PS4 Announced

[X-13]

Personally it doesn't bother me either way. I extremely rarely play multiplayer. That, and I'd happily pay out for PS+ whether or not the online gaming are included or free. I think there's more than enough value in plus without the multiplayer component.

 

Don't get me wrong, PS+ does look like it's worth it.

 

I just don't agree with sticking parts of a game behind an additional pay wall.

 

Take CoD for example... 90% of the game is multiplayer, but it's locked unless you pay Microsoft.

[Sunnyknight]

If you got one gtx titan for aprox £900 and then a reasonable mobo, 4gb ddr3 ram, dual core i5 cpu or even an amd and a psu + case, optical drive and a 250 gb 7,200 rpm hdd. How much would that come to ?

 

I don't... why would...

 

Get x1 690 £400 - 500? , i73930k (£280 - 300), Asus mobo (any) (£200), 16gb ddr3 2011mhz ram (£200 - 300), 1000w psu (£180), Nzxt case (£100), HDD/SSD (£70-£200 / £100 - 300), optical drive (£20 - 40?)

 

You're looking at £1450+. Futureproof for about... 3 years, pushing it (personal opinion).

[sonofsanta]

If you got one gtx titan for aprox £900 and then a reasonable mobo, 4gb ddr3 ram, dual core i5 cpu or even an amd and a psu + case, optical drive and a 250 gb 7,200 rpm hdd. How much would that come to ?

 

Given that that's a completely different spec to a PS4... does it matter? A 7850 on an E350 motherboard with 8GB RAM & 500GB HDD would be the closest point of comparison (granted, that CPU is lower spec, but the new Jaguar cores aren't available as a component yet). I'd warrant you could match the hardware for the same cost, and the only difference in price would come from the Windows licence.

 

EDIT @Sunnyknight - three years? That's about 2-4x the spec of the generation of consoles that isn't out yet, that should blow them away for their entire lifespan.

Edited June 11, 2013 by sonofsanta

[Sunnyknight]

Given that that's a completely different spec to a PS4... does it matter? A 7850 on an E350 motherboard with 8GB RAM & 500GB HDD would be the closest point of comparison (granted, that CPU is lower spec, but the new Jaguar cores aren't available as a component yet). I'd warrant you could match the hardware for the same cost, and the only difference in price would come from the Windows licence.

 

EDIT @Sunnyknight - three years? That's about 2-4x the spec of the generation of consoles that isn't out yet, that should blow them away for their entire lifespan.

@sonofsanta Oh, i was just generalizing on how long a pc spec would last for pc games lol. In comparison to Consoles, 100% agree on your comment. The day they MATCH pc specs in a nice cuddly box, is the day i perma switch to a console.

[mac_shinobi]

I just wanted to see what you could get in a pc spec wise if u are building from scratch. Thinking around the £600 mark ex the gpu

[tmcd35]

I actually tried to price up an equivalent spec PC on eBuyer and found it very, very difficult. I think I came in at just under £1000 for both a CPU and GPU that are arguably better but I wasn't sure about the RAM split and I'm not sure if current PC GPU's can do graphics and general calculations in parallel.

 

I maintain the PS4 is a better spec system that some give it credit for. Besides what the hell would I want a GTX Titan for anyway? Useless without the 30" 4K monitor to go with it - I just want to play games on my 1080p TV.

[mac_shinobi]

Besides what the hell would I want a GTX Titan for anyway? Useless without the 30" 4K monitor to go with it - I just want to play games on my 1080p TV.

 

Wait till they release a 4k hd tv

[synaesthesia]

I just wanted to see what you could get in a pc spec wise if u are building from scratch. Thinking around the £600 mark ex the gpu

 

Woah there!

£380 for an i5 3570k build, off the shelf. That's really overspeccing it and certainly more than enough to keep on top of either PS4/Xbone (but bearing in mind the arch differences and more the OS has to do)

£150 for decent GPU - at least one that's enough to keep up with small resolutions like 1920x1080.

[sonofsanta]

I just wanted to see what you could get in a pc spec wise if u are building from scratch. Thinking around the £600 mark ex the gpu

 

I just built a new PC for a friend. Based on that, you could build: AMD A8-5600K for the CPU (and a recent Anandtech article has shown that you gain no benefit in FPS from better CPUs until you are using more than one high end GPU), 8GB DDR3, 120Gb SSD + 1TB HDD, 430W Corsair PSU, Fractal Design Core 1000 case, DVDRW, wireless keyboard & Windows licence comes to £500. Add a GPU of choice (7850 @ £130 would match the PS4, 660Ti @ £215 would outpace it) and you've got a better spec machine with cheaper games available.

 

No-one needs a GTX Titan. Ever.

