The next gen consoles need to adapt

There is always a benefit to having faster ram. The XB1 could have benefited by using GDDR5 as well. The CPU's were intentionally not given priority because Sony and Microsoft knew that developers would soon develop their games using the GPGPU features in the hardware down the road. Having a very powerful CPU in these consoles would be a moot point as soon as you see developers moving intensive CPU tasks to the GPU.

The only thing that matters to me is that the PS4 is a decent upgrade over the PS3. I don't use high end PC hardware as the standard because it is not reasonable to expect a $399.99 console to compete with high end PC's. The PS4 is as powerful a console Sony could have made at $399.99 without taking a huge loss.

I've played a bunch of recent PS4 games, and I'm happy with the 30FPS ones, even though it's not quite as smooth as a 60FPS game of course, like Wolfenstein. Whatever the developers want to do to use the resources, doesn't bother me, as long as they aim for a consistent 30FPS at least.

Honestly though, there were some games from last gen which had some shaky frame rates, ocassionally dropping below 30FPS, like GTAV, the Souls games, The Last of Us, and they were some of my favourite games. Just saying. But certainly a consistent 30FPS is fine by me, and the sales of the PS4 and Xbox One indicate millions of others are finding that too.

@emgesp: interest will peak much sooner, I think. What they gain by releasing state of the art hardware is a product that looks and feels new longer and continues to impress over many years. The PS4 already feels like its been on the market for years. The fact ps3 is still sitting next to it on store shelves, is getting new games, and has a much bigger library makes ps4 look like a failure/novelty device.

Consoles should be custom, not that pc bullshit in a small box.

The average consumer doesn't care about these things. If the did then consoles would be dead and everyone would own a powerful gaming PC.

it is exactly what consumer look for--product support.

Not really , faster ram has higher latency and the higher bandwith makes up for that. However when you can't fill that bandwith the latency wil manifest, and that's exactly what happens when you pair a slow cpu with very fast ram.

ddr4 is not even as fast as the gddr5 in the ps4 system ram, yet the haswell e versions are 6 core intels at minimum. Even the slowest haswell e is already more than three times the speed of the ps4's cpu.

The rather weak CPU of the PS4 is not a new phenomenon at all. Many consoles had rather weak CPUs and needed to swap out tasks to coprocessors in order to achieve competitive performance. Remember how ridiculously weak the CPU of the SNES was. Actually, even the PPE core of the PS3's Cell was ridiculously weak. The only difference was, that it did not use its likewise weak GPU for compensation, but rather it's SPEs/SPUs. But why do you think that compensating via SPEs/SPUs is any better than compensating via GPGPU?

Sony needs to come up with better gpgpu tools or the devs need to get creative.

Of course they need to do this, and they are already working on it. That has always been the plan since a very early design phase. But optimization cannot be performed in theory. You need to wait for the final hardware and study its behavior via a try and error approach. Thus, it is simply not possible to provide a chain of development tools for low level optimization at the launch of new console. That has never happened and will never happen, regardless whether you use x86 or some more exotic instruction set.

1. The optimal tricks to utilize the PS4's GPGPU capabilities have to be discovered in an try and error approach.
2. The development infrastructure has to be optimized for GPGPU. This includes changes to libraries and middleware like Havok.
3. The game developers have to figure out which tasks can be performed efficiently via GPGPU (this is partly try and error).
4. The game developers must perform as many tasks as possible via GPGPU (this is similar effort as with the SPUs of the Cell processor).
5. All the tasks that remain for the CPU must be distributed as efficiently as possible across the six CPU cores that are available for the game developers. This includes restructuring the main thread of current game engines.

This is exactly why Sony says that we will have to wait until 2016 or 2017 to see games that utilize the full potential of the PS4. Man, that is completely normal. It has always been the timeline for any console before. Why should it be different this time? Only because they use the x86 instruction set? That is a ridiculous claim. The PS4 still has enough exotic peculiarities that need to be understood before its potential can be exploited.

The PPE Core of the PS4 is actually the same core the XBOX 360 uses, but the 360 uses 3 of them. I wouldn't say it was weak in 2005/2006. Though, it being an in order processor was a limiting factor.

Then don't play on a damn console. If 1080p60 means so much to you then keep gaming on the PC. It's that simple.

Nobody seemed to give a shit last gen about 720p (or lower) and 30 fps. Consoles and console games sold at record highs. The only people who care are PC gamers who bitch about console games on the forums. That's it. The rest of the market doesn't give a crap. The PS4 is over 18 million sold and the Xbox One is in double digit millions itself despite the near 24/7 console bashing by PC gamers that goes on throughout the internet.

You're the minority in the market. Deal with it and let it go. Average gamers do not let resolution and framerate ruin their fun unless there is an actual technical issue with either. Most people just don't care and they go on enjoying video games regardless of the technical aspects. If the technicals mean so much to you then keep on gaming on the PC.

The most impressive parts of Ryse are all pre-rendered.

It's been this way since always. I don't know why all of a sudden 30fps is "nauseating". 60 fps is always preferable, but 30 fps is perfectly playable and has been in 3-D graphics since the PS1.

Did you know many N64 games ran at 24fps? Look up Ocarina of Time's FPS, locked to 24.

I don't get it, even on PC games, my goal is to max the graphics as much as possible and have played many games at 30fps. It's not a big deal like you and many of the elitists try to make it out to be.

There is a difference, but is in no way sickening. 60fps is like have some extra butter.

That maybe true, but I was saying '30 fps for all that shader goodness is simply not enough'. That means with current detail settings , 30fps is not enough, it's enough for old 3d games, even x360/ps3 games, but not for current gen games

I played Crysis 3 at 1440p, Ultra and locked to 30fps just fine on my PC. Your reasoning is BS. Just because there are more shaders doesn't mean that a higher FPS is needed. While I'm not saying 60fps is not noticeable, 30 fps is just fine. 60fps is like having an extra topping. But I would rather have extra eye candy than 60fps. New games vs. old games doesn't make a damn difference.

Get off your high horse.

You need to go outside, take a breath, then come right back and delete this shit thread. When I play games like Ocarina Of Time and Shadow Of The Colossus both of which tend to play at 20 fps most of the time I have a great experience as if I was playing them for the first time. Video games are video games bro, and you can enjoy them on any device from a super computer to a pong machine. Games will always feel fake and meant for fun regardless of how realistic they are drawn. A lot of PC idiots like you act like games are only playable at top of the line visuals to the point they dismiss any game that doesn't involve state of the art PC hardware and techniques. The consoles are priced at a fair price point and consoles in the past were priced similarly. Yes PC has a significant visual advantage, and all of us that have played PC versions of games can agree with that. But that doesn't mean the console version of games are unplayable or that console exclusives from the big three are unplayable either. It's a dumb argument.

The thing is your wrong. IF there were no consoles and only PC's and lets say only the GTX 970 and GTX 980 existed, games would still be 30fps at their highest settings. It's always best to shoot for the prettiest image and 30 fps. PC is only 60 fps + higher on many games because the developers are aiming towards lower end hardware. This doesn't point to consoles only. Most PC gamers have a GTX 750ti or below, meaning those of us who buy the GTX 970's, 980's or whatever AMD equivalent are only doing it for the extra gravy. Consoles do not hold stuff back, they allow PC gamers to buy more expensive hardware to play it in a higher FPS. If all PC's were equivalent, then at max settings games wouldn't be at 60fps unless the developer held back stuff to make it 60fps.

For most games, 30 fps is fine. Back in the day, I played Crysis at medium/high settings at 1440 x 900 at about 30fps rather than low and 720p at 60fps.

PC is the one that needs to adapt.

SHOW ME one game that looks better than The Order , on PC. ONE GAME.

That 30 fps lock is way better than console lock where it dips. IF you can lock 30 fps and keep it rock stable at all times, yeah that's a difference as well but then you'll need extra horsepower.

This has nothing to do with elitism, but playability.

I don't know about crysis 3 because i haven't played it yet. But 30 fps for ac unity and gta IV are not enough, not when you can't keep it rock stable anyway,