How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

[Erenhardt]

Worrying about heat is not the same thing as worrying about consumption. It was an issue to to inadequate cooling which can happen even on more efficient designs.

You expect console to be in big-tower ATX case and water-cooled? You are not sick because you didn't take your pills, it is because you went outside without your scarf!

 

[2is]

You expect console to be in big-tower ATX case and water-cooled? You are not sick because you didn't take your pills, it is because you went outside without your scarf!

I'd like to know how your brain interpreted what I said and translated to what you just said in this post. Then again, you seem to be in agreement with Galego, so complete nonsense is to be expected.

If you're that worried about power consumption, you would be gaming exclusively on a tablet. Clearly, the only time you're using this argument is when you can mold it to fit your agenda, but it's obvious it's not as important of an issue to you as you make it seem.

 

[futurefields]

*]The PC version was slightly scaled back. To maintain 30 fps the PC version, running on a GTX-680 (2 GB) + 16 GB RAM + i7, did target a sub-1080p resolution. The PS4 version targets 1080p.

If this is truly the case, then Epic seriously need to optimize their engine.

GTX680 = 30fps @ sub-1080p?

This is abysmal performance.

 

[2is]

A gaming laptop with a high-end 28nm GPU should be able to do it easily.

A PC with an i3 and an undervolted 7850 could probably do it as well.

A PC with an i3 and undervolted 7850 wouldn't be as good of a gaming device than a PS4

 

[galego]

It's good that you are all being champions for the PC master race, but the ps4 is a generation ahead in one metric. Gaming performance for watt.

There is no way you will get similar gaming performance around 100watts on the PC.

Of course, most of the discussion in this thread is/was about raw performance, but there are other points where a console shine. Power consumption, noise, size, easiness of use, exclusive titles...

Some people does not understand that no everyone want an ugly and noisy mammoth gaming PC in his room.

You should create a new thread where perhaps there may be others besides just yourself trying to argue this point. There are two reasons why this isn't being debated

1) everyone knows
2) no one cares

But if "everyone knows" and "no one cares" what is your motivation to post?

A gaming laptop with a high-end 28nm GPU should be able to do it easily.

A PC with an i3 and an undervolted 7850 could probably do it as well.

Not even close.

 

[2is]

But if "everyone knows" and "no one cares" what is your motivation to post?

To not pollute this thread with topics no one is actually debating. Should have been pretty obvious since in that same post, I also suggested a new thread for topics that aren't under debate. But as usual, you see what you want to see. Or more accurately, ignore what you want to ignore. You ignoring reality doesn't mean reality ceases to exist.

 

[raghu78]

A gaming laptop with a high-end 28nm GPU should be able to do it easily.

A PC with an i3 and an undervolted 7850 could probably do it as well.

Kabini with quad core Jaguar slightly exceeds performance of core i3 (dual core with HT) at the same clocks in Cinebench R11.5 multithreaded benchmark.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-2013-ASeries-Kabini-and-Temash-Mobile-APUs/?page=5

to match 8 Jaguar cores you need a core i7 (quad core with HT) at the same clocks. PS4 has eight Jaguar cores at 1.6 Ghz (clocks not yet disclosed) . you are looking at a 1.6 Ghz core i7 to match it. PS4 APU has a 800 mhz GCN GPU with 1152 sp on die. HD 7970m has 1280 sp at 850 Mhz. TDP around 100w. the PS4 SOC is expected to draw 100w.

a core i7 notebook with HD 7970m GPU has 2 separate chips each having their own separate memory controllers , separate physical memory and having external PCI- E bus communication between them. the minute you step off a chip you need a lot of power to drive signals and the power consumption rises significantly.

the PS4 APU is a single die and all communication between CPU and GPU will be through a on-die high bandwidth / low latency bus. Thats much lower power too as you don't need to step off the chip. A single 256 bit GDDR5 memory controller handles all the memory requests of both CPU / GPU.

There is no way a notebook can come close to matching the efficiency of a PS4 APU. :whiste:

 

[Accord99]

A PC with an i3 and undervolted 7850 wouldn't be as good of a gaming device than a PS4

Isn't it only the Xbox One at 100W TDP for just the SoC?. The PS4 is unknown, but I'd expect it be higher.

 

[2is]

Isn't it only the Xbox One at 100W TDP for just the SoC?. The PS4 is unknown, but I'd expect it be higher.

I'm not sure, i just know that those specs aren't going to be as game capable as PS4

 

[Accord99]

There is no way a notebook can come close to matching the efficiency of a PS4 APU. :whiste:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77110.0.html

A 7970M equipped Alienware laptop with a 17" screen, and i7 3610QM with 4 cores at 2.3 GHz had power consumption between 109W-166W.

From here:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77110.0.html

It used 143W playing Battlefield 3. The GTX 680M is slightly more efficient.

 

[Accord99]

I'm not sure, i just know that those specs aren't going to be as game capable as PS4

Sure, but in this case I was only comparing it to the 768 shader core Xbox.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Some people does not understand that no everyone want an ugly and noisy mammoth gaming PC in his room.

And not everyone understands that not all PCs are ugly and mammoth.

 

[raghu78]

Isn't it only the Xbox One at 100W TDP for just the SoC?. The PS4 is unknown, but I'd expect it be higher.

PS4 SOC is also expected to be 100W. not yet officially confirmed. But its quite a realistic estimate. the Xbox One has 32 MB eSRAM on die. It takes 1.6 billion transistors.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/3

"Die size dictates memory interface width, so the 256-bit interface remains but Microsoft chose to go for DDR3 memory instead. A look at Wired’s excellent high-res teardown photo of the motherboard reveals Micron DDR3-2133 DRAM on board (16 x 16-bit DDR3 devices to be exact). A little math gives us 68.3GB/s of bandwidth to system memory.

To make up for the gap, Microsoft added embedded SRAM on die (not eDRAM, less area efficient but lower latency and doesn't need refreshing). All information points to 32MB of 6T-SRAM, or roughly 1.6 billion transistors for this memory."

the PS4 does not have the 32 MB eSRAM as it sports a high speed 256 bit GDDR5 memory controller instead of Xbox One's 256 bit DDR3 controller. the PS4 uses the saved transistors and power towards a 50% larger GPU. Sony's decision to go with 8 GB GDDR5 at 5500 Mhz will affect overall system power consumption. 8GB GDDR5 (5500 Mhz) will require more power than Xbox One's 8 GB DDR3 2133 Mhz. But the PS4 SOC should still be 100w.

 

[2is]

Some people does not understand that no everyone want an ugly and noisy mammoth gaming PC in his room.

This is true, but not really the same thing as saying you'll need 3 titans which is what you've been claiming. It's funny how a couple people resort to debating topics that aren't under debate when they've failed to prove what was under debate.

 

[Erenhardt]

I'd like to know how your brain interpreted what I said and translated to what you just said in this post. Then again, you seem to be in agreement with Galego, so complete nonsense is to be expected.

If you're that worried about power consumption, you would be gaming exclusively on a tablet. Clearly, the only time you're using this argument is when you can mold it to fit your agenda, but it's obvious it's not as important of an issue to you as you make it seem.

Power consumption = work
What work does processing unit? Can you translate bits into watts? GFLOPS into joules? No... 99.9999% of work done by the silicon is heat. Low power consumption of a console is needed due to cooling solution being limited by small form.
Therefore:
Power consumption = work = heat
While console cooling is limited and fixed (up to 200Watts or so - gets loud) the only way to make it run cooler and quieter is to lower heat output = lower work = lower power consumption.
Did you knew that Xbox 360 had external power supply to lower in-box heat output and free space?

 

[toyota]

Ahahaha

hahaha.

AMD needs to sprinkle some magic pixie dust on Epic.

this should be galego's avatar now.

 

[toyota]

Of course, most of the discussion in this thread is/was about raw performance, but there are other points where a console shine. Power consumption, noise, size, easiness of use, exclusive titles...

Some people does not understand that no everyone want an ugly and noisy mammoth gaming PC in his room.




But if "everyone knows" and "no one cares" what is your motivation to post?



Not even close.

wow you dont give up. my pc makes less annoying noise than my PS3. my pc also would only use about 125-150 watts if I cap it at 30 fps for games. even fully oced and vsynced at 60 fps, I rarely go much over 200 watts. I could have easily used a different case if I had wanted this pc in my living room.

 

[2is]

Power consumption = work
What work does processing unit? Can you translate bits into watts? GFLOPS into joules? No... 99.9999% of work done by the silicon is heat. Low power consumption of a console is needed due to cooling solution being limited by small form.
Therefore:
Power consumption = work = heat
While console cooling is limited and fixed (up to 200Watts or so - gets loud) the only way to make it run cooler and quieter is to lower heat output = lower work = lower power consumption.
Did you knew that Xbox 360 had external power supply to lower in-box heat output and free space?

At the risk of repeating myself...

I'd like to know how your brain interpreted what I said and translated to what you just said in this post. Then again, you seem to be in agreement with Galego, so complete nonsense is to be expected.

If you're that worried about power consumption, you would be gaming exclusively on a tablet. Clearly, the only time you're using this argument is when you can mold it to fit your agenda, but it's obvious it's not as important of an issue to you as you make it seem.

Did you guys all come together and say "hey, we're getting our asses handed to us, lets pretend they are arguing things everyone knows about so we can save face"???

 

[rgallant]

Some people does not understand that no everyone want an ugly and noisy mammoth gaming PC in his room.

-some people have a whole house with one room set up as a gaming room , so all the above does not matter,
I have my rads in the basement so no heat or noise even in that room btw.

 

[Erenhardt]

Did you guys all come together and say "hey, we're getting our asses handed to us, lets pretend they are arguing things everyone knows about so we can save face"???

getting...asses...what?
Ok then... read topic again.
Point was the console will have better power efficiency than PC. And low power limit on console means that performance/watt is as important as performance/$
Yet here comes the white knight:

You should create a new thread where perhaps there may be others besides just yourself trying to argue this point. There are two reasons why this isn't being debated

1) everyone knows
2) no one cares

1)It is interesting how APU design can lower power consumption. How DDR3 + eSRAM can impact power efficency.
2) apparently people cared about heat problems. Which have roots in power consumption...

I'd like to know how your brain interpreted what I said and translated to what you just said in this post. Then again, you seem to be in agreement with Galego, so complete nonsense is to be expected.

Thinking doesn't hurt

 

[futurefields]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77110.0.html

A 7970M equipped Alienware laptop with a 17" screen, and i7 3610QM with 4 cores at 2.3 GHz had power consumption between 109W-166W.

From here:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-GeForce-GTX-680M-vs-Radeon-HD-7970M.77110.0.html

It used 143W playing Battlefield 3. The GTX 680M is slightly more efficient.

But if a full desktop GTX680 can only run UE4 at 30fps @ sub-1080p, and the mobile part being slower than the full size desktop sku, it isn't as fast as PS4.

 

[Silver Prime]

So could Ps4 spell the end of the line in terms graphics?

 

[Lepton87]

PS4 SOC is also expected to be 100W. not yet officially confirmed. But its quite a realistic estimate. the Xbox One has 32 MB eSRAM on die. It takes 1.6 billion transistors.

I don't believe that 32MB of eSram will draw just as much power as a 50% larger GPU. The only way that could happen is if the larger GPU was clocked way lower and had a lower operating voltage. Cache DO NOT draw much power. What's the difference in power consumption of 3930k and 3960X provided they both operate at the same clocks and voltage? There's practically no difference. Xeon X5 8 core with 20MB cache draws less power then 3960X even though it has 5MB more cache and 2 more cores. It also officially has a TDP of 150W as opposed to 130W for 3960. The point is eSram, Sram etc draw very little power.
Don't be fooled by how many transistors cache takes. Just look at Westmere-EX, it has 30mb of cache and its power draw is still reasonable.

ps. The current speculation is that both APUs has their GPUs clocked at the same frequency of 800MHz. In my mind there's no doubt that Xbox ONE will draw much less power then PS4, 50% less SPs, DDR3 instead of DDR5, that all screams that they focus on power and not on performance. Personally I will much prefer PS4 as I don't care much for power consumption, I have a 1.2KW PSU in my PC, the difference in power draw between those consoles will be a drop in the bucket for me.

 

[Enigmoid]

Kabini with quad core Jaguar slightly exceeds performance of core i3 (dual core with HT) at the same clocks in Cinebench R11.5 multithreaded benchmark.

http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-2013-ASeries-Kabini-and-Temash-Mobile-APUs/?page=5

to match 8 Jaguar cores you need a core i7 (quad core with HT) at the same clocks. PS4 has eight Jaguar cores at 1.6 Ghz (clocks not yet disclosed) . you are looking at a 1.6 Ghz core i7 to match it. PS4 APU has a 800 mhz GCN GPU with 1152 sp on die. HD 7970m has 1280 sp at 850 Mhz. TDP around 100w. the PS4 SOC is expected to draw 100w.

a core i7 notebook with HD 7970m GPU has 2 separate chips each having their own separate memory controllers , separate physical memory and having external PCI- E bus communication between them. the minute you step off a chip you need a lot of power to drive signals and the power consumption rises significantly.

the PS4 APU is a single die and all communication between CPU and GPU will be through a on-die high bandwidth / low latency bus. Thats much lower power too as you don't need to step off the chip. A single 256 bit GDDR5 memory controller handles all the memory requests of both CPU / GPU.

There is no way a notebook can come close to matching the efficiency of a PS4 APU. :whiste:

Thats sandy bridge, ivy is a little bit stronger and more efficient.

So the ps4 gpu equals a 1.6 ghz i7 sandy (I can extrapolate to a 1.5 ghz i7 ivy or a 1.9 ghz i5 ivy). That is still far weaker than any desktop cpu (around i3 performance).

As for efficiency

From notebookcheck 680m vs 7870m

In our tests, the energy consumptions are 99-109 Watt (GTX 680M) vs. 106-131 Watt (HD 7970M) in 3DMark 06. The Nvidia model also works more economically in Battlefield 3 (126 vs. 143 Watt).

That includes the 17.3 inch screen. Take that off (~10 watts on max brightness) and you end up with 116 watts for BF3 (singleplayer) add 20 watts for MP cpu power =136 watts. Thats very close considering we don't know what the ps4 is using as a full system (no just the SOC estimation).

But if a full desktop GTX680 can only run UE4 at 30fps @ sub-1080p, and the mobile part being slower than the full size desktop sku, it isn't as fast as PS4.

The ps4 isn't capable of running the demo either, it had to be scaled back.

 

[Makaveli]

wow you dont give up. my pc makes less annoying noise than my PS3. my pc also would only use about 125-150 watts if I cap it at 30 fps for games. even fully oced and vsynced at 60 fps, I rarely go much over 200 watts. I could have easily used a different case if I had wanted this pc in my living room.

I found this funny also.

My tower with all the shit in it probably makes less noise than what he is using.

Fan controller + High quality fans = low noise.