• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why the relative "weakness" of the new consoles versus PC, this gen??

Deuterium

Deuterium

Member
Honest question for your techies and industry guys/gals...

Just a quick background --
Without specifically dating myself, I played the Atari 2600 when it originally was released, and have pretty much owned every major gaming console since, including:

Intellivision
Colecovision
NES
Super NES
Sega Genesis
Playstation 1
N64
Xbox
PS2
Xbox 360

My question is this. I seem to remember that the PS2 was at least comparable to a decent medium-range PC (budget target approx. $1000-1300) when it was released, maybe even a bit ahead. The Xbox was actually even more advanced, and it seemed like it was at least 12 months before the aforementioned "target" PC was at the same level as Xbox.

Then, the PS3 and Xbox 360 continued that relative parity. Again, it seemed that, at the moment each console was released, it was at least equivalent to, or slightly more powerful than the corresponding "target" PC.

Now, all of a sudden, this new generation, the tables have completely turned. The Xbox One is significantly less powerful than the corresponding target PC, whereas the PS4, although closer, is still comparatively under-powered. This is situation with both consoles right out of the gate.

What has changed in the console and/or the PC industry to create this situation?

Note: If my perception is wrong, in terms of how the original PS2/Xbox and the PS3/Xbox 360 compared to the target PC (as previously defined), at the time of their release...please correct me.

Cheers, all.
 
S

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
The relationship between power and heat, heat dissipation and noise, and heat dissipation and size; plus the cost imperative.
 
S

StuBurns

Banned
Heat is the big issue, you just can't dissipate it effectively enough in such small boxes for the costs they are built for.

They're also not sold at a loss this time.
 
T

TangoAlphaLima

Member
I would imagine there's something to be said for diminishing returns on graphical improvements these days as well. Although the hardcore PC gamer will always be chasing the next best-looking game, I don't know if the general console-buying public cares as much. Or at the very least, they care less about bleeding edge graphics than they do about paying a reasonable price for their next console.
 
E

erragal

Member
They misread their core audience this time around. Underestimated the power of bad publicity. It'll make a dent when 3 years into their lifecycle mobile/tablets are outperforming them. For now the PS4 seems pretty resilient against this problem because all the public shame is going towards the XB1. Also the PS4 is more powerful so can keep up in the arms race for a bit longer.
 
R

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
On top of some of the reasons already stated, the PC market has shifted to making cards with solid performance at mainstream prices, like the 8800GT, and catering to more of an enthusiast market. The high end stuff like the Titans would never have even been considered in 2005.
 
N

npa189

Member
Heat management, and Sony doesn't have the capital to lose $300 on every console this time. I would rather have reliable mid-range machines, I went through 4 360s over the life of that system!
 
Deuterium

Deuterium

Member
Stumpokapow said:
The relationship between power and heat, heat dissipation and noise, and heat dissipation and size; plus the cost imperative.
Click to expand...

Hi Stumpokapow,

I assume these forces were still in play, and a consideration during each console release. Certainly, the cost imperatives have not radically changed.

So, are you saying that the major constraint has become necessary heat dissipation due to the increased power density of the CPU / GPU chips?

I mean, the Xbox One is in a pretty large case, and even has the external power transformer. So, I wonder if the "cost imperative" equation has been the biggest single motivator?

EDIT: Thanks for all the different replies. I understand that it is a combination and convergence of factors that created the current situation...with the power/heat dissipation being a significant constraint. I appreciate all the feedback.
 
A

Aureon

Please do not let me serve on a jury. I am actually a crazy person.
Convergence of technology.
It's not consoles being weaker, it's PCs actually gaining cost parity through usage of the same tactics, enabled by the growing market.
 
S

Steffen

Banned
It might also have something to do with how fast PC hardware is improving and how slow console hardware development is.

The XO and PS4 were probably relatively powerful on paper when they were designed, but by the time Microsoft and Sony built and released them, PC hardware had far surpassed it.
 
V

VariantX

Member
The machines would be huge and cost probably even more than the ps3 did if they go cutting edge again. Cost limits the audience that will buy into that hardware early on as well, which is not good for selling software.
 
