News - Just Cause dev claims “PS4 will out-power most PCs for years”

[genkifd]

should be reworded to PS$ will out-power most iMacs

[kingpotnoodle]

iMacs are just an average spec PC made to look like an oven door and installed with an irritating OS. Although they do come complete with added smug and helpfully make your wallet much less bulky.

[Pinstruck]

It's an inflamatory statement designed to start debates regarding the 'awesome' specs of the PS4. And we're all obliging!


[QUOTE=CAT-THE-FIFTH;2852837]It does not matter if it has shared memory though. It has MORE memory bandwith than a desktop HD7870 graphics card [QUOTE]

Cat, what are you on about? There's no point shouting about the PS4's superior memory BANDWIDTH when its touted PERFORMANCE (in teraflops) puts it BEHIND a HD 7870. As I recall, ATI used a 512-bit memory interface with GDDR5 on the HD 4890 and it wouldnt out perform a HD 7870 either!

Sourcecworld.com/article/2029138/playstation-4-vs-pc-graphics-can-sony-even-compete-.html

Its blatantly obvious to everyone that even a mid-range gaming PC will out peform the PS4, and so it should! It probably cost at least twice as much as any console!

It's a silly statement and a pointless comparison.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

And here we are again fighting the same battle Consoles vs PC. Blomberg got "amazed" by hearing 8GB of GDDR5, but those 8GB are shared memory. In this day and age shared memory shouldn't be something included in 'gaming consoles'. Anyway of course we will see some stunning graphics like we did with "Uncharted 2". But then again the developers are starting to focus more on consoles. *Sigh* I don't want to see developers porting stuff from consoles to PC again :/.

Blomberg went full retard.
One should never go full retard.

It does not matter if it has shared memory though. It has MORE memory bandwith than a desktop HD7870 graphics card. CPUs use dual channel 64 bit memory controllers with DDR3 on PCs,so the shared RAM in the PS4 is not a limitation at all. They have more than enough bandwidth for the parts they are using.

The shared memory is a great idea,as it means the developers can dynamically allocate more RAM as they see fit.

The PS3 did not use shared memory,like the XBox360,and it ended up a limitation.

On top of this GCN has another advantage as it supports X86 addressing with a unified address space for both the CPU and GPU.



They can also use the compute abilities of the GCN based GPUs to supplant the CPU in certain situations.

It's an inflamatory statement designed to start debates regarding the 'awesome' specs of the PS4. And we're all obliging!

It does not matter if it has shared memory though. It has MORE memory bandwith than a desktop HD7870 graphics card

Cat, what are you on about? There's no point shouting about the PS4's superior memory BANDWIDTH when its touted PERFORMANCE (in teraflops) puts it BEHIND a HD 7870. As I recall, ATI used a 512-bit memory interface with GDDR5 on the HD 4890 and it wouldnt out perform a HD 7870 either!

Sourcecworld.com/article/2029138/playstation-4-vs-pc-graphics-can-sony-even-compete-.html

Its blatantly obvious to everyone that even a mid-range gaming PC will out peform the PS4, and so it should! It probably cost at least twice as much as any console!

It's a silly statement and a pointless comparison.

READ the quote I was answering too. Another person who instantly thinks shared memory is useless. It isn't when the system has more bandwidth than an HD7870 graphics cards,unlike the previous generation which was BOTH RAM and bandwidth constrained,which especially in the case of the PS3,was a major limiting factor. At least the XBox 360 had eDRAM which helped out.

Moreover,what midrange PC?? You mean the one most gamers in the world have ATM? Most don't have £150+ graphics card or £140+ CPUs at all.

I don't even have an HD7850 FFS!! Most gamers I know,don't have HD7870 and GTX660 graphics cards,and they are hardly casual gamers either.

The quote even said "most PCs" and that includes all the other PCs which use low end cards and IGPs,which are the majority.

I am a PC gamer,and I won't be buying any of these consoles,but it is another case of PC gamers trying to compare chalk and cheese. How the heck can you compare a console to a PC,when they are using a much lighter OS,far better optimisation and even far more efficient programming methods??

The fact the OS is not the same,is a huge difference on its own.

I knew some people,who worked on sensors for various projects.

One of the chaps gave me a valid example why people just look at hardware and try to instantly,think it means A>B.

There were instances were a faster processing unit on paper,was actually SLOWER in operation than a slower unit on paper. Why?? The faster unit actually had more overhead due to the programming/software overheads needed to use it,as opposed to the technically slower unit which did not.

Look at Curiosity. Most high end phones probably have more processing power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750

What level have PC gamers have gone down to now??

We should all be excited that a console with a modern GPU architecture,an X86 multicore CPU,a decent amount of RAM and a decent amount of RAM bandwidth is being made. Why?? It will definitely improve multi-platform titles in both scope and graphics,which will be great for PC gamers.

Instead it is more about an E-PEEN SLONGING match.

[HalloweenJack]

its because its got an AMD cpu.... look at how many ` omgzors` at teh ipc and other such non important things at this level;

the market is changing , the way things are going is channging and intel arnt there at all.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

its because its got an AMD cpu.... look at how many ` omgzors` at teh ipc and other such non important things at this level;

the market is changing , the way things are going is channging and intel arnt there at all.

Now,that the consoles have been updated,so must burn those consoles,burn them with fire!!

Edit!!

Most PCs cannot run games well as they use IGPs or very low end cards. Combine that with the fact many gamers still don't have uber setups(like on the average tech forum) and the sub £120 cards cards are still slower than even an HD7850.

People are hanging onto their PCs for longer and longer,PC sales are declining,more people are buying laptops instead of desktops and discrete card sales are declining too. PC sales are being affected up by people getting low power tablets,which are not usually faster than the devices they are supplanting or replacing.

So the Just Cause dev is technically correct.

[xodianbarr]

It's not dedicated - it's shared RAM.

I might well be, but a games console has far less work to do besides gaming. Doesnt much matter how much memory you have in your PC, only the dedicated graphics memory will be used by the gfx. If the PS4 can utilize even half of the 8GB, it will own any PC without a multi GPU setup. But its all irrelevant if the PS4 proves to have the same overheating issues as the PS3. It'll just be a nicely shaped ornament.

[Pinstruck]

I am a PC gamer,and I won't be buying any of these consoles,but it is another case of PC gamers trying to compare chalk and cheese.

No, this statement wasn't made by a PC gamer. Its actually a case of the Just Cause developer comparing chalk and cheese and PC gamers stepping in stating how rediculous a comparison it is.

There were instances were a faster CPU on paper,was actually SLOWER in operation than a slower CPU on paper. Why?? The faster CPU actually had more overhead due to the programming/software overheads needed to use it,as opposed to the slower CPU which did not.

Comparing how the different software runs on a given CPU architechture is pointless and completely off topic. The faster cpu (assuming they are of identical architecture/cache etc) is still the faster CPU. So the system with the faster CPU is more powerful.

The way games are coded on either platform is not being debated here - we all know games are coded for consoles and ported (often poorly) to PCs. That doesnt mean a console will 'out-power' my PC. It could mean that a game will run more smoothly on a console than on a more powerful PC, but that isnt what was stated.

It was a mis-leading statement at best.

[Pinstruck]

Most PCs cannot run games well as they use IGPs or very low end cards. Combine that with the fact many gamers still don't have uber setups(like on the average tech forum) and the sub £120 cards cards are still slower than even an HD7850.

People are hanging onto their PCs for longer and longer,PC sales are declining,more people are buying laptops instead of desktops and discrete card sales are declining too. PC sales are being affected up by people getting low power tablets,which are not usually faster than the devices they are supplanting or replacing.

So the Just Cause dev is technically correct.

So he's comparing GAMING consoles to peoples internet browsing/office/tablet/home theater PC's?

Incidentally my coffee machine makes a much nicer coffee than my toaster.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

No, this statement wasn't made by a PC gamer. Its actually a case of the Just Cause developer comparing chalk and cheese and PC gamers stepping in stating how rediculous a comparison it is.

Wrong. He said "most PCs" not "most gaming PCs",and he is correct. The PS4 will be a better gaming device than most PCs worldwide for years.

Comparing how the different software runs on a given CPU architechture is pointless and completely off topic. The faster cpu (assuming they are of identical architecture/cache etc) is still the faster CPU. So the system with the faster CPU is more powerful.

The way games are coded on either platform is not being debated here - we all know games are coded for consoles and ported (often poorly) to PCs. That doesnt mean a console will 'out-power' my PC. It could mean that a game will run more smoothly on a console than on a more powerful PC, but that isnt what was stated.

It was a mis-leading statement at best.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

So he's comparing GAMING consoles to peoples internet browsing/office/tablet/home theater PC's?

Incidentally my coffee machine makes a much nicer coffee than my toaster.

It just shows how insecure many PC gamers are,due to E-PEEN.

He just said "most PCs" and instantly a number of PC gamers went on a tirade against him. He is correct.

So,they are raging against their own lack of reading skills. Funny.

Of course,it does not take into consideration,that most PC gamers are still on slower hardware than HD7870/GTX660 graphics cards and Core i5 CPUs,and all the data indicates the market is changing,that is if people objectively looked at it.

Both Nvidia and AMD actually are showing year on year decreases in discrete card sales.

However,what do you expect on hardware forums??

[xodianbarr]

Wrong. He said "most PCs" not "most gaming PCs",and he is correct. The PS4 will be a better gaming device than most PCs worldwide for years.

LOL. A pointless point, seeing as most PCs worldwide are massively outdated.

This is an argument about a moot point. The technology being used to drive the new PS4 is all PC related technology. It will perform better than most PCs' purely because it will have less overheads. It will beat an average desktop gaming PC, purely because of memory it will have available, but even at launch it wont compare to a top spec gaming PC, but price wise it will. Sony could put an exorbitant price on the cost of its machine, and it will still be a better buy in terms of performance to cost against a top rate gaming PC, because of the premiums you pay for that little extra panache. I myself will still plump for a PC build over a console. RTS games work better on a PC Besides, i dont wont a bloody big ornament with an overheating problem sitting on my tv stand.

[Pinstruck]

You know you're right, his statement is factually acurate. But if he is indeed comparing a gaming console to internet browsing/office/tablet/home theater PCs, lets call it what it is... a pointless statement.

And the fact remains that a current day mid-range gaming PC (let alone one in years to come) will "out-power" the PS4. But it doesnt matter! The PS4 will do exactly what it needs to and people will buy it and love it, all for half the cost of a mid-range gaming system. Comparing them is pointless.

[xodianbarr]

What PC gamers need is a gaming OS. Then we'll be rockin' Screw DX11, Screw overheads, Bring on the beast!

[TheAnimus]

LOL. A pointless point, seeing as most PCs worldwide are massively outdated.

Yes and no.

It depends how you want to slice it. What from a devs perspective it comes down to, is my target markets PC. Now a lot of people who have the 'coffee maker' grade PCs, still want to play games, they are still a viable market. Even the majority of PCs sold with a gamer branding are not remotely in the same league as my watercooled, overclocked monster that still can't play NS2 at high settings.

If you take the average PC of people who'd be interested in buying your product, its a fair statement to make. It's not making the assertion that PC owners are t3h st000pid, in fact for many people there are other reasons to have a PC over a console + fondleslab. But a lot of sales figures are looking as if they are heading that way. I wouldn't be surprised if by some measures the average PC sold this year was no faster than the average one sold last year. People are wanting portability, battery life, low power etc. Anyway. Off topic, its about target market.

[HalloweenJack]

its sad the intel fanboys are raving up and down this thread.


this is a big thing ; but because it doesnt say `i5` doesnt mean its bad.....

[b0redom]

should be reworded to PS$ will out-power most iMacs

iMacs are just an average spec PC made to look like an oven door and installed with an irritating OS. Although they do come complete with added smug and helpfully make your wallet much less bulky.

*Cough*

http://forums.hexus.net/pc-hardware/...re-thread.html

But feel free to keep eating the FUD and drinking the kool aid.