This topic is locked from further discussion.
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. :)
... But how would cause jelly confirmed him?
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.
It doesn't matter they use 2 dedicated cores. You seem to be forgetting that the system has 8 cores. When you compare it with a 4 core cpu, that's only one core that's used for the system.
You also have to consider this, a game running on windows that has the same quality as the console version will use more resources than the console version. Simply because there a lot more happening, If it's windows or the application, more software has to make sure everyting works together. There's not all kinds of software running simulatiously on a console like it does on windows. A console doesn't have a motherboard that's capable to run with a 1001 devices like different gpu, different cpu, different harddrives, dvd drives. All this adapting software needs resources and not all resources are all run into the memory before you play a game.
Also when you say the system reserves 3.5 gb then this is not that much, when i start up far cry 3, run it at max settings while I'm having 10 browser sessions open and a bunch of stuff is in my system tray , then i use 3.7 gb. It would be more when i start playing movies etc and this is why this is reserved on the ps4 (and x1 for that matter) so you could easily switch between tv, video, gaming in a matter of seconds and that the devs know how much memory they have for gaming. The console os won't use something like virtual ram in case the system runs out of ram lol. The system has 8 gb, it will have enough ram even with the shared video memory.
The cpu, gpu and ram in a console are also setup so there's less delay in communication, in doesn't have to consider compatibility with a vast range of devices and other functionalities therefore the system can work better even when it has the same cpu/gpu/ram as it's pc counterpart. A good example is the shared ram between gpu and cpu.
@evildead6789:
You have clearly have no idea what your talking about....
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. :)
... But how would cause jelly confirmed him?
Please write in proper sentences guys. Otherwise your English would cause many issues good me.
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.
They knowingly put a weak GPU in the PS3. Nvidia basically took an 7800gt and slimmed it down a bit more. AMD powered the Xbox 360 with the first real large scale production of a GPU with a unified shader architect. It wasn't until after the Xbox 360s launch did AMD and Nvidia release their unified shader cards.
Furtheremore you're still looking at the pure numbers and not the bigger picture. The GPU in the PS4 and Xbox One is absolutely fine for their price point. The stupid persistence of DirectX 9 means GPUs from even 2-3 years ago are being woefully underutilized. Given the fact that the APIs are written around the custom chips in the PS4/Xbox One, they can get far more mileage out of those weaker cards than you'll get with a compareable GPU on the PC. That's how it always works.
A lot of people do not have desktop PCs for other purposes, they have laptops. The pre-built desktop market died a good 5 years ago and hangs on by a thread. Nobody buys desktop PCs or has an extra monitor or extra keyboards laying around. They just don't anymore. Hell people are ditching laptops and moving to tablets so we're seeing PC sales further decline. Your average consumer is looking at far more than $500 for a new PC, and even then nobody is going to willingly pay the absolute least they can for a barely passable PC which is outdated the day it's finished. Doing that is going to cost you more money in the future. While games will be built around the specs of the PS4/Xbox One on their specific platforms, on the PC your hardware will get left behind and you'll be forced to upgrade before the console generation is over. It's much easier to just get a platform that you know will not change for several more years.
The consoles aren't as weak as you're making them out to be either.
@evildead6789:
You have clearly have no idea what your talking about....
I see you're still the same old troll
lol, your still wrong
I can understand that the ps4's cpu is a better cpu for gaming due to it's architecture but you're forgetting the ps3 was released 7 years before the ps4. And the spe's in the cpu of the ps3 were there to give the system more longetivity.The gpu in the ps3 may be a piece of crap now, it was top of the line hardware back in the day (in it's r&d and manufacturing phase anyway, they couldn't have known nvidia was so nice to just double gpu performance when they released the ps3)
And a better cpu in the ps4 may not make that much difference but no one can predict the future , a stronger cpu could come in handy but that's not actually the point here. The ps4 should have had a stronger gpu and therefore a stronger cpu to support it. After all, the gpu in the ps4 is only as strong as gpu's released 4,5 years ago. Also, don't forget you're only paying 400$, 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.
