PS4 VS PC, wrong. PS4 = PC, Discuss

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I sometimes think that people get hung up on what they're playing their games on, rather then what games they're actually playing. A good game is a good game no matter what system is on. When it games to the actual game, PC does have a slight advantage (mod support) but in the end as long as you're playing good games what box the game is being run in shouldn't matter so much. This is sort of off-topic, but that's my opinion on nearly any debate involving console wars, even in the smallest respect.

This new PS4 infrastructure can only benefit PC gaming if you're looking at it from that perspective. The games will be much easier to port, resulting in outright better ports to PC. And that also holds true vice versa for PS3 in the case where a PC game goes to that particular console. The more similar these consoles are in the hardware department the easier it will be for developers to release their games on all platform. This may also convince developers to develop ports for games where in the same circumstances this day and age they wouldn't even attempt just because of the work that would go into it. I don't really see a downside either way.

I don't want to call the OP wrong but he really is right in the sense that while Sony will be utilizing a more standard GPU/CPU based combo, the actual architecture of the unit that combines the CPU and GPU is very different than that of a PC. With the very limited facts about the PS4 one can certainly say that so far there isn't a company that actually builds DDR5 RAM when it comes to standard RAM chips. They do exist in GPUs but realize that RAM isn't going to be completely dedicated towards the GPU but instead most likely split between the GPU and CPU.

So it still is too soon to tell but you can't just simply say that they are now just PCs, at least not yet. Besides if they really were PCs then Sony would of had half a brain to learn to virtualize the PS3 on the PS4 to ensure backwards compatibility like Nintendo did with the Wii U. While it certainly isn't the cleanest solution it is currently the most cost efficient solution as you no longer need to physically implement the chipset to run a previous generation of games like the wii did or PS3 did.

GeneralFungi:

This new PS4 infrastructure can only benefit PC gaming if you're looking at it from that perspective. The games will be much easier to port, resulting in outright better ports to PC. And that also holds true vice versa for PS3 in the case where a PC game goes to that particular console. The more similar these consoles are in the hardware department the easier it will be for developers to release their games on all platform. This may also convince developers to develop ports for games where in the same circumstances this day and age they wouldn't even attempt just because of the work that would go into it. I don't really see a downside either way.

Which is fantastic for the affordability of PC gaming. One of the mains problem with ports this generation was the extra grunt you needed to deal with the poor optimisation

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?

As it is, the specs from the conference are EXTREMELY VAGUE. So its just fanboys boasting over specs that are so vague and if researched would only paint a horrid image for the PS4. Others just fell for buzz words.

If you want, I can partially explain it.

In general, the PS4 is weak from what little we have been told. Even in GPU teraflops, PC gaming is around 3-5 in 2009. PS4 has 1.84. A discontinued card from 2009, the ATI 5970, has 5 TFs for reference.

The CPU, while it has 8 cores, is a tablet/netbook CPU. Its also rumored to be weaker than a current day quad.

So basically, Sony has a lot of explaining to do in terms of specs.

Ultratwinkie:

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?

As it is, the specs from the conference are EXTREMELY VAGUE. So its just fanboys boasting over specs that are so vague and if researched would only paint a horrid image for the PS4. Others just fell for buzz words.

If you want, I can partially explain it.

In general, the PS4 is weak from what little we have been told. Even in GPU teraflops, PC gaming is around 3-5 in 2009. PS4 has 1.84. A discontinued card from 2009, the ATI 5970, has 5 TFs for reference.

The CPU, while it has 8 cores, is a tablet/netbook CPU. Its also rumored to be weaker than a current day quad.

So basically, Sony has a lot of explaining to do in terms of specs.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up a bit for me.

Uh, no consoles have this one large limiting factor that steps on the value a bit that makes it so PC=/=PS4, it's the OS. On a PC you can install anything you want, browse the web, install a lot of free programs and use any hardware you choose on it. You can do art, make music, multitask, attach more than one monitor, add in extra drives.

PS4 will be a dandy device there's no doubt but because of the nature of the device, you simply cannot do everything you can on a computer. Which given how powerful it is is a bit of a shame because with 8gb and such it could easily handle any art program and the like.

When exactly were consoles... not PCs? If we're looking at the specs for this, I mean... I... yes, they both work virtually the same. Of course, obviously, yes.

The difference is in their OS. That's it. That's all it ever was. The parts inside don't matter when it comes to "is this a console, is it a PC?" The answer to that question depends on the OS. Also (more importantly) the purpose of the unit by design.

