Would you like PS4 to have a proper hardware jump?

  • 84 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by True_Gamer_ (5985 posts) -

Like the jump from PS2 to PS3?

In the sense of not having a GPU between 7850 and 7870 but a custom built R9 290 at $500 machine burning sony money same as every generation?

Also would you buy it over the $500 7790 equipped Xbone?

#2 Posted by kinectthedots (1575 posts) -

This thread makes no sense...

#3 Posted by NFJSupreme (5115 posts) -

Its funny because when the ps3 came out people were complaining that the jump wasn't big enough like the jump from ps1 to PS2. Games will look better the hardware is there for that. Just don't expect 1080p and 60fps

#4 Posted by True_Gamer_ (5985 posts) -

This thread makes no sense...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was like x60 times more powerful. The jump from PS3 to PS4 is X5 times.

#5 Posted by Blabadon (25629 posts) -

I do, if only because I was quite unhappy with where graphics ended up on consoles with all the clear concessions that needed to be made

#6 Edited by NFJSupreme (5115 posts) -

I think a lot of gamers are going to build rigs this gen. PC gaming is growing and for a lot of older gamers with jobs PC is really an affordable option with more versatility. Most games are on PC and you can always get a console later on after price drops.

#7 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (6811 posts) -

Since Sony is charging for online, the least they could do is put together a better system for the $400 and sell it at a loss.

#8 Edited by Postosuchus (140 posts) -
#9 Posted by planbfreak4eva (2870 posts) -

why it was noticeable between ps2 to ps3, because it was from SD to HD. But this gen its still HD. Disk sizes are still the same. Hence why the difference doesnt look ps2 to ps3.

maybe from ps4 to ps5 the jump will be to 4k 30/60 frames per second. And proper 4k media being a standard by then. Then that would be a hell of a jump.

#10 Posted by planbfreak4eva (2870 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000: i doubt they are in the position of burning money at this point. If they had a lot of cash they didnt want, then yeah. they could have pushed the limits.

#11 Posted by lostrib (32970 posts) -

why it was noticeable between ps2 to ps3, because it was from SD to HD. But this gen its still HD. Disk sizes are still the same. Hence why the difference doesnt look ps2 to ps3.

maybe from ps4 to ps5 the jump will be to 4k 30/60 frames per second. And proper 4k media being a standard by then. Then that would be a hell of a jump.

Perhaps they should get 1080p/60fps down before jumping to any form of 4K

#12 Posted by Animal-Mother (26308 posts) -

Like the jump from PS2 to PS3?

In the sense of not having a GPU between 7850 and 7870 but a custom built R9 290 at $500 machine burning sony money same as every generation?

Also would you buy it over the $500 7790 equipped Xbone?

Jumps of those caliber are done.

#13 Posted by santoron (7622 posts) -

It's a console. Sony took in in the teeth for releasing a $600 console ($500 for the cheap launch model) last gen. Considering consumer expectation and the realities of of component pricing, I think they did a decent job.

#14 Posted by Boddicker (2390 posts) -

@kinectthedots said:

This thread makes no sense...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was like x60 times more powerful. The jump from PS3 to PS4 is X5 times.

I thought just going by the RAM it was 15X more powerful.

#15 Posted by silversix_ (13880 posts) -

Absolutely. I wouldn't pay over $500 for a console tho but $500 is the perfect price for something that will last you 5-10 years. If its a beat and is $500 that's cool but when you have some Pentium 3 with a spycam sold for $500 that's just insulting.

#16 Posted by evildead6789 (7261 posts) -

Like the jump from PS2 to PS3?

In the sense of not having a GPU between 7850 and 7870 but a custom built R9 290 at $500 machine burning sony money same as every generation?

Also would you buy it over the $500 7790 equipped Xbone?

The ps4 is weak, very weak. The cpu power matches a 250$ cpu released 5 years ago. The amd phenom II x4 955 BE was released in april 2009 and is similar in performance. The phenom even had an unlocked multiplier so you could overclock it and increase performance easily with 25 percent.

As for the gpu, same story. The gpu is as strong as the hd 5870 and gtx 480. Both released in 2009.

The shared gddr5 may sound nice, but fast ram doesn't give that much extra performance when the rest of the system is only mediocre. It's like putting sportswheels on a beetle, the car have better handling and you would even accelerate at bit better even get some more top speed. But it's still no match for a BMW with standard tires.

The xboxone may only have a 7790 but it does run at higher clockrates, not to mention the cpu runs at higher clockrates too. Still the ps4 is a stronger system, but not that much. They're both weak.

If you like graphics and innovation then don't use a console as your main system. You can play just as well with a controller on your pc. Allthough, there are rumours nintendo is working on a new system and the leaked specs sound promising. link here

#17 Posted by cainetao11 (16462 posts) -

Its funny because when the ps3 came out people were complaining that the jump wasn't big enough like the jump from ps1 to PS2. Games will look better the hardware is there for that. Just don't expect 1080p and 60fps

I remember that. Its the same every gen it seems. In time people will see better looking games from both the new consoles. And when the successor's come out we will see this ALL over again.

#18 Edited by lundy86_4 (42805 posts) -

I doubt we'll ever see anything like that again.

#19 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4057 posts) -

when developers have to perform vertical interlacing with motion prediction to best realise their creative visions on 1080P displays in the year 2013 ... I think there's a problem.

