PS4 vs PC.

[dgz]

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

I agree with you and socK but those numbers don't represent the picture. We're not talking "dumb framebuffers" here. Developers could do some neat things with that much unified high-bandwith memory.

I am not saying Killzone is impressive, because it clearly isn't. But it's new thing and we're supposed to be impressed. In the end, though, most people don't really "overlook" things like:

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

No, they're simply incapable of seeing them until someone they trust point it for the sake of marketing or whatever. Most people and pretty much all reviewers these days can't figure out basic mechanics in games so devs simply don't bother anymore and make interactive movies instead.

 

[DeathPrincess]

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.

That's kind of a silly comparison. Most people don't even have discrete graphics. Most enthusiasts don't have SLI Titans (or the power of a 7870), PC games are not going to be made to target the 1%, because that would likely be financial suicide.

 

[Deleted member 88227]

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The consoles being outdated in 6 months claim is just silly when they have held their own far far better than a PC ever could.

You do realize the PS3/360 doesn't render games at 1080P and barely go over 30 FPS. A PC gaming rig from 2005 shouldn't have much of an issue at that level of performance. The problem is people who play on PC want the settings cranked up to the max, all the time for every game they play. Thus you see people upgrading their PCs every few years.

 

[thorian88]

ps4 = 7850 gpu... 1.8 teraflops gpu processing power... my 7970 has 4.4 teraflops x 2. CPU? trinity 10?? I got a 3930k... which is about 4 times faster and has been proven... truth is... you could manufacture a ps4 for around 300....

 

[socK]

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.

What are you even looking at? It's right there in video, roughly equivalent gpu hardware on PC is... performing pretty damn close to its console counter parts. Especially given the miserable driver support compared to AMD / NV, and that nobody is optimizing for Intel onboard chips of all things.

The consoles as is are not performing miracles, why do you think next gen will be different? I have a ps3 at home that I'm borrowing from a friend to play though MGS4 on and the frame rate goes to hell constantly. It's hilariously obvious and jarring, performance is all over the place.

I'm not sure if you've realized, but things like driver models and APIs have improved since a decade ago. Cool, yes, once upon a time DX (OGL draw calls have been historically cheaper) batches were heavy. In another post I wrote, I cited an article from a Just Cause 2 dev. In 2003 or around there, both ATI and NV were advising to try and keep draw calls below 300. In JC2 they were plowing through 16000 at points at 60fps, on a single render thread. Draw calls were a bigger problem on the 360 than the PC.

And it's only going to improve further. You're in for disappointment if you honestly expect absurdity like a single 7870 smashing Titans.

 

[r3awak3n]

at the end of the day, if the PS4 has amazing games (graphics aside because we all know that its secondary for how awesome a game is, some of my best games of last year were indie and did not have crisis 3 graphics) it will be sucessful. The graphics capabilities of the console are enough to create amazing games, they just need good story telling, new interesting dynamics and game play. Take uncharted on the PS3, sure the PS3 did not have comparable hardware to PCs of that time but that game series was incredible and it looked great. They need good exclusives.

Its a shame that the only exclusives PC has are ones that you can only play with keyboard and mouse. I just dont want us to forget what the important thing at hand is here, its not hardware but its games.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Equal the horsepower of SLI Titan's is an absurd statement.

 

[seanclayton]

It's faster than your average PC, that's fo sho. Add in optimization and that's like comparing the very well optimized iPad's dualcore vs Android's quadcores.

 

[Disposed]

You do realize the PS3/360 doesn't render games at 1080P and barely go over 30 FPS. A PC gaming rig from 2005 shouldn't have much of an issue at that level of performance. The problem is people who play on PC want the settings cranked up to the max, all the time for every game they play. Thus you see people upgrading their PCs every few years.

Bullshit. A PC from 2005 couldnt manage what these consoles are doing today even stripped down. Try running crysis 3 at 720 on low with an x850xt. Even if they added DX9 support it wouldnt happen.

Look at the uncharted games, are you trying to tell me a setup from 2005 which can barely manage 60FPS in BF2 maxxed is going to pull that off?

So many delusional members on this forum. Dedicated hardware thats running on an OS optimized purely for gaming makes even the PS4 hardware better than whats available today in terms of performance. People said the same shit about the 360 and PS3 and where dead wrong, the hardware in those by PC standards was not fantastic then either. Besides the gimmicky cell processor which turned out to be lame besides folding was nothing magical.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Bullshit. A PC from 2005 couldnt manage what these consoles are doing today even stripped down. Try running crysis 3 at 720 on low with an x850xt. Even if they added DX9 support it wouldnt happen.

Look at the uncharted games, are you trying to tell me a setup from 2005 which can barely manage 60FPS in BF2 maxxed is going to pull that off?

So many delusional members on this forum. Dedicated hardware thats running on an OS optimized purely for gaming makes even the PS4 hardware better than whats available today in terms of performance. People said the same shit about the 360 and PS3 and where dead wrong, the hardware in those by PC standards was not fantastic then either. Besides the gimmicky cell processor which turned out to be lame besides folding was nothing magical.

A PS4 isn't going to outperform a pair of Titan's, no matter how close to the metal devs can program. Dollar per dollar, the PS4 will easily outperform a similar PC, however.

 

[ikarinokami]

The PS4 will be great for the same reason glide was great. the closer you can get to the metal the better. seriosuly the thing that was really holding consoles back was, system memory, it wasnt video power, although that wont be problem, it wasnt cpu power, again the though jaquar isn't SB it doesnt need to be, it was memory and 8GB solves that problem. I expect really spectular things from both consoles.

Of course they will be behind the pc's but i don't think the results will be all that different, being able to code without goind through the os and directx layers is a massive edge. one of the drawbacks of PC losers forever bitching about open API's.

 

[JayJapanB]

TAKE THAT PC!

 

[Krieger91]

I want one. Just waiting to see what Microsoft is planning.

 

[Breath_of_the_Dying]

A PS4 isn't going to outperform a pair of Titan's, no matter how close to the metal devs can program. Dollar per dollar, the PS4 will easily outperform a similar PC, however.

The big question is, at 1080p as the limiting factor, how much more power will you need?

It's like someone creaming over triple SLI with massive overclock, just to power 1920x1080 resolution. Compared to when i game at 1920x5760, 1080p is nothing. Computers will defiantly become stronger and cheaper, and power higher resolutions, but the PS4 will probably be comparable because the resolution will never go up. Unless it can support UHD games. Even if it does, I probably wont adopt UHD for a LONG time

 

[MrCrispy]

PC gamers thinking a pc is so much better because of graphics are the lowest of scum.

Why compre graphics to a console anyway? They don't make a pc better or consoles worse.

 

[Hornet]

TAKE THAT PC!

Wasn't the demo pre-rendered on a PC anyway?

PC gamers thinking a pc is so much better because of graphics are the lowest of scum.

Why compre graphics to a console anyway? They don't make a pc better or consoles worse.

Isn't the discussion here about the technical side of things? Graphics do reflect a hardware's performance. Real time graphics anyway, not those pre-rendered CGI.

 

[Arthur Hucksake]

God of War 3 and Uncharted games were stunning technical achievements.

If you cannot see the possibilities for PS4 as a PC gamer then you have become to blinded by the benchmarks and pen & paper numbers to appreciate the magic they will create for this cheap little box.

The majority are not not multi screen gamers. I'm one of them, I find it far too distracting and will remain that way until they make me a huge curved screen the size of three panels.

In the past 12 months there has only been ONE game that's given me the upgrade bug and that is Crysis 3. Then realization set in. It's a 6 hr linear POS.

I very nearly fell on the Titan wagon because of it, then it all goes back to that single screen... 1080p element again. An extortionate, epic waste of cash.

Roll on the PS4. It's exclusives will suprise and shock many on here. Even those who picked up Titans to play crappy Crysis 3.

 

[atrance5]

I'd rather have one powerful desktop, than a weak console and weak pc/laptop.

Less clutter.

 

[atrance5]

Also the PS4, won't be so powerful in 2-3 years.

While on my desktop, I just swap the graphic card and/or CPU.

 

[r3awak3n]

/\ and spend another 600/700 bucks. People like consoles because its a multi year investment which a PC will need upgrading every few years to keep playing games at higher resolutions.

Earlies I was talking about exclusives and sai the PC didn't have many but it's not true, PC has tons of indie exclusives and my favorite game this year, hotline Miami, was only out for PC.

 

[Krieger91]

Real time graphics anyway, not those pre-rendered CGI.

The demo was real-time. Go watch the Jimmy Fallon episode where he plays the demo. He does all sorts of fail shit like jumping around and spinning in circles. It's live.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

/\ and spend another 600/700 bucks. People like consoles because its a multi year investment which a PC will need upgrading every few years to keep playing games at higher resolutions.