Think of it like... a toaster and a toaster oven. They can both make toast. But the toaster is designed to make toast, whereas the toaster oven can facilitate many foods.

Well the xbox 360 consists entirely out of "pc parts" too yet you don't see me running photoshop and firefox on it while operating with mouse and keyboard without some extensive modifications that console manufacturers would love to see illegalized and go out of their way to prevent.

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

And you wouldn't have to. You'd be paying for a GPU that is over two times as powerful as a PS3, and you'll be paying around 2 times the PS3s price for it.
Or you could get a 660Ti or something for FAR less - around $300 or so - or potentially something even weaker, dependent on just what the PS4s graphics card turns out to be. You don't need a TITAN to max out anything, its if you've just got 1 monitor and a single card you'll get better performance out of the 690GTX - its more of a show off tool, or for those who run 3+ 2560*1600 monitors on their PCs than a requirement to play PC games.

If it makes porting less of a bitch, I'm all for it.

the best thing to come out of the change to x86 is that porting will become massivley easier, and the scale up period for the new games should be far shorter (x86 code is x86 code) but the point where game play starts to suffer for the sake of graphics may also be reached quicker

the people transferring from the old PS3 processor are going to have to relearn stuff i expect.

the use of 8GB of DDR5 probably means a split pool more like the xbox where both the CPU and GPU can allocate resources to be stored on it, instead of the dedicated divide that has made skyrim run like shit on PS3. also i thought x86 was limited in the bytes of ram it could handle anyway regardless of OS or clever programming (its a hardware thing)

AMD stands to make alot of money off a low power CPU (its designed for portability, and lower energy use not power) which means they can finial drop money on the bleeding edge stuff of the future

TLDR; this is actually a good thing for the PC market, AMD gets monies from sony, and ports should now be PS4 -> PC, not XBOX -> PC due to the same CPU architectural (the most important part)

devotedsniper:
The specs aren't too bad but if i'm honest x86 processor, does that mean it's only running an x86 OS? Or do they really mean x86 and x64? Would have thought they'd be using an x64 OS considering it's higher performance compared to x86.

If you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 you will see that is an extension to the x86 instructions set and fully backward compatible, hence when people talk about x86 it covers both. Since you cannot get a new x86 CPU, that does not have the x64 instruction set, it is a certainty that the hardware will be 64 bit (am unsure whether this is a first for consoles). The only question now will be whether Sony will have an OS that uses the x64 instruction set and whether developers with develop for it, as even on PC's where 64 bit has existed for a while, still most games are 32 bit. What is certain is if they want to use more than half of that 8GB of memory they will need to code to the x64 extensions (max addressable mem with 32bit is 4 GB).

Tenmar:
I don't want to call the OP wrong but he really is right in the sense that while Sony will be utilizing a more standard GPU/CPU based combo, the actual architecture of the unit that combines the CPU and GPU is very different than that of a PC. With the very limited facts about the PS4 one can certainly say that so far there isn't a company that actually builds DDR5 RAM when it comes to standard RAM chips. They do exist in GPUs but realize that RAM isn't going to be completely dedicated towards the GPU but instead most likely split between the GPU and CPU.

So it still is too soon to tell but you can't just simply say that they are now just PCs, at least not yet. Besides if they really were PCs then Sony would of had half a brain to learn to virtualize the PS3 on the PS4 to ensure backwards compatibility like Nintendo did with the Wii U. While it certainly isn't the cleanest solution it is currently the most cost efficient solution as you no longer need to physically implement the chipset to run a previous generation of games like the wii did or PS3 did.

"CPU and GPU is very different than that of a PC"

Actually no. It is exactly the same. CPU & GPU combos have been being done on the PC for the last couple of years, where most mainstream and laptop CPU's from AMD and Intel have had GPU cores integrated into the CPU chip. See AMD APU's or the most current Intel chips with INTEL HD 4000 GPU's in the CPU. In fact this is the reason why Sony had to go with AMD as they are the only company that have decent GPU cores integrated in the CPU. Nvidia don't have x86 CPU's to integrate their GPU's into and the Intel GPU's are just to week at the moment. The shared memory is also standard. The only trend setting thing is the use of GDDR5 Ram for system memory. All this means is the RAM on board will be clocked hight than most PC system memory at the moment. It is still DDR so, no different to the PC apart for the clocking speed.

I agree that won't be able to confirm the exact model of AMD APU that is going to be in the PS4, but that does not change the fact that this console will be running x86 hardware and code and is therefore a PC from a hardware point of view.

