By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude said:
Turkish said:
This means nothing and your scores are hilarious.

I have a GTX670 with i5 3570k and 16GB ram

My future PS4 will have better looking games than my current rig.


Not comparing how games look. Just core for core performance if PS4 parts were used to make a PC. 

And yeah I think you're too caught up in PS4 hype if you think your PC won't, and doesn't already have games that look as ood as PS4 games will. For in game footage, I didn't see anything that Killzone has visually over something like Metro or Cyrsis 3. 

Why would you do a "core for core" comparison using standard PC processors that have all the limitations of a PC vs custom console processors that have virtually none of the limitations of a PC? You also have to take into account their access to all available resources such as RAM, bus bandwidths, etc.

To quote an article from our main page here:

"You are underestimating the importance of shared memory and an on-die GPU. These features allow for modifying and using data on both processors without a readback from VRAM, which is a very expensive operation on PC GPUs that can cause pipeline stalls. For example, modern engines like Frostbite 2 even implement a software renderer for occlusion culling, rasterizing occlusion volumes on the CPU just to avoid a readback operation. You wouldn't need that on an architecture like the PS4. Shared memory would also allow things like generating geometry on the GPU, doing collision detection on the CPU and rasterizing on the GPU again without any readbacks or copying of memory. You just cannot build a PC with those features yet, no matter how much money you are willing to spend."

I realize you are a PC enthusiast, but there really is no point comparing PC components with Console components just yet because while the base components may share some similarities, the overall picture and use of resources is very very different. That's all.