[mac_shinobi]

I just built a new PC for a friend. Based on that, you could build: AMD A8-5600K for the CPU (and a recent Anandtech article has shown that you gain no benefit in FPS from better CPUs until you are using more than one high end GPU), 8GB DDR3, 120Gb SSD + 1TB HDD, 430W Corsair PSU, Fractal Design Core 1000 case, DVDRW, wireless keyboard & Windows licence comes to £500. Add a GPU of choice (7850 @ £130 would match the PS4, 660Ti @ £215 would outpace it) and you've got a better spec machine with cheaper games available.

 

No-one needs a GTX Titan. Ever.

 

Thanks !!

[Rawns]

I just built a new PC for a friend. Based on that, you could build: AMD A8-5600K for the CPU (and a recent Anandtech article has shown that you gain no benefit in FPS from better CPUs until you are using more than one high end GPU), 8GB DDR3, 120Gb SSD + 1TB HDD, 430W Corsair PSU, Fractal Design Core 1000 case, DVDRW, wireless keyboard & Windows licence comes to £500. Add a GPU of choice (7850 @ £130 would match the PS4, 660Ti @ £215 would outpace it) and you've got a better spec machine with cheaper games available.

 

No-one needs a GTX Titan. Ever.

 

There is a difference between 'need' and 'want' though!

 

I thought the concept behind the Titan was to allow Nvidia to further develop life-like facial animations?

[Sunnyknight]

and a recent Anandtech article has shown that you gain no benefit in FPS from better CPUs until you are using more than one high end GPU)

 

Not saying this to you, but absolute rubbish that statement is. I noticed a +90 - 110 FPS gain on maxed out GW2 from my Amd to my i7. Load of tosh.

[Theblacksheep]

You could build: AMD A8-5600K for the CPU (and a recent Anandtech article has shown that you gain no benefit in FPS from better CPUs until you are using more than one high end GPU), 8GB DDR3, 120Gb SSD + 1TB HDD, 430W Corsair PSU, Fractal Design Core 1000 case, DVDRW, wireless keyboard & Windows licence comes to £500. Add a GPU of choice (7850 @ £130 would match the PS4, 660Ti @ £215 would outpace it) and you've got a better spec machine with cheaper games available.

 

So nearly twice the price and no BRD. A 660ti will outpace it in pure numbers, but you're still lacking in decent amount of fast vram that only £££ bring. Plus you're running windows underneath it all.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Theblacksheep

[synaesthesia]

Having the latest toys doesn't make something awesome. Look at the PS3....

[Theblacksheep]

Having the latest toys doesn't make something awesome. Look at the PS3....

 

The Last of Us looks fantastic for a 6.5 year old console, as does GT6 at 60fps and 1080p. Toys can give you tricks that make the hardware appear better than it is on paper and make old hardware last longer.

 

Also, custom engine for hardware > generic middleware.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Theblacksheep

[sonofsanta]

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).

 

Not saying this to you, but absolute rubbish that statement is. I noticed a +90 - 110 FPS gain on maxed out GW2 from my Amd to my i7. Load of tosh.

 

I'm afraid I'll take Anandtech's exhaustive empirical testing over anecdotal advice on a forum on that count

[Theblacksheep]

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).

 

Arthur also listed the PS4 controller at £90. I've not paid over £40 for a PS3 game, OK, its £10 more expensive than a PC game, but I can also trade it in or swap it unlike my Steam/Origin games. Personally I only keep the REALLY good console games, so many move on to new homes once completed, nice and trim (credit for TLOU waiting). My steam collection is now bloated with games I dont play.

[synaesthesia]

There's so many excuses coming out defending the non existant requirement of defunct hardware, it's making me laugh

[Sunnyknight]

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).

 

 

 

I'm afraid I'll take Anandtech's exhaustive empirical testing over anecdotal advice on a forum on that count

 

Loads of discussion on it. I wouldn't just take 'their' word for it. Read up more and you'll realize, the truth. I am.... your.... no never mind. Anyway,...... YEAH!

[Rawns]

I'm afraid I'll take Anandtech's exhaustive empirical testing over anecdotal advice on a forum on that count

 

I want to know exactly what kit caused a 90-110 FPS jump, and what FPS @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!

[Sunnyknight]

I want to know exactly what kit caused a 90-110 FPS jump, and what FPS @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)

Edited June 11, 2013 by Sunnyknight

[tmcd35]

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.

 

That's not right. There's no way you can call a XBox One, let alone PS4, "underpowered in comparison to entry-level PC's". I'm sorry, I just don't believe you can build an effective equivalent spec and get much change out of £1000 which is clearly mid-range territory. As for 7-8 years, I think both Sony and MS have learnt this time that that was too long. The specs seem to suggest a shorter 4-6 year turn over this time.

 

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...

[sonofsanta]

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)

Edited June 11, 2013 by sonofsanta

[CAM]

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.

[Rawns]

As for Counter-Strike it has so many versions, there is probably one for every bracket of hardware out there.

 

Would be nice if CS:GO was released for the Xbox One & PS4, and Valve updated it to enable the cross-platform play they were raving about when GO was first announced.

 

Mind you, the price would likely be kicked up to £40 on either console.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Rawns