RedDeadFred:

Ultratwinkie:

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?

As it is, the specs from the conference are EXTREMELY VAGUE. So its just fanboys boasting over specs that are so vague and if researched would only paint a horrid image for the PS4. Others just fell for buzz words.

If you want, I can partially explain it.

In general, the PS4 is weak from what little we have been told. Even in GPU teraflops, PC gaming is around 3-5 in 2009. PS4 has 1.84. A discontinued card from 2009, the ATI 5970, has 5 TFs for reference.

The CPU, while it has 8 cores, is a tablet/netbook CPU. Its also rumored to be weaker than a current day quad.

So basically, Sony has a lot of explaining to do in terms of specs.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up a bit for me.

"The CPU, while it has 8 cores, is a tablet/netbook CPU."

How many tablets do you know that have x86 CPU's and run x86 code. That's right none. Tablet at the moment equals ARM. If it has x86 hardware and is running x86 code. It is a PC. Or at least an IBM PC. PC meaning personal computer can encompass multiple devices. IBM PC means x86.

Also the OS should not matter as PC's already run multiple OS and are still called PC's. PC does not equal runs windows. PC equals x86 hardware. The PS4 is a 100% IBM PC compatible device.

The_Echo:
When exactly were consoles... not PCs? If we're looking at the specs for this, I mean... I... yes, they both work virtually exactly the same. Of course, obviously, yes.

The difference is in their OS. That's it. That's all it ever was. The parts inside don't matter when it comes to "is this a console, is it a PC?" The answer to that question depends on the OS. Also (more importantly) the purpose of the unit by design.

Think of it like... a toaster and a toaster oven. They can both make toast. But the toaster is designed to make toast, whereas the toaster oven can facilitate many foods.

Corrected it for you.

The_Echo:
When exactly were consoles... not PCs? If we're looking at the specs for this, I mean... I... yes, they both work virtually the same. Of course, obviously, yes.

The difference is in their OS. That's it. That's all it ever was. The parts inside don't matter when it comes to "is this a console, is it a PC?" The answer to that question depends on the OS. Also (more importantly) the purpose of the unit by design.

Think of it like... a toaster and a toaster oven. They can both make toast. But the toaster is designed to make toast, whereas the toaster oven can facilitate many foods.

"When exactly were consoles... not PCs?"

ph0b0s123:
Post

See my previous post (linked above) where I explained why up until now they have not been the case to another poster.

loa:
Well the xbox 360 consists entirely out of "pc parts" too yet you don't see me running photoshop and firefox on it while operating with mouse and keyboard without some extensive modifications that console manufacturers would love to see illegalized and go out of their way to prevent.

No, the 360 has a PowerPC CPU. Although it has PC in the name, it is not a PC CPU as it does not run the x86 instruction set. The only thing the 360 borrowed was a AMD GPU from the PC. So not you would not have been able to run those programs without an emulator on the 360, as they were programed for x86 processors.

The lack of knowledge round here on this stuff is disappointing.

ph0b0s123:

If you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 you will see that is an extension to the x86 instructions set and fully backward compatible, hence when people talk about x86 it covers both. Since you cannot get a new x86 CPU that does not have the x64 instruction set it is a certainty that the hardware will be 64 bit (am unsure whether this is a first for consoles). The only question now will be whether Sony will have an OS that uses the x64 insturctions set and whether developers with develop for it as even on PC's where 64 bit has existed for a while still most games are 32 bit. What is certain is if they want to use more than half of that 8GB of memory they will need to code to the x64 extensions (max addressable mem with 32bit is 4 GB).

Yeah i knew that, my query was about the OS considering they specifically state x86 processor, as for 4GB limit that's more of a Windows Home User Limit that can be easily bypassed with some trickery (like you said). It's a bit unnerving if they do go down the 32bit road, in fact it would be pretty stupid to do that when you consider that they will be using more than 4GB ram, Windows 32bit may as well be dead and there are some good advantages to using x64.

devotedsniper:

ph0b0s123:

If you look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 you will see that is an extension to the x86 instructions set and fully backward compatible, hence when people talk about x86 it covers both. Since you cannot get a new x86 CPU that does not have the x64 instruction set it is a certainty that the hardware will be 64 bit (am unsure whether this is a first for consoles). The only question now will be whether Sony will have an OS that uses the x64 insturctions set and whether developers with develop for it as even on PC's where 64 bit has existed for a while still most games are 32 bit. What is certain is if they want to use more than half of that 8GB of memory they will need to code to the x64 extensions (max addressable mem with 32bit is 4 GB).

