This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Is the PS4 a threat to PC gaming since it's basically a high-end PC for $400?

#151ShebeskiiPosted 11/2/2013 11:35:57 AM(edited)
Hi C posted...
Shebeskii posted...
NfuzedXGamer posted...
High end PC

8GB Of ram or more
CPU- Ivy Bridge or quad core CPU AMP FX 8150 or higher
GPU- Radeon 7950 2-3GB Of Vram or more GTX 670 or higher


PS4- 8 core jaguar weak amd apu
gpu- radeon 7790 mini version 1GB Vram


:)


Try 8GB of VRAM, but as we know, tons of VRAM doesn't mean much if you don't have the power to use it. I think the PS4 has enough power to effectively use maybe 3GB-4GB at max at 1080p with tons of optimization. We're not going to see console games on PC requiring insane VRAM.


It's not 8GB VRAM it's 8GB SHARED memory. It may as well be something like 3GB for system, 3GB for the gpu, and 2GB left over for the background process and overhead.


It's System memory, VRAM, whatever you want it to be. The fact that the numbers you tossed out are mostly up to the dev is why I used the term VRAM loosely.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#152El_ZaggyPosted 11/2/2013 12:57:40 PM
WiNGSPANTT posted...
I mean, it's pretty hard to compete with that. Could this have a negative affect on the sale of expensive PC hardware? I know some people just prefer mouse and keyboard over a controller and playing online on PC is free compared to $50/year for PS+, but is that really worth paying $1000-1500 more when you can get an equivalent machine for $400? What do you guys think?


considering those new console are struggleling to render games in full hd with all options on ultra, I wouldnt even consider a PS4 being a high end pc. its a middle range gaming pc. And its worth playing a bit more for the pc because:

1. Upgradable
2. Not used only for gaming/multimedia. Can be used to work and numerous other things.
3. $1000-1500 is a very nice computer that can put PS4 to shame. Just pay 500$ for a computer if you want to have a same level as ps4 pc.
4. Games are mad cheap if you are intelligent enough to check humble bundles, steam, gog and origin sales.
#153Ryohazuki10469Posted 11/2/2013 1:14:15 PM
El_Zaggy posted...
WiNGSPANTT posted...
I mean, it's pretty hard to compete with that. Could this have a negative affect on the sale of expensive PC hardware? I know some people just prefer mouse and keyboard over a controller and playing online on PC is free compared to $50/year for PS+, but is that really worth paying $1000-1500 more when you can get an equivalent machine for $400? What do you guys think?


considering those new console are struggleling to render games in full hd with all options on ultra, I wouldnt even consider a PS4 being a high end pc. its a middle range gaming pc. And its worth playing a bit more for the pc because:

1. Upgradable
2. Not used only for gaming/multimedia. Can be used to work and numerous other things.
3. $1000-1500 is a very nice computer that can put PS4 to shame. Just pay 500$ for a computer if you want to have a same level as ps4 pc.
4. Games are mad cheap if you are intelligent enough to check humble bundles, steam, gog and origin sales.


This. If it was so much more powerful than a high end PC, and should have more performance off the back being that it's a gaming console and things are coded to the metal....then why does it only run BF4 at 900p60fps and the details aren't as good as pc running on ultra?
---
PSN: DisRastamon XBL: DIS Rastamon Nintendo ID: RyoHazuki1 3DS: 4356 - 0292 - 2688
Core i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz / 8GB RAM / Sapphire Vapor-X 7950 / 750GB HDD
#154godplaysSNESPosted 11/2/2013 1:25:44 PM
Don't judge the consoles' capabilities of what's being done at launch. It takes time until devs can start doing low-level optimisations, and at launch especially, consoles don't have the userbases to motivate that effort.

The consoles are more similar to PCs now, but being similar to PC didn't stop the Xbox 1 from getting more impressive games.


PC games are generally cheaper than the console versions, but if you're looking at getting them at launch, you'll only save around 10 USD. It takes time until they get a big discount on Steam/Origin.
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
#155Last Grand MageX2Posted 11/2/2013 1:35:08 PM
Y'all done got trolled.
---
I try, but not very hard, product of my generation-snoochtonooch
#156PanopictonguyPosted 11/2/2013 1:35:39 PM
Nvidia GTX 780Ti to have 12GB GDDR5 RAM

Ps4 = FINISHED
---
Oh, you thought they made this game for you? You clearly bought the wrong game.
#157JKatarnPosted 11/2/2013 1:57:55 PM
WiNGSPANTT posted...
JKatarn posted...
WiNGSPANTT posted...
JKatarn posted...
The PS4 is not high-end just because it has 8GB of GDDR5 - the CPU is a variant of a low-power mobile chipset running at a low clockrate, and the GPU is likely mid PC tier at best, hardly high-end. It's probably 6-8x faster than the PS3 at least (which wouldn't be terribly hard to accomplish given how relatively ancient the hardware in the PS3 is), but it's hardly equivalent to a high-end PC (unless you know absolutely nothing about technology).


Not to be mean, but you don't exactly sound like you know what you're talking about. The PS4's processor has 8 cores. Even most Intel CPU's only have 2 or 4 cores right now. The PS4 leverages parallelization to achieve results that even a quad-core i7 wouldn't really be able to pull off. It's not about raw clock speed, otherwise an old Pentium 4 at 4ghz would be better than a modern i5 at 3.6 ghz. I'm sure PC's will catch up eventually, but for now the PS4 is pretty much untouchable by anything but a $1000+ 8-core Intel processor.


Wow...you're an idiot, and you are clearly the one who knows little of what you talk about. You have to understand a few things, for one thing each core is only clocked at 1.6 Ghz - for another, each core is based on the ultra low-power (designed for ultrabooks, tablets etc.) CPU tech from AMD known as the "Jaguar" microarchitecture - ie. each core is much less capable, offering far fewer IPC (Instructions per Cycle) than say your average i5/AMD equivalent (not well versed on their CPUs), so *IF* (and this is a big if, as creating/facilitating the creation of efficient, parallel-friendly code with minimal overhead is a problem that places like MIT, Berkeley etc. have been struggling with for years) Sony and/or developers can pull off some miracle and efficiently program for these 8 cores, the overall performance *MIGHT* be equivalent to a midrange CPU out there right now, but remember, that's if they somehow overcome all these roadblocks. That's hardly beating out a $1000 processor. I'm sure the PS4 is several times faster than the PS3 at minimum, but it can't hold a candle to the overall performance of a high-end gaming PC, and believing otherwise is idiotic.


Yeah, I'm sure those eggheads at MIT and Berkeley are soooo much more competent and smart than Sony's best veteran programmers and designers.

Clock speed is practically meaningless, period. The weakest dual-core i3 you could find would totally blow away the single-core P4 with the highest clock speed possible. FACT.


Clock speed is less important yes, if a CPU architecture is considerably more efficient - show me the benchmarks/data that proves that Jaguar somehow has 2-3x the IPC of a Sandy Bridge i5+i7 and I will be inclined to buy into your theory. What? You don't have any? Also, lol at insulting MIT/Berkeley researchers, the very universities that have been responsible for many of the computing breakthroughs we've enjoyed over the years. You've just lost the shred of credibility you had my insane, deluded little friend.
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#158AlexKidd5000Posted 11/2/2013 1:58:46 PM
The PS4 is not a high-end PC being sold at a lower price. It's a $400 gaming PC being sold for $400. Not exactly a bargain.
#159JKatarnPosted 11/2/2013 2:02:03 PM
DiehardFFv2 posted...
Sirerdrick posted...
I'm finally coming back to PC gaming after a ten plus year hiatus.
PCs were on their way out, but with Steam and indie games going gangbusters these days, it just makes sense to go the PC route.
Not to mention that PCs are dual purpose and inherently are able to play at higher resolutions, all while offering cheaper games...


Dual Purpose? You know your computer is good for more than just porn and games, right?


LOL.....you mean there are other uses for the Internet besides online gaming and pornography? Reminds me of that one episode of ATHF

"This is live, streaming broadbrain......does this not intrigue you? Pornography and online gaming at hundreds of times the speed of your current provider....you must want to have to have it"
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#160JKatarnPosted 11/2/2013 2:16:30 PM
Shebeskii posted...
NfuzedXGamer posted...
High end PC

8GB Of ram or more
CPU- Ivy Bridge or quad core CPU AMP FX 8150 or higher
GPU- Radeon 7950 2-3GB Of Vram or more GTX 670 or higher


PS4- 8 core jaguar weak amd apu
gpu- radeon 7790 mini version 1GB Vram


:)


Try 8GB of VRAM, but as we know, tons of VRAM doesn't mean much if you don't have the power to use it. I think the PS4 has enough power to effectively use maybe 3GB-4GB at max at 1080p with tons of optimization. We're not going to see console games on PC requiring insane VRAM.


This boy got 8 cores and 8 gigs son, you have any idea what them studios can do with all those ramz?!?
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES