How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

[Lavans]

You made a comparison between a PC with a 7900 geforce card "barely running me3 at 1280x1024 at 30fps" (paraphrasing) and a glorious xbox360 running it "up to" 1080p, whatever that means, to show just how much better a console can utilize the same hardware. If you are going to make an argument based on technicalities, then you had better be prepared to defend that argument with more technicalities since, you know, that's kind of relevant in a thread meant to discuss technicalities.

No need to get smug about it. If you don't know the details of what you're talking about, just admit it (or don't) and go do something else - it will save both our time.

You asked me to post a cited source that shows that the 360 can play Mass Effect 3 at 1080p. Whether or not that's true 1080p or simply an upscale, I do not know, since it does not say. It would be nice, however, if the boxes actually told us the resolution the games actually render at, but that's never going to happen.

Never the less, we're still looking at a far more graphically intensive game than what the 7900GT can run, playing flawlessly on a console.

Edit: Also, I said that a 7900 series GeForce card can barely run ME1 at 1280x1024 to emphasize how weak the card is, and used ME3 as an example of a modern console game since it's more graphically intensive than ME1 while running on the same engine. They're not exact numbers, but it should give you a pretty good idea of how much a console running current games can easily stomp a 2006/2007 gaming PC, and should demonstrate just how far system specific optimizations can carry old hardware, which is a benefit the PC platform simply does not have.

 

[Aikouka]

Edit: Also, I said that a 7900 series GeForce card can barely run ME1 at 1280x1024 to emphasize how weak the card is, and used ME3 as an example of a modern console game since it's more graphically intensive than ME1 while running on the same engine. They're not exact numbers, but it should give you a pretty good idea of how much a console running current games can easily stomp a 2006/2007 gaming PC, and should demonstrate just how far system specific optimizations can carry old hardware, which is a benefit the PC platform simply does not have.

...and the reason why I brought up actual rendering resolution is because you're probably ignoring the amount of extra work the PC was doing to render at a (possibly) higher resolution. Heck, 1280x1024 has 42% extra pixels than 1280x720 alone... what if Mass Effect is like some of those other games that are rendered below 720p? I'm not even guaranteeing that this means that the card would have necessarily been able to handle it, but actual console resolution is something worthwhile to keep in mind when making comparisons like this.

 

[Lavans]

...and the reason why I brought up actual rendering resolution is because you're probably ignoring the amount of extra work the PC was doing to render at a (possibly) higher resolution. Heck, 1280x1024 has 42% extra pixels than 1280x720 alone... what if Mass Effect is like some of those other games that are rendered below 720p? I'm not even guaranteeing that this means that the card would have necessarily been able to handle it, but actual console resolution is something worthwhile to keep in mind when making comparisons like this.

I hear what you're saying. Let's assume for a moment that ME1 was rendered at 720. If performance scaled linearly to the resolution, which we all know it doesn't, then the 7900GT still would not be pulling 30fps average. If it's not rendered at 720p, then so what? When it comes to graphics, is it not the final render that counts? With this generation of games, its not uncommon for a console game to have comparable graphics to their PC counterpart.
http://www.gamereactor.eu/images/?textid=19561&id=350811&sid=5c0e017a5438424d3369e213a75b0f64
http://gamingbolt.com/do-we-need-a-ps4-crysis-2-ps3-vs-pc-dx-11-comparison
Is there a difference? Yes, but that's because the PC counterpart is running hardware many times more powerful than what's in the console, and allows it to brute force what a console does via optimizations. And again, console exclusive titles are well known to have significantly better graphics than multiplatform titles. If you're a first time gamer, or simply don't care about having the absolute best graphics possible, would the difference in graphics be worth the $300+ difference in price?

Developers put a much stronger emphasis on optimizing console games to make sure the system can render the scene the way they intended it. That's the benefit of standardized hardware. Even though the hardware in consoles are aging, optimization techniques are continuing to improve, allowing the console to retain its value much longer than a gaming PC.

 

[Fx1]

To answer how the PS4 is better than the PC.

You can sit on your couch with one of the best controllers ever made and play great looking games on your 50" plasma with your friends online.

You can also play Sony games and other exclusives which the PC doesnt get.

Personally i dont compare PC and PS4 as they dont really compete as i play both depending on what i want.

 

[joshhedge]

To answer how the PS4 is better than the PC.

You can sit on your couch with one of the best controllers ever made and play great looking games on your 50" plasma with your friends online.

You can also play Sony games and other exclusives which the PC doesnt get.

Personally i dont compare PC and PS4 as they dont really compete as i play both depending on what i want.

I completely agree, they are for difference markets. When I had a PS3 I would use it when having friends round for casual multiplayer and general socialising, whereas to me PC gaming has always been more hardcore and rarely have I played online with friends other than occasionally in competitive RTS.

 

[lagokc]

You can sit on your couch with one of the best controllers ever made and play great looking games on your 50" plasma with your friends online.

So that's the PC's advantage. What did Sony offer again?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

When did consoles make the move to online gaming again?

 

[-Slacker-]

You asked me to post a cited source that shows that the 360 can play Mass Effect 3 at 1080p. Whether or not that's true 1080p or simply an upscale, I do not know, since it does not say. It would be nice, however, if the boxes actually told us the resolution the games actually render at, but that's never going to happen.

I'm fairly certain that weather or not the 360 actually renders the game at 1080p is relevant to your argument.

Never the less, we're still looking at a far more graphically intensive game than what the 7900GT can run, playing flawlessly on a console.

If by "flawlessly"you mean 30 fps ...

Edit: Also, I said that a 7900 series GeForce card can barely run ME1 at 1280x1024 to emphasize how weak the card is, and used ME3 as an example of a modern console game since it's more graphically intensive than ME1 while running on the same engine. They're not exact numbers, but it should give you a pretty good idea of how much a console running current games can easily stomp a 2006/2007 gaming PC, and should demonstrate just how far system specific optimizations can carry old hardware, which is a benefit the PC platform simply does not have.

I'm not satisfied with you simply claiming that a 7900 can barely run me1 at 1280x1024 30fps, and I am even less satisfied by your entire argument when it rests on the performance of one game.

I look at all these benchmarks and they seem to tell a different story:

http://www.techspot.com/review/507-mass-effect-3-performance-test/page2.html

the hd 5670 doing 38fps at 1680x1050 max quality; The card is at best about as fast as a 8800gt, which is less than twice as fast than a 7900gtx at 1280x1024 (a lot less, actually, according to techpowerup)

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_8800_GT/1.html

Then a hd 5670 should do about 50fps at 12801024, and, so, a 7900gtx should do well above 25fps.

Next we have a ddr3 hd6670 and a lowly gt 440 pulling ~48 and ~41 fps at 1280x1024 respectively.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mass-effect-3-performance-benchmark,3143-5.html

hd 5750 running 47 fps at 1080p:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/mass-effect-3-test-gpu.html

the hd 5750 is about 30% faster than a 8800gt on average, as I remember.


Point is you have all these low end and entry level gpus running me3 well above 30fps at higher resolutions than 720p. I think you really need to show us that the xbox 360 is running me3 at 1080p; Not the cutscenes or the galaxy map, or anything like that. The actual game, in real time, constantly. It's the least you have on your head right now.

To answer how the PS4 is better than the PC.

You can sit on your couch with one of the best controllers ever made and play great looking games on your 50" plasma with your friends online.

You can also play Sony games and other exclusives which the PC doesnt get.

Personally i dont compare PC and PS4 as they dont really compete as i play both depending on what i want.

I just played a bit of The Last Remnant on my w7 pc from my couch. What now?







edit: Oh, right, I almost forgot. DMC running at 64 fps at 1920x1080 UQ on a gts 450.

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/dmc-devil-may-cry-test-gpu.html

If I'm not mistaken, it's running at half those metrics on the 360.

 

[galego]

8 jaguar cores will match a quad core sandybridge with HT at the same clocks.

At the same clock.

His claim was based in Temash benchmarks under windows. Another poster gave benchmarks for Kaveri where 4 jaguar cores @ 2 GHz outperformed a dual core with HT @ 2.5 GHz.

Consider that the PS4 APU is based in Kaveri not Temash. Consider as well that the PS4 APU will not run a bloated OS such as windows 7/8.

Join all the pieces together (performance and OS overhead): The PS4 will match an i7.

Didn't Halo 4 go with FXAA, a technique developed by Nvidia and widely available on new PC games and hackable into older PC games, because temporal anti-aliasing, a technique that ATI first used in 2004 on video cards, was widely hated?