Earlies I was talking about exclusives and sai the PC didn't have many but it's not true, PC has tons of indie exclusives and my favorite game this year, hotline Miami, was only out for PC.

Why would you have to keep upgrading a PC if console graphics are fine to you?

 

[dremic]

Why would you have to keep upgrading a PC if console graphics are fine to you?

i understand your reasoning here, but its wrong.

take a ps3 for example.

a ps3 basically plays bf3 at medium settings etc.


take a pc that has similar hardware as ps3 made around the same time.. can it play bf3 on medium or ac3 on medium? fuck no. in fact it wont even run it on low. thats the point hes making.

obviously i dont want to play battlefield 3 on medium but i definitely am impressed that a ps3 can play bf3 on medium after 6+ years, a pc couldnt have done that. so an upgrade wouldve been necessary. atleast once or twice even

 

[Disposed]

i understand your reasoning here, but its wrong.

take a ps3 for example.

a ps3 basically plays bf3 at medium settings etc.


take a pc that has similar hardware as ps3 made around the same time.. can it play bf3 on medium or ac3 on medium? fuck no. in fact it wont even run it on low. thats the point hes making.

obviously i dont want to play battlefield 3 on medium but i definitely am impressed that a ps3 can play bf3 on medium after 6+ years, a pc couldnt have done that. so an upgrade wouldve been necessary. atleast once or twice even

It's ridiculous, puerile are quick to forget that these consoles that are playing games now on medium etc came out before there was a Conroe chip, even the x850st was the cream of the crop and go on to tell us how pcs age better or how consoles are outdated so fast???

 

[LeninGHOLA]

i understand your reasoning here, but its wrong.

take a ps3 for example.

a ps3 basically plays bf3 at medium settings etc.


take a pc that has similar hardware as ps3 made around the same time.. can it play bf3 on medium or ac3 on medium? fuck no. in fact it wont even run it on low. thats the point hes making.

obviously i dont want to play battlefield 3 on medium but i definitely am impressed that a ps3 can play bf3 on medium after 6+ years, a pc couldnt have done that. so an upgrade wouldve been necessary. atleast once or twice even

I'm wrong about what? I wasn't making the argument you're attempting to refute.

This is what I was responding to, Turbo.

which a PC will need upgrading every few years to keep playing games at higher resolutions

If someone is OK with console graphics, they likely wouldn't need bleeding edge PC hardware, either.

Anyway, the PS3 plays BF3 at 540p and medium settings. Sure, a PC with the same $ amount of hardware would be worse off, which I already stated earlier in this thread. But you certainly wouldn't need $600-700 in upgrades to match that.

 

[Disposed]

I'm wrong about what? I wasn't making the argument you're attempting to refute.

This is what I was responding to, Turbo.

If someone is OK with console graphics, they likely wouldn't need bleeding edge PC hardware, either.

Anyway, the PS3 plays BF3 at 540p and medium settings. Sure, a PC with the same $ amount of hardware would be worse off, which I already stated earlier in this thread. But you certainly wouldn't need $600-700 in upgrades to match that.

Completely avoiding the point.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Completely avoiding the point.

I'm avoiding my own point? I've already acknowledged that consoles are more efficient watt per watt and dollar per dollar. That's not at all what my post was about.

I think you're being obtuse and inarticulate.

 

[dremic]

I'm wrong about what? I wasn't making the argument you're attempting to refute.

This is what I was responding to, Turbo.

If someone is OK with console graphics, they likely wouldn't need bleeding edge PC hardware, either.

Anyway, the PS3 plays BF3 at 540p and medium settings. Sure, a PC with the same $ amount of hardware would be worse off, which I already stated earlier in this thread. But you certainly wouldn't need $600-700 in upgrades to match that.

who the fuck is turbo?

i dont think you even fully understand what you're saying, or the point youre trying to make.


i saw the post you were responding to, pal.

look at that resolution buddy.

again i saw the post you were responding to..yes a pc would need several upgrades possibly more then once in order to keep up with a ps3. which was his point.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I've already said a PC specced the same as a PS3 wouldn't have the horsepower to run games as well as the console. I also understand why people like consoles; unified hardware, no need to upgrade. What I don't understand is why you would compare upgrading hardware ($600-700 worth) to keep playing at "higher resolutions" on a PC to what a console can do at lower resolutions. It's not a fair comparison for either platform.

If you want to compare similar hardware running at the same settings and resolution, PC vs. PS3, the PS3 is a better value (for gaming). That's a fact I have no problem admitting.

You two need to stop getting mad and actually just read what I wrote.

 

[buttons]

Personally I am really excited for the PS4, im ready to walk away from desktops despite the fact I love hardware, customization, building, etc. Frankly I hate the OS, especially 8.

If only they made linux clients for all my games then id be real happy. Anyway, im expecting the PS4 to replace my PC, but ill have to wait and see if PS4 supports MMORPGs like guild wars, world of warcraft, rift, etc

 

[r3awak3n]

tbh you both missed my point but whatever, this thread is garbage, im out.

 

[Ruoh]

I'm interested to see what the console will bring as a media center device.

 

[JayJapanB]

I'm hella excited for the ps4 but I don't think I'll get one
Even if it launched with better graphics than my pc I don't really care

As for people switching over from a gaming pc to a ps4 entirely
I personally find there are a few other quite distinctive assets of the pc I would miss too much.
Mods, good servers, keyboard and mouse, digital download(?) etc (also I hate subscription based shit)

Consoles you get great life out of and they have pretty cool exclusive games.
I just have no problem paying a bit more for my preferred platform with the pc.

 

[MrCrispy]

PS3 with 512MB total ram, out of which only 256MB is video ram, has graphics like Uncharted 3, GOW3, which are impossible on a pc with literally 2-3x the hardware.

If someone feels they prefer the nicer graphics on a pc which they can keep upgrading, that's fine. After all, building the pc is part of the fun. But no one has to 'settle' for console graphics, they are plenty good enough for 99% of people.

There may be other reasons not to play consoles, like the controls, simplified gameplay for certain genres etc, but graphics quality is way down the list for most people. Which is why suddenly everyone comparing PS4 specs to a PC is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Spend $400 in Dec for a PS4 which will have great looking and playing games for next 5 years, or much more on a pc - it's a no brainer for me.

 

[JayJapanB]

but graphics quality is way down the list for most people. Which is why suddenly everyone comparing PS4 specs to a PC is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Spend $400 in Dec for a PS4 which will have great looking and playing games for next 5 years, or much more on a pc - it's a no brainer for me.

The 'no brainer' for me is that I don't care how many years $400 gets me and I'll play on the system that I like.
There are no rights and wrongs to this really.
Some good points though.

 

[BladeVenom]

It's ridiculous, puerile are quick to forget that these consoles that are playing games now on medium etc came out before there was a Conroe chip, even the x850st was the cream of the crop and go on to tell us how pcs age better or how consoles are outdated so fast???

The PS3 came out November 11, 2006. Conroe came out July 27, 2006, and it was 10 times better.

An i5 is going to be superior to the PS4 CPU, and an HD 7850 is going to be about equal to the PS4 graphics. So you'll be able to build a PC that is superior to the PS4 for a little over $600.

 

[MavericK]

I kinda think everyone saying "Whatever, PS4 will beat PC and I'd rather spend $400 than upgrade my PC" needs to realize where they are and turn in their [H] card immediately.

 

[l0x]

take a pc that has similar hardware as ps3 made around the same time.. can it play bf3 on medium or ac3 on medium? fuck no. in fact it wont even run it on low. thats the point hes making.

obviously i dont want to play battlefield 3 on medium but i definitely am impressed that a ps3 can play bf3 on medium after 6+ years, a pc couldnt have done that. so an upgrade wouldve been necessary. atleast once or twice even

BF3 on consoles have to be dumb down to even play on a console. From Graphics to Map size. I don't think you should be so impressed. Use google to find comparisons.

 

[Krieger91]

Personally I am really excited for the PS4, im ready to walk away from desktops despite the fact I love hardware, customization, building, etc. Frankly I hate the OS, especially 8.

If only they made linux clients for all my games then id be real happy. Anyway, im expecting the PS4 to replace my PC, but ill have to wait and see if PS4 supports MMORPGs like guild wars, world of warcraft, rift, etc

This. I am getting real tired of this shit. Look at the arguing in this thread, I mean.. what a waste of time. I'm practically done with bothering anymore.

 

[Disposed]

The PS3 came out November 11, 2006. Conroe came out July 27, 2006, and it was 10 times better.

An i5 is going to be superior to the PS4 CPU, and an HD 7850 is going to be about equal to the PS4 graphics. So you'll be able to build a PC that is superior to the PS4 for a little over $600.

Was thinking of the 360 release. And that's the point so many seem to miss. Go ahead and build a pc with the same specs as the ps4 so we can laugh at you when your rig can't run the good ports. dedicated hardware + dedicated os > pc in terms of power, derp people.