K

kswiston

Member
Deuterium said:
Hi Stumpokapow,

I assume these forces were still in play, and a consideration during each console release. Certainly, the cost imperatives have not radically changed.

So, are you saying that the major constraint has become necessary heat dissipation due to the increased power density of the CPU / GPU chips?

I mean, the Xbox One is in a pretty large case, and even has the external power transformer. So, I wonder if the "cost imperative" equation has been the biggest single motivator?
Click to expand...

Were past consoles really comparable to PCs? I seem to remember Arcades and PCs blowing away the 8bit and 16bit consoles throughout the late 80s and 90s.
 
M

Madness

Member
The difference between PC and console is quite a bit this generation though. Say what you will about the Xbox 360 but when it came out in 2005, it was very tough to build any kind of PC that gave you similar power/specs at that price. Not so much now.

I think because of the length of the last generation, nearly 7-8+ years, the new consoles are leagues ahead of the old ones, but are not the cutting edge specs many thought. I think ideally Sony and Microsoft could have provided better CPU/GPU configurations.

Edit: I wonder if MS truly believed that Sony would only do 4GB of GDDR5 RAM and that's why they stuck with 8gb of DDR3 and their 32mb ESRAM setup. Would 12gb of DDR3 memory have even helped much? What's the real weak points in the consoles this Gen?
 
G

Griss

Member
We're still feeling the effects of a major recession in most countries. To reach the potential of 250W GPUs in PCs, they would have needed bigger boxes and more expensive parts. This would have taken them away from your core console buying target market. A similar mistake to the PS3 - too expensive, too big, etc. They also knew that your average console fan would really be suffering diminished gains no matter what hardware they put out, so it wouldn't make a huge difference to most of the market.

So they just scaled back by about 2 years to get the cost right and to get the box size right. There is not a single doubt in my mind that it was the right decision.

In the end:
1. Cost
2. Heat/Power issues in a small box
3. Diminishing returns with more expensive tech
 
D

Durante

Member
Stumpokapow said:
The relationship between power and heat, heat dissipation and noise, and heat dissipation and size; plus the cost imperative.
Click to expand...
That's what I wanted to answer.

I'll just add that it's a good idea to look up "enthusiast" class PC GPU peak power consumption 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago and now to get a better idea. It's pretty wild. If there wasn't a hard spec limit (for all remotely "normal" systems) at ~300 Watt per card I wonder where we'd be now.
 
Aesius

Aesius

Member
Is the consensus that the PS4 isn't that powerful?

Seems like people were impressed by its specs at the time of the reveal, but now people act like it's barely better than the PS3.

What up wit dat?
 
K

kswiston

Member
Madness said:
The difference between PC and console is quite a bit this generation though. Say what you will about the Xbox 360 but when it came out in 2005, it was very tough to build any kind of PC that gave you similar power/specs at that price. Not so much now.

I think because of the length of the last generation, nearly 7-8+ years, the new consoles are leagues ahead of the old ones, but are not the cutting edge specs many thought. I think ideally Sony and Microsoft could have provided better CPU/GPU configurations.
Click to expand...

Console manufactures are not taking the same level of losses this time around, which hurts the comparison. Also, PC components are relatively cheaper today than they were 10 years ago. My $800-1000 gives me a lot more comparative horsepower than it did in 2005. In the late 90s that $800 barely got you an entry level rig.
 
R

R_Deckard

Member
Durante said:
That's what I wanted to answer.

I'll just add that it's a good idea to look up "enthusiast" class PC GPU peak power consumption 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago and now to get a better idea. It's pretty wild. If there wasn't a hard spec limit (for all remotely "normal" systems) at ~300 Watt per card I wonder where we'd be now.
Click to expand...

Yeah the 2 biggest reasons

A) Heat/Power consumption

B) Cost/Profit

They both need to not Lose money on hardware sales (although Sony are close to the wind on that) and then recoup the rest in the yearly subs.

The PS4 is strong enough to last 5 years (at a push) but the X1 will need a hand.
 
P

pixlexic

Banned
The PC ging market has grown substantially over the last 5 to 6 years where hardware manufactures found out that there was a market for high end expensive products. That drove a race for performance that the console makers just can not compete with in a mass market machine.
 
R

RulkezX

Member
Aesius said:
Is the consensus that the PS4 isn't that powerful?

Seems like people were impressed by its specs at the time of the reveal, but now people act like it's barely better than the PS3.

What up wit dat?
Click to expand...

It's powerful *enough* , especially compared to the last gen consoles which is what's important to the vast majority.
 
R

Rad-

Member
Aesius said:
Is the consensus that the PS4 isn't that powerful?

Seems like people were impressed by its specs at the time of the reveal, but now people act like it's barely better than the PS3.

What up wit dat?
Click to expand...

It was never considered that powerful, just more powerful than XO which I guess was surprising to some and they acted that way.
 
Deuterium

Deuterium

Member
Again, thank you all for the responses. I have a better understanding of the factors in play this generation, versus the prior two.

Cheers.
 
A

AquaMotley

Banned
Deuterium said:
Note: If my perception is wrong, in terms of how the original PS2/Xbox and the PS3/Xbox 360 compared to the target PC (as previously defined), at the time of their release...please correct me.

Cheers, all.
Click to expand...

I remember being disappointed a lot by ps2's power compared to pc. Unreal tournament comes to mind. Ran fine on my (no way $1000-1300) pc. Disaster on ps2. Red faction was another one.
Half life ran worse, MOH:Frontline Arnhem level had sub 10 fps framerate. Couldn't hold a candle to Allied Assault in every aspect.

I always found the ps2 lacking in power, but it had some damn fine games.
 
D

Durante

Member
Aesius said:
Is the consensus that the PS4 isn't that powerful?

Seems like people were impressed by its specs at the time of the reveal, but now people act like it's barely better than the PS3.

What up wit dat?
Click to expand...
There are 2 perspectives on this. From a console-only perspective, PS4 is still a significant generational leap over PS3. It's just that this generational leap was accomplished in 7/8 years compared to a traditional ~5. Which impacts its relative performance compared to contemporary PCs.
 
P

pixlexic

Banned
Both next Gen consoles really should not have went with those weak gpus. It is causing a lot of cross gen porting problems and issues in general.
I think amd talked up that CPU very well .. That guy should have got a raise.:p
 
F

Foxix Von

Member
I don't think it's the console space that has changed, really. I think what you're seeing is the result of the PC market going nuts over the course of the last few years. IIRC back in 2006 there really wasn't quite an equivalent to the crazy high end market you see available in GPUs as there is now.
 
D

Dennis

Banned
I think for the future consoles it would make sense to have a built-in toaster to put that excess heat to good use.

Why not have a nice Nutella sandwich while you game?
 
S

SparkTR

Member
AquaMotley said:
I remember being disappointed a lot by ps2's power compared to pc. Unreal tournament comes to mind. Ran fine on my (no way $1000-1300) pc. Disaster on ps2. Red faction was another one.
Half life ran worse, MOH:Frontline Arnhem level had sub 10 fps framerate. Couldn't hold a candle to Allied Assault in every aspect.

I always found the ps2 lacking in power, but it had some damn fine games.
Click to expand...

When it first released PS2 games had nice post precessing effects (like DoF) that outdid PC games. I remember MGS2 had nice stuff like that.

Here's a discussion on it from 2002. That coding to the metal haha.
 
D

Durante

Member
pixlexic said:
Both next Gen consoles really should not have went with those weak gpus. It is causing a lot of cross gen porting problems and issues in general.
I think amd talked up that CPU very well .. That guy should have got a raise.:p
Click to expand...
Money speaks well. And you save a lot of money by going with a single-chip design. Already at the start, but even more so over the course of the generation.

SparkTR said:
When it first released PS2 games had nice post precessing effects (like DoF) that outdid PC games. I remember MGS2 had nice stuff like that.
Click to expand...
High-end PS2 titles also had higher polygon counts than most games on PC at the time.
 
D

Dictator93

Member
Foxix Von said:
I don't think it's the console space that has changed, really. I think what you're seeing is the result of the PC market going nuts over the course of the last few years. IIRC back in 2006 there really wasn't quite an equivalent to the crazy high end market you see available in GPUs as there is now.
Click to expand...

Oh, there was.

Dennis said:
I think for the future consoles it would make sense to have a built-in toaster to put that excess heat to good use.

