PS4 VS PC, wrong. PS4 = PC, Discuss

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

So now we know what the insides of the new Playstation will be. There is becoming even less of a distinction between consoles and PC's. The Playstation is a PC in a custom case running proprietary software. I will not be surprised if the new Xbox does not tread a similar path.

So the story of the next of "consoles" will be that they have tried so hard to copy the functionality of PC's that they have pretty much become PC's.

EDIT:

I thought this was common knowledge, so did not bother to explain it as the jump off point for this discussion.

At the press event yesterday it was revealed that the main components of the new PS4 are entirely taken from the PC. In previous the generation only PC gpu's had been used in consoles, married to unique CPU's like IBM's Cell Proccesor for the PS3 of a PowerPC (not a PC CPU, but based on RISC architecture) for teh xbox 360. Before that apart from the original Xbox, the commonality between PC and consoles hardware was even less.

The PS4 will have an AMD x86 CPU and an on-board AMD GPU based on the PC GPU AMD will release t the PC market later in the year. The CPU and GPU will share 8GB of ram (a setup common for on-board GPU's on PC motherboards). The only nod to the future is that the shared memory will be GDDR5, where as PC's use GDDR4 for system memory currently with GDDR5 only appearing on discrete GPU's.

So the PS4 from a hardware point of view is a PC. The only difference between it and a PC will be the OS running on it. Not even form factor will be different as their are already netop PC's (eg Zotac Zbox) available for hook up to TV's with a similar form factor to consoles and lack of upgrade options.

Hope that clears up the point I was trying to make.

EDIT 2:

What is a PC?

So it also looks like I have to explain what PC means for this discussion. PC in this case means 100% IBM PC compatible, or in other words has x86 hardware and x86 code.

PC meaning personal computer, which can also encompass multiple devices which don't run the x86 instruction set, like ARM powered tablets etc, is not what I mean.

The PS4 with it currently released hardware details will have an x86 CPU and GPU and will run x86 / x64 code. This makes it a 100% IBM PC compatible and therefore a PC. PC does not mean runs windows as PC's can run multiple OS's like linux and are still PC's. In fact under the definition Apple MAC desktops and laptop's now run on Intel x86 CPU's and and are therefore PC's just running their own OS and only available from one manufacturer.

The PS4, if hacked properly to allow you to install other software, will be able to run windows and windows programs natively without an emulator. It's a PC.

EDIT 3:

Also a lot of time is being spent discussing relative performance vs a PC. This is also beside the point. It is a PC but a mid range to low end one. What is not clear is how much they will be able to optimise the performance by programming 'direct to the metal' by not using standard api's and not needing to run a bloated OS like windows.

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.

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.

Daystar Clarion:
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.

It is not like previous generations where they would share some components, like GPU's with PC's, but have different CPU's (CELL for PS3 and PowerPC for XBOX 360). All the components in the PS4 are exactly what you would find in a PC, or more closely a laptop / nettop as it will have the same upgrade potential. The difference now is no longer hardware, but form factor and the OS it is running.

This was not a discussion about power gaps as there can be a huge PC gap even between just two PC's.

I'm not sure what there is to discuss as architecture is only of importance to developers, all we can hope for with the similarities is that ports will be more frequent and less horrid.

If you think their outlandish hardware made previous consoles so much better then you are a little off, what made them special is being low fat and featureless, having no flexibility means everything can be cut down to the smallest package and all those layers of overhead software a PC runs is almost non existent in consoles.

The original Xbox was made pretty much out of off the shelf PC components. What sony is doing the PS4 isn't anything new.

Even if a pc and the PS4 had exactly the same names for their hardware, they still wouldn't be the same systems. Hardware in a console runs very differently than hardware in a pc. The only resemblance the two have is that they both use similar hardware. But the very first pc's and very first consoles did the same. As technically a console is just a computer that was specifically designed for gaming.

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?

Technically, every console is a computer. My watch is a computer. If it can input, output, process, and store information, it is a computer. Plus the PS4 has half the power of the computer I'm on right now, so it still isn't up to par, and consoles never will be unless hardware stops advancing.