#20 Posted by Pray_to_me (2792 posts) -

PS4 is weak? Not for what it is. It's a sleek compact little machine that fit's right under your TV for $400 bucks with a dope controller.

A PC? Strictly for gaming purposes doesn't pack the same bang for your buck. Show me a prebuilt PC that can compare graphically to a PS4. Not a list of parts you scoured for on Newegg. $400 with a controller that works right out the box including windows. You can't. But even if somehow you could It would be a low budget huge fugly loud ass electricity guzzling PoS tower that nobody would ever want in their living room.

And just looking at last gen easily half of the best games that came out never even made it to PC: Demon's Souls, The Last of Us, MGS4, GTA5, Valkeria Chronicles, Red Dead Redeption, Heavy Rain, Gears 2 and 3, The Uncharted Series. And that's just the blockbuster titles really we could go on all Day. Console gamers aren't worried about getting late ports or no ports at all in some cases like PC does. PC's got a bunch of MMO's and RTS exclusives I'll give it that. But many people couldn't give less of a shit about those genres.

There's also the freedom of being able to trade, lend, borrow and rent games on console yet another freedom that PC doesn't have. The whole PC games are cheaper myth is malarky. There are deals on console games all the time no need to wait for a steam sale on some shit game you already beat 5 years ago.

And the bottom line is all these games are built with consoles in mind anyway so you're just spending all that time and money to play uprezzed console ports. Steam stat's have 90% of PCs as weaker than the PS4. Any surprise most successful PC exclusives look like doo-doo?

Also the PS4 is not the entire console market so even if PS4 were more powerful xbone and wiiU would still be trash and developers gotta cater to the lowest common denominator. In short this thread is shit and you pretty much don't know what you're talking about.

#21 Edited by StrongBlackVine (8418 posts) -

No. Build a gaming PC if you want the latest and greatest.

#22 Posted by StrongBlackVine (8418 posts) -

when developers have to perform vertical interlacing with motion prediction to best realise their creative visions on 1080P displays in the year 2013 ... I think there's a problem.

No the problem is poor people that have gotten accustomed to Sony and Microsoft taking losses to provide them with good hardware. That business model was not sustainable and Nintendo for all their failing is the one company that realized that from the beginning.

#23 Posted by Wasdie (49531 posts) -

@kinectthedots said:

This thread makes no sense...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was like x60 times more powerful. The jump from PS3 to PS4 is X5 times.

A 60x leap from a 299mhz processor with 32mbs of system ram and 8mbs of vRam with a 150mhz video card is still less than x5 leap from a 3.2 ghz Cell processor, 512mbs of system ram, and a 550mhz GPU.

The leap between the PS3 and the PS4 is much larger than the PS2 to the PS3. You need to understand that hardware is relative.

Console development is also a much larger undertaking than slapping together some cheap computer components at home. Between R&D on both hardware and software, manufacturing, online infrastructure, and then distribution, there are thousands of additional factors you conveniently ignore with those cheap PCs. It's straight up ignorant to even compare the two.

#24 Posted by mastershake575 (8350 posts) -

The ps4 is weak, very weak. The cpu power matches a 250$ cpu released 5 years ago. The amd phenom II x4 955 BE was released in april 2009 and is similar in performance. The phenom even had an unlocked multiplier so you could overclock it and increase performance easily with 25 percent.

As for the gpu, same story. The gpu is as strong as the hd 5870 and gtx 480. Both released in 2009.

The shared gddr5 may sound nice, but fast ram doesn't give that much extra performance when the rest of the system is only mediocre. It's like putting sportswheels on a beetle, the car have better handling and you would even accelerate at bit better even get some more top speed. But it's still no match for a BMW with standard tires.

The CPU is actually slower than the $250 CPU of 5 years ago. The consoles CPU is significantly slower clock for clock than the FX series CPU's (the Phenom 2 is faster than the FX series).

#25 Edited by mastershake575 (8350 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

A PC? Strictly for gaming purposes doesn't pack the same bang for your buck. Show me a prebuilt PC that can compare graphically to a PS4. Not a list of parts you scoured for on Newegg. $400 with a controller that works right out the box including windows. You can't. But even if somehow you could It would be a low budget huge fugly loud ass electricity guzzling PoS tower that nobody would ever want in their living room.

Technically I could go to my local microcenter right now and get a prebuilt Phenom x4/x6 for around $300 and slap a GTX 750 Ti OC in there for another $150 (about $450 for a comparable machine with no building).

If I waited a few more months, I can get the GTX 850 Ti that should offer another 20-25% boost for the same price which would take it from fringe console GPU to a good step up (he'll maybe even a GTX 860 if the performance per watt stays as good as its been).

#26 Edited by SolidGame_basic (16403 posts) -

hardware is fine, people need to stop obsessing. they did wonders with the ps3 hardware, despite it being really outdated. we need a software jump!

#27 Posted by treedoor (7478 posts) -

I don't really care what the jump in graphics is. I'd prefer if a console had interesting games, and in this day and age I find it seems the most interesting games are coming from systems with more complex control schemes as diminishing returns greatly effects graphics today.

PS4 is very limited by having the dual analog controller as the standard. It has been a limiting factor for tons of genres since it's inception, and I hoped every company would have improved on it. Nintendo did the best with the tablet controller, and MS the 2nd best with Kinect, though neither is getting a huge amount of support anyways.

