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

[Azaraxzealot]

Seems like he is openly pandering to the stereotypical PC elitist. Not cool dude, not cool. :/

As opposed to doing what? Claiming something false, that the PS4 is a relatively powerful machine compared to current gaming computers?

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 most PC's graphics cards 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?

"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.

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.

I know what Vram does. Like having a 4 gb gt 630 will make no difference from a gt 630 with 1 gb (except at higher resolutions/AF, but the difference in FPS will be marginal at best because of their clock speed). But the fact remains that the 8 gigs will be helpful to rendering games and the power is said to be on par with a 7850 (which can, as stated, run games at 1080p at max or near max settings at fluid FPS levels). The 8 gigs must be for 4k video because that much resolution would need it, but having extra memory can't be HARMFUL to games can it? No it can't. And the fact is that 8 gigs is still 16x more than 512 mb, so it will be able to handle more tasks and handle MUCH more high-resolution textures.

EDIT:
It would also be IMPOSSIBLE to play Just Cause 2 using a radeon hd x1900 with 512 mb of ram on your system (especially at the same levels as on the xbox 360) because the minimum requirements require 2 gigs of RAM and to get the dynamic shadows/anti-aliasing/motion blur/AF experienced on the xbox version you would need something at least at the level of a 6670 with 1 gig of GDDR5 memory in order for it NEVER to dip below 30 fps (which the console version doesn't).

 

[MrTub]

Seems like he is openly pandering to the stereotypical PC elitist. Not cool dude, not cool. :/

As opposed to doing what? Claiming something false, that the PS4 is a relatively powerful machine compared to current gaming computers?

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 most PC's graphics cards 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?

"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.

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.

I know what Vram does. Like having a 4 gb gt 630 will make no difference from a gt 630 with 1 gb (except at higher resolutions/AF, but the difference in FPS will be marginal at best because of their clock speed). But the fact remains that the 8 gigs will be helpful to rendering games and the power is said to be on par with a 7850 (which can, as stated, run games at 1080p at max or near max settings at fluid FPS levels). The 8 gigs must be for 4k video because that much resolution would need it, but having extra memory can't be HARMFUL to games can it? No it can't. And the fact is that 8 gigs is still 16x more than 512 mb, so it will be able to handle more tasks and handle MUCH more high-resolution textures.

Again, it's not 8gb vram. It's 8gb RAM that will be split.

Do you honestly expect them to play at 4k resolution?
There is not a chance in hell that the gpu will be able to handle 4k resolution.


About your edit. I never said anything about using xbox 360 gpu to play game on computer so I do not really understand your edit since I said low spec comps, not pc with xbox 360 gpu.

 

[Abomination]

Seems like he is openly pandering to the stereotypical PC elitist. Not cool dude, not cool. :/

As opposed to doing what? Claiming something false, that the PS4 is a relatively powerful machine compared to current gaming computers?

(if you discount the whole FPS gap)

So if you ignore the almost flat 2x higher performance + higher resolution settings? Other factors such as reduced load times, greater draw-distance capabilities and running other programs simultaneously.

The 'power' of the console isn't in its sleek streamlined design, it's in how the games for it are designed specifically with that console's capabilities in mind. This does allow designers to maximize the console's potential but the maximum of a console is 'average' (at best) to current gaming PCs.

This is also combined with the accelerated improvements in technology. I imagine it has a lot to do with the console companies faffing about with motion sensor hardware, blowing all their R&D budget on something that their most profitable and long-term consumers saw resulting in a flop (which it has).

 

[Lovely Mixture]

It's sad that he has to tell this to people who won't do research themselves. No wait, it's just sad that those people exist, I remember the twitter feed during the conference

"PC is finished!"
then
"reports are that the machine was a PC running at PS4 specs"

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Seems like he is openly pandering to the stereotypical PC elitist. Not cool dude, not cool. :/

As opposed to doing what? Claiming something false, that the PS4 is a relatively powerful machine compared to current gaming computers?

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 most PC's graphics cards 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?

"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.

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.

I know what Vram does. Like having a 4 gb gt 630 will make no difference from a gt 630 with 1 gb (except at higher resolutions/AF, but the difference in FPS will be marginal at best because of their clock speed). But the fact remains that the 8 gigs will be helpful to rendering games and the power is said to be on par with a 7850 (which can, as stated, run games at 1080p at max or near max settings at fluid FPS levels). The 8 gigs must be for 4k video because that much resolution would need it, but having extra memory can't be HARMFUL to games can it? No it can't. And the fact is that 8 gigs is still 16x more than 512 mb, so it will be able to handle more tasks and handle MUCH more high-resolution textures.

Again, it's not 8gb vram. It's 8gb RAM that will be split.

Do you honestly expect them to play at 4k resolution?
There is not a chance in hell that the gpu will be able to handle 4k resolution.


About your edit. I never said anything about using xbox 360 gpu to play game on computer so I do not really understand your edit since I said low spec comps, not pc with xbox 360 gpu.

I never said GAMES will be at 4k, I said VIDEOS. And "low-spec" is very subjective. I could say a computer with an i5, 16 gigs of ram and a gtx 580 is low spec because there are computers out there with 4 gtx titans, an overclocked i7 and 64+ gigs of ram. When I say "low-spec" i'm referring to pre-made standard computers most families and offices buy. They MAY run Just Cause 2, but not even at 720p resolution could they match the settings on the Xbox 360, and what I was saying was that you need to take into account that since a PS4 will not have an OS hogging up resources the things it can do will WELL exceed a typical low-end PC and even mid-to-high end systems with i3s and slower-clocked i5s with radeon hd 7750s/7850s/gtx 650s/gtx 650 tis because of how much the games can be optimized for the specs provided (and they are high even by PC standards). This guy from Nvidia obviously thinks anything below a GTX 680 is low-end.

 

[qeinar]

Hm... So if I call Shadow of the Colossus remarkable, that makes the specs of PS2 irrelevant?

Listen, you can talk about efficiency all you want, but the fact of the matter is that the PS3 and the Xbox360 can barely run games at 720p or 60fps; let alone both, let alone at a resolution that has actually been the standard for several years now, let alone with shaders worth a crap, let alone with anti-aliasing, let alone using any other technology that has been around for ages; let alone without copious and long loading screens, let along without the corridor design paradigm. Et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum.

There are things they simply cannot do, I'm sure you have an imagination capable of pondering such scenarios.

Your examples speak to design problems with the games, not limitations of the hardware.

well your sort of wrong actually. bad hardware doesn't only limit graphics, but also how manny objects you can have on screen. by putting everything in corridors it's easier to run it. I'm kinda upset with how bad the specs are, not because i care about graphics, but because i care about games.

 

[D-Soul]

did that guy just say the PS4 is at best a low end PC?

things just got heated!

But seriously, So what if the PS4 is going to be qualified as a "low to mid" PC, When I want to play games on my computer I play them on my computer. If my computer can't handle it or run it smoothly to point it's playable that's when I bust out the console.

I don't care WHAT plays the game as long it can play it wither it's a console or PC.

It's simple as that.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Seems like he is openly pandering to the stereotypical PC elitist. Not cool dude, not cool. :/

As opposed to doing what? Claiming something false, that the PS4 is a relatively powerful machine compared to current gaming computers?

(if you discount the whole FPS gap)

So if you ignore the almost flat 2x higher performance + higher resolution settings? Other factors such as reduced load times, greater draw-distance capabilities and running other programs simultaneously.

The 'power' of the console isn't in its sleek streamlined design, it's in how the games for it are designed specifically with that console's capabilities in mind. This does allow designers to maximize the console's potential but the maximum of a console is 'average' (at best) to current gaming PCs.

This is also combined with the accelerated improvements in technology. I imagine it has a lot to do with the console companies faffing about with motion sensor hardware, blowing all their R&D budget on something that their most profitable and long-term consumers saw resulting in a flop (which it has).

What I mean is with the shaders, dynamic shadows, and motion blur, the games on xbox 360 and a PC look about the same in terms of screenshots. I've seen plenty of videos pitting PC with max settings against console quality and even side-by-side the way they look in terms of picture is not that much different from each other. I can tell the difference, as I can see by comparing Borderlands 2 on highest settings to the console counterpart, but the difference isn't some HUGE, CAVERNOUS gap that some people make it out to be.

But what I am saying is that with rendering at 720p with a gpu about on par with a 7850, games will look better than they do on current high-end (meaning stuff running 650ti's and up) PCs due to the optimization we will see. The optimization will make games look really great. So it's innacurate to say that the ps4 is on par with a low end PC (I'm pretty sure it can out-perform anything you can get at Fry's for less than $1000) it's about on par with a high-end PC because its GPU specs are on par with a GPU that can render games at 1080p with fluid FPS. So imagine how much fancy graphics they'd be able to pack into a game when they don't even HAVE to go to 1080p when they easily can with today's games.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Most consoles are low end gamer PCs, only through intense optimization can they do what they do. A shame the PC has less than half that optimization focus...

 

[Lightknight]

And no I do not think it was amazing when they released xbox 360.

Fair enough, "amazing" was a bit too strong. It was quite good and jettisoned gaming forward by a fair margin over the ps2 and the 360. Am I the only person who played bioshock and was like, "Well, damn, we're really getting somewhere now"?

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.

I didn't say it wouldn't affect pc gaming. Of course it will. My comment is that this current generation was already getting remarkable but hit a wall somewhere (I'd say Bethesda's Skyrim showed us the bottom of the PS3's barrel). These systems may be a large enough step in the right direction to start getting to a point where a new console would have a significantly diminished return. In five years we will see the same sort of thing, yes, but it hopefully won't be nearly as bad as this time around. We're talking about a system that is already several TIMES better than the ps3 on paper.

We should also be more excited about Steam and its foray into home console's. I mean, that x13 is a joke (high price for a middle/low machine with severe storage limitations), but it looks like Steam may have other things in mind that could give pc a real competitive edge in the living room. We don't even need just one big player to get in the game to help with competition, a lot of small ones would serve that purpose.

And a weak cpu will affect so many things so yay for bad AI and shit.

This is why I'm an advocate for making the major components of consoles upgradeable. It would seriously extend their console lifespan and help prevent these major console launches from breaking their bank and being so risky. We'll see though.

As for bad AI, some interesting AI has already been done in this generation, do you honestly have a firm grasp on what these kinds of specs are capable of? I can't say I really do because we're still in a generation tethered to the ps3 and 360, but if you really know what it can handle then please divulge.

 

[Lunar Templar]

this guy does know that the people that want a PS4 don't care right?

 

[antipunt]

did that guy just say the PS4 is at best a low end PC?

things just got heated!

But seriously, So what if the PS4 is going to be qualified as a "low to mid" PC, When I want to play games on my computer I play them on my computer. If my computer can't handle it or run it smoothly to point it's playable that's when I bust out the console.

I don't care WHAT plays the game as long it can play it wither it's a console or PC.

It's simple as that.

I'm sorry but I'm saving this bear pic. *puts in pocket

But yes, if anyone needs me, I'll be in mai flame bunker

 

[Valkrex]

PC pros:

More open platform
Many options for hardware
Superior graphics
Higher resolutions
Higher frame rate
Mods
A solid build can last a LONG time (5-6 years) before any upgrades are necessary
Much easier to record gaming sessions (no capture card required)
Steam
Overclocking
Larger power supply removes the need for underclocking hardware, thus minimalising OS drain on resources

PC cons:

Cost
One person per PC
They're fucking huge
Occasionally buggy game due to plethora of hardware options
Dev apathy
Origin
Possible destruction of hardware due to improperly overclocking

Console pros:

Ease of access
Cost
Multiple players per system
More Dev support
PS4 at least will have built in recording and sharing
Dedicated OS prevents unnecessary drain on resources
Standardized hardware allows for better optimization
They're fucking small

Console cons:

Hardware becomes dated
Lower resolutions
Lower frame rates
Capture card required for recording (on current systems)
Hardware becomes underclocked a bit due to power restrictions

Bam, argument done.

They both have pros and cons, and many game on both. Can we just end this please?

 

[gamernerdtg2]

In the early days of gaming, consoles were compared to arcade machines. So if a console delivered an arcade-like experience into your living room, it was considered a great console.

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. However, the price is always the caveat - I can't see paying 600 when I can pay someone else 600 and have them make a PC that would outdo the PS4.

Very interesting times we live in for sure. I can give a 1000 to one of my in-laws and have him design me a machine that would destroy the PS4 and PS5 (if that ever happened).

 

[CaptainKoala]

He's just butthurt because of this

Besides, consoles aren't supposed to be on par with PCs, that's why they cost so much less. And it's ridiculous that this guy would expect them to be on the same level.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

What exactly do you mean when you say design problems? Are you saying that it's the developers' fault the consoles can't handle a frickin' holster animation in ME3, to use some of the most absurd examples? That it's DICE's fault the consoles can only go up to 24 players in BF3? That it's CCP's fault the PS3 can't handle lava planets?

I mean, 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?

The holster problem in ME games is a limit of the game engine, a little extra time could have solved that problem. The player cap is more to do with server bandwidth, fixed limit ensures a smoother game for all. I'm sure that if CCP's deadlines permitted it, they could have made lava work. The PC's then equivalent video card could do lava. Maybe their (CCP) coders weren't up to snuff.

 

[Strazdas]

Id say more like mid-range PC than low-end one, but the PCs will continue to go ahead while PS4 wont.

Also this guy sounds elitist.

He works for Nvidia. He is Elite.

I'm sure that if CCP's deadlines permitted it, they could have made lava work. The PC's then equivalent video card could do lava. Maybe their (CCP) coders weren't up to snuff.

No. they explicitly said they had to remove a already made lava and gas environment because PS3 couldnt handle it. SUre, you can optimize to eternity, but the gain/time spent is really turning impossible there. some people that worked on it for 5 years + (naughty dog) already know most of the tricks and thats the only reason thier games look good - they have been optimizing for 5 years. how many games have 5 years now?

 

[Lightknight]

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.

However, the price is always the caveat - I can't see paying 600 when I can pay someone else 600 and have them make a PC that would outdo the PS4.

Good luck doing that. I assume that $600 is to pay a thief to steal over $1,000 in pc components? As I'll explain fully below, console specs are not the same as pc specs.

Very interesting times we live in for sure. I can give a 1000 to one of my in-laws and have him design me a machine that would destroy the PS4 and PS5 (if that ever happened).

Consoles and PCs are not equivalent. You can slap the exact same hardware in both machines and would wind up with the console out-performing the pc by a fair margin because consoles are entirely optimized for gaming. It's why they don't have huge resource hogging operating systems and word processing and the like. So they aren't equivalent. Point and case, understand that the ps3 is currently capable of handling Skyrim on 512Mbs of RAM that is partitioned into two 256Mb sections, one that is 256MB GDDR3 VRAM @700MHz, mind you. Keep in mind that the minimum pc requirement for Skyrim is 2GBs of RAM and a dual core 2GHz processor and at least a (DX9c) 512Gb RAM video card.

I use Skyrim as the example because it was very popular and very pretty. It is also the reason why I turned to computer gaming and built my dream machine (Yes, for around $1,000). But it wasn't because the ps3 was weak, it was because Sony decided to use proprietary hardware that forced developers to break their game assets up in to categories and Skyrim is a game where these assets are liable to bloat. Problem is, if any one of those asset categories are bloated things start to go wrong and the system eventually crashes. This went on for six months after Skyrim's release and, being a software tester, I completely understood the problem before the developers announced it 4 months into the debacle (it was a former New Vegas developer, I believe). To the point where I stated the problem online within a month of launch and then advised players on how to avoid bloating if they want to play the game while waiting for a patch. The patches only got the assets squared away as best as possible to make the game entirely playable but this is likely why there will be no DLC for the ps3 because it would easily knock those categories out. That's a problem with design limitations rather than hardware power. They did not foresee a Skyrim or a Rage with files too big to fit into any one category. But, I guess no one's talking about that? Maybe they'll fully admit it after the PS4 is released with standard hardware that won't have that problem.

We use our ps3 for home entertainment (Netflix, movies, hulu plus), personal gaming, and group gaming with friends over. Those are things that my pc is able to handle (except group gaming), but that I wouldn't want it doing full-time like I do with a console. Let alone in the living room.

What's laughable is that NVidia completely understands the difference between consoles and pc's, they're just lashing out. They're not sounding elitist to me, they're sounding bitter.

 

[ThirdPrize]

Snip

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 : )

If the PS4 doesn't make full use of my non existent 4K TV screen, then it is dead in the water.