PS4 VS PC, wrong. PS4 = PC, Discuss

[ResonanceSD]

Even if it's a PC, it's still an out of date one that will continue to be quickly outpaced by the PC. The argument is a moot point really. If anything, you should be sad that consoles continue to focus less on games and more on other crap. I used to argue on the side of consoles back when they were designed for games and not for Facebook. Speaking of Facebook on consoles, how long until we see Farmville integrated into the PS4?

Not out of date, yet. It's actually pretty comparable to current technology.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm not buying that analogy somehow...

Just because the power gap has been narrowed, doesn't mean the next gen of consoles will be anymore like PCs than the last gen.


Hell, the power gap is already widening, and the console isn't even out yet, and with no way of upgrading the thing, it'll only get worse.

What analogy? The PS4 has an AMD X86 CPU you can get in a PC, it has an integrated GPU you can get for the PC. The memory, etc is all what you would find in a PC. For a hardwar Point of view, it is a PC. That's the point of the thread.

You do realize that consoles have always had hardware that you could use to build a serviceable PC, right?

I refuse to believe that my electronics course makes me the only one who knows what "hardware" is.

 

[spartandude]

the issue is that PCs are upgradable and can do so much more, and believe it or not are cheaper, you can buy a pc with the same specs (more or less) as the ps4 for what the estimated price of the PS4 will be, now in 6-8 months that pc is going to be even cheaper and a more powerful one will be a similar price to the PS4

while consoles are great and i own both a 360 and a Wii its still a fact that PCs are better, gaming or not.

Um... what?

Assuming the person also needs to buy a Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse, Headset/Speakers, Case, not to mention the guts: That will cost more than a basic PS4 (assuming the price-point is anywhere between 450-550 USD). PC's are technically better than any console, but are always more expensive. The same can be said for transportation. Cars are technically better than a bike, but I prefer my bike. It is cheaper and more reliable.

Sure, I can buy a PC for around 400 bucks right now to play games, but the games will look like shit. That will be even more apparent once the "next-gen" games start to be released.

assuming that a person may also need to buy those things for a console...
the PC on its own can probably have very similar specs a PS4 for the same cost and the cost of the PC will be even lower by the time the PS4 is released

 

[nexus]

A computer is not the sum of all its parts. It is more than that, it's everything you do with it, and everything that it is capable of...

Aside from that, once you buy a console, it is locked-down forever as far as hardware is concerned.

PC is where the magic happens, always will be.

 

[Beryl77]

It makes me happy. Hopefully PC ports will be better this generation.

 

[KelDG]

I'm confused. In all of the threads there are some people saying that it's on par with current high end PC's. Then there's some saying that it's a little bit weaker, then there's others saying it's way behind...

Which is it and how is there this much discrepancy?

PS4 is the equivalent of a pretty good gaming PC but it's not cutting edge.

PC Gamer did an article where they wanted to see how much it would cost to assemble a computer with the equivalent specs of the PS4, and ultimately came up with a cost of around $600 or so. Mind you a console will have improved performance over the equivalent PC since it's a closed system dedicated purely to gaming as opposed to a PC and all its myriad uses and background programs, so the PS4 WILL have better performance than the equivalent PC, but even so it's not the best tech available today.

PC-wise I'd say wait a few months after the release of the PS4 and by that time a computer roughly twice as powerful will be available at a reasonable cost. The technology already exists and is available but it's pretty damned expensive.

Spot on! There is so much mis-information going about at the moment by people who have a little knowledge on the subject but not enough to be correct. The main reason that consoles can have a lower spec than a PC and still look better is optimisation for a single hardware set. OPTIMISATION OPTIMISATION OPTIMISATION.

 

[s_h_a_d_o]

Except that a [well-designed/thoughtfully-purchased] PC will support upgradable componentry.

 

[Kilo24]

I'm confused. In all of the threads there are some people saying that it's on par with current high end PC's. Then there's some saying that it's a little bit weaker, then there's others saying it's way behind...

Which is it and how is there this much discrepancy?

PS4 is the equivalent of a pretty good gaming PC but it's not cutting edge.

Yeah, what he said. It's good but not high end and certainly not bleeding edge when it comes to gaming. It's also about equal to a high-end-ish non-gaming PC. That's hardware-wise, though - the performance of a console can be optimiseddue to the constrained nature of the hardware. On the other hand, PCs benefit from Moore's law so raw productivity is always going up and the cost of that productivity is always going down. Consoles are a bit like the Protoss - highly evolved and highly efficient but slow while the PCs are like Zerg - capable of more morphing just maybe even just zerg rushing more computing power at a problem.

Basically, although consoles still very much benefit from Moore's Law (just less than PCs because consoles have a much more involved design process) and I don't really think the Starcraft analogy fits.

There's so much confusion over how powerful a console is relative to a PC because it's a rather complex problem. It's easy to compare raw power - CPU speed, number of cores, amount of RAM, etc. - but difficult to say exactly how well a program will run on it due to a number of reasons.

Consoles don't have the raw power than a PC does, but many of their components as well as how those components fit together have been custom-designed for gaming. That makes for a more expensive design process, but can make it cheaper to produce a console to meet performance specifications. Over time, the reduction in production costs usually outweigh the increased design costs.

PCs also customarily runs a bunch of extra software and operating system services at the same time. Consoles don't (although the gap between them has been shrinking.) Because of that, a developer for a console game can make reliable predictions about what software is competing for resources with his game, whereas a PC developer cannot.

There also is that everything in a console is standardized (except maybe the hard drive). Because of that, a console developer can make optimizations that for a PC developer wouldn't work on all but a small subset of PCs. These optimizations also take time and effort to research and implement, but Moore's Law ensures that PCs are constantly improving so that the peak optimized performance for a component may not be better than the unoptimized performance of the new version that came out in the time it took to figure the optimization out. So most PC developers don't bother with much optimization specifically for, say, the Intel i7-2760QM CPU, and hence don't get as much performance out of their hardware. But a console developer knows that he might release multiple games on the architecture and that 100% of optimizations will benefit the players; so he's probably willing to optimize much more.

In summary, these issues undermine using raw power as a accurate benchmark between consoles and PCs. It's difficult to accurately predict how much impact each of them is going to have on the final performance of a given game, because no-one knows for certain.

 

[Auron]

But initially it probably won't matter how powerful the GPU is compared to what we have on the PC market. Consoles use their power a lot better and more efficient than the PC. If you compare a current gen console with the PC of the same specs, chances are the game will run better on the console. And it may not even run on the PC. How many modern games available for PS3 and PC do you know that can run on PC with 512mb of RAM?

That's not a valid comparison, the consoles used their super processors to make up for their lack of power in other areas. I haven't had problems with ports in a long while and my computer's mediocre for a gaming computer.

 

[Pinkamena]

It makes me happy. Hopefully PC ports will be better this generation.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I only think it's positive that the hardware and technical design of consoles are getting closer to a PC.

 

[MiriaJiyuu]

And the second diference is the different gameplay paradigm that results from the difference between games designed for staring at a TV from a couch with a controller in hand, and for crouching over a monitor at a desk, with a keyboard and a mouse at hand.

Sorry, but the amount of times I see this, I'm going to be one of the people who points it out this time

You DO NOT have to play at a desk; plugging your computer into your TV is exactly the same as plugging in any gaming console, you plug the power in and plug the cables into your TV.

You also DO NOT have to play with a mouse and keyboard, even indie games include the use of gamepads, XInput (XBox 360 controller used on your computer basically) is easy to use and included in most games, even the Dualshock 3 Driver tool for PS3 controllers includes XInput emulation.

Sorry, I'm not going after you, it's just that this argument isn't valid anymore, I can play Assassins Creed at my desk or on my TV, both with my PC. I only have consoles for exclusives at this point.

OT: PS4= Mid Range CURRENT PC based on specs, basically just a computer built using lower-end current gen pieces.

 

[The White Hunter]

I think it's really sad that this thread has devolved into yet ANOTHER console vs PC bullshitathon.

Really, it's pathetic, do you know what you gamers should be caring about?

The fucking games. Not the god damn hardware. I sat though the first hour or so of the presentationt hinking "yeah and thats great but show me a fucking game". Then they showed me Killzone: Shadow Fall and I fucking squeed when I saw those Helghast eyes because it looked fucking FUN.

 

[ph0b0s123]

I'm not buying that analogy somehow...

Just because the power gap has been narrowed, doesn't mean the next gen of consoles will be anymore like PCs than the last gen.


Hell, the power gap is already widening, and the console isn't even out yet, and with no way of upgrading the thing, it'll only get worse.

What analogy? The PS4 has an AMD X86 CPU you can get in a PC, it has an integrated GPU you can get for the PC. The memory, etc is all what you would find in a PC. For a hardwar Point of view, it is a PC. That's the point of the thread.

You do realize that consoles have always had hardware that you could use to build a serviceable PC, right?

I refuse to believe that my electronics course makes me the only one who knows what "hardware" is.

I think you need a refund on your class as you don't know what "hardware" means in this discussion. Console have not always used hardware you could build a PC from, in fact the opposite.

Apart from the original xbox, no consoles has had all components from a PC. They have had PC GPU's (from the last generation), but not PC processors. As I said in the later in the part of the comment, you did not quote, the last gen the PS3 had a cell CPU and the Xbox 360 had PowerPC (not a x86) CPU. The Xbox was unique as it was Microsoft's first attempt at a consoles so they when with what they knew, a PC in a console case (it even ran a cut down version of windows NT).

The generations before consoles and PC's had even less hardware in common. The trend has been one of convergence. This has now come to a conclusion. For a company like Sony to put an AMD x86 PC CPU and GPU in their latest console, shows that like Apples MAC's before them all devices will be PC's from a hardware perspective, just with different OS's and and form factors.

The only hardware battle left now is between x86 architecture and ARM architecture. Try spend a bit more time on wikipedia checking your facts before making statements.

 

[Iron_Man_977]

One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that roughly the same thing happened with the current generation. When they first came out they could compete with PCs in the hardware department, but then PC rocketed past them. The major factor in all of this is that the ps4 will stay the same for a few years, where as a PC will not. Also the PC has much more oppurtunity to do what you want. Want a cheaper, less powerfull model? Go ahead! Or an expensive model? Thats fine! But the consoles will be the same for the next 5ish years. Saying the PC is equal to the consoles isn't really true. Yea, consoles can compete with them, and will no doubt beat the PC for the more ignorant crowd (I'm not being a PC elitest here, just saying you're alot more likely to run into annoying 12 year old brats on XBOX than on PC) or for someone who doesn't want to spend too much money on a gaming rig, but the PC is no doubt a better machine.

 

[Entitled]

And the second diference is the different gameplay paradigm that results from the difference between games designed for staring at a TV from a couch with a controller in hand, and for crouching over a monitor at a desk, with a keyboard and a mouse at hand.

Sorry, but the amount of times I see this, I'm going to be one of the people who points it out this time

You DO NOT have to play at a desk; plugging your computer into your TV is exactly the same as plugging in any gaming console, you plug the power in and plug the cables into your TV.

You also DO NOT have to play with a mouse and keyboard, even indie games include the use of gamepads, XInput (XBox 360 controller used on your computer basically) is easy to use and included in most games, even the Dualshock 3 Driver tool for PS3 controllers includes XInput emulation.

You do not "have to", but old paradigms exist strong enough that they influence most of game design. There are entire genres, franchises, and trends, that only exist to begin with because of the systems that they were originally written for. And I'm not only talking about controls but also generally about the way we think of the "living room" or about the "computer".

Yes, technically you can try to port any cursor-controlled game to a console, even a grand strategy, or a point and click adventure, by replacing the mouse with a joystick. An vice versa, a PC could theoretically run anything with a controller as peripheral.

You could play Angry Birds on PC, chess on a TV screen, Mass Effect on a mobile phone, and Populous with a VR helmet. Somehow. But game platforms are more than a buch of hardware spcifications, they are also sub-mediums with their own established way of presenting games.

 

[Laughing Man]

As it's always been, consoles will be about convenience and ease-of-use, not about pushing the limits of hardware capability.

Actually they are PC games are less about pushing hardware than ANY of the consoles. PC games rely on the user hitting the game with pure brute force hardware. Game doesn't run well on a 260GTX fine we'll just assume the user will upgrade to a 560GTX instead. The fact that consoles have a life cycle of over five years the fact they can't be upgraded means that every new game that improves graphics is an example of pushing the hardware capability.

A key and overriding fact of modern gamimg PCs is not just the pure hardware, it is also the software that runs on top of that and that means a modern gaming PC is more about Ms's DirectX. Since the new Sony console won't be using their direct rivals API to power it's games it means that, no, the new Sony console is not just a PC because it shares similar hardware.

I am also sick of the PC 'master race' jumping straight to graphics and raw power. The tried and tested argument always being, yeah so the new console may be able to out power PCs when it comes out but in a few months time GPU X will be out and then the console will be out of date again. How about instead of looking at pure graphics how about looking at pure ease of use and cost. Only now has the PC market managed to get to a point where you can build a PC that will play games at as an enjoyable level as the consoles at the same price as a new console.

The argument it beats the console because I spent three times the money on it is a pathetically weak one, throw enough money at anything and it will always come out on top, it is hardly an achievement worthy of debate it sure as hell isn;t one worthy of bragging. When you can out power the console at the same price THEN you have something worth bringing up in debate and the PC has only just managed this feat in the last 6 or 7 months.

 

[DoPo]

And the second diference is the different gameplay paradigm that results from the difference between games designed for staring at a TV from a couch with a controller in hand, and for crouching over a monitor at a desk, with a keyboard and a mouse at hand.

Sorry, but the amount of times I see this, I'm going to be one of the people who points it out this time

You DO NOT have to play at a desk; plugging your computer into your TV is exactly the same as plugging in any gaming console, you plug the power in and plug the cables into your TV.

You also DO NOT have to play with a mouse and keyboard, even indie games include the use of gamepads, XInput (XBox 360 controller used on your computer basically) is easy to use and included in most games, even the Dualshock 3 Driver tool for PS3 controllers includes XInput emulation.

You missed the point - sure, you can have play games on PC with a controller but that's not always a good sign. Heck, some you can even hardly play on keyboard and mouse. Fact is, games running on whatever platform they run, will be designed with the control method in mind, when you go multiplatform, as in consoles and PCs, you either design comfortable control method for each, or go for whatever can work on all. And "can work" isn't always "it's comfortable". Case in point - Mass Effect 2 - it had abso-fucking-lutely overloaded the Space key with functionality. Yes, on a console you'd need that but on PC we have some 100 keys to work with, we can spare a couple more - it's breaking the PC paradigm. Also, controls come in batches in ME2 - you cannot separate one function from the rest bound to that key - and again, this is at odds with the paradigm. ME2 has shitty control scheme on PC and it's because it doesn't conform to what PC games control like. Fundamental differences.

That was using one game as a case study in how different controls can affect players differently, but let's take another - let's take a whole category, RTS in particular. An RTS game would be even more fundamentally different if developed for a console or a PC. The differences here grow A LOT. Sure, you could plug your PC to the TV and launch StarCraft but...you'll be pummelled to dust in less time it takes you to say "Oh, I don't think a controller is as good for microing in this game" - the fact that you can, doesn't mean you should. It's just not meant for a controller. A console RTS on a PC, on the other hand, would feel a bit odd, if used with mouse and keyboard.

Don't be deluded into thinking every control scheme is a nail and a controller is a hammer. Some games designed with Wii in mind are not going to be really good on either PC or a (-n another) console, too. Games relying on touch screen might not be that good with a different input method. Different paradigms, different usability standards, different design goals for each.

Also, as an aside, I'm lying on my bed and I have my mouse and keyboard with me, while the screen I interact with is away. It's just so-o-o comfortable.

 

[devotedsniper]

The specs aren't too bad but if i'm honest x86 processor, does that mean it's only running an x86 OS? Or do they really mean x86 and x64? Would have thought they'd be using an x64 OS considering it's higher performance compared to x86.

Either way 8GB is plenty of RAM for consoles as they don't have to deal with interfaces for various hardware setup's/background processes, but it's still quite a dated system when you consider a decent laptop/desktop now a days has around 8GB, it's definitely going to mean we get some huge advances in terms of what we will be able to do both technically and graphically, all i can say is about time, now if only we could get pc games which weren't poor ports.

Either way the next console generation doesn't really affect me as i'm a pc gamer but i will be grateful for the advances made in the games which do come out for it.

 

[Sanat]

The only way the PS4 is like a PC is with the hardware used, and that's not entirely a plus; the octocore that the PS3 used was incredibly optimised for gaming and allowed a point of ingenuity and almost a hold over developers, who catered to that console. Now that it's using components directly from PC use will mean that emulation will be exceedingly easy (instead of impossible), and a direct comparison in hardware (and value for money) is also more relevant.
The hardware used is also being further outdated as we speak, and will continue to decline in relative quality versus price.

And there's two defining points that make it so very unlike a PC:

- It's closed platform and can't be upgraded. A PC can, and easily.
- It's a console with a locked and basic operating system, basic inputs and outputs and a rigidly instated set of uses.

So no, no, and no. A PS4 =/= a PC.

 

[lacktheknack]

I'm not buying that analogy somehow...

Just because the power gap has been narrowed, doesn't mean the next gen of consoles will be anymore like PCs than the last gen.


Hell, the power gap is already widening, and the console isn't even out yet, and with no way of upgrading the thing, it'll only get worse.

What analogy? The PS4 has an AMD X86 CPU you can get in a PC, it has an integrated GPU you can get for the PC. The memory, etc is all what you would find in a PC. For a hardwar Point of view, it is a PC. That's the point of the thread.

You do realize that consoles have always had hardware that you could use to build a serviceable PC, right?

I refuse to believe that my electronics course makes me the only one who knows what "hardware" is.

I think you need a refund on your class as you don't know what "hardware" means in this discussion. Console have not always used hardware you could build a PC from, in fact the opposite.

Apart from the original xbox, no consoles has had all components from a PC. They have had PC GPU's (from the last generation), but not PC processors. As I said in the later in the part of the comment, you did not quote, the last gen the PS3 had a cell CPU and the Xbox 360 had PowerPC (not a x86) CPU. The Xbox was unique as it was Microsoft's first attempt at a consoles so they when with what they knew, a PC in a console case (it even ran a cut down version of windows NT).

The generations before consoles and PC's had even less hardware in common. The trend has been one of convergence. This has now come to a conclusion. For a company like Sony to put an AMD x86 PC CPU and GPU in their latest console, shows that like Apples MAC's before them all devices will be PC's from a hardware perspective, just with different OS's and and form factors.

The only hardware battle left now is between x86 architecture and ARM architecture. Try spend a bit more time on wikipedia checking your facts before making statements.

Oohhhhhhh, you mean it's becoming more like a WINDOWS PC.

Well, duh.

See, when I think "PC", I think "conglomeration of CPU, storage and user input designed to manipulate data, designed for one end user". You know, the ACTUAL definition of "personal computer".

If we're talking about how Windows-PC consoles are becoming, I have no comment beyond "Was there ever doubt?"