Can't disagree with Yellow.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
Intrinsic said:
I enjoy having these kinda discussions with "PC types" such as yourself. Cause for some strange reason you feel that cause Ihave a preference in Consoles that I ma clueles as to what goes into a PC. All this would be even funnier if you had any idea what i did for a living. Makes it all the nicer when I show just how clueless you are... well that or you are aware of all this and just biased, which kinda is even worse. First though, lets talk about power and performance, Please... keep an open mind. Don't wanna have to repeat any/all of this again. In the below grapgh you will see the PS4 GPU and the closest comparable Volcanic Islands GPU (the current generation R series AMD GPUs)
The R9 series are using the exact same GCN architecture that the PS4 is using, that is why the vertex shaders and TMUs per GCN core all match. And while thereis not doubt that the closest AMD R series GPU to the PS4 is pushing better numbers across the board when directly compared to what you have in the PS4, that isn't taking into account that teh PS4 is a console and consoles are known to push way above their weight class for easons that I am going to assume you already know so I wont have to get into here. So how's that PS4 has a GPU from 2 years ago BS that you wee saying. And I didnt even add the compute capaable cores to this table, if I had done that you would find that the PS4s GPU has more compute capable cores than the R9 270. Yes you can always get more powerful GPUs for your PC, they will just cost more. And we are talking about just GPUs here and not the rest of your PC. Your CPU argument is irrelevant, especially if you have a basic understanding of how games use a CPU. and how a CPU is used in a console compared to a PC. I will just give you a small hint, when running a game on consoles, 6 of the 8 available cpu cores are used exclusively to run the game. There is nothing on that system that is competing for CPU resoruces in a console. But its really good seeing how much of PCs you seem to know. |
Wow, did you seriously compare AMD's worst GPU in the R9 series to the PS4's GPU?
The PS4 gets absolutely destroyed by both the 280x and the 290x (the 280x could be had for $299 btw, very much affordable for many people).
And yes, PS4 has 5 dedicated cores, but I hope you realise that those 5 cores are very weak compared to the 4 cores of the i5/i7. The PS4 may be able to have more threads, but it can't perform each task nearly as well as a 3.4GHz i5 CPU, regardless of whether those cores are dedicated or not (and generally CPU usage outside of gaming is very low, so unless you have a ton of applications open you will be using your CPU power very efficiently).
I'm a console and PC gamer, I own both a PS4 and a gaming PC. Games are much cheaper on my PC, and I don't have to pay $50 a year to play online. The $1200 that my PC cost got me tons of bang for my buck, since I can use it as my PC and as a dedicated gaming device. I love my PS4 since I can get lots of amazing exclusives, but per month the PS4 costs me a lot more than my PC.
Let's not pretend that the consoles are holding back PC potential, because they are. Games like Crisis, Witcher 2, Star Citizen, and modded Watch Dogs show the potential that PC has if devs spend just a bit more time optimising for PC better. Even games like Battlefield 3 (which was optimised splendidly for PC) look much better vs the console version.
And you know what? While all of those games are marketed towards the high-end crowd, the mid-end crowd can play them too and love them just as much. They all are very successful as well in terms of game sales. That's the beauty of PC gaming. Games can be look amazing, and tons of people can have access to them, even if they can't run them on the highest graphics.
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC
| VanceIX said: Wow, did you seriously compare AMD's worst GPU in the R9 series to the PS4's GPU?
The PS4 gets absolutely destroyed by both the 280x and the 290x (the 280x could be had for $299 btw, very much affordable for many people). |
AMDs Volcanic islands GPUs come in 3 classes. low, mid and high. R5, R7 and R9 respectively. The R9 goes from 270, 270x...... all the way to the 290x. What sense does it make comparing the 270 which is the equivalent of what you have in a PS4 to a R 290x that costs $549 or the 280x that costs $299. That kinda comparison is only fair or makes sense if a PS4 costs you that much or if you can build a complet PC gaming rig with those GPUs for $400. If the point you are trying to make is that there are GPUs on the PC more powerful than that in a PS4 then no one will argue with you, as long as you are willing to accept that for that extra power you pay considerably more.
And common misconception is this thing that PC gamers say with regard to what they consider cheap GPUs. $299 for just a GPU is not something that is "very much affordable for many people". Just look at consoles sales, there aren't that many people willing to spend $400 for an all in one console cause its still too expensive and you somehow believe that there are a lot of people willing to spend $299 for just a GPU???? and there are still at least 5 more components they would need excluding an OS to build a gaming rig in addition to that? Say you buy the 280x for $299. How much do you think you would have spent aftet buying a cpu, pcu, hdd, cpu memory and controller (lets also assume that you pirate an OS and you dont use a case). You are still looking at at least a total of $600-$800 if that is the GPU you decide to go with. And this is wht is cheap to everyone?
And my point, is that the PS4 GPU isn't based on a two year old GPU as you were saying, and its not far weaker than what you have in PCs unless of course you want us to believe that everyone has a $500 GPU in their PC. For claims like that to make sense, then the cheapest PC GPU should at least be as powerful as an 290x.
The only way a console can hold a PC game back is in relation to memory size. Not CPU/GPU performace cause PCs can scale up or down in thoes aras... but when it comes to thngs like memory and data transfer I/O, there is nothing that can be done on that if the engine is designed for something that is lacking in those areas. And these current gen consoles are not lacking in those areas. Yes, making a game to run on a 512mb system would completely gimp its potential performance on a PC cause there are things in engine that the dev simply cannot even dream of doing. But these consoles are not memory constricted.
Intrinsic said:
AMDs Volcanic islands GPUs come in 3 classes. low, mid and high. R5, R7 and R9 respectively. The R9 goes from 270, 270x...... all the way to the 290x. What sense does it make comparing the 270 which is the equivalent of what you have in a PS4 to a R 290x that costs $549 or the 280x that costs $299. That kinda comparison is only fair or makes sense if a PS4 costs you that much or if you can build a complet PC gaming rig with those GPUs for $400. If the point you are trying to make is that there are GPUs on the PC more powerful than that in a PS4 then no one will argue with you, as long as you are willing to accept that for that extra power you pay considerably more. And common misconception is this thing that PC gamers say with regard to what they consider cheap GPUs. $299 for just a GPU is not something that is "very much affordable for many people". Just look at consoles sales, there aren't that many people willing to spend $400 for an all in one console cause its still too expensive and you somehow believe that there are a lot of people willing to spend $299 for just a GPU???? and there are still at least 5 more components they would need excluding an OS to build a gaming rig in addition to that? Say you buy the 280x for $299. How much do you think you would have spent aftet buying a cpu, pcu, hdd, cpu, memory and controller (lets also assume that you pirate an OS and you dont use a case). You are still looking at at least a total of $600-$800 if that is the GPU you decide to go with. And this is wht is cheap to everyone? And my point, is that the PS4 GPU isn't based on a two year old GPU as you were saying, and its not far weaker than what you have in PCs unless of course you want us to believe that everyone has a $500 GPU in their PC. For claims like that to make sense, then the cheapest PC GPU should at least be as powerful as an 290x. The only way a console can hold a PC game back is in relation to memory size. Not CPU/GPU performace cause PCs can scale up or down in thoes aras... but when it comes to thngs like memory and data transfer I/O, there is nothing that can be done on that if the engine is designed for something that is lacking in those areas. And these current gen consoles are not lacking in those areas. Yes, making a game to run on a 512mb system would completely gimp its potential performance on a PC cause there are things in engine that the dev simply cannot even dream of doing. But these consoles are not memory constricted. |
Except that the 270 is essentially a rebranded 7870, so yes, the PS4 IS running on 2 year-old graphics hardware. You can't argue that, period.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-270-review-benchmarks,3669-10.html
And you think the 280x is expensive? Not really. How much would you spend on a PC? People spend around $350-500 on a PC. Take the PC that you already need (because it is essential), and add a $299 graphics card along with a better PSU to it to make it gaming capable. End of story.
And the notion of the GPU/CPU performance not holding back performance is absolutely laughable. Just look at the end of last-gen. Most games looked almost identical on PC and PS3, even though PCs were already more powerful than the next-gen consoles. Developers make games for consoles and then port them to PC, knowing that consumers will buy them anyway so there is no reason for them to optimise further. Some companies do go that extra step (see- Battlefield 3, Metro Last Light) and show what a little optimisation can do to bring out the sheer beauty in PC gaming.
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC
| VanceIX said: There seems to be a lot of people that don't mind parity, or even support it. Well, I would encourage them to look at the mobile market to see just how terrible parity is. Mobile phones today are insanely powerful, there is no doubt. Both the Vita and the 3DS are complete garbage in the hardware department compared to newer phones like the Galaxy S5 and iPhone 5S, and yet phones have very few games that match up in visual quality to traditional handhelds. That's because game devs develop for the weakest hardware in order to save developmental costs while also providing the same game experience, whether you have a three year old phone or a brand new phone. This results in the vast majority of games not being close to their potential. The same is happening in this generation, with developers increasingly favoring parity instead of optimising a game for the better platform. The biggest area of concern is PC, where games like Watch Dogs are intentionally gimped to provide the same gaming experience across all platforms, and to a lesser extent the PS4, which has versions of games like Destiny gimped due to weaker hardware. This is a dangerous area of concern. I think not enough people realize just how bad this is for progress in the game industry. The reason I'm using this example is because developers are afraid of developing a truly high-end mobile game, because it won't run on older devices. Due to this, even the high-end devices are stuck with mediocre games like Modern Combat 4 that could be so much more but were held back in order to be playble on everything. |
And this is why I have long said that cross platform is NOT good for the industry. Back in the day when choosing a platform meant having an exclusive set of games, you were promised a certain number of great titles that were optimized. Now, that number is shrinking.
Developers need to choose ONE platform from the get go IMO, and go from there. Let the souless Activisions of the world hunt for profit with their watered down ports.
| VanceIX said: Except that the 270 is essentially a rebranded 7870, so yes, the PS4 IS running on 2 year-old graphics hardware. You can't argue that, period. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-r9-270-review-benchmarks,3669-10.html And you think the 280x is expensive? Not really. How much would you spend on a PC? People spend around $350-500 on a PC. Take the PC that you already need (because it is essential), and add a $299 graphics card to it to make it gaming capable. End of story. And the notion of the GPU/CPU performance not holding back performance is absolutely laughable. Just look at the end of last-gen. Most games looked almost identical on PC and PS3, even though PCs were already more powerful than the next-gen consoles. Developers make games for consoles and then port them to PC, knowing that consumers will buy them anyway so there is no reason for them to optimise further. Some companies do go that extra step (see- Battlefield 3, Metro Last Light) and show what a little optimisation can do to bring out the sheer beauty in PC gaming. |
Ok, this will be my last reply to you cause its fairly obvious to me that you are somewhat unreasonable and twisting facts.
So you say that the 270 is essentially a rebranded 7870 cause and thus the PS4 is running on 2 year old tech right? By your logic then isn't the 280 and 290 just rebranded GPUs from the same 2 year old range albeit with higher clocks and larger memory gates? But yh, you are the authority in discussions like that so I will noy say anything more. You have said "period" after all.....
And no, wrong again, A PC is not essential. A laptop is; majority of the world these days looking to soend $500 on anything that runs windows, is probably buying a laptop, or maybe even a tablet. NOT a PC. But for the sake of your argument, say you spend you $500 on your essential PC and then spend an additional $300 on a GPU.. thats still $800. And that is not cheap. Not really nearly as simple or open as shut as you make it, unless of course you want to just ignore what happens in the real world and live in your bubble.
You have to be flat out confused to think that CPU/GPU is what holds back performance when cosidering crossplatform (consoles/cpu) development. Do you really know what the CPU/GPU does??? I think you are even more confused when considering the comaparison you made. I say again, GPU/CPU power is not the primary limiting to factor to game design... what is is memory size, memory badwidth and data transfer speeds. That you choose to even argue with even this is why I will no longer pertake in this nice discussion of ours cause it tells me how little you know of what you are talking about. Every task that can be handled by a CPU/GPU are easily scaled up/down in code. That is not the case for memory dependent assets.
Intrinsic said:
Ok, this will be my last reply to you cause its fairly obvious to me that you are somewhat unreasonable and twisting facts. So you say that the 270 is essentially a rebranded 7870 cause and thus the PS4 is running on 2 year old tech right? By your logic then isn't the 280 and 290 just rebranded GPUs from the same 2 year old range albeit with higher clocks and larger memory gates? But yh, you are the authority in discussions like that so I will noy say anything more. You have said "period" after all..... And no, wrong again, A PC is not essential. A laptop is; majority of the world these days looking to soend $500 on anything that runs windows, is probably buying a laptop, or maybe even a tablet. NOT a PC. But for the sake of your argument, say you spend you $500 on your essential PC and then spend an additional $300 on a GPU.. thats still $800. And that is not cheap. Not really nearly as simple or open as shut as you make it, unless of course you want to just ignore what happens in the real world and live in your bubble. You have to be flat out confused to think that CPU/GPU is what holds back performance when cosidering crossplatform (consoles/cpu) development. Do you really know what the CPU/GPU does??? I think you are even more confused when considering the comaparison you made. I say again, GPU/CPU power is not the primary limiting to factor to game design... what is is memory size, memory badwidth and data transfer speeds. That you choose to even argue with even this is why I will no longer pertake in this nice discussion of ours cause it tells me how little you know of what you are talking about. Every task that can be handled by a CPU/GPU are easily scaled up/down in code. That is not the case for memory dependent assets. |
It's pretty obvious you know little to nothing about the PC community right now.
Yes, the 270 and 280x are rebranded, but the 290x is NOT. And the 280x (which is a rebranded 7970) was ahead of its time when it came out, which is why it's still the third best GPU around. You can't say that about the 270/7870.
A tablet essential? Sorry, but no. In the corporate world a Windows product is essential, and almost everyone owns a desktop. Even if you push a laptop, you can get a gaming one for ~$900 that still outpaces the consoles.
And my point about the cost went way over your head. If you are looking for a gaming device and are going to buy a new PC, instead of buying a $500 PC and then a $400-500 console, you can just get a $900-1000 PC that will do everything the two seperate can and more. Not to mention, you will be saving HUNDREDS of dollars a year in games due to services like the Humble Bundle and Steam sales and won't ever have to pay for online. In the end, it's actually cheaper in the long run, which is something that you and others can't seem to understand at all.
And I'll say it again- your points about CPU/GPU having no impact on the optimisation of PC games is completely laughable. It actually shows how little you know about hardware in general. It is cheaper for devs to simply make a game for the weakest platform, and then port it without enchancing the game with better effects, better textures, etc. than it is for them to actually work on the game. The CPU and GPU handle all the heavy work when it comes to game performance, and not optimising a game for the better hardware results in what the PC community is seeing right now.
But of course, you can keep believing that the PS4 is powerful enough not to hold back PC ports, that's fine.
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC
Lol, another pc holywar...
Any current PC will be in the garbage can in ~3 years, while ps4 still be on a horse, ASAT, end of story.
| mind said: Lol, another pc holywar... Any current PC will be in the garbage can in ~3 years, while ps4 still be on a horse, ASAT, end of story. |
Nah. If you have any clue how to build a gaming PC you can have one that'll play games on at least medium 4 years from now.
And even then, the sheer amount of money you save on PC (in the hundreds per year) means spending $299 on a new graphics card every 4 years isn't that bad.
You're Gonna Carry That Weight.
Xbox One - PS4 - Wii U - PC
| VanceIX said:
And you think the 280x is expensive? Not really. How much would you spend on a PC? People spend around $350-500 on a PC. Take the PC that you already need (because it is essential), and add a $299 graphics card along with a better PSU to it to make it gaming capable. End of story. |
Whoa...That's not really viable, Graphic cards aren't exactly plug and play.
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