All the consoles are pretty lame imo. I'm surprised people are looking forward to so many games that are just last-gen gameplay ideas with fresh coats of paint. Hopefully far more interesting stuff actually gets released. I hold out hope for Destiny, Quantum Break, and D4, but not much else. Three games is not enough to get excited about an entire console generation.

#28 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4057 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

when developers have to perform vertical interlacing with motion prediction to best realise their creative visions on 1080P displays in the year 2013 ... I think there's a problem.

No the problem is poor people that have gotten accustomed to Sony and Microsoft taking losses to provide them with good hardware. That business model was not sustainable and Nintendo for all their failing is the one company that realized that from the beginning.

you describe an overbearing problem which will have knock-on effects eg: the problem I describe.

so naturally, I agree. without the budget overhead, they can't get the hardware, without that, more compromises.

#30 Edited by Shewgenja (8296 posts) -

Most first gen PS2 games were really really not any kind of technical marvels. I mean, seriously, Fantavision?

I think we should wait til gen2 software comes out before drawing judgement.

#31 Edited by True_Gamer_ (5985 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

@kinectthedots said:

This thread makes no sense...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was like x60 times more powerful. The jump from PS3 to PS4 is X5 times.

A 60x leap from a 299mhz processor with 32mbs of system ram and 8mbs of vRam with a 150mhz video card is still less than x5 leap from a 3.2 ghz Cell processor, 512mbs of system ram, and a 550mhz GPU.

The leap between the PS3 and the PS4 is much larger than the PS2 to the PS3. You need to understand that hardware is relative.

Console development is also a much larger undertaking than slapping together some cheap computer components at home. Between R&D on both hardware and software, manufacturing, online infrastructure, and then distribution, there are thousands of additional factors you conveniently ignore with those cheap PCs. It's straight up ignorant to even compare the two.

Youre saying that Xbox360 in November 2005 as a piece of gaming technology was same (direclty relative to the time of release) as Xbone or even PS4 was in November 2013?

Just want to clarify this.

#32 Edited by Wasdie (49531 posts) -

@True_Gamer_: No, and im not going to bother trying to explain further if you can't get what im saying the first time.

I honestly don't even know how you came to that conclusion.

#33 Edited by evildead6789 (7261 posts) -

@mastershake575 said:

@evildead6789 said:

The ps4 is weak, very weak. The cpu power matches a 250$ cpu released 5 years ago. The amd phenom II x4 955 BE was released in april 2009 and is similar in performance. The phenom even had an unlocked multiplier so you could overclock it and increase performance easily with 25 percent.

As for the gpu, same story. The gpu is as strong as the hd 5870 and gtx 480. Both released in 2009.

The shared gddr5 may sound nice, but fast ram doesn't give that much extra performance when the rest of the system is only mediocre. It's like putting sportswheels on a beetle, the car have better handling and you would even accelerate at bit better even get some more top speed. But it's still no match for a BMW with standard tires.

The CPU is actually slower than the $250 CPU of 5 years ago. The consoles CPU is significantly slower clock for clock than the FX series CPU's (the Phenom 2 is faster than the FX series).

I think you're exagerating. An 8 core fx series almost doubles the performance of a quad core phenom II in multithreaded applications when they both run @ 3.2ghz

Clock for clock the phenom II is still faster though and at higher clock speeds the difference becomes bigger. Like when you compare an fx 8150 with a phenom II x4 975 but they run at 3.6 ghz, the phenom II x4 955 I mentioned runs at 3.2 ghz. The ps4 runs at 1.6 ghz

But the ps4 also has turbo boost, which can boost the the ps4's cpu beyond 1.6 ghz. The ps4 also support 8 threads, the phenom II 4 threads. 8- threaded applications can perform better than 4-threaded applications even if they have the same cpu power at their disposal, otherwise hyperthreading would never have been invented. Combine that with the speed of phenom II x4 955 I mentioned and they pretty much perform the same.

Still the ps4 doesn't have to run windows and it has a seperate arm cpu for basic os tasks. The shared memory on the gpu and the console optimizations will make the cpu perform like an i3-2100 in a pc, which is a bit faster than a phenom II x4 955.

However for 250$ back in 2009, you got a phenom II x4 955 Black edition which you could overclock with an unlocked multiplier, so you don't need a special motherboard to this. I would say this pretty much evens it out.

This is an article that compares the ps4 cpu to a pc cpu.

#34 Posted by True_Gamer_ (5985 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@True_Gamer_: No, and im not going to bother trying to explain further if you can't get what im saying the first time.

I honestly don't even know how you came to that conclusion.

Where is that large huge leap? The PS4 is a crappy machine 4-5 years behind its release time. The poor PS2 was a trashy ancient weak dead machine. The PS3 jumped HUGE distance ahead just beacuse Sony INVESTED LOADS of cash in it.

Connsole makers (aka Sony MS) stopped selling at a loss (like they did in every single gen prior to this one) Nintendo and Wii taught them a lesson that console gamers are clueless about technology. There is no need to put a R9 290X chip in a $800 machine and sell it at $400-$500....

Just shove em a trash like the 7850 or even worst 7790 and they will content with sub full HD and 30fps...(spinning with failed damage control will not negate the fact that theres is no Sony or MS making consoles they all went nintendo style)

#35 Edited by evildead6789 (7261 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

@kinectthedots said:

This thread makes no sense...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was like x60 times more powerful. The jump from PS3 to PS4 is X5 times.

A 60x leap from a 299mhz processor with 32mbs of system ram and 8mbs of vRam with a 150mhz video card is still less than x5 leap from a 3.2 ghz Cell processor, 512mbs of system ram, and a 550mhz GPU.

The leap between the PS3 and the PS4 is much larger than the PS2 to the PS3. You need to understand that hardware is relative.

Console development is also a much larger undertaking than slapping together some cheap computer components at home. Between R&D on both hardware and software, manufacturing, online infrastructure, and then distribution, there are thousands of additional factors you conveniently ignore with those cheap PCs. It's straight up ignorant to even compare the two.

Sorry but when you say that the leap from ps3 to the ps4 is larger than the ps2 to the ps3 then i simply cannot agree and a lot of hardware specialists with me.

Especially in the cpu department, the cpu in the ps3 was a special piece of hardware with graphical capabilities. Some companies bought ps3's to build supercomputers with it. 8 cores running at 3 ghz, it doesn't matter it were spe's. The ps2 was packing a 300 mhz something custom cpu but was easily outclassed by the xbox original's pentium III @ 733 mhz, which is a standard pc component. To be more precise the ps2 cpu had single precise floating point performance of 6.2 gflops, the ps3 cpu has a single precise floating point performance of 230 gflops. The ps4 cpu, hold on to your horses, only has a performance of 104 gflops.

Simply put, in raw performance, the ps3's cpu was better. It biggest problem was that it was so hard to develop for because of it's special architecture and that it was severely bottlenecked by ram and the gpu. Sony's ps3 was an unbalanced system but even then the cpu in the ps4 & the x1 (they're similar) match the horsepower of 5 year old mid range cpu, and that's simply a rip off.

As for the gpu, the gpu in the ps4 may be 5 times more powerfull than the ps3's gpu, the gpu in the ps3 was 50 times more powerfull than what's in the ps2, according to nvidia's ceo back in 2004 (link) . Allthough I think this is wildly exagerrated and he may have overestimated the graphical capabilities of the spe's in the ps3 but the jump was still bigger than it was from ps3-ps4, not to mention this was over a smaller timeframe (the ps2 released in 2001, the ps3 in 2006, the ps4 in 2013). The advancement in gpu technology didn't went as fast in 2001-2006 as it was going now too. Conclusion: another ripoff.

As for the ram, Fast ram is good especially for the gpu but this is nothing groundbreaking. gpu's use gddr5 ram since 2008. Faster system ram will make your system snappier but don't expect any better quality when it comes to games.

Factors like r&d, software, manufacturing , online infrastructure , distribution has nothing to do with the quality of the games or the quality of the console overall. The r&d of the ps4 isn't more demanding than r&d of simplified motherboards & a simplified os based on technology that already exists. This isn't the ps3 were talking about. The rest is a problem that every manufacturer has when it comes to their core business. Sony did their utter best to be a player in this business and it went to their heads with the ps3. They pushed nintendo in another segment of the market last gen and now they don't want to take any risks but this is their good right. They are a company after all, but that doesn't mean you have to buy it.

What I would find really interesting is that nintendo releases a new console (and there are rumours) that is way more powerfull than the ps4.

#36 Edited by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

gaming on a pc would cause many issues good me. First and foremost...I wouldn't be able to play the best exclusives of the generation

#37 Posted by lostrib (32970 posts) -

gaming on a pc would cause many issues good me. First and foremost...I wouldn't be able to play the best exclusives of the generation

what the derp

#38 Posted by 04dcarraher (19142 posts) -

@mastershake575 said:

@evildead6789 said:

The ps4 is weak, very weak. The cpu power matches a 250$ cpu released 5 years ago. The amd phenom II x4 955 BE was released in april 2009 and is similar in performance. The phenom even had an unlocked multiplier so you could overclock it and increase performance easily with 25 percent.

As for the gpu, same story. The gpu is as strong as the hd 5870 and gtx 480. Both released in 2009.

The shared gddr5 may sound nice, but fast ram doesn't give that much extra performance when the rest of the system is only mediocre. It's like putting sportswheels on a beetle, the car have better handling and you would even accelerate at bit better even get some more top speed. But it's still no match for a BMW with standard tires.

The CPU is actually slower than the $250 CPU of 5 years ago. The consoles CPU is significantly slower clock for clock than the FX series CPU's (the Phenom 2 is faster than the FX series).

I think you're exagerating. An 8 core fx series almost doubles the performance of a quad core phenom II in multithreaded applications when they both run @ 3.2ghz

Clock for clock the phenom II is still faster though and at higher clock speeds the difference becomes bigger. Like when you compare an fx 8150 with a phenom II x4 975 but they run at 3.6 ghz, the phenom II x4 955 I mentioned runs at 3.2 ghz. The ps4 runs at 1.6 ghz

But the ps4 also has turbo boost, which can boost the the ps4's cpu beyond 1.6 ghz. The ps4 also support 8 threads, the phenom II 4 threads. 8- threaded applications can perform better than 4-threaded applications even if they have the same cpu power at their disposal, otherwise hyperthreading would never have been invented. Combine that with the speed of phenom II x4 955 I mentioned and they pretty much perform the same.

Still the ps4 doesn't have to run windows and it has a seperate arm cpu for basic os tasks. The shared memory on the gpu and the console optimizations will make the cpu perform like an i3-2100 in a pc, which is a bit faster than a phenom II x4 955.

However for 250$ back in 2009, you got a phenom II x4 955 Black edition which you could overclock with an unlocked multiplier, so you don't need a special motherboard to this. I would say this pretty much evens it out.

This is an article that compares the ps4 cpu to a pc cpu.

Key word is multithreading. FX's are slower clock per clock then Phenom 2's. A Phenom 2 955 is as fast as a FX 4300 that is 600mhz faster. Unless you apps and games make use of 6 or 8 threads FX's are worse.

Also PS4 cpu boost is dependent upon gpu usage and temps. Which means that developers will aim for the base clock of 1.6 ghz when designing games and adjust later if able. Also the PS4 cpu does not have all eight cores&threads available for games. They only can use 6 of the 8 since OS and features allocate 2 of them for dedicated use. Also your wrong with the the jaguar having 8 threads performing better then a Phenom 2 because they dont have the same processing power. Same principal behind intel's i5's performing on par with AMD's FX 8's with games that make use of 8 threads. Now do you realize that jaguar architecture clock per clock with raw processing power is only on par with the old Athlon X2's? Which means that Athlon 2 X4's are roughly 30% faster clock per clock, Phenom 2's would be 45-50% faster. fact is that PS4 cpu even if it had all cores available for games at 1.6 ghz would only be on par with a 2.6ghz Phenom 2 X4.

So wrong with PS4 not having to run a complicated OS. As I stated before two of the cores are allocated for OS and features, the ARM cpu is meant for passive background tasks still didn't help the requirement of needing two cores. Also the PS4 OS and its features needs 3,5 gb of memory of the 8gb much bigger then Window's allocation needs. Also such BS console optimizations will not make the cpu operate like a i3 and also an i3 is slower then Phenom 2 X4 with games that make use of four threads....

#39 Edited by mastershake575 (8350 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:

I think you're exagerating. An 8 core fx series almost doubles the performance of a quad core phenom II in multithreaded applications when they both run @ 3.2ghz

I never said anything about a 8 core FX series (I don't know why your talking about octo core FX when they also make quad FX.). I said that the ps4 CPU is slower than the FX series which itself is slower clock for clock than the phenom 2 (so not only is the console CPU slower clock for clock than the Phenom, its also slower than the FX series).

The consoles have 6 cores usable for games that are clocked at like 1.6ghz and are at least 35-45% slower clock for clock than the phenom series...... (Phenom x4 is a decent step up from six low clocked cores with crappy architecture).

I'm not exaggerating (four cores clocked twice as fast with much much better architecture is better than six slow cores with weak architecture, this is fact NOT an exaggeration).

#40 Posted by Spartan070 (16324 posts) -

@kinectthedots said:

This thread makes no sense...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was like x60 times more powerful. The jump from PS3 to PS4 is X5 times.

Launch window. Look at Lair - look at UC3 and GTAV.

#41 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3676 posts) -

I am confused with the pricing debate... $400-600 mobile phones are sold yearly by the millions, but $600 is too much for something that you will use for 5 years?...

The console gaming demographic is cheap... That's why the companies said f*** you this time and gave your moneys worth. Low to mid range GPU power... Deal with it!

#42 Edited by ButDuuude (410 posts) -

and yet the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbox One...

#43 Posted by navyguy21 (12722 posts) -

The PS4 is a jump from the PS3, but each change in consoles will be small from now on. Law of diminishing returns.

PS2/Xbox to PS3/360 was so huge because of the jump from SD to HD came with it.

#44 Edited by Wasdie (49531 posts) -

@True_Gamer_:Those massive increases do not directly translate into increases into graphical fidelity. The PS4 is a massive leap over the PS3 but we've hit diminishing returns on how much power it takes to push real time graphics. You need exponential power increases to see marginal gains in rendering with rasterisation. I thought that was pretty common knowledge now. Just making hardware that is 2x as powerful as last gen does not mean you'll be able to push twice as many polygons.

@evildead6789: The PS3's CPU could benchmark well but when it came to general performance the Xbox 360's CPU was straight up better and same with the PS4's. The PS4's CPU is a much better general purpose processor with 8 physical cores. Parallelism and gaming go hand in hand to drastically improve the efficiency of all real time rendering and general game processing. High CPU clock speeds mean relatively nothing when you're funneling everything through 1 core (which the Cell was, one IBM Power PC core + 7 SPEs). Those SPEs were not general cores so they couldn't be used for a lot of general processing that games require. The PS4's has 8 general cores, of which 6 are dedicated to the game and will not be interrupted by another process or the OS.

Yes I know the benchmarks of the PS4's CPU are lower than the PS3 but that's because the PS3's benchmarked so well because of that SPE performance. It was useless for actual CPU work and was used to assist the GPU because the GPU was a real piece of crap. These are all factors you're ignoring. Furthermore, unlike a PC, games on the PS4 have direct access to memory and hardware. The OS does not get in its way because it's got dedicated RAM and CPU cores for itself. Yes that means less is available overall to the game, but it's actually more efficient as those cores that the games have are completely dedicated to the game. More efficient that way, just like everything with a game console.

Furthemore, CPUs are not a huge deal with video games. Aside from horribly optimized games like ArmA 3, even the most demanding PC game only really utilizes a fraction of the CPU. Increasing the multi-threading with physical cores reduces a lot of the wait time a CPU endures during running a game.

The Xbox One and PS4 are not PCs despite their very similar architecture. The entirety of a console is built around gaming and making sure a game has all of the direct access to the hardware it can spare to increase the efficiency of the hardware by quite a bit. Raw power doesn't tell the whole story. It would be nice to have more power of course, but I also don't want to be spending $600+ on a game console. They built the consoles to be as powerful and feature filled as they can be within a reasonable price range.

I would love to see you grab those $300 prebuilts, slap some cheap GPU into it, keep the price under $399, and be able to perform the same as an Xbox One or a PS4. You just won't.

It's all pointless. If you pay $399, you'll get $399 worth of power and features. The PS4 and Xbox One pack quite a few features for a pretty low price. Tablets that do less can cost $200 more and people eat those up. If you want to ignore value and look right at benchmarks then yes, the PS4/Xbox One are relatively weak. If you want to come back to the real world where benchmarks are meaningless to the market that buys consoles, then you may start looking at the consoles like they are supposed to be viewed, as cheap gaming machines.

#45 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (7030 posts) -

@kinectthedots said:

This thread makes no sense...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was like x60 times more powerful. The jump from PS3 to PS4 is X5 times.

I don't think you understand how huge that X5 jump is or how puny the PS2 was.

#46 Posted by evildead6789 (7261 posts) -

@evildead6789 said:

@mastershake575 said:

@evildead6789 said:

The ps4 is weak, very weak. The cpu power matches a 250$ cpu released 5 years ago. The amd phenom II x4 955 BE was released in april 2009 and is similar in performance. The phenom even had an unlocked multiplier so you could overclock it and increase performance easily with 25 percent.

As for the gpu, same story. The gpu is as strong as the hd 5870 and gtx 480. Both released in 2009.

The shared gddr5 may sound nice, but fast ram doesn't give that much extra performance when the rest of the system is only mediocre. It's like putting sportswheels on a beetle, the car have better handling and you would even accelerate at bit better even get some more top speed. But it's still no match for a BMW with standard tires.

The CPU is actually slower than the $250 CPU of 5 years ago. The consoles CPU is significantly slower clock for clock than the FX series CPU's (the Phenom 2 is faster than the FX series).

I think you're exagerating. An 8 core fx series almost doubles the performance of a quad core phenom II in multithreaded applications when they both run @ 3.2ghz

Clock for clock the phenom II is still faster though and at higher clock speeds the difference becomes bigger. Like when you compare an fx 8150 with a phenom II x4 975 but they run at 3.6 ghz, the phenom II x4 955 I mentioned runs at 3.2 ghz. The ps4 runs at 1.6 ghz

But the ps4 also has turbo boost, which can boost the the ps4's cpu beyond 1.6 ghz. The ps4 also support 8 threads, the phenom II 4 threads. 8- threaded applications can perform better than 4-threaded applications even if they have the same cpu power at their disposal, otherwise hyperthreading would never have been invented. Combine that with the speed of phenom II x4 955 I mentioned and they pretty much perform the same.

Still the ps4 doesn't have to run windows and it has a seperate arm cpu for basic os tasks. The shared memory on the gpu and the console optimizations will make the cpu perform like an i3-2100 in a pc, which is a bit faster than a phenom II x4 955.

However for 250$ back in 2009, you got a phenom II x4 955 Black edition which you could overclock with an unlocked multiplier, so you don't need a special motherboard to this. I would say this pretty much evens it out.

This is an article that compares the ps4 cpu to a pc cpu.

Key word is multithreading. FX's are slower clock per clock then Phenom 2's. A Phenom 2 955 is as fast as a FX 4300 that is 600mhz faster. Unless you apps and games make use of 6 or 8 threads FX's are worse.

Also PS4 cpu boost is dependent upon gpu usage and temps. Which means that developers will aim for the base clock of 1.6 ghz when designing games and adjust later if able. Also the PS4 cpu does not have all eight cores&threads available for games. They only can use 6 of the 8 since OS and features allocate 2 of them for dedicated use. Also your wrong with the the jaguar having 8 threads performing better then a Phenom 2 because they dont have the same processing power. Same principal behind intel's i5's performing on par with AMD's FX 8's with games that make use of 8 threads. Now do you realize that jaguar architecture clock per clock with raw processing power is only on par with the old Athlon X2's? Which means that Athlon 2 X4's are roughly 30% faster clock per clock, Phenom 2's would be 45-50% faster. fact is that PS4 cpu even if it had all cores available for games at 1.6 ghz would only be on par with a 2.6ghz Phenom 2 X4.

So wrong with PS4 not having to run a complicated OS. As I stated before two of the cores are allocated for OS and features, the ARM cpu is meant for passive background tasks still didn't help the requirement of needing two cores. Also the PS4 OS and its features needs 3,5 gb of memory of the 8gb much bigger then Window's allocation needs. Also such BS console optimizations will not make the cpu operate like a i3 and also an i3 is slower then Phenom 2 X4 with games that make use of four threads....

Your keyword I already mentioned.

That some games use less than 8 threads is besides the point here, the ps4 will run ps4 games and will be developped for the ps4 only, so they will use the power available.

Even without the boost the power is very similar. That the 2 cores are dedicated to the os is also besides the point, people that run windows will always lose more resources than a console operating system. Where you get the rest of your comments about the ps4's cpu power i don't know. I'm sure you didn't even read the link to the article that compares the ps4 cpu with desktop cpu's.

As for the os, if it was so much worse than windows, why can it run multiplats then at higher resolution at the same fps if you compare it with the x1. Afterall the xboxone runs a stripped version of windows8. If the os was such a system hog that wouldn't be possible because then they would simply outclass microsoft in making gaming operating systems.

#47 Posted by 04dcarraher (19142 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@evildead6789 said:

@mastershake575 said:

@evildead6789 said:

The ps4 is weak, very weak. The cpu power matches a 250$ cpu released 5 years ago. The amd phenom II x4 955 BE was released in april 2009 and is similar in performance. The phenom even had an unlocked multiplier so you could overclock it and increase performance easily with 25 percent.

As for the gpu, same story. The gpu is as strong as the hd 5870 and gtx 480. Both released in 2009.

The shared gddr5 may sound nice, but fast ram doesn't give that much extra performance when the rest of the system is only mediocre. It's like putting sportswheels on a beetle, the car have better handling and you would even accelerate at bit better even get some more top speed. But it's still no match for a BMW with standard tires.

The CPU is actually slower than the $250 CPU of 5 years ago. The consoles CPU is significantly slower clock for clock than the FX series CPU's (the Phenom 2 is faster than the FX series).

I think you're exagerating. An 8 core fx series almost doubles the performance of a quad core phenom II in multithreaded applications when they both run @ 3.2ghz

Clock for clock the phenom II is still faster though and at higher clock speeds the difference becomes bigger. Like when you compare an fx 8150 with a phenom II x4 975 but they run at 3.6 ghz, the phenom II x4 955 I mentioned runs at 3.2 ghz. The ps4 runs at 1.6 ghz

But the ps4 also has turbo boost, which can boost the the ps4's cpu beyond 1.6 ghz. The ps4 also support 8 threads, the phenom II 4 threads. 8- threaded applications can perform better than 4-threaded applications even if they have the same cpu power at their disposal, otherwise hyperthreading would never have been invented. Combine that with the speed of phenom II x4 955 I mentioned and they pretty much perform the same.

Still the ps4 doesn't have to run windows and it has a seperate arm cpu for basic os tasks. The shared memory on the gpu and the console optimizations will make the cpu perform like an i3-2100 in a pc, which is a bit faster than a phenom II x4 955.

However for 250$ back in 2009, you got a phenom II x4 955 Black edition which you could overclock with an unlocked multiplier, so you don't need a special motherboard to this. I would say this pretty much evens it out.

This is an article that compares the ps4 cpu to a pc cpu.

Key word is multithreading. FX's are slower clock per clock then Phenom 2's. A Phenom 2 955 is as fast as a FX 4300 that is 600mhz faster. Unless you apps and games make use of 6 or 8 threads FX's are worse.

Also PS4 cpu boost is dependent upon gpu usage and temps. Which means that developers will aim for the base clock of 1.6 ghz when designing games and adjust later if able. Also the PS4 cpu does not have all eight cores&threads available for games. They only can use 6 of the 8 since OS and features allocate 2 of them for dedicated use. Also your wrong with the the jaguar having 8 threads performing better then a Phenom 2 because they dont have the same processing power. Same principal behind intel's i5's performing on par with AMD's FX 8's with games that make use of 8 threads. Now do you realize that jaguar architecture clock per clock with raw processing power is only on par with the old Athlon X2's? Which means that Athlon 2 X4's are roughly 30% faster clock per clock, Phenom 2's would be 45-50% faster. fact is that PS4 cpu even if it had all cores available for games at 1.6 ghz would only be on par with a 2.6ghz Phenom 2 X4.

So wrong with PS4 not having to run a complicated OS. As I stated before two of the cores are allocated for OS and features, the ARM cpu is meant for passive background tasks still didn't help the requirement of needing two cores. Also the PS4 OS and its features needs 3,5 gb of memory of the 8gb much bigger then Window's allocation needs. Also such BS console optimizations will not make the cpu operate like a i3 and also an i3 is slower then Phenom 2 X4 with games that make use of four threads....

That some games use less than 8 threads is besides the point here, the ps4 will run ps4 games and will be developped for the ps4 only, so they will use the power available.

Even without the boost the power is very similar. That the 2 cores are dedicated to the os is also besides the point, people that run windows will always lose more resources than a console operating system. Where you get the rest of your comments about the ps4's cpu power i don't know. I'm sure you didn't even read the link to the article that compares the ps4 cpu with desktop cpu's.

As for the os, if it was so much worse than windows, why can it run multiplats then at higher resolution at the same fps if you compare it with the x1. Afterall the xboxone runs a stripped version of windows8. If the os was such a system hog that wouldn't be possible because then they would simply outclass microsoft in making gaming operating systems.

I dont think you understand the lack of processing power jaguar has per core. Your grasping for straws with windows and how console OS uses less resources. which is false since Ps4 requires two cores to even run and allocates 3.5gb of memory while Windows 7 uses less then 2gb even with anti virus steam and many other apps running. lol I think you need to re read your article because because it would take all eight cores to be comparable to an i3 let alone a Phenom2 X4 . Fact is that the X1 and PS4 have only 6 cores to play which cut the processors abilities down well below them.

