PS4 Will Out-Power Most PCs For Years To Come

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why are most of you failing to see that the 8 gigs is used by both the CPU and GPU? So you get 8 gigs of SHARED ram which means that you aren't getting 8 for buth CPU AND GPU because the system has to split the load over 8 gig total unlike a PC which has separate ram for both system and Video. No would someone who knew what they are doing use GDDR5 ram as system ram in their PC because the latecy for that type of RAM is a lot higher than DDR3 dimms. Yes technically it is a better system than a manufactured PC because most PCs are meant for consumers to use for the internet and some basic applications. I mean if we compare the PS3 and the Xbox360 to computers of their time (manufactured PCs) they probably would have out performed them then as well. He's speaking is relative terms, so its half true according to his verbage. Its like political propaganda half of what they say is true but its taken out of context because they only say to hear what they want you to hear, its not the full story.
 
F.E.A.R. said:
I know this is all rumor, but to what will the PS4 be comparable to (PC that is)? cpu, ram, gpu?
Click to expand...

In the most basic terms, this ps4 has roughly 1.76 teraflops of computational power. Roughly the performance of an HD7850.

The more exciting part, however, will be the fact that its based on X86 architecture (like all pc's out there) as opposed to the old PCpower (i think) architecture of other generations that made it not scale very well with X86 stuff and made it a pain to code. Therefore, we should see much better scaling and crossovers from the consoles to the PC in the upcoming generation.

Secondly - multiple cores. This makes it so that developers are forced to think and code with multiple cores in mind - which brings even more scaling to the quad and six-core CPU's that are used today.
 
Define "most".

Most desktop PC's, sure. Most of those are i3 or AMD equivalent with no more than 4GB of RAM and a 500GB HDD.

Enthusiast PC's? Gamer PC's? Hell fucking no.
 
TheGamerZ said:
While it won't out power the majority of computers here at [H], we are still a very small sample size of the general population.

You'd be amazed how many families are still running systems that we at [H] wouldn't give to our worst enemies.

For example, my father JUST discovered multi-core CPU's and thinks he's on top of the world. My grandfather is using an Mac G3, still.
Click to expand...

Granted--no quarrel with what you are saying. But, the total gaming market consists of two essential groups: people who buy lots of games and the people who buy games on a casual basis, or very rarely, or for whom cell-phone games suffice...;) The first group cares about its hardware because they know from experience that nothing pushes their hardware like games; the second group only cares about having enough hardware to browse and email.

Considering the number of companies in business to offer high-performance computer hardware of all kinds, it's easy to extrapolate that there are several million people, probably tens of millions, in the first group--else all of these companies would not be offering high-performance hardware because they couldn't sell enough of it to stay afloat. It's not just AMD/ATi--take a look at nVidia's revenues, too. Lots of companies make decent profits selling high-performance computer hardware--it's a big and profitable market--even *if* "Dad" and "Uncle Ned" are not aware of it...;)
 
The key word is "most". Us enthusiasts are a minority in the market. A profitable minority, but we are still not "most"...

Loaded statement; sure. Technically wrong, nope.
 
MikeTrike said:
Flame on!

tumblrm5x1abeO9P1rqrf25o1500.gif


I mean seriously, a console is a console. It has reasonable specs at launch and is immediately overshadowed by PC in terms of performance. Actually in this case, it's already way behind PC, by release it should be roughly two years behind PC tech.

That's not a bad thing, it's a damn console. Go plug it into your TV, pay more for games and get screwed on countless other things. However it's convenient, and big companies are happy to capitalize on that.

I really hope Steam boxes catch on, bringing power back to users. I mean why the fuck wouldn't I want my Steam library on my desktop and in my living room? I know most users don't give a rats ass and just want to pay to make their troubles go away. But that serves two things only, a lust for instant gratification and giving big companies more power with your money.

Some may cite exclusives, however I would say that exclusives have not provided enough entertainment to justify the consoles I've purchased. I hardly use them at all, I probably won't be grabbing next gens. I did grab the Wii U, but that's a great drinking console. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, if Steam boxes will be on par with the Xi3 Piston ($1k, worse specs and less AAA games), then they won't stand a chance against consoles.
 
I'm trying to keep my phallus jokes to my self.... I'm the most powerful man in the world!

Sure, this guy has a point. The majority of PC's out there are simple productive type of PC's, not gaming PC's. 8GB of RAM is still a high end PC when it comes to the consumer market. Once you get into gaming/enthusiast/workstation stuff, 8GB is on the low end. Hell, my kids PC's are running 8GB right now (I'm at 16 for one and 32 for the other).

But, RAM amount really doesn't equal higher performance necessarily. If that's the weakest point of the system, that's great. It will be a nice system. But, it's just one part of the machine. We'll see how the rest of it performs. Hopefully, soon.
 
Phishy714 said:
In the most basic terms, this ps4 has roughly 1.76 teraflops of computational power. Roughly the performance of an HD7850.
Click to expand...

Be careful of unverifiable benchmark numbers thrown around...remember that the ram on a 7850 is dedicated, not shared. In addition, local 7850 bus sizes and speeds may differ from PS4 as well. All are very important considerations in terms of performance.

The more exciting part, however, will be the fact that its based on X86 architecture (like all pc's out there) as opposed to the old PCpower (i think) architecture of other generations that made it not scale very well with X86 stuff and made it a pain to code. Therefore, we should see much better scaling and crossovers from the consoles to the PC in the upcoming generation.
Click to expand...

Yep, going with AMD x86 is a smart move.

PS3 is cell, isn't it? Sony kind of bet on cell becoming much more prevalent--and lost the bet. Reportedly, the PS3 cell architecture is a bear to program, and as such, Sony's tools for developers are nowhere near as robust as Microsoft's for the 360.

Secondly - multiple cores. This makes it so that developers are forced to think and code with multiple cores in mind - which brings even more scaling to the quad and six-core CPU's that are used today.
Click to expand...

Multiple cores have been around in the x86 space for years, and of course the xBox360 is multiple core (3 cores). Nothing new here--but it will be nice to see some developers dragged kicking and screaming into multicore programming, though. Anything which broadens the horizons of game developers is always welcome in my book.
 
If the PS1, PS2, and PS3 couldn't match PCs available even at its launch, yet alone bargain basement machines towards the end of its life, how could anyone say something like that about the PS4 with a straight face... LOL! :D
 
Ducman69 said:
If the PS1, PS2, and PS3 couldn't match PCs available even at its launch, yet alone bargain basement machines towards the end of its life, how could anyone say something like that about the PS4 with a straight face... LOL! :D
Click to expand...

because he didn't say that :rolleyes:
 
@Phishy714

I forgot that I can't edit the news posts--I meant to give you this link that might be helpful to your general understanding of where multicore programming is in advance of the PS4.
 
face2palm said:
I still don't get how having more RAM makes it more powerful than most everyday computers.
You can throw in 128GB of RAM and that will mean fuck all.
Click to expand...

My guess is that most PCs have got less than 8GB of RAM, so having 8GB of RAM would make it a more powerful gaming machine.
 
Phishy714 said:
And here I thought playing games regularly made you a gamer....
Click to expand...

Not at all. Having a Pentium 4 just makes you someone who plays game on Facebook, just like having a 1998 chevy to drive at 50 in a 30mph zone doesn't make you racer.
 
I like the idea of this unified CPU/GPU DDR5 memory. I think that it will make a better all round gaming machine.
 
Um, he's right. He's not saying the PS4 is going to be better than SLI titans. He says it will be better than most PCs. Hell, it will be better than most gaming PCs. According to the steam hw survey, most computers have 1GB of VRam and 50% are using a DX10 GPU and worse.
 
oMG So stupid I mean is he thinking of the Steam Suvey or Just a generalisation of what HE thinks PCs are as of today? Stupid Comment.
 
He is entirely correct... it will outperform "most" computers, and you can't even say oh well not most gamer computers, most of the people I know who are gaming, and gaming heavily on PC are still using machines 3-4 years old. Some gamers are perfectly happy and fine with 20fps @ 1024x768.... we who expect 200fps in the latest game engine, are not the norm.
 
bigdogchris said:
Knowing that every single PS4 has 8GB of GDDR5 memory is something that not every single PC has. There is an advantage there.
Click to expand...
It's an advantage, but not as significant as some might believe. Developers have been squeezing great looking games into a sub-512MB footprint for years now, and they've gotten exceedingly good at it. A typical, capable gaming PC today is going to have no less than 3GB of RAM and no less than 1GB of VRAM, and that gives developers significant breathing room. They still need to sweat a bit over resource constraints, but that's mostly a solved problem, and it's one that doesn't significantly affect users. Modern GPUs and APIs shuffle data in and out of memory well, and modern game engines rarely ever suck up as much memory as they have access to.

Giving developers an 8GB playground is going to make their lives easier, but it's not going to be a huge win in any other way. They're still going to be hampered by what is a relatively anemic GPU.
 
Normally I would say this the dumbest thing said. But if you compare it to the steam surveys it holds a little water.

The reality is most PCs aren't at the level most of us on this forum use.
 
I happen to agree that the Steam survey would certainly support what Sony said, currently. I know my PC specs are seriously under the PS4 specs, and I game every day.

I think the audience for this article is what's causing the problem. Posted on [H], a lot of people here (most?) take their computers very seriously and demand up to date everything. This is not true for the rest of the world. Again, the Steam Survey supports me on this point. As do my own experiences.

I think , though, that most people don't spend thousands of bucks on computer parts. I know this because I fix them for people. And some of them have games installed on them. At one point in my life, I did spend thousands. I have computer parts filling up closets still. However, I really do not need up to date hardware to play any game out there that I've seen and want to play. I play MMOs, FPS, city building, open world games, too. I don't have problems. Am I playing on max settings? No, and I don't feel the need to.

There's a type of person in the MMOs that I play called a Min/Maxer. If you've played, you know what that means (it's kinda obvious anyway). I've a feeling that many of the people here are min/maxers. When for normal gamers, there's no reason to be. They just wanna play.

Oh, just a note, I don't own a console, don't recommend them and don't think I'll ever use one. That may change if the console can do all the same things my PC can do, but I don't see that happening any time soon. I've been using computers since the early 80s.
 
Phishy714 said:
There is nothing to be misquoted about. He is absolutely correct.

My parents, my brother's family, my sister's family and even a computer in my living room have old pentium processors with 2-4gb worth of DDR2. I would venture to say that MOST CASUAL people have something similar and don't need all the horsepower that my 680's can offer. Hell even casual gamers (cause that's honestly all the xbox and playstation are - for casual gaming) probably don't even have a dedicated GPU in their systems, so this statement is absolutely correct.
Click to expand...

So when you are discussing consoles vs PCs do we include all the old as shit consoles that are still being used? No we don't we count essentially what is being sold in stores now. The day the PS4 launches intel will already have more powerful CPUs in desktops in the same stores.
 
rudy said:
So when you are discussing consoles vs PCs do we include all the old as shit consoles that are still being used? No we don't we count essentially what is being sold in stores now. The day the PS4 launches intel will already have more powerful CPUs in desktops in the same stores.
Click to expand...

You don't see games released for the old as shit consoles, so why would they be included? It has nothing to do with what's sold in stores, it's what people are gaming on. Doesn't matter if Intel releases something 10000x more powerful then the PS4, since only we 1% of die hard elitist gamers will be using it.
 
LordCalin said:
You don't see games released for the old as shit consoles, so why would they be included?
Click to expand...
You don't really see mainstream games released for the outdated PCs either. We're aren't talking about 2D indie like we aren't talking about 2D PSN titles, but the games coming out now that are more and more demanding even on the lower end of the spectrum, which they are barely playable on but still make the effort to cater to. There is a difference between that a game CAN run on and what a game is MADE to run on. The PS3 would probably be powerful enough a console to "run" quite a bit of the early PS4 games, especially if they started putting downgrading options to cater to the whiners

You can only cram so much power in a $500 machine.
 
