How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

[aigomorla]

Please tell me where I have said that my laptop can outperform an overclocked GTX 580? I said it can REACH that performance, once you overclock it, it will obv blast away.

You are discussing something different than me

i appologize... i thought u meant DESKTOP in general which i do include overclocking. :hmm:

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011...-ps3-updated-list-of-all-3d-games-and-movies/

And I think that's only as of 2 years ago.

OK i stand corrected...

 

[Cloudfire777]

i appologize... i thought u meant DESKTOP in general which i do include overclocking. :hmm:

Yeah there is no chance that I can a keep up with an overclocked 580 and an OC i7. I could however buy a mobile XM CPU to overclock, but that would skyrocket both temperatures, price and power draw

 

[mj79]

I dunno.. Maybe the die hard gamers think its worth it, But other then some fine tuning, shading, and minor smoothed over differences, the difference in this video does not justify the $3500 price difference... and In all honesty...... I think some of the 360 frames look better..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gj6fgnMvQw

 

[blackened23]

I dunno.. Maybe the die hard gamers think its worth it, But other then some fine tuning, shading, and minor smoothed over differences, the difference in this video does not justify the $3500 price difference... and In all honesty...... I think some of the 360 frames look better..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Gj6fgnMvQw

As a preface, I *like* consoles. But in your example: You can argue price, but you CANT compare quality of crysis 2 by virtue of a youtube video. I have played the 360 version of crysis 2. The DX11 PC version is far better, there is no way around this fact unless you're blind.

**I do like the 360 for crysis 3, because MP is far more active, though.

You really need to see it in person though. Youtube videos make some comparisons questionable, you can't judge based on that.

 

[mj79]

As a preface, I *like* consoles. But in your example: You can argue price, but you CANT compare quality of crysis 2 by virtue of a youtube video. I have played the 360 version of crysis 2. The DX11 PC version is far better, there is no way around this fact unless you're blind.

**I do like the 360 for crysis 3, because MP is far more active, though.

You really need to see it in person though. Youtube videos make some comparisons questionable, you can't judge based on that.

Ok, well I do agree with that, It was more of my defense of trying to justify the price... But I also agree that the PC version is much better, but for those who dont need the best of the best , top of the line stuff, Consoles are fine... I spend thousands on racing cars, my GF spends thousands on clothes, and some ppl spend thousands on PC builds, I get it, its a hobby, But just wish people would stop trying to compare consoles and PCs


ME, personally, I never got into the PC gaming world because of the keyboard and mouse.. I grew up playing with a controller on the NES and up through the 2000s, and used a keyboard and mouse to pay the bills, and look for new toys..


I realize you can buy ps3, xbox controllers, etc but at that point, I might as well just play the console.. Another big one for me is that everyone and their mother has a xbox or ps... Very easy to play with all your friends when they all own consoles

 

[aigomorla]

Yeah there is no chance that I can a keep up with an overclocked 580 and an OC i7. I could however buy a mobile XM CPU to overclock, but that would skyrocket both temperatures, price and power draw

errr... mobile processors was a direction i went a while back ago and i do love mobile processors.
I know what they are capable of.. and i know the limitations of them...

I love them so much, i think im one of the only people on this entire forum who has a working server using 2 of them on a board like this:

mah but this is off topic and i applogize for that.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

It's also a video of standing still which is way different than actual gameplay when one is locked down to 30fps and the other can run 120fps.
Btw IMO that PC vs xbox video you can see a world of difference in the quality. The xbox is very dull looking with little textures and lighting effects.

 

[Cloudfire777]

errr... mobile processors was a direction i went a while back ago and i do love mobile processors.
I know what they are capable of.. and i know the limitations of them...

I love them so much, i think im one of the only people on this entire forum who has a working server using 2 of them on a board like this:

mah but this is off topic and i applogize for that.

Hah, cool.
Is that 4 CPUs on one board? Ivy?

 

[Cloudfire777]

This.

The PS4 will probably still render in 720P for many games and upscale to 1080P. Even for 1080P titles, you will probably see minimal AA and framerates targeting as solid 30fps, not 60.

Edit: I bought a PS3 shortly after launch and definitely enjoyed it. It looked like crap compared to my computer setup though. Shiny textures, poor AA, and 1080P (upscaled) resolution on a huge monitor compared to a computer setup. Recent titles are definitely improved, but computers have been WAY ahead for years now, so it's definitely not impressive any more.

HD 7970M can do the most games @1080p with everything maxed. Its a downclocked 7870. The PS4 GPU, a HD 7860 should have no problem playing games at 1080p with visual goodness enabled.

 

[dagamer34]

HD 7970M can do the most games @1080p with everything maxed. Its a downclocked 7870. The PS4 GPU, a HD 7860 should have no problem playing games at 1080p with visual goodness enabled.

That's if the goal were to take current generation games and just play them at 1080p with a few visual effects. That's pretty boring. For instance, running the original Halo on a GTX 680 doesn't suddenly turn it into 360 level graphics.

With a console, you shouldn't be concerned with running a game at 1080p, but instead a specific visual quality level. In fact, if you are a diehard PC gamer, you really DO want more console games to be 720p30, because that means extra GPU work isn't being spent trying to make it run at 1080p60 instead. So when you do get that $500 GPU with everything turned on, you get a real benefit. The one thing holding back a PC from it's "true greatness" is the fact that, at least this generation, all assets are based on their console versions and sightly "upscaled" for lack of a better term.

 

[finbarqs]

That's if the goal were to take current generation games and just play them at 1080p with a few visual effects. That's pretty boring. For instance, running the original Halo on a GTX 680 doesn't suddenly turn it into 360 level graphics.

With a console, you shouldn't be concerned with running a game at 1080p, but instead a specific visual quality level. In fact, if you are a diehard PC gamer, you really DO want more console games to be 720p30, because that means extra GPU work isn't being spent trying to make it run at 1080p60 instead. So when you do get that $500 GPU with everything turned on, you get a real benefit. The one thing holding back a PC from it's "true greatness" is the fact that, at least this generation, all assets are based on their console versions and sightly "upscaled" for lack of a better term.

I agree. It's like running Halo 1 @ 5000p. Who cares. To be honest, I'll match rather have a game that'll have convincing lighting, textures, models, etc. than halo 1 hitting 1440p with AA on.

 

[Sohaltang]

Sigh.. you rotate the sides when you game... and it becomes 3 x 24 span'd out as well as curve them towards you more so it fits your peripheral vision better.

but i guess u didnt notice how the sides were rotate friendly from the arrow stickers on the corner did you...

Production mode parked is the status of that setup.
Gaming mode.. i rotate the 2 sideways so its span'd out.

Stereoscopic on nvidia only works as the lowest of the number so having my monitors in portrait on the side like that would cut off a big portion of the top and bottom.



in gaming.

is there a full featured 3D game in the PS3 like there is with PC using Nv vision?
If there is please correct me.. because i was not aware PS3 had 3D gaming titles.
The minimum for 3d gaming is so intense.. it brings even entry level enthusiest grade hardware to its knees at good resolution.

again.. watching movies and gaming are completely different.

Yes they do, lots of them. Most all the big titles in the last few years. I dunno how the resolution is effected or what the ps3 does to run them but years look just like the normal game except 3d. You can toggle back an forth in an option. Personally I don't like wearing the glasses for any 3d games or even that many 3d movies. It is funny to see so many presumably intelligent people dog something that they obviously have never owned.

Ohh and FWIW 360 does it too. I stopped playing 360 before that option came out so I can't personally vouch for the quality. But again many many titles are stereoscopic 3d.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I dont care, your right, But I DO notice a difference.. Major? Nope, not to me at least, More fine tuning, fit n finish type differences.. Yes a Gaming PC Has cleaner, crisp graphics, shading etc and with AA, they do look much better.. Is it worth the $4000 gaming rig to go with it?? Hell no, not to me at least... "IF" We had full blown 4K technology all settled in, like Bluray/1080p is now, then maybe I could see justifying the difference

Where are you pulling that inflated BS number from? I can build a PC with 3x titans for $4k lol

I said 2 and even then you don't need it... two 4GB 680s is under $1000 and is already more than Epic is using to shocase UE4 running 1080p @ 60fps.

And killing your game price argument again: Tomb Raider digital for $30 right now on PSN.

Again, if you're willing to wait for console games on sale as long as you're willing to wait for PC games, you will get the same level of sales (digital or store-bought).

Repeat: Tomb Raider on PC was $39.99 almost day one on Steam. PS3 and Xbox 360 were $59.99. Nobody had to wait until April at all. The price went up to $49.99 after a week or two.

consoles are frame limited.

did they get rid of this?

if i recall, console makers tell the public u dont need more then 30fps on a console.

We gamers say Vsync? huh? whats that... more fps the better!

I know there are many action games that run at 60fps on consoles. Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden. Some racing games too. When the same game is at 30fps or there's an fps dip the gameplay really grinds to a halt. I don't know where the developers of the new Thief game get off claiming nobody needs more than 30fps. That's simply not true from a gameplay standpoint.

I must be the only person here who enjoys both consoles and PCs. When I want to plop on a couch and relax, consoles allow me to have a good time while being chill. Also consoles have better multiplayer in some titles by virtue of XBLG and a larger player base. But when I want to use keyboard mouse, the graphics on the PC are great. In terms of MP, the PC is no slouch here either, but mainly for different types of MP games. I'm a big fan of the assassin's creed series and it's difficult to find any MP on the PC. It's still alive on the console versions, though - but with worse graphics obviously.

I guess what i'm saying here is that they both have merits. Why does everyone consider PCs and consoles to be mutually exclusive? I plan on getting a PS4 on launch AND play on PC for other titles. I must be the only one - honestly, I kinda hate the elitist mentally that some have here. Neither side will ever budge on their views I suppose.

I've said many times I am excited for the PS4 and am going to get one. As much as I'd like to play games like Last of Us and Zelda on PC at 2560x1440 I can't. So I have consoles for that purpose, to play all the games I am interested in that are console exclusive.

 

[Sohaltang]

Yes they do, lots of them. Most all the big titles in the last few years. I dunno how the resolution is effected or what the ps3 does to run them but years look just like the normal game except 3d. You can toggle back an forth in an option. Personally I don't like wearing the glasses for any 3d games or even that many 3d movies. It is funny to see so many presumably intelligent people dog something that they obviously have never owned.

Ohh and FWIW 360 does it too. I stopped playing 360 before that option came out so I can't personally vouch for the quality. But again many many titles are stereoscopic 3d.

Also if you have a Sony TV with SimulView its pretty sweet. My TV's are Samsung and Panny so it dont work. You play two player games with the 3D glasses and each player see a totally different 2D screen. I played my buddy on MLB the Show and it was a trip that he could see the pitchers perspective while I had the batters perspective.

 

[cmdrdredd]

List of Xbox 360 3D games. It says most of them are non native 3D. Most of them seem to score pretty poorly on the 3D quality scale they use
http://www.3dtested.com/3d-xbox-360-games-list/

List of PS3 3D games These also seem to score pretty poorly. A couple get average ratings though
http://www.3dtested.com/3d-ps3-games-list/

 

[Sohaltang]

List of Xbox 360 3D games. It says most of them are non native 3D. Most of them seem to score pretty poorly on the 3D quality scale they use
http://www.3dtested.com/3d-xbox-360-games-list/

List of PS3 3D games These also seem to score pretty poorly. A couple get average ratings though
http://www.3dtested.com/3d-ps3-games-list/

It was said it "cant do it". It does and if a 7+ year old system can do "poorly" then the ps4 should do it much much better. Your the one that likes to say "proven wrong". There ya go

 

[cmdrdredd]

It was said it "cant do it". It does and if a 7+ year old system can do "poorly" then the ps4 should do it much much better. Your the one that likes to say "proven wrong". There ya go

Huh? I am just providing links. The dude who said it can't do it already apologized and said he "stand corrected". Sheesh...

I never said a word about 3D, but I'll say this. Most 3D in games is very poor. I've tried it, both on PS3 and on a PC with Nvidia's setup. It probably will get better but it is still a niche market. I don't think 3D took off like some had anticipated.

It benefits movies more than games but I don't think it lends itself well to every movie. Seeing something like GI Joe in 3D does nothing for me, but seeing something like Avengers or Star Trek where there are more CG effects that could take advantage of the depth provided by the 3D it is a bit more interesting to watch. Most games I didn't really care for it because they were not built with it in mind for the most part. The 3DS though, with every system having a 3D display, does well with the 3D in many titles. Making use of the extra depth perception.

 

[Sohaltang]

Most 3D in games is very poor. I've tried it, both on PS3 and on a PC with Nvidia's setup. It probably will get better but it is still a niche market. I don't think 3D took off like some had anticipated.

I agree. 3D was all flash and show. Very few will game in 3d a long time. its another failed reason offered in why PC's are far superior gaming devices.

Cheaper games? Busted
More affordable? Busted
3d? Busted
Mutlimonitor? Few care. Busted.

Yes for a lot of money you can build a better performing PC. Its a single player device, not an entertainment system. Pcs are great we all love them for some particular pourpose. Consoles are great too for their given purpose. Ill buy both. Even bought the crappy WiiU. The more people that game on console or PC the better. We all win. The real threat to the success of either are tablets/phones. Gaming has exploded, unfortunately its Angry Birds and farmville. Console gamers are just as "hardcore" as the PC guys. Maybe 4/10 people play games these days and about 1/15 are on modern PC's or consoles.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I agree. 3D was all flash and show. Very few will game in 3d a long time. its another failed reason offered in why PC's are far superior gaming devices.

Cheaper games? Busted
More affordable? Busted
3d? Busted
Mutlimonitor? Few care. Busted.

Yes for a lot of money you can build a better performing PC. Its a single player device, not an entertainment system. Pcs are great we all love them for some particular pourpose. Consoles are great too for their given purpose. Ill buy both. Even bought the crappy WiiU. The more people that game on console or PC the better. We all win. The real threat to the success of either are tablets/phones. Gaming has exploded, unfortunately its Angry Birds and farmville. Console gamers are just as "hardcore" as the PC guys. Maybe 4/10 people play games these days and about 1/15 are on modern PC's or consoles.

Uh...not so fast there

Games are cheaper on PC as has been proven. There are more sales, some games at release are cheaper than console without waiting for sales. The fact that console games go on sale too doesn't change the fact that Steam has more sales than any other retailer. Digital or otherwise. This is a big deal to a lot of casual gamers. Why? Cause they can buy games without risking a lot of money. Buy a bundle during a summer sale and maybe pay $20 for 5 games. Out of those 5 you find 2 that are worth it and those would have been $20 each outside of the sale. That's a score. You don't buy console games that way.

Multimonitor is a feature not a requirement. The fact that you can game in sorround resolutions of 5760x1080 but cannot do the same on consoles is one tick on the column for the PC. Just because it's niche, doesn't mean it's not a benefit. You can buy a ZR1 Corvette and go 160mph but because you don't you think you won't brag about the horsepower or how fast it is compared to the Toyota you had before? It's called bragging rights and because one can do it and another cant, whether limited by performance or other reasons, it means that one offers a feature over the other.

This argument will go on forever, but the PC offers more options. Whether you care or not doesn't change the fact that it's there. Like my friend says about doing custom car electronics "There's a butt for every seat". Meaning for every feature you think is useless or doesn't matter there is someone using it.

 

[Sohaltang]

FWIW We have purchased maybe 2 games the last year. Those on ebay used for half the price or less. I know the next gen will change rental and used games or so they say. Blockbuster is 2 blocks away and for 14.99 a month I get unlimited rentals. Between my son and I we have beat at least 50 diff games this year and played dozens more. TR3 was so giltchy on the PC so I rented it a last week and completed it in a weekend. Much better experience, an my GF enjoyed watching the game.

The last ps3 super slim I bought came with a free year of PSN. They give away 2-3 full PS3 free games a month along with several online only titles. During FF week I picked up each FF game for 1$ something each. You also get really good deals on other full games for PSN members.

Same products, same manufacturer, basically same distribution channels = same average overall prices. Sales here and sales there, no real difference. Old game titles are not really even relevant for "hardcore" gamers. The ZOMG I got Mike Tyson Punch out on wiiU for 50 cents is only of novelty value. Did you really build a 2000$ computer to play 3 year old games? Or even a year old? If you did then you can surely live with ps4 performance.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

That's if the goal were to take current generation games and just play them at 1080p with a few visual effects. That's pretty boring. For instance, running the original Halo on a GTX 680 doesn't suddenly turn it into 360 level graphics.

With a console, you shouldn't be concerned with running a game at 1080p, but instead a specific visual quality level. In fact, if you are a diehard PC gamer, you really DO want more console games to be 720p30, because that means extra GPU work isn't being spent trying to make it run at 1080p60 instead. So when you do get that $500 GPU with everything turned on, you get a real benefit. The one thing holding back a PC from it's "true greatness" is the fact that, at least this generation, all assets are based on their console versions and sightly "upscaled" for lack of a better term.

So the consoles are going from 512mb of ram to 8gb and you don't think they will be pushing higher quality artwork/textures?

I am not sure if you are serious?

I think people need to be thinking in terms of improvement over the previous gen consoles instead of comparing to high end PC's.

 

[Lepton87]

What? You can easily grab a sub $200 7870 and rock with that at 1080p. Where do you get $1k? Or hell even a 7950 is $270 on sale with what, 7 games for free?

He talked about high-end cards which are 7990/GTX690/Titan, 7870 is lower mid-range, 7950 is mid-range.

A lot of people seems to forget that we just had a 2x increase in price of a high-end graphics card this generation, keeping that in mind PS4 seems like a GREAT value. High-end graphics cards are getting ridiculously expensive. I don't suppose that a console that is half the price of a graphics card alone will surpass it in performance but it can be a great value and maybe keep up with 500$ GF cards.

 

[showb1z]

He talked about high-end cards which are 7990/GTX690/Titan, 7870 is lower mid-range, 7950 is mid-range.

A lot of people seems to forget that we just had a 2x increase in price of a high-end graphics card this generation, keeping that in mind PS4 seems like a GREAT value. High-end graphics cards are getting ridiculously expensive. I don't suppose that a console that is half the price of a graphics card alone will surpass it in performance but it can be a great value and maybe keep up with 500$ GF cards.

Then you might as well consider the high-end as quad-Titan...
High-end is 7970 and 680. 7950 is just below the high-end.
The high-end didn't double in price. Dual-GPU cards have existed for ages and they've always been considered a very niche market. The only new thing now is Titan, which is considered beyond the high-end as well.
Nobody says Xeon-E5's are the high-end for CPU's either.

Either way, all these posts about cost-comparisons are way off the point.

 

[Fx1]

Then you might as well consider the high-end as quad-Titan...
High-end is 7970 and 680. 7950 is just below the high-end.
The high-end didn't double in price. Dual-GPU cards have existed for ages and they've always been considered a very niche market. The only new thing now is Titan, which is considered beyond the high-end as well.
Nobody says Xeon-E5's are the high-end for CPU's either.

Either way, all these posts about cost-comparisons are way off the point.

No im pretty sure dual GPU cards have doubled in price.

4870X2 was £350-£400 and the 6990 was £550-£600 and 7990 is £850

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The simple fact here is that with a GPU in the order of power of 1.8TFLOPS you can buy a GPU today for the PC that will match the same raw power for about $200 (£150) that the PS4 will have on launch day, by the time the PS4 launches that price will be lower again.

What consoles have taught us over and over again is that optimizations due to customized hardware typically come late in the lifespan of the console, and they are simply not significant compared to the raw growth in power during that same time span.