I remember similar calls when the PS2 and XBOX were first announced. Both sets of fans would claim their competitors machine was more PC than console, and somehow try to imply that that was a bad thing. I'm not seeing it.

I'm not sure exactly what the OP is asking or wanting to discuss but I'll take the opportunity to throw another two cents at the ungrateful internet.

1. A console is not a PC, no matter what hardware it has.

2. I've been a PC gamer for a long time, but I may switch when the new generation of consoles arrives. Looking at the PS4 I think it will likely outperform all but the most expensive PCs (at least initially). Consoles are and always have been dedicated gaming machines - that means no crap running in the background, plus low-level developer access to the hardware. It also means developers can optimise for the specific hardware configuration of the machine rather than having to code in such a way as to allow for huge setup variations. In short, the PS4 will run console games considerably better than a PC of equivalent hardware specs.

The CPU is basically a PC processor. But the memory and the GPU are slightly different beasts. They are using GDDR5 for system memory, which is something that you will only find in GPU's. And that memory seems to be shared with the GPU. The graphics card is only based on an existing chipset. We don't know much about it. We do know that it's not as powerful as most high-end cards on the market. And if it's using real DirectX 11 instead of some console specific version then that's awesome.

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?

Now, this may or may not be true for PS4 because of the new architecture.

The most important thing here is the prospect of cheaper and better ways of developing games and porting them between systems. And it would be good if NextBox follows a similar architecture for that reason.

It is also possible that because of the architecture that is so developer-friendly, we won't see an increase in development costs. At least not as big as some analysts previously thought.

Scared of PC elitists on this thread.
I find PCs much more temperamental but that might just be my experience. On the other hand, PCs aren't all made by one company and so you don't have to connect it to your Vita, use gimmicky move controls built into the controller or make your friends watch you playing.

Adam Jensen:
It is also possible that because of the architecture that is so developer-friendly, we won't see an increase in development costs. At least not as big as some analysts previously thought.

The new hardware and the fuckton (for a console) of RAM should save a shitload of cash in Optimisation for the first few years.

What this basically means is, the optimizations that work on PS4 will probably also work on PCs. Ports may be much easier, and more common, for that period.

Well, not really...will you be able to upgrade that ps4 three years down the road? No, so while the launch games for the PS4 will looks more or less comparable to PC games, those PS4 games are gonna look like crap compared to the games released on PC post-PS4 release. That being said, I think we're approaching a level of graphical fidelity where any differences are going to be so minute, that it really won't matter much. But who knows!? All I know is I'll probably be sticking with my PC in the foreseeable future. Given how similar the PS4 is to the PC, I really doubt many games are going to stay exclusive outside of Sony published games (which I tend not like in the first place), and I'd rather spend that $500-$600 to upgrade my PC.

Christopher Fisher:
Well, not really...will you be able to upgrade that ps4 three years down the road? No, so while the launch games for the PS4 will looks more or less comparable to PC games, those PS4 games are gonna look like crap compared to the games released on PC post-PS4 release.

It's not all about shiny graphics. Better hardware allows a lot more that. How about bigger and more immersive free roaming worlds? Or bigger levels in linear games so we don't always fight in narrow corridors. Also, bigger multiplayer maps with more players etc.

Hardware manufacturers are already in a rush to outpower the PS4, the PS4 having 8GB of GDDR5 and two teraflops of computing power is nice right? Well Nvidia just dropped the GTX TITAN, a GPU with 4.5 teraflops and processing power and 6GB of RAM. This would obviously be pared with a fast CPU and 16-32GB of system RAM.

Sounds nice right? Sure but just the GPU will set you back 800. The next gen consoles will be friendlier on the budget for the first third or so of the generation.

J Tyran:
Hardware manufacturers are already in a rush to outpower the PS4, the PS4 having 8GB of GDDR5 and two teraflops of computing power is nice right? Well Nvidia just dropped the GTX TITAN, a GPU with 4.5 teraflops and processing power and 6GB of RAM. This would obviously be pared with a fast CPU and 16-32GB of system RAM.

Sounds nice right? Sure but just the GPU will set you back 800. The next gen consoles will be friendlier on the budget for the first third or so of the generation.

I wouldn't pay $1000 for a GPU if I were a billionaire.

Adam Jensen:

J Tyran:
Hardware manufacturers are already in a rush to outpower the PS4, the PS4 having 8GB of GDDR5 and two teraflops of computing power is nice right? Well Nvidia just dropped the GTX TITAN, a GPU with 4.5 teraflops and processing power and 6GB of RAM. This would obviously be pared with a fast CPU and 16-32GB of system RAM.

Sounds nice right? Sure but just the GPU will set you back 800. The next gen consoles will be friendlier on the budget for the first third or so of the generation.

I wouldn't pay $1000 for a GPU if I were a billionaire.

You'd just buy the Cray supercomputer they were originally design for?

Adam Jensen:

J Tyran:
Hardware manufacturers are already in a rush to outpower the PS4, the PS4 having 8GB of GDDR5 and two teraflops of computing power is nice right? Well Nvidia just dropped the GTX TITAN, a GPU with 4.5 teraflops and processing power and 6GB of RAM. This would obviously be pared with a fast CPU and 16-32GB of system RAM.

Sounds nice right? Sure but just the GPU will set you back 800. The next gen consoles will be friendlier on the budget for the first third or so of the generation.

I wouldn't pay $1000 for a GPU if I were a billionaire.

Its an extraordinary price for a GPU, I cant remember many being that price in recent years. Its good news for us though, price drops on the previous bleeding edge bits and pieces and GPUs like that will be 200 or so in 18-24 months or so. I cant say I wouldn't pay that much if I was a billionaire though, if I was that lucky/resourceful I would probably go to town and build a 10k+ machine just because I would have to have one.

It's not the architecture that separates console from PC, but the functionality.

The biggest differece is PCs being an open platform which allows for more flexibility and diversity.

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.

Integrated GPUs suck balls when it comes to raw performance, & at least in PCs are strongly discouraged if you intend to try to play a AAA game on one. Because they suck so hard.
This also means any RAM used for rendering & textures etc. has to be subtracted from the total amount available to the system for general use, unlike with a dedicated GPU.

How is sticking one in a machine designed to, durr, play AAA games a good idea?

I would rather have a big lump of a machine that plays smoothly, than a streamlined gadget that struggles to run stuff on medium settings. But that's a debate for another thread......

My 400 GTX 680 does everything fine ATM, running literally anything at max, 1080p at solid 60FPS(I use an older card for separate physX processing for supported games). Anything more is ridiculous.

Cue the flame wars....

Except that every console is a model computer, while PC is completely amorphous in comparison.

Console hardware starts out on plateau or at parity with PC, then quickly falls into obsolescence.
It's only market forces and popularity that keep mainstream gaming developing primarily for consoles.

Same shit, different year.

Adam Jensen:

Christopher Fisher:
Well, not really...will you be able to upgrade that ps4 three years down the road? No, so while the launch games for the PS4 will looks more or less comparable to PC games, those PS4 games are gonna look like crap compared to the games released on PC post-PS4 release.

It's not all about shiny graphics. Better hardware allows a lot more that. How about bigger and more immersive free roaming worlds? Or bigger levels in linear games so we don't always fight in narrow corridors. Also, bigger multiplayer maps with more players etc.

And? I don't get what the point of that was. Like I said, I already have a PC that can do all those things, and I would rather use that $500 to go towards buying better PC hardware rather than buying a PS4. I might get a PS4, but at the moment, I just don't see any reason for doing so. The only real reason I could have seen for doing so are console exclusives, but with the PS4 being literally nothing more than a PC with a proprietary OS, I have a feeling that console exclusivity will be a thing of the past (first party games excluded and like I said, I don't really like most Sony published games).

Flexibility and diversity are what players love about their PC's and also what the gaming industry hates about them. Consoles are not meant to compete with or match PC's in hardware at all, consumers decide on the console based on the games, not the interface or the specs, those who truly care will continue to tweak their PC's and ignore the consoles. Who will succeed in the console wars will simply be determined by who has the most widely compatible platform and most importantly the largest game library; hence the longstanding success of the PS2. Arguments as to whether a PC is better or not, whether your console is like a computer or not are completely irrelevant, as the only question that matters is "how good are the games?"

bobajob:
How is sticking one in a machine designed to, durr, play AAA games a good idea?

Consoles don't work the same as PC. Of course the GPU is integrated. What did you think? That you can remove it and replace it with another one? Everything in a console is integrated. That's how they work.

ph0b0s123:
So now we know what the insides of the new Playstation will be. There is becoming even less of a distinction between consoles and PC's. The Playstation is a PC in a custom case running proprietary software. I will not be surprised if the new Xbox does not tread a similar path.

So the story of the next of "consoles" will be that they have tried so hard to copy the functionality of PC's that they have pretty much become PC's.

No its still PS4 vs PC. You see the Xbox360 is basically a Pentium 3 450mhz by inital design so this isn't exactly new. Keep in mind PC's can be upgraded easily and cheaply. Consoles cannot. So they are by no means equal just yet. And good luck hoping Sony will let you run anything that they don't approve on it. The PS4's design is down to the fact that Sony can't afford to do anything other than build a system out of currently available parts.

Even if they're becoming more PC-like, which makes sense in this age of ports and multiplatform games, they still aren't up to PC standards. The PS4, even if it is absurdly powerful compared to the current generation, is still miles behind actual enthusiast-level PC hardware.

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

I have a I7-2600K with HD7970. This is good stuff. I don't think my PC can do this stuff as it does not have 8 Gig of DDR5 RAM:

I love all gaming stuff: tablets to cell phones, PC and consoles. I'm as excited as hell about this.

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?

Daystar Clarion:
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.

Yeah, this basically..... I mean they announced 8 gig of DDR3 RAM..... Which is great by current standards. What about 3 years from now? Right now we are in 2013, DDR4 is expected to release in 2014...... So right out of the gate the RAM is going to be outdated, and it is the most modern aspect of the console (as best I can tell so far)

Im saving up to build a Gaming rig with a price tag of 2k.... it is gonna have a hex core 64 gig of DDR3 2TB HD and a solid state for my dual boot OS set up..... I will be making that build in about 3 months....

RedDeadFred:
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.

A computer is constantly upgrading. PS4 might be as powerful as the most powerful computer or, solely for the sake of argument, let's say it's better. A year down the road, do you think it will still be as good as the best computer? How about 5 years? Sooner or later, unless Sony comes up with a way to keep upgrading the graphical powers of their machine, it will become outdated. This is true with pretty much every console.

And while you can argue that Sony is making sure the PS4 can perform multiple functions other than play video games, in that respect it will NEVER be like a PC. You can't use programs on the PS4 that they don't specifically allow you to use, so you'd never be able to get the type of software you'd like to use (like, for example, the Adobe suite or Microsoft Office). The PS4 is for entertainment, pure and simple, and comparing it to a PC is just ridiculous.

bobajob:
Integrated GPUs suck balls when it comes to raw performance, & at least in PCs are strongly discouraged if you intend to try to play a AAA game on one. Because they suck so hard.
This also means any RAM used for rendering & textures etc. has to be subtracted from the total amount available to the system for general use, unlike with a dedicated GPU.

How is sticking one in a machine designed to, durr, play AAA games a good idea?

I would rather have a big lump of a machine that plays smoothly, than a streamlined gadget that struggles to run stuff on medium settings. But that's a debate for another thread......

My 400 GTX 680 does everything fine ATM, running literally anything at max, 1080p at solid 60FPS(I use an older card for separate physX processing for supported games). Anything more is ridiculous.

Cue the flame wars....

Actually they don't suck balls at all, obviously they cannot match a discrete GPU but they do a pretty adequate job. During my last build I had some problems and had to RMA the GPU, but I was able to play Battlefield 3 at medium specs using the Ivy Bridge 3570k HD Graphics 4000 while I waited for the new card to arrive. Medium specs look a bit shitty compared to high or ultra but medium looks kinda like BF3 does on the XBox 360, so perfectly playable and not that bad in fidelity.

The GTX 680 is overkill for running games at max in 1080p, my old machine thats been relegated to a back up rig with a Radeon HD 4890 can run any PC game apart from Metro 2033 at full specs. PC games just aint that demanding atm.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked