Nvidia Claims PS4 Is Only as Good as a "Low-End" PC

[The Lunatic]

I'm really not seeing the debate here.

A $400 black box is less powerful than a $600 computer.


... Surprise?!

Sony will likely continue the tradition of selling the Playstation for a loss, and making money on game licensing.

So, the "Parts cost" of the PS4 will likely be higher than it's retail price.

However, the games are more expensive. But, console users apparently regard $60 as a reasonable price to pay for a few hours of entertainment. So, no biggie there.

PC is always going to be more powerful.

There is absolutely no debate to that. If you think there is, you're simply not understanding the nature of hardware.

People who want to spend thousands of dollars on gaming are going to be into it more than those who are content to stick with their $400 boxes.


Is that such a bad thing?

It's like arguing that because you have an MP3 player and some cheap ear buds you should be getting as much out of it as a guy who has a several thousand dollar sound system.

 

[Mayamellissa]

Didn't Jim already cover this in an Jimquisition episode?

 

[Rodrigo Girao]

Did that douche call my PC low-end? I can run any modern game on it, most of them on high settings, and still stay above 40 FPS.

When you don't get a solid 60 FPS, you are supposed turn down the settings until you do. Get your priorities straight!

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

For fuck's sake, people, stop saying 'VRAM'. VRAM hasn't been used for around 15 years.

Do not make me break out the Inigo Montoya pics.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Absolute nonsense. Engines don't have the same limits hardware does, and certainly not these frivolous limits of 256mb system memory or anything like that, which is what directly limits developers' ability to put in animations/textures/objects/whatever.

So how can the PS3 do a game like Metal Gear Solid, but not have a few extra polys for a simple holster in ME3?

Of course, it can't be the hardware. Because god knows, having bigger maps and more than twice the amount of players doesn't affect hardware performance, just bandwidth.

You know why multiplayer maps are small? To keep the action going at a steady pace so the customers attention spans don't force them to go do something else.

Well, I'm sure some form of it could be done (as "lava" has been "done" in Super Mario Bros), but certainly nothing that would be awesome, and I'm curious as to why you think it's better to waste developers' resources on optimization - which, by the way, you simply assume is going to do much - as opposed to have them move on to better hardware and do that shit in half the time, better, and move on to other stuff.

Aliens: Colonial Marines. They rushed it to get it out on time. As the recent patch proves, if they had more time they would have gotten it right.

...What's that about the PC's "then equivalent video card"?

I thought it was pretty self explanatory. A P.C video card that best matches the video card in the PS3.

Is there a concept of limitations of hardware that you're actually using in opposition to design problems, or are you just going to say it's the developer's fault no matter what?

When devs get the specs of the hardware they are dealing with, they will have had a general idea to what they can and can't do before they sit down to code the game. If they want to put something in they should figure out how to do it right or cut it out entirely.

 

[keideki]

As much as I would like to chalk this up to an employee of nVidia just making disparaging comments about a new system based on AMD/ATI technology he makes a valid point. The only things consoles have to offer these days is exclusive titles, which is a system I think should be done away with. My current PCs can do anything the the PS4 will do, the only difference being that I will not have all the systems made by one manufacturer and thus better integrated. On the plus side, with PS4 moving towards a more computer like architecture (as opposed to the cell processors) maybe it will make companies more interested in PC ports of popular games, due to reduced cost of production.

 

[Lightknight]

As much as I would like to chalk this up to an employee of nVidia just making disparaging comments about a new system based on AMD/ATI technology he makes a valid point. The only things consoles have to offer these days is exclusive titles, which is a system I think should be done away with. My current PCs can do anything the the PS4 will do, the only difference being that I will not have all the systems made by one manufacturer and thus better integrated. On the plus side, with PS4 moving towards a more computer like architecture (as opposed to the cell processors) maybe it will make companies more interested in PC ports of popular games, due to reduced cost of production.

Pros of Consoles:
*You get a LOT for the price point. A $300 machine in today's market is going to have a heck of a time playing Skyrim.
*They are completely optimized for gaming from the bluray reader to the ease that you can get into a game.
*Easy multi-player setup. Ever since Halo 1 I have routinely hosted game nights at my house. If you have friends who also game then a console is the way to go.
*Exclusive games is a Hell of a thing to dismiss so readily. The ps3's exclusive titles were amazing and the 360's would have been no less so if most of their games didn't come out on the pc anyways.
*Size and noise is very efficient, something a machine of comparable strength would have a significant problem with.

If those pros get taken away from being part of the console arena then steam boxes will start to look a lot more attractive. I am hopeful that pcs will be the future but I am also somewhat concerned. For example, if Sony does not exist, would games like the inFamous series ever be made? It seems like this fragmented platform market may generate a larger volumn of games than would otherwise exist. I don't know if that's valid but it's something to consider. Also, the existence of consoles establishes a market standard for the processing power a game should demand. This prevents the average joe from being unable to play certain games because one component of their pc is off.

So here's hoping the consoles stick around if they're that beneficial to our market with large companies so invested in having games for their own hardware.

Disclaimer: I prefer pc gaming by far for most single player game. But it also costs a lot more money to make a computer and is not for everyone. I also happen to have a ps3 and 360 and enjoy them for other reasons. The ps3 is my main entertainment system (netflix, huluplus, preferred gaming machine) and the 360 is my main party system (Kinect, Halo, etc). Just because I have a powerhouse of a computer (i7 quad, 32GBs RAM, decent video card and such that I can bridge multiple ones when necessary) doesn't mean I don't have a need for consoles. The two are not mutually exclusive unless you're on a budget which most people are. But a lot of people have a computer and a console. You should think of computers as the Ferrari and consoles as a more general sports car meant to appeal to most people. Demanding to know why everyone doesn't own a powerful computer is a little like demanding to know why some people don't have jobs and potentially related.

 

[deadish]

Wow, talk about sour grapes.

How "unprofessional" to publically bash your competitors and former customers. Burning bridges like this is never a good idea. So you lost the bid, better luck next time.

Now they pissed off both MS and Sony. LOL.

 

[keideki]

As much as I would like to chalk this up to an employee of nVidia just making disparaging comments about a new system based on AMD/ATI technology he makes a valid point. The only things consoles have to offer these days is exclusive titles, which is a system I think should be done away with. My current PCs can do anything the the PS4 will do, the only difference being that I will not have all the systems made by one manufacturer and thus better integrated. On the plus side, with PS4 moving towards a more computer like architecture (as opposed to the cell processors) maybe it will make companies more interested in PC ports of popular games, due to reduced cost of production.

Pros of Consoles:
*You get a LOT for the price point. A $300 machine in today's market is going to have a heck of a time playing Skyrim.
*They are completely optimized for gaming from the bluray reader to the ease that you can get into a game.
*Easy multi-player setup. Ever since Halo 1 I have routinely hosted game nights at my house. If you have friends who also game then a console is the way to go.
*Exclusive games is a Hell of a thing to dismiss so readily. The ps3's exclusive titles were amazing and the 360's would have been no less so if most of their games didn't come out on the pc anyways.
*Size and noise is very efficient, something a machine of comparable strength would have a significant problem with.

If those pros get taken away from being part of the console arena then steam boxes will start to look a lot more attractive. I am hopeful that pcs will be the future but I am also somewhat concerned. For example, if Sony does not exist, would games like the inFamous series ever be made? It seems like this fragmented platform market may generate a larger volumn of games than would otherwise exist. I don't know if that's valid but it's something to consider. Also, the existence of consoles establishes a market standard for the processing power a game should demand. This prevents the average joe from being unable to play certain games because one component of their pc is off.

So here's hoping the consoles stick around if they're that beneficial to our market with large companies so invested in having games for their own hardware.

Disclaimer: I prefer pc gaming by far for most single player game. But it also costs a lot more money to make a computer and is not for everyone. I also happen to have a ps3 and 360 and enjoy them for other reasons. The ps3 is my main entertainment system (netflix, huluplus, preferred gaming machine) and the 360 is my main party system (Kinect, Halo, etc). Just because I have a powerhouse of a computer (i7 quad, 32GBs RAM, decent video card and such that I can bridge multiple ones when necessary) doesn't mean I don't have a need for consoles. The two are not mutually exclusive unless you're on a budget which most people are. But a lot of people have a computer and a console. You should think of computers as the Ferrari and consoles as a more general sports car meant to appeal to most people. Demanding to know why everyone doesn't own a powerful computer is a little like demanding to know why some people don't have jobs and potentially related.

I can see your points, but I have problems with some of them. You're $300 console might afford you hours of playing Skyrim, but so does my PC, and it looks better and I can mod it to boot.

Launching a game on my PC is just as easy, if not easier than launching it on a console. With the console I have to change discs if I want to play a different game, on my PC I just double-click an icon and bam.

Integrated multiplayer is nice, but with steam I have many of the same features as xbox live, I can instantly join my friends games and I can see exactly what they are playing, I can message them and I can even talk to them when we are not playing the same game.

Console exclusives are well... they suck tbh, I don't have the money to afford every console every generation and being locked out of certain games is terrible. What can ya do about it though...

And as for noise, my gaming laptop makes less noise than my PS3 does.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

...A few extra polys? Polycounts apply to models and not animations, and as to why, an animation in an HD game can take anywhere up to a couple/several megabytes, which, when you're working with machines that have, say, 2x256mb RAM, that one animation for one model can literally take up 1% of its memory on its own. When you're working with dozens and dozens of models and animations, that is absolutely massive; the memory of these current gen consoles is simply pathetic.

So how is it then, a system like the PS3 can do Metal Gear Solid to the standard it is (visually more impressive, smother and less glitches), but not ME3?

At 64 players versus 24 players there is more action as the maps are more densely populated with players. Yes, even the ones that were cut down in size in the console version. Your posts have all been generic, vague and presumptuous, but you're just spewing nonsense at this point.

No, I have been concise with examples to prove my points. You have not. You might want to start putting in some actual data to back up your claims.

The fuck does that have to do with anything? "W-w-well this other game got a patch therefore all other games can be fixed by simply patching them"? I will agree that some things can be patched, but there are hard limits to what the hardware can achieve, and the closer you get to that limit the less efficient development becomes as you get more and more bogged down in optimization.

In a word, yes. Look at EA's release schedules; 1 new game per franchise per year. You can't make a problem free "AAA" title in one year, you cut the schedule and the devs have to cut their work on it. It's easy enough to blame the hardware when you don't fully optimize the code. Yes there are hard limits, but, given time you can make it seem like the hardware is capable of things it is normally not.

And the point you were making was what, exactly?

That a brand new P.C video card released at the same time as the PS3 was capable of rendering lava.

Now I mentioned a whole bunch of things that are a result purely of the consoles' limited hardware power. You say that somehow that's a design problem. Explain the thought process to me.

Given time you can make it seem like the hardware is capable of things it is normally not.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Today, many of the console games play like PC games. The comparison is no longer with arcade games, but PC games.

I miss arcade-style gameplay and there's no reason why the PS4 won't be able to deliver this.

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by "arcade-style"? Consoles have met and exceeded capabilities of arcades. I know it's hard to remember, but arcades used to be the biggest and best. Nowadays there's not much an arcade can do that a console can't blow out of the water with just a disk.

Yes, arcades used to be the best and I mentioned that in my original post. The consoles used to be compared to the arcade machines.

Arcade style gameplay - Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, any side scrolling shooter, any fighter or brawler. PC games (for whatever reason) tend to feel all the same because the character that you control feels glued to the center of the screen. I could list more "arcade-style" games but I'm talking about games that you would see in an arcade - not much story involved because you're out with your freinds and it's about interactive entertainment - not sitting and watching a movie or TV show.

 

[geizr]

Well, here's my question: just precisely how much processing power do we really need to have a fulfilling gaming experience? It seems to me that we had long ago passed the point where there is sufficient processing power to create a wonderful gaming experience. As far as graphics, we've long passed the point where, for most people's visual acuity, there is any distinctive difference attained in higher resolutions, higher polygon counts, higher frame rates and more realistic lighting model: humans don't see beyond 85 fps; human reflexes don't react beyond 60 fps; and the pixels in most current 4+ Mpixel monitors at normal desktop viewing distances subtends an angle at the edge of human visual angular resolution. Lighting is something that requires an artistic eye to get right, as far as creating proper moods and balance; calculating your way to quality lighting only goes so far. In terms of the processing power necessary for the underlying engine, from what I've seen and my own understanding, the main problem there is that the software is just being poorly implemented and not well optimized. So, escalating processing power is being used as a compensation for unoptimized or just plain clunky algorithms and code. If game developers wouldn't use processing power as a crutch to compensate for unoptimized code, I think we would find we could do a lot more with what we already have than we have so far realized. I feel we have seen peeks into this possibility a number of times in comparing games that perform superbly versus games that perform less than superbly (some being down right shitty).

In my opinion, the only people for whom this continuing race for escalating processing power has any relevance are the hardware manufacturers, who are fighting to maintain revenue, the enthusiasts, who simply like having the most powerful, highest-end machine around, and some publications/bloggers, who have a vested interest in the page views that come from the PC vs console flamewars. However, for the rest of us, I think we've all long passed the "good enough" threshold and just don't see any benefit to the processor arms-race. The games themselves need to actually catch-up to the hardware in terms of sophistication and craftsmanship. This is not the same as cramming in a ton of features and visual effects, but making the software more streamlined, cleaner, and better optimized to use the hardware in smart and creative ways to achieve results that create a full experience for the gamer. It's also about improving the design of the games themselves. In my opinion, the PC-console war has simply long since lost its purpose and relevance in the modern gaming market.

 

[niktzv]

Powerful Processors and graphics cards have never promised a good game. frankly I don't care about any of that stuff, and it seems that the game developers that do are usually the ones whose terrible business practices ensure Im not buying they're games anyway.

 

[Valiance]

I know there are 7 pages of comments precisely like this one, but it's just typical Nvidia/Intel comments to call AMD CPU/GPU/APUs trash despite them being very high value in price/performance comparisons, allowing the PS4 to retail for less than it would if other companies won the bid.

The truth is, the 64-bit 8 core AMD Jaguar CPU is a pretty big upgrade compared to previous gen hardware, and the GPU has 18 compute unites and is capable of 1.84 teraflops. That's somewhere between a Radeon HD 7850 and HD 7870, the latter of which sells for $249 at any major marketplace such as Newegg or TigerDirect. Mind you, the PS4 itself is retailing at $429, so I'm guessing AMD gave them some major discounts.

Obviously, highest of high end PCs will outperform this hardware easily, but it's still nothing terrible. I'd hardly call it low-end.

 

[Olrod]

"March 2012, more than a year and a half ago"

Is this interview from the future?

 

[DataSnake]

You know, there's another facet of technology that's much less discussed than graphics but IMO far more important for game quality: loading times. I give zero fucks whether a game's shadows have slightly jagged issues or if the reflections from the water aren't perfect, but if I have to wait 30 seconds or more every time I go into or out of a different building we're going to have a problem. As far as I'm concerned, the ideal next-gen console would be about as powerful as a 360 and use the money they would have earmarked for a snazzy new GPU on a solid-state hard drive. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because faster loading times don't really translate into ads as well as highly detailed screenshots.

 

[Drizzitdude]

While I agree it is true that in terms of comparison there is simply no way we can compare a ps4 to a high end pc, there are other things to consider. I mean the first is of course optimization, but the more important matter in my opinion is how the release of new consoles affects the market and developers. I mean the current gen of consoles lasted how long before devs really were able to put it through its paces and utilize the entire hardware capabilities? And lets not forget some of the great console exclusives that have come from the market as well, which while I am sure could be much better on the PC, may have not existed at all in the first place if not for the console market. Some devs just roll that way I guess. So personally, I am excited about the new console generation, not because I think it will be anything special hardware wise, but because it will open the floodgates to encourage developers to make new franchises and higher end games to better suit the hardware.

 

[Lightknight]

Yes, arcades used to be the best and I mentioned that in my original post. The consoles used to be compared to the arcade machines.

Arcade style gameplay - Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, any side scrolling shooter, any fighter or brawler. PC games (for whatever reason) tend to feel all the same because the character that you control feels glued to the center of the screen. I could list more "arcade-style" games but I'm talking about games that you would see in an arcade - not much story involved because you're out with your freinds and it's about interactive entertainment - not sitting and watching a movie or TV show.

It sounds more like you're missing specific types of games which is completely your prerogative. It used to be that arcades were the cutting edge of technology and consoles became able to do what they do in people's homes. This is largely why arcades died away. If they existed today the same way they used to, then they'd also not have as many side scrollers either because advanced technology is what did away with those games types as well as the demand for games utilizing 3D and advanced processing. Those things don't really make a better game, but they can make a more atmospherically immersive game (e.g. resident evil would not have been as ground breaking in 2D, this point can be arguable but I don't think there's ground to oppose that sentiment). That is to say, a game that you can stop and look around in makes you feel like you're in that world a lot more than a 2D screen. As for fighting games, they come out all the time, don't know what you're missing in that category. Indie games are also providing a lot of the 2D scrolling fix and are becoming more and more available from console stores.

I can see your points, but I have problems with some of them. You're $300 console might afford you hours of playing Skyrim, but so does my PC, and it looks better and I can mod it to boot.

Right, but your pc is not a $300 machine if it's playing Skyrim. Remember, I have a very high end pc in addition to my ps3. I know the cost and quality difference. This is why I call gaming PCs ferraris compared to consoles that are powerful but more like a middle range sports cars. PC's may be more powerful, but to get them even just as powerful as a console you're talking about several hundred dollars more and what's the point of building a gaming pc if it's only as good as consoles? So we're talking about a lot of hundreds piling up. And if you're talking gaming laptops? Throw another couple hundred on that price point. You should be able to make a more powerful desktop for around $1,000. But I suppose that depends on just how optimized the ps4 is since as stated, the hardware is not directly comparable with that same hardware in a pc.

So, with the price in mind, not everyone is has a full time salary like I and probably you have. Gaming is also my favorite hobby and so it isn't really competing with other hobbies. Some people are ok shelling out $400 for a console they're going to be able to play good games on for the next five years but would easily balk at $700 or more. Look at the ps3 launch and you'll understand that sort of debacle and that console was worth that money at the time. Regardless of whether or not you have a Ferrari or a mid-quality sports car, there will still be speed limits. In this case, a pc can process a lot of stuff but what's the point if games are designed to function on the mid-range consoles? The benefit will be negligeable unless it was designed on a pc and then downgraded for consoles. Even then, the average joe is going to have a middle quality machine or a console. So price is an important point here.

Launching a game on my PC is just as easy, if not easier than launching it on a console. With the console I have to change discs if I want to play a different game, on my PC I just double-click an icon and bam.

This shouldn't be the case in the next generation of gaming. I'm anticipating much larger HDDs for storing digital copies of games. Just as with the PC, you have to download or install the game from disk first. This is no different than a digital ps3 download except that games are more intuitively categorized in a games category that is seperate from other file types. I'd say they're about equal at best. Games from disk, consoles win out since inserting a disk goes directly into the game if set to do so and pcs still have to boot their weighty OS. Installation from disk also takes less time and can speed up game processing by splitting up data between the disk and drive. Games from HDD, about the same as far as I can tell. So overall it's a leg up but this just regards patience and not gameplay.

Integrated multiplayer is nice, but with steam I have many of the same features as xbox live, I can instantly join my friends games and I can see exactly what they are playing, I can message them and I can even talk to them when we are not playing the same game.

A lot of help that does with a group of friends in your living room. "Want to play Halo/COD/Etc? Alright, everyone go home." And god forbid that my wife ever want to play something like dance central with a group of her friends.

Console exclusives are well... they suck tbh, I don't have the money to afford every console every generation and being locked out of certain games is terrible. What can ya do about it though...

I've found that a PC and the ps3 means you can play most games. It also looks like Microsoft is poising itself to make its games available on PC's which could be interesting and may even be the future of the big boys (Steam competitors, essentially). But I've also established to positive side of these exclusive games and the fundamental positive effect that sperate consoles may have on the market by trying to compete on one another. They have deep pockets and are solidly invested in bringing quality entertainment on their consoles. That means better games for both consoles because the mere existence of one with good exclusives means the other has to do the same.

And as for noise, my gaming laptop makes less noise than my PS3 does.

My original ps3 that is backwards compatible certainly has a noise problem. But most desktops are even noiser. It's great if you spent a few extra bucks on noise reduction devices, higher quality fans, or an HDD/SSD that produces less noise but not everyone is willing to pay more for that or are even aware of how noisy they can be. Note also that there are many reasons why a person may not want their box in the living room, not the least of which is that most pc games are still not optimized for TVs, God bless Valve for starting to change that though.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

yeah, it's a total misnomer anyway. The term elitism implies some sort of exclusivity or special designation, whereas anyone is free to get a PC and join the "elite."

But that's it, the PC elitists we are talking about are the ones that are the first to talk about how their computers stomp this hardware, and how console gamers wouldn't know quality tech if it hit them in the face.

I mean I suppose we could start using the term PC douchebags, I guess we will let the PC crowd pick which they like better.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

The funny thing about this thread is that people still dont know any real specifications about the gpu of the PS4 other than its name. Defending something as arbitrary as its name is fanboyism and you would be excatly as correct by defending Zelda on the sole principle that it is published by Nintendo.

I am very sceptic that the PS4 will shine in more than a year at most, if at all, compared to the PC, simply because of the PCs ability to make changes in specific parts of its specs without having to change everything. That said, lets see how the PS4 actually fares and judge it on its actual merits instead of just guess-work because, since no-one knows anything more substantial than what can be attributed to "turbo-powered"-naming conventions, no one really knows anything about its true specs - however crappy they may or may not turn out to be.

I all I know, is that I will wait at least a few months to get an actual representation of how the specs are, rather than jumping the wagon and buying one instantly or outright refusing it all together