Debunking the Myth that Next Gen Consoles are too weak

[zarx]

freedquaker said:

That's a good article. That's what I got from it (which I already knew).

-The CPU performance has increased over the last generation significantly but not by a magnitude.

-The GPU performance has increased by many magnitudes (which people have been contesting)

-Because there is ample CPU in place now, we may run into situation where GPGPU may be needed (again nothing unknown)

-The CPU performance is limited (as expected) but it does not hinder the GPU performance (this is how & why developers lean onto the graphics & rendering more heavily)

 

At the end of the day, the article gave me nothing (although I enjoyed reading) except that it confirmed that the CPU performance is NOT the bottleneck to the GPU. Yes, it is limited for brute CPU operations, but games simply DON'T NEED BETTER CPUs for 1080p fps graphics on a console (maybe on a PC, but definitely not on a console). Think about it, XB1 and PS4 basically have very similar CPUs but one has a much beefier GPU and faster RAM, and this leads to a huge difference in gaming. Again, here is the...

Question, "why is there such a huge gap between XB1 and PS4?"
  => The answer : "Because of the GPU and faster RAM"...

Question, "But don't we also need faster CPU along with a better GPU to utilize that performance?"
  => The answer : "In CPU bounds scenarios, yes, although to a lesser extent on consoles, but obviously the majority of games, even on PC, are not CPU bound. Therefore, as in the XB1-PS4 comparison, both of which use the same CPU, one has a much better performance JUST BECAUSE OF THE GPU AND THE FASTER RAM, so the additional CPU benefit would be negligble."

And BY THE WAY, You VERY CONVENIENTLY again posted possibly the one of the MOST CPU BOUND games, A STRATEGY GAME with lots of AI elements etc. That's an unbelievably INCONVENIENT example for a console, where strategy games are once in a million. My goodness, a perfect example of how people want to see the world and really bend to their :) Funny...

You are missing the point, there is a lot more to wanting more powerful consoles than just flashy graphics. Sure if you only want shallow flashy games then there is no problem having a weak CPU and a decent GPU. The whole point of showing a game that was a CPU bound title was to show that there are things that need the CPU power for thing completly unrelated to graphics. There is no reason why console games couldn't be designed with much more advanced simulation if they had the CPU power available.

For example I would love to see a The Elder Scrolls game with a full Radiant AI system as it was originally intended. I want to raid a trade convoy which causes food prices in a nearby town to raise due to a shortage which causes a peasent to go out and try and poach deer and get caught by a guard. Instead we will probably get another game where NPCs pop into existence 2 cells away from the player  just follow a preset path or stand in place until the player talks to them or something agros them, but now with 50% flashier graphis! Iwant bustling cities with hundreds of NPCs instead of a great capital with a population of 20.

There is no reason that console games have to be shallow simulations.