FXAA was developed by Timotty Lottes at Nvidia. Now look at his comments on the PS4 (bold font from mine):

While the last console generation is around 16x behind in performance from the current high-end single chip GPUs, this was a result of much easier process scaling and this was before reaching the power wall. Things might be much different this round, a fast console might be able to keep up much longer as scaling slows down. If Sony decided to bump up the PS4 GPU, that was a great move, and will help the platform live for a long time. If PS4 is around 2 Tflop/s, this is roughly half what a single GPU high-end PC has right now, which is probably a lot better than what most PC users have. If desktop goes to 4K displays this requires 4x the perf over 1080p, so if console maintains a 1080p target, perf/pixel might still remain good for consoles even as PC continues to scale.

The real reason to get excited about a PS4 is what Sony as a company does with the OS and system libraries as a platform, and what this enables 1st party studios to do, when they make PS4-only games. If PS4 has a real-time OS, with a libGCM style low level access to the GPU, then the PS4 1st party games will be years ahead of the PC simply because it opens up what is possible on the GPU. Note this won't happen right away on launch, but once developers tool up for the platform, this will be the case. As a PC guy who knows hardware to the metal, I spend most of my days in frustration knowing damn well what I could do with the hardware, but what I cannot do because Microsoft and IHVs wont provide low-level GPU access in PC APIs. One simple example, drawcalls on PC have easily 10x to 100x the overhead of a console with a libGCM style API.

 

[-Slacker-]

His claim was based in Temash benchmarks under windows. Another poster gave benchmarks for Kaveri where 4 jaguar cores @ 2 GHz outperformed a dual core with HT @ 2.5 GHz.

Consider that the PS4 APU is based in Kaveri not Temash. Consider as well that the PS4 APU will not run a bloated OS such as windows 7/8.

Join all the pieces together (performance and OS overhead): The PS4 will match an i7.

My CPU runs at ~0% when there are no open applications, and w8 is even less "bloated".

Even if the 2ghz temash can really outperform a 2.5 ghz 2c/4t, which remains to be confirmed (although that would be great), and even if your ridiculous claim that an 8 core kaveri will match an i7 (sorry, it really is ridiculous), we're still left with the ps4's cpu older, bigger brother, which is the upcoming steamroller based 8 core FX chip, and I think we can all agree which one will be much faster, considering one is an upscaled version of the other, with much higher clock speeds and probably higher IPC, too (L3 cache etc).

 

[showb1z]

My CPU runs at ~0% when there are no open applications, and w8 is even less "bloated".

Even if the 2ghz temash can really outperform a 2.5 ghz 2c/4t, which remains to be confirmed (although that would be great), and even if your ridiculous claim that an 8 core kaveri will match an i7 (sorry, it really is ridiculous), we're still left with the ps4's cpu older, bigger brother, which is the upcoming steamroller based 8 core FX chip, and I think we can all agree which one will be much faster, considering one is an upscaled version of the other, with much higher clock speeds and probably higher IPC, too (L3 cache etc).

Yes, that's true. And I've explained the reasons for this before.
(102Gflops x HSA x hUMA x pixie dust and unicorn blood)^no draw call overhead = 15 Pflop

Also remember Epic selected an i7 3770k, 16GB ram, and GTX680 to run the pc UE4 demo at sub 320p resolutions, while the PS4 was running it flawlessly at somewhere between 0.27% - 0.29% of it's actual power.
Add to this the new command-line based (bloat-free!) OS AMD will be releasing shorty to truly make their APU's shine, and you will see my predictions make sense.

Now before you say I don't have any data or sources to back this up, keep in mind what Lottes, Carmack, Cerny, Huddy, Katy Perry and Kim Jong-Un have said. A random poster also had this to say:

Intel sux, AMD rox!!!

Join all the pieces together and it is obvious that AMD's performance advantage is insurmountable. Intel will file for bankruptcy by the end of 2014. Microsoft probably somewhere in 2015.

 

[raghu78]

His claim was based in Temash benchmarks under windows. Another poster gave benchmarks for Kaveri where 4 jaguar cores @ 2 GHz outperformed a dual core with HT @ 2.5 GHz.

Consider that the PS4 APU is based in Kaveri not Temash. Consider as well that the PS4 APU will not run a bloated OS such as windows 7/8.

Join all the pieces together (performance and OS overhead): The PS4 will match an i7.

You are incorrect. the AMD Jaguar core is used in Kabini /Temash , PS4 APU and Xbox Next APU. AMD Kaveri uses the Steamroller core. the cinebench benchmarks show a quad core Temash/Kabini matching core i3 (dual core with HT) in multithreaded peformance. obviously single core performance is much higher ( > 50%) on core i3. the PS4 APU with 8 Jaguar cores can match an equally clocked core i7 in multithreaded performance.

 

[Lavans]

I'm fairly certain that weather or not the 360 actually renders the game at 1080p is relevant to your argument.

It's not important, actually.

If by "flawlessly"you mean 30 fps ...

Yup

I'm not satisfied with you simply claiming that a 7900 can barely run me1 at 1280x1024 30fps, and I am even less satisfied by your entire argument when it rests on the performance of one game.

You can be as satisfied or dissatisfied as you like. It really makes no difference to me.

I look at all these benchmarks and they seem to tell a different story:

http://www.techspot.com/review/507-mass-effect-3-performance-test/page2.html

the hd 5670 doing 38fps at 1680x1050 max quality; The card is at best about as fast as a 8800gt, which is less than twice as fast than a 7900gtx at 1280x1024 (a lot less, actually, according to techpowerup)

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_8800_GT/1.html

Then a hd 5670 should do about 50fps at 12801024, and, so, a 7900gtx should do well above 25fps.

Next we have a ddr3 hd6670 and a lowly gt 440 pulling ~48 and ~41 fps at 1280x1024 respectively.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/mass-effect-3-performance-benchmark,3143-5.html

hd 5750 running 47 fps at 1080p:

http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/mass-effect-3-test-gpu.html

the hd 5750 is about 30% faster than a 8800gt on average, as I remember.


Point is you have all these low end and entry level gpus running me3 well above 30fps at higher resolutions than 720p. I think you really need to show us that the xbox 360 is running me3 at 1080p; Not the cutscenes or the galaxy map, or anything like that. The actual game, in real time, constantly. It's the least you have on your head right now.

I'm going to disagree with you on this. The HD6670 is more than twice as fast as a 7900GTX in games utilizing Unreal Engine 3. Even a 9500GT DDR3 is faster than a 7900GTX in Unreal Engine 3 based games.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Galaxy/GeForce_9500_GT_Overclocked/19.html

 

[TestKing123]

To answer how the PS4 is better than the PC.

You can sit on your couch with one of the best controllers ever made and play great looking games on your 50" plasma with your friends online.

You can also play Sony games and other exclusives which the PC doesnt get.

Personally i dont compare PC and PS4 as they dont really compete as i play both depending on what i want.

I already sit on the couch gaming on 50" Samsung LED 3DTV and can play online with friends whatever, and using an xbox 360 wireless controller (which is better than the PS3 controller). Except I have a powerful PC gaming setup encased in a thermaltake lanbox lite which sits next to the TV just like a regular console. Also have a nice 7.1 home theater surround system to go with it.

So tell me again how a PS4 would be better than PC gaming?

 

[futurefields]

You asked me to post a cited source that shows that the 360 can play Mass Effect 3 at 1080p. Whether or not that's true 1080p or simply an upscale, I do not know, since it does not say. It would be nice, however, if the boxes actually told us the resolution the games actually render at, but that's never going to happen.

Never the less, we're still looking at a far more graphically intensive game than what the 7900GT can run, playing flawlessly on a console.

Edit: Also, I said that a 7900 series GeForce card can barely run ME1 at 1280x1024 to emphasize how weak the card is, and used ME3 as an example of a modern console game since it's more graphically intensive than ME1 while running on the same engine. They're not exact numbers, but it should give you a pretty good idea of how much a console running current games can easily stomp a 2006/2007 gaming PC, and should demonstrate just how far system specific optimizations can carry old hardware, which is a benefit the PC platform simply does not have.

Mass Effect runs on Xbox 360 at 1280 x 720 @ 30 fps.

 

[Erenhardt]

I already sit on the couch gaming on 50" Samsung LED 3DTV and can play online with friends whatever, and using an xbox 360 wireless controller (which is better than the PS3 controller). Except I have a powerful PC gaming setup encased in a thermaltake lanbox lite which sits next to the TV just like a regular console. Also have a nice 7.1 home theater surround system to go with it.

So tell me again how a PS4 would be better than PC gaming?

Wouldn't cost you a fortune to buy...and another fortune to upgrade every year or two... just a wild guess

Mass Effect runs on Xbox 360 at 1280 x 720 @ 30 fps.

What is worth noting, games on consoles run at around 30fps, and are fps capped, whereas all these numbers in reviews are average fps. That means if there is gpu which scores 30 fps in the reviewed game, it offers far worst experience than console due to having some frames below 30fps and some above. It is like comparing GTX660 to Titan with vsync enabled. Look Titan runs this game @60fps and GTX660 scored 55 fps. gtx660=titan!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw

 

[BallaTheFeared]

 

[Lavans]

What is worth noting, games on consoles run at around 30fps, and are fps capped, whereas all these numbers in reviews are average fps. That means if there is gpu which scores 30 fps in the reviewed game, it offers far worst experience than console due to having some frames below 30fps and some above. It is like comparing GTX660 to Titan with vsync enabled. Look Titan runs this game @60fps and GTX660 scored 55 fps. gtx660=titan!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw

I love you :wub:

 

[HeXen]

I already sit on the couch gaming on 50" Samsung LED 3DTV and can play online with friends whatever, and using an xbox 360 wireless controller (which is better than the PS3 controller). Except I have a powerful PC gaming setup encased in a thermaltake lanbox lite which sits next to the TV just like a regular console. Also have a nice 7.1 home theater surround system to go with it.

So tell me again how a PS4 would be better than PC gaming?

"you" are not "anyone else". No one will care what your personal preference is, the statements of "better" is more for the mass consumers on average.

PC's are not quite so consistent and streamlined. A typical PC would never hold the abuse of your average kid either, so for parents who want to go the more trouble free option with no hassles, consoles would be the way to go.

Renting and second hand sales are another big one, though they would like to curb it, typical consumers however will not respond well to a console setup like "Steam", at least not without those sales to which EA really hates.

You cannot turn on your PC with your gamepad, you have to set it up and use "big screen" Steam for a more simple menu system and if you want exclusive Origin games, well there shoots that to hell as you sit there with your mouse and KB...most people don't want to touch those while sitting on a couch, its cumbersome, cluttery and prone to damage.

The key to your average home living room is called "simple" and "streamlined". If you don't have those, sales will be very slim and from a niche consumer. Then there's the Windows OS, which requires touch or kb/mouse to operate. You for example would be that slim target audience however you likely build your own so now you are even more niche, leaving potential brand makers out of a sale.

The entire PC world from software to hardware just never had the infrastructure setup to function for this type of market, it's a different market than consoles and always has been, this is why we shouldn't ever debate consoles vs PC's, might as well debate phone games vs gameboy/vita's.

I've talked to a lot of young men and teens about my enjoyment of PC gaming, but those above I mentioned do get brought up, plus they really don't seem to give a crap if my PC's graphics are a bit better, to them it's the same game and they can rent it or get it used. Also they talk like they are too lazy to bother with OS's, drivers or even setting up graphic options as in it's not streamlined enough for what they want or are used to.

 

[Enigmoid]

You are incorrect. the AMD Jaguar core is used in Kabini /Temash , PS4 APU and Xbox Next APU. AMD Kaveri uses the Steamroller core. the cinebench benchmarks show a quad core Temash/Kabini matching core i3 (dual core with HT) in multithreaded peformance. obviously single core performance is much higher ( > 50%) on core i3. the PS4 APU with 8 Jaguar cores can match an equally clocked core i7 in multithreaded performance.

Going to have to disagree with you there. Eight core FX cannot match i7 at equal clocks (granted jaguar is not a modular design but IPC is lower than piledriver).

And who cares about equal clocks when comparing to the desktop. i7 runs at more than twice the frequency so the 8 core jaguar is less than half as powerful.

 

[TestKing123]

Wouldn't cost you a fortune to buy...and another fortune to upgrade every year or two... just a wild guess



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw

Nope, built it two years ago and still has the same sandy bridge i5/memory/hd I put in there. Only upgrade was a GTX 570 to a GTX 670, though I didn't really have to. Played every single game fine at TRUE 1080p @ 4x AA /16x AF above 30fps. Well worth the less than $1000 initial investment that trounces the PS3/Xbox 360 in every single possible way for YEARS.

 

[TestKing123]

"you" are not "anyone else". No one will care what your personal preference is, the statements of "better" is more for the mass consumers on average.

PC's are not quite so consistent and streamlined. A typical PC would never hold the abuse of your average kid either, so for parents who want to go the more trouble free option with no hassles, consoles would be the way to go.

Renting and second hand sales are another big one, though they would like to curb it, typical consumers however will not respond well to a console setup like "Steam", at least not without those sales to which EA really hates.

You cannot turn on your PC with your gamepad, you have to set it up and use "big screen" Steam for a more simple menu system and if you want exclusive Origin games, well there shoots that to hell as you sit there with your mouse and KB...most people don't want to touch those while sitting on a couch, its cumbersome, cluttery and prone to damage.

The key to your average home living room is called "simple" and "streamlined". If you don't have those, sales will be very slim and from a niche consumer. Then there's the Windows OS, which requires touch or kb/mouse to operate. You for example would be that slim target audience however you likely build your own so now you are even more niche, leaving potential brand makers out of a sale.

The entire PC world from software to hardware just never had the infrastructure setup to function for this type of market, it's a different market than consoles and always has been, this is why we shouldn't ever debate consoles vs PC's, might as well debate phone games vs gameboy/vita's.

I've talked to a lot of young men and teens about my enjoyment of PC gaming, but those above I mentioned do get brought up, plus they really don't seem to give a crap if my PC's graphics are a bit better, to them it's the same game and they can rent it or get it used. Also they talk like they are too lazy to bother with OS's, drivers or even setting up graphic options as in it's not streamlined enough for what they want or are used to.

You obviously don't have this living room PC setup as countless others do. Powering up the PC with a simple push of a button and navigating with a bluetooth wireless mouse is about a easy as using the controller itself. And I don't use big screen for Steam, it's too intrusive. The bluetooth wireless keyboard is hardly used, its there for when its needed. All my games, watching movies, etc.. are all just a simple click away. Installing new games doesn't even require a keyboard, just browse download and install. Like I said, you obviously don't have this setup like countless others do.

As far as abuse, I doubt a kid would be able to lift and toss a small form factor thermaltake lanbox lite just like that. Seems like a strawman argument to me.

 

[galego]

You are incorrect. the AMD Jaguar core is used in Kabini /Temash , PS4 APU and Xbox Next APU. AMD Kaveri uses the Steamroller core. the cinebench benchmarks show a quad core Temash/Kabini matching core i3 (dual core with HT) in multithreaded peformance. obviously single core performance is much higher ( > 50%) on core i3. the PS4 APU with 8 Jaguar cores can match an equally clocked core i7 in multithreaded performance.

You are right. It was a typo. I did mean kabini not kaveri. Edited the post. Thanks.

The benchmarks that I was alluding to are not Cinebench ones. Cinebench is one of those fake benchmarks that uses ICC and the cripple_AMD function. Single core performance is also useless for next-gen consoles. I was referring to the multi-core unixbench benchmarks of kabini where a 4x1 jaguar core @ 2 GHz is a 12% faster than a 2x2 sandy core @ 2.5 GHz

My CPU runs at ~0% when there are no open applications, and w8 is even less "bloated".

Sorry, but your first comment is useless. Yes w8 is a bit less bloated than w7 but still is a very bloated OS. E.g. w8 memory requirements are about 4-8x the memory requirements for the PS4 OS. A chip using PS4 OS is faster than the same chip using W7/8.

we're still left with the ps4's cpu older, bigger brother, which is the upcoming steamroller based 8 core FX chip, and I think we can all agree which one will be much faster, considering one is an upscaled version of the other, with much higher clock speeds and probably higher IPC, too (L3 cache etc).

Early PS4 dev. kit already uses a FX 8-core chip. And this kit was not so powerful like the final PS4 hardware. What you say about steamroller is, sorry again, useless. Nobody believes that Sony and AMD will be releasing a console with a given chip and in the next six months AMD will be releasing a new FX chip for gaming PCs with the aim of outperforming the console...

 

[2is]

The PS4 APU with 8 Jaguar cores can match an equally clocked core i7 in multithreaded performance.

What does that even mean? That's like saying (enter car analogy) my Ford Focus is as fast as an equally slow Ferrari 599, which doesn't exist, much like the i7 you're using in your example.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

What is worth noting, games on consoles run at around 30fps, and are fps capped, whereas all these numbers in reviews are average fps. That means if there is gpu which scores 30 fps in the reviewed game, it offers far worst experience than console due to having some frames below 30fps and some above. It is like comparing GTX660 to Titan with vsync enabled. Look Titan runs this game @60fps and GTX660 scored 55 fps. gtx660=titan!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4HAMXHJ-kw

16-20 fps seems like less than 30 to me.


I still haven't seen anything to indicate a 360 can output better quality at the same or higher resolution than a PC equivalent GPU...

To the contrary, initially I would have thought they'd get something extra, few fps maybe a higher res or better lighting, something... But in actuality it seems the more people try to show it does the more I feel it doesn't.

Draw calls aside, I still have seen nothing to indicate the GPU in the PS4 will do anything more than what it could do in a PC. I have however seen a lot of proof now to indicate it will do nothing more than what it's hardware indicates it will.