PC is 'superior' to PS4 and Xbox One, says Nvidia

[Anteaus]

It all depends on metrics. If the PS4 can say that they are better than the XB1 because they have a faster GPU and therefore is the superior console, then Nvidia can say the PC is superior due to that same metric. Even further, since Nvidia currently makes the fastest single GPU solution available, they can also claim to be superior to AMD.

Of course its semantic and never that straight forward, but thus is the technical ignorance of many console gamers. Consoles do have advantages over PC, but none of them are technical in nature. Therefore Nvidia's claims are not necessarily invalid, but circumstancial. Basically, they are using the same PR doublespeak that both MS and Sony use on a regular basis.

AMD/ATI has been trailing Intel and Nvidia for awhile now, which is why I think they got the console contracts. Nvidia probably wanted to push tech that was more expensive, whereas AMD/ATI's recent attempts to be more energy efficient at the cost of performance was more in line with what MS and Sony were doing. Also, while I would never presume any sort of cooperation between MS and Sony; however, since both console's use similar hardware, economy of scale savings can potentially be enjoyed by both makers.

Of course I'm not saying that ATI is non-competitive. They make multi-GPU solutions that are right up neck to neck with Nvidia. I just mean that they have had to jump some self-inflected hurdles in recent years but the future looks bright for them.

 

[Anteaus]

Rent the game for your console.
Try doing that on your PC.

Sure, not being able to rent games is a downside. However, the upside is that no console in production today enjoys as large a game selection as the PC and that drives competition. PC games released as recent as 6-12 months ago can easily be gotten for less than $10 if you watch for sales, and even as little as $2 during the big sales, which happen at least twice a year. How many console games have you found priced that low?

In a given 12 month period, I can buy about 5X as many games as the average console gamer with the same money, and I regularly do.

In fact, within the past month I bought L.A. Noire Complete for $7.49, Fallout New Vegas Ultimate for $4.99, and Far Cry 3-Blood Dragon for $7.49. Yes there is a compromise, but it's not as stark as console gamers would hope it was.

Wait, just saw that Dishonored is $7.49 and Witcher 2 is $4.99 today.

All these games....what do I play first!? Keep your rentals.

 

[Zenoth]

That or "Genesis is superior to SNES, says guy next to you in classroom", brings me back. It was fun back then, however... "Blast Processing!" (I used that one once or twice I think). Or things like "Dreamcast will destroy the PS2"... "Dude, the PS2 got the Emotion Engine!" (and at the time having zero idea as to what it actually meant).

I guess that discussions, debates and comparisons will always happen... but coming from a big company like NVIDIA is rather unexpected. And... really "Enthusiast players want the ultimate games system and that is the PC"?. I always thought that players, gamers, want the ultimate games, period, no? Oh wait he said ENTHUSIAST players, right... so "regular, non-enthusiast" players can lick their wounds and try again if they were unlucky enough to buy a console but not a PC?

Meh, not worth it.

 

[JeffMD]

I...like this statement. I was thrilled when AMD effectively won and now control the direction hardware wise and thus console game wise that software will move in. This allows them to hopefully maneuver them in a high performance position because games will be optimized on their hardware.

Now I am even more thrilled that nvidia will do all they can to protect pc gaming. They have the money, and they have the branding, they can continue to work with companies to make games look their best on PC. Can't wait to see what comes of it.

 

[Bateluer]

I...like this statement. I was thrilled when AMD effectively won and now control the direction hardware wise and thus console game wise that software will move in. This allows them to hopefully maneuver them in a high performance position because games will be optimized on their hardware.

Now I am even more thrilled that nvidia will do all they can to protect pc gaming. They have the money, and they have the branding, they can continue to work with companies to make games look their best on PC. Can't wait to see what comes of it.

With Microsoft trying to kill PC gaming, AMD, Nvidia, and Valve trying to protect it can only be a good thing.

It goes without saying that PCs are superior to consoles by every measurable metric. They're more powerful, games look better, 99.9% backwards compatibility, no store limitations, cheaper, etc. We expect any semi-reputable company to acknowledge this fact. I think Nvidia would be saying otherwise, had they won a contract for a console GPU though.

Steambox prototypes are starting to appear too, and they're looking to pack some decent performance at a low price point.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/11/25/commercial-steambox-prototype/

 

[imaheadcase]

This. So what exactly makes the PC better for gaming? Sure when cost is not an issue, it's definitely better. But for $400-$500, heck no. Or is Nvidia saying they want to sell a lot of GPUs that are in $500 PCs? Wait, they said margins are too thin on such a product.

Sour grapes Nvidia, sometimes it's just better not to say anything.

Actually that is not true, arstechnica put together a $500 pc that was 2x faster than ps4/xbox one.

 

[desprado]

This. So what exactly makes the PC better for gaming? Sure when cost is not an issue, it's definitely better. But for $400-$500, heck no. Or is Nvidia saying they want to sell a lot of GPUs that are in $500 PCs? Wait, they said margins are too thin on such a product.

Sour grapes Nvidia, sometimes it's just better not to say anything.

Most absurd post in this topic
Enough said.

 

[Gloomy]

Well... it's true... :|

The day is long past when a cheap PC was a nightmare for gaming. Nowadays even a 7850 goes a really long way. A 400-600 dollar PC today is a crazy good value.

And then two years down the line, all you have to do is slot in a new GPU and get two more years out of it...

Sorry, consoles can no longer compete, even on value proposition, when games are 20-30 dollars more expensive (up to 50 dollars more expensive in countries like Russia, UK) each at regular pricing. Not to mention sales, and free to play games like DOTA, LoL, Planetside, etc. You're a fool if you think consoles are better at anything but holding video game titles hostage ("exclusives", bah).

 

[Borealis7]

in 2-3 years, the mid-range PC hardware will have completely surpassed the console's hardware it's not even going to be funny. the thing is, games will still be made to run on Consoles hardware. so even if the PC is superior, it won't have much to show for that superiority.

 

[Lonyo]

in 2-3 years, the mid-range PC hardware will have completely surpassed the console's hardware it's not even going to be funny. the thing is, games will still be made to run on Consoles hardware. so even if the PC is superior, it won't have much to show for that superiority.

The PC is about options.
Sure, the game might only be marginally better comparing 1080p vs 1080p display, but then you can do things like triple monitors, using superior controllers, or taking advantage of other things like actually being able to stream/record/upload your game as you want, without MS or Sony being the controlling force.

PCs are also about freedom beyond the game, not just the game itself being better.

 

[BSim500]

Probably some "sour grapes" from nVidia though their statement is true. Better GFX, higher resolutions, better anti-aliasing, higher FPS, superb backwards compatibility, modding (a huge "win" in itself), games are way cheaper both new & sale prices, mouse & keyboard still the best for pretty much all game genres except sports, party games & "beat-em-ups", and often generally better "immersion" sitting 2ft away from a 24-30" screen than 10ft away.

The most common fallacy with PC vs console "pricing war" is to declare that 100% of the cost of a PC is purely for gaming whilst ignoring the two facts that 1. Many console owners inevitably end up buying a laptop for work / college anyway and 2. Desktop PC owners use PC's for more than just gaming, often for tasks that cannot be done on a tablet / laptop at anywhere near the same speed / ergonomics.

Even if I didn't game, I would need a desktop PC anyway for video editing & some design work. It's not just about the horsepower, it's about the ergonomics of a +24" IPS screen & proper keyboard + mouse. So the total real cost of the "gaming premium" on my desktop PC was basically £140 - the cost of a 7870 GFX card. I need the other bits anyway. Not only is there no "PC gaming premium", it's cheaper for many to just buy 1x gaming desktop vs 1x laptop + 1x console. Many college kids have also stopped drinking too much "tablet marketing koolaid" and realised you cannot seriously type out a 30,000 word dissertation on "Documents to Go" on a 7" tablet as a computer "replacement" regardless of hype.

And that's just in the USA. I'm in Britain and XB1 titles are £45-50 ($74-$80) (XB1 console is £430 / $704) whilst PS4 titles are basically £50-£55 ($80-$90) (PS4 console is £350 / $575). PC games are usually around £25-30 ($41-$50) (and often quickly drop to under £20, then bargain £5-15). My 7870 card cost £140 / $230, a 7850 PS4 class card costs £110 / $180, and a XB1 7790 class card cost £95 / $155).

I'm buggered if I can see where the "PC gaming costs far more, consoles are cheaper" thing is given an almost £20 / $30 premium per game over 20x games = £400 / $600 premium just for the overpriced games premium alone, ignoring the cost of both the console and the laptop most end up buying anyway for school / college / work... If you typically buy 4-5 games per year, then over 8-10 years, you can virtually double that to a whopping £800 / $1200 on the "console premium" on the games alone...

 

[Fire&Blood]

Well... it's true... :|

The day is long past when a cheap PC was a nightmare for gaming. Nowadays even a 7850 goes a really long way. A 400-600 dollar PC today is a crazy good value.

And then two years down the line, all you have to do is slot in a new GPU and get two more years out of it...

Absolutely. My sig rig was a budget build over a year ago and it's holding up extremely well for gaming, even after I moved to 1440p. And that 7850 is roughly the equivalent of what the xbone and the ps4 are equipped with.

I do hope that console cycles get shorter and that they get the best hardware possible because weak and aged consoles translate to stagnation in image quality and other areas in games for the PC since for most titles, one or both major consoles are primary dev platforms.

I would even argue that PC gaming is cheaper, the initial cost advantage of a console evaporates after accounting for the higher cost of console games. The argument that renting games for consoles keeps the cost low implies that the games aren't worth keeping/buying and doesn't take into account titles that heavily rely on online play. Renting just doesn't make sense for titles like BF4 or GTA 5. With the push for micro transactions on one hand and reliance on multiplayer on the other, even if the given platform allows for rentals, it's clear that ownership over rented/used games is pretty much necessary to take full advantage of the game. Console gamers do get exclusives, timed or not but there is a new trend building to milk console gamers with a F2P approach on top of the full prices they'll be paying.

Funny, when internet wars start, those with grudges against the PC usually have to get on one to express their anti PC views.

Personally, I think consoles are fine and like I said earlier, PC benefits from better consoles because ports will be better too. Just don't compare them to PC's, they look weak vs. master race.

 

[Bateluer]

in 2-3 years, the mid-range PC hardware will have completely surpassed the console's hardware it's not even going to be funny. the thing is, games will still be made to run on Consoles hardware. so even if the PC is superior, it won't have much to show for that superiority.

Almost. With the next gen consoles launching with low end specs, the gap between the PC and consoles will continue to widen, you're right. What you're not right about is that PCs won't have much to show for it. Nearly every PC game today looks better than a console game. Even the best looking console games, Last of Us, Uncharted 3, GTA5, etc, look like absolute garbage compared to PC games from 2008-2010 to say nothing of PC titles from 2012-2013. Not only that, but those games are also running at 1024x600p and 24fps to pull the last lingering drops from the 360/PS3. The same game at 1080p, the standard for PC gaming these days, will instantly see a night and day improvement.

And 1080p is quickly sliding into the low end when a 100-150 dollar graphics card can max out titles on it. Even some integrated GPUs can handle it pretty easily. 1440p panels are readily available for well under 500 dollars, and 4K displays are set to drop in price over the next 2 years as well. In 2017, while the XB1/PS4 are still struggling with 720p and 900p, PC gamers will be sporting 4K panels And please don't pull out the tired line from VC&G that single card 4K gaming won't be possible until ~10nm because you can do single card 4K gaming today.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The whole comparason depends on what you mean by superior. Each system has advantages and disadvantages. Consoles are easier to use, have exclusive games, and are cheaper price of entry. If one includes the windows license I dont think it is possible to build a gaming PC that will equal a 400.00 PS4.

And don't forget that for a lot of console games 2 or 4 players can play on the same machine, while every player needs a copy of the game and a capable PC in most games. Honestly it has always frustrated me that co-op on the same screen is not available on most PC games.

OTOH the PC has cheaper and a wider variety of games, can be used fot productivity tasks, and obviously is technically superior if you throw enough money at it.

Personally I only game on the PC because I would have one anyway, and adding a 100.00 gpu gives me a satisfactory gaming experience. I also am not really interested in any of the exclusive titles for xbone or ps4. But I do think the new consoles are a very good device foe the money, especially the ps4.

 

[Anarchist420]

i concur with nvidia's statement especially now that nintendo doesnt even have many AAA games for the wiiU.

i wish consoles would die.

 

[DigDog]

what's the life expectancy of a PS4, 3 years?

what GPU will be out in 2 years? (nobbody knows, but will probably make the 780Ti and 290x look like low-midrange cards.)

if you buy a 4770k today you will be still able to use it 4-5 years from now.

PCs are more expensive, but they last longer. PC gaming ad consolle gaming are just not the same thing, and thats that.

 

[futurefields]

True game consoles are dead. THese new systems arent game consoles. They are weak home theater pc's in a box. You even have to install the 30gb game before you can play it.

 

[aigomorla]

Meh...

The gap between a console vs pc in the titles are growing smaller and smaller as dev's realize, its a financial death trap not to include a PC port in recent releases.

To me the console will always be the poorman's gaming PC...
Its efficent at what it does... it offers a vast gateway, however the difference between the two visually when all options are unleashed is almost night vs day.
The price tag difference however is more like (A single Grain of Sand) vs (The entire rock of Gibraltar)... as the full out all bells and whistle liquid cooled Tri-SLI/Quad-Fire gaming system can easily break 10x the console's price @ $5,000...
And yes ive seen systems with price tags OVER 9000!!!

The console also cant do what a high end gaming PC can do.. keep upgrading monster GPU's until the platform can no longer handle it.
I dont like how your gonna be stuck on hardware 5yrs old, before the company even thinks about a upgrade.


I dont think i even keep any of my CPU's for 5 yrs... even laptops i dont intend to keep for 5 yrs... Im even sure the servers they use to HOST the games online arent used for 5yrs!!!
How can they expect to keep current on hardware on a system slated for 5+ yrs?
How about we tell those guys up at top, try to keep your smart phone for 5 yrs if they expect us to keep a console modern for 5 yrs.
In 5 Yrs my Galaxy Note 6 with 32+ cores will probably be faster then the Xbox4 and PS4 (combined) [watching how fast ARM is progressing]....
Even Apple Ipad 5 will probably be faster then a Xbox4 and PS4, due to how fast the tablet market has expanded.
Console Makers have a much harder enemy to face this time... they are called (Samsung / APPLE.)
Why bother with consoles then if your smart phone can double as one? (you see my logic)
Gaming on smart phones / tablets have exploded from just angry games.

(were gonna lose dev's to apple, because it will be easier / more profitable to write games on an ipad vs a console...)

that is how sad i am about consoles...


Consoles also force the dev's to stay on the limits of the hardware on a console, vs a PC where they can go Original Crysis crazy...
If the hardware cant support it, we push the hardware vendors to make a monster gpu which can.

Recall the entire can it play oblivion/crysis??
The challenge it gave both Nvidia and ATi to produce a GPU which could play games these games to their full potential and produce peerless results.
Without Dev's challanging the vendors to give them more features, we will stagnate.
Without Vendors knowing what dev's want, and what gamers need, we will stagnate.

So consoles really help? they introduce a vast audience for cheap... however to us gamers..
They limit the developers ability to program because of hardware confinements, which isnt a good thing at all.
(how many of us raged this year being limited to a hand select titles which came out in DX11 vs everything else which was console ported at DX9)

 

[Attic]

If consoles had better graphics I'd definitely give up the hassle of tweaking pc games to play best on my HTPCs. But as it sits it's an incredibly worthwhile trade off given the improvements in graphics of going PC.

NVidia is of course right about PCs being superior, but it's worth noting AMD is driving all three major consoles now.

 

[blastingcap]

I'm kinda glad that some big companies are shut out of consoles. Now they have more incentive to push PC gaming, whereas before NV had a foothold in PS3 so it was hedging its bets. I want NV, Valve, and other companies to put their full force behind PC gaming now. Puuuuuuush!

 

[mmntech]

I feel like we have this discussion at least once a month and we probably will keep having it until the end of time.

I still think gaming on PC and console are two different beasts. However, the lines are starting to get blurred. Over the last generation, consoles have sort of lost their one big edge that they're low maintenance machines. Constant patches and firmware updates, incomplete/unacceptably buggy games, pointless DLC (horse armour is now perfectly acceptable), digital restrictions, etc. All the bad stuff about PC gaming in other words.

However, I think there's still a substantial crowd that would rather just sit in front of the TV and play rather than having to fart around with modding, drivers, all that good stuff. Sales numbers prove it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's the difference between racing on a team, or building your own car from the ground up. PC gaming has high up front costs and has to be treated as a hobby

I think it really boils down to what consoles we're talking about. Both Sony's and Nintendo's are worth taking a stab at, even if you are primarily a PC gamer. Simply because they have very good games that will never appear on PC. At least not legally.

One thing I will say about NVidia is I think they're just angry that they got left out of this console generation. They were quite mum on the subject when Sony was packing GeForce 7800s into every single PS3. NVidia makes some very fast GPUs but they can also be damn expensive. They're still selling the bloody Titans for a grand even though they're being matched and even outperformed by GPUs that cost half as much. Even some of NVidia's own.

 

[shady28]

what's the life expectancy of a PS4, 3 years?

what GPU will be out in 2 years? (nobbody knows, but will probably make the 780Ti and 290x look like low-midrange cards.)

if you buy a 4770k today you will be still able to use it 4-5 years from now.

PCs are more expensive, but they last longer. PC gaming ad consolle gaming are just not the same thing, and thats that.

The XBox 360 / PS3 are 8 years old now, and they are both still relevant. What kind of PC from 2005 is still relevant to a PC gamer? I think the new consoles will be similarly long lived.

 

[AnandThenMan]

If Nvidia had hardware in all the current consoles, do you think they would be talking smack about them? Instead we'd see a press release along the lines of, well the consoles and the PC using Nvidia hardware both provide a unique and great gaming experience, Nvidia GPUs on consoles and PCs mean great games that cross platform lines, and so on.

BTW Nvidia fully expected to win a contract for at least one console, they said "no company can do all 3, we'll be in at least one".