EA Exec: Xbox One and PS4 Are "A Generation Ahead" Of PC

[Covarr]

While I would certainly question his comments, I should point out again that consoles are optimized in an entirely different way than pcs and specs are not directly comparable.

This difference is much less than in previous generations though, because consoles are using x86 processors instead of some other architecture like PowerPC or Cell. This alone makes them FAR more comparable than any previous generation (except perhaps the first Xbox, which also used an x86 processor (Pentium III, in fact).

P.S. Thanks

 

[ciasteczkowyp]

My 5 year old PC has 10-15% worse stats than full potential of xbox one, I guess no upgrades for the next 5 years ;-]

 

[n00beffect]

And suppressed chuckles could be heard all across the board. Yeah, consoles being made with today's tech will surpass tomorrow's high-end PCs. It's advertising! Who needs logic, right?

But let's assume, for a second, that it's actually true: For how long, does Mr Taneja think, will the consoles stay superior to high-end PCs? A month? 6 months, maybe a year? Yeah... The thing about PCs that everyone and their grandma knows, is that they're progressing all the time; while with consoles that's just not the case. Because it doesn't need to be. Correct me if I'm wrong, but games are being made for the things, specially tailored for their hardware, so there's no need to constantly upgrade, while with PC releases there's a steady increase in the specs required to run the newest games.

Really, this cock-measuring practice between console and PC gamers (and devs now, apparently...) really needs to stop. Both PC and consoles are great gaming platforms and have their ad/disadvantages, so just buy whatever you can and play whatever you want.

 

[kudakitsune]

I dont usually comment but I really really need to do this: AHHHHAAAAA JAJAJJAJAAAHHAHAHHAHAHA, sucker!
Thank you

 

[rayen020]

Can someone pass this along to Shamus? I would really like to laugh at this statement while reading a a rage and bile filled article directed at EA.

and this guy is the Chief of Technology? How? anybody with even the slightest bit of understanding of technology knows that a) this is false and b) even if it isn't it will be in a month.

 

[Lightknight]

While I would certainly question his comments, I should point out again that consoles are optimized in an entirely different way than pcs and specs are not directly comparable.

Skyrim's minimum pc requirements requires a 2.0 GHz dual core processor, 2GB of RAM and a DX9c video card with 512MB RAM.

Yet it is playble on systems with 6-7 year old CPUs that have 512MB of RAM (The ps3 even divides its RAM into two segments).

A 2GHz dual core processor (like a core 2 duo, since that's the kind of thing they're referencing) isn't far off what a 360 can do, and skyrim doesn't use 512MB of vRAM at console settings.

Like for like (based on theoretical performance), consoles have about a 15-20% edge over similar powered PCs. It's not a big difference. Grab a 7800GT and a core 2 duo at 2GHz and you'll get console like performance in most games. It's just that 'console like performance' is synonymous with 'unplayabale' nowadays.

You may not notice it if you have no choice, but when you see that you're moving every slider to the very left, every option to low, setting resolutions at a mere 1280x720 at best, you notice big time how far you are behind. Also, going under 30fps is constant on consoles now, and that would also be an instant 'need an upgrade' on PC.

It's not that console-powered PCs 'can't play games', it's just that no-one wants to play games on them because they're basically being reminded every second that they're playing the 'worst version' they can of that game, whilst others are playing it with all the pretties. At least on console when you're running at 20fps, everyone else is too. It's like how the happiest countries are the ones with the least difference in wealth between he richest and poorest. If no-one is significantly better off, you feel better.

There's nothing you're saying that I don't agree with. So I really don't have anything to add. You basically just stated that consoles are more powerful than their equivalent though you've added a percentage to it as well (I'd be very interested in seeing a resource that proves this) and so are not directly comparable.

Take a look at this video to compare ultra pc settings, low pc settings, and the 360:

Comparison[/youtube]

 

[Atmos Duality]

*raucous laughter*
A-A-Are....are you serious EA?!

Even I didn't think you were so stupid as to try and ignore Moore's Law.
Or maybe EA's still butthurt over that PC disaster known as SimCity.

