Is it true that PS4 will have better graphics/peformance PC

[HeXen]

PS4 has the graphics potential of a midrange PC. However, you can't ask that here because people here go into fits of rage when the word "console" is mentioned.

Can you imagine the nerd rage hissy fits here if they made the consoles more powerful than current high end PC's? lol
I don't care which has smoother power lines in the background, I'm tired of messing with PC's.

 

[NTMBK]

This is the first generation of console to come out without a clear performance advantage over the highest end PC's for a month or so. It's interesting, but it's because neither MS or Sony (or of course Nintendo) spent the money to build their own tricked out part. Nor were they willing to take a huge hit per unit sold.

So ultimately, they bet less on the next gen because they sense--as most sense--that the consoles are coming the end of their usefulness. Even now, just in front of a next gen console race, they're talking up platforms and not consoles. They're building up platforms, not devices.

I very much disagree with this analysis. Consoles have fallen behind PCs, because the power budgets for top end PCs have gone up VASTLY in the past few years. A top end rig with a pair of 290X's in Crossfire will consume over 700W!

Whereas a launch XBox 360, notorious for running so hot that it melted its own solder, consumes a mere 180W:

Microsoft and Sony both learnt their lessons from the RROD disaster- there is a hard limit to the amount of energy you can let your console consume, before serious issues with reliability kick in.

Graphics card manufacturers just keep pushing their consumption higher and higher, going to ever more extreme levels and requiring more and more elaborate cooling systems. Do you remember the days when a GPU came with a tiny cooler that just covered the chip itself, with a little fan on it? When the 360 launched, a TOP END graphics card looked like this:

Today's equivalent would be the HD7750! Whereas people on this forum would rather have you compare it to something like this:

When you compare GPU performance/W increases to console performance/W increases, the XBone and PS4 look fine. It's just the insane state of the top end GPU market which makes them look bad.

 

[NTMBK]

If console had this kind of beauty than people wont be spending huge amount of money on pc

You call that beauty? Incredibly flat, unrealistic looking foliage? A dull, grey skyline? To me, that just looks like high resolution tedium. Tech is no replacement for artistic style.

 

[blackened23]

Very true. While it would be nice to put a GTX 780 inside of a console, consoles are very much more restricted in terms of usable TDP / power. That's basically why we are where we are.

A modern PC with a high end GPU will definitely be better than a PS4, but who cares? The PS4 will still have a good gaming experience especially with PSN online.

 

[Enigmoid]

If console had this kind of beauty than people wont be spending huge amount of money on pc

Why do people always post pictures that supposedly look good but really do not?

I mean that looks good but its not amazing.

 

[5150Joker]

And was that running on your PC? The one with $2000 worth of graphics cards in it? Yeah, I'm not surprised that something 5-6x as expensive as a PS4 gives better graphics.

Nice attempt at trolling but that level of graphics can be achieved with a single R9 290X. And the thread specifically asks if the PS4 will have better graphics/performance than a PC, which it doesn't, not even close.

 

[HeXen]

Very true. While it would be nice to put a GTX 780 inside of a console, consoles are very much more restricted in terms of usable TDP / power. That's basically why we are where we are.

A modern PC with a high end GPU will definitely be better than a PS4, but who cares? The PS4 will still have a good gaming experience especially with PSN online.

And the comparison shots are really close. I remember when Amiga games put consoles to far more serious shame, to a point where the Amiga versions looked almost entirely different, even the C64 put some NES games to shame but computers were a lot different than today..loading floppies..etc that made consoles a better experience.

There are still aspects about consoles I prefer to this crazy large Cosmos S monstrosity I have here right now.

 

[Grooveriding]

Consoles have to be sold at a price that people interested will actually pay. Not realistic considering a single high end GPU costs more than the price of a PS4 or XBone...

I think the accurate statement is you will get more performance out of the same hardware on a console compared to a PC. But most 'gaming' PCs will have much stronger hardware than a console.

 

[escrow4]

Over here in Australia a PS4 is 550 and a Xbox One is 600 (preorder/launch prices). An R9 280X goes for $400 plus alone for the GPU while a 290X is like 700. So yes, price and all that. Consoles will still never come close to a half decent PC.

 

[crisium]

You'd have to spend more than $400 to get a PC that plays BF4 at High 1600x900, true.

But not much more if you think about it. A Radeon 7850 can get close to 60fps average on High at 1600x900. That's only $130 (cheapest, not even including rebates) on Newegg.

Can you get a Case, Mobo, HDD, RAM, CPU for $270? Not quite. But the game only needs any old quadcore, so you can get a cheapo AMD and do fine.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

If you do it right, I'd say you could get PS4 performance BF4 for the price of an Xbone ($500) for sure.

$130 GPU (7850 2GB)
$100 CPU (crappy AMD)
$70 RAM (8GB 1600)
$40 PSU (el cheapo)
$50 Mobo (el cheapo)
$60 HDD (whatever)
$50 Case (whatever)

$500 and you can play BF4 at the same settings as the $400 PS4. Assuming you already have a kb/m, since to be fair the PS4 comes with a controller.

