Directly comparing console hardware with PC hardware

H

Heckler456

n00b
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
10
Hey guys. So, I have a difficult time conveying to people why you can't exactly compare console hardware to PC hardware. Is anyone able to explain to me with concrete and knowledgeable examples why this is? I've had people literally compare an APU of a laptop to the APU in the ps4, and it's starting to irritate me. Or perhaps I'm wrong. Either way, I'd love for someone to for once and for all clear up this matter for me, if anyone is able.
 
The APU in a laptop is not all that different from an APU in the PS4 or Xbox One. However the difference is that the APU in the Xbox One and PS4 are super charged (the PS4 being even more so than the Xbox One). But they fundamentally are not very different from a laptop APU. An APU is a CPU + GPU on the same die. Its often considered a mobile chip because its a very effective way to handle lowering the power envelope and still having enough horsepower to actually get the job done.

The biggest difference between the PS4 and Xbox One is probably the memory types. Xbox One has GDDR3 (with 32MB's of SRAM on the die , just like the 360 had) and the PS4 has GDDR5. The Xbox One clock speed on the memory is faster but the PS4 uses a newer RAM type that pumps out more throughput (bandwidth). Also the Xbox One has to dedicate a core cycle to the Kinect to power its functions which leaves it at a disadvantage compared to the PS4 which has no such overhead to deal with. This will change in the future as Microsoft improves its SDK and unlocks that extra 10 percent of core cycling for developers to use.

So to keep it shorter and sweeter the PS4 can do 1080p native games more easily because it has more memory bandwidth to play with and it has more shader cores than the Xbox One (don't worry about that right now) which can handle pushing around more pixels than the Xbox One. This means that for the lifetime of each console (10 years is what both companies are shooting for) the PS4 will always be a faster console on paper in terms of hardware. Will most gamers notice the difference once Microsoft starts to encourage or "force" developers to squeeze in 1080p as long as it balances well with graphics? Time will tell. The biggest disadvantage of the Xbox One in my mind is cost being $100 more than the more powerful PS4. However Microsoft has lots of very dedicated developers who've gotten very use to the Microsoft ecosystem and many gamers identify console gaming in modern times with the word "Xbox".

To be fair to Microsoft the Xbox has its own exclusive games and ecosystem that appeals to many people (including Windows 8.1 users like me) and the Kinect functionality is VASTLY superior to the PS4's Camera which at this point is pretty underwhelming. This also helps balance the buyers choice in their favor to some degree outside of raw hardware specs. If the idea of controlling your gaming/media experience through voice commands and visual profiles sounds interesting and if you want a console with not only a strong gaming presence but also a greater media focus the Xbox One should be of great interest to you at this time.

Hope that helps. That's what I've been able to personally gather from all of what I've read up on the two of them. Full disclosure I own the PS4 currently and am getting the Xbox One upon release.
 
Last edited:
Basically it is a laptop apu with a discrete level gpu and and the whole soc is optimized for performance rather than battery life. When they are compared to laptop apu it is with the knowledge that laptops are made to operate in a smaller thermal envelope and with a limited battery life since no such constraints exist on the ac powered console with enough room to put a decent heatsink and fan in they can crank the performance up to where ever Sony's pocket book let's them I still think both consoles should have a 2.5Ghz minimum on the cpu.
 
I hope these are still not around in 10 years. Actually with sony breaking even on them already at launch the life cycle this time around will hopefully be shorter.
 
10 years is much too long. My cell phone will be more powerful than a PS4 by then!
I miss the good old days when consoles were refreshed every 3 years of so. :(

The only game I played on my PS3 in the last 2-3 years was The Last Of Us. During the same period, I have played around 25 games on my PC.
 
RadXge said:
10 years is much too long. My cell phone will be more powerful than a PS4 by then!
I miss the good old days when consoles were refreshed every 3 years of so. :(

The only game I played on my PS3 in the last 2-3 years was The Last Of Us. During the same period, I have played around 25 games on my PC.
Click to expand...
When was this
Xbox 2001
Xbox 360 2005 4 years
Xbone 2013 8 years

PlayStation 1994
Ps2 2000 6years
Ps3 2006 6years
Ps4 2013 7years... should have released in 2012...

Nintendo 1985
Super Nintendo 1991
Nintendo 64 1996
GameCube 2001
Wii 2006
Wiiu 2012

Sega
Master system 1986
Mega drive 1991
32x 1994
Saturn 1995
Dreamcast 1998
 
These consoles vary compared to PCs in a few ways, hardware and software.

