John Carmack:You need a 3.68 Teraflop GPU to match PS4's GPU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E1rvJAMC78

 

:cool: if anyone hasn't seen it :lol:

 

 

TheFadeForever

Pointless as they both versions of Crysis on PC and consoles use different engines 

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] Its not him I'm disagreeing with. Consoles are more optimised. Whether or not its two times? That seems a bit on the high side, but he knows better then me. But if you think the PC will need a titan to look as good as a launch console game? You're probably high.blue_hazy_basic

The teraflop affirmation was something added by the TC. Carmack didn't say anything that specific.

I agree that a Titan would be overkill, but still, launch games on consoles can not represent the potential of their hardware.

It's probably going to be around for 7-10 years. The rate pc gaming goes it, it will probably only take a year or two for most standard graphics cards to oblitorate it.

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="SambaLele"]

He's just someone who pointed that John Carmack owned hermits and you should go in the corner and be quiet.

Ok, j/k, but now, seriously, how can people here deny that PC's can't match consoles when given equal hardware, or even a somewhat superior hardware?

It's common knowledge: you need something far stronger to actually surpass them.

SambaLele

In fact the card that is closer to the 360/PS3's in those charts would be the GeForce 7900, which is still stronger than them. And the card is doing worse than these consoles, given that, althought the resolution is higher, there is no specification of CPU, memory, etc. being used, and I'd doubt they were running those tests with a 2005 CPU and RAM.

You can not compare The geforce 7's with the 360 because of the unified shader architecture, and with games that are based on the Unreal 3 engine for example  they are much more shader dependent where the older geforce 7's perform worse then non heavt shader based games . But as for the cpu used it was a C2D from 2006 with 2gb DDR2 with Windows XP.  evern so a 7900 is still able to play those games 2x the resolution with max detials

That GPU can't make any game look anywhere near as graphically impressive as Uncharted 3GioVela2010

Don't worry, there's no need for apples-to-oranges comparisons when TitanFall is coming to PC/360/X1

X1 is 1.2TFLOPS so by troll math it should roughly match 7870(2.56TFLOPS) in performance.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="SambaLele"]

The teraflop affirmation was something added by the TC. Carmack didn't say anything that specific.

I agree that a Titan would be overkill, but still, launch games on consoles can not represent the potential of their hardware.

uninspiredcup

It's probably going to be around for 7-10 years. The rate pc gaming goes it, it will probably only take a year or two for most standard graphics cards to oblitorate it.

Lol. This is so old and he never says anything about PS4 or Titan. Never specifies the GPU. 

Let's see what he really has to say about next-gen consoles:

"If you take a current game like Halo which is a 30 hertz game at 720p; if you run that at 1080p, 60 frames with high dynamic frame buffers, all of a sudden you've sucked up all the power you have in the next-generation."

gamecubepad

[QUOTE="uninspiredcup"]

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"] I completely agree. Games for the PC aren't optimised like they are for the consoles, but in terms of raw power graphically a PC with a titan is going to well ahead of a console which hasn't launched yet. Some people on this forum are again getting suckered into thinking the PS4 is going to be this monster powerhouse which will dominate (or at least be on a par with) high end gaming PC's.clyde46

It's probably going to be around for 7-10 years. The rate pc gaming goes it, it will probably only take a year or two for most standard graphics cards to oblitorate it.

That isn't an answer, it's you making stuff up.

[QUOTE="blue_hazy_basic"][QUOTE="SambaLele"]

The teraflop affirmation was something added by the TC. Carmack didn't say anything that specific.

I agree that a Titan would be overkill, but still, launch games on consoles can not represent the potential of their hardware.

uninspiredcup

It's probably going to be around for 7-10 years. The rate pc gaming goes it, it will probably only take a year or two for most standard graphics cards to oblitorate it.

Borrow that crystal ball?

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="uninspiredcup"]

 

It's probably going to be around for 7-10 years. The rate pc gaming goes it, it will probably only take a year or two for most standard graphics cards to oblitorate it.

uninspiredcup

That isn't an answer, it's you making stuff up.

ITT hermits pretend to know more than John CarmackGioVela2010

Nope OP is just quote mining what Carmack said.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"] On the cpu front yes you do, not on the gpu front there are many examples of gpu's as weak as the current gen consoles getting comparable or better results. http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183499/p-4.html http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183967/p-4.html04dcarraher

In fact the card that is closer to the 360/PS3's in those charts would be the GeForce 7900, which is still stronger than them. And the card is doing worse than these consoles, given that, althought the resolution is higher, there is no specification of CPU, memory, etc. being used, and I'd doubt they were running those tests with a 2005 CPU and RAM.

You can not compare The geforce 7's with the 360 because of the unified shader architecture, and with games that are based on the Unreal 3 engine for example  they are much more shader dependent where the older geforce 7's perform worse then non heavt shader based games . But as for the cpu used it was a C2D from 2006 with 2gb DDR2 with Windows XP.  evern so a 7900 is still able to play those games 2x the resolution with max detials

Can that hardware play a current game, and be comparable to those consoles? Like Bioshock Infinite or Batman AC? 

