By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I Honestly think consoles are a dying breed, just like handhelds

RazorDragon on 30 June 2014
soulfly666 said:
RazorDragon said:
soulfly666 said:

The PC in his article is not even close to as good as a PS4.


Actually, it's pretty much a match for the PS4. Not really sure why he's using a Intel CPU and Mobo, though, I'm quite sure an AMD solution would make price even lower.

His build has ddr3 ram when the pS4 has GDDR5 and ram is used in HSA 2.0 for both CPU and GPU.  It has no gamepad, no operating system, no blu ray drive (or any drive) and is way larger.  And to say the celeron 1610 processor is comparable to the PS4 processing power is totally false.  It may be true right now, but in 2 years minimum when new games are using considerably more power (i.e. more than 2 simultaneous threads) the 2 core Celeron won't even remotely compete with the 8 core Jaguar.  Also, I am 90% sure that video card won't even fit into the case he chose?  I also don't think 400w is enough power for his choices, and it can't play Sony exclusives. His PC build being on par with a PS4 is completely theoretical.


RAM type is irrelevant when the GPU has dedicated GDDR5 memory. Agreed about the rest, even though the PC actually is just as powerful as a PS4 theoretically as you said(those two Celeron cores have enough single-threaded performance to outdo the 6 usable Jaguar cores on PS4/XOne), it won't run the same games thanks to these low-power CPUs being so weak that no PC game is going to be playable on those in a few months, even if the games are on PS4 thanks to optimization.



Around the Network
Captain_Tom on 30 June 2014
RazorDragon said:
soulfly666 said:
RazorDragon said:
soulfly666 said:

The PC in his article is not even close to as good as a PS4.


Actually, it's pretty much a match for the PS4. Not really sure why he's using a Intel CPU and Mobo, though, I'm quite sure an AMD solution would make price even lower.

His build has ddr3 ram when the pS4 has GDDR5 and ram is used in HSA 2.0 for both CPU and GPU.  It has no gamepad, no operating system, no blu ray drive (or any drive) and is way larger.  And to say the celeron 1610 processor is comparable to the PS4 processing power is totally false.  It may be true right now, but in 2 years minimum when new games are using considerably more power (i.e. more than 2 simultaneous threads) the 2 core Celeron won't even remotely compete with the 8 core Jaguar.  Also, I am 90% sure that video card won't even fit into the case he chose?  I also don't think 400w is enough power for his choices, and it can't play Sony exclusives. His PC build being on par with a PS4 is completely theoretical.


RAM type is irrelevant when the GPU has dedicated GDDR5 memory. Agreed about the rest, even though the PC actually is just as powerful as a PS4 theoretically as you said(those two Celeron cores have enough single-threaded performance to outdo the 6 usable Jaguar cores on PS4/XOne), it won't run the same games thanks to these low-power CPUs being so weak that no PC game is going to be playable on those in a few months, even if the games are on PS4 thanks to optimization.

Pretty much everything your saying is wrong.  I don't have time to correct everything but I will say that the PS4's cpu is easily as strong as an i3, and modern games already use 8 cores or more.  Dual-threaded cpu's became obsolete in anything but mega low end gaming about 4 years ago, and whithin another 2 years the same will be true about quad-threaded cpu's (Besides the k-series i5's running above 4GHz.



RazorDragon on 30 June 2014
Captain_Tom said:
RazorDragon said:
soulfly666 said:

His build has ddr3 ram when the pS4 has GDDR5 and ram is used in HSA 2.0 for both CPU and GPU.  It has no gamepad, no operating system, no blu ray drive (or any drive) and is way larger.  And to say the celeron 1610 processor is comparable to the PS4 processing power is totally false.  It may be true right now, but in 2 years minimum when new games are using considerably more power (i.e. more than 2 simultaneous threads) the 2 core Celeron won't even remotely compete with the 8 core Jaguar.  Also, I am 90% sure that video card won't even fit into the case he chose?  I also don't think 400w is enough power for his choices, and it can't play Sony exclusives. His PC build being on par with a PS4 is completely theoretical.


RAM type is irrelevant when the GPU has dedicated GDDR5 memory. Agreed about the rest, even though the PC actually is just as powerful as a PS4 theoretically as you said(those two Celeron cores have enough single-threaded performance to outdo the 6 usable Jaguar cores on PS4/XOne), it won't run the same games thanks to these low-power CPUs being so weak that no PC game is going to be playable on those in a few months, even if the games are on PS4 thanks to optimization.

Pretty much everything your saying is wrong.  I don't have time to correct everything but I will say that the PS4's cpu is easily as strong as an i3, and modern games already use 8 cores or more.  Dual-threaded cpu's became obsolete in anything but mega low end gaming about 4 years ago, and whithin another 2 years the same will be true about quad-threaded cpu's (Besides the k-series i5's running above 4GHz.


What I said is true. The amount of cores is hardly relevant when talking about different architectures, base clock speeds and TDP requirements. It's also not about using more or less cores in applications that support them, even though this is helpful when talking about heavily multithreaded workloads. PS4 and XOne have 6 cores available to be used in games. While there are a lot of cores compared to this particular dual threaded Intel CPU, since Jaguar's IPC isn't even comparable with a 2007 Wolfdale(Pentium/Celeron/Core 2 Duo 45nm 2007 cores), actually, it's roughly 20% worse, it's hardly competitive with a current gen Haswell processor, even with that many cores(while, admittedly, drawing a lot less power than a Haswell processor, thanks to different architectures focused at different kinds of workloads). You just need to compare Passmark scores to see what i'm talking about: the Celeron G1610 does about 1400 points in the single threaded score, while an Athlon 5150(4 Jaguar cores at 1.6GHz, same CPU as PS3 with 2 less cores) does 635. The different architecture and higher clock speed alone are enough to make 1 Celeron core perform a lot better than 2 Jaguar cores, multithreading your software won't change anything if a CPU is slow as that.



SvennoJ on 30 June 2014

^ Thanks for turning me even more off pc gaming. Even if you manage to build a pc that matches the ps4 in theoretical performance, the games running on it still won't match it. On PC you get a generic build that has to be able to work with many different configurations. On PS4 developers know exactly what's available, can use every bit to the fullest, and compile an optimized build with as much as possible hardcoded.



Captain_Tom on 30 June 2014
RazorDragon said:
Captain_Tom said:
RazorDragon said:
soulfly666 said:

His build has ddr3 ram when the pS4 has GDDR5 and ram is used in HSA 2.0 for both CPU and GPU.  It has no gamepad, no operating system, no blu ray drive (or any drive) and is way larger.  And to say the celeron 1610 processor is comparable to the PS4 processing power is totally false.  It may be true right now, but in 2 years minimum when new games are using considerably more power (i.e. more than 2 simultaneous threads) the 2 core Celeron won't even remotely compete with the 8 core Jaguar.  Also, I am 90% sure that video card won't even fit into the case he chose?  I also don't think 400w is enough power for his choices, and it can't play Sony exclusives. His PC build being on par with a PS4 is completely theoretical.


RAM type is irrelevant when the GPU has dedicated GDDR5 memory. Agreed about the rest, even though the PC actually is just as powerful as a PS4 theoretically as you said(those two Celeron cores have enough single-threaded performance to outdo the 6 usable Jaguar cores on PS4/XOne), it won't run the same games thanks to these low-power CPUs being so weak that no PC game is going to be playable on those in a few months, even if the games are on PS4 thanks to optimization.

Pretty much everything your saying is wrong.  I don't have time to correct everything but I will say that the PS4's cpu is easily as strong as an i3, and modern games already use 8 cores or more.  Dual-threaded cpu's became obsolete in anything but mega low end gaming about 4 years ago, and whithin another 2 years the same will be true about quad-threaded cpu's (Besides the k-series i5's running above 4GHz.


What I said is true. The amount of cores is hardly relevant when talking about different architectures, base clock speeds and TDP requirements. It's also not about using more or less cores in applications that support them, even though this is helpful when talking about heavily multithreaded workloads. PS4 and XOne have 6 cores available to be used in games. While there are a lot of cores compared to this particular dual threaded Intel CPU, since Jaguar's IPC isn't even comparable with a 2007 Wolfdale(Pentium/Celeron/Core 2 Duo 45nm 2007 cores), actually, it's roughly 20% worse, it's hardly competitive with a current gen Haswell processor, even with that many cores(while, admittedly, drawing a lot less power than a Haswell processor, thanks to different architectures focused at different kinds of workloads). You just need to compare Passmark scores to see what i'm talking about: the Celeron G1610 does about 1400 points in the single threaded score, while an Athlon 5150(4 Jaguar cores at 1.6GHz, same CPU as PS3 with 2 less cores) does 635. The different architecture and higher clock speed alone are enough to make 1 Celeron core perform a lot better than 2 Jaguar cores, multithreading your software won't change anything if a CPU is slow as that.

Passmark is not gaming.  Here a 6-core FX-6300 beats a quad-core i5-2500K at nearly the same clocks:

http://www.bf4blog.com/battlefield-4-retail-gpu-cpu-benchmarks/

Then keep in mind that the PS4 has way faster RAM to feed the CPU (This does matter since console devs will actually use it), and if the PS4 utilized even 5% of its GPU's proccessing power it would destroy anything out there....

Wait a second why am I wasting my time talking about the CPU?!  Either way it isn't going to bottleneck the GPU so that is all that matters at this point and it is as strong as an R9 270.  A PC that houses that is not $400, it's $600.



Around the Network
Danman27 on 01 July 2014
EEJLND said:
"Consoles have become pointless, since they're using the same architecture as a pc [...]". Since when were console's big selling point the architecture anyway? I would say never and only few even know the architectures of consoles and PCs - so it really doesn't matter. And even though I know the hardware facts, it surely does not stop me from playing on a console - I mean why should it?

What consoles have over a PC, you ask?! It's much more comfortable! Of course, there are also updates, but on consoles, at least on the PS4, everything works so fast, intuitive, easy and automatic.So, I don't have to do anything prior to play a game. Well. maybe except for waiting a little bit - and this waiting time can be completely shut down by activating the console's auto-download feature during stand-by, so that you are always ready to go and don't waste time. And even if you don't activate that feature, you can do whatever you want during the update process - watching movies, playing games etc., since everything happens in the background. And here again: not so on PC.

Furthermore, there are far less problems on the consoles with the games. For me, it is actually "Plug & Play".
While on PC, people often have to deal with several problems like a game is not running properly despite having a high-end PC. While it doesn't happen with every game, of course, it is also not that seldom.

Some of the cons of PC gaming in comparison to console gaming:
- updating games manually and in the foreground - meanwhile gaming is not (really) possible
- installing games take quite a lot of time
- updating drivers of hardware like graphics card, CPU
- for quite a few users some games are sometimes not playable at launch, so they have to wait days or even weeks and months(!) until the game developer and/or graphics card manufacturer provides an update resp. driver
- dealing with problems despite high-end hardware and spending much time searching for workarounds and maybe not finding none
- searching for the optimal graphics settings
- managing background processes, searching for a "game killer" process

That's just a few problems coupled with PC gaming, which can often take way too much time as I personally also play on PC and experienced them not too seldom. Also note: Many of those problems would be not resolvable for a gamer who is not that into tech.

I'm a big PC and console gamer. I've got to say one thing. Almost everything mentioned here is a problem with consoles as well. Except for drivers (updating is optional BTW, and improves performance). Searching for optimal graphics settings is actually fun to a lot of us believe it or not. 



Danman27 on 01 July 2014
famousringo said:
Zadainie said:
I stopped reading at "poor man's pc."You should take into consideration that most people don't have the money to buy high end PCs.I prefer consoles any day over PC.Why spend all that money buying $2000+ PC when I can get a console and a bunch of games for less?


$2,000?

This guy makes a few mistakes and admits to some shortcomings, but he gets awfully close to building a PS4-equivalent for $400. Which should not surprise anybody, since "$400 gaming PC" is a pretty accurate description of the PS4.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171158-can-you-build-a-gaming-pc-better-than-the-ps4-for-400

Honestly, even if you spend a couple hundred dollars extra to round out the PC, you will easily be able to make up the difference in Steam sales and online fees. 

Money is no reason to choose console over PC at this point. The only compelling reasons I can see are low maintenance, exclusive software, and local multiplayer, and those last two seem to get weaker every generation as development costs increase and publishers keep chasing "the Hollywood experience."


Well, let's looks at the problems with this article... 
First off, the GPU isn't as strong as a PS4s. So let's just get that out of the way right now. 

Then the CPU, also isn't near comparable to the CPU in the ps4. 

The power supply wouldn't power the GPU. It doesn't have the right connections, and 275 watts would be cutting it very close. Not to mention that PSU's that come with cases are usually awful, and the advetised wattage cannot not be believed often times. 

Also, my favorite thing that these articles usually overlook. The frickin GPU wouldn't even fit inside the case. I seriously question how these articles get published. 

We're also missing a Blu-ray drive and windows. So throw in another $150 right there. So yep, to get a ps4 equivalent PC by modifying this article's list, you'd need about $700.

Also, the guy you replied to was also blatantly wrong...



Danman27 on 01 July 2014
PullusPardus said:
Captain_Tom said:


1) Being a cheap way to play great games is far from pointless.

2) You CANNOT build a PC as strong as a PS4 for $400.

3) The PS4 and even the Xbox One offer many features a PC cannot do as well (Or at all).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f6INgYBmGo

You can, and even better.

This isn't nearly as strong as a ps4. This is the closest you're getting for the same price though. 



Danman27 on 01 July 2014
teigaga said:

Consoles and PCs are ultimately different, PC's don't interest me as gaming machines. I don't want to sit at my desk with a mouse and keyboard, so why spend half a grand on a mid-low range PC only to treat it like an oversized, cumbersome console?


You do realize that gaming PCs can be ran on a big screen tv right? And also that 95% of games will work with a controller. 



Ucell on 01 July 2014
famousringo said:
Zadainie said:
I stopped reading at "poor man's pc."You should take into consideration that most people don't have the money to buy high end PCs.I prefer consoles any day over PC.Why spend all that money buying $2000+ PC when I can get a console and a bunch of games for less?


$2,000?

This guy makes a few mistakes and admits to some shortcomings, but he gets awfully close to building a PS4-equivalent for $400. Which should not surprise anybody, since "$400 gaming PC" is a pretty accurate description of the PS4.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/171158-can-you-build-a-gaming-pc-better-than-the-ps4-for-400

Honestly, even if you spend a couple hundred dollars extra to round out the PC, you will easily be able to make up the difference in Steam sales and online fees. 

Money is no reason to choose console over PC at this point. The only compelling reasons I can see are low maintenance, exclusive software, and local multiplayer, and those last two seem to get weaker every generation as development costs increase and publishers keep chasing "the Hollywood experience."

If those are Hollywood experiences then yes gamers these days DO want such an experience.

Tell me the day when Gran Turismo, Uncharted, Halo, God Of War games start coming out on PC and I may become a PC only gamer.