PS4 Will Out-Power Most PCs For Years To Come

Status
Not open for further replies.
Negative Decibel said:
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.
Click to expand...

As others have stated (and not just the above), he's technically correct. It's an advertising/political gimmick to play off of peoples ignorance.

That's where I find issues with the statement. It's similar to when the 8 & 16 bit console era were out, and games were 8 Megabit or 16 Megabit. I had tons of friends who were always trying to argue that their 8 Megabit game was better, even though my PC game was 6 Megabytes and had 256 colors instead of 15 colors.

For selling the PS4 (or the next XBox), full disclosure is almost never a good idea, so you phrase things in a way to not lie, but not exactly tell the truth either.
 
Saying people can play today's games on low settings at 10 FPS is like saying a person laying in a coma on a hospital bed and plugged on life support is living. It's a technicality at best.
 
I just find it odd that they gimped the ram on the ps3 so much. It really only had 512MB?

That's insane. I think most enthusiast computers 6 years ago had 4-8GB.
 
J Macker said:
I think most enthusiast computers 6 years ago had 4-8GB.
Click to expand...

No, we didn't. 2GB was what most high-end users were using around 2006. Remember BF2? If you wanted to run that game without any lag, upgrading your RAM to 2GB helped tremendously.

And DDR2 was still expensive around that time. A single 1GB 800MHz stick was around $100. It wasn't until 2008 that DRAM prices began to fall and higher capacities were introduced.
 
He did say enthousiast. In 2006 I added second GB of ram on my mid-end machine.Else Ironforge was a lagfest. A year or 2 later I built 4gb, and that was staying into the ~$700-1000 mid-end gaming tower.
 
I was gunna say in 2007 i had 4 gigs in my machine. I built it with enthusiast intent, The computer currently in my signature. I haven't had the lose cash since then to upgrade but i can still run today's games no prob with just a video card upgrade because my 2 8800GTXs died about 2 years ago.
 
rudy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what games you play, but when I look at the boxes in the stores the minimum requirements are still P4, some say core2 .... so yes, games are released for old as shit computers.
 
wonderfield said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, they are... people don't care about frame rates, so long as the game plays, they are happy with it. And to them, 15-20fps is playing fine. Thanks to consolization of many of our beloved higher end games, folks can play them on PC without any problem with older harderware, they just don't get the eye candy.
 
Cali3350 said:
Its a 4 core/8 module CPU with a 18CU AMD GCN ...
Click to expand...

Nada ....
Even if that was PD it would be 4 modules/ 8 cores, where a module= 2 integers per shared double wide float.

This sucker is 1:1 ...

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...

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.
.
Click to expand...


And no again...

Jaguar is not K8, K10, BD or PD...

AMD set out with the Neo (die shrinked K8) to fill a gap in the low end lineup.

They then took the best from K10 and K8 and stripped down the arch. Did a few tweaks here and there and whala bobcat was borne... Almost as fast as K10 ipc yet slower than K8 in a few rendering things...

Jaguar is the successor to Bobcat. It does not use PD. There are 8int and 8 floats in the PS4 version. IPC is supposedly up 15% on bobcat and may very well be the best IPC for amd to-date. This gents is AMD's Pentium M.

On the gfx side...

No its not a 7770... thats 640sp this has 1152sp which places it square between a 7850 and 7870. With one addition... the caches inside the gpu are much larger than normal... Not sure what that's to help with but... meh.

Point being... This is no cookie cutter. We don't know how it will perform.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Transferring my post from this thread: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1711453

One has to realize that the GDDR5 memory is not limited by the speeds of a typical DDR3 memory controller found in AMD's current APU lineup. The bandwidth and memory speeds will be much greater and any sign of bottlenecking may be the fault of the developer and not the hardware itself. So, since the memory space is shared between graphics and data, there should not be any bottlenecking or noticeable ones at that. When we look at the rumored Xbox 720 specs with 8GB of DDR3, Microsoft will have to utilize some kind of programming magic to work within the limited and smaller bandwidth of a DDR3 memory controller. But, it'll be cheaper to produce and should come in a shade under the possible price of a $399 PS4 unit.

And, as for the APU being an 8-core custom Jaguar APU (2x 4-core Jaguar compute module), it may make developers fully utilize all 8 threads. This may be a boon to us gamers as majority of the games we have today use no more than two threads, while very few benefit from four or more threads of a processor. So, when console ports start happening from PS4 (and eventually Xbox 720) games, they may actually be fully multi-threaded compared to current games.

(One can only hope though...)

The Jaguar APU looks promising, and it's looking to be a rather power-efficient, powerful processor. It may not beat the likes of a 3770K, but for what it is and what it's meant to do in a closed, fixed system configuration, it'll do just fine. You have to remember that the Jaguar APU is first and foremost a mobile processor. If you look at what current high-end tablets and smartphones can do with a powerful Exynos, Qualcomm, Apple Ax, or Tegra 3 processor matched with a powerful GPU, the games (the very good ones), look as good as PS2 games and many times better than them. And, some mobile games are as good as many DirectX 9 games on the PC market today. So when you pair a power-efficient mobile processor with a much, MUCH more powerful GPU-- a Radeon HD 7850-equivalent GPU-- the games will probably look as good as most DirectX 10 or 11 games on the market today (... on Medium settings at 1080p resolution). That'll be entirely dependent on the game developer themselves. If a mobile game developer can work a game around a 1.4 to 1.6 GHz mobile processor and a mobile GPU, imagine what can be pulled off with a slightly more powerful 1.6GHz mobile CPU ("Jaguar"-based) and a Radeon HD 7850-equivalent GPU in a fixed system configuration.
 
SolidBladez said:
No, we didn't. 2GB was what most high-end users were using around 2006. Remember BF2? If you wanted to run that game without any lag, upgrading your RAM to 2GB helped tremendously.

And DDR2 was still expensive around that time. A single 1GB 800MHz stick was around $100. It wasn't until 2008 that DRAM prices began to fall and higher capacities were introduced.
Click to expand...

Angelus897 said:
I like the reality that you live in :)
Click to expand...

doh. I just looked up my newegg history. I guess time flies. I had 2GB in my computer then, but it cost me $200. 3 other builds I did during that year, I only put in 2x512 sticks.
 
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...

This is how I understood it as well.

That being said, the average dense console player will undoubtedly not see it this way.
 
Dekarx said:
Saying people can play today's games on low settings at 10 FPS is like saying a person laying in a coma on a hospital bed and plugged on life support is living. It's a technicality at best.
Click to expand...

FPS to life support....made my day
 
J Macker said:
doh. I just looked up my newegg history. I guess time flies. I had 2GB in my computer then, but it cost me $200. 3 other builds I did during that year, I only put in 2x512 sticks.
Click to expand...

I spent close to 300 on 2 GB of ram on xmas day in 2005 and that was cheaper OCZ stuff.
 
It probably would be an "upgrade" for anyone who has a crappy PC and is only interested in games and movies.
What is he right about?
PS4 cant do surround.
PS4 cant do greater than 1080p
PS4 DRM will lock your disc games to your console only.
PS4 cant be upgraded
-Its locked in for life with 8x1.6GHz AMD cores, a custom Radeon7850 and 8GB GDDR5 total system ram.
Consoles are cheap for a reason... those specs are already aging.
The only wild card here is storage... is it going to spin or is it solid?
 
erexx said:
It probably would be an "upgrade" for anyone who has a crappy PC and is only interested in games and movies.
What is he right about?
PS4 cant do surround.
PS4 cant do greater than 1080p
PS4 DRM will lock your disc games to your console only.
PS4 cant be upgraded
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the other stuff, but I recall hearing that it will support 4K blueray. So in that sense, it should be able to output higher resolutions than 1080p... If it can render a game is another story.
 
The PS4 will probably support 4K gaming, but it's unlikely any AAA games will render at 4K.
 
Cali3350 said:
Its a 4 core/8 module CPU with a 18CU AMD GCN architecture and 8Gb of GDDR5 ram. I dont think hes necessarily wrong, 8Gb of ram with 172Gb/s of bandwidth to the CPU, with full freedom to use it as you wish, will allow some very cool open world things.

It wont overpower enthusiest PC's but def most all dell and HP's.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much what I am thinking as well. I am still fairly impressed with what the PS3 and XBox can put out. No CPU in a PC will have this much memory bandwidth for years to come so it will be interesting to see what can be done when content is optimized to use it.
 
erexx said:
It probably would be an "upgrade" for anyone who has a crappy PC and is only interested in games and movies.
What is he right about?
PS4 cant do surround.
PS4 cant do greater than 1080p
PS4 DRM will lock your disc games to your console only.
PS4 cant be upgraded
-Its locked in for life with 8x1.6GHz AMD cores, a custom Radeon7850 and 8GB GDDR5 total system ram.
Consoles are cheap for a reason... those specs are already aging.
The only wild card here is storage... is it going to spin or is it solid?
Click to expand...

What do you mean it cant do surround?? ps3 does 7.1
doesnt matter - its made to be connected to a TV , not a monitor
that hasnt been confirmed at all
which is good - because you know you'll be able to play every game that comes out
ps3 still looks good - frame rate suffers a little in some games, which shouldnt be a problem
 
zero2dash said:
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.
Click to expand...

Couple an i3 with a decent GPU and you have a gaming machine.

I play on 1080p and there is not a single game I've played that I couldn't max on my rig. And yes, my rig is a gaming rig where I live.

I think the PS4 will be good for PC gaming. It has the power to bring games closer to their true potential on the PC.
 
Phishy714 said:
You are all very silly thinking that he meant the 8gb of ram is what makes this console more powerful than most pc's out there.
Click to expand...


Um, that's EXACTLY what the dev said....

“It’s a perfect fit for the types of games we do, and we are confident that we’ll bring open-world gaming to a whole new level because of it. I’m glad Sony decided to go with 8gb RAM because it means that the PS4 will out-power most PC’s for years to come."
 
Why are people complaining about this?

All I'm reading here is that PS4 game ports are going to be able to take better advantage of high-end PCs like those most of us own...Great news!
 
DW-UK said:
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.
Click to expand...
A lot less, but not totally wasting system memory.

cdr_74_premium said:
Couple an i3 with a decent GPU and you have a gaming machine.

I play on 1080p and there is not a single game I've played that I couldn't max on my rig. And yes, my rig is a gaming rig where I live.

I think the PS4 will be good for PC gaming. It has the power to bring games closer to their true potential on the PC.
Click to expand...

Any PC you can play a game on is a gaming PC. It doesn't have to be built specifically for gaming. If Sim City or Diablo 3 plays fine on your i3, would it be any less of a gaming PC? It may not be good for games like Crysis, but if you don't play them does it matter?

Darksword said:
Um, that's EXACTLY what the dev said....

“It’s a perfect fit for the types of games we do, and we are confident that we’ll bring open-world gaming to a whole new level because of it. I’m glad Sony decided to go with 8gb RAM because it means that the PS4 will out-power most PC’s for years to come."
Click to expand...
I think you're reading his comment out of context. I think he means as a whole the PS4 will out-power most PCs. If the PS4 has 4GB, then it would be limited.

The 360 and PS3 can do a lot more, if they only had more memory. If they has 1GB or even 2GB of memory, the games on those systems would look completely different.
 
Everyone on this forum knows that the statement is illogical and false.
The main bottleneck in 1080p gaming is the video card.
The PS4 and Xbox 720 will have LAST GEN video cards in them.
They can not put a current video card such as a Nvidia GtX 680 or Radeon 7990
in them due to size and price (the card is $450, the total price of the console).
2 years ago I built a 8gb (1866), 4.7 ghz 2500k, SSD, and GTX 680 now.
My computer destroys my PS3 and Xbox 360 (though I use Xbox for eclusives like Gears of War/Halo). Games on my consoles are choppy and look like crap compared to my PC.
In 10 years my PC will STILL be more powerfull than the new Xbox or PS4, even if I
don't upgrade the graphics card, which I will. Both the new Xbox and PS4 are epic fails
in my mind because a console that should last 10 years NEEDS to run every game
at 1080p and 60fps. Neither of the new consoles will be able to do that with games such as Crysis, Metro, even Tomb Raider. There is no point in arguing with console fan boys because they lack the knowledge of pcs to even argue their point. Besides, in 10 years my smartphone will be more powerful than the PS4.
 
Yeah... 8GB of shared GDDR5 for both CPU and GPU.
That will really out-power dedicated DDR3 and GDDR5 for years to come.

Fucking dolt. :rolleyes:
 
PS3 should do 4K, sony themselves are probably putting out 4K TVs this year and they will be in consumer price ranges by next year when the consoles will actually be used. It also will the only dick waving point for consoles in the next generation. That said I will assume it will only be 4K in name and just like this gen everything will just be upscaled.
 
Red Falcon said:
Yeah... 8GB of shared GDDR5 for both CPU and GPU.
That will really out-power dedicated DDR3 and GDDR5 for years to come.

Fucking dolt. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Even all 4k textures and 16xAA wouldn't really fill 4gb VRAM, and most games aren't exactly RAM heavy... Most games seem to use less than a GB, and being predominantly 32bit next to none go over 2gb.
 
rudy said:
PS3 should do 4K, sony themselves are probably putting out 4K TVs this year and they will be in consumer price ranges by next year when the consoles will actually be used. It also will the only dick waving point for consoles in the next generation. That said I will assume it will only be 4K in name and just like this gen everything will just be upscaled.
Click to expand...

No they should do proper UHD, 8k, not the crappy tween stage TV manufacturers see as a way of staggering upgrades...
 
dr.stevil said:
That's a HUGE advantage. When software engineers and designers know that they have 8gb of memory to work with, they'll be taking advantage of it. On the PC, they have to make sure they're catering to folks with 512MB, 768MB, 1Gb and so on and will have to make some sacrifices to accomidate that.

With that said... it wont last long IMO (as long as the economy picks up a bit). But for a little while, the PS4 will likely be the best bang for the buck in terms of price for performance.
Click to expand...

Are you both living in 2005?
Seriously, the bottom of the barrel system has 4GB DDR3 dual-channel in it, and I mean the VERY bottom.
Average memory is 8GB, and this is dedicated to the CPU in mid to high-end systems.

The 8GB of GDDR5 is shared between both the CPU and GPU of the PS4, that means it shares bandwidth for both tasks and functions; similar design to the 360.
Not to mention, just because it is GDDR5, it could have a tiny bus and be limited on bandwidth for all we know.

Gaming systems have dedicated memory to both the CPU and GPU, which will always outdo shared memory.
What world are you living in???
 
DeathPrincess said:
Most games seem to use less than a GB, and being predominantly 32bit next to none go over 2gb.
Click to expand...

This is because 90% of games are shitty console ports designed for existing consoles with only 256MB VRAM (PS3) and shared 512MB system/VRAM (360).
Hopefully this will change with the PS4, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Red Falcon said:
Not to mention, just because it is GDDR5, it could have a tiny bus and be limited on bandwidth for all we know.
Click to expand...

I'm still looking for info on this, because GDDR5 on a 64-bit CPU bus just doesn't help at all. It just sounds fancy with GDDR5, I wish I could find more info on how they are working around that. However info is scarce... i.e. nonexistent on that front. :(
 
DeathPrincess said:
Even all 4k textures and 16xAA wouldn't really fill 4gb VRAM, and most games aren't exactly RAM heavy... Most games seem to use less than a GB, and being predominantly 32bit next to none go over 2gb.
Click to expand...

New games will be able to go over 2GB.

As for current games, over the passed few weeks I have been doing Skyrim with HD textures. It needs around 1.5GB of GPU memory to do that. As I am still using a 1GB 5870, it dips into the CPU memory. It runs fine as long as you have about 8GB of it, otherwise it uses pagefile. I was thinking about upgrading to a 7970. Instead, I first upgraded from 4GB to 8GB and it made all the difference that I needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top