[hexus.net]AMD claims it will power another gaming device

[monstercameron]

-snip-

You forgot to add in all the free games you get every month for live and ps+...

 

[railven]

You forgot to add in all the free games you get every month for live and ps+...

Was about to say that. Every month I get 6 "new to me" "free" games.

Kudos Sony (I don't pay for XBL since they axed Family Plans, curse your MSFT!)

 

[ElFenix]

most people need a PC anyway so the incremental cost of making it be able to play games isn't that much.

well, if you are confident enough to change out a power supply and add a video card, that is.

then again, most PCs sold these days are crappy laptops. but even those can play LoL just fine.

 

[SlickR12345]

The new Amazon device?

 

[MisterLilBig]

Was about to say that. Every month I get 6 "new to me" "free" games.

Kudos Sony (I don't pay for XBL since they axed Family Plans, curse your MSFT!)

Acknowledged, I also did not point out all the free PC games and added a $60 game to the PC, which, isn't needed.


I'm not saying consoles suck, in any way, more like, I have more of everything with a PC, at a price to time invested ratio of equal to or superior to a console. To me, a console is not of much value anymore.

To someone else, it does. For example, platform exclusive games. (Which goes both ways also.)

 

[AnandThenMan]

I've never thought a console was a good value, the only ones I've ever owned were given to me. Wait I think I bought an Atari Lynx not sure that counts.

 

[Shivansps]

You can also get free games in pc too, thats why you cant compare both OS, too many variables, diferent profit systems and depends way too much on each people, and it goes way off tropic.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

For the money they are not, they are the best you can get.

Agree 110%.
The Value of an Xbox One that sells for $349, that comes with an 8 core processor, Radeon graphics, blu ray drive, wireless gamepad and bundled with 2 games (Assassin's Creed) which would normally retail for $50 each.....

It's absolutely insane. Same with PS4 -- same hardware, but with a little more pop from the DDR5. Also usually bundled with Last of Us and GTA5.... Two great titles that would normally set a person back $80 - $100. All for $399.

Not only are they great values, but probably the best value of any console generation that I can remember. Adjusted for inflation, A Playstation 1 would sell for $446 or a Neo Geo would be $1125.

http://kotaku.com/36-years-of-console-prices-adjusted-for-inflation-1485353267

 

[krumme]

1.5 years ago i had to upgrade one of the kids cpu to a new hw system because one of those lousy ps3 port single core games didnt run properly on core2 cpu. Had it been quad it hadnt made a difference.

Today less fast cpu run bf4 but using all the cores.

Ipc have stagnated. If anything is good for pc gaming its the new x86 consoles setting a standard to use more than one core but 6.

Bf3 and especially bf4 have shown the way. Demanding less on the single cpu than tf2 for more than 6 times the bang.

Ofcource there is limits (12-20) but for the next 5 - 10 years multiple cores will drive gaming forward with modern api to support it. Thanx to mantle and the nes console gen for that.

 

[Shivansps]

There are things you just cant or its way too hard(expensive) to do so, a game its not only about a 3D API for rendering a scene.

one of the cheaper and easier aproches to parallelism in game actually is:
1 thread for AI
1 thread for audio/game logic
1 thread for physics
the rest is for rendering.
That also means, a good API, like DX12 or Mantle, or the one that each console use, will also make use of the unused processing time on the others cores used for other stuff, thats why a powerfull QUAD is a good thing, and a powerfull x6 is even better.

like it or not, if the cpu is a crap on single thread performance, the game will suffer on the single items, but if its powerfull the unused time will not be wasted, A X6 sounds good, that is the sweet spot to me for future games, but not this crap jaguar limiting games for the next 8 to 10 years.

And BTW, the PS3 had a octa core too, probably even a FASTER octa core than this, we have nothing to thanks consoles but placing limits on game avances.

Lets face it, the only reason Sony and MS whent for a X8 Jaguar is because of reserving hardware for their DRM, they could never do that with a quad, there whould not be enoght cores left for games.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Lets face it, the only reason Sony and MS whent for a X8 Jaguar is because of reserving hardware for their DRM,

If there was no DRM what would they have gone with?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Lets face it, the only reason Sony and MS whent for a X8 Jaguar is because of reserving hardware for their DRM, they could never do that with a quad, there whould not be enoght cores left for games.

What?! Do you have any sources to back the claim that an entire core on the PS4/XB1 is being used for DRM?

Also, could you please take some time to proof read your posts? It's hard to take you seriously when you seem to be making no effort to type coherently...

 

[pw257008]

Consoles simplify things greatly vs PCs in day to day use (put a game in and it plays--if it installs, it just does it, it doesn't guide you through security prompts that are necessary on a PC), and they are generic--no driver issues and the like, no decisions on what controllers are the best, no questions over best RAM or video card or CPU. You don't even have to figure out to go to Steam--you can just buy games at the store, and XBL is so heavily integrated into everything that you do that it's not hard to find it (not to mention, it is the only market available on the console). I'm not a huge fan of that setup, but many people are.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

If you think the cell processor is better as a CPU that an x8 jaguar core... yeah. I'll give you a coloring book and a chair to draw in.

There's a reason why developers didn't like the PS3. The cell CPU was difficult to write code for and each "spu?" was really weak. If you want to talk about IPC, the cell was pathetic.

 

[gdansk]

Cell was an interesting idea, but overall a failure. The SPE were fast for the time, but the modern GPU embedded in the PS4/XB1 have a more capable instruction set and are much faster. If you have some work case that is massively parallel, the current-gen consoles are much improved over the Cell processors.

The Jaguar CPU is a big improvement over the PowerPC core(s) in the last generation (about 2x FLOPS per core). And then there are 8 cores rather than 1(PS3) or 3(X360).

 

[cytg111]

The 900p omg weak CPU message that keeps popping up when describing these 'pathetic consoles'.. I dont get it? Surely we can agree that 900p or whateverp is a gpu issue rather than cpu right? So the real beef is that they're not shipping with a 290x and the 300 watt tdp that follows?

 

[MisterLilBig]

I don't see 1080p 60fps gaming on an APU until Zen and Skylake, or almost two years from now. Then we could make a better comparison in size/performance, but by then the console price might go down a bit. And the cycle continues.


Resolution is the representation of everything that is going on. If the Wii U can do 1080p, well for sure the other consoles can do it also. But if the game as a whole is not running to design, to show less of what you are doing, is better than to take a system out.

 

[beginner99]

30 or lower fps certainly is a CPU issue if you already reduced the resolution. But yeah I would prefer 720p60fps over 1080p30fps at least in shooters.

 

[cytg111]

It is?

http://ps4daily.com/2014/10/assassi...00p30-fps-to-avoid-all-the-debates-and-stuff/

XB1 has ~10% cpu oomph over the ps4 while the ps4 has ~50% GPU oomph over the XB1. Doesnt sound like a CPU constrained scenario to me.

 

[AtenRa]

Why PS4 has 50% higher GPU perf ?? And if im not mistaken, XBone CPU is faster (1.7GHz vs 1.6GHz), thus it should play better in XBone if what Ubi says that the game is CPU bound.

 

[MisterLilBig]

It is?

http://ps4daily.com/2014/10/assassi...00p30-fps-to-avoid-all-the-debates-and-stuff/

XB1 has ~10% cpu oomph over the ps4 while the ps4 has ~50% GPU oomph over the XB1. Doesnt sound like a CPU constrained scenario to me.

A company decides to deliver the same product on all its chosen targets. Nothing wrong with that.

It's not CPU or GPU constrained, it's game design constrained to the lower performance hardware. Meaning, in a simple basic example, the PS4 CPU was in mind and the XOne GPU was in mind.(Super simple example!!)

 

[Shivansps]

XB1 has a very weak GPU in comparison, also it could be that the programing logic to use the ESRAM may be taking a toll on the cpu too, thats the problem there and also running on different API and OS, there is no way to make any real comparison on the effect of CPU, also 100mhz is not really a lot.

What?! Do you have any sources to back the claim that an entire core on the PS4/XB1 is being used for DRM?

Also, could you please take some time to proof read your posts? It's hard to take you seriously when you seem to be making no effort to type coherently...

Im sorry but not everyone has english as first language.

its a fact there is hardware reserved for the OS that games does not have access to on both consoles, where do you think the DRM system is? Specially on the PS4 you dont reserve 2 cores just for run an OS, whats that? Vista?

If there was no DRM what would they have gone with?

I dont care, no sane gamer can defend a DRM, specially one that takes away hardware you are paying for.

 

[ShintaiDK]

its a fact there is hardware reserved for the OS that games does not have access to on both consoles, where do you think the DRM system is? Specially on the PS4 you dont reserve 2 cores just for run an OS, whats that? Vista?

3GB memory more or less gone as well.

So games are down to 6 cores and 4.5-5.5GB.

 

[railven]

3GB memory more or less gone as well.

So games are down to 6 cores and 4.5-5.5GB.

And MSFT with it's clunky 3 Operating Systems, it's Kinect reservations, and gimped GPU.

Sony will have to pay for MSFT's short commings as "parity" is pushed for across the board in certain titles.

I just find it a little disheartening that some gamers are hoping for 720p/60FPS for console games. That's what this generation is boiling down to.

720p60 or 1080p30.

 

[frozentundra123456]

A company decides to deliver the same product on all its chosen targets. Nothing wrong with that.

It's not CPU or GPU constrained, it's game design constrained to the lower performance hardware. Meaning, in a simple basic example, the PS4 CPU was in mind and the XOne GPU was in mind.(Super simple example!!)

So you are saying if the consoles had more powerful hardware, the designers wouldnt use it?

It is a chicken vs egg argument in a way, but the limiting factor is the hardware. The designers are designing down to that. But I dont mean that in a bad way, even a top end PC has limits. It is just that I dont understand why some of the console and AMD fans get so defensive when the console's limits are pointed out. They are a good compromise between power usage, price, and performance, but certainly not cutting edge hardware.