#48 Posted by IMAHAPYHIPPO (2555 posts) -

@kinectthedots said:

This thread makes no sense...

The jump from PS2 to PS3 was like x60 times more powerful. The jump from PS3 to PS4 is X5 times.

The jump was absolutely not 60x.

#49 Posted by evildead6789 (7261 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@True_Gamer_:Those massive increases do not directly translate into increases into graphical fidelity. The PS4 is a massive leap over the PS3 but we've hit diminishing returns on how much power it takes to push real time graphics. You need exponential power increases to see marginal gains in rendering with rasterisation. I thought that was pretty common knowledge now. Just making hardware that is 2x as powerful as last gen does not mean you'll be able to push twice as many polygons.

@evildead6789: The PS3's CPU could benchmark well but when it came to general performance the Xbox 360's CPU was straight up better and same with the PS4's. The PS4's CPU is a much better general purpose processor with 8 physical cores. Parallelism and gaming go hand in hand to drastically improve the efficiency of all real time rendering and general game processing. High CPU clock speeds mean relatively nothing when you're funneling everything through 1 core (which the Cell was, one IBM Power PC core + 7 SPEs). Those SPEs were not general cores so they couldn't be used for a lot of general processing that games require. The PS4's has 8 general cores, of which 6 are dedicated to the game and will not be interrupted by another process or the OS.

Yes I know the benchmarks of the PS4's CPU are lower than the PS3 but that's because the PS3's benchmarked so well because of that SPE performance. It was useless for actual CPU work and was used to assist the GPU because the GPU was a real piece of crap. These are all factors you're ignoring. Furthermore, unlike a PC, games on the PS4 have direct access to memory and hardware. The OS does not get in its way because it's got dedicated RAM and CPU cores for itself. Yes that means less is available overall to the game, but it's actually more efficient as those cores that the games have are completely dedicated to the game. More efficient that way, just like everything with a game console.

Furthemore, CPUs are not a huge deal with video games. Aside from horribly optimized games like ArmA 3, even the most demanding PC game only really utilizes a fraction of the CPU. Increasing the multi-threading with physical cores reduces a lot of the wait time a CPU endures during running a game.

The Xbox One and PS4 are not PCs despite their very similar architecture. The entirety of a console is built around gaming and making sure a game has all of the direct access to the hardware it can spare to increase the efficiency of the hardware by quite a bit. Raw power doesn't tell the whole story. It would be nice to have more power of course, but I also don't want to be spending $600+ on a game console. They built the consoles to be as powerful and feature filled as they can be within a reasonable price range.

I would love to see you grab those $300 prebuilts, slap some cheap GPU into it, keep the price under $399, and be able to perform the same as an Xbox One or a PS4. You just won't.

It's all pointless. If you pay $399, you'll get $399 worth of power and features. The PS4 and Xbox One pack quite a few features for a pretty low price. Tablets that do less can cost $200 more and people eat those up. If you want to ignore value and look right at benchmarks then yes, the PS4/Xbox One are relatively weak. If you want to come back to the real world where benchmarks are meaningless to the market that buys consoles, then you may start looking at the consoles like they are supposed to be viewed, as cheap gaming machines.

I can understand that the ps4's cpu is a better cpu for gaming due to it's architecture but you're forgetting the ps3 was released 7 years before the ps4. And the spe's in the cpu of the ps3 were there to give the system more longetivity.The gpu in the ps3 may be a piece of crap now, it was top of the line hardware back in the day (in it's r&d and manufacturing phase anyway, they couldn't have known nvidia was so nice to just double gpu performance when they released the ps3)

And a better cpu in the ps4 may not make that much difference but no one can predict the future , a stronger cpu could come in handy but that's not actually the point here. The ps4 should have had a stronger gpu and therefore a stronger cpu to support it. After all, the gpu in the ps4 is only as strong as gpu's released 4,5 years ago. Also, don't forget you're only paying 400$, but you have to pay a monthly fee to pay online too.

And no I cannot build a pc with the same gaming performance for 400$ , but i can do it for 500$. This is a shame i can do it for 500$ because for 500$ you have a general purpose system. It can do a lot more than gaming, it's upgradeable, you don't have to pay a monthly fee to play online, not to mention the new consoles just got released. Next year I can even build a system for 500$ that just whips the ps4.

Don't forget that a lot of people already have a pc for other purposes and since the ps4's cpu matches a 250$ cpu from 2009, I'm sure i can upgrade their system for 250$ that just runs circles around the ps4.

I wouldn't say consoles are cheap gaming machines I think it's more than that : easy access, a platform for exclusives, a special kind of community, couch gaming, etc.. It wouldn't even have bothered me that the consoles were so weak at this time if it wasn't for the standard they've set last gen for games and devs. I fear that innovation will take a standstill again just like it did last gen because the console market has become the biggest market when it comes to games I like to play. I can only hope that the pc and/or steam machine become more succesfull and/or nintendo releases a true next gen console.

#50 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -
@lostrib said:

@xboxdone74 said:

gaming on a pc would cause many issues good me. First and foremost...I wouldn't be able to play the best exclusives of the generation

what the derp

jelly confirmed. :)