BenVTrigger said:
Yep in comparison to PC's at the same time as launch this has been one of the smallest jumps in power of any gen. I really hope were only looking at a 4-5 year console cycle this time.
|
Please read this:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=178737
I am a bit surprised with the way that people are underwhelmed by the jump. I believe more to do with the diminishing returns to the perception of performance, rather than the actual technical achievement. Because I see that the jump is as big as it has always been, if not bigger... Such claims arise especially because of a much easier comparison to the PC architecture this time around instead of propriety and mystical designs, which are harder to prove otherwise. Let's remember that compared to the 7th Generation console designs, the vast majority of developers are relatively much happier this time around, and the technicalities aside, the PC ports to the next-gen consoles look relatively way better without serious sacrificies.
In short, the next gen consoles (or at least PS4) is not weak at all but more than capable, because...
a) Those Consoles come with octo-core processors, which is well beyond the main stream pc with dual core. It's true that those cores have relatively poor single thread performance but with the sufficient level of parallelism and low level calls, CPUs had never been this fast in relative terms (compared to PCs). So the CPU performance will never be an issue. Also keep in mind that the CPU performance improvements have slowed tremendously at the last decade.
b) The amount of RAM (8 GB) is well beyond the main stream PC (4-6 GB) today, which had never happened. Most games are not even programmed to run on more than 3 GB, and this is the first time in history, where the console ports don't have to be downsized at all. In comparison, 1 GB was the mainstream RAM when the 7th Gen consoles arrived with only 1/2 RAM including the graphics, and 128 MB was the mainstream when PS2 arrived with 32 MB! Also today we have so much RAM on our PCs that the capacity increases came to a crawl.
c) 500 GB, although still may be not much for today's games, is relatively abundant compared to the debut with the 7th Gen. consoles.
d) The GPU seems to be archiles heel, at least with the XB1. However, it's unfair to the PS4 as it seems to be just fine with 1080p and up to 60 fps. We know that the graphics will improve over time, squeezing either better graphics or more stable performance. Given that most TVs today are not capable of producing resolutions greater than 1080p, there really is no point in putting a higher GPU than what PS4 has over the long run.
e) PS4 employs a super fast GDDR5, equivalent to the PC tech, but just much more of it. Games, which are not designed with this in mind will not magically look better, but they will come in time. Couple this with many exciting technologies, none of which has been implemented yet, which are more likely to see on consoles than on the PC.
In short, PS4 is the most balanced machine out there for the long term, and is more than capable to serve as long as PS3 did. XB1, on the other hand, although similar, is crippled by its inefficient design, with respect to the RAM Bandwidth. If only XB1 had incorporated GDDR5 instead of DDR3 + ESRAM (or at least a DDR3+GDDR5 solution similar to PS3), ditching the Kinect, things would be much rosier for it now.