They knowingly put a weak GPU in the PS3. Nvidia basically took an 7800gt and slimmed it down a bit more. AMD powered the Xbox 360 with the first real large scale production of a GPU with a unified shader architect. It wasn't until after the Xbox 360s launch did AMD and Nvidia release their unified shader cards.
Furtheremore you're still looking at the pure numbers and not the bigger picture. The GPU in the PS4 and Xbox One is absolutely fine for their price point. The stupid persistence of DirectX 9 means GPUs from even 2-3 years ago are being woefully underutilized. Given the fact that the APIs are written around the custom chips in the PS4/Xbox One, they can get far more mileage out of those weaker cards than you'll get with a compareable GPU on the PC. That's how it always works.
A lot of people do not have desktop PCs for other purposes, they have laptops. The pre-built desktop market died a good 5 years ago and hangs on by a thread. Nobody buys desktop PCs or has an extra monitor or extra keyboards laying around. They just don't anymore. Hell people are ditching laptops and moving to tablets so we're seeing PC sales further decline. Your average consumer is looking at far more than $500 for a new PC, and even then nobody is going to willingly pay the absolute least they can for a barely passable PC which is outdated the day it's finished. Doing that is going to cost you more money in the future. While games will be built around the specs of the PS4/Xbox One on their specific platforms, on the PC your hardware will get left behind and you'll be forced to upgrade before the console generation is over. It's much easier to just get a platform that you know will not change for several more years.
The consoles aren't as weak as you're making them out to be either.
The gpu in the ps3 was actually a 7800 gtx but with only half the rops, why they did that I don't know. They were clearly still believing in their cell processing technology that was in their cpu. Still even without that the 7800 gtx was an impressive card for it's time. The fact that microsoft used unified shaders was also a bit of gamble, no one knew at that time if unified shading was going to be successfull, I think it's also the reason they put that on a different chip , together with the AA.
Yeah, I know they will get more of the tech than a pc does, consoles have always done that , because they're dedicated systems. At it's price point the ps4 and xboxone maybe nice, but that doesn't change the fact you will have to pay for online multiplayer, still that is defendable, maintaining servers costs money and the development of games will cost more in the future too. However, it would have been nice imo that they put some stronger hardware in there for the future, who knows how long it will be before they make a new console again.
What you're saying about desktop pc's is true, i know a lot of people do have a laptop or tablet now and not everyone can build a pc himself. Add the success of the hd twins and that made sure the gaming desktop market has become a lot smaller and therefore a lot more expensive, which is sad to be honest.
However building with parts is still dirt cheap. A 500$ pc now will be upgradable in the gpu departement and match the ps4 from the get go, it will also run older games in a lot better quality that it ever ran on the ps3 or x360. I can't see why the cpu would have to be upgraded since a 190$ cpu is double the power of ps4's gpu. As for the monitor, you can just hook it up to your tv. plug in a x360 wired controller and use steam big picture. You will have even free games with your graphics card. There are enough options there.
I must say, anyone that knows a bit of hardware would have to be a fool to buy a ps4 (or an xboxone for that matter). Either it would be to hook up with your friends, some console exclusive, the plug & play of a console (allthough a pc that's setup well will be plug & play too) or because you're a fan but otherwise I can see no reason why you should buy a so called next gen console.
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.
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.
Not only is he disagreeing with facts but where both trying to further improve/support his original point and yet he's trying to argue with us...... (WTF ? Where trying to strength his main point with facts and he's say "no no no that's not right"..... ???).
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
Please get your facts straight, the PS4's GPU trounces a HD5870 and GTX480 in terms of raw performance. Its also not all about clock speed. The PS4 CPU has 8 cores a pc with those specs wouldn't hold the PS4s jock.
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
Please get your facts straight, the PS4's GPU trounces a HD5870 and GTX480 in terms of raw performance. Its also not all about clock speed. The PS4 CPU has 8 cores a pc with those specs wouldn't hold the PS4s jock.
Yeah, sure i don't know where you get your facts from but the gtx480 & hd 7850 are comparable in performance. The hd 5870 maybe a bit weaker but it's an easy overclocker, and overclocking today means adjusting a slider...
Please get your facts straight, the PS4's GPU trounces a HD5870 and GTX480 in terms of raw performance
I actually wouldn't be so sure about your statement. Oh joy it has eight weak cores that are found in lowend laptops and are inferior to architecture of 5 years ago (I hope your joking about clock speed)
A 480 is pretty much identical to a GTX 570 (GTX 570 is inbetween a 7850 and a 7870).
There are many sources proving this including this one from a top accredited website http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/26.html
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.
Beautiful posting.
Please get your facts straight, the PS4's GPU trounces a HD5870 and GTX480 in terms of raw performance
I actually wouldn't be so sure about your statement. Oh joy it has eight weak cores that are found in lowend laptops and are inferior to architecture of 5 years ago (I hope your joking about clock speed)
A 480 is pretty much identical to a GTX 570 (GTX 570 is inbetween a 7850 and a 7870).
There are many sources proving this including this one from a top accredited website http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/26.html
The phenom II x4 955 released in april 2009 and it's comparable in performance to the ps4's gpu, i'm not even mentioning the core 2 duo quads that were faster and released even earlier, they we're also very expensive and that's why i didn't mention them.
As for the gtx 480/gtx 570/hd 7850 comparison, well that's as close to splitting hairs you can get. I was talking about a gtx 480 not a gtx 570 and it's closer to the hd 7850 than the gtx 570. At those percentages were talking about 3 fps differences. I was just pointing out the fact that the performance in the ps4 matches old ass gpu's.
Please get your facts straight, the PS4's GPU trounces a HD5870 and GTX480 in terms of raw performance
I actually wouldn't be so sure about your statement. Oh joy it has eight weak cores that are found in lowend laptops and are inferior to architecture of 5 years ago (I hope your joking about clock speed)
A 480 is pretty much identical to a GTX 570 (GTX 570 is inbetween a 7850 and a 7870).
There are many sources proving this including this one from a top accredited website http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/26.html
There is nothing inferior about the architecture, as they will make games meant to run on more cores. And no im not kidding about clock speed. The Xbox one cpu is clocked higher then the PS4 cpu yet the PS4 cpu still performs better. The PS4 also has raw specs above a 7850 and in terms of actual performance will trounce a pc with similar specs. I find it funny you think the PS4 is just off the shelf pc parts.
The phenom II x4 955 released in april 2009 and it's comparable in performance to the ps4's gpu, i'm not even mentioning the core 2 duo quads that were faster and released even earlier, they we're also very expensive and that's why i didn't mention them.
As for the gtx 480/gtx 570/hd 7850 comparison, well that's as close to splitting hairs you can get. I was talking about a gtx 480 not a gtx 570 and it's closer to the hd 7850 than the gtx 570. At those percentages were talking about 3 fps differences. I was just pointing out the fact that the performance in the ps4 matches old ass gpu's.
Its comparable but still a little bit faster (which helps strengthen your point).
I know your talking about the GTX 480 (its on the chart also). Third party 480s (which is pretty much all 480s sold) are identical/slightly faster than a 7870ghz yet AM-Gamer is saying " the PS4's GPU trounces a HD5870 and GTX480 in terms of raw performance" (what a joke)
There is nothing inferior about the architecture, as they will make games meant to run on more cores. And no im not kidding about clock speed. The Xbox one cpu is clocked higher then the PS4 cpu yet the PS4 cpu still performs better. The PS4 also has raw specs above a 7850 and in terms of actual performance will trounce a pc with similar specs. I find it funny you think the PS4 is just off the shelf pc parts.
