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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

We could talk about it's lack of power for rendering graphics compared to PC's, but i feel it's more important to remember it is smart game makers which produce the most memorable game experiences.
The PS4 has improved system level features and power in order to allow game makers to make better experiences. It's not just about graphics.

If the only thing you want is to have every single graphical flourish turned to the max with the latest physics and other simulations then a PC is what you're after, the beauty of a console is that you don't have to bother with that.

Personal note, i enjoy both sides, the simple turn on and play of a console, and the better PC versions of games when they happen.
All i want from consoles in the future is better anti aliasing and 60fps.

cikame:
We could talk about it's lack of power for rendering graphics compared to PC's, but i feel it's more important to remember it is smart game makers which produce the most memorable game experiences.
The PS4 has improved system level features and power in order to allow game makers to make better experiences. It's not just about graphics.

I think it's important to remember the PC provides a much better market for niché titles. Digital distributors like steam and GoG, and PC gamers are huge community supporters of small indie or vintage games, whereas barely a few indie titles have gained true popularity on consoles of late (inevitable minecraft and Trails:Evo which is essentially a ubi game).

cikame:
Personal note, i enjoy both sides, the simple turn on and play of a console, and the better PC versions of games when they happen.
All i want from consoles in the future is better anti aliasing and 60fps.

From what I can tell, AA is a no-no for the majority of games on the PS4. AMD APU's are decent processors, but nothing near the capabilities of discrete graphics, and I wouldn't enable AA even on the new jaguar processor.

As for 60fps, I rarely see those figures on the top PC games with an i5/460 system, and that's probably reaching double the price of the PS4

Jamous:
Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

The software issues aren't nearly what they used to be. Basically since XP came out, software for PCs has been far more stable. There is no more DLL stomping and every piece of software is maintained in it's own exclusive space. Basically, if a game today doesn't run on windows 7 with fairly current hardware, it's because the developers seriously suck or an extremely crappy DRM scheme was employed. If it's the first case, well, the game will suck anyways. The second case tends to send out warning cards. Either way, I have no trouble running games on my PC.

grigjd3:

Jamous:
Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

The software issues aren't nearly what they used to be. Basically since XP came out, software for PCs has been far more stable. There is no more DLL stomping and every piece of software is maintained in it's own exclusive space. Basically, if a game today doesn't run on windows 7 with fairly current hardware, it's because the developers seriously suck or an extremely crappy DRM scheme was employed. If it's the first case, well, the game will suck anyways. The second case tends to send out warning cards. Either way, I have no trouble running games on my PC.

On the whole things -are- very easy. You still get software issues that make you pissed off though. Things that happen for seemingly no reason. They're often easy to fix but are still infuriating.

Jamous:

grigjd3:

Jamous:
Is this really surprising though? You can't really sell consoles with 680s and have them cheap enough to take off in the way consoles are meant to. It's why hardcore PC gaming remains still surprisingly niche. That and the simple rage that software issues can cause.

The software issues aren't nearly what they used to be. Basically since XP came out, software for PCs has been far more stable. There is no more DLL stomping and every piece of software is maintained in it's own exclusive space. Basically, if a game today doesn't run on windows 7 with fairly current hardware, it's because the developers seriously suck or an extremely crappy DRM scheme was employed. If it's the first case, well, the game will suck anyways. The second case tends to send out warning cards. Either way, I have no trouble running games on my PC.

On the whole things -are- very easy. You still get software issues that make you pissed off though. Things that happen for seemingly no reason. They're often easy to fix but are still infuriating.

Honestly, this happens far more for me with my PS3 and happened even more on my old 360 than I ever get on my PC. Seriously, my PC might have an occasional bug come up after every 40-80 hours of operation. On the PS3 its after every 10 hours of operation and on the 360 it was every 4 hours. This is not even considering the vast quantity of software shoveled onto the PS3 that just plain doesn't work.

tehroc:
PS4 isn't going to be able to keep up with smartphones, but then neither will Xbox. These new phones are just sick with quadcore processors. The new Galaxy is coming with a an octocore processor. By the time either of these systems come out the next iphone or whatever will have 16 core processors or something just as easily ridiculous. Hell the only advantage my PC has over my phone is a video card.

You do realize that Smartphone Processors and Desktop Processors are nothing alike right? A quad-core smartphone processor is not inherently better than a dual core desktop CPU, they have completely different architectures. Having more cores means nothing as a smart phone core =/= a desktop CPU core. You really don't know much about computers do you?

DrunkOnEstus:

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 : )

Hmm, I thought Sony was pushing for newer HDTVs or is that still a ways off?

The sour grapes this guy is serving up have gone bad.

Hammeroj:
[quote="008Zulu" post="7.403629.16689174"]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.

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.

Consoles have never been nor never will be more than cheap PCs hardware wise. that's not a bad thing though, it keeps their prices down and are often more efficent at gaming/can squeeze more out of them due to better optimisation and no background crap that PCs have. Plus for PlayStation, running on Linux helps too.

Sounds to me that Nvidia is sour that AMD was able to secure the deal. Considering they also produce the Wii U and I believe also nextbox is romoured to also use AMD their probably rather prissy atm.

How is this any different than any other console versus PC generation. PCs have always been the stronger machine gaming-wise because they can be upgraded and run better software. If a console is ever able to do that, then I believe it stops being a console and becomes a PC.

That's also why I like consoles more than PCs. I put the disc in, and it runs. Don't have to go through setup, don't have to worry about whether my graphic's card can handle it, or if my sound card will corrupt the game, or if my specs are up to snuff.

So let me get this straight. Some guy from the Just Cause developer slips up and claims that the PS4 will outpower PCs for years to come (he doesn't mention it's probably average PCs he's talking about), then NVIDIA responds by pointing out how the PS4 will only be as powerful as a low-end gaming PC. So truthfully the masses are at each others throats when the guy who fired the first shot (the Just Cause developer) isn't even working for SOny and NVIDIA are quite rightfuly unhappy that their main competitor in the GPU market is working with Sony on the PS4?

Be happy with what you have guys. I don't want to sound like an apologetic but can we can go back to bashing EA and SimCity?

Of course he's going to ridicule Nvidia's competition.

Then again I'd be sad if this is accurate. The better the consoles hardware the better the generation's visual quality.

He is of course completely right. As a gamer who prefers PC over everything else, I think that they need to stop comparing them. Most games are sold on consoles which sometimes mean abysmal ports from lazy developers. The fact that all those developers that were talking about the systems RAM said what they said is the dumbest thing they could have done. No one should be comparing the platforms. Least of all developers that favor one platform over another. Sure, my current PC which is about 2 years old, is much more impressive than the PS4, but that doesn't mean the PS4 won't host some amazing games that both look and play amazing. It's really all about what can be done with the hardware and not so much about which is more powerful. I'm looking forward to see what they can do with it. As a gamer, the potential for new hardware, and with it new games, it excites me. It should excite us all instead of pitting PC against PS4 against XBox720. As a community, gamers need to grow up a bit and recognize that anything that drives games forward is a universal positive.

cikame:

All i want from consoles in the future is better anti aliasing and 60fps.

Like this generation you'll probably get it only to see it slowly whittled away to nothing as they need to power for their latest graphics tech

In other news, ice cubes can be used to cool your drinks.

tehroc:
PS4 isn't going to be able to keep up with smartphones, but then neither will Xbox. These new phones are just sick with quadcore processors. The new Galaxy is coming with a an octocore processor. By the time either of these systems come out the next iphone or whatever will have 16 core processors or something just as easily ridiculous. Hell the only advantage my PC has over my phone is a video card.

Number of cores is all well and good but processor power is indicated by the clock rate and processing power.
S3 has a quad 1.9Ghz and passmarks at a 1,353
which puts it at the level of processes from 2006

To put it in perspective there is more processing power in a single core of an I3 then the Galaxy S3

not saying phones are bad. Just that they don't hold a candle to something that is larger, cam draw more power, and you can attach a massive heat sink to.

I tend to agree, Nvidia has always made a good hardware and I've never had a problem with them.

I find it ironic that the best consoles of their time (N64/Mega Drive/NES/SNES) were made with older behind the times hardware and marketed to work.

Today they are marketed as being powerful when they are not, ontop of that, they breakdown and aren't
really anything more then cheap PC's.

008Zulu:

Hammeroj:
[quote="008Zulu" post="7.403629.16689174"]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.

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 main problem with the last generation was that all consoles got locked at DX9. All versions of DX after that had many bells and whistles that the consoles just can't use because you can't change videocards on consoles all willy-nilly.

Still though, I value "fun" over next-gen graphics and tend to run on lower settings just so that the game can run more smoothly. I don't care how you can see each individual strand of hair on your model if your game runs at 10 FPS.

I'm glad somebody in the industry was prepared to respond to that earlier statement by kicking that tree in the low hanging fruits.

The worst thing is the knock on effect this will have to PC Gamers. We're gonna be stuck with low performance games because most devs now just port games from the consoles to the PC. Great.

Bah... Hence one reason I never liked Nvidia...

"Low end PC" my ass, while the CPU (and GPU) combined aren't anything overly spectacular, it is hardly "low end"..

If anything, they're near the bottom of "high end" performance.
repeat: I never really liked Nvidia

not_you:
Bah... Hence one reason I never liked Nvidia...

"Low end PC" my ass, while the CPU (and GPU) combined aren't anything overly spectacular, it is hardly "low end"..

If anything, they're near the bottom of "high end" performance.
repeat: I never really liked Nvidia

That cpu is really low end. Its designed for notebooks.

MrTub:

not_you:
Bah... Hence one reason I never liked Nvidia...

"Low end PC" my ass, while the CPU (and GPU) combined aren't anything overly spectacular, it is hardly "low end"..

If anything, they're near the bottom of "high end" performance.
repeat: I never really liked Nvidia

That cpu is really low end. Its designed for notebooks.

And the on-die GPU is a 7660G... and before anyone says "well, the 7660 is a mid-ish range card so that's not too bad," the G variant is a low powered version for notebook APUs which is nowhere near the same as a 7660 GPU on a discrete card (for those wondering why, the entire APU is designed to run on about the same power as a mid range discrete GPU card will. So expect roughly half the performance at best).

RhombusHatesYou:

MrTub:

not_you:
Bah... Hence one reason I never liked Nvidia...

"Low end PC" my ass, while the CPU (and GPU) combined aren't anything overly spectacular, it is hardly "low end"..

If anything, they're near the bottom of "high end" performance.
repeat: I never really liked Nvidia

That cpu is really low end. Its designed for notebooks.

And the on-die GPU is a 7660G... and before anyone says "well, the 7660 is a mid-ish range card so that's not too bad," the G variant is a low powered version for notebook APUs which is nowhere near the same as a 7660 GPU on a discrete card (for those wondering why, the entire APU is designed to run on about the same power as a mid range discrete GPU card will. So expect roughly half the performance at best).

Yeah. I do not really understand why people seem to think ps4 will be a powerhouse.

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.

This is why I got out of consoles and into PC years ago. Modern consoles are usually ok at best upon release, but with their lack up modular design and the ability to truly upgrade them, they usually get left in the dust when compared to PCs. This is why I stick to PC. Consoles just aren't that great.

The discussion going on here is all well and good, but I find that this is the more pressing issue:

March 2012, more than a year and a half ago.

I find it unfair that some people had a year and a half's worth of time since last March, whereas I only had one year's worth of time.

Steven Bogos:

"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."

Hmmm... From March 2012, to March 2013... 18 months? Either he meant to say "making it more than a year and a half old." That, or he can't count.

Captcha: no regrets... Why am I getting that ominous feeling again?

Oltsu:

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.

Let's be realistic here: All of this was known well before the specs were announced. Only delusional fanboys would have thought that the PS4 would have raw specs comparable to a top-end PC. Sony isn't going to sell you $1000 worth of hardware for $429. There's a limit on how much of a loss they can take on each console.

Reyalsfeihc:
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.

Exactly, the fact that the PS4 is going for AMD APUs has nVidia butthurt. The reality is that this will result in a huge boost for AMD's Research and Development. Now if only the XBox 720 would go for a Piledriver based CPU. In the right hands, the CPU is a power house. Just look at how well Crysis 3 handles the Piledrivers.

DasDestroyer:
The discussion going on here is all well and good, but I find that this is the more pressing issue:

March 2012, more than a year and a half ago.

I find it unfair that some people had a year and a half's worth of time since last March, whereas I only had one year's worth of time.

You need to learn how to overclock your calendar then.

GAunderrated:
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.

There has to be a balance between what people are willing to pay and what you offer. My guess is that Sony got burned on offering a $600 machine last time around and have made their expectations in-line with its customers. It's just them being smart this time by learning from their mistakes.

I see this as Sony being damned no matter what they do. If they make a high-end machine then you'd be talking a console that is easily over $1,000 ($2,000+ for top of the line if you don't shop around for deals) and we'd be bitching about the price. They come in with a reasonable piece of hardware that probably (hopefully) falls into our price point and we're bitching about that too. So which do we want? Very high price point or reasonable price point (or the third option that Nintendo took last generation by playing an entirely different game than the others)?

Either way, this system is significantly better than the ps3 and will leave a lot of room to grow. It isn't a giant leap like the ps3 was to the ps2 but it is a significant step. The games coming out right now for the ps3 are of amazing quality so I'm not entirely certain that we're too far from a 'good enough' benchmark for gaming to do pretty much what we want to. Mark my words, there will be a day when better graphics really don't matter that much. As has already been said, consoles have far better optimizations of its hardware than pcs do. On paper these specs may look like low end but they're not when that is accounted for.

If Sony is truly smart, the specs they listed will be the base model and they'll have designed the systems in a way that allows the same switching out of components that pcs do. The past generation started this with HDDs and they cannot compete with the pcs being created for home entertainment systems and gaming if they don't expand that to other items like RAM and the GPU. We'll be a lot more forgiving of a $300 upgrade in five years than a system replacement. Be ware though, this model means that there could be a day where games have iterations/versions for the same system that specify which minimum components your ps4 has to have. I'm a pc gamer so I'm already used to that, but is it something we can ask of the general consumers? I wonder how the 360 will handle it.

MrTub:
Yeah. I do not really understand why people seem to think ps4 will be a powerhouse.

Because the truth burns like a napalm enema.

 Pages PREV 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
Registered for a free account here