Either way: The claim is foolishness upon stupidity and it's just a ploy to drive up demand for the consoles so they can get right back to assraping everyone in a more controlled gaming environment.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Well, sure. Next-gen consoles are stronger than current PCs *right now*, but give it five or six months and that advantage will dissolve away. The PC market is by far the most flexible, and you can be sure we'll see bleeding-edge Master Race types benchmark Nvidia or ATI's newest babies and compare them to the specs provided by Sony and Microsoft.

In the end, consoles are primarily designed to be a gaming alternative for a slice of the public that doesn't want to put up with buying the best parts for the best rig possible. That's understandable, as the Clone PC market is anything except user-friendly. I'm edging towards another PC purchase myself, and I'm dreading having to relearn the specifics of graphics card manufacturers and pulling number charts apart while comparing CPUs. It's a little dance that happens once every five or six years, for me, and it's never pleasant.

Not that I'd switch to consoles being my predominant platform, however. I never felt that two or three highly specific exclusives were worth spending several hundred dollars on.

 

[grigjd3]

While I would certainly question his comments, I should point out again that consoles are optimized in an entirely different way than pcs and specs are not directly comparable. Optimization includes bandwidth efficiencies.

Skyrim's minimum pc requirements requires a 2.0 GHz dual core processor, 2GB of RAM and a DX9c video card with 512MB RAM.

Yet it is playble on systems with 6-7 year old CPUs that have 512MB of RAM (The ps3 even divides its RAM into two segments).

You cannot look at their specs and think, oh, that's a pc with 512MB of RAM. It won't work that way.

That being said, I do have a hard time believing that the mentioned specs are ahead of the most advanced pcs on the market. We don't even know the CPU specifics on the Xbone. I'd say the PS4 at least is the equivalent of a high-end pc. But highest? I guess we won't know until we get to play with it.

So before I bought my current machine, I played Skyrim on both a 360 and a minimum spec PC and I gotta say, the experience was much better on the PC. Traditionally, games that have existed on both console and PC have seriously turned down their graphics and nerfed the overall experience on the consoles (unless we are talking bad console to PC ports which are likely just crap games anyhow).

There is certainly a nugget of truth that a dedicated system for gaming has an advantage over similarly spec'ed hardware for general use, but as the consoles have added functionality, that advantage has fallen.

It is true, however, that the new 8 core consoles may have an advantage if games are developed for the architecture in a way to take advantage of it, but I somehow doubt it will overcome even an i7 paired with a 660ti video card let alone the really high end PCs out there.

 

[Raesvelg]

It's a bit more complicated than just heat, really. SoC architecture offers a lot of power savings, which equates to less heat for the same performance. It's also harder to produce, vastly more difficult to design, and as I mentioned, once you put it in something you're pretty much obliged to keep it there. Sure, cooling a SoC that would equal out to a current-gen gaming PC would be a bit of a *****, but it's not impossible.

But two years down the road, it would be another victim of Moore's law, and when you say things like "on-board graphics", you tend to get an entire generation of PC gamers who will treat that machine roughly the same way that they would if it were covered in smallpox. The gaming PC market thrives on selling minimal upgrades at exorbitant prices to people willing to drop hundreds to thousands of dollars to stay on the cutting edge.

Like I said, his statement is debatable in terms of PC design. Advantages/disadvantages either way, but for something like a console, SoC is definitely the way to go. In the medium-run though, it'll probably be the dominant architecture for most PCs as well. Serious gaming machines probably not so much, though there is the question as to whether the chip manufacturers are going to keep producing chips for what might turn out to be a very niche market.

Also, from what I've read it's technically something "similar" to the SoCs that MS/Sony are using. Evidently there are a few proprietary bits involved in these chips, though I strongly doubt that whatever is entailed there is enough to make them significantly more powerful than they theoretically ought to be. Twice the cores in these compared to the chips they're putting out this month from what I recall, but they're still not terribly impressive.

I expect what we'll wind up with with the current generation of consoles are a batch of machines more powerful than a PC of the same price, less powerful than the current gen gaming PCs, and possibly unusually good at a few specific operations.

You know, just like every damned console generation ever.

 

[Caiphus]

What is it with there being a new "Rich guy says something daft" story every day this week?

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Honestly, that's troll bait if ever I saw it.

Or, as it is known in PR-speak: free publicity.

Perfectly worded, couldn't have said it better myself!
Wonder if trolling nowadays get's paid "well" or "Please take this huge bag of money while no one is watching-well"... ?

 

[geizr]

Out-of-touch corporate executive spews forth much bullshit that contradicts reality, as has been typical of late; meanwhile, his company spews forth the same tired, insipid, uninspired franchises in a complete failure to actually provide any real new directions in gaming and game design, as has been typical of late.

EA, Sony, Microsoft, etc., you can only keep crying wolf just so many times before people just stop believing the hype (being a much older gamer myself, I've long ago learned to tune-out the hype). If you want to really make the community excited for the next generation, come out with truly next generation games, not simply the same old shit with shinier graphics. I'm not buying anything until I see some actual games that really do something different and amazing, not just take the same old shit and make it have shinier graphics.

While I'm on the subject, it would also be nice to see more games that can actually be happy and positive, with interesting, human-like characters and an edifying stories that make you feel good at the end and even learn something (at the very least feel something, be inspired to ponder something, or want to go learn more about something), as opposed to all these shallow, depressing dystopias with these grumpy, grimacing, one-dimensional badasses; it just all feels like I'm watching a play put on by a bunch of brooding, rebellious 15-year-olds pretending at being grown-up. It gets old, and one starts wanting a bit more substance in one's games.

 

[BoogieManFL]

That seems very unlikely.. Some of the ultra top end stuff can costs thousands per component... Why even make a statement like that? It just invites people to prove you wrong since they probably could. I mean there are CPU Processors that have 6 cores at 3.9Ghz each. And even 10 cores processors and such, not to mention the possibility of 512GB of RAM.

Even if he was right, give a few months and they'll be far behind again. So it's all pointless to even mention.

 

[Longstreet]

Where does EA get these idiots? Do you need no diploma or experience at all to become a Chief of anything there?

Like many others have pointed out, he's full off bullshit. If you load a pc up with all the latest stuff, spending about 3 / 3.5 thousand on it, it will probably last /out power the next 2 console generations.

 

[Seracen]

[Reads title of post]

...

AHAHAHA!!! BWAAHAHAHAHAH!!! [has to stop to prevent bruising ribs...]

[reads PR BS again] Oh EA...you garbage mongers you...

In all honesty, I think this is damage control. Corporate realizes that PC is looking more and more appealing by the day, thanks to all the shenanigans taking place in the next gen, and they are trying to get ahead of the curve by saying "consoles will outperform PC."

But alas, if wishes were enough for such things, AAA titles wouldn't constantly be underselling under their bloated budgets.

Having said that, I am actually glad the the next gen looks so unappealing. I didn't relish the thought of paying a grand for both consoles, now I have a reason improve my gaming PC.

 

[Se7enUpMustang]

Seriously? Consoles..ahead...of...PC's....

This...
This is a troll post right?
Right?



A mid level Core 2 Quad, 8GB RAM, and a GTX 560Ti would blow the Xboner and the PS4 away on any game and be able to do it while your checking your email and watching porn and ordering things from amazon and watching cat videos on YouTube all on 3 different monitors at the same time and be upgradeable so it can do it all over again in 3 years when the next generation of consoles come out.



Consoles have and always will be, slow, UN-upgradeable, inefficient, inflexible, cheap and crappy PC's that become technologically irrelevant 6 months after they launch.



I started on consoles, I played on consoles for 8 years. I know what I'm talking about.


Rajat Taneja Please punch yourself in the middle of your face.

 

[Little Gray]

So both the new consoles that are taking all their design que's straight from the PC market, will be a generation a head of PC's even though using the same hardware. Hardware from the PC chip marker who repeatably cannot compete with the CPU power of the other PC chip marker Intel. Someone want to explain that logic to me....

Its because ps have a fuck of a lot more overhead then consoles. A console with the exact same specs as a pc will blow it away because of that. There is also the fact that you cant properly optimize pc games because of the wide variety of hardware specs everybody will have but with consoles you know exactly whats in it.