[QUOTE="uninspiredcup"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] And how many people will be buying those cards? Answer, a fraction of the number of those who are buying consoles. clyde46

That isn't an answer, it's you making stuff up.

No brah I stick "probably" in front. You should do the same. That way you will come across as incredibly informative without being wrong.

[QUOTE="gamecubepad"]

Lol. This is so old and he never says anything about PS4 or Titan. Never specifies the GPU. 

Let's see what he really has to say about next-gen consoles:

"If you take a current game like Halo which is a 30 hertz game at 720p; if you run that at 1080p, 60 frames with high dynamic frame buffers, all of a sudden you've sucked up all the power you have in the next-generation."

stizzal13

Yes, that was his take on next-gen systems and why he isn't excited about working on them. 

Honestly, from the looks of TitanFall, he was a bit too gracious.

Way to put words on someone's mouth OP.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"]That GPU can't make any game look anywhere near as graphically impressive as Uncharted 3gamecubepad

Don't worry, there's no need for apples-to-oranges comparisons when TitanFall is coming to PC/360/X1

X1 is 1.2TFLOPS so by troll math it should roughly match 7870(2.56TFLOPS) in performance.

Troll math :lol:

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"][QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Radeon HD 6470M (with about 240 GFLOPS) runs like Xbox 360's Xenos GPU (with 240 GFLOPS).SambaLele

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29421263/tech-analysis-watch-dogs-on-playstation-4?msg_id=341051738#341051738

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="GioVela2010"] With multiplats? Lol congrats but that completely ignores the "single spec optimization" part of Carmacks postGioVela2010

Even though you're trolling, a GT 640 could easily play Crysis 3 on the lowest settings, which looks better than any console game.

Hermits better fork up money for a Titan, or else they won't be able to compete

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

 

In fact the card that is closer to the 360/PS3's in those charts would be the GeForce 7900, which is still stronger than them. And the card is doing worse than these consoles, given that, althought the resolution is higher, there is no specification of CPU, memory, etc. being used, and I'd doubt they were running those tests with a 2005 CPU and RAM.

SambaLele

You can not compare The geforce 7's with the 360 because of the unified shader architecture, and with games that are based on the Unreal 3 engine for example  they are much more shader dependent where the older geforce 7's perform worse then non heavt shader based games . But as for the cpu used it was a C2D from 2006 with 2gb DDR2 with Windows XP.  evern so a 7900 is still able to play those games 2x the resolution with max detials

Can that hardware play a current game, and be comparable to those consoles? Like Bioshock Infinite or Batman AC? 

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"][QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] /thread. Ron is never wrong.GioVela2010

Their is no pc version of this game, so you can't compare, but this GPU run games like crysis 2 link with slightly better graphics and performance than ps3.(remember ps3 run c2 like that 1024x720, low settings, 20-25fps).

I could buy a PS4 and X1 with Titan money.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] aw mad that most multiplat's are designed around consoles first ? single spec optimization is an excuse since most competent dev's design their games to work with each console based on its hardware then convert over to x86 Pc environment . Now with the "single spec optimization" with these upcoming consoles means squat when their using x86 cpu's and same API's that pc's are using. faizan_faizan

Even though you're trolling, a GT 640 could easily play Crysis 3 on the lowest settings, which looks better than any console game.

A GT 640 could play Crysis 3 on medium settings just fine as well.

My GTX 690 has 5.6 Tflops. And I have it overclocked. So it's more like 6 Tflops.

:D

Flops isn't the key to pc gaming. There are some ugly ass games that run like shit and beautiful ones run smooth like butter. It's all in how much time the Dev's take and most just do a sloppy shit port. So they waste the power of PC's.

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] aw mad that most multiplat's are designed around consoles first ? single spec optimization is an excuse since most competent dev's design their games to work with each console based on its hardware then convert over to x86 Pc environment . Now with the "single spec optimization" with these upcoming consoles means squat when their using x86 cpu's and same API's that pc's are using. faizan_faizan

Even though you're trolling, a GT 640 could easily play Crysis 3 on the lowest settings, which looks better than any console game.

shyt like this cracks me up because you can find games from last year that look better than anything shown on next gen consoles.

sure you have to mod them but the mods are free and available to everyone.

every gen this whole consoles are going to blow away pc stuff starts up and every time new consoles look like 6 to 18 month old pc games.

Ok first of all why do all of these Sony fanboys keep saying that people will need a Titan to compete? 600 Series cards will handle the PS4 and X1 with no problem. But really why does that matter? The brand loyalty in this board has become sickening. Maybe one day we can have an intelligent debate in SW again.GoldenElementXL

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Carmack > You Uncharted 3 > any PC game with a 640 GT04dcarraher

Even though you're trolling, a GT 640 could easily play Crysis 3 on the lowest settings, which looks better than any console game.

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

Lol my pc is still way better than the ps4, u mad cows?

clyde46

Stay jelly :cool:

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"][QUOTE="04dcarraher"] aw mad that most multiplat's are designed around consoles first ? single spec optimization is an excuse since most competent dev's design their games to work with each console based on its hardware then convert over to x86 Pc environment . Now with the "single spec optimization" with these upcoming consoles means squat when their using x86 cpu's and same API's that pc's are using. faizan_faizan

Even though you're trolling, a GT 640 could easily play Crysis 3 on the lowest settings, which looks better than any console game.