Hardware:
The CPUs run about 1/2 the speed or less compared to modern PC CPUs.
They have 8 CPU cores but not all are available for gaming so overall they are more or less 1/2 as powerful as a fast PC.

The GPUs are built onto the CPU die so there will be the benefit of reduced latency as the bus between them will be more direct.

The graphics cards are approximately equivalent to AMD 7870 (PS4) and AMD 7850 (XB1).
These are mid to lower mid range cards on a modern PC, the 7870 is around 60% of the performance of a GTX780, the 7850 is around 40%.

The XB1 has 32MB of very fast cache that will help keep the gfx chip fed with data, but it doesnt make up for the gfx chips performance being 2/3 of the PS4's.

Software:
Up until the very latest gfx cards from AMD, consoles had an advantage of not using the software/OS model that windows uses, which has different layers of software.
These software layers separate the hardware from the Application, controlling security, CPU availability/smoothness, stability, multi tasking etc.
A console has no need for much of these layers so dispenses with a lot of them and reduces the features of others, giving the application more direct access and control of the hardware.
This improves max data throughput and reduces latency. It also increases flexibility in some ways (what you can do).

The latest PC graphics cards from AMD support a new API called Mantle that is being built into game engines.
Games that use Mantle will cut through many of layers in the Windows OS and allow more direct access to the video hardware, similar to the consoles.
Consoles have no need for Mantle, they already are a more advanced version.
It remains to be seen how much of a performance difference it make on PC, we should have the first proof within a month.

For now, consoles have the advantage of more direct hardware access which means they can react faster (for the same hardware specs) and can get a bit more out of the same hardware.

There is undoubtedly something else I forgot to mention but I'm hungry and wanna grab some nosh.
 
Is mantle going to be utilized on the PS4 since theoretically it is an all AMD platform?
 
The Cobra said:
Is mantle going to be utilized on the PS4 since theoretically it is an all AMD platform?
Click to expand...

See above
Consoles have no need for Mantle, they already are a more advanced version.
Click to expand...
PCs will use Mantle to get more direct access to the video hardware.
Mantle is the PCs way of modelling how consoles work.
 
Personally I wish a 3rd company would release a console in a year or two that blows both of these away in power.
 
You've got a PC for just that purpose. Also, developers will always develop for the lowest common denominator with the largest install base anyway. And if you're subtly trying to talk about the steambox, I'm pretty sure that if they're going for any marketshare, they'll be going for the PC gaming marketshare, seeing as they probably aren't going to be competing on price with consoles for the most part (perhaps certain skews, but then those probably won't compete with consoles when it comes to performance? Maybe?), but they'll rather attempt to move the PC experience over to the living room.
 
Heckler456 said:
Are you taking into account the extra dedicated chip in the ps4, or is that of no consequence?
Click to expand...

It will free up a core and reduce use of the CPUs cache for none gaming purposes.
The impact will be to stop processes that reduce smoothness from running on the CPU and for those processes to not be interrupted and run smoother as well.
As mentioned it is used for "downloads, voice chat, and video transcoding"

Another possible advantage is that if the gaming CPU crashes, this CPU could be used to recover the console and perform essential housekeeping to prevent corruption.
I imagine it monitors system health and handles the disk drive(s) as well.
 
Lunas said:
When was this
Xbox 2001
Xbox 360 2005 4 years
Xbone 2013 8 years

PlayStation 1994
Ps2 2000 6years
Ps3 2006 6years
Ps4 2013 7years... should have released in 2012...

Nintendo 1985
Super Nintendo 1991
Nintendo 64 1996
GameCube 2001
Wii 2006
Wiiu 2012

Sega
Master system 1986
Mega drive 1991
32x 1994
Saturn 1995
Dreamcast 1998
Click to expand...

Intellivision 1979
Intellivision II 1982:p
 
Lunas said:
PlayStation 1994
Ps2 2000 6years
Ps3 2006 6years
Ps4 2013 7years... should have released in 2012...

Nintendo 1985
Super Nintendo 1991
Nintendo 64 1996
GameCube 2001
Wii 2006
Wiiu 2012
Click to expand...

NES came out in 1983 (JP)
Super Nintendo 1990 (JP)
PlayStation came out in 1995 (NA)
 
Nenu said:
The graphics cards are approximately equivalent to AMD 7870 (PS4) and AMD 7850 (XB1).
Click to expand...

Err kinda wrong.

PS4 is between a 7850 and a 7870 alright, but the XB1 is between a 7770 and a 7790.

So the XB1 is quite less powerful than you are portraying it :) with 10% of the gpu set aside for snap functionality.
 
Didnt spot that, thanks for the correction.
The performance difference I specified is on par, Xbox1 GPU is approx 2/3 the performance of the PS4 GPU.
 
Skillz said:
Valve might make that happen.
Click to expand...

I dont consider the Steambox a "console", it is a linux based PC that has software designed solely for gaming.
The difference is that not every steambox will be the same. Different manufatuers will design thier own tiers and different cases to choose from. You can even build you own steam machine.
 
It will be interesting to see how the PS4 performs compared with PC's going forward. So far it is performing at or below a 7870. BF4 at 900p with high setting 60 fps. The benchmarks I've seen show a 7870 doing around 60 fps at 1080p with high settings. As the developers move up the learning curve the PS4 will raise the bar at least as far as console graphics are concerned. I hope that 1080p 60 fps becomes the standard with the new console generation.
 
biggles said:
It will be interesting to see how the PS4 performs compared with PC's going forward. So far it is performing at or below a 7870. BF4 at 900p with high setting 60 fps. The benchmarks I've seen show a 7870 doing around 60 fps at 1080p with high settings. As the developers move up the learning curve the PS4 will raise the bar at least as far as console graphics are concerned. I hope that 1080p 60 fps becomes the standard with the new console generation.
Click to expand...

Where those pc benches done with a amd ~1.6ghz six core? Hell some people hard having trouble with 4ghz i7's with that game. It's what's expected out of the ps4, i don't see a jump in performance straying too far from what you're getting now.

I don't think 64 player battles are even working on the ps4 right now i'm sort of doubting the performance will maintain close too 60fps even at 900p when it does.

mantleps4.jpg

Even with ps4 being the preferred console platform for frostbite i don't see it producing 1080p games from it.
 
yourgrandma said:
Where those pc benches done with a amd ~1.6ghz six core? Hell some people hard having trouble with 4ghz i7's with that game. It's what's expected out of the ps4, i don't see a jump in performance straying too far from what you're getting now.

I don't think 64 player battles are even working on the ps4 right now i'm sort of doubting the performance will maintain close too 60fps even at 900p when it does.

mantleps4.jpg

Even with ps4 being the preferred console platform for frostbite i don't see it producing 1080p games from it.
Click to expand...

64 multiplayer is indeed working as I have played a few matches
 
yourgrandma said:
Where those pc benches done with a amd ~1.6ghz six core? Hell some people hard having trouble with 4ghz i7's with that game. It's what's expected out of the ps4, i don't see a jump in performance straying too far from what you're getting now.

I don't think 64 player battles are even working on the ps4 right now i'm sort of doubting the performance will maintain close too 60fps even at 900p when it does.

mantleps4.jpg

Even with ps4 being the preferred console platform for frostbite i don't see it producing 1080p games from it.
Click to expand...

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page3.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html
 
ballistic90 said:
With DDR4 coming out around the corner, will the GDDR5 Ram in the PS4 even be a big deal?
Click to expand...
On a PC most discrete, mid to high end, GPU's have their own dedicated memory pool and that is normally GDDR5. DDR4 will help computers that use integrated graphics with shared memory; Intel IGP and AMD APU's. Even when DDR4 hits the market, mid to high end discrete GPU's will still use GDDR5.

So comparing GDDR5 to DDR3 or 4 isn't really relevant because they are not used for the same thing in most cases. The only time DDR3 or 4 speed comes into the equation of graphics is when the computers IGP/APU uses that shared system memory (DDR3 or 4) for the GPU. Some low end PC discrete GPU's use DDR3 to cut cost, but at the cost of performance.
 
Last edited:
Skillz said:
Hahahahahaha
Click to expand...

Well we can argue that "more advanced" doesn't necesarily mean faster (it most certainly doesn't in this case! we know we know :) )

It just means that it has some ability that hasn't gotten to the PC at the consumer level... now GDDR5 is already widely used on videocards since quite some years ago, standby downloading is arguably the same option that most game services or even windows have to download in the background since what, last decade?, sooo... hUMA? ... is Kaveri out in the wild already?

GoogleFu says... nope, Jan 14... sooo 1 out of 3! ;)
 
RadXge said:
10 years is much too long. My cell phone will be more powerful than a PS4 by then!
I miss the good old days when consoles were refreshed every 3 years of so. :(

The only game I played on my PS3 in the last 2-3 years was The Last Of Us. During the same period, I have played around 25 games on my PC.
Click to expand...

I think the solution to your upgrade problem is just building a PC, then have a console as a companion gaming device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top