If he compared console hardware vs home PC hardware, it's like comparing apples vs oranges.
But, if he is comparing console gamers hardware vs PC gamers hardware, he is reasoning outside the toilet.
 
Phishy714 said:
In the most basic terms, this ps4 has roughly 1.76 teraflops of computational power. Roughly the performance of an HD7850.

The more exciting part, however, will be the fact that its based on X86 architecture (like all pc's out there) as opposed to the old PCpower (i think) architecture of other generations that made it not scale very well with X86 stuff and made it a pain to code. Therefore, we should see much better scaling and crossovers from the consoles to the PC in the upcoming generation.

Secondly - multiple cores. This makes it so that developers are forced to think and code with multiple cores in mind - which brings even more scaling to the quad and six-core CPU's that are used today.
Click to expand...

I like this potential win. Hopefully, it'll cut down on all the retards screaming about consolization every time some game doesn't meet their expectations.

I think the issue that some people have here is that when marketing a loaded statement like that to the console crowd, it'll cause a lot of misinformation to be born from their understanding of that statement. We all are aware of the technical veracity consoles tend to lack and they'll take a statement like this and just run with it. Sony fanboys will only hear what they want to hear. "8gb of ram! Its more powerful than any pc out right now!"

So when we, as enthusiasts challenge this statement, it's because it feels like they are borderline trying to mislead people. Sorta like Apple commercials...
 
Most PC games don't use 8GB of RAM. If someone were to code directly to use a full 8GB of RAM it may indeed 'outpower' the same game on PC. If we assume the GPU is equivalent to a 7000 series AMD and the game that's coded to it makes full use of it as a baseline then yea, it could be better on PS4. Most people that come to the [-] do have a bangin' system but the general PC gaming community may not have higher specs than the current gen AMD card + 8GB RAM. That said... PC gamer 4 life yo!!!
 
With that much power, there better be legacy support for games. I mean they should be able to virtualize the old systems environment completely, no?
 
PCs, including the old, laptops, pre-built "gaming" PCs with a 640... hopefully the PS4 is better than the bottom 4 quintiles! It won't be too cheap.

Someone who finds the best performance/dollar and assembles a PC will beat it, of course.
 
Really my personal computer has 24GB ram with a i7 970 core cpu and a gtx 680 and the ps3 is going to out power it I wonder what they have been smoking?
 
LordCalin said:
You don't see games released for the old as shit consoles, so why would they be included? It has nothing to do with what's sold in stores, it's what people are gaming on. Doesn't matter if Intel releases something 10000x more powerful then the PS4, since only we 1% of die hard elitist gamers will be using it.
Click to expand...

lol games aren't released for old as shit computers either they usually list min specs. AMDs CPUs that are going in consoles are mid grade CPUs that are going to be main stream and unless AMD pulls off a major upset intel is going to meet or beat them at a similar price point right off the bat.
 
defunctdoormat said:
I happen to agree that the Steam survey would certainly support what Sony said, currently. I know my PC specs are seriously under the PS4 specs, and I game every day.
Click to expand...
The problem with using Steam surveys to gauge where things are is that it doesn't take into account what kinds of games those users are running. For the types of games developers will be targeting for the PS4 — fairly high-end, AA or AAA titles — the PC gamers who also plays those kinds of games is going to have significantly better hardware than the 'average' Steam user.

People on the lowest end of the hardware spectrum are not, by and large, playing FarCry 3, Battlefield 3, Arma 3, Witcher 2, etc., etc. They're generally playing older and less-demanding titles. There are exceptions, and some people are going to play this stuff on the lowest settings with the most anemic of hardware, but the people playing the highest-end AAA games aren't generally doing so on Intel HD graphics.
 
I think one thing people overlook with the Steam gaming survey is that it includes essentially all PCs attached to Steam, including peoples secondary devices. For instance I have a pretty old gaming laptop at home that is on Steam, as well as a work laptop. Neither of these machines is an adequate gaming device by todays standards, but they are still on Steam. So even though I have a powerful gaming PC I am still skewing the apparent results towards the lower end on average, as I would guess is the case for most enthusiasts who still have olders PCs in the Steam database.

What I am getting at is that the average GAMING PC owned by Gamers is probably 10-20% better than the Steam averages would indicate, and that probably 20-40% of the bottom half of PCs listed on the Steam survey are not really used as primary gaming devices by their owners. So the real level of the average gaming PC (the ones that in are built to in any way compete with Consoles) is a lot better than you might think.
 
I think 8GB is forward looking. They could have shipped with 4GB easily. Obviously this is just one metric for total performance, but clearly he meant the average PC isn't going to have 8GB for a while, though overstated the situation.
 
dualxeon64 said:
Really my personal computer has 24GB ram with a i7 970 core cpu and a gtx 680 and the ps3 is going to out power it I wonder what they have been smoking?
Click to expand...

That is because you have most PCs, plus you are only comparing with a PS3.:confused:
 
Being as most PC's are cookie-cutter bottom of the barrel OEM units, duh. I would hope that this new console would outperform them.

But, for 99% of systems used by the [H]orde, no fucking way, Sony.
 
F.E.A.R. said:
I know this is all rumor, but to what will the PS4 be comparable to (PC that is)? cpu, ram, gpu?
Click to expand...

It'll be hard to compare to it, since the CPU itself doesn't exist. No Jaguar based AMD chips are out yet. The nearest thing to it's specs are...

AMD FX 8150

Radeon 7770

But to be honest this setup maybe more powerful then what the PS4 will be, but could be less. We have no idea how the Jaguar cores will perform. Good bet that graphics won't be as good, cause of memory bandwidth sharing.

DW-UK said:
My guess is that most PCs have got less than 8GB of RAM, so having 8GB of RAM would make it a more powerful gaming machine.
Click to expand...
Yes but 8GB of shared memory. That means it isn't 8GB, cause some of it is used for graphics. If your PC has 8GB, but your graphic card has 1GB, then you kinda do have 9GB. Plus the CPU doesn't have to share with the GPU, in terms of bandwidth.

qbanb8582 said:
Normally I would say this the dumbest thing said. But if you compare it to the steam surveys it holds a little water.

The reality is most PCs aren't at the level most of us on this forum use.
Click to expand...
Most people have had little reason to. A computer from 5 years ago is just fine for playing today's. It may not be at highest quality settings, or even a steady 30 fps, but it's playable for most people.

Quake made people dump their 486 100 Mhz chips for Pentiums. Quake 3 made everyone get graphic cards, like Voodoo and TNT's. Doom 3 even made people get DX8 capable graphic cards as well. When ID demo'd it on a Mac, it made people run to the store and buy new graphic cards.

If there's a game that comes out on PC, then people will buy the hardware, and the prices will drop for it.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Ashbringer said:
It'll be hard to compare to it, since the CPU itself doesn't exist. No Jaguar based AMD chips are out yet. The nearest thing to it's specs are...

But to be honest this setup maybe more powerful then what the PS4 will be, but could be less. We have no idea how the Jaguar cores will perform. Good bet that graphics won't be as good, cause of memory bandwidth sharing.

Yes but 8GB of shared memory. That means it isn't 8GB, cause some of it is used for graphics. If your PC has 8GB, but your graphic card has 1GB, then you kinda do have 9GB. Plus the CPU doesn't have to share with the GPU, in terms of bandwidth.

.
Click to expand...

I would have thought that Jaguar based AMD chips exist right now.

Graphics data will need be stored in the CPU memory, as well. With separate GPU memory, data will have to be copied across, to it, from the CPU memory. This wastes as significant amount of time, and potentially block both memory banks for the duration. That 1GB will be effectively a lot less.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top