• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

PS4 vs PC.

The only thing that made any sense in that is that the PS4 has a lot more bandwidth to the ram....which makes little difference if you compare it to a PC that dwarfs it in CPU and GPU specs. The ram bandwidth is not the limiting performance factor. The rest is just nonsense.

And WTF is this, he contradicts himself in 2 consecutive sentences:

The fact is, no matter how you slice or dice it, you can’t build a PC with the same specs or performance as the PS4. You could almost certainly build something faster and more powerful, but it will cost you more than the PS4 is likely going to cost.
Click to expand...
 
Well...going to Forbes for gaming news is like going to porn sites for feminism.
 
chinesepiratefood said:
The only thing that made any sense in that is that the PS4 has a lot more bandwidth to the ram....which makes little difference if you compare it to a PC that dwarfs it in CPU and GPU specs. The ram bandwidth is not the limiting performance factor. The rest is just nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well, with AMD's APUs, RAM bandwidth is kinda important. That's with a Trinity chip, which has a Northern-Islands-based graphics core with 384 stream processors and 24 shading units, or less than an 6570.
Rumors of the PS4 APU have it at 18 GCN Compute Units, which means 1152 SPs and 72 shading units or most of a 7870. That is a big jump in processing power compared to Trinity and it won't be bandwidth starved thanks to that GDDR5.

As for the author's contradictory statements, they make sense. You can't build a PC with the same specs or performance of the PS4, because it has a custom SoC not available to PCs and devs can program to the "bare metal" on the PS4. You can build something that surpasses the performance of the PS4 with top of the line parts, but it's obviously going to cost a lot more than a PS4.
 
PC any day. Customization is key to me.


Was not impressed by the PS4 presentation at all. PS4 just seems to be a rehash of what the PS3 was......with Facebook. Yay? : /


They kept going on and on and on about wanting to make it easy for people to play on their system. How hard is it to pop a disc in the machine and press the start button?. They try to make it sound overly complicated to add flair to the whole thing. Just show me some good games or some games that made your system great to begin with. I was hoping for some old school lauch titles but was sadly disappointed.
 
I always say there is a reason why consoles only cost 200-500, and 1 thing in your PC can cost as much as your whole console. Well as the saying goes "you get what you pay for"

Plus not so long from now where gone have DDR4. :eek: I'm sure the bandwidth of it will be insane. Then well have the good of both worlds, like low latency and high bandwidth. Which is really the only thing that makes GDDR5 and DDR3 different from each other.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? This isn't even a contest, PC by a mile. Launch Consoles stuffer from what they always have, in 6 months time they will outdated hopelessly. Tell me when the PS5 can do 1440p at 120hz and I'll be impressed. Just piece together a nice gaming PC and you won't be sorry.
 
Godmachine said:
Seriously? This isn't even a contest, PC by a mile. Launch Consoles stuffer from what they always have, in 6 months time they will outdated hopelessly. Tell me when the PS5 can do 1440p at 120hz and I'll be impressed. Just piece together a nice gaming PC and you won't be sorry.
Click to expand...

Thats a tough claim. Look at how old the current consoles are and look at the graphics in current games. Sure its not great compared to a real gaming rig but now take a high end machine from when these consoles where launched and try and do some gaming on those with current games.

The consoles being outdated in 6 months claim is just silly when they have held their own far far better than a PC ever could.
 
Godmachine said:
Seriously? This isn't even a contest, PC by a mile. Launch Consoles stuffer from what they always have, in 6 months time they will outdated hopelessly. Tell me when the PS5 can do 1440p at 120hz and I'll be impressed. Just piece together a nice gaming PC and you won't be sorry.
Click to expand...

So most people you know have laptops with 8 "core" CPUs and 7870 level graphics?

Most people I know have i3s with HD2000s. :p

Most peoples computers can barely play PS3 level graphic games...
 
Last edited:
Article said:
Let’s take a look at the memory first. In the PC set-up, we have 8 gigs of common DDR3 RAM, but Sony has somehow crammed the same amount of GDDR5 RAM into its PS4.
Click to expand...

And this is where is stopped reading.
 
