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

[ScrabbitRabbit]

I don't care, it means I can get away with only minor upgrades to my rig. I don't think it's exactly fair to compare the PS4's graphics capabilities to a fucking 680, either. That's top of the line shit right there and costs about as much on it's own as the PS4 probably will altogether.

All I want to know now is whether the games will be any good and how the extra horsepower is going to be used to improve games.

I'd have to agree. How can anyone really justify investing in the new console generation if they are only shipping with 8GB of RAM? Does anyone really think that 8GB is going to be enough in 5 years? When the Xbox 360 and the PS3 were announced they were really amazing specs at the time and you can even see now how weak those consoles are and how they are hamstringing the industry. Now they aren't even aiming for amazing, just settling for okay. Okay now is going to be absolute crap in 5 years.

To be fair, the PS360 had low RAM even at the time. I had 3GB RAM in 2003/4. I can't remember how much VRAM my graphics card had, but it was a decent card for the time.

It was mainly the graphics cards and processors that were impressive.

 

[FFP2]

This dude is kinda right...

He went about it in a shitty way, but I get his point.

 

[Absolutionis]

The fact that Nvidia lost the PS4 bid to their rival doesn't really bode well for Nvidia trash-talking the PS4 like this. The whole thing comes off as something as tactful as EA tends to do in Press Releases.

 

[dumbseizure]

He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

Thank you, exactly what I was going to say.

Higher specs aren't needed in consoles like they are in PC's.

Consoles are usually used for just gaming, running a minimalist OS.

Windows is quite a resource hog in itself, hence the needing of a higher clock CPU, more ram and higher GPU, not to mention any programs you want to use that use up your ram, CPU etc.

It isn't fair to compare the specs of a console and a computer, because not only are they used for different things, but with consoles, everyone is on equal footing, same specs and such, much less testing and more optimization for consoles.

Edit: Not to mention consoles are meant to be a cost effective way of being able to game.

Something tells me a GT680 in every PS4 would not be cost effective, it would effectively raise the price of the ps4 by...well....a lot really.

Being able to attain good graphics, good clock speeds and the like does not always need top of the line hardware, it needs hardware that can do the job, and some good old optimization.

 

[Terramax]

The first paragraph is all you need to read before writing off Tony Tamasi's comments completely.

 

[Steven Bogos]

"Nividia"?

Nice.

OT: I'm not surprised. I bought my current computer around the releases of the current consoles, and I easily outpaced them then. What would make it any different now?

Thanks for that! Missed that one!

 

[Riddle78]

Well,this isn't a surprise,to be honest. A gaming PC that's a year or so behind the curve is often more powerful than the latest console. What else is there to say?

 

[nexus]

Oh surprise. if you tell the truth, you're an elitist!

I imagine the retail of a PS4 is going to be anywhere from $500 to $600. For that price, I'd expect something a little more in line with current technology standards right now. Microsoft will probably launch their console with slightly lower specs, which means it doesn't really matter. The new Xbox will be pulling back on the industry's collar, just as the 360 has.

I'll just be happy when "aliasing" is something that doesn't exist anymore, but looks like we'll be stuck with that for another 5 years at least.

 

[Oltsu]

He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

The difference the OS, APIs and so on make is very much overrated. As I said previously people think PCs need much more powerful hardware for the same visuals but they really don't. The problem is that current PCs games are usually ran at much higher resolutions and frame rates as console games. As well as details of course.

For example uncharted 3, that's commonly the posterboy for console graphics looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/ymn6HDR.jpg / http://i.imgur.com/MxrWGNY.jpg / http://i.imgur.com/LUV9SkE.jpg . That's what it looks like if you actually take still from gameplay instead of PR shots. The problem of course is that while some of the lighting etc. might be okay-ish the resolution of the textures, the resolution in general and the lack of AA make it look like a blurry mess. You wouldn't need a 8800gt to run this level of visuals at 720p on a PC, it wouldn't be tough at all.

The first paragraph is all you need to read before writing off Tony Tamasi's comments completely.

You could do that or you could read what he says and see that regardless of his possible bias he's absolutely correct in his statement.

 

[rkaycom]

He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

Thank you, exactly what I was going to say.

Higher specs aren't needed in consoles like they are in PC's.

Consoles are usually used for just gaming, running a minimalist OS.

Windows is quite a resource hog in itself, hence the needing of a higher clock CPU, more ram and higher GPU, not to mention any programs you want to use that use up your ram, CPU etc.

It isn't fair to compare the specs of a console and a computer, because not only are they used for different things, but with consoles, everyone is on equal footing, same specs and such, much less testing and more optimization for consoles.

Edit: Not to mention consoles are meant to be a cost effective way of being able to game.

Something tells me a GT680 in every PS4 would not be cost effective, it would effectively raise the price of the ps4 by...well....a lot really.

Being able to attain good graphics, good clock speeds and the like does not always need top of the line hardware, it needs hardware that can do the job, and some good old optimization.

Sorry but your argument is very flawed. Something that a lot of people over look is that consoles render games at 720p with 30 fps, where as PCs render those same games at 1080p with 60 fps. PCs also have high texture resolution, draw distance, detail, AA, etc, etc. Unless the console come out with some seriously powerful hardware, PCs will continue to dominate performance wise and they are only getting cheaper and cheaper, saw a guide for a $450 SC2:HotS ultra graphics PC the other week.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Snip

Overrated, yes, but still very much a factor, especially when developers are dealing with the very limited amount of RAM. RAM availablity was the reason the PS3 couldn't access the XMB in game for so long, and it's still laggy today. If PS3 games had to run over Windows they would look infinitely more like ass. You're absolutely right with your Uncharted 3 examples, though. I think that if there's PS4 ports of late-era PS3 titles, they should at least have AA that isn't a post-process filter, sharper shadows, and maybe more texture filtering. As I've said before though, the bottleneck will always be the HDTV. No matter what hardware you stick in a console, it'll never run games at 2560p or the resolutions of triple display setups due to the limitation of the living room display. Kind of reminds me of before the PS3 release, when they were touting dual HDMI ports and the ability to use two HDTVs.

It's a case of not caring about what you haven't experienced, basically that Uncharted 3 looks amazing if you've never played a game at 60 or 120 fps with 16xAA/AF at resolutions higher than 720p. Also of note is that not all of us are grpahics whores, and couldn't give less of a damn about any of the things that we're discussing right now, much to Nvidia's dismay : )

 

[dumbseizure]

He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

Thank you, exactly what I was going to say.

Higher specs aren't needed in consoles like they are in PC's.

Consoles are usually used for just gaming, running a minimalist OS.

Windows is quite a resource hog in itself, hence the needing of a higher clock CPU, more ram and higher GPU, not to mention any programs you want to use that use up your ram, CPU etc.

It isn't fair to compare the specs of a console and a computer, because not only are they used for different things, but with consoles, everyone is on equal footing, same specs and such, much less testing and more optimization for consoles.

Edit: Not to mention consoles are meant to be a cost effective way of being able to game.

Something tells me a GT680 in every PS4 would not be cost effective, it would effectively raise the price of the ps4 by...well....a lot really.

Being able to attain good graphics, good clock speeds and the like does not always need top of the line hardware, it needs hardware that can do the job, and some good old optimization.

Sorry but your argument is very flawed. Something that a lot of people over look is that consoles render games at 720p with 30 fps, where as PCs render those same games at 1080p with 60 fps. PCs also have high texture resolution, draw distance, detail, AA, etc, etc. Unless the console come out with some seriously powerful hardware, PCs will continue to dominate performance wise and they are only getting cheaper and cheaper, saw a guide for a $450 SC2:HotS ultra graphics PC the other week.

Rendering at 30 fps isnt exclusive to everything btw, revengeance on ps3 I believe is 60 fps, and I also believe final fantasy 13 is 1080p?

In other words, it depends how well it has been optimized.

I'm still not understanding how my argument is "very flawed".

Console games still look quite good.

Just because pc's CAN run everything at 1080p with all the little extras, that doesnt exactly mean that everyone cares about having the shinier graphics. If they did, consoles would not be selling at all.

It comes down to ease of use, and a console will always be easier to use.

Minimal OS, no reinstalling the OS, no installing drivers, no reinstalling all the programs you want, so on and so forth.

That is why consoles can have lower prices and less impressive hardware, because unlike a pc, consoles dont have to run all the resource hogging software, OS and such that a computer has to run.

Just because a PC can dominate graphics wise, that doesn't mean that people will all flock to pc's like they are the golden egg everyone has been searching for.

So no, I don't see my argument as being flawed, just because one is more powerful, doesn't make my argument of a console being cost effective for gaming any less valid.

 

[Fat Hippo]

Please Sony, Microsoft, Nvidia, AMD and every other creator of gaming hardware: stop publicly trolling each other! You're making everyone look childish without helping in any way. Not to mention the billion flamewars this has already caused. And don't we have enough of those?

 

[spartandude]

He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

Thank you, exactly what I was going to say.

Higher specs aren't needed in consoles like they are in PC's.

Consoles are usually used for just gaming, running a minimalist OS.

Windows is quite a resource hog in itself, hence the needing of a higher clock CPU, more ram and higher GPU, not to mention any programs you want to use that use up your ram, CPU etc.

It isn't fair to compare the specs of a console and a computer, because not only are they used for different things, but with consoles, everyone is on equal footing, same specs and such, much less testing and more optimization for consoles.

Edit: Not to mention consoles are meant to be a cost effective way of being able to game.

Something tells me a GT680 in every PS4 would not be cost effective, it would effectively raise the price of the ps4 by...well....a lot really.

Being able to attain good graphics, good clock speeds and the like does not always need top of the line hardware, it needs hardware that can do the job, and some good old optimization.

Sorry but your argument is very flawed. Something that a lot of people over look is that consoles render games at 720p with 30 fps, where as PCs render those same games at 1080p with 60 fps. PCs also have high texture resolution, draw distance, detail, AA, etc, etc. Unless the console come out with some seriously powerful hardware, PCs will continue to dominate performance wise and they are only getting cheaper and cheaper, saw a guide for a $450 SC2:HotS ultra graphics PC the other week.

Im not going to lie mate, but SC2 on ultra isnt the most demanding thing out there, by a long shot
dont get me wrong thats a good value pc but yh being able to play Star Craft 2 on ultra isnt a major show of power

 

[Sol_HSA]

Nvidia bashes competitor's products, film at 11..

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Rendering at 30 fps isnt exclusive to everything btw, revengeance on ps3 I believe is 60 fps, and I also believe final fantasy 13 is 1080p?

Nope, FFXIII on PS3 is at 1280 x 720, aka 720p. The 360 version is even lower. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off

A lot of games run at sub-720p resolutions. Dark Souls, the CoDs (probably to achieve 60FPS), etc.

The addition of a heavy OS like Windows means you need much more RAM and maybe a better CPU, but doesn't affect the GPU requirements much at all. A fairly weak GPU could easily run most straight console ports at 720p/30FPS at the kind of settings you see on consoles. Games like CoD will easily run at the same 60FPS, too. You do need a slightly better GPU, as the many varied PC set-ups out there mean that games can't be optimized as efficiently. It's difficult to play to the strengths of the hardware when everybody has different hardware.

Still, I agree with your other points. Consoles are still a lot easier to use and a lot more convenient. Better graphics aren't a great reason for picking one format over the other, either, or at least I don't think so. It's all about the games, in the end. I play on PC because I like PC games. That and it was cheaper in my situation, but whatevs, yo.

I also agree that console games still look good but, fuck, I still get blown away by how nice some 6th generation games look.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Still better than my computer and I'm only interested in the new PS4 for the new Sony titles. When something good comes out with the shield I might start wetting myself (doubtful).

 

[srm79]

"we didn't want to do the business [with Sony for the PS4] at the price those guys were willing to pay."

"They didn't want to do business with us at the prices we wanted them to pay"

Nvidia loses out to it's #1 rival, goes on the attack. Seems legit.

 

[srm79]

Double post, dammit!

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Lets get some facts straight.

> August 2005 - GeForce 7800GT launches, the second-fastest card of that generation next to 7800GTX.
> November 2006 - Playstation 3 launches, using a GPU equivalent power to a GeForce 7800GT (G70 architecture)
> November 2006 - GeForce 8800GT launches, the second-fastest card of that generation next to 8800GTX - exactly onu generation ahead of PS3.

What I'm getting at is that the PS3 upon release was incredibly powerful and comparable to mid/high-end gaming PC at that time.

In order to equal that same pattern, a PS4 must use nothing less than a GTX580 equivalent GPU - and apparently it's using an HD7850 equivalent, a card that is nowhere near as fast as a GTX580.
The 8-core AMD Jaguar CPU being used is also orders of magnitude slower than what Intel have to offer with Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge.

Hardware-wise the PS3 was a force to be reckoned with when it released and it lasted for 7 years. The next console generation is expected to be the last, and they are kicking things off with such sub-par hardware when the progression of technology is accelerating? This is madness.