By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Bofferbrauer on 09 April 2016
Edit Thread
sc94597 said:
Bofferbrauer said:

Strongly unoptimized. Games on PC could easely have twice the FPS if the developers could tap as deep into the power reserves as one can do on a console. A PC with the exact same hardware as a PS4 wouldn't even have the framerates and/or resolution of the same game on the Xbox ONE despite being more powerful. The reason is because there are so many possible configurations, they have to strike a balance which works on all of them.

I don't know if that is so true today as it was last generation. With an i3 and an equivalent GPU (~ 1800 Gflops) you get equivalent/better performance. 

Bear in mind that developers need time to figure out how to squeeze out the performance out of the consoles. The games of the first 1-2 years generally don't dive too much into this as they haven't figured it out totally yet. It's also visible in the video to a point: The closer to the release of the video the games came, the more the Pentium experienced troubles and framedrops. The i3 was still unaffected at the point the video was made, but that doesn't mean that this year's blockbusters will run as fine again on the i3.

The main problem of the consoles hardware-wise is the CPU. The Jaguar was meant for Ultrathins (Ultrabook is trademarked by Intel, so AMD has to name theirs Ultrathin) and sacrificed performance for low power consumption. Add to this it's very low clock speed and you get a pretty bad choice for a Console CPU. I'm pretty sure the GPU needs to help out on some CPU calculations, which is pretty bad performance-wise. If the developers can figure out how to get past this problem I don't think i3+750Ti will be able to keep up as easely as before