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

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

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

image

Tony Tamasi says Nvidia, who provided the GPU for the PS3, didn't want to do business with Sony for the PS4 at the price Sony was willing to pay.

"Compared to gaming PCs, the PS4 specs are in the neighborhood of a low-end CPU, and a low- to mid-range GPU side," said Nvidia's Tony Tamasi to Tech Radar. Tamasi is the senior vice president of content and developer at Nvidia, and he is not at all impressed with the revealed specifications for the PS4, claiming that it is outperformed by years-old PC graphics cards. "If the PS4 ships in December as Sony indicated, it will only offer about half the performance of a GTX680 GPU (based on GFLOPS and texture), which launched in March 2012, more than a year and a half ago."

Tamasi is also unimpressed with the very closed nature of consoles, and claims that releasing the PS4 with such low specifications is going to harm it in the long run. "What you get today in terms of performance is what you're stuck with five - 10 years down the road. PCs don't have these problems," he says, telling us that he much prefers working with PCs, as "they are open and can be upgraded at any time to harness the power of newer GPUs for more performance and to take advantage of newer, modern graphics technologies."

The latest console generation has made the performance gap between PC and console much more apparent, and Tamasi thinks that the next generation will only widen that gap. "If history predicts the future, then these next-generation consoles, while being more powerful than the current ones, will very quickly end up more than an order of magnitude behind the PC."

While its very easy to brush these comments off as just an industry rival trying to promote PC gaming, it should be noted that Nvidia currently provides the graphics chip technology for the PS3. The PS4 will instead use a custom Radeon GPU, with Tamasi revealing that, "I'm sure there was a negotiation that went on, and we came to the conclusion that we didn't want to do the business [with Sony for the PS4] at the price those guys were willing to pay."

Tamasi says cutting ties with Sony will allow Nvidia to focus on its other industries, such as delivering high-end graphics card for PCs, supplying the graphics chips for Apple computers, and working on its own dedicated gaming device: Project SHIELD.

Source & Image: Tech Radar

Permalink

My computer is better in every way then the PS4 except for the graphics card. Also this guy sounds elitist.

This guy seems really pissed that they lost the bid to AMD. Nvidia in my opinion has always overcharged for their components, and for them to tout their project Shield as something they see being profitable is a joke, especially at the price-point it's currently placed at. They didn't "cut ties" with Sony and Microsoft, they lost in a bargaining match that AMD was more than willing to bend a bit for.

In regards to the inherent old age of the components that will be included in next gen consoles, people don't need a GTX 680 to run games. As a PC enthusiast I'm running high end hardware, but some people just want to play their games, and don't care about how many particles can be accurately simulated, or how sharp the lines outlining their fauna are. They simply want to play games.

To even purport that the specs represent a LOW END PC is ridiculous. The parts are outdated in comparison to modern day gaming PC's, but this is one of the best priced consoles in terms of raw performance in ages so far.

Evil Smurf:
My computer is better in every way then the PS4 except for the graphics card. Also this guy sounds elitist.

They wanted adequate money to perform a service! They didn't accept my small change!

ELITISM!

... yeah, we knew this already. The only people who take the specs of the PS4 as a super computer are fanboys who don't know anything about tech. Did anyone really expect a cheaply made console to beat the PC?

Evil Smurf:
My computer is better in every way then the PS4 except for the graphics card. Also this guy sounds elitist.

He does sound elitist for sure but his point still has some merit. IF the PS4 can't keep pace with PC for more than a year or two, we will have another generation where it is good but it stagnates heavily due to lack of capabilities on the console side.

Evil Smurf:
My computer is better in every way then the PS4 except for the graphics card. Also this guy sounds elitist.

Telling the truth doesn't make you an elitist.

All of this has been known since the real PS4 specs leaked a while before the official announcement. They're using a CPU that is filled with cores that AMD intended for use in netbooks and tablets, and a GPU that is about on par with a 7850, maybe a bit lower due to the clockspeeds.

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

A low end PC it wont be. Remember, so far all consoles are usually capable of doing a decent amount more gaming than a similar PC. With that said, very powerful it is not. Still, I really hope it has a decent GPU :P . It should be able to survive at least 5 years.

Evil Smurf:
My computer is better in every way then the PS4 except for the graphics card. Also this guy sounds elitist.

They can feel good in the fact that their hardware outdoes my four year old 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?

Charcharo:
A low end PC it wont be. Remember, so far all consoles are usually capable of doing a decent amount more gaming than a similar PC. With that said, very powerful it is not. Still, I really hope it has a decent GPU :P . It should be able to survive at least 5 years.

The kind of PC hardware required to run games at med-low settings at 720p and 30fps is surprisingly low-end. People often forget that PC gamers do usually run their games at higher resolutions, settings, etc. If you reduce those to console levels the optimization isn't that clear anymore at all.

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

Well, that's who he sells products to. He's obviously saying this to prop up his own brand, not so much to make an observation. Because, as mentioned above, everyone who knows what specs mean knew that the PS4 was worse than a high-end PC. That's just gonna be the case! Everything is outdated as soon as you open its box, anyway.

Just a side note: I'm not really sure what a stereotypical PC elitist consists of. I'm a PC gamer, and to me the word "PC elitist" just makes me think of a moron who spends too much money on a whole lot of nothing. I dunno if their opinion is worth listening to by reasonable people. But then the word "fanboy" explicitly implies a certain degree of stupidity, doesn't it.

Did that douche call my PC low-end? I can run any modern game on it, most of them on high settings, and still stay above 40 FPS.
I don't mind consoles holding graphics back, just the over simplified controls.

yeah, it's a total misnomer anyway. The term elitism implies some sort of exclusivity or special designation, whereas anyone is free to get a PC and join the "elite."

Console hardware isn't really relevant is it? I mean, despite the specs of the X360 or the PS3, they have made some truly remarkable games for those consoles.

Conversely, just imagine how much better Uncharted, Heavy Rain or Halo would work/look on PCs.

Well when you start off with that statement we just know you jelly, also I love how the queens of locking down are now all happy about open platforms.

GAunderrated:

Evil Smurf:
My computer is better in every way then the PS4 except for the graphics card. Also this guy sounds elitist.

He does sound elitist for sure but his point still has some merit. IF the PS4 can't keep pace with PC for more than a year or two, we will have another generation where it is good but it stagnates heavily due to lack of capabilities on the console side.

when has that ever been the case? consoles keeping up with PCs I mean.

I'd have to agree. How can anyone really justify investing in the new console generation if they are only shipping with 8GB of RAM? Does anyone really think that 8GB is going to be enough in 5 years? When the Xbox 360 and the PS3 were announced they were really amazing specs at the time and you can even see now how weak those consoles are and how they are hamstringing the industry. Now they aren't even aiming for amazing, just settling for okay. Okay now is going to be absolute crap in 5 years.

Let the consoles stick with the low-end hardware. If they stay slow, my PC will last longer before I need to upgrade it.

Well that sounded a touch childish.

Really, he didn't say much at all aside from "I like PC's.
Did I mention all the downsides the PS4 has?
I like PC's."

This man makes it sound like even the manufacturers are caught up in this invisible rivalry between consoles and PC's.

Roxor:
Let the consoles stick with the low-end hardware. If they stay slow, my PC will last longer before I need to upgrade it.

This is somem I particularly enjoy.

As Consoles use such out dated hardware I can upgrade my PC at the start of a new generation or the end of an old generation, and run most games on high or ultra all the way through the generation, while costing less, and having more utility xD

"Nividia"?

Nice.

OT: I'm not surprised. I bought my current computer around the releases of the current consoles, and I easily outpaced them then. What would make it any different now?

He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

I don't care, it means I can get away with only minor upgrades to my rig. I don't think it's exactly fair to compare the PS4's graphics capabilities to a fucking 680, either. That's top of the line shit right there and costs about as much on it's own as the PS4 probably will altogether.

All I want to know now is whether the games will be any good and how the extra horsepower is going to be used to improve games.

Xyebane:
I'd have to agree. How can anyone really justify investing in the new console generation if they are only shipping with 8GB of RAM? Does anyone really think that 8GB is going to be enough in 5 years? When the Xbox 360 and the PS3 were announced they were really amazing specs at the time and you can even see now how weak those consoles are and how they are hamstringing the industry. Now they aren't even aiming for amazing, just settling for okay. Okay now is going to be absolute crap in 5 years.

To be fair, the PS360 had low RAM even at the time. I had 3GB RAM in 2003/4. I can't remember how much VRAM my graphics card had, but it was a decent card for the time.

It was mainly the graphics cards and processors that were impressive.

This dude is kinda right...

He went about it in a shitty way, but I get his point.

The fact that Nvidia lost the PS4 bid to their rival doesn't really bode well for Nvidia trash-talking the PS4 like this. The whole thing comes off as something as tactful as EA tends to do in Press Releases.

Evil Smurf:
Also this guy sounds elitist.

Boy, what an accusation. Literally everything he said is true or at least decently substantiated. Please spare me the tears.

I don't get you people, do you expect industry guys not to open their mouths if they're going to say something "anti PS4" - which is, by the way, 100% true most of the time? Why does it offend you?

008Zulu:
Console hardware isn't really relevant is it? I mean, despite the specs of the X360 or the PS3, they have made some truly remarkable games for those consoles.

Conversely, just imagine how much better Uncharted, Heavy Rain or Halo would work/look on PCs.

Console hardware is really relevant. I don't know why you'd say it's irrelevant.

DrunkOnEstus:
He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

Thank you, exactly what I was going to say.

Higher specs aren't needed in consoles like they are in PC's.

Consoles are usually used for just gaming, running a minimalist OS.

Windows is quite a resource hog in itself, hence the needing of a higher clock CPU, more ram and higher GPU, not to mention any programs you want to use that use up your ram, CPU etc.

It isn't fair to compare the specs of a console and a computer, because not only are they used for different things, but with consoles, everyone is on equal footing, same specs and such, much less testing and more optimization for consoles.

Edit: Not to mention consoles are meant to be a cost effective way of being able to game.

Something tells me a GT680 in every PS4 would not be cost effective, it would effectively raise the price of the ps4 by...well....a lot really.

Being able to attain good graphics, good clock speeds and the like does not always need top of the line hardware, it needs hardware that can do the job, and some good old optimization.

The first paragraph is all you need to read before writing off Tony Tamasi's comments completely.

lacktheknack:
"Nividia"?

Nice.

OT: I'm not surprised. I bought my current computer around the releases of the current consoles, and I easily outpaced them then. What would make it any different now?

Thanks for that! Missed that one!

Well,this isn't a surprise,to be honest. A gaming PC that's a year or so behind the curve is often more powerful than the latest console. What else is there to say?

Oh surprise. if you tell the truth, you're an elitist!

I imagine the retail of a PS4 is going to be anywhere from $500 to $600. For that price, I'd expect something a little more in line with current technology standards right now. Microsoft will probably launch their console with slightly lower specs, which means it doesn't really matter. The new Xbox will be pulling back on the industry's collar, just as the 360 has.

I'll just be happy when "aliasing" is something that doesn't exist anymore, but looks like we'll be stuck with that for another 5 years at least.

DrunkOnEstus:
He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

The difference the OS, APIs and so on make is very much overrated. As I said previously people think PCs need much more powerful hardware for the same visuals but they really don't. The problem is that current PCs games are usually ran at much higher resolutions and frame rates as console games. As well as details of course.

For example uncharted 3, that's commonly the posterboy for console graphics looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/ymn6HDR.jpg / http://i.imgur.com/MxrWGNY.jpg / http://i.imgur.com/LUV9SkE.jpg . That's what it looks like if you actually take still from gameplay instead of PR shots. The problem of course is that while some of the lighting etc. might be okay-ish the resolution of the textures, the resolution in general and the lack of AA make it look like a blurry mess. You wouldn't need a 8800gt to run this level of visuals at 720p on a PC, it wouldn't be tough at all.

Terramax:
The first paragraph is all you need to read before writing off Tony Tamasi's comments completely.

You could do that or you could read what he says and see that regardless of his possible bias he's absolutely correct in his statement.

dumbseizure:

DrunkOnEstus:
He's doing his job, but it involves not mentioning that specialized OS that consoles have. The PS4 wont have a relative resource beast like Windows 7/8 and its services/processes running in the background, and will be built from the ground up to just do the games (and their ancillary social bullshit). Also not being mentioned is that everyone with a PS4 will have the same specs. Developers will be able to squeeze every last drop out of the hardware without having to optimise and test for a variety of configurations, and do this over time so that things appear to improve over the years with the same hardware. Anyone remember "Uncharted is only possible on the PS3 because Drake actually gets wet and shit!" then "to hell with Uncharted 1, it only used 30% of the power and we're pushing 100% of what the system can handle now". Same song, different singer.

Thank you, exactly what I was going to say.

Higher specs aren't needed in consoles like they are in PC's.

Consoles are usually used for just gaming, running a minimalist OS.

Windows is quite a resource hog in itself, hence the needing of a higher clock CPU, more ram and higher GPU, not to mention any programs you want to use that use up your ram, CPU etc.

It isn't fair to compare the specs of a console and a computer, because not only are they used for different things, but with consoles, everyone is on equal footing, same specs and such, much less testing and more optimization for consoles.

Edit: Not to mention consoles are meant to be a cost effective way of being able to game.

Something tells me a GT680 in every PS4 would not be cost effective, it would effectively raise the price of the ps4 by...well....a lot really.

Being able to attain good graphics, good clock speeds and the like does not always need top of the line hardware, it needs hardware that can do the job, and some good old optimization.

Sorry but your argument is very flawed. Something that a lot of people over look is that consoles render games at 720p with 30 fps, where as PCs render those same games at 1080p with 60 fps. PCs also have high texture resolution, draw distance, detail, AA, etc, etc. Unless the console come out with some seriously powerful hardware, PCs will continue to dominate performance wise and they are only getting cheaper and cheaper, saw a guide for a $450 SC2:HotS ultra graphics PC the other week.

Oltsu:
Snip

Overrated, yes, but still very much a factor, especially when developers are dealing with the very limited amount of RAM. RAM availablity was the reason the PS3 couldn't access the XMB in game for so long, and it's still laggy today. If PS3 games had to run over Windows they would look infinitely more like ass. You're absolutely right with your Uncharted 3 examples, though. I think that if there's PS4 ports of late-era PS3 titles, they should at least have AA that isn't a post-process filter, sharper shadows, and maybe more texture filtering. As I've said before though, the bottleneck will always be the HDTV. No matter what hardware you stick in a console, it'll never run games at 2560p or the resolutions of triple display setups due to the limitation of the living room display. Kind of reminds me of before the PS3 release, when they were touting dual HDMI ports and the ability to use two HDTVs.

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 : )

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here