Take a game, put it in 1024x560 witch is what most games run on ps3 nowadays, turn on fxaa v1,disable af, put setting to low or a combination of low and medium abd target between 20-30fps

Than you'll have a ps3, pretty sure the latest amd apu can run this :)
 
Some News Contributor Lady said:
You’ll be hard-pressed to find any PC with GDDR5 plugged directly into the motherboard rather than sitting on the graphics card. This just isn’t how PCs work at the moment, though that will likely change.
Click to expand...

Because historically gaming consoles have changed the coarse of PC hardware development? So then why is the PS4 and also rumored the next Xbox essentially a "watered-down" x86 PC, not still Cell or PowerPC based?

This lady fails to see what role gaming consoles intend to fill. Borrowing concepts from PCs is likely a hardware and software development cost consideration and not a glimpse of what PCs will become.
 
Even if the ps4 outperformed PC, which is not the case (people were actually underwhelmed by what they saw of the ps4 preview), the PC is upgradable making it a possibility to be faster and more powerful. The only thing that the ps4 can win on is games, if game companies stop developing on PC or certain exclusives. I felt that was being the case a few years ago but it feels like the PC industry is coming back up and is pretty healthy lately. I might be wrong but the ps4 might be the last console Sony puts out unless they get a way to attract people
 
Wow, cheaper, smaller, faster, uses fewer watts AND betterer? I had no idea console techmology was superior and not at all like PC techmology.
 
It's a decently powerful machine with some interesting quirks, like the gddr5 across the board. I guess the gamble might of been that ps3 developers were already used to dealing with load hit stores on the ps3, and the high bandwidth high latency nature of it wouldn't come as some awful shock.

But reasonably high end machines have already eclipsed it, if you're sitting on a dual gpu or even a high end single card solution then you've already blown past it. Just keep in mind that most titles are probably going to be doing 30 fps same as last gen...
 
Articles like this make me hate the internet. I hope this is the last generation of PS's and Xbox's.
 
The PS4 will be an ideal complement to my PC the same way the PS3 is now.
 
Yep, I don't play my PS3 too much but I love it for exclusive titles and stuff like fighting games where it seems to work better (I guess you can use a controller on PC, but still).

If a title is multi-platform, though, 99.9% of the time I'm getting it on PC.
 
Q-BZ said:
The PS4 will be an ideal complement to my PC the same way the PS3 is now.
Click to expand...

MavericK96 said:
Yep, I don't play my PS3 too much but I love it for exclusive titles and stuff like fighting games where it seems to work better (I guess you can use a controller on PC, but still).

If a title is multi-platform, though, 99.9% of the time I'm getting it on PC.
Click to expand...

stop making sense guys, people dont like that around here :p



i agree that the ps4 will go nicely paired with my computer
 
Although I believe pcs will always be my primary platform, I'm heavily considering getting a ps4 to compliment it soon after launch. You don't need the power of top of the line pcs when displaying only to 1080p, my hope is that the ps4 has enough power to truly display 1080p@60fps. A closed platform will help steer development, so I think it's attainable.

UHD won't mainstream any time soon, so any power pcs will have advantages over the ps4 in the future probably won't matter that much for most users. By the time UHD becomes widely adopted, the PS5 would be around the corner
 
PS4 seemed to focus on social interaction instead of the gaming as the latest thing. So I'm keeping the PS3 + PC, especially since there is still alot of exclusives I have not played on the PS3.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
For the exclusives?
Click to expand...

yeah. there are plenty of games that are for xbox and ps

personally i want to play destiny.

but if its on PC i will always buy it there over console. since my computer is already better then a ps4. especially considering the resolution i play at.
 
MavericK96 said:
If a title is multi-platform, though, 99.9% of the time I'm getting it on PC.
Click to expand...

This used to be me. Wife and two kids make a one-time console payout a much easier sell. Either that or give up gaming altogether.
 
PNut12345 said:
This used to be me. Wife and two kids make a one-time console payout a much easier sell. Either that or give up gaming altogether.
Click to expand...

thats a concept thats hard to grasp for like 90% of hard forum. i always laugh when i hear them say the console is dying. for the majority of people its a smart purchase.
 
dremic said:
thats a concept thats hard to grasp for like 90% of hard forum. i always laugh when i hear them say the console is dying. for the majority of people its a smart purchase.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Don't get me wrong I'd love to play most games on PC, but my rig is getting a bit old (E8400 & GTX560), and me buying a $400 next Xbox that my wife and kids can also play is much easier than saying "I need to drop a grand upgrading the computer for no tangible benefit to anyone but me."

Especially when I'm the only one working. Once my wife finishes college and starts to work our disposable income will skyrocket. Til then it's console 4 life LOL. With rare exceptions (like BF3 for $12, much love Amazon :-D)
 
Anytime that you see forbes//sites//Someone's name > DISREGARD IT ENTIRELY.

Those are just blog posts by people that 99.99% of the time has no idea what they are talking about, or are simply shills.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-easy-ways-to-spot-b.s.-news-story-internet/

That was point #5 of how to spot BS news stories :)


Here you have the example of another shill using forbes and with "fans" "supporting her", and what is the issue that their fans agree with? that Aliens Colonial Marines is not a huge turd.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2013/02/12/review-aliens-colonial-marines/
 
Oh, look it's the PC vs console argument again lol....like the PS4 is going to be able to handle current gen PC graphics at time of release....
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
Oh, look it's the PC vs console argument again lol....like the PS4 is going to be able to handle current gen PC graphics at time of release....
Click to expand...

Comments like this are laughable at best. I am a pc gamer until the day I die but if you don't think the hardware in the ps4 is capable of today's graphics you're high. A dedicated machine with that much power is more capable than a pc with SLI titan cards. This has been proven over and over again. Dedicated consoles need a hell of a lot less horsepower than pcs do to display the same graphics.
 
Disposed said:
Comments like this are laughable at best. I am a pc gamer until the day I die but if you don't think the hardware in the ps4 is capable of today's graphics you're high. A dedicated machine with that much power is more capable than a pc with SLI titan cards. This has been proven over and over again. Dedicated consoles need a hell of a lot less horsepower than pcs do to display the same graphics.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it kinda makes me go "wtf" some times. The optimization is just so good.
 
Was that a paid advertisement by Sony, or was that suppose to be a story?

You Can't Build A PS4
Click to expand...
But you can! AMD to sell a cut down version of Sony's Playstation 4 APU

Anyways a 4 core Intel processor is still better for gaming than an 8 core AMD CPU. The PS4's graphics are only going to be the equivalent of the the HD 7850, a mid range card. Plenty of more powerful solutions, and with enthusiast motherboards you can have multiple graphics cards.
 
Disposed said:
Comments like this are laughable at best. I am a pc gamer until the day I die but if you don't think the hardware in the ps4 is capable of today's graphics you're high. A dedicated machine with that much power is more capable than a pc with SLI titan cards. This has been proven over and over again. Dedicated consoles need a hell of a lot less horsepower than pcs do to display the same graphics.
Click to expand...

feel free to come back to this planet when you're done


Look at the hd4000, a chip which has likely has had no meaningful, specific optimization done for it whatsoever
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/crysis-2-amd-virgo-vs-intel-hd4000-performance-video

Here's the consoles, seemingly brutally optimized to the extreme edge
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/crysis-2-ps3-360-engine-performance

As far as I can extrapolate from benchmarks / specs, the HD 4000 floats around x1800 / 7800. It's not an exceedingly quick fast chip. Good thing the consoles are running many times quicker... wait...

Mass Effect 3, look at those framerates... the PS3 was dipping to 14 fps at parts...
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/mass-effect-3-wii-u-360-ps3-cut-scene-performance-video


So lets crunch fukin numbers. PS4 basically has a slightly beefier 7850, let's round it to a 7870. So looking at raw specs, SLI Titans would have something like nearly 5x the texture fill rate, over 2.5x the pixel fill rate, nearly double the raw GFLOP's number, for whatever that's worth, and nearly double the memory bandwidth.

Ok, whatever, that's just theoretical.
HardOCP front page, Titan review.

They're playing shit at 5720x1200, which is over 3.3x the pixels (and a gigantically wide FOV, which means more to render anyway), at quite solid framerates. The PS4 will be targeting 1920x1080 at best, at 30 fps for most games. And then I hear you say: FUCK YOU'RE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ENORMOUS GRAPHICAL LEAPS THAT ARE INCOMING

Err, like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO-2rdmbmL4
(Which ran at 60fps on a 680, apparently)

NO MAN, KILLZONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hv2ofBB9O9E#

...oh

Krieger91 said:
Yeah, it kinda makes me go "wtf" some times. The optimization is just so good.
Click to expand...

Except tons of games don't run very good at all, they run like fucking shit. Do you really think games like Crysis and Skyrim chugging along at 20~ fps is "so good"?
 
Last edited:
socK said:
feel free to come back to this planet when you're done


Look at the hd4000, a chip which has likely has had no meaningful, specific optimization done for it whatsoever
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/crysis-2-amd-virgo-vs-intel-hd4000-performance-video

Here's the consoles, seemingly brutally optimized to the extreme edge
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/crysis-2-ps3-360-engine-performance

As far as I can extrapolate from benchmarks / specs, the HD 4000 floats around x1800 / 7800. It's not an exceedingly quick fast chip. Good thing the consoles are running many times quicker... wait...

Mass Effect 3, look at those framerates... the PS3 was dipping to 14 fps at parts...
http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/mass-effect-3-wii-u-360-ps3-cut-scene-performance-video


So lets crunch fukin numbers. PS4 basically has a slightly beefier 7850, let's round it to a 7870. So looking at raw specs, SLI Titans would have something like nearly 5x the texture fill rate, over 2.5x the pixel fill rate, nearly double the raw GFLOP's number, for whatever that's worth, and nearly double the memory bandwidth.

Ok, whatever, that's just theoretical.
HardOCP front page, Titan review.

They're playing shit at 5720x1200, which is over 3.3x the pixels (and a gigantically wide FOV, which means more to render anyway), at quite solid framerates. The PS4 will be targeting 1920x1080 at best, at 30 fps for most games. And then I hear you say: FUCK YOU'RE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ENORMOUS GRAPHICAL LEAPS THAT ARE INCOMING

Err, like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO-2rdmbmL4
(Which ran at 60fps on a 680, apparently)

NO MAN, KILLZONE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hv2ofBB9O9E#

...oh



Except tons of games don't run very good at all, they run like fucking shit. Do you really think games like Crysis and Skyrim chugging along at 20~ fps is "so good"?
Click to expand...

The point was clearly lost on you and you are just hell bent on your clueless crusade. good luck with that. The fact that crysis and skyrim are playing just fine on hardware that old when a pc half as old couldn't manage the same just goes to show how fucking wrong you are in every way.
 
I will say this.

Let's take Far Cry 3 as an example for a game that currently on the PC, PS3 and 360. Now, the PC version is default $50, while the console versions are $60. What I'm getting at is, since it seems both the PS4 and 720 are moving towards PC hardware and architecture and away from CELL processing (a custom CPU used no where else other than the PS3) and the PowerPC CPU (which IBM solely owns and not many games are programmed for anymore; not even Apple using it for the comps), wouldn't it be logical to give the games for the PS4 and 720 prices the same as the PC prices?

I will be getting a PS4 at launch to nicely compliment my PC :D.
 
Disposed said:
The point was clearly lost on you and you are just hell bent on your clueless crusade. good luck with that. The fact that crysis and skyrim are playing just fine on hardware that old when a pc half as old couldn't manage the same just goes to show how fucking wrong you are in every way.
Click to expand...

He had it right, you got it wrong. So do us all a favor and take your foul mouthed crap somwhere else....

Crysis 3 would run like crap if it had to render what the PC version does (you'd be looking at less than 1fps)


Gotta love it when people overlook things like

reduced draw distance
significantly reduced texture size and qaulity
Color pallette tweaks
Reduced geometry


Do you honestly think a console (even a new one) is going to be able to keep up with a Multi Gigabyte 7970 with GDDR5? let alone anything faster? Won't even get into what a Quad Core i7 would do the a console CPU...

SolidSnakeUS said:
I will say this.

Let's take Far Cry 3 as an example for a game that currently on the PC, PS3 and 360. Now, the PC version is default $50, while the console versions are $60. What I'm getting at is, since it seems both the PS4 and 720 are moving towards PC hardware and architecture and away from CELL processing (a custom CPU used no where else other than the PS3) and the PowerPC CPU (which IBM solely owns and not many games are programmed for anymore; not even Apple using it for the comps), wouldn't it be logical to give the games for the PS4 and 720 prices the same as the PC prices?

I will be getting a PS4 at launch to nicely compliment my PC :D.
Click to expand...

The extra $10 is for fees paid to console maker for allowing to you put the game on thier platform..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top