Game exec : 'PS4 will out-power most PCs for years to come' ...

[FearfulSPARTAN]

He is right.. 8GB of RAM is an insane $52 for the PC right now

8gb of gddr5 ram, if what I read was correct its about 18 dollars per gigabyte of gddr5 ram, so considering their buying in bulk its probably closer to around 100 dollars their paying

 

[Rifter]

My 3 year old system will blow that out of the water, he has no clue what he is talking about.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Exactly, and how many strategy games are there coming out compared to shooter after shooter?

Well my point was that all* strategy games are PC exclusive. And the answer is "enough", i.e. I don't have time to play them all, so that's all I care about. Which is also because those games allow for 30-40...150+ hours of play time, not 4..

*yes I'm sure there are a few console strategy games.

 

[Juddog]

Lots of people with reading comprehension in this thread.

The exec said the platform was perfect for the open-world action games Avalanche specialises in. "We are confident that we'll bring open-world gaming to a whole new level because of it," he said. "I'm glad Sony decided to go with 8gb RAM because it means that the PS4 will out-power most PCs for years to come."

"the PS4 will out-power most PCs for years to come."

"most PCs"

"most"

"most" doesn't mean your crazy high end PC - it means "most", ie. the majority of PC's out there, which are generally pretty slow machines.

 

[JujuFish]

"most" doesn't mean your crazy high end PC - it means "most", ie. the majority of PC's out there, which are generally pretty slow machines.

Thanks for pointing out what was already pointed out in the very first reply. We never would have known otherwise.

 

[AdamK47]

Just so you know, he said most PCs, not high end PCs.

 

[KMFJD]

Nvidia compares PS4 specs to a 'low-end CPU'

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/nvidia-compares-ps4-specs-to-a-low-end-cpu-1138051

Meh

 

[Arkadrel]

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...s4-will-out-power-most-pcs-for-years-to-come/




PS4 Specs (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6770/sony-announces-playstation-4-pc-hardware-inside) :

- 8-core x86-64 CPU using AMD Jaguar cores (built by AMD)
- High-end PC GPU (also built by AMD), delivering 1.84TFLOPS of performance
- Unified 8GB of GDDR5 memory for use by both the CPU and GPU with 176GB/s of memory bandwidth
- Large local hard drive


lol. Want some of what this guy is smoking.

I have a Phenom II x4 overclocked to 4.0ghz, along with a AMD 5870.

The PS4 GPU is clearly stronger than my GPU is, esp if you factor in, codeing to metal.

The PS4 CPU is probably faster than mine, if your able to make use of all 8 "core"'s it has.



I think my PC is around... avg or slightly above that.
There are probably many people that "game" on less than a 4ghz PhII x4 + 5870.

So in a sense hes probably right, the PS4 will probably be faster than most PC for years to come still.



********************** test:

IF your reading this thread and have a GPU thats above 7850-7870 performance,
raise your hand (make a post stateing which card you have):


HOW MANY HERE HAVE:
a 580,590,670,680,690
or
a 7950,7970

Then remember that codeing to metal, means the PS4 will probably beat a 580 in performance.

 

[Aikouka]

Nvidia compares PS4 specs to a 'low-end CPU'

http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/consoles/nvidia-compares-ps4-specs-to-a-low-end-cpu-1138051

Meh

The CPU is certainly not powerful, but the GPU is a bit more powerful than he's suggesting. It doesn't have an exact parallel in a desktop card but if I recall, it's close to the 7850? The CPUs will definitely require some proper multi-core development.

 

[Midwayman]

The CPU is certainly not powerful, but the GPU is a bit more powerful than he's suggesting. It doesn't have an exact parallel in a desktop card but if I recall, it's close to the 7850? The CPUs will definitely require some proper multi-core development.

I think the most interesting thing is how the x86 cpu and GCN based gpu will translate to PC in ports. It should be a much closer thing this time around.

 

[tygeezy]

The biggest boon for this next generation of consoles is the memory boost. 512 for an entire closed system was incredibly weak even at the time of the ps3 and xbox. It was a crippling factor for a lot of developers. With so much more breathing room and the fact that the architecture is so much closer to pc's, I am expecting much better ports this time around. We wont be seeing such low resolution textures cramping our style and performance should be much better.

 

[tygeezy]

I have a Phenom II x4 overclocked to 4.0ghz, along with a AMD 5870.

The PS4 GPU is clearly stronger than my GPU is, esp if you factor in, codeing to metal.

The PS4 CPU is probably faster than mine, if your able to make use of all 8 "core"'s it has.



I think my PC is around... avg or slightly above that.
There are probably many people that "game" on less than a 4ghz PhII x4 + 5870.

So in a sense hes probably right, the PS4 will probably be faster than most PC for years to come still.



********************** test:

IF your reading this thread and have a GPU thats above 7850-7870 performance,
raise your hand (make a post stateing which card you have):


HOW MANY HERE HAVE:
a 580,590,670,680,690
or
a 7950,7970

Then remember that codeing to metal, means the PS4 will probably beat a 580 in performance.

Close to metal coding seems to be just a nice little buzzword that doesn't really yield that much more performance. They are right that the average pc is lacking in comparison to the ps4. It probably beats out my i7 860 (stock) geforce 480, 12 gigs of ddr 3 system, but probably not by a whole lot, and I have had this system since 2010. A current high end system absolutely crushes the ps4.

 

[Aikouka]

I think the most interesting thing is how the x86 cpu and GCN based gpu will translate to PC in ports. It should be a much closer thing this time around.

Honestly, I don't think x86 and a GCN-based GPU will mean much at all in regard to porting to the PC. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to game development, but after thinking about it for a moment, the instruction set architecture (ISA) doesn't mean that much when it comes to console vs. PC. In my opinion, the two largest roadblocks that PC gamers have had in regard to console-to-PC conversions would be console hardware limitations and the human factor (i.e. lazy developers and/or penny-pinching publishers).

Hardware limitations are probably the ones that we notice the most. You run into a game that has awful, low-resolution textures, and chances are that's because they're the same textures that are on the console. Why isn't the console using better textures? They don't have enough memory, and even if they did, the GPUs couldn't handle them fast enough. The PS4 appears to have a decent GPU with decent bandwidth that ought to not be too terribly limiting even considering a few years into the future. If VGLeaks is accurate, then I would be a bit worried about what the XBOX 4's limited memory bandwidth will mean for gaming. nVidia's GPU conference is going on as I write this (you can see the Live Blog on Anandtech), and they're mentioning GPUs with on-die memory (similar to the 360's eDRAM) for 2015 that will offer close to 1TB/s bandwidth. So, it will be interesting to see how well the consoles stack up to the evolving PC hardware market.

The human factor always seems to upset us the most, and especially so when it comes from a well-known developer. A good, recent example is how Aliens: Colonial Marines came out with muddy, low-resolution textures, and Gearbox released a 4GB patch that brought high-resolution textures to the game (along with other fixes). Unfortunately, this seems to be a lot more common than we would like to see as most developers consider the PC to be an after-thought. It seems that Square-Enix is the only publisher that reliably releases a proper PC port for their games, which sounds odd given their predominance as a console developer.

Now, the reason why I don't think that the hardware ISAs will matter as much is that it still matters how you use them. For example, PC developers mostly use DirectX for Windows, and that will be significantly different than the code developed for the PS4. As for the CPU, the difference is yet again in whether or not there are any special libraries involved. I'm not sure what Cell required, but I don't see much of a difference between using the Jaguar cores in the PS4 and the Sandy Bridge cores in my desktop... as long as it's coded in straight C++ (or any other language). No funny business allowed!

A friend of mine used to work for EPIC Games, and awhile back, he told me how much he hated coding for the PS3. Now, I'm a bit curious to ask what he thinks about the PS4, and whether it will be a better experience.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The problem that I have with on metal optimizations is that it generally takes a long time before we see that kind of optimization. It's a genuine and undeniable benefit of fixed hardware for consoles but certainly in the early life-cycle of a new console it's simply doesn't occur, it's only late in the life-cycle we see decent optimization, by which time the fractional increase has been dwarfed by genuine hardware advances by orders of magnitude.

If the consoles launched on average a lot more optimised on day 1 then that might close the gap at launch, although history tells us that the lead the PC market has with hardware by the time the consoles hit the shelves is far greater than can be made up with simply by optimizing, but at least that gap would be a little smaller.

Simple fact is that's not the case for the vast majority of console games near launch, the hardware will be average, mid range parts from the prior generation on the PC and will launch woefully behind what the PC can offer. Within a few years of launch the hardware will be nearly obsolete (it will fail to run new graphics libraries) and by the end of the consoles lifespan they'll be back to an order of magnitude of approximately 100x slower than what the PC can offer.

Let me be clear, that's not hyperbole, the current gen console GPUs kick out order 0.18-0.24TFLOPS, we can put up to order 18TFLOPS in a PC now.

 

[Midwayman]

Honestly, I don't think x86 and a GCN-based GPU will mean much at all in regard to porting to the PC. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to game development, but after thinking about it for a moment, the instruction set architecture (ISA) doesn't mean that much when it comes to console vs. PC. In my opinion, the two largest roadblocks that PC gamers have had in regard to console-to-PC conversions would be console hardware limitations and the human factor (i.e. lazy developers and/or penny-pinching publishers).

Well all three platforms were pretty fundamentally different in how they handled everything last time around. This time they are similar. It means that optimization per system will be more akin to the graphic settings on a PC for different configurations. At least for the typical dev studio working with a middleware engine for their game. Things like coding in GPU compute will probably work on all three systems, etc. First party games/exclusive will be a little different of course. I suspect the learning curve is going to be a lot shorter with x86. GCN is mostly interesting from the gpu compute line, and also if it'll put nvidia in a position of trying to keep up since the games will be optimized for what GCN does well.

 

[CountZero]

A friend of mine used to work for EPIC Games, and awhile back, he told me how much he hated coding for the PS3. Now, I'm a bit curious to ask what he thinks about the PS4, and whether it will be a better experience.

When I was in grad school IBM gave us some cell blades and had a couple talks to go over the architecture. To actually program well using cell architecture is very difficult and requires a kind of intimate knowledge with exactly what the code is doing and what felt like cycle to cycle memory use that you would have to be dedicated to porting to cell and nothing else. Registers, memory access models and general instructions all being different means a whole lot of effort to learn to program sufficiently well for one console. PS4 being x86 means a huge chunk of programmers already can program to the metal and it will be more about learning how to squeeze incrementally better performance. It should mean better porting between consoles and at some level better porting to PCs, at the very least it means that multi-threaded code that utilizes multiple cores should be moderately portable without surprise memory limitations/access issues.

 

[tygeezy]

The problem that I have with on metal optimizations is that it generally takes a long time before we see that kind of optimization. It's a genuine and undeniable benefit of fixed hardware for consoles but certainly in the early life-cycle of a new console it's simply doesn't occur, it's only late in the life-cycle we see decent optimization, by which time the fractional increase has been dwarfed by genuine hardware advances by orders of magnitude.

If the consoles launched on average a lot more optimised on day 1 then that might close the gap at launch, although history tells us that the lead the PC market has with hardware by the time the consoles hit the shelves is far greater than can be made up with simply by optimizing, but at least that gap would be a little smaller.

Simple fact is that's not the case for the vast majority of console games near launch, the hardware will be average, mid range parts from the prior generation on the PC and will launch woefully behind what the PC can offer. Within a few years of launch the hardware will be nearly obsolete (it will fail to run new graphics libraries) and by the end of the consoles lifespan they'll be back to an order of magnitude of approximately 100x slower than what the PC can offer.

Let me be clear, that's not hyperbole, the current gen console GPUs kick out order 0.18-0.24TFLOPS, we can put up to order 18TFLOPS in a PC now.

And even then I believe it will only be in house exclusive titles that will take advantage of this. When you are programming for multiple platforms they may not have the resources to extract everything out of the specific console.

 

[Juddog]

When I was in grad school IBM gave us some cell blades and had a couple talks to go over the architecture. To actually program well using cell architecture is very difficult and requires a kind of intimate knowledge with exactly what the code is doing and what felt like cycle to cycle memory use that you would have to be dedicated to porting to cell and nothing else. Registers, memory access models and general instructions all being different means a whole lot of effort to learn to program sufficiently well for one console. PS4 being x86 means a huge chunk of programmers already can program to the metal and it will be more about learning how to squeeze incrementally better performance. It should mean better porting between consoles and at some level better porting to PCs, at the very least it means that multi-threaded code that utilizes multiple cores should be moderately portable without surprise memory limitations/access issues.

The upside to the Cell processor was that it was extremely difficult to hack (not that it didn't stop the hackers from eventually hacking it, just that it took a lot longer than it would have had the PS3 had a more general architecture).

 

[dagamer34]

The problem that I have with on metal optimizations is that it generally takes a long time before we see that kind of optimization. It's a genuine and undeniable benefit of fixed hardware for consoles but certainly in the early life-cycle of a new console it's simply doesn't occur, it's only late in the life-cycle we see decent optimization, by which time the fractional increase has been dwarfed by genuine hardware advances by orders of magnitude.

If the consoles launched on average a lot more optimised on day 1 then that might close the gap at launch, although history tells us that the lead the PC market has with hardware by the time the consoles hit the shelves is far greater than can be made up with simply by optimizing, but at least that gap would be a little smaller.

Simple fact is that's not the case for the vast majority of console games near launch, the hardware will be average, mid range parts from the prior generation on the PC and will launch woefully behind what the PC can offer. Within a few years of launch the hardware will be nearly obsolete (it will fail to run new graphics libraries) and by the end of the consoles lifespan they'll be back to an order of magnitude of approximately 100x slower than what the PC can offer.

Let me be clear, that's not hyperbole, the current gen console GPUs kick out order 0.18-0.24TFLOPS, we can put up to order 18TFLOPS in a PC now.

You should also note that 18TFLOPS in a PC is 4 GTX Titans, which is only... $4000 and only slightly outside the realm of most people's budgets.

I think PC gamers aren't angry about how "low powered" consoles are compared to their rigs, but how developers don't focus on them and instead make ports. That's not Microsoft or Sony's problem though.

If the PC business were viable like it was back in the late 90s where there were plenty of PC-exclusive titles, I'm sure everyone would be happy. But any investor who sees how most people wait for Steam sales sees that model and says "Nope" and continues to invest in console games. It sucks, no one likes it, but the ultimate goal of a business is to make money, not to please its customers (good businesses do the latter to get to the former, but the world doesn't always work that way).

 

[Zargon]

so the PS4 can do 1080p about the time 4K comes to the home.....awesome!!!

 

[dagamer34]

so the PS4 can do 1080p about the time 4K comes to the home.....awesome!!!

Only $10,000 per TV set. No problems.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

You should also note that 18TFLOPS in a PC is 4 GTX Titans, which is only... $4000 and only slightly outside the realm of most people's budgets.

I think PC gamers aren't angry about how "low powered" consoles are compared to their rigs, but how developers don't focus on them and instead make ports. That's not Microsoft or Sony's problem though.

Sure 18TFLOPS is $4000, and the same ~1.8TFLOPS as a PS4 (a geforce 660) is about $220 on amazon...it's a scale you can sit anywhere on to satisfy your budget constraints.

 

[dagamer34]

Sure 18TFLOPS is $4000, and the same ~1.8TFLOPS as a PS4 (a geforce 660) is about $220 on amazon...it's a scale you can sit anywhere on to satisfy your budget constraints.

$220 for GPU, you still need CPU, RAM, Bluray drive, motherboard, WiFi, Bluetooth, PSU, manufacturing costs, packaging + PSEye, and somehow managing to fit that in a $399 box.

 

[Midwayman]

If the PC business were viable like it was back in the late 90s where there were plenty of PC-exclusive titles, I'm sure everyone would be happy. But any investor who sees how most people wait for Steam sales sees that model and says "Nope" and continues to invest in console games. It sucks, no one likes it, but the ultimate goal of a business is to make money, not to please its customers (good businesses do the latter to get to the former, but the world doesn't always work that way).

If the piracy rate was the same as consoles it would be a very viable market. :\

 

[zinfamous]

so the PS4 can do 1080p about the time 4K comes to the home.....awesome!!!

4K will take what...3 or more years to become anywhere close to standard?

sorry, I meant to say $K