Nvidia Claims PS4 Is Only as Good as a "Low-End" PC
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Bah... Hence one reason I never liked Nvidia...
"Low end PC" my ass, while the CPU (and GPU) combined aren't anything overly spectacular, it is hardly "low end"..
If anything, they're near the bottom of "high end" performance.
repeat: I never really liked Nvidia
"Low end PC" my ass, while the CPU (and GPU) combined aren't anything overly spectacular, it is hardly "low end"..
If anything, they're near the bottom of "high end" performance.
repeat: I never really liked Nvidia
And the on-die GPU is a 7660G... and before anyone says "well, the 7660 is a mid-ish range card so that's not too bad," the G variant is a low powered version for notebook APUs which is nowhere near the same as a 7660 GPU on a discrete card (for those wondering why, the entire APU is designed to run on about the same power as a mid range discrete GPU card will. So expect roughly half the performance at best).MrTub said:
This is why I got out of consoles and into PC years ago. Modern consoles are usually ok at best upon release, but with their lack up modular design and the ability to truly upgrade them, they usually get left in the dust when compared to PCs. This is why I stick to PC. Consoles just aren't that great.Xyebane said:
The discussion going on here is all well and good, but I find that this is the more pressing issue:
I find it unfair that some people had a year and a half's worth of time since last March, whereas I only had one year's worth of time.
Let's be realistic here: All of this was known well before the specs were announced. Only delusional fanboys would have thought that the PS4 would have raw specs comparable to a top-end PC. Sony isn't going to sell you $1000 worth of hardware for $429. There's a limit on how much of a loss they can take on each console.Oltsu said:
Exactly, the fact that the PS4 is going for AMD APUs has nVidia butthurt. The reality is that this will result in a huge boost for AMD's Research and Development. Now if only the XBox 720 would go for a Piledriver based CPU. In the right hands, the CPU is a power house. Just look at how well Crysis 3 handles the Piledrivers.Reyalsfeihc said:
There has to be a balance between what people are willing to pay and what you offer. My guess is that Sony got burned on offering a $600 machine last time around and have made their expectations in-line with its customers. It's just them being smart this time by learning from their mistakes.GAunderrated said:
I see this as Sony being damned no matter what they do. If they make a high-end machine then you'd be talking a console that is easily over $1,000 ($2,000+ for top of the line if you don't shop around for deals) and we'd be bitching about the price. They come in with a reasonable piece of hardware that probably (hopefully) falls into our price point and we're bitching about that too. So which do we want? Very high price point or reasonable price point (or the third option that Nintendo took last generation by playing an entirely different game than the others)?
Either way, this system is significantly better than the ps3 and will leave a lot of room to grow. It isn't a giant leap like the ps3 was to the ps2 but it is a significant step. The games coming out right now for the ps3 are of amazing quality so I'm not entirely certain that we're too far from a 'good enough' benchmark for gaming to do pretty much what we want to. Mark my words, there will be a day when better graphics really don't matter that much. As has already been said, consoles have far better optimizations of its hardware than pcs do. On paper these specs may look like low end but they're not when that is accounted for.
If Sony is truly smart, the specs they listed will be the base model and they'll have designed the systems in a way that allows the same switching out of components that pcs do. The past generation started this with HDDs and they cannot compete with the pcs being created for home entertainment systems and gaming if they don't expand that to other items like RAM and the GPU. We'll be a lot more forgiving of a $300 upgrade in five years than a system replacement. Be ware though, this model means that there could be a day where games have iterations/versions for the same system that specify which minimum components your ps4 has to have. I'm a pc gamer so I'm already used to that, but is it something we can ask of the general consumers? I wonder how the 360 will handle it.
Look what developers have done with the current gen technology. We've seen some remarkable stuff and games from 2006 (bioshock/oblivion) are still playable today. We've arrived at a technological position where most graphics are "good enough" to not be jarring or even quite beautiful.MrTub said:
The ps4 may not be a powerhouse in terms of hardware, but it is a significant step over the ps3 and the 360 and that's saying a LOT considering what we've already been getting this year. But I tell you what, I already have a powerhouse computer, I don't want to spend $1000+ on a ps4 to have two powerhouses and I'm guessing the average console gamer doesn't either. Also, the ps4 is a console and is optimised for that hardware in ways that PCs are absolutely not. Nvidia (my favorite graphics company) is just being dumb if they're treating a console like they are a pc. In reality, we're looking at a middle level console and that will serve us well for what it's for. It will also make all those high end pcs we own a little more worth it.
Whether we like it or not, consoles determine the game market. What does it matter if you have the top of the line pc if games are still going to be made for the consoles? I don't expect Microsoft or Sony to be at the top, but I'm just glad they're both taking a positive step in the right direction.
Take a look at the ps3 vs. ps4. It's a world of difference:
http://www.shacknews.com/article/77974/comparing-ps3-and-ps4-specs-what-it-means-for-everyday
Again, keep in mind the kind of games that the ps3 is already capable of and then imagine that kind of hardware upgrade. Also, look at the ps3's specs and realise what it can do despite being nothing compared to today's market. That should show you what kind of a difference console optimization can make when the PS3 can play something like Skyrim on 512Mbs of RAM and a 7 year-old cpu (the problem it had at launch was the processor's division of asset categories rather than a hardware quality failure, something they're moving away from this generation).
Man I got a xbox 360 and honestly its shit.Lightknight said:
Most games lag (example naruto games when somebody use ultis/awakened its unplayable) most games are kinda 720p and "upscaled 1080p"
I used to play at 5760x1080 and currently 2560x1440 so when a console cant even handle 720p its embarrassing.
Yes I know ps4 will be more powerful then ps3 (Otherwise it would be even more of a failure) but if they are already making a pretty weak console, then I cant imagine how weak it will be in 5 years, or in 8 years and its sad ps4 will not have a ssd imo.
And yes I have really noticed that consoles is dragging pc gaming down just compare Crysis 1/Warhead compared to Crysis 2.
Well think of it this way... the Xbox 360 is running 512 mb of RAM and a modified Radeon x1900, which, if put in a PC, would not render games at the same levels as the console, yet was able to run games having them look almost the same as their PC version counterparts (if you discount the whole FPS gap). How many PCs do you know of that are "low-end" that can run Just Cause 2 consistently at 720p at the same graphics settings as on the Xbox? And the PS4 will have 16x the RAM that is GDDR5 memory type (so very high memory bandwith and all dedicated to graphics) when there are some PC graphics cards that can run games at 1080p at 40+ FPS with 1 to 1.5 gb DDR3 (GTX 295, GTX 280) and a MUCH lower clock speed. So imagine just what the PS4 can do since it is DEDICATED to games (mostly) and will probably render them at 720p. Just think of the implications of this! They say the GPU power of the PS3 is about on par with a 7850, and that's enough to run any game now at 1080p with high to max settings with fluid FPS. So how is it a lie that the PS4 is anything but at least CLOSE to high end?Abomination said:
It is, now. Back then it was amazing. They've needed this upgrade for some time now.MrTub said:
Who says it won't have an SSD? I already have one in my ps3. It just won't be sold with one because that would add a lot of cash for less storage space. Price control is pretty strong on their mind.
Yeah, it's been rough knowing that they were holding things back. But this jump in technology is significant and will really show. I don't think we'll notice it being as weak in 5 years as we noticed with the ps3. That's simply because a lot of the technologies they were experimenting in were new back then but well established now. Even the Bluray player is becoming better and that was infuriatingly necessary.
"if put in a PC, would not render games at the same levels as the console, yet was able to run games having them look almost the same as their PC version counterparts" Thats not even close to true considering most people are not even playing at 720p on pc.Azaraxzealot said:
And the ps4 will share the ram so no it will not 8gb dedicated to vram since that would be so overkill. Do you even know what vram does? (Hint if the gpu is lagging having 8gb vram will not help at all.)¨
And if they ps4 will render games at 720p then Im going to be a bit sick since that will affect pc games.
And most low end computers have no problem running Just cause 2 at 720p 30fps.
And no I do not think it was amazing when they released xbox 360.Lightknight said:
Except in 5-8 years we will be using dx12/13/14 so yeah it will affect pc gaming, the same way that most games still uses dx9 since thats what the xbox 360 can handle.
And a weak cpu will affect so many things so yay for bad AI and shit.