Question about Consoles vs PCs

[Gizmo j]

I'm trying to determine how much power does a PC need to match the PS4.

I heard this guy named "John Carmack" who made a lot of PC games said it takes 2x the power for a PC to match console performance...is this true?

The PS4 has a 1.84 teraflop GPU, does that mean you need a 3.68 teraflop GPU to match the PS4?

 

[American Gunner]

Do you seriously not know who he is?

 

[Gizmo j]

Do you seriously not know who he is?

Not really....but I hear that he is very educated in gaming hardware.

 

[American Gunner]

He is the godfather of shooters. He built a lot of tech.

 

[Doppel]

He is the godfather of shooters. He built a lot of tech.

This and also why, despite I'm sure many thousands of posts in support and contradiction of his statement I'm inclined to say that since he said it it must be true.

 

[zerocool84]

You're asking how much power does it take to match the PS4? Well exactly the same hardware. Difference is that there's less overhead on consoles than on PC's so you can do more with less.

 

[BoT]

power not measured in teraflop but watts. energy consumption. any desktop computer will consume a multiple of energy compared to any console. primarily because of hardware and software optimization advantages

 

[Arkaign]

You're asking how much power does it take to match the PS4? Well exactly the same hardware. Difference is that there's less overhead on consoles than on PC's so you can do more with less.

Pretty much that, though results will vary dramatically.

BF4 is a good example of something that is probably hamstrung by the slow CPUs in the consoles. After all, a 7790 on a desktop (rough equal to XB1 GPU) can do 1080p pretty well with most things on high (same settings as consoles really). But we're talking i5s, i7s, FX 6xxx/8xxx to hit that level of performance.

OTOH, things that are much less CPU bound (Ryse, Forza) definitely look better than a 7790 would on a PC.

The problem really is that it's apples/oranges, and no set rule will work, because each game will be different.

It's all sort of moot anyway, as the long-awaited process tech changeovers happen during the next 12-24 months, we'll see entry-level GPUs that make 7790/7850 look fairly embarrassing on the PC side of things, and we'll also see gradual improvements of usage of the console abilities. I don't think the growth will be quite the same this time around though.

When 360/PS3 came about, their architectures took quite some time for the devs to really get their heads around (Cell, Tri-Core, IBM Power, eSRAM, yadda), while this time around things are much less .. obscure in terms of design. I don't really expect to be wowed by improvements over the course of these consoles lifetimes, what we see is pretty much what we'll get. And in my book, it's certainly enough power not to be a big deal. A good game will be a good game regardless. I know we all wanted a little more from this gen, but it could have been a lot worse.

 

[Arkaign]

power not measured in teraflop but watts. energy consumption. any desktop computer will consume a multiple of energy compared to any console. primarily because of hardware and software optimization advantages

Eh, not really.

A Haswell i5-S with 8GB DDR3, an SSD, and a 7850 will run at about the same power as a PS4.

Interestingly, the PS4 uses a predictably higher level of power while in use, but less than half the power when not in use. Assuming you're not playing the thing more than a few hours per day, power usage is actually higher on XB1. Energy conscious folks should have these plugged into a good hard-switch surge protector to un-leech them when they aren't going to use them for a while.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...to-sony-advantage-and-future-efficiency-gains

PS4 gaming : 137W
XB1 gaming : 110W

And now for PC :

http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-radeon-hd-7870-ghz-edition-7850-video-card-review_1863/3

This isn't the most ideal way to compare, but it should give you a good idea to build from. This PC build is FAR FAR FAR from being built to be power efficient. It's an X79 motherboard, 16GB in 4 dimms, an 850W PSU (lots of waste there), a 3960X 6C/12T Intel Extreme CPU, a Giant Watercooling kit, it's just ridiculous.

With ALL of that craziness, it pulled 241W from the wall when gaming with a 7850 GPU (PS4 level).

So, change :

Super wasteful X79 GigantoMobo to mATX B85 Mobo
Super wasteful 3960X CPU to i5-4670S CPU
Super wasteful Quad 1.65v Dimm 16GB to 8GB 1.5v Double Dimm
Super overkill 850W PSU to a 500W Quality PSU
Super crazy watercooling kit to an efficient CM 212+ Evo

And that 241W while gaming will drop to .. perhaps even less than the PS4's 137W. More likely about the same though. And for now, a 7850 + Haswell i5 + 8GB will run 1080p/etc about identically to a PS4 (for the games that are out). Some games will run a bit better on PC, some a bit better on the PS4.

It's all sort of academic though, there are fantastic games on PC, PS4, and XB1. And many more to come.

 

[Doppel]

Pretty much that, though results will vary dramatically.

BF4 is a good example of something that is probably hamstrung by the slow CPUs in the consoles. After all, a 7790 on a desktop (rough equal to XB1 GPU) can do 1080p pretty well with most things on high (same settings as consoles really). But we're talking i5s, i7s, FX 6xxx/8xxx to hit that level of performance.

OTOH, things that are much less CPU bound (Ryse, Forza) definitely look better than a 7790 would on a PC.

The problem really is that it's apples/oranges, and no set rule will work, because each game will be different.

It's all sort of moot anyway, as the long-awaited process tech changeovers happen during the next 12-24 months, we'll see entry-level GPUs that make 7790/7850 look fairly embarrassing on the PC side of things, and we'll also see gradual improvements of usage of the console abilities. I don't think the growth will be quite the same this time around though.

When 360/PS3 came about, their architectures took quite some time for the devs to really get their heads around (Cell, Tri-Core, IBM Power, eSRAM, yadda), while this time around things are much less .. obscure in terms of design. I don't really expect to be wowed by improvements over the course of these consoles lifetimes, what we see is pretty much what we'll get. And in my book, it's certainly enough power not to be a big deal. A good game will be a good game regardless. I know we all wanted a little more from this gen, but it could have been a lot worse.

These consoles have a lot of cores, though, and currently two cores is sufficient to PC game, with four being ideal, and more than that basically a waste of time, but even the jump from 2-4 certainly isn't linear. I think by end of the gen games will be more capably using all the available cores to much better effect than they do today, so should still see some decent improvements over time.

 

[mmntech]

Not really....but I hear that he is very educated in gaming hardware.

The guy created Wolfenstine and Doom. He's the father of the first person shooter, and arguably 3D gaming as well.

Anyhoodles, I think he does have a point. Though couple things worth noting here. First of all, a lot of PC games these days are console ports. Thus they're not optimized for the platform. (Ubisoft is notorious for this, ACIII I'm looking at you) You also have to factor in countless different hardware configurations, instead of just one. Windows itself also uses some system overhead.

The big advantage with PC though is customization. The hardware gets cheaper over time and within a year or two, you'll be able to build a reasonably priced system that outperforms the PS4.

 

[Fulle]

PCs require more overhead on the driver + API... but I think it's a bit silly to say the performance difference is 2x times greater on consoles due to this. As hardware becomes more powerful, that overhead becomes less impacting in how much of a percentage performance hit it is... and we're at a point now where I'd say it ranges between 10-30%, not anywhere near 200%.

Just pull up some 7870/7850 PC benchmarks on multiplat games, and you'll see them running at superior to PS4 performance levels in most cases, because the GPU is less hamstrung by the CPU performance. If the 2x comment was remotely true, that wouldn't be the case.

The 2x comment was probably true when John was at the peak of his career, but that was a long time ago.