Having the latest toys doesn't make something awesome. Look at the PS3....
Last edited by Theblacksheep; 11th June 2013 at 04:09 PM.
From a pure hardware point of view, of course the PS4 outpaces a computer for the cost - Sony have much more buying power than Johnny System-Builder, aren't paying for the OS and are likely selling the console at a loss (as they historically have - though I don't know one way or another at the moment). And yes, a console is more effective at using the hardware present than a PC due to hardware-specific optimisations and lower overheads than DirectX APIs etc.
But this is the first time I can remember consoles being underpowered in comparison to entry-level PCs at launch. In 7-8 years, if the next cycle is as long as this one, they will be anaemic. 512mb of RAM and 20gb HDD seemed reasonable when the 360 launched, after all, and that was a good spec at the time.
Plus, if we're talking TCO - the more games you buy, the cheaper the PC becomes, as @Arthur showed earlier (in this thread or the 360 one, I forget which).
Anandtech's exhaustive empirical testing over anecdotal advice on a forum on that count
There's so many excuses coming out defending the non existant requirement of defunct hardware, it's making me laugh
Sunnyknight's old kit was running at! That's kind of jump seem ridiculous, unless the FPS was only at 1-2 on your old rig!
Rawns 20 - 30 fps on max on my old rig while in The Black Citadel and the same for WvW battlegrounds.
Edit: My new kit is listed below, bar the extra GFX card (still running a single 680)
Last edited by Sunnyknight; 11th June 2013 at 04:41 PM.
I think, this time next year, AMD will be releasing CPU and GPU parts directly based on the PS4 architecture, complete with full unified RAM, So you could build for about the same cost, if not a fraction more, than the consoles. Until then it's quiet difficult to properly get the 8-cores, graphics ram and parallel GPGPU on PC. And that's without thinking about Windows overheads...
At the time of the Xbox 360 and PS3 launches, single-core CPUs were still dominant on the desktop, yet the 360 had a tri-core and the PS3 had the (sort of) 8-core Cell processor. They both looked more powerful than PCs at the time, as had been the case with every console launch beforehand - a new console (Dreamcast, PS1) blew away what was happening on the PC at the time.
Whereas this time, due to a combination of directly-comparable parts and a long cycle last gen, we already know what the new consoles will be capable of. Crysis 3 came out a few months back, Battlefield 3 looked a different game on the PC to the PS3 & 360 (as did Sleeping Dogs).
As I've said, I still think the PS4 is good value for money from a hardware point of view, and its unified 8GB of GDDR5 is undoubtedly better than what the average PC can offer right now, but I think it will take less time than ever for PCs to outpace this gen of consoles.
PCs can do GPGPU computing now - CUDA and OpenCL, PhysX is an (unfortunately vendor limited) implementation of that. I don't know if we'll ever get the unified RAM; I suspect we'll just start getting more VRAM on cards to match the PS4 (so you'll have 16GB system RAM and 8GB VRAM). I imagine that AMD may be restricted by licensing deals when it comes to releasing the chip as a component, though we'll certainly get the low-power Jaguar cores showing up sooner or later (and it's worth remembering that they're essentially Atom-class chips).
£90 controller - that's just a placeholder for a pre-order price, so Amazon don't get stung by their guarantee. They listed the consoles at £600 initially, yet they've come out at £350/£429.
(EDIT: and I am completey incapable of getting rid of games. I think I've sold on maybe 3 or 4 ever. I don't know why. So Steam's <£4 prices and no resale works out much better for me than >£10 games on console. I realise this is entirely personal circumstance though)
(and also to add, just to clarify where I'm arguing from: I own all three consoles right now as well as my PC. I've been solely a console gamer in the past, and I would dearly love them to succeed. I just don't think they're as powerful now, comparitively, as they once would have seemed, but perhaps we're just at a point of diminishing returns on the hardware front now)
Last edited by sonofsanta; 11th June 2013 at 05:19 PM.
But the benefit of PC is not being able to ramp up all the effects to max and having a super-powerful rig, quite the opposite. You can get away with scaling down system requirements as well as scaling them up, you don't need to have fancy effects, just make it playable and many games owe the ability to run on older hardware as a reason for their longevity. Take WoW, it could run on old kit and still get away with a more then playable game that has lasted an absurd amount of time! Meanwhile Vanguard had such high system requirements that it's performance was poor and the game is alive....but dead.
As for Counter-Strike it has so many versions, there is probably one for every bracket of hardware out there. :P
Last edited by Rawns; 11th June 2013 at 05:40 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)