Yeah i knew that, my query was about the OS considering they specifically state x86 processor, as for 4GB limit that's more of a Windows Home User Limit that can be easily bypassed with some trickery (like you said). It's a bit unnerving if they do go down the 32bit road, in fact it would be pretty stupid to do that when you consider that they will be using more than 4GB ram, Windows 32bit may as well be dead and there are some good advantages to using x64.

Just because they said x86 does not mean it will only be 32bit. The hardware will for a certainty by 64 bit, they don't make only 32 bit CPU's anymore (as far as I am aware).

I think it will mean that we will see more 64 bit games on the PC.

The notion in this thread that the PS4 is overall on par with a "good" gaming PC is a bit misguided.

The GPU might be yes, it should be on par with a downclocked 7850 and it should have the VRAM it needs but the CPU sure as hell isn't. Don't be fooled with all the 8 cores talk, these aren't conventional desktop PC CPU cores that you'd find in any normal gaming PC. The cores found in the PS4's CPU belong to AMD's Jaguar architecture that is meant to replace the aging Bobcat dual cores found in low end netbooks. The future Jaguar chips will ship with an integrated GPU but only 4 cores instead of the 8 found in the PS4 CPU.

More cores is great and all but writing multithreaded game code for weak cores is a bitch. Some games still need powerful main threads to properly handle player input and stuff like that. I'm interested in seeing how developers are actually going to cope with a netbook level CPU coupled with a more powerful GPU. At its bes it will bring better multithreaded code for the PC as well but at its worst the PS4 will suffer due to lack of CPU power.

And don't also be fooled with the 8GB of GDDR5, the stuff is basically modified DDR3 that's faster in some areas and slower in others. We don't even know the speed at which it runs at, it might be bottom of the barrel binned stuff that's no good anywhere else. And that's not even mentioning memory bandwidth which is low. Sony however cleverly just added the CPU and GPU bandwidth together to make the number seem bigger but in reality the device is most likely going to be bandwidth limited, fortunately it will only have to run games at 1080p and not at the higher resolutions higher end PCs are used to game.

People were installing Windows on the Xbox 360 when it came out.

This topic is 7 years to late

I just thought I'd throw this is in; top in the photos is the PC version of the Unreal 4 tech demo, and the bottom is the PS4 version of that same demo:

image

image

Every gen we have this and it is nothing new. Consoles have always been watered down PCs and this no difference. The raw power of PC more than makes up for the "bloatware" running on PCs while consoles never reach the power of PCs. It is not beside the point of comparison with raw power if you are saying they are equal which they are not and never will be. A console is for a completely different type of person that wants to play on PC and no that is not a bad thing to have different standards.

Meatspinner:
People were installing Windows on the Xbox 360 when it came out.

This topic is 7 years to late

Well that never happened, so no it is not to late.

Glademaster:
Every gen we have this and it is nothing new. Consoles have always been watered down PCs and this no difference. The raw power of PC more than makes up for the "bloatware" running on PCs while consoles never reach the power of PCs. It is not beside the point of comparison with raw power if you are saying they are equal which they are not and never will be. A console is for a completely different type of person that wants to play on PC and no that is not a bad thing to have different standards.

No, it is new. Apart from the original xbox, no console has had x86 pc hardware or run x86 code.

What a lot of people are missing is a lot of these games have already been ported to the PC and so porting a game from the PC to the PS4 will be relatively simple. So you might see a lot of games that were originally for the PS3, released for the PS4 only with better graphics than previously was had.

I'd not be surprised if you see TF2, Skyrim etc etc all released for the ps4.

Also how long until people hack the Ps4 to run steam?

Didn't the original OFFICIAL PS3 firmware have the option to install "other OS" for years natively? i think they discontinued that in late 2009, any chance of that returning? I remember seeing videos of people running ubuntu on it and such.

Does the gap between consoles and pc's really matter that much? I've seen a lot of "PS4 will sure look old a few years down the line," but can you really say that it will look bad a few years from now? It just comes of as sort of snobby to me when people look at these demos and say "How primitive! The pc is far beyond the standards of this neanderthal device." I'm serious, someone look me dead in the eyes and tell me that the PS4's graphics look crappy.

spartandude:
the issue is that PCs are upgradable ...

that's the crux of the argument for me as well and is the primary reason i am still partial to PCs. consoles are static hardware. PCs I can upgrade to my heart's content.

edit (added): that being said the graphics i see on my PS3 splayed across my TV screen in gigantic measure relative to my "meager" 30 inch computer monitor, easily holds itself up to my standards and this is on hardware that is five (six?) years old.

Ubisoft agree with me.

"He adds that he believes the firm's developers will be able to get the best out of PS4 faster than it did PS3, because the device is built on familiar PC architecture."

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/ubisoft-don-t-wait-7-years-to-launch-ps5/0111253

Capitano Segnaposto:

spartandude:

Capitano Segnaposto:

Um... what?

Assuming the person also needs to buy a Monitor, Keyboard, Mouse, Headset/Speakers, Case, not to mention the guts: That will cost more than a basic PS4 (assuming the price-point is anywhere between 450-550 USD). PC's are technically better than any console, but are always more expensive. The same can be said for transportation. Cars are technically better than a bike, but I prefer my bike. It is cheaper and more reliable.

Sure, I can buy a PC for around 400 bucks right now to play games, but the games will look like shit. That will be even more apparent once the "next-gen" games start to be released.

assuming that a person may also need to buy those things for a console...
the PC on its own can probably have very similar specs a PS4 for the same cost and the cost of the PC will be even lower by the time the PS4 is released

The only thing a person would need to buy for a console as extra peripherals would generally be a Headset and a Game. Maybe an extra controller. Extra stuff for a console would only cost around 160 USD, and most people have TV's so that isn't an issue.

If you are buying a gaming computer, you can easily spend an extra 1000 USD on just Keyboards, Speakers/Headsets, Mouse, and a nice Monitor set-up. That isn't mentioning the parts of the computer itself which can easilly reach around 800 to 1000 bucks if you are getting a set-up that will last a while.

Console gaming has always been cheaper, just at the cost of power.

You've got to be joking. Saying most people have T.V.'s so they shouldn't factor that into the cost while Monitors should is bullshit. Any T.V. these days can be used as a monitor by use of converters or simply through HDMI, and also, I could just say that most people have monitors already... so they don't have to buy one. And Keyboards and Mice can be bought for less than $20; if you want a gaming, high DPI mouse, you can get great ones for $40 or less. Headsets, wow this is great, because all PC gamers use headsets and no console gamers do... sure. You can't factor in costs that apply to both systems for just PC. The same applies to sound systems, whether it be PC speakers or T.V. Sound systems. And the idea that all these peripherals could add up to $1000 is insane. Maybe if you're calculating this in yen or something...

clippen05:

Capitano Segnaposto:

spartandude:

assuming that a person may also need to buy those things for a console...
the PC on its own can probably have very similar specs a PS4 for the same cost and the cost of the PC will be even lower by the time the PS4 is released

The only thing a person would need to buy for a console as extra peripherals would generally be a Headset and a Game. Maybe an extra controller. Extra stuff for a console would only cost around 160 USD, and most people have TV's so that isn't an issue.

If you are buying a gaming computer, you can easily spend an extra 1000 USD on just Keyboards, Speakers/Headsets, Mouse, and a nice Monitor set-up. That isn't mentioning the parts of the computer itself which can easilly reach around 800 to 1000 bucks if you are getting a set-up that will last a while.

Console gaming has always been cheaper, just at the cost of power.

You've got to be joking. Saying most people have T.V.'s so they shouldn't factor that into the cost while Monitors should is bullshit. Any T.V. these days can be used as a monitor by use of converters or simply through HDMI, and also, I could just say that most people have monitors already... so they don't have to buy one. And Keyboards and Mice can be bought for less than $20; if you want a gaming, high DPI mouse, you can get great ones for $40 or less. Headsets, wow this is great, because all PC gamers use headsets and no console gamers do... sure. You can't factor in costs that apply to both systems for just PC. The same applies to sound systems, whether it be PC speakers or T.V. Sound systems. And the idea that all these peripherals could add up to $1000 is insane. Maybe if you're calculating this in yen or something...

Yes, you can use your TV as a Monitor, but who the hell would do that? A computer would be in an Office. Near a Desk. With a Monitor. If a person is building a PC for gaming, they would buy a decent Monitor for it. Those generally go for around 200 to 300 minimum for a decent sized 1080p monitor.

A decent gaming Mouse/Keyboard would range around 50 to 60 if you are cheap for the mouse and a keyboard would cost you around 70 to 80, easy. Gaming Headsets are cheap, as are the speaker systems. Lets say 50 for the Headset, 60 for the Speakers. A decent Mouse-Pad will cost around 20 bucks, so all in all that right there is around 600 bucks average for the peripherals if you get the cheap stuff. My Monitor is 32" 1080p and cost me around 400 bucks. My mouse, 90 (Rat 7), Headset around 90, Keyboard around 110, Speakers around 200 (surround sound speaker set-up), Mouse-Pad 60 (custom Made, glass mouse-pad with custom engraving). For me, it cost me around 900-ish bucks.

Lets use the Wii as an example for consoles:
Wii U - 350 bucks.
Game - 60 bucks.
Pro-Controller 50.
Headset - 25.
Wii Mote + Nunchuck - 50.

All in all, I spent 595 bucks. So I spent, on the console, peripherals, and games, what it would cost me to pay for a decent computer Peripheral set to get the most out of my newly created computer which costs even MORE money on top of that.

Consoles are Cheaper, but less Powerful.
Computers are 10x more expensive, but also more powerful.

Both are great, both should be played on.

Leave it at that.

ph0b0s123:

Meatspinner:
People were installing Windows on the Xbox 360 when it came out.

This topic is 7 years to late

Well that never happened, so no it is not to late.

Dam you'r right. I forgot it was an original xbox. So I guess it's 10-11 years instead of 7

I tend to think of the two as the same machine sometimes. Silly me

MorganL4:

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 bui

ld in about 3 months....

Its DDR5 not DDR3, while DDR5 is based on DDR3 DDR5 is only found in GPUs so its likely that the GPU is going to share memory with the system itself like the 360 does .

Plus adoption of DDR4 is likely to be slow at the start as it was with 3, not many people are likely to replace their entire motherboard just for better RAM timing. Its likely that it will replace DDR3 as people build new systems (or do a proc+mb upgrade) so its unlikely to go obsolete very quickly.

Consoles will never be equal to PC, at least until hardware improvement is meaningless. A computer has parts that can be upgraded, consoles don't.

Consoles win in the simplicity department, but that's about it. Though building a PC isn't too complicated. It's more or less matching some numbers, and plugging things into the right slot (and making sure your Graphics Card isn't too big for the case.)

When the PS4 comes out, I'll probably upgrade my PC, and it'll cost the same or less than buying a PS4... which I may or may not buy. Depends on the console exclusive titles. And I mean games that aren't ported to PC.

Zipa:

MorganL4:

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 bui

ld in about 3 months....

Its DDR5 not DDR3, while DDR5 is based on DDR3 DDR5 is only found in GPUs so its likely that the GPU is going to share memory with the system itself like the 360 does .

Plus adoption of DDR4 is likely to be slow at the start as it was with 3, not many people are likely to replace their entire motherboard just for better RAM timing. Its likely that it will replace DDR3 as people build new systems (or do a proc+mb upgrade) so its unlikely to go obsolete very quickly.

Yes you are correct there is a difference, but we must be clear; it is GDDR5 NOT DDR5. But in truth GDDR5 is modified DDR3.

"GDDR5 (Graphics Double Data Rate, version 5) SDRAM is a type of high performance DRAM graphics card memory designed for computer applications requiring high bandwidth. Like its predecessor, GDDR4, GDDR5 is based on DDR3 SDRAM memory which has double the data lines compared to DDR2 SDRAM, but GDDR5 also has 8-bit wide prefetch buffers similar to GDDR4." - wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDDR5

I am going to buy a ps4 no matter what. I do have a gaming PC, but they need upgrading allot. I also hope the PS4 does not turn into a PC. It should do what it does best. Play blue ray, and games, and leave it at that.

I guess no one is going to touch on my PS3 "other OS" comment, but the assertion stands true that its parts werent upgradeable other than the Hard Drive which was user replaceable. The appeal of consoles though lies HEAVILY in convenience and user-friendliness.

I am excited because the games will be easier to port. It may be a PC by definition, but since it won't run your off-the-shelf Windows or the newest Ubuntu, it's really not.

What's more exciting is the potential for homebrew. Remember that XBMC arose from the hacked Xbox 1. PS4 with XBMC, yummy.

From the gaming perspective, the PS3 and 360 are also just limited PCs: The store game data on a hard drive, games caoe with serial numbers for online play, games come out buggy and require several patches, etc - all the disadvantages of a PC (except for the need to upgrade every four or five years), and without all of the advantages.

With that said, I wouldn't say that it's a PC unless I can divide the hardrive to partitions and install another OS. Since it supposedly has an x86 CPU, it means that it would actually be able to play PC games. If that's the case, I might even buy one.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked