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

PullusPardus said:
Captain_Tom said:
PullusPardus said:

consoles have become pointless, since they're using the same architecture as a pc, and they're basically all about software updates and downloads nowadays, I don't see what's the point of them anymore, they Have become a poor man's pc,

You can argue they're cheaper but so are PCS, you can get a better pc for the same price and upgrade it from there, and that will last you till your motherboard explodes (forever), you get cheaper games, more functionality, more room for tweaking and more ways to play, also free online and unrestricted services.

Look I'm not saying this as a pc gamer I'm saying this as a fellow gamer, handhelds have buttons over phones, consoles have nothing over PCS so what's the point of them nowadays? In the old days it made a lot more sense, consoles were meant to be "plug in and play" experience as in you buy a game from the store and you stick it on the console and play, now you buy it off the store and install it, and then download the patch and hope everything works fine, what difference is there from a PC? I would love to hear what you think the difference is. 

 

Now developers are always talking about graphics and how much 1080p 60 fps their game is, it's like you bought a console so you can argue about specs on the Internet instead of playing it,  and then comes ps5 with PS4 games with updated graphics "how it's meant to be played" crap by developers,  and the sad thing people always get sucked into that pr bullshit, I could argue for a long time but tell me, whats so different about a PS4 and a PC? 


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.

LMAO taht computer doesn't even come close.



Around the Network
Captain_Tom said:
RazorDragon said:
Captain_Tom said:

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.


Not really sure I should answer you after that "if the PS4 utilized even 5% of its GPU's proccessing power it would destroy anything out there" since I believe nothing I can say here will change your mind, but, oh well. Unfortunately I couldn't find benchmarks for both the Celeron and the Athlon 5150 on Futuremark(which would be a better comparison since it's a gaming related test) and, while you're right that Passmark isn't gaming, it does indicate quite precisely a processors performance, when one Celeron core is performing better at it than 2 Jaguar cores you can expect absolutely the same in gaming scenarios, that's exactly why those Intel Atom dual-core smartphone processors beat Quad Core Snapdragons, more cores doesn't mean anything if single core performance isn't up to par. That's exactly why in Passmark the FX-6300 and the i5-2500K are pretty much on par, even if the i5-2500K has 2 less cores. Based on the benchmark you posted, 2 extra cores scored about 2 frames of difference. If going by your logic that more cores = better, ignoring single-core performance, then how it isn't doing much better than an i5 processor? As I said, performance isn't measured by only the amount of cores on the processor, architecture, clock speed and TDP requirements are just as important.

Anyway, I've got some Athlon 5350 benchmarks so you can just see how much bottlenecking these low-power processors are probably causing on the 7970M/7850-like card on PS4. This processor is clocked higher than the 5150(which matches PS4's processor in architecture and clock speed, only with 2 less cores), so it should deliver a better representation of how a PS4 APU would perform:

http://cdn.pcper.com/files/review/2014-04-18/results.png

Any CPU heavy game and framerates go down by almost 50%. And that's with a GTX 750Ti, much slower than a 7970M/7850. That's actually the main problem with creating a similar PC hardware as these next-gen consoles. Their hardware is so unbalanced between CPU and GPU that you can't expect good performance running similar PC hardware, since PC games usually aren't that well optimized and using such a weak CPU can choke down the whole system.

And you are proving nothing.  Yes a 12-threaded  i7 beats a 2 GHz AMD quad-core.  Surprise!  However the PS4 does not have a quadcore, and it can offload some of its processing to the GPU if it needs to; which will be much less of a drain on it than you would expect (I have done this before on my PC using different programs).  

Also notice that in some games it isn't even bottlenecked lol!   So yeah give it some more cores and optimize the code and it isn't an issue like I said.  Thank you for the graphic that perfectly backs up my point!

P.S.  I own a kabini CPU (The Athlon 5350 comes from this line), an i7, and quite a few other cpu's and gpu's.  You are not teaching me anything.  My opinions have been formed by actually knowing what I am talking about from first-hand experience.


I'm proving that a bottleneck exists when using such low-powered CPUs. One of your posts said there are no bottlenecks from using the AMD APU, and by the benchmarks shown you can clearly see a bottleneck happening, and that's running a GPU a lot weaker than the one on PS4. Of course, the i7 shown there was overkill, but you get the point. Adding two more cores won't magically make the CPU become a monster. In fact, since the CPU on PS4 is clocked lower than the 5350's 2GHz, you can expect little performance increase from this quad-core Kabini to one with six cores available running at 1.6GHz. In every CPU bound game on PS4/XOne, the console will suffer because of the low powered CPUs. Of course, you can use GPGPU, but then you're throwing away stream processors that could be dedicated to doing graphics tasks into doing calculations for the CPU, which will impact the graphical fidelity of the game.

Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that in your original post you said the CPU in the PS4 was as powerful as an i3, while clearly its nowhere near that kind of performance. You can build a PC with comparable CPU power(theoretically, of course) to the PS4, with a dual core Celeron G1610, like the $400 PC shown a few pages ago.



And your explanation for the 3DS?

Consoles will live because of how convenient they are.



Ka-pi96 said:
Danman27 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Danman27 said:

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. 


Not particularly easy to do so though.

Yes plugging in two things is a lot harder than pluggin in two thi- Hey wait! No it's just as easy. 

It really isn't easy though. I've tried it and the picture came out all pixelated. Not to mention how cumbersome a PC is and the need for drivers and updates and anti virus and stuff.

you're no more likely to get a virus playing a game on a pc or console. You need to update drivers on consoles. If a picture came out pixelated on a monitor that you plugged a PC into, you either didn't plug it in tight enough, you had a broken cable, or one of the connections was broken. So all I can say is sorry you have a broken device for that one. 



RazorDragon said:

And you are proving nothing.  Yes a 12-threaded  i7 beats a 2 GHz AMD quad-core.  Surprise!  However the PS4 does not have a quadcore, and it can offload some of its processing to the GPU if it needs to; which will be much less of a drain on it than you would expect (I have done this before on my PC using different programs).  

Also notice that in some games it isn't even bottlenecked lol!   So yeah give it some more cores and optimize the code and it isn't an issue like I said.  Thank you for the graphic that perfectly backs up my point!

P.S.  I own a kabini CPU (The Athlon 5350 comes from this line), an i7, and quite a few other cpu's and gpu's.  You are not teaching me anything.  My opinions have been formed by actually knowing what I am talking about from first-hand experience.


I'm proving that a bottleneck exists when using such low-powered CPUs. One of your posts said there are no bottlenecks from using the AMD APU, and by the benchmarks shown you can clearly see a bottleneck happening, and that's running a GPU a lot weaker than the one on PS4. Of course, the i7 shown there was overkill, but you get the point. Adding two more cores won't magically make the CPU become a monster.

It doesn't need to be a monster to aleviate a bottleneck.  You keep ignoring the fact that half of the games had little to no perfomance loss.

In fact, since the CPU on PS4 is clocked lower than the 5350's 2GHz, you can expect little performance increase from this quad-core Kabini to one with six cores available running at 1.6GHz. In every CPU bound game on PS4/XOne, the console will suffer because of the low powered CPUs. Of course, you can use GPGPU, but then you're throwing away stream processors that could be dedicated to doing graphics tasks into doing calculations for the CPU, which will impact the graphical fidelity of the game.

I am just gonna half to disagree with you on how big a deal doubling the cpu's cores is.  Yes, 2 cores are locked away to be able to quickly switch between apps, but you are also ignoring that the  4-core in your benchmark was running litterally dozens of background apps.  Not to mention that DX11 is terribly bad at multithreading compared to the PS4's OS.

Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that in your original post you said the CPU in the PS4 was as powerful as an i3, while clearly its nowhere near that kind of performance. You can build a PC with comparable CPU power(theoretically, of course) to the PS4, with a dual core Celeron G1610, like the $400 PC shown a few pages ago.

Responses in bold but here's what it comes down to:

1) The Athlon 5150 is litterally half of the PS4's CPU.  It gets a score of ~2000, and the i3's get a score of ~4000.  Not hard to do the math.

http://www.passmark.com/cpubenchmark/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+5150+APU+with+Radeon+R3&id=2208

http://www.passmark.com/cpubenchmark/high_end_cpus.html

 

2) Yes the PS4 uses 6-cores for games, but it also has the benifit of having to run ZERO background tasks with those cores.  This not only reduces the work they need to do, but allows them to be more efficient in their work.  In addition to this, these cores are being programmed with an immensly more optimized OS.  The bottom line of this secon point is that two cores have not been sacrificed and as such their performance benifit is not lost.  They are simply doing what they would be doing anyways in a more streamlined manor.

3) That entire video was a joke.  4GB of ram is not enough, the GPU was far weaker, and the OS was not included.  These drawbacks to the $400 build are not minor oversights, they are the proof it cannot be done.

 

I am so bored of this conversation already, so don't expect a response if you continue to ignore ^these^ major things I am pointing out.




Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
Danman27 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Danman27 said:

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. 


Not particularly easy to do so though.

Yes plugging in two things is a lot harder than pluggin in two thi- Hey wait! No it's just as easy. 

It really isn't easy though. I've tried it and the picture came out all pixelated. Not to mention how cumbersome a PC is and the need for drivers and updates and anti virus and stuff.


1) Virus?  I have near zero anti-virus and I haven't had one in years (Ironically since I stopped using anti-virus). Just stop pirating things and downloading unknown stuff!

2) The picture was pixelated?  You do realize a monitor is the same thing as a TV right?  Either you had to right-click and change the resolution, or your TV is outdated.

3) Thank god consoles don't need updates! /s jk   Look I will say that consoles are definately more streamlined and kinda need less things to update, but don't act like PC's take a ton of time either.   If it is taking a ton of time, then you are doing something wrong and probably need some guidance.  (Not being a jerk, I would love to help!) 



Consoles won't die per se, I think they'll be replaced by something more "PC like". Like the 'steam boxes' we're seeing where they are turnkey gaming consoles made by any one of a myriad of manufacturers.

Either that or Sony/Microsoft will make their consoles upgradeable because who wants to be stuck with the same junk for 7-10 years when technology is moving so fast?


I think Nintendo would survive this just by virtue of them doing things differently



Ka-pi96 said:
Captain_Tom said:

3) Thank god consoles don't need updates! /s jk   Look I will say that consoles are definately more streamlined and kinda need less things to update, but don't act like PC's take a ton of time either.   If it is taking a ton of time, then you are doing something wrong and probably need some guidance.  (Not being a jerk, I would love to help!) 


You're right I probably am doing something wrong. But that's kind of the point isn't it? I don't need to know what I'm doing to get a console to work but would need to to get a PC to work properly.


Yes and no.  I think there is this perception out there that "PC's are SOOOO complicated Errrmegawd!"  When in reality the solution is 99% of the time straightforward and obvious.  As someone who has always owned a PC and console, I can say people who don't own both are missing out big time.  (And the same cannot be said of people who don't own multiple consoles.  I used to, and I don't feel like I am missing anything)



Danman27 said:
Ka-pi96 said:
Danman27 said:
 

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. 

Not particularly easy to do so though.

Yes plugging in two things is a lot harder than pluggin in two thi- Hey wait! No it's just as easy.

My experience:

Console
- Unplug power and hdmi (have them in both locations) just take the console out the AV cabinet
- Bring it in the room, plug in power cable and hdmi cable, done.

PC
- Wait for PC to shut down, if unlucky windows wants to finish installing updates first
- Unplug all the cables behind the desk (joystick, external hdd, lan, mouse, keyboard, card reader, camera, monitor, sound, power)
- Bring it in the room, plug in power cable, hdmi cable, lan cable
- Bring keyboard and mouse with usb extension cables and put them on a carboard box next to the couch.
- Power up, if unlucky windows needs to process recently installed updates, wait until windows is actually finished powering up and becomes responsive.
- Plug in controller with another usb extension cable, launch motioninjoy.
- Log in to Steam

That's just all the steps if games and controls are already configured correctly. Some need driver updates, some need changes in the ini files to enable correct controller support, some need key bindings set up.
Some games still need the keyboard and/or mouse next to controller for certain functions, always akward to do on the couch.
Windows doesn't care about overscan, I've set my projector to overlap the black borders slightly to get rid of edge noise in tv programs, results in half the start bar missing for example.
My PC only supports stereo over HDMI. My amp doesn't have separate analog inputs to get surround sound from the sound card, so I'm stuck with stereo for pc games.

It's still worth it, playing Fract OSC on the projector was awesome. Yet had it been available for consoles I would have bought the console version without thinking twice about it. Next week I'm going to give Tropico 5 a whirl on ps4, no more balancing keyboard and mouse on my lap.



Thing is Nintendo consoles and PC are very different so no one will really see that one replaces the other. However the super HD twins (yes I am calling them that since I have no better alternative right now) are way more simliar to PC. So they are in more direct competition. Plus you can just plug in a PC into a tv and viola a new super HD console is born. Minus a real 1st party.



Tag:I'm not bias towards Nintendo. You just think that way (Admin note - it's "biased".  Not "bias")
(killeryoshis note - Who put that there ?)
Switch is 9th generation. Everyone else is playing on last gen systems! UPDATE: This is no longer true

Biggest pikmin fan on VGchartz I won from a voting poll
I am not a nerd. I am enthusiast.  EN-THU-SI-AST!
Do Not Click here or else I will call on the eye of shinning justice on you.