By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - This is for those who care about "Next Gen" console graphics

AnthonyW86 on 30 July 2014
Locknuts said:
AnthonyW86 said:

To comment on the video, let me just quote ''we did not focus on power consumption''. If they did it would show something like this:

Power consumption GTX 480 card only:                       ~270 Watts

Power consumption Playstation 4 entire system:       ~135 Watts

That means just one GTX 480 consumes twice the amount of power as an entire Playstation 4 system. In other words if you would try to use a card like the GTX 480 in a console it would fry in minutes.

Wattages don't really matter in this context. The consoles aren't as powerful as they should be. I remember PC forums in 2005/2006 where people would be asking if they should get a 360 or a 7800 GTX (Nvidia's flagship GPU at the time) and be told that a 360 would give better performance!

Proof:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1017369

A PS4 is so far behind it's ridiculous. Nobody is comparing PS4 hardware to a GTX 780ti because that's not even a fair fight. Whereas comparing a 360 to a bleeding edge GPU was ok at the dawn of the last generation.

Despite the x86 architecture, I truly believe that only the best developers in the world (like ND) will be able to work the hardware to produce something that looks truly mindblowing.

It's interesting that you would give that example because here's the catch: an 7800 GTX only used about 80W under load. That's right, and the 7900 gt that followed it shortly used less than 60W. Both the X360 gpu(based mostly on the x19xx series) and PS4 gpu now probably use more power than a 7800 GTX, and therefore produce more heat. 

The truth is that today's power difference between a high end pc graphics card and a PS4 is simply achieved by the chips consuming more power. 

The jump from x360/ps3 to ps4 is the full jump that graphics technology has made in terms of performance per watt. If you don't believe me play a game like Killzone:SF, PS4 runs at the absolute limit heat wise and that's including a rather weak cpu.



Around the Network
Locknuts on 30 July 2014
AnthonyW86 said:
Locknuts said:
AnthonyW86 said:

To comment on the video, let me just quote ''we did not focus on power consumption''. If they did it would show something like this:

Power consumption GTX 480 card only:                       ~270 Watts

Power consumption Playstation 4 entire system:       ~135 Watts

That means just one GTX 480 consumes twice the amount of power as an entire Playstation 4 system. In other words if you would try to use a card like the GTX 480 in a console it would fry in minutes.

Wattages don't really matter in this context. The consoles aren't as powerful as they should be. I remember PC forums in 2005/2006 where people would be asking if they should get a 360 or a 7800 GTX (Nvidia's flagship GPU at the time) and be told that a 360 would give better performance!

Proof:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1017369

A PS4 is so far behind it's ridiculous. Nobody is comparing PS4 hardware to a GTX 780ti because that's not even a fair fight. Whereas comparing a 360 to a bleeding edge GPU was ok at the dawn of the last generation.

Despite the x86 architecture, I truly believe that only the best developers in the world (like ND) will be able to work the hardware to produce something that looks truly mindblowing.

It's interesting that you would give that example because here's the catch: an 7800 GTX only used about 80W under load. That's right, and the 7900 gt that followed it shortly used less than 60W. Both the X360 gpu(based mostly on the x19xx series) and PS4 gpu now probably use more power than a 7800 GTX, and therefore produce more heat. 

The truth is that today's power difference between a high end pc graphics card and a PS4 is simply achieved by the chips consuming more power. 

The jump from x360/ps3 to ps4 is the full jump that graphics technology has made in terms of performance per watt. If you don't believe me play a game like Killzone:SF, PS4 runs at the absolute limit heat wise and that's including a rather weak cpu.

But GPUs these days seem to be able to take a higher power draw with a minimal increase in heat. I say the gulf between PCs and Consoles this gen is due purely to cost cutting measures on Sony and Microsoft's part. I can understand that they didn't want to take a huge loss like they did last time, but as a consumer I really enjoyed them taking a loss and giving me powerful hardware for a bargain price :P



AnthonyW86 on 30 July 2014
Locknuts said:
AnthonyW86 said:
Locknuts said:
AnthonyW86 said:

To comment on the video, let me just quote ''we did not focus on power consumption''. If they did it would show something like this:

Power consumption GTX 480 card only:                       ~270 Watts

Power consumption Playstation 4 entire system:       ~135 Watts

That means just one GTX 480 consumes twice the amount of power as an entire Playstation 4 system. In other words if you would try to use a card like the GTX 480 in a console it would fry in minutes.

Wattages don't really matter in this context. The consoles aren't as powerful as they should be. I remember PC forums in 2005/2006 where people would be asking if they should get a 360 or a 7800 GTX (Nvidia's flagship GPU at the time) and be told that a 360 would give better performance!

Proof:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1017369

A PS4 is so far behind it's ridiculous. Nobody is comparing PS4 hardware to a GTX 780ti because that's not even a fair fight. Whereas comparing a 360 to a bleeding edge GPU was ok at the dawn of the last generation.

Despite the x86 architecture, I truly believe that only the best developers in the world (like ND) will be able to work the hardware to produce something that looks truly mindblowing.

It's interesting that you would give that example because here's the catch: an 7800 GTX only used about 80W under load. That's right, and the 7900 gt that followed it shortly used less than 60W. Both the X360 gpu(based mostly on the x19xx series) and PS4 gpu now probably use more power than a 7800 GTX, and therefore produce more heat. 

The truth is that today's power difference between a high end pc graphics card and a PS4 is simply achieved by the chips consuming more power. 

The jump from x360/ps3 to ps4 is the full jump that graphics technology has made in terms of performance per watt. If you don't believe me play a game like Killzone:SF, PS4 runs at the absolute limit heat wise and that's including a rather weak cpu.

But GPUs these days seem to be able to take a higher power draw with a minimal increase in heat. I say the gulf between PCs and Consoles this gen is due purely to cost cutting measures on Sony and Microsoft's part. I can understand that they didn't want to take a huge loss like they did last time, but as a consumer I really enjoyed them taking a loss and giving me powerful hardware for a bargain price :P

Well Nvidia gpu these days tend to have a better power to watt ratio than AMD gpu's but are more expensive, but they don't produce cpu's and the difference isn't that big. Again high end cards these days go up to TDP's of 250W while chips back in 2005-2006 were in the 80w-100w range. 

Are gpu's in that power range cheaper than they were back in the day? They probably are. But most of the cost reduction lies in using more common hardware, much cheaper cpu(on one chip with the gpu) and Blu-Ray technology being mainstream now.



overman1 on 30 July 2014
PullusPardus said:
overman1 said:

The first Uncharted was the worst....


What about Uncharted 3? , I think Uncharted 1 is a lot better than that , it has pretty nice soundtrack too, best soundtrack is 2 though, and I don't really remember the one on the vita.


uncharted 3 was great but it wasnt better than 2; becuase of that people tend to overestimate the failures of the sequel. 



maverick40 on 30 July 2014
Giggs_11 said:
maverick40 said:
PullusPardus said:

 

Okay this isn't "PC Is better" this is just how much "Next Gen" are "PS4/XB1" consoles are?

I am really tired of explaining how underpowered those two consoles are, you as a console gamer should not buy these consoles for their graphics (actually don't buy anything for graphics thats just stupid), because they are not really much technically advanced compared to PS3 / Xbox 360, and they're much closer to WiiU than you think, the difference is that Wii U doesn't use PC architecture so thats why porting it on there is hard (not really hard compared to PS3 but why make an effort when its so easier to port it on PS4/XB1) , This is why games like Arkham Knight are "next gen exclusive" it has NOTHING to do with "dumbed down for last gen" thats the most idiotic statement ever , its just that they don't want to bother porting them on PS3/Xbox 360 because those are "Hard" to port on, think of it like this , PS3 /360 is like re-writing a text file made on Notepad to re-publish it using a typewriter on paper , however on PS4/XB1 those consoles are made by the same thing the PC was made of, so instead of using a typewriter and publishing it on paper, you can just "copy" the whole text file and "paste" it on both consoles, INSTANT PROFIT ! , you can also try to persuade previous console owners that "ohhh this is next gen!" and they will just buy into it easily, and now you have a bigger cash cow filled with bullshit to conter the mobile phone market

Sony and Microsoft DID NOT MAKE THESE to be "next gen" they made them to be "Easier to develop on" to attract indie developers and mobile developers, they made it PC architect to make games easily ported from Steam to their consoles, arguing about how much more powerful one is to the other and then showing P.R bullshit said by Sony and Microsoft as an argument is just fucking stupid , no offense, they want you to warrant a purchase but you're not getting "Next Gen graphics!!!" you're getting "Easier to develop on" consoles, now you go on and talk about AAAAAAAA (infinite As) game development you don't really understand that AAA is what they are trying to AVOID here, as they are trying to lose less and earn more this time around, they're not trying to push game development at all, and thanks to PR bullshit you are getting sucked into the hype of "next gen" 

So make yourselves a favor and buy the consoles to play games not argue about graphics, and if you REALLY REAAAAAAAAAALLYY want to have "Dem graphix" (not worth it since most games that are released by big studios suck to be honest) then just get yourself a PC and enjoy wasting your money on crap like Watch Dogs. 

Nope, I wont get Uncharted 4 like graphics on PC. No studio on the planet like Naughty Dog. 

The holy grail of graphics Crytek will be finished in a few months so what will PC gamers boast with next? Skyrim mods?

Naughty Dog is so overrated! Yeah sure their games are great, but people tend to overrate their quality, especially graphic wise. I just started playing the 1st uncharted this weekend (yeah, i have the trilogy at home and never bothered to try it before). Although the game is good, it's nowhere near the expectations I had cuz of you sony fanboys overrating everything ND does. Graphically it's a bit of a letdown to be honest.

 

User was warned for this post - Viper.

Ridiculous statement to make. The game is over 7 years old at this stage and you are judging Naughty Dogs off that?

Play Uncharted 2 and then The Last of Us.



Around the Network
AZWification on 30 July 2014
Nintentacle said:

Last gen, I'd say the majority of their games were rated (Not Uncharted 2).

But you shouldn't say thier games don't look great based off of Uncharted 1. Uncharted 2, 3, and The Last of Us look better.

Uncharted 1 came out almost 7 years ago, so I don't really know what the hell he was expecting from that game graphics-wise! :-/



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

SubiyaCryolite on 30 July 2014

amak11 said

 They are hardly misleading, it's a simple way to tell the difference between the consoles in terms of raw power. Would it make it any better if I put the PS3 at 440 and the 360 at 450? it's a way for people with no technical knowledge of the consoles to understand the difference.

The Wii U has it's number where it's at because of the NDA about the true specs of the console. We just know it's a Tri-core powerPC based processor running at 1.23ghz per core (for comparisons sake, the PS4 is 1.8ghz per core), 2gb DDR3 ram with 1gb dedicated to gaming. Custom AMD gfx chip with 32mb eDRAM (which we still have no confirmed idea what series it's based on because this changes from 4800 series to 5000 series to the 6000 series)

Anyways, consider every 100 or so a graphical leap in what a console can do. All my explination was suppose to be, was a simple explination of power differences in the consoles. Suggestion in the future, just ask what I meant I'll gladly answer you question. These string of post wasn't needed at all 

I'm sorry but I don't agree, your information won't give people who dont understand these things an accurate indication of these machines capabilities. You are in marketing so you know the concept of false advertising and those numbers ARE misleading. You cant map them to any aspect of the Wii Us hardware in comparison to the hardware within the new HD twins. You should use things that can actually be measured (GPU throughput, Usable RAM, CPU clockspeeds, Core counts and internal HDD capacity). These all show that the system lags behind anywhere from 3 to 5 times based on the components being compared and that is not "close" to the XBox One.

 

3 1.2GHz cores are not close to 8 1.7GHz cores

1GB of usable ram is not close to 5GB or faster DDR3

 12.8GB/s of memory bandwidth is not close to 68GB/s of memory Bandwidth (ignoring the esRAM for both systems)

352GFLOPS is not close to 1300GFLOPs

 

Don't use NDAs as an excuse because hackers, devs and Digital Foundry has accurately predicted the performance levels of Wii U hardware even before it was released (Digital Foundry vs Nintendo E3 2011). Every 1st and 3rd party face off falls in line with LOGICAL conclusions derived from tear downs, power usage and modern GPU architectures.

Those numbers you came up with cannot be justified in any way, but the other charts posted in this thread can. Use those to easily explain to people. You wouldn't be able to market the Wii U (or any other system) with those numbers in any country with strict advertising laws. Sony got sued in South Africa for making baseless claims about the PS3s power back in the day, because it was misleading.



I predict that the Wii U will sell a total of 18 million units in its lifetime. 

The NX will be a 900p machine

Hardcore_gamer on 30 July 2014
maverick40 said:
PullusPardus said:

 

Okay this isn't "PC Is better" this is just how much "Next Gen" are "PS4/XB1" consoles are?

I am really tired of explaining how underpowered those two consoles are, you as a console gamer should not buy these consoles for their graphics (actually don't buy anything for graphics thats just stupid), because they are not really much technically advanced compared to PS3 / Xbox 360, and they're much closer to WiiU than you think, the difference is that Wii U doesn't use PC architecture so thats why porting it on there is hard (not really hard compared to PS3 but why make an effort when its so easier to port it on PS4/XB1) , This is why games like Arkham Knight are "next gen exclusive" it has NOTHING to do with "dumbed down for last gen" thats the most idiotic statement ever , its just that they don't want to bother porting them on PS3/Xbox 360 because those are "Hard" to port on, think of it like this , PS3 /360 is like re-writing a text file made on Notepad to re-publish it using a typewriter on paper , however on PS4/XB1 those consoles are made by the same thing the PC was made of, so instead of using a typewriter and publishing it on paper, you can just "copy" the whole text file and "paste" it on both consoles, INSTANT PROFIT ! , you can also try to persuade previous console owners that "ohhh this is next gen!" and they will just buy into it easily, and now you have a bigger cash cow filled with bullshit to conter the mobile phone market

Sony and Microsoft DID NOT MAKE THESE to be "next gen" they made them to be "Easier to develop on" to attract indie developers and mobile developers, they made it PC architect to make games easily ported from Steam to their consoles, arguing about how much more powerful one is to the other and then showing P.R bullshit said by Sony and Microsoft as an argument is just fucking stupid , no offense, they want you to warrant a purchase but you're not getting "Next Gen graphics!!!" you're getting "Easier to develop on" consoles, now you go on and talk about AAAAAAAA (infinite As) game development you don't really understand that AAA is what they are trying to AVOID here, as they are trying to lose less and earn more this time around, they're not trying to push game development at all, and thanks to PR bullshit you are getting sucked into the hype of "next gen" 

So make yourselves a favor and buy the consoles to play games not argue about graphics, and if you REALLY REAAAAAAAAAALLYY want to have "Dem graphix" (not worth it since most games that are released by big studios suck to be honest) then just get yourself a PC and enjoy wasting your money on crap like Watch Dogs. 

Nope, I wont get Uncharted 4 like graphics on PC. No studio on the planet like Naughty Dog. 

The holy grail of graphics Crytek will be finished in a few months so what will PC gamers boast with next? Skyrim mods?


As much as I don't like pc gaming but please don't say that ryse graphic already kick uncharted 4 graphic so will pc 



maverick40 on 30 July 2014
Hardcore_gamer said:
maverick40 said:
PullusPardus said:

 

Okay this isn't "PC Is better" this is just how much "Next Gen" are "PS4/XB1" consoles are?

I am really tired of explaining how underpowered those two consoles are, you as a console gamer should not buy these consoles for their graphics (actually don't buy anything for graphics thats just stupid), because they are not really much technically advanced compared to PS3 / Xbox 360, and they're much closer to WiiU than you think, the difference is that Wii U doesn't use PC architecture so thats why porting it on there is hard (not really hard compared to PS3 but why make an effort when its so easier to port it on PS4/XB1) , This is why games like Arkham Knight are "next gen exclusive" it has NOTHING to do with "dumbed down for last gen" thats the most idiotic statement ever , its just that they don't want to bother porting them on PS3/Xbox 360 because those are "Hard" to port on, think of it like this , PS3 /360 is like re-writing a text file made on Notepad to re-publish it using a typewriter on paper , however on PS4/XB1 those consoles are made by the same thing the PC was made of, so instead of using a typewriter and publishing it on paper, you can just "copy" the whole text file and "paste" it on both consoles, INSTANT PROFIT ! , you can also try to persuade previous console owners that "ohhh this is next gen!" and they will just buy into it easily, and now you have a bigger cash cow filled with bullshit to conter the mobile phone market

Sony and Microsoft DID NOT MAKE THESE to be "next gen" they made them to be "Easier to develop on" to attract indie developers and mobile developers, they made it PC architect to make games easily ported from Steam to their consoles, arguing about how much more powerful one is to the other and then showing P.R bullshit said by Sony and Microsoft as an argument is just fucking stupid , no offense, they want you to warrant a purchase but you're not getting "Next Gen graphics!!!" you're getting "Easier to develop on" consoles, now you go on and talk about AAAAAAAA (infinite As) game development you don't really understand that AAA is what they are trying to AVOID here, as they are trying to lose less and earn more this time around, they're not trying to push game development at all, and thanks to PR bullshit you are getting sucked into the hype of "next gen" 

So make yourselves a favor and buy the consoles to play games not argue about graphics, and if you REALLY REAAAAAAAAAALLYY want to have "Dem graphix" (not worth it since most games that are released by big studios suck to be honest) then just get yourself a PC and enjoy wasting your money on crap like Watch Dogs. 

Nope, I wont get Uncharted 4 like graphics on PC. No studio on the planet like Naughty Dog. 

The holy grail of graphics Crytek will be finished in a few months so what will PC gamers boast with next? Skyrim mods?


As much as I don't like pc gaming but please don't say that ryse graphic already kick uncharted 4 graphic so will pc 

100% wrong and you know it. You can't compare a launch title from a 3rd party deveoper to a game that is over a year away by one of the most technically advanced studios on the planet. You just won't beat a studio with free reign of Sony's wallet to push only one piece of hardware to its limits.



d21lewis on 30 July 2014

While I'm sure the PC blows away the console experience, I've never cared. I only care how a console generation compares to the previous console generation. The 8th gen consoles compare favorably to the 7th gen counterpart and PC is ahead as usual, in terms of raw power. Good enough for me.