the release.

#27 Edited by btk2k2 (440 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

@jcknapier711 said:

After looking at the specs, I must say I'm less then impressed. I know that the GPU is what is important, but still, the CPU is absolute garbage. My grandmother could count faster than that thing. Which pretty much assures that PC will be on top graphics wise for the next decade. Last gen (ps3/x360) gave the PC a run for it's money. Well, at the time they were released. But my arguably PC is faster than this coming gen and my PC is nearly 5 years old.

I was really hoping that they would have pushed the specs really hard since they say this gen will last 10 years. This means that games will be stuck in graphical limbo for another ten years.

Then there's the fact that AMD sucks. I'm predicting mass complaints of overheating and returns because of system instability. But that's a minor point, that will no doubt be hotly contested.

NVIDIA's X86 CPU is even worst than VIA. http://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html

... That is a 386 CPU, that is prehistoric in computer terms.

jcknapier711:

The reason for the CPU choice this gen was because the console have a target power envelope, if they go above this then they need a bigger box with more cooling that leads to more noise which is undesirable in a living room device. The power envelope (in watts) of the GPU + CPU this cycle is comparable to that of the 360/PS3 last time around.

The big difference is that on the PC front the power envelopes have gone up and up, especially on the GPU side. The Pitcairn GPU in the PS4 consumes about as much power as the X1900XT did at the time of the 360/PS3 launch, the difference is the X1900XT was a top tier card but the 7850 is not and that is because the power envelope for a top tier card has gone up from around 150W to 250W.

As you stated GPU is more important that CPU for a gaming device and the Jaguar CPUs are pretty reasonable, they are OOOE x86-64 CPUs that offer very good performance for their power/die size. If you upgrade the CPU to a 4M 8C Piledriver then you have to cut back on the GPU and you end up underpowered in a different area. I think the PS4 has got the balance right although I do wish they had pushed it a touch more on the GPU front by going with 20CUs at 900Mhz.

#28 Edited by ronvalencia (15572 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@HavocV3 said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

Meh.. Like I said, they let a lot of their products go at an overall loss.. Who's to say they will even make their money back on the 290x. They basically rebadged the entire 7900 series to try to get a profit back. Just because they are cheaper than nvidia/intel doesn't mean they have some secret sauce that gives them better price/performance. They are really hurting to make profit and if not for the console deal it would be a lot worse.

-The GTX 770 & 760 are rebadges. I guess that means AMD is better since they made 2 new cards with their new line. (sadly this logic is still better than what you've presented in the above post)

-Except the 290x is performing better than the 780 and it costs $100-$150 less. Even lower-end 7970s/280x's are performing on par with 770s and those even cost $100-$150 more...which is even more pathetic than 780 vs. 290x.

-If their products are sold at a loss...that means it's a win for the consumer. The last-gen consoles were sold for $300-$350 losses...and look at that...they had better price:performance for their time compared to this gen.

And I doubt AMD is selling their GPUs at a loss. Nvidia is just price gouging with $1000 Titans & $650-$700 flagships. And it looks like you're fine with that.

AMD is getting killed in CPUs though. That's more than obvious.

Um the GTX 760 is not a rebadge, only the 770 which is a tweaked 680

You know that 290x is not a clear cut winner over the 780? The 290x in games like Crysis 3 at 2560x1440 both gpu's are virtually the same, and in BF3 same resolution they both are on par... its only the multi-monitor/ 4k resolutions where the bus and memory allows the 290 to get ahead. and do you think Nvidia wont cut prices....

Also do you know that when AMD releases a new line of cards that Nvidia does not have anything out to compete AMD jacks up the price on their cards until Nvidia releases theirs???? AMD has to sell at a loss to lure in people when Nvidia has products out that can compete. Thinking that AMD selling at a loss is win for you is funny since it hurts them more and in the end hurts their abilities to get R&D into overdrive.

lol when the 7970 released it was a $550 card and they didnt lower prices until Nvidia released the GTX 680 and 670 for $500 and under that creamed the 7970 until they upclocked it and came out with 12 based drivers many months after the release.

From http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/13.html

R9-290X beats Titan

#29 Posted by ronvalencia (15572 posts) -

@btk2k2 said:

@ronvalencia said:

@jcknapier711 said:

After looking at the specs, I must say I'm less then impressed. I know that the GPU is what is important, but still, the CPU is absolute garbage. My grandmother could count faster than that thing. Which pretty much assures that PC will be on top graphics wise for the next decade. Last gen (ps3/x360) gave the PC a run for it's money. Well, at the time they were released. But my arguably PC is faster than this coming gen and my PC is nearly 5 years old.

I was really hoping that they would have pushed the specs really hard since they say this gen will last 10 years. This means that games will be stuck in graphical limbo for another ten years.

Then there's the fact that AMD sucks. I'm predicting mass complaints of overheating and returns because of system instability. But that's a minor point, that will no doubt be hotly contested.

NVIDIA's X86 CPU is even worst than VIA. http://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html

... That is a 386 CPU, that is prehistoric in computer terms.

The reason for the CPU choice this gen was because the console have a target power envelope, if they go above this then they need a bigger box with more cooling that leads to more noise which is undesirable in a living room device. The power envelope (in watts) of the GPU + CPU this cycle is comparable to that of the 360/PS3 last time around.

The big difference is that on the PC front the power envelopes have gone up and up, especially on the GPU side. The Pitcairn GPU in the PS4 consumes about as much power as the X1900XT did at the time of the 360/PS3 launch, the difference is the X1900XT was a top tier card but the 7850 is not and that is because the power envelope for a top tier card has gone up from around 150W to 250W.

As you stated GPU is more important that CPU for a gaming device and the Jaguar CPUs are pretty reasonable, they are OOOE x86-64 CPUs that offer very good performance for their power/die size. If you upgrade the CPU to a 4M 8C Piledriver then you have to cut back on the GPU and you end up underpowered in a different area. I think the PS4 has got the balance right although I do wish they had pushed it a touch more on the GPU front by going with 20CUs at 900Mhz.

No, I'm addressing jcknapier711's garbage post with equal measure.

I'm well aware on why they have selected AMD Jaguar.

#30 Posted by btk2k2 (440 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

@btk2k2 said:

@ronvalencia said:

@jcknapier711 said:

After looking at the specs, I must say I'm less then impressed. I know that the GPU is what is important, but still, the CPU is absolute garbage. My grandmother could count faster than that thing. Which pretty much assures that PC will be on top graphics wise for the next decade. Last gen (ps3/x360) gave the PC a run for it's money. Well, at the time they were released. But my arguably PC is faster than this coming gen and my PC is nearly 5 years old.

I was really hoping that they would have pushed the specs really hard since they say this gen will last 10 years. This means that games will be stuck in graphical limbo for another ten years.

Then there's the fact that AMD sucks. I'm predicting mass complaints of overheating and returns because of system instability. But that's a minor point, that will no doubt be hotly contested.

NVIDIA's X86 CPU is even worst than VIA. http://www.nvidia.com/page/uli_m6117c.html

... That is a 386 CPU, that is prehistoric in computer terms.

The reason for the CPU choice this gen was because the console have a target power envelope, if they go above this then they need a bigger box with more cooling that leads to more noise which is undesirable in a living room device. The power envelope (in watts) of the GPU + CPU this cycle is comparable to that of the 360/PS3 last time around.

The big difference is that on the PC front the power envelopes have gone up and up, especially on the GPU side. The Pitcairn GPU in the PS4 consumes about as much power as the X1900XT did at the time of the 360/PS3 launch, the difference is the X1900XT was a top tier card but the 7850 is not and that is because the power envelope for a top tier card has gone up from around 150W to 250W.

As you stated GPU is more important that CPU for a gaming device and the Jaguar CPUs are pretty reasonable, they are OOOE x86-64 CPUs that offer very good performance for their power/die size. If you upgrade the CPU to a 4M 8C Piledriver then you have to cut back on the GPU and you end up underpowered in a different area. I think the PS4 has got the balance right although I do wish they had pushed it a touch more on the GPU front by going with 20CUs at 900Mhz.

No, I'm addressing jcknapier711's garbage post with equal measure.

I'm well aware on why they have selected AMD Jaguar.

Yea, the rest of that post was meant for jcknapier711, should have made it more clear.

#31 Posted by cainetao11 (19524 posts) -

I guess if graphics are do important to a gamer, its easy to feel that way TC. I wonder though why must graphics constantly be pushed over the next ten years for the games to be enjoyable?

#32 Edited by blackace (21405 posts) -

@jcknapier711 said:

After looking at the specs, I must say I'm less then impressed. I know that the GPU is what is important, but still, the CPU is absolute garbage. My grandmother could count faster than that thing. Which pretty much assures that PC will be on top graphics wise for the next decade. Last gen (ps3/x360) gave the PC a run for it's money. Well, at the time they were released. But my arguably PC is faster than this coming gen and my PC is nearly 5 years old.

I was really hoping that they would have pushed the specs really hard since they say this gen will last 10 years. This means that games will be stuck in graphical limbo for another ten years.

Then there's the fact that AMD sucks. I'm predicting mass complaints of overheating and returns because of system instability. But that's a minor point, that will no doubt be hotly contested.

You clowns keep arguing over specs and it's never been about specs when it comes to games. Sure technology improves every year, but developers have always created great games will whatever hardware was thrown in front of them. From tha Atari 2600 to the SNES. From the Dreamcast to the XBox 360. Everyone of these systems had games that were fun with great gameplay. The graphics sometimes complimented that and sometimes it didn't. Same with the music and sound. I still love older games like Yars Revenge, Asteroid Deluxe and Major Havoc and those games are ancient. The gamers who started from the beginning knows what it's about. The kiddies who were born in the 80's don't understand at all.

#33 Edited by 04dcarraher (20573 posts) -

@ronvalencia said:

@04dcarraher said:

@HavocV3 said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

Meh.. Like I said, they let a lot of their products go at an overall loss.. Who's to say they will even make their money back on the 290x. They basically rebadged the entire 7900 series to try to get a profit back. Just because they are cheaper than nvidia/intel doesn't mean they have some secret sauce that gives them better price/performance. They are really hurting to make profit and if not for the console deal it would be a lot worse.

-The GTX 770 & 760 are rebadges. I guess that means AMD is better since they made 2 new cards with their new line. (sadly this logic is still better than what you've presented in the above post)

-Except the 290x is performing better than the 780 and it costs $100-$150 less. Even lower-end 7970s/280x's are performing on par with 770s and those even cost $100-$150 more...which is even more pathetic than 780 vs. 290x.

-If their products are sold at a loss...that means it's a win for the consumer. The last-gen consoles were sold for $300-$350 losses...and look at that...they had better price:performance for their time compared to this gen.

And I doubt AMD is selling their GPUs at a loss. Nvidia is just price gouging with $1000 Titans & $650-$700 flagships. And it looks like you're fine with that.

AMD is getting killed in CPUs though. That's more than obvious.

Um the GTX 760 is not a rebadge, only the 770 which is a tweaked 680

You know that 290x is not a clear cut winner over the 780? The 290x in games like Crysis 3 at 2560x1440 both gpu's are virtually the same, and in BF3 same resolution they both are on par... its only the multi-monitor/ 4k resolutions where the bus and memory allows the 290 to get ahead. and do you think Nvidia wont cut prices....

Also do you know that when AMD releases a new line of cards that Nvidia does not have anything out to compete AMD jacks up the price on their cards until Nvidia releases theirs???? AMD has to sell at a loss to lure in people when Nvidia has products out that can compete. Thinking that AMD selling at a loss is win for you is funny since it hurts them more and in the end hurts their abilities to get R&D into overdrive.

lol when the 7970 released it was a $550 card and they didnt lower prices until Nvidia released the GTX 680 and 670 for $500 and under that creamed the 7970 until they upclocked it and came out with 12 based drivers many months after the release.

From http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/13.html

R9-290X beats Titan

lol 3 fps with 4xAA with 780 and only 2 with titan , With FXAA GTX 780 beats normal 290x by 1 fps and the uber 290x beats 780 by 1 fps.

#34 Edited by ronvalencia (15572 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@ronvalencia said:

@04dcarraher said:

@HavocV3 said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@lostrib said:

@Couth_ said:

@Gaming-Planet said:

AMD doesn't suck. They make good price/performance hardware. The CPU will do fine, have you seen the heatsink in the Xbox One? It's huge so cooling should be fine.

No.. They suck. They can't match nvidia or intel so they sell cheap. They sell at a loss. They lost about a billion last year. They got saved by the console contracts this year

except he doesn't give a reason why they suck, or how it relates to overheating

Well i can't speak for that. They suck, relative to Intel and Nvidia they suck....

as far as overheating they wont.. that's why they went with the underclocked CPUs in the first place

Well they can't suck too bad, they just released a cheaper GPU that matches Nvidia's high end. And if this mantle thing works out, they'll be doing pretty well. And their 7xxx series wasn't too shabby, especially after the performance increases due to driver optimization

Meh.. Like I said, they let a lot of their products go at an overall loss.. Who's to say they will even make their money back on the 290x. They basically rebadged the entire 7900 series to try to get a profit back. Just because they are cheaper than nvidia/intel doesn't mean they have some secret sauce that gives them better price/performance. They are really hurting to make profit and if not for the console deal it would be a lot worse.

-The GTX 770 & 760 are rebadges. I guess that means AMD is better since they made 2 new cards with their new line. (sadly this logic is still better than what you've presented in the above post)

-Except the 290x is performing better than the 780 and it costs $100-$150 less. Even lower-end 7970s/280x's are performing on par with 770s and those even cost $100-$150 more...which is even more pathetic than 780 vs. 290x.

-If their products are sold at a loss...that means it's a win for the consumer. The last-gen consoles were sold for $300-$350 losses...and look at that...they had better price:performance for their time compared to this gen.

And I doubt AMD is selling their GPUs at a loss. Nvidia is just price gouging with $1000 Titans & $650-$700 flagships. And it looks like you're fine with that.

AMD is getting killed in CPUs though. That's more than obvious.

Um the GTX 760 is not a rebadge, only the 770 which is a tweaked 680

You know that 290x is not a clear cut winner over the 780? The 290x in games like Crysis 3 at 2560x1440 both gpu's are virtually the same, and in BF3 same resolution they both are on par... its only the multi-monitor/ 4k resolutions where the bus and memory allows the 290 to get ahead. and do you think Nvidia wont cut prices....

Also do you know that when AMD releases a new line of cards that Nvidia does not have anything out to compete AMD jacks up the price on their cards until Nvidia releases theirs???? AMD has to sell at a loss to lure in people when Nvidia has products out that can compete. Thinking that AMD selling at a loss is win for you is funny since it hurts them more and in the end hurts their abilities to get R&D into overdrive.

lol when the 7970 released it was a $550 card and they didnt lower prices until Nvidia released the GTX 680 and 670 for $500 and under that creamed the 7970 until they upclocked it and came out with 12 based drivers many months after the release.

From http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/R9_290X/13.html

R9-290X beats Titan

lol 3 fps with 4xAA with 780 and only 2 with titan , With FXAA GTX 780 beats normal 290x by 1 fps and the uber 290x beats 780 by 1 fps.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-290x-hawaii-review,3650-14.html

LOL 1080p and 1440p FXAA setup wouldn't show GPU's sustained power i.e. near flat line in the graph.

#35 Edited by Gue1 (11385 posts) -

OMG you guys and the quote chains of Doom ruining every thread. ;____;