How the PlayStation 4 is better than a PC

[notty22]

Wii U really does 1080p? With what level graphics detail?

This article discussing the Wii U, is relative, because the games are NOT living up to the hype, from what I've read. I loved me the Gamecube back in 2000, but haven't played a Nintendo console since. So no firsthand experience.

All of which may lead some to wonder quite why many of the Wii U ports disappoint - especially Black Ops 2, which appears to have been derived from the Xbox 360 version, running more slowly even at the same 880x720 sub-hd resolution. The answer comes from a mixture of known and unknown variables.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed

 

[galego]

Pretty sure it won't beat Titan. Just a hunch though.

Leaked details and the claims made by game developers show otherwise.

 

[Sohaltang]

Leaked details and the claims made by game developers show otherwise.

If it beats a 1000$ gpu then its the best thing since PB&J. I hope it is but we all know its not. If it can even compete with a 1000$ PC and most agree it will then its worth the price. You can still sell a used PS3 for 200$. No one should do anything but hope its thes greatest thing ever. If a 400$ consule beats out my 7970 and 4.5 GHZ PC then great. Im not offended. We all win

 

[2is]

Did you just get in on the last page?

I said no one is claiming PCs don't have more overhead than consoles. You said yes they are. I said show me. You proceeded to quote three posts that said no such thing.

If you can't even backup your own accusations why even bother wasting forum bandwidth with irrilivency?

And for the record, anyone who thinks PCs don't have more overhead is just as clueless as someone who thinks you need 680s in Tri-SLI to match the graphical power of PS4.

 

[2is]

It has been shown to you dozens of times in the form of messages, links, quotes... in several threads.

Yeah, still not true. Go ahead, say it again lets see if anything changes. Maybe after you repeat yourself a second dozen fiction will become fact.

Yeah, the PS4 will cost about $400 at launch. It might or might not beat a Titan, but it will beat a $400 gaming PC for years to come.

And really, people made the same silly arguments against the PS3 and Xbox 360 on release.

Highly unlikely it will beat a Titan unless you're crippling that titan with a Core 2 Duo. (Galego, no need to repeat 2.5x claim here unless uou can show proof if it happening, which we know at this point in time, is impossibe since you don't have the data)

A $400 gaming PC absolutely.

 

[hawtdawg]

I'm not sure what everyone is really arguing about here. The PS4 will be relatively half as powerful as the 360/ps3 when they launched. How long does everyone expect that to hold up graphically?

Imagine how bad the 360's graphics would suck right now if it had half the GPU performance.

 

[toyota]

at the rate phones are getting improved, their cpu performance will exceed that of the ps4 before its half way through its cycle. lol

 

[2is]

at the rate phones are getting improved, their cpu performance will exceed that of the ps4 before its half way through its cycle. lol

Considering phones are already pushing 1080p and tablets well beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[toyota]

Considering phones are already pushing 1080p and tablets well beyond that, I wouldn't be surprised.

we will actually have 8 core cpu phones well before the PS4 even launches. of course they will be much slower cores at this point but still its amazing how fast the phones and tablets keep improving.

 

[joshhedge]

Leaked details and the claims made by game developers show otherwise.

I'll have what you're smoking please.

There is no chance that a £400 system can offer more performance than a titan which is £850.

we will actually have 8 core cpu phones well before the PS4 even launches. of course they will be much slower cores at this point but still its amazing how fast the phones and tablets keep improving.

The 8 core cpu phones are big.LITTLE, I don't believe all 8 cores can be used simultaneously and the 4 A7 cores are very weak.

 

[Aikouka]

Hm, I went back and watched the Killzone trailer, and it looks decent. I'd probably say somewhere around 7870 or 7950 level in that current setup (assuming it's 1080p and aiming for ~60 FPS). I did notice what appeared to be low anti-aliasing, but it looks like they're using a good level of anisotropic filtering. I can't be too sure since it's still just a video on YouTube and some artifacts may be an encoding issue.

Personally, I don't really care if it's better than a PC. To even try and compare a console with a PC is a bit silly, because heavy PC users enjoy the freedom that you get with one. It's sort of like iOS vs. Android in a way. As an example, I like being able to alt-tab out of a PC game and just start browsing the web for whatever reason. To be honest, I'm still most likely going to upgrade my PC this year (depending on upcoming hardware performance), and I'll also buy the PS4 and XBOX Whatever-They-Call-It as long as I can perceive that they have enough value (launch functionality, launch games, etc.).

Fact: The PCI bus is significant bottleneck in PC gaming performance.

That's a rather broad statement that introduces some rash inaccuracies. I do recall an article on Anandtech showing the difference between running a game using similar graphics hardware on differing PCI-Express lanes, and having the reduced bandwidth show very little when it comes to reduced performance. If the pipe does not throttle the actual performance, then how can you state that the bus is a significant bottleneck in PC gaming performance?

I think what you're trying to say is that the nature of segmented computational units creates issues when it comes to sharing data between those units. The PCI-Express bus being a separation between the GPU and CPU is an example of this. I think what you're trying to say is that the advantage of the PS4 is that it does not suffer from this problem.

 

[showb1z]

Just wait till the xbox hype machine gets going, I'm sure it'll have the power of a 2020 PC.
All this with a tablet CPU and the equivalent of a high-end GPU... from 2011 on a mere 200 watt.

Also, while we're throwing out all these dev quotes, explain this.

Roy's comments reflect those made by id programmer John Carmack last year, who predicted that "a lot of next gen games will still target 30 fps".
Other PS4 games, including Guerrilla's first-person shooter Killzone: Shadow Fall, also appear to be targeting 30fps.

Why can't this all powerful gaming machine run at 60fps, shouldn't this be a trivial matter?

 

[hawtdawg]

This is the same shit we hear everytime a new console is released. The main difference this time around, is that the new consoles are relatively half as powerful as current PC tech, rather than mostly matching it like the last generation.

 

[Spjut]

Why can't this all powerful gaming machine run at 60fps, shouldn't this be a trivial matter?

Probably because no matter how powerful the hardware is, targeting 30 FPS will always allow for better graphics than targeting 60 FPS.

 

[galego]

If it beats a 1000$ gpu then its the best thing since PB&J. I hope it is but we all know its not. If it can even compete with a 1000$ PC and most agree it will then its worth the price. You can still sell a used PS3 for 200$. No one should do anything but hope its thes greatest thing ever. If a 400$ consule beats out my 7970 and 4.5 GHZ PC then great. Im not offended. We all win

A small and inexpensive console beating an mammoth and expensive gaming pc is not anything new. I already provided links to Carmack explaining how old consoles could compete with 10x more powerful PCs. I will repeat this:

It is extremely frustrating knowing that the hardware we've got on the PC is often ten times as powerful as the consoles but it has honestly been a struggle in many cases to get the game running at 60 frames per second on the PC like it does on a 360

http://www.computerandvideogames.co...d-that-pc-is-10-times-as-powerful-as-ps3-360/

Regarding the PS4:

Did you read Quantum Dream saying that the PS4 is like a PC of 2014 or 2015? They mentioned explicitely that this is the performance that they are measuring during the development of their next game.

Did you read Cerny saying it is a "supercharged PC" with hardware beyond any PC? Again performance.

Did you see the PS4 demo competing with an i7 + GTX-680? The PS4 demo was running limited to only 1.5 GB VRAM and 27--29% of specs, plus other limitations such as 'beta' APIs...

Did you read Guerrila Games saying that, unlike gaming PCs, the PS4 has been designed with no performance bottlenecks? Did you read them saying that the PS4 is more than a high-end gaming PC?

Did you read Lottes claiming that the PS4 would be "years ahead of PC" because of its performance? I think it is safe to assume the he knows the performance of a Nvidia Titan because he is a Nvidia developer...

And so on.

In another thread I estimated the performance factor of the PS4 on about 5x. But after another poster gave me the details leaked by 'MikeR', I think we would change that to about 6x or 7x. I repeat this is an estimation, I don't care if the final number is 5.9x or 7.3x.

For the sake of comparison, the Nvidia Titan performance is about 2.4x.

 

[galego]

That's a rather broad statement that introduces some rash inaccuracies. I do recall an article on Anandtech showing the difference between running a game using similar graphics hardware on differing PCI-Express lanes, and having the reduced bandwidth show very little when it comes to reduced performance. If the pipe does not throttle the actual performance, then how can you state that the bus is a significant bottleneck in PC gaming performance?

I think what you're trying to say is that the nature of segmented computational units creates issues when it comes to sharing data between those units. The PCI-Express bus being a separation between the GPU and CPU is an example of this. I think what you're trying to say is that the advantage of the PS4 is that it does not suffer from this problem.

I think this was already explained. Current games are designed with that limitation on mind. Therefore providing a faster PCI does not change performance significantly.

Read Cerny explaining how their vision for the next gen games could not be in implemented in current PC hardware and how they designed the PS4 hardware to allow the vision. He explicitly mentions PCI bottlenecking.

 

[joshhedge]

A small and inexpensive console beating an mammoth and expensive gaming pc is not anything new. I already provided links to Carmack explaining how old consoles could compete with 10x more powerful PCs. I will repeat this:



http://www.computerandvideogames.co...d-that-pc-is-10-times-as-powerful-as-ps3-360/

You're taking that article out of context, I guarente you that the PC games would be running at much higher settings and that is the reason why they would struggle to hit 60fps at points.

Furthermore, most console games run at 30fps from what I recall from my PS3 owning days.

 

[galego]

Also, while we're throwing out all these dev quotes, explain this.

Why can't this all powerful gaming machine run at 60fps, shouldn't this be a trivial matter?

Well an i7 + GTX-680 only can run the Epic PS4 demo at 30 fps and sub-1080.

 

[galego]

You're taking that article out of context, I guarente you that the PC games would be running at much higher settings and that is the reason why they would struggle to hit 60fps at points.

Furthermore, most console games run at 30fps from what I recall from my PS3 owning days.

Nowhere he says that the problem was that the PC version was running at much higher settings. You invented that. He says clearly that the problem was driver overhead (the windows API is bloated).

 

[TheSlamma]

Yeah, so my point is PS4 will still be a big leap over PS3, even if in some games it isn't able to render full 1080p. PS3 barely handles 720p with low res textures and crap lighting, sub 30 fps etc... if PS4 devs for whatever reason decide to target sub-1080p, it will be for more high-res shader fx, insane poly counts etc...

Wii U really does 1080p? With what level graphics detail?

If it's going to struggle with 1080P already then I don't see a point. 4K is going to become mainstream within this decade even, so for me 1080P should be a MINIMUM

 

[joshhedge]

Nowhere he says that the problem was that the PC version was running at much higher settings. You invented that. He says clearly that the problem was driver overhead (the windows API is bloated).

I am sure it's a given, granted that they are 10 times more powerful, like 1+1=2.

I think that that article was more to do with stating the ease of development and optimisation for consoles, rather than saying that they can compete graphically, which they couldn't. I had COD4 on both a gaming PC, 8800GTX SLI w/ Q6600 on a 1680*1050 monitor and that looked so much better, and appeared smoother than on the PS3.

 

[HeXen]

So much fail here. Ladies and gentlemen do not listen to this man!

Prove it. Looking at specs on paper does absolutely nothing if the developer does nothing with it. What you have on PC in the last 5 years are just console ports with the options of graphical enhancements like higher res, AA..etc. Those are not graphics, just graphical enhancements.
The initial batch of new console games will look better or as good than the average PC game for a little while.

 

[Melina42]

None of it matters, because most games suck these days, period. A few more lights on the bleeding faces in Call of Feces VI isn't going to change THAT fact.

 

[showb1z]

Probably because no matter how powerful the hardware is, targeting 30 FPS will always allow for better graphics than targeting 60 FPS.

Yes, that is the reason, but since some people claim the PS4 has the same performance of 3 GTX680's I find it rather strange that it would need to be limited to 30 fps to get the same quality.

Well an i7 + GTX-680 only can run the Epic PS4 demo at 30 fps and sub-1080.

Oh look, another baseless claim. Prove it, or don't bother.
I'll save you the trouble: PC= 1080p, 60fps, more detail

Also, good job ignoring the part about Thief, but no problem I'll link it again.

Roy's comments reflect those made by id programmer John Carmack last year, who predicted that "a lot of next gen games will still target 30 fps".
Other PS4 games, including Guerrilla's first-person shooter Killzone: Shadow Fall, also appear to be targeting 30fps.

Now tell us, why are these games targeting 30fps when the PS4 delivers the same performance as GTX680 x3?

 

[Spjut]

A small and inexpensive console beating an mammoth and expensive gaming pc is not anything new. I already provided links to Carmack explaining how old consoles could compete with 10x more powerful PCs. I will repeat this:



http://www.computerandvideogames.co...d-that-pc-is-10-times-as-powerful-as-ps3-360/

Regarding the PS4:

Did you read Quantum Dream saying that the PS4 is like a PC of 2014 or 2015? They mentioned explicitely that this is the performance that they are measuring during the development of their next game.

Did you read Cerny saying it is a "supercharged PC" with hardware beyond any PC? Again performance.

Did you see the PS4 demo competing with an i7 + GTX-680? The PS4 demo was running limited to only 1.5 GB VRAM and 27--29% of specs, plus other limitations such as 'beta' APIs...

Did you read Guerrila Games saying that, unlike gaming PCs, the PS4 has been designed with no performance bottlenecks? Did you read them saying that the PS4 is more than a high-end gaming PC?

Did you read Lottes claiming that the PS4 would be "years ahead of PC" because of its performance? I think it is safe to assume the he knows the performance of a Nvidia Titan because he is a Nvidia developer...

And so on.

In another thread I estimated the performance factor of the PS4 on about 5x. But after another poster gave me the details leaked by 'MikeR', I think we would change that to about 6x or 7x. I repeat this is an estimation, I don't care if the final number is 5.9x or 7.3x.

For the sake of comparison, the Nvidia Titan performance is about 2.4x.

Carmack and Lottes should be unbiased, but can you really say the same of the other developers you refer to?

Cerny is the PS4's lead architect, and Guerilla Games is a firsty party studio. Quantic Dream's last games have been exclusive for the PS3, and the studio is apparently "open" to become a Sony first party studio.
http://www.vg247.com/2012/03/09/quantic-dream-open-to-becoming-first-party-sony-studio/

If we take Sony's word about the PS4's capabilities, we should take Nintendo's word too about the Wii U not being underpowered. All Sony's PS3 propaganda, or Microsoft's 360 propaganda, should also have been taken 100% seriously.


What MikeR says could be true, but he hasn't backed up his claims. Here is a post he made after his comments on the UE4 demo. His information could be true, but note that he denies working at Epic.
http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1713046#post1713046


Perhaps I've missed something, but the only official comment I've seen Epic make on the UE4 demo is this

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-unreal-engine-4-ps4-vs-pc

Update: Brian Karis, senior graphics programmer at Epic Games adds some more insight in the comments below, explaining some of the more obvious differences - particularly in terms of the very different lighting schemes. At the technical level, the two demos are closer than it seems:

It's good if they are close, but note that he doesn't say anything about how "much" of the PS4 they used


It's also fully possible that we'll get a new OpenGL or DirectX that decreases the PC's overhead

Yes, that is the reason, but since some people claim the PS4 has the same performance of 3 GTX680's I find it rather strange that it would need to be limited to 30 fps to get the same quality.

Timothy Lottes seemed to believe most games would just be DX11 ports at the beginning.