[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="deeliman"]

Lol my pc is still way better than the ps4, u mad cows?

deeliman

Stay jelly :cool:

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="GioVela2010"] Carmack > You Uncharted 3 > any PC game with a 640 GTGioVela2010

Even though you're trolling, a GT 640 could easily play Crysis 3 on the lowest settings, which looks better than any console game.

That was a joke. And he never stated they were 2005 hardware, not sure where Ron is wrong.

faizan_faizan

Wasn't a joke at all.

The release date is not as important when compared to the actual hardware capabilities/features i.e. both Radeon HD 6470M and Xbox 360's GPU has unified shaders, memport, 3DC+ texture compression, hardware tessellation and about 240 GFLOPS of compute.

 

 

ronvalencia

Release date is not important? He said that when it was actually the heart of the matter.

Probably because he saw that the card he presented couldn't match the console "equivalent" (by his own standards), with compromised video configurations (as you see, a lot of features were taken off or brought to "low") and it still lagged a lot.

Again, comparing a console to a PC is not that straightforward, and he proved that himself (while proving himself wrong).

[QUOTE="deeliman"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"] Haswell sucks balls. clyde46

Stay jelly :cool:

1. This is completely true considering optimization. 2. HOWEVER, you have to be a moron to believe that the consoles will run everything at 2x capacity at launch, it's just not happening. I believe it will hit that stride by mid-gen. (By then we would have already had some 10+ Tflops GPU's be more common).tagyhag

I even doubt that. For example current consoles started at around 8600gt level by now they are still somewhere around 8600gts-8800gts G80 level.

[QUOTE="SambaLele"]

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

You can not compare The geforce 7's with the 360 because of the unified shader architecture, and with games that are based on the Unreal 3 engine for example  they are much more shader dependent where the older geforce 7's perform worse then non heavt shader based games . But as for the cpu used it was a C2D from 2006 with 2gb DDR2 with Windows XP.  evern so a 7900 is still able to play those games 2x the resolution with max detials

 

04dcarraher

Can that hardware play a current game, and be comparable to those consoles? Like Bioshock Infinite or Batman AC? 

For comparisons to be minimally reliable the hardware between the PC and the console has to be as closer as possible.

Since the PS3's GPU is based on a GeForce 7800, the comparison is already a bit off the moment you get a card that is one generation ahead.

Or you could do the same thing that ronvalencia did in the other thread (the one I linked in response to faizan_faizan): try to get a card that is similar in design and features, not chronologically. He brought to the table a Radeon that is 6 generations ahead of 360's GPU, and it still didn't manage to outshine it on Bioshock Infinite (even with compromises on shadow quality and other tweaks).

So the optimization devs can get from standardized hardware means better future proofing.

Of course comparing launch and early gen titles with their PC equivalents won't show it, because the optimization takes time. Compare early 360/PS3 games with older ones and you'll see.

Like Bioshock 1 vs Infinite, GTA IV vs. V, etc. The jump in quality is obvious, but it's still running with the same hardware.

But the hardware you'll need to play the first Bioshock on PCs is not the same as you'll need to play Infinite.

The question is....Who do you trust? John Carmack or a bunch of Hermits on SW who love to claim consoles are for poor people? Think I am gonna roll with Carmack on this one.

Thank you Sony, for this magic carpet ride.

we above the clouds now.

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

That was a joke. And he never stated they were 2005 hardware, not sure where Ron is wrong.

SambaLele

Wasn't a joke at all.

This topic may be old but I want to reiterate on wasdie's beautiful post that PC's have a lot of bullshit overhead to deal with so they gimp their games to the lowest specs. From the legend Carmack himself. Hermits lining up for a Titan as we speak.

Now this "My PC is better" bullshit can rest, unless you own a Titan.

DrTrafalgarLaw

[QUOTE="GoldenElementXL"]Ok first of all why do all of these Sony fanboys keep saying that people will need a Titan to compete? 600 Series cards will handle the PS4 and X1 with no problem. But really why does that matter? The brand loyalty in this board has become sickening. Maybe one day we can have an intelligent debate in SW again.clyde46

we tried to have that with the system wars debates but there was lack of interest. :(

I just bought 3Dmark on sale.

I'm good to go for few years. :P

I just bought 3Dmark on sale.

I'm good to go for few years. :P

Truth_Hurts_U

You sell ya 690?clyde46

Heck no lol.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/937108

BF4 is running 720p 60fps
and Killzone 1080p 30fps if I recall correctly?

My current PC can probably match that, and it was build years ago.

The creator of Metro LL said the same thing already.

A console is twice as powerful as a pc using the same hardware because of low lvl APIs, no big amount of background processes fighting for resources and single CPU/GPU optimizations.

But that is common sense since more power can be taken from hardware in a closed circuit, nothing new and since modern PCs are more powerful (in hardware specs) than consoles, ends up being something that can never be truly measured.

ManatuBeard