I think the PS4 would age better than this system and probably play games in a couple years better than this PC, but for now this would match you PS4 performance on at least a popular game.

 

[x3sphere]

You'd have to spend more than $400 to get a PC that plays BF4 at High 1600x900, true.

But not much more if you think about it. A Radeon 7850 can get close to 60fps average on High at 1600x900. That's only $130 (cheapest, not even including rebates) on Newegg.

Can you get a Case, Mobo, HDD, RAM, CPU for $270? Not quite. But the game only needs any old quadcore, so you can get a cheapo AMD and do fine.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

If you do it right, I'd say you could get PS4 performance BF4 for the price of an Xbone ($500) for sure.

$130 GPU (7850 2GB)
$100 CPU (crappy AMD)
$70 RAM (8GB 1600)
$40 PSU (el cheapo)
$50 Mobo (el cheapo)
$60 HDD (whatever)
$50 Case (whatever)

$500 and you can play BF4 at the same settings as the $400 PS4. Assuming you already have a kb/m, since to be fair the PS4 comes with a controller.

I think the PS4 would age better than this system and probably play games in a couple years better than this PC, but for now this would match you PS4 performance on at least a popular game.

Yeah, still that doesn't factor in potential OS cost. If someone is just getting into PC gaming they might not already have a Win7/8 license.

Regardless, I'd rather get a PS4 than an el cheapo PC build. For maybe $300 extra you could build something nice instead of skimping out on everything. Do it right or don't do it at all.

 

[Lonyo]

Yeah, still that doesn't factor in potential OS cost. If someone is just getting into PC gaming they might not already have a Win7/8 license.

Regardless, I'd rather get a PS4 than an el cheapo PC build. For maybe $300 extra you could build something nice instead of skimping out on everything. Do it right or don't do it at all.

With a PC you can also use the internet/etc on your TV.
With a PS4 you have very limited media capabilities.

 

[crisium]

Ah, I always forget about the OS cost.

Oh, I agree that no one should build something that cheap, but it's just an example. The PS4 is definitely more cost efficient than a PC, but not by a drastic amount.

 

[Lonyo]

Ah, I always forget about the OS cost.

Oh, I agree that no one should build something that cheap, but it's just an example. The PS4 is definitely more cost efficient than a PC, but not by a drastic amount.

Add the OS cost, then add the cost of multiplayer gaming on a console, for most people on this forum. Annually.

Magically, the PS4 comes out being more expensive if you want to MP game.

You can add bits and pieces here and there to either setup.

 

[FalseChristian]

Considering new consoles only come out every 8 years or so the low-end PC of 8 years in the future will blow the XBone and PS4 out of the water and probably our high-end PCs of the present.

PCs are built to play 1st-person shooters. Everything else can be played OK on a console.

 

[rgallant]

Yeah, still that doesn't factor in potential OS cost. If someone is just getting into PC gaming they might not already have a Win7/8 license.

Regardless, I'd rather get a PS4 than an el cheapo PC build. For maybe $300 extra you could build something nice instead of skimping out on everything. Do it right or don't do it at all.

love you guys that never price in a hd tv
add in how many tv up grades a normal house budget has done for ps3 -360 gaming over the years.
and if your not using a top end tv , not sure what IQ your watching.
-point is ps4 don't come with a tv so it is useless unless you buy one or have one.

 

[Techhog]

You'd have to spend more than $400 to get a PC that plays BF4 at High 1600x900, true.

But not much more if you think about it. A Radeon 7850 can get close to 60fps average on High at 1600x900. That's only $130 (cheapest, not even including rebates) on Newegg.

Can you get a Case, Mobo, HDD, RAM, CPU for $270? Not quite. But the game only needs any old quadcore, so you can get a cheapo AMD and do fine.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

If you do it right, I'd say you could get PS4 performance BF4 for the price of an Xbone ($500) for sure.

$130 GPU (7850 2GB)
$100 CPU (crappy AMD)
$70 RAM (8GB 1600)
$40 PSU (el cheapo)
$50 Mobo (el cheapo)
$60 HDD (whatever)
$50 Case (whatever)

$500 and you can play BF4 at the same settings as the $400 PS4. Assuming you already have a kb/m, since to be fair the PS4 comes with a controller.

I think the PS4 would age better than this system and probably play games in a couple years better than this PC, but for now this would match you PS4 performance on at least a popular game.

... which would be a huge bottleneck in BF4.

 

[Erenhardt]

I have a feeling that ps4 graphics are better than 7850. Even if you OC it, constole will still have direct optimizations. Maybe Mantle could possibly make up for it.

 

[x3sphere]

love you guys that never price in a hd tv
add in how many tv up grades a normal house budget has done for ps3 -360 gaming over the years.
and if your not using a top end tv , not sure what IQ your watching.
-point is ps4 don't come with a tv so it is useless unless you buy one or have one.

Generally people don't buy an HD TV just for their home gaming system.

Current consoles are also more than capable for media needs. I know plenty that use a PS3 as their sole device for Netflix streaming.

I'm not really trying to defend the PS4 here, but for now it is a good option for anyone that doesn't want to invest in a decent PC.

 

[rgallant]

Generally people don't buy an HD TV just for their home gaming system.

Current consoles are also more than capable for media needs. I know plenty that use a PS3 as their sole device for Netflix streaming.

I'm not really trying to defend the PS4 here, but for now it is a good option for anyone that doesn't want to invest in a decent PC.

I was going by the thread title not picking on you .

 

[Sohaltang]

You'd have to spend more than $400 to get a PC that plays BF4 at High 1600x900, true.

But not much more if you think about it. A Radeon 7850 can get close to 60fps average on High at 1600x900. That's only $130 (cheapest, not even including rebates) on Newegg.

Can you get a Case, Mobo, HDD, RAM, CPU for $270? Not quite. But the game only needs any old quadcore, so you can get a cheapo AMD and do fine.

http://www.techspot.com/review/734-battlefield-4-benchmarks/page6.html

If you do it right, I'd say you could get PS4 performance BF4 for the price of an Xbone ($500) for sure.

$130 GPU (7850 2GB)
$100 CPU (crappy AMD)
$70 RAM (8GB 1600)
$40 PSU (el cheapo)
$50 Mobo (el cheapo)
$60 HDD (whatever)
$50 Case (whatever)

$500 and you can play BF4 at the same settings as the $400 PS4. Assuming you already have a kb/m, since to be fair the PS4 comes with a controller.

I think the PS4 would age better than this system and probably play games in a couple years better than this PC, but for now this would match you PS4 performance on at least a popular game.

Wifi and bluray? Monitor? Most everyone has a HD TV but many don't have a decent monitor. Heck I see posts here every day about "gamers" not even playing in 1080 wanting gpu suggestions

 

[HeXen]

lol, everyone forgets to include the cost of the OS. Only builders tend to have OS's laying around. Someone new to PC gaming or coming from a laptop even would need to buy the OS and probably the full version unless they buy an old one cheap and get the upgrade edition.

The hardware needs to be balanced and sometimes cheap PSU's don't last long. You can't go too cheap just to win a debate against consoles. People buy them because they are simply plug n play devices and next to no hassles and little to setup and don't consume much power. A DIY build and you have to set everything up...not something many really want to bother with.

 

[blackened23]

I'd have to agree that there's NO WAY IN HELL that I would try to game on a 400$ PC. A 400$ PC will absolutely be creamed by a 400$ PS4. Now will a PS4 match a modern PC with a modern CPU/GPU? No way, not even close.

Basically it boils down to the typical PC the average user has is probably junk from Dell or HP - there is a very real chance that a PS4 will be substantially better than a junk Dell with GT620 graphics or HD4000. On the other hand, if you're a DIYer - a DIY PC will absolutely demolish a 400$ PS4.

Having said all of this, I don't see why there has to be a versus competition between consoles and PCs. They're both going to give great gaming experiences - there are some games that I vastly prefer on console, and others that I vastly prefer on PC. They can both co-exist as i've mentioned earlier. I know it's tough to believe, but it's true.

 

[Lonyo]

lol, everyone forgets to include the cost of the OS. Only builders tend to have OS's laying around. Someone new to PC gaming or coming from a laptop even would need to buy the OS and probably the full version unless they buy an old one cheap and get the upgrade edition.

The hardware needs to be balanced and sometimes cheap PSU's don't last long. You can't go too cheap just to win a debate against consoles. People buy them because they are simply plug n play devices and next to no hassles and little to setup and don't consume much power. A DIY build and you have to set everything up...not something many really want to bother with.

A $40 PSU is plenty for a low power system, that's something like a CX430, which is more than enough, and good enough quality.

 

[el etro]

I very much disagree with this analysis. Consoles have fallen behind PCs, because the power budgets for top end PCs have gone up VASTLY in the past few years. A top end rig with a pair of 290X's in Crossfire will consume over 700W!

Whereas a launch XBox 360, notorious for running so hot that it melted its own solder, consumes a mere 180W:

Microsoft and Sony both learnt their lessons from the RROD disaster- there is a hard limit to the amount of energy you can let your console consume, before serious issues with reliability kick in.

Graphics card manufacturers just keep pushing their consumption higher and higher, going to ever more extreme levels and requiring more and more elaborate cooling systems. Do you remember the days when a GPU came with a tiny cooler that just covered the chip itself, with a little fan on it? When the 360 launched, a TOP END graphics card looked like this:

Today's equivalent would be the HD7750! Whereas people on this forum would rather have you compare it to something like this:

When you compare GPU performance/W increases to console performance/W increases, the XBone and PS4 look fine. It's just the insane state of the top end GPU market which makes them look bad.

Awesome post. Like/thanks button is lacking here(a few times).


I have to mention one more thing: Pitcairn based GPUs target TDP is the same target TDP of TOP-end GPUs back in 2005, when consoles were projected. Target TDP of high end cards doubled since the DX10 revolution.