Why not have a nice Nutella sandwich while you game?
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsQDTB3Na2M
 
B

BigDug13

Member
The BOM that Sony had to pay to build each PS3 was $850 and people were not willing to buy it for the $250 savings of $600 they tried to sell it for. People want to pay less for consoles and companies are no longer willing to take a bath to bring you hardware at a loss in the hopes that they can make it back in software sales.
 
N

NemesisPrime

Banned
Sony has no money to subsidize a kick ass console.
MS doesn't want to spend money to subsidize a kick ass console.

That is basically it.

I am hoping we will get an eager new player in the next 1-2 years that will show the others how it is done.
 
H

hal9001

Banned
The perceived lack of weakness is due to cross gen game. When the real next gen only games start getting released then I am sure most people are going to be forced to upgrade their current set ups.
 
C

Chill Penguin

Member
Sony hit it out of the park in terms of price, performance, size, and their own profitability. It might not last for 8 years this time, but i seriously can't imagine how they could have gotten it any more right. The market seems to back that up, considering it's the fastest selling console in history so far.
 
Q

quest

Not Banned from OT
Cost plain and simple they wanted a machine they could sell for more than BOM. This is by smallest jump in console history especially considering it is 3 years late. We got a 75% of a generation leap except for ram after basically 1.5 generations time period. People gave the dreamcast crap for being underpowered but that was a much larger jump than these machines.
 
K

kswiston

Member
NemesisPrime said:
Sony has no money to subsidize a kick ass console.
MS doesn't want to spend money to subsidize a kick ass console.

That is basically it.

I am hoping we will get an eager new player in the next 1-2 years that will show the others how it is done.
Click to expand...

Where would this player come from? Apple and Samsung are too busy selling phones and tablets at a huge profit. Who is going to want to take a $100-200 loss on console hardware going forward to sell a powerful system at that magic $400 price tag, when customers will happily eat up $700 smartphones yielding their makers $100-200 profits?
 
Q

quest

Not Banned from OT
Chill Penguin said:
Sony hit it out of the park in terms of price, performance, size, and their own profitability. It might not last for 8 years this time, but i seriously can't imagine how they could have gotten it any more right. The market seems to back that up, considering it's the fastest selling console in history so far.
Click to expand...

It is the fastest selling console because of pent up demand of a generation that is 3 years late. And modern supply chain they could meet demand a lot better than Nintendo could with the Wii or Sony with PS2. Add to that MS's mistakes and that made it the go to console this new generation.

Performance is very disappointing when big time first party studios have to resort to interlacing well SMFH.
 
V

Vanillalite

Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Beyond what's already been stated I have my own tick tock theory.

Tick is the new tech tock is the tech streamlined before it's ticked again. Feel like the consoles were made during a tick phase which means because of size, heat, power, and money concerns they had to go back to the previous tock which is a step back.


It also can't be stressed enough that the current economic climate for all 3 hardware manufactures has required them to forgo the old idea of selling HW for a loss. Sony especially just can't afford it, and honestly neither can MS right now.
 
R

Rafterman

Banned
animlboogy said:
You guys keep bringing up this insane high end but mid range machines -- priced way below what the OP describes as entry level in 2005 -- are the real reason why it is so obvious this time around.
Click to expand...

This.

The high end GPU stuff isn't a new trend either, in 2006 an 8800 Ultra was over $800 retail and even more with markups. The thing that has changed, as you mentioned, is how cheap mid range computer parts are these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Jez Corden] If Microsoft really IS bringing Steam, Epic Game Store, etc. to Xbox consoles, it needs to answer these big questions
2 3 4
155
10K
sachos replied
Will this be the narrative that history will enshrine when talking about Xbox in the future?
2
81
3K
kensama replied
How Xbox Is Changing the Nature of Exclusivity - IGN
Business 2 3 4 5
203
15K
jwaxeman replied
As Microsoft and Sony target PC and mobile to grow their audiences, what does that mean for the future of the console? - GIBiz Opinion By Chris Dring
Opinion Astroturfing 2 3
139
8K
Topher replied
Do game developers still want to publish on Xbox? A survey of independents and small studios
34
2K
ZoukGalaxy replied
Top Bottom