Consoles vs. PC - Comparison

[Trackr]

I'm trying to compare the components on the new consoles with a current PC.

I think this is accurate, but if it's not, feel free to correct me

Explanation:

1.) CPU Power. Both consoles have a custom 8-core "Kabini" Jaguar CPU. The IPC of the 4-core Kabini cores is around 1/2 that of Ivy Bridge. As such, it is equivalent to an i3-3220; 8 x 1.6Ghz x 0.5 = 2 x 3.2Ghz x 1.
2.) GPU Power. Both consoles use the GCN architecture, so the HD 7000-series is the only comparison. Xbox One has 768 ALU's and 68GB/s; HD 7770 has 25% less ALU's, but is clocked 25% higher. PS4 has 1152 ALU's and 176GB/s; HD 7850 has 10% less ALU's, but is clocked 7.5% higher, so it is the closest match. As for the nVidia equivalents.. the steps between each card are in between their AMD equivalent, so I had to add "+x%" so even it out.
3.) Memory Power. This one is tricky. Both consoles use vRAM as both vRAM and RAM. So, on one hand, the 8GB is being pulled on both sides. On the other hand, 176GB/s is very high for RAM. Though, it is most likely extreme-overkill.

 

[JoeUser]

CPU seems like it would just be wrong. I know the IPC isn't very good on any AMD CPU lately...but just speaking my mind it would seem that a 1.6ghz hex-core would be faster than a i3...at least that would be the hope. I obviously don't have anything to back this up however I would imagine that, as a whole, developers would be able to push more out of the hex-core than a dual core i3 even when you consider low level access on the i3.

As far as the GPU goes yes and no. Each APU in the consoles has 256 ALU's + what ever is left = the GPU. Meaning that the main GPU of each console is actual 512 ALU's for the Xbox One (equal to a 7750) and 896 ALU's for the PS4 (equal to a 7790). Now how this will affect performance who knows. It is quite clear that the PS4 is definitely faster in this area than the One. How this will effect actual game quality who knows, depends entirely on what the developers want to do.

RAM is different. The One has 8GB 2133MHz GDDR3 RAM and the PS4, as we all know, has 8GB 5.5GHz of GDDR5. The main difference performance wise is hard to say. One could deduct that the Xbox will have better RAM performance for the CPU where the PS4 will have the better GPU performance for the RAM. However, the 32MB of eSRAM in the One may over all even out the performance. Even then though it only has ~100GB bandwidth, so even when combined with the DDR3's bandwidth it is still slower overall. As far as comparing the power to an actual PC it's nearly impossible. I guess the One could be compared in the likes of APU where the CPU and embedded GPU use the same RAM...but the PS4 would be impossible considering we don't have systems that use DDR5 for the CPU.

Either way it goes, the new consoles are definitely a step up. Considering what games currently look like on current consoles I would say that, although next-gen doesn't even really compete with current mid-high to high end desktops, games will still be pretty amazing over all. Especially considering the seemingly high push for GPU computing for physics.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

The PS4 has 50% more GPU power than the XBO.

Also system memory bandwidth on the XBO is 68GB/sec vs 176 for PS4. The XBO does have a paltry 32MB block with 166GB sec but even that falls short of the PS4's overal bandwidth and it is NOT accessble for the CPU from what I understand.

a PC with a 7870 will do either one in quite easily and the next gen hardware that will be out shortly will just add to that beating the consoles will get in terms of performance.

 

[metallicaband]

I always thought direct comparisons between Consoles and PCs are pretty pointless, fun sure, but they sure don't tell the whole story.

Consoles for example are literally dedicated to gaming (except Xbone I guess lulz) from OS to everything else, game development on consoles are a lot more optimized and efficient than PC gaming, i.e if you took a PC built with ancient parts that are comparable to the 360 or PS3 specs, there's no way it can run the same games as smooth as the consoles do it at the moment.

I am however excited about PC gaming when the next gen consoles arrive for many reasons, such as:

- Graphic updates which happens with every new generation
- Most importantly, since the new consoles finally have an architecture that's similar to PCs, we'll probably see more console exclusives make their way to the PC world AND we might finally be able to see games that can properly utilize the immense power high end gaming PCs have to offer.

 

[acerbic]

Meh, consoles have more serious gamers and people that care about games. PC is largely about showing off your wallet and modding. While I prefer the latter, arguing hardware is silly. People with $$$ game on PC to show off the $$$, people that love games play consoles. Trying to make it more than that is silly.

 

[metallicaband]

I love games and play on both, even though I prefer Consoles because that's what I grew up playing since the Sega days and my favorite games are console exclusives, it's just wrong to generalize a statement like that lol

PC gaming is just a completely different gaming platform that offers different kinds of games that aren't on consoles, there are definitely many true hardcore/serious gamers on the PC and it's not just about the hardware, hell the e-sport scene is a lot bigger on PCs than consoles so of course they're serious about it, on the other hand consoles have casuals that only know a game called CoD that they play every once in a while, I know because some of my real life friends are like that lol.

 

[Trackr]

CPU seems like it would just be wrong.

It's not wrong. All the calculations are in the OP.

Btw, it's an Octo-core, not a Hexa-core.

As far as the GPU goes yes and no. Each APU in the consoles has 256 ALU's + what ever is left = the GPU. Meaning that the main GPU of each console is actual 512 ALU's for the Xbox One (equal to a 7750) and 896 ALU's for the PS4 (equal to a 7790). Now how this will affect performance who knows. It is quite clear that the PS4 is definitely faster in this area than the One. How this will effect actual game quality who knows, depends entirely on what the developers want to do.

That is not true.

The Xbox One has 768 ALU's and the PS4 has 1152 ALU's.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2

RAM is different. The One has 8GB 2133MHz GDDR3 RAM and the PS4, as we all know, has 8GB 5.5GHz of GDDR5. The main difference performance wise is hard to say. One could deduct that the Xbox will have better RAM performance for the CPU where the PS4 will have the better GPU performance for the RAM.

You do realize that 5.5Ghz is higher than 2.1Ghz, right?

As far as comparing the power to an actual PC it's nearly impossible. I guess the One could be compared in the likes of APU where the CPU and embedded GPU use the same RAM...but the PS4 would be impossible considering we don't have systems that use DDR5 for the CPU.

IPC has nothing to do with RAM.

Also, RAM bandwidth over 20GB/s is largely useless, which is why DDR3-1600 is the highest one really needs for gaming.

 

[JoeUser]

It's not wrong. All the calculations are in the OP.

Btw, it's an Octo-core, not a Hexa-core.

Typo. It WAS 5AM...

That is not true.

The Xbox One has 768 ALU's and the PS4 has 1152 ALU's.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2

You sure? Some one in the comments said it and it made more sense considering if that's true it actually matches with real desktop parts.

You do realize that 5.5Ghz is higher than 2.1Ghz, right?

DDR3 has lower latency which is better for the CPU vs. the high ass latency of the DDR5.

IPC has nothing to do with RAM.

Also, RAM bandwidth over 20GB/s is largely useless, which is why DDR3-1600 is the highest one really needs for gaming.

Where did I say anything about IPC and RAM? Unless this wasn't meant for me.

 

[Gorankar]

Meh, consoles have more serious gamers and people that care about games. PC is largely about showing off your wallet and modding. While I prefer the latter, arguing hardware is silly. People with $$$ game on PC to show off the $$$, people that love games play consoles. Trying to make it more than that is silly.

LOL, Saying PC gaming is only about e-peen, when it is really about playing at 1080p, (real 1080p), or higher, at greater than 30fps, game mods, multi monitor support, etc, etc., is just as silly as claiming that console gamers are all casual noobs, too moronic to know any better, or even comprehend the pure awesomeness of the glorious PC gaming master race.

 

[J Macker]

Meh, consoles have more serious gamers and people that care about games. PC is largely about showing off your wallet and modding. While I prefer the latter, arguing hardware is silly. People with $$$ game on PC to show off the $$$, people that love games play consoles. Trying to make it more than that is silly.

are you trying to troll?
"consoles have more serious gamers and people that care about games" ??

Really?
I'd say that competitive gaming is pretty damn serious.
Wow Addicts? that's pretty serious. I'd say all those WoW addicts "cared about games" way more than CoD players on the 360.
And let's not forget League of Legends.

Let's see, just to name a few competitive games;
SC1, SC2, LoL, Counterstrike, BF3

making troll statements like you made is silly.

 

[BladeVenom]

DDR3 has lower latency which is better for the CPU vs. the high ass latency of the DDR5.

But DDR3 is a horrible bottleneck for graphics, where speed is far more important than latency.

The PS4 with a 50% better GPU and more than twice the memory bandwidth is going to destroy the Xbox One when it comes to graphics speed.

 

[bigdogchris]

Also, RAM bandwidth over 20GB/s is largely useless, which is why DDR3-1600 is the highest one really needs for gaming.

The PS4 and XBOX one use unified memory so both GPU and CPU share the same pool, just like current AMD APU's do. So yes, while the CPU, whether in a console or PC, won't benefit much from the higher memory bandwidth, the GPU will absolutely benefit. Just look at benchmarks for DDR3 vs GDDR5 GPU's, or look at APU benchmarks where they compare memory speeds. Faster graphics memory = more fps.

Also, for your chart, using Intel CPU's really isn't a comparison since One and PS4 use AMD chips, plus the ones you listed are not 8 core.. The closest would be a Bobcat chip but they don't have enough cores. Jaguar chips (in PS4 and One) are the successor to Bobcat, but will be 8 core. For the sake of this comparison, use Bulldozer chip down clocked to 1.6 GHZ. That's the closest you can get because it's the same technology, just the consoles get the mobile/energy efficient version.

 

[defaultluser]

Also, for your chart, using Intel CPU's really isn't a comparison since One and PS4 use AMD chips. The closest would be a Bobcat chip but they don't have enough cores, also the chips you listed are not 8 core chips. Jaguar chips (in PS4 and One) are the successor to Bobcat, but will be 8 core. For the sake of this comparison, use Bulldozer chip down clocked to 1.6 GHZ. That's the closest you can get.

I'd say it's a good comparison.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6974/amd-kabini-review/5

That's a quad-core Jaguar at 1.5 GHz versus a Core i5-3337U in the XPS 12. In tests that heavily-stress all 4 threads (Cinebench, x264 pass two), the 1.8 GHz 2C/4T Core i5 is almost twice as fast

But that core is likely turboing beyond the base 1.8 GHz. I believe this only because the real Core i3 at the same clock speed does a bit worse in the same benchmarks:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/kabini-a4-5000-review,3518-6.html

Here we get about a 60% performance advantage in Cinebench for the 1.8 GHz Core i3. This means the Core i3 3220 will still be somewhat faster (about 40-50%) in loads that scale across 8 Jaguar cores, and will be blindingly-fast at single-threaded loads.

 

[Trackr]

So yes, while the CPU, whether in a console or PC, won't benefit much from the higher memory bandwidth, the GPU will absolutely benefit. Just look at benchmarks for DDR3 vs GDDR5 GPU's, or look at APU benchmarks where they compare memory speeds. Faster graphics memory = more fps.

Yes, and the Cow goes Moo.

I believe I already said that, just using slightly different words.

Also, for your chart, using Intel CPU's really isn't a comparison since One and PS4 use AMD chips, plus the ones you listed are not 8 core.

/facepalm

I'm just going to let this guy explain..

I'd say it's a good comparison.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6974/amd-kabini-review/5

That's a quad-core Jaguar at 1.5 GHz versus a Core i5-3337U in the XPS 12. In tests that heavily-stress all 4 threads (Cinebench, x264 pass two), the 1.8 GHz 2C/4T Core i5 is almost twice as fast

But that core is likely turboing beyond the base 1.8 GHz. I believe this only because the real Core i3 at the same clock speed does a bit worse in the same benchmarks:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/kabini-a4-5000-review,3518-6.html

Here we get about a 60% performance advantage in Cinebench for the 1.8 GHz Core i3. This means the Core i3 3220 will still be somewhat faster (about 40-50%) in loads that scale across 8 Jaguar cores, and will be blindingly-fast at single-threaded loads.

Thank you, default.

 

[defaultluser]

Thank you, default.

But your GPU comparisons are a little off on the AMD side. Since borth cores use GCN, you should compare with 7000-series.

One = 768 GCN shaders, probably clocked at less than 1GHz (to reduced power). Closest comparison is the HD 7770. This also matches the main memory bandwidth of the One pretty closely.

The PS4 is the exact same hardware specs as the HD 7850, so I'm surprised you did not use that in your chart.

I'm also having trouble seeing how ther HD 6870 = 157%, and the HD 6870 = 213%. Fix your typos

 

[Haiku214]

Meh, consoles have more serious gamers and people that care about games. PC is largely about showing off your wallet and modding. While I prefer the latter, arguing hardware is silly. People with $$$ game on PC to show off the $$$, people that love games play consoles. Trying to make it more than that is silly.

I don't think that consoles have more serious gamers than PC. It's just that console gamers can focus more on their games and not the hardware because there is nothing to tinker about. It is true however that a lot of PC enthusiasts have very powerful PCs but hardly game. They just like the feeling of having a fast machine and maybe show off.

 

[JoeUser]

But your GPU comparisons are a little off on the AMD side. Since borth cores use GCN, you should compare with 7000-series.

One = 768 GCN shaders, probably clocked at less than 1GHz (to reduced power). Closest comparison is the HD 7770. This also matches the main memory bandwidth of the One pretty closely.

The PS4 is the exact same hardware specs as the HD 7850, so I'm surprised you did not use that in your chart.

I'm also having trouble seeing how ther HD 6870 = 157%, and the HD 6870 = 213%. Fix your typos

Both GPU's are running at 800MHz.

 

[Trackr]

But your GPU comparisons are a little off on the AMD side. Since borth cores use GCN, you should compare with 7000-series.

One = 768 GCN shaders, probably clocked at less than 1GHz (to reduced power). Closest comparison is the HD 7770. This also matches the main memory bandwidth of the One pretty closely.

The PS4 is the exact same hardware specs as the HD 7850, so I'm surprised you did not use that in your chart.

I'm also having trouble seeing how ther HD 6870 = 157%, and the HD 6870 = 213%. Fix your typos

You're right on all counts.

HD 7770 has 25% less ALU's than in the Xbox One, but is clocked 25% higher. It's an exact match.

HD 7850 has 10% less ALU's than in the PS4, but is clocked 7.5% higher, so it's the closest match.

Thanks again, default

Btw, do you know how to embed a spreadsheet into this post? It's much easier than taking a screenshot and uploading the image..

 

[metallicaband]

I always thought direct comparisons between Consoles and PCs are pretty pointless, fun sure, but they sure don't tell the whole story.

Consoles for example are literally dedicated to gaming (except Xbone I guess lulz) from OS to everything else, game development on consoles are a lot more optimized and efficient than PC gaming, i.e if you took a PC built with ancient parts that are comparable to the 360 or PS3 specs, there's no way it can run the same games as smooth as the consoles do it at the moment.

I might not be a pro, but here's a professional developer's take on it (4A's chief technical officer Oles Shishkovstov, the guys who create the Metro games):

"Oles Shishkovstov: No, you just cannot compare consoles to PC directly. Consoles could do at least 2x what a comparable PC can due to the fixed platform and low-level access to hardware. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-inside-metro-last-light

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I might not be a pro, but here's a professional developer's take on it (4A's chief technical officer Oles Shishkovstov, the guys who create the Metro games):

"Oles Shishkovstov: No, you just cannot compare consoles to PC directly. Consoles could do at least 2x what a comparable PC can due to the fixed platform and low-level access to hardware. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-inside-metro-last-light

that guy you is flat out wrong.....

 

[ShuttleLuv]

I see it as a closed system, to the metal, Kabini/Jaguar with a Geforce GTX 660 Ti thats about what you're getting. And yes I know it's AMD though. Just a point... Don't let the hype fool you, the memory bandwidth is good but it doesn't mean much for real world, check any memory app lately in pc land. Couple this with the fact that you're sharing between different subsystems of the overall memory, it's not the amazing machine everyone thinks. Consoles are overhyped and have been doa imo since Dreamcast and PS2. Basically spiffed up mini pc's with console exclusive developers. Imagine if all the console exclusives went pc only?

 

[metallicaband]

that guy you is flat out wrong.....

I'll take the risk of taking his word over yours!

 

[socK]

I might not be a pro, but here's a professional developer's take on it (4A's chief technical officer Oles Shishkovstov, the guys who create the Metro games):

"Oles Shishkovstov: No, you just cannot compare consoles to PC directly. Consoles could do at least 2x what a comparable PC can due to the fixed platform and low-level access to hardware. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-inside-metro-last-light

Professional dev or not, that's a stupid (and potentially bullshit) claim.

 

[Trackr]

I might not be a pro, but here's a professional developer's take on it (4A's chief technical officer Oles Shishkovstov, the guys who create the Metro games):

"Oles Shishkovstov: No, you just cannot compare consoles to PC directly. Consoles could do at least 2x what a comparable PC can due to the fixed platform and low-level access to hardware. "

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-inside-metro-last-light

So.. you're saying I should double all of the specs?

 

[metallicaband]

I'm not saying that, just like I said before, DIRECT PC > Console comparison is pointless.

Think about it with some common sense, why does a 360 or PS3 console, that use ancient specs run things a lot better than using similar hardware on the PC?

 

[Mut1ny]

heres what i envision the PS4 APU to be:

Add a little on die crossfire action and bingo.

or this this just not plausible

 

[Trackr]

I'm not saying that, just like I said before, DIRECT PC > Console comparison is pointless.

Think about it with some common sense, why does a 360 or PS3 console, that use ancient specs run things a lot better than using similar hardware on the PC?

Who says it does?

It runs games at 720p with what is the equivalent of Low graphical presets.

I remember back when the Xbox 360 launched, it could render Oblivion at about the same graphical setting as a High-End PC.

 

[Trackr]

heres what i envision the PS4 APU to be:

Add a little on die crossfire action and bingo.

or this this just not plausible

No offense, but if you read the OP you'd know that you're wrong (but close).

The HD 7850 and HD 7790 have roughly the same shader prowess.

However, the HD 7790's memory bandwidth is roughly 1/2 that of the PS3.

Which is why the HD 7850 is the right call, not the HD 7790.

 

[JoeUser]

No offense, but if you read the OP you'd know that you're wrong (but close).

The HD 7850 and HD 7790 have roughly the same shader prowess.

However, the HD 7790's memory bandwidth is roughly 1/2 that of the PS3.

Which is why the HD 7850 is the right call, not the HD 7790.

Maybe you're wrong?

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1039912598#post1039912598

Dual Kabini APU's = Eight Jaguar CPU cores and dual 128 GPU core clusters (256 total).

1152 confirmed cores minus 256 APU cores = 896 GPU cores i.e. 7790 desktop GPU.

This would conicide with my post on the first page and makes much more sense with what Sony said about the PS4 having a separate section to do physics (128 cores would not be able to do nearly as much as 256, if much at all).

As far as bandwidth is concerned the memory architecture I have no doubt is custom...but Mut1ny is spot on with what I predict. Simply off the shelf parts consisting of dual Kabini APU's and a 7790 GPU (in the PS4's case).

Edit: Also, the 7850 that was rumored to be in the PS4 dev kit makes sense considering they most likely weren't using Kabini APU's...so the cores for the GPU computing had to come from somewhere. So why not a 7850 that you could use 256 cores on for computing and rest for graphics. In other words, if they didn't use some kind of GPU cores for computing then how did they develop for them with the dev kits? The 7850's found in the dev kits weren't meant STRICTLY for graphics...

 

[metallicaband]

Who says it does?

It runs games at 720p with what is the equivalent of Low graphical presets.

I remember back when the Xbox 360 launched, it could render Oblivion at about the same graphical setting as a High-End PC.

So a PC equipped with Nvidia 7800 today will run stuff with the quality of MGS4 or Uncharted games?

lol whatever you say dude.

 

[Trackr]

Maybe you're wrong?

I don't mind being wrong.

Once we get confirmation that the on-chip GPUs are only used for PhysX, I'll add a "PhysX" column and re-calculate the GPU based only on the separate GPU used in either console.

So a PC equipped with Nvidia 7800 today will run stuff with the quality of MGS4 or Uncharted games?

I was referring to the Xbox 360.

 

[biggles]

I read an article that says a console can run double the performance of a PC equivalent. So, predicting gtx 780 performance out of PS4, which runs basically 7850 gpu.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1763871

 

[Trackr]

I read an article that says a console can run double the performance of a PC equivalent. So, predicting gtx 780 performance out of PS4, which runs basically 7850 gpu.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1763871

Estimating something as "double" isn't very scientific.

 

[metallicaband]

But the thing is, it's not an apples to apples comparison, they're 2 different platforms, a PC isn't dedicated to gaming where the console is, so an "estimate" wouldn't be so wrong here.

It's not necessary when he says that it means that a console runs everything 200% better than the PC equivalent, the point is it Does run better/more efficient on the console because they're programmed differently, I don't know why that's so hard to understand, it's pretty obvious when looking at what these consoles are capable of these days which such old tech.

Also @ biggles, that's the article I posted in this thread and talking about lol

 

[Trackr]

But the thing is, it's not an apples to apples comparison, they're 2 different platforms, a PC isn't dedicated to gaming where the console is, so an "estimate" wouldn't be so wrong here.

It's not necessary when he says that it means that a console runs everything 200% better than the PC equivalent, the point is it Does run better/more efficient on the console because they're programmed differently, I don't know why that's so hard to understand, it's pretty obvious when looking at what these consoles are capable of these days which such old tech.

Also @ biggles, that's the article I posted in this thread and talking about lol

I'm not disagreeing with you. Obviously consoles are more efficient gaming machines.

But to input this data into my graph, it would have to be more precise than "double."

 

[next-Jin]

I'd like to see a dev studio have a baseline PC system:

Windows 8
Intel 3770
Intel Z77 Motherboard
Intel SSD
8GB Ram
GTX 780 (with one specific driver in mind)
1080P monitor

Then design a game specifically around that setup with no care in the world for anyone else.

I wonder what would be possible if they had that as their baseline with a goal of 60fps @ 1080P

 

[biggles]

But the thing is, it's not an apples to apples comparison, they're 2 different platforms, a PC isn't dedicated to gaming where the console is, so an "estimate" wouldn't be so wrong here.

It's not necessary when he says that it means that a console runs everything 200% better than the PC equivalent, the point is it Does run better/more efficient on the console because they're programmed differently, I don't know why that's so hard to understand, it's pretty obvious when looking at what these consoles are capable of these days which such old tech.

Also @ biggles, that's the article I posted in this thread and talking about lol

Sorry about that, I realized after posting that I was repeating your link. I should have read the prior posts in this thread first.

Anyway, I find this kind of conversation useful for a few reasons. First, trying to figure out if games on a mid-range system like mine (Radeon 7870) can compare to games on the new consoles. Going back to 2005 I recall having a 7900 gt and it could not run Oblivion as well as the Xbox 360 could.

Also, I am curious how the change in architecture for the consoles will make pc games run better/more efficiently. One of the frustrations of PC games is seeing games not run well due to poor coding. On the flip side, I love it when developers optimize their pc games. Codemasters comes to mind, the Dirt series and Grid ran great on my PC and looked terrific.

 

[metallicaband]

Sorry about that, I realized after posting that I was repeating your link. I should have read the prior posts in this thread first.

Anyway, I find this kind of conversation useful for a few reasons. First, trying to figure out if games on a mid-range system like mine (Radeon 7870) can compare to games on the new consoles. Going back to 2005 I recall having a 7900 gt and it could not run Oblivion as well as the Xbox 360 could.

Also, I am curious how the change in architecture for the consoles will make pc games run better/more efficiently. One of the frustrations of PC games is seeing games not run well due to poor coding. On the flip side, I love it when developers optimize their pc games. Codemasters comes to mind, the Dirt series and Grid ran great on my PC and looked terrific.

Nah it's fine man I post stuff in threads without reading a thing all the time lol

I personally am very excited for PC gaming when the next gen consoles are released, I'm very optimistic about developers finally unlocking the power gaming PCs have to offer considering porting games won't be such a hassle anymore with the consoles finally having a similar architecture to PC development. I hope they'll use any time they were able to save in fine tuning those games to the higher specs PCs offer.

An example for poor efficiency is Skyrim, on my old i7 930/6970 build I still had performance issues because the game was programmed for 2 cores, even though my PC was OC'd to 4Ghz it still wasn't enough and it pissed the hell out of me that there were 2 extra cores sitting there doing nothing. These are the scenarios that I hope won't be repeated for Console > PC games anymore.

Gaming PC + PS4 sounds like will deliver some great years for gamers.

 

[Stereophile]

Who says it does?

John Carmack.




This debate is stupid. There is no question consoles are more efficient with their hw than PC. I could find dozens of similar quotes from other developers stating this fact. I've never seen it disputed by someone with gravitas. Just nobodies who think because they can assemble a PC from Newegg, they're qualified to critique those with the direct knowledge and experience, having actually ported their game engines between consoles and PC.

 

[FalconLX]

Next gen.. Rumor $60-$70 no used games
PC steam sale $19-$40
Android Free-$6

Keep your next gen. too rich for me