1. Technically speaking its inferior. Clock speeds matter when your talking about a CPU that's over twice as fast all while being stronger clock for clock
2. So you went from arguing "raw performance/power" to "buh buh I think it will be faster/better peformance once the kits/development kicks in" once you where proven wrong..... (nice bait in switch). Not only did you switch but you mean to tell me that my 8600GTS (which was barely faster than the xbox360 GPU) getting above xbox360 quality graphics for the first 5 years of the cycle is somehow a myth ? (by your logic my PC with similar specs should of been noticeably inferior).
3. Regarding the bold, please tell me where I made that statement......
Please get your facts straight, the PS4's GPU trounces a HD5870 and GTX480 in terms of raw performance
I actually wouldn't be so sure about your statement. Oh joy it has eight weak cores that are found in lowend laptops and are inferior to architecture of 5 years ago (I hope your joking about clock speed)
A 480 is pretty much identical to a GTX 570 (GTX 570 is inbetween a 7850 and a 7870).
There are many sources proving this including this one from a top accredited website http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/26.html
There is nothing inferior about the architecture, as they will make games meant to run on more cores. And no im not kidding about clock speed. The Xbox one cpu is clocked higher then the PS4 cpu yet the PS4 cpu still performs better. The PS4 also has raw specs above a 7850 and in terms of actual performance will trounce a pc with similar specs. I find it funny you think the PS4 is just off the shelf pc parts.
How you know the cpu performs better on the ps4 ?
I assume it is because of the shared gddr5. The xboxone may be clocked higher, the ps4 still has turbo boost and if I'm not mistaken a seperate cpu for os tasks. All things considered there won't be big differences, not enough to see the cpu in another tier anyway.
The ps4's gpu is comparable with a hd 7850. It's basically a crippled 7870. The ps4 gpu has 1.84 tflops computing power, the 7870 2.56 tflops, the 7850 1.76 tflops and this is an amd reference card which runs a stock clocks. Almost all non reference cards come with a factory overclock out of the box and will be over 2 tflops.
So even if you consider console optimizations, most hd 7850 owners will have non reference cards and about the same performance. Probably even a bit more because there's a big chance they will have it paired up with a stronger cpu. Cpu's that outmatch the ps4's cpu are dirt cheap and most mid range cpu's released the last 5 years outmatch the ps4's cpu also.
I don't think the ps4 is just off the shelf parts, i know what's in there and console optimizations can only go so far. I have taken these optimizations into account when I make these comparisons.
my mrs' machine is a 7850 + i3-3220.
1080p BF4 on high with no issues.
So even if you consider console optimizations, most hd 7850 owners will have non reference cards and about the same performance. Probably even a bit more because there's a big chance they will have it paired up with a stronger cpu. Cpu's that outmatch the ps4's cpu are dirt cheap.
This is what happened to me last gen (8600GTS with a core 2 duo) but according to AM-Gamer this couldn't happen since similar hardware doesn't equal similar performance (me getting close to max settings at a higher resolution is just an imagination of mine and didn't really happen according to his logic and it won't repeat this generation with the consoles using pc architecture/dev kits......).
Please get your facts straight, the PS4's GPU trounces a HD5870 and GTX480 in terms of raw performance
I actually wouldn't be so sure about your statement. Oh joy it has eight weak cores that are found in lowend laptops and are inferior to architecture of 5 years ago (I hope your joking about clock speed)
A 480 is pretty much identical to a GTX 570 (GTX 570 is inbetween a 7850 and a 7870).
There are many sources proving this including this one from a top accredited website http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7850_HD_7870/26.html
There is nothing inferior about the architecture, as they will make games meant to run on more cores. And no im not kidding about clock speed. The Xbox one cpu is clocked higher then the PS4 cpu yet the PS4 cpu still performs better. The PS4 also has raw specs above a 7850 and in terms of actual performance will trounce a pc with similar specs. I find it funny you think the PS4 is just off the shelf pc parts.
lol yes the architecture is inferior when 6 year old cpu's out process them with less cores. its no different from i5's performing better then AMD six cored cpu's. Also the only reason why PS4 out did X1 is from GDDR5 data rates. And No PS4 does not trout a similar speced pc, its on par.
There is nothing inferior about the architecture, as they will make games meant to run on more cores. And no im not kidding about clock speed. The Xbox one cpu is clocked higher then the PS4 cpu yet the PS4 cpu still performs better. The PS4 also has raw specs above a 7850 and in terms of actual performance will trounce a pc with similar specs. I find it funny you think the PS4 is just off the shelf pc parts.
lol yes the architecture is inferior when 6 year old cpu's out process them with less cores. its no different from i5's performing better then AMD six cored cpu's. Also the only reason why PS4 out did X1 is from GDDR5 data rates. And No PS4 does not trout a similar speced pc, its on par.
Get this logic out of this thread !
So even if you consider console optimizations, most hd 7850 owners will have non reference cards and about the same performance. Probably even a bit more because there's a big chance they will have it paired up with a stronger cpu. Cpu's that outmatch the ps4's cpu are dirt cheap.
This is what happened to me last gen (8600GTS with a core 2 duo) but according to AM-Gamer this couldn't happen since similar hardware doesn't equal similar performance (me getting close to max settings at a higher resolution is just an imagination of mine and didn't really happen according to his logic and it won't repeat this generation with the consoles using pc architecture/dev kits......).
Well there's a big difference between this gen and last gen. The x360 and ps3 have cpu's with different architecture, they both could perform graphical tasks and they had a lot more threads. The x360 has a triple core with hyperthreading and ps3 8 cores. The fact that a lot of pc games were console ports only made it worse. That's why some games like battlefield 2 bad company or gta 4 asked for quad cores to run well , or a game like a skyrim 2 cores but with very high speeds.
This time this won't happen, for starters the ps4 and x1 are too weak to set the standard this time, there will be more pc gamers again this time around and the consoles use cpu's that are x86 cpu's like in the pc.
The 8600 gts wasn't that much better that was in a console too and don't forget, the x360 had a seperate chip for aa, and both had cpu's that could do graphical tasks.
Also the second half of last gen , we saw a lot of pixelated, sub hd lagfests on the hd twins. I don't know what system you have now, but it's a good time (and has been for the last 3 years) to get back in pc gaming again. Well this statement all depends on your wallet of course but pc hardware is dirt cheap right now.
Well there's a big difference between this gen and last gen. The x360 and ps3 have cpu's with different architecture, they both could perform graphical tasks and they had a lot more threads. The x360 has a triple core with hyperthreading and ps3 8 cores. The fact that a lot of pc games were console ports only made it worse. That's why some games like battlefield 2 bad company or gta 4 asked for quad cores to run well , or a game like a skyrim 2 cores but with very high speeds.
This time this won't happen, for starters the ps4 and x1 are too weak to set the standard this time, there will be more pc gamers again this time around and the consoles use cpu's that are x86 cpu's like in the pc.
The 8600 gts wasn't that much better that was in a console too and don't forget, the x360 had a seperate chip for aa, and both had cpu's that could do graphical tasks.
I am fully aware of all of this (I have been following hardware trends/development process for the last 10 years). Custom parts (both GPU/CPU) on both consoles made optimization, development, and porting god awful yet my similar spec PC lasted me 5 years into the generation with no problems.
This generation shouldn't be any different if someone chooses to get similar specs (with the consoles using lowend CPU's and midrange GPU's offering almost double the performance of the consoles, I have a feeling not a lot of people are going to have a similar spec'd PC to that of the consoles).
Hell I just realized that you could of used the i7 920 as your example instead of the x4 955 (was only like $20-30 more) and it came out in freaking 2008...... (with turboboost its twice as fast as the consoles CPU).
There's no way a fanboy could possibly argue against an i7 920
Well there's a big difference between this gen and last gen. The x360 and ps3 have cpu's with different architecture, they both could perform graphical tasks and they had a lot more threads. The x360 has a triple core with hyperthreading and ps3 8 cores. The fact that a lot of pc games were console ports only made it worse. That's why some games like battlefield 2 bad company or gta 4 asked for quad cores to run well , or a game like a skyrim 2 cores but with very high speeds.
This time this won't happen, for starters the ps4 and x1 are too weak to set the standard this time, there will be more pc gamers again this time around and the consoles use cpu's that are x86 cpu's like in the pc.
The 8600 gts wasn't that much better that was in a console too and don't forget, the x360 had a seperate chip for aa, and both had cpu's that could do graphical tasks.
I am fully aware of all of this (I have been following hardware trends/development process for the last 10 years). Custom parts (both GPU/CPU) on both consoles made optimization, development, and porting god awful yet my similar spec PC lasted me 5 years into the generation with no problems.
This generation shouldn't be any different if someone chooses to get similar specs (with the consoles using lowend CPU's and midrange GPU's offering almost double the performance of the consoles, I have a feeling not a lot of people are going to have a similar spec'd PC to that of the consoles).
damn, i was just scrolling over the thread and I was wondering why am gamer just turned his ship completely but apparently it was someone else (you) commenting on him also.
Sorry if I sounded a bit condescending, I thought i was talking to am gamer whose comments are at its best, far off...
damn, i was just scrolling over the thread and I was wondering why am gamer just turned his ship completely but apparently it was someone else (you) commenting on him also.
Sorry if I sounded a bit condescending, I thought i was talking to am gamer whose comments are at its best, far off...
Nah man its all good (that's actually pretty funny)
damn, i was just scrolling over the thread and I was wondering why am gamer just turned his ship completely but apparently it was someone else (you) commenting on him also.
Sorry if I sounded a bit condescending, I thought i was talking to am gamer whose comments are at its best, far off...
Nah man its all good (that's actually pretty funny)
So you gonna buy a new pc, i have bought a i5 2500 3 years ago and it was one of the best cpu's i've ever had, In 2010 i had an i3 530 and before that a pentium 4 single core lol. I bought the x360 but in 2010 i was thinking now it's the time to go pc again. I didn't have the money in 2007 to buy a whole new system , the p4 was still an agp system and dual cores were pretty expensive.
I also bought a 7870 xt last year which is a great card (before that i had a 5750 & 5770 crossfired) I never had this before but when i look at the ps4 and x1 , i don't think i will have to upgrade my system for a long time, maybe a gpu upgrade but that's going to be it I think.
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.
Okay, by that logic than ps1 to ps2 is 1000x.
No I'm perfectly fine with the power of the PS4, once the games-train starts flowing, and it will, all will be good.
So you gonna buy a new pc, I
I upgraded to a x4 phenom in 2010 (it was $99 with motherboard thanks to microcenter) and then last year I bought an i7 3770K with Z77 motherboard (microcenter gave me $100 off the CPU and $50 off the motherboard + $15 off for subscribing to there mail letter). By the time I sold my phenom, I paid less than $200 out of pocket for the 3770K/Z77 bundle.
Im also using a 7870XT (have it overclocked from 975mhz to 1200mhz just on stock volts). It was a steal price wise (I got it for $180 and when overclocked it offers stock 7970 performance). When I bought the 7870XT, the 7970 was going for $400 and the 7950 was low $300 mark ($180 was a good bang for your buck price). I will be upgrading when 20nm arrives (if the GTX 870 offers 780Ti performance which it should then I can cough up $400 for that. I still have $100 in unused amazon gift card balance + I should get $130-150 for my 7870xt so $400 won't be bad once that's factored in).
So you gonna buy a new pc, I
I upgraded to a x4 phenom in 2010 (it was $99 with motherboard thanks to microcenter) and then last year I bought an i7 3770K with Z77 motherboard (microcenter gave me $100 off the CPU and $50 off the motherboard + $15 off for subscribing to there mail letter). By the time I sold my phenom, I paid less than $200 out of pocket for the 3770K/Z77 bundle.
Im also using a 7870XT (have it overclocked from 975mhz to 1200mhz just on stock volts). It was a steal price wise (I got it for $180 and when overclocked it offers stock 7970 performance). When I bought the 7870XT, the 7970 was going for $400 and the 7950 was low $300 mark ($180 was a good bang for your buck price). I will be upgrading when 20nm arrives (if the GTX 870 offers 780Ti performance which it should then I can cough up $400 for that. I still have $100 in unused amazon gift card balance + I should get $130-150 for my 7870xt so $400 won't be bad once that's factored in).
Yeah , that 7870 xt was a steal.
Apparently you upgraded at the right time. I doubt we will have to upgrade again soon though, one part of me hopes we have to, another part doesn't .
@evildead6789: Nobody is a fool for buying what they find value in. I'll take my PS4 over a shitty $500 PC any day.
You won't really be able to upgrade a PC like that either. Your CPU will bottleneck any modern GPU, you won't be able to install a new processor as the chipset and socket are out of date, and you won't be able to put in DDR4 ram as the motherboard won't support it. A cheap PC like that is too limiting to be worth $500. If you're going to build a PC you should build it to be capeable and modern enough to actually run games on high and have flexibility, not just be at the same level or a bit better than the consoles.
@evildead6789: Nobody is a fool for buying what they find value in. I'll take my PS4 over a shitty $500 PC any day.
You won't really be able to upgrade a PC like that either. Your CPU will bottleneck any modern GPU, you won't be able to install a new processor as the chipset and socket are out of date, and you won't be able to put in DDR4 ram as the motherboard won't support it. A cheap PC like that is too limiting to be worth $500. If you're going to build a PC you should build it to be capeable and modern enough to actually run games on high and have flexibility, not just be at the same level or a bit better than the consoles.
I said you would be a fool if you didn't buy it for a couple of reasons, like being a fan, , wanting to have certain console exclusive or the ease of access with a console. But like I said a pc , once set up, can almost be just as plug & play as a console. The steam machines are a good example of this.
I wonder how a gpu will bottleneck a i5 sandy/ivy bridge quad core. A gpu that's double the power of the ps4 gpu won't even bottleneck it. The 500$ pc will come with a gpu that's similar in performance as the ps4, but you can upgrade it later easily. The difference in pci 2 & 3 won't be an issue at those speeds and you can sell your old gpu too. Since the i5 is already double the speed of the ps4's cpu and an gpu upgrade will pretty much double it too eventually, I can't see why you would need to upgrade beyond that.
Why would you need faster ram, faster system ram can only do so much and a system doesn't stand or fall because of its ram speed. It could, if you were able to put ddr1 in a ddr3 system, but it doesn't work that way and like I said before the i5 sandy/ivy quad is already double the speed of the ps4's cpu with standard ddr3 ram. Gpu's have their own ram.
That pc will be able to run every game ever released on the pc and it will run it on much better quality that it ever ran on a console. A ps4 will only run ps4 games. After 20 months you already have the 100$ back that you otherwise would have spend to play online on the ps4 (if it's only 5$, it will probably be more). Not to mention you have multi purpose system and games are cheaper, there's no second hand market no, but steam sales are extremely cheap (and i doubt that second hand market will keep on existing)
Seems like a no-brainer to me. If we had this discussion back in 2005-2006 i would say it's much better to buy console, if you don't want mouse & keyboard.
@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.
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.
1st The BONE costs $500
2nd Any Personal Computer costs at least $200 the cheapest one add that to the price
3rd Maxwell says HALLO:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883265819
+
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487025
= $520....And the Titanfall runs bettah....no more need for PSU....
Oh as for diminishing returns there are things like 60FPS/1080 (or even 4k) plus we are very faaar away from not utilising the hardware and not getting returns....Heck new engines like Cry3 and Unreal4 will rape hardware AND produce amazing visuals. Its a given.
PS
In February of 2006 NONE would even dream of doing the above.....and beating